Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Just In: Judge Releases Written Opinion Blocking Trump's Order Seeking To End Birthright Citizenship; Pence To CNN: I Don't Think Trump Has Changed The GOP; New: Trump Budget Chief Accuses Jerome Powell Of Mismanaging Federal Reserve, Citing HQ Renovations; Just In: Death Toll In Texas Flooding Rises To At Least 121. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired July 10, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: -- to see at the Moo Deng at the Khao Kheow Open Zoo.
[16:00:04]
That's just east of Bangkok in Thailand.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN HOST: That's a big one.
DEAN: Yeah.
WHITFIELD: Officials there reported at least a 30 percent increase in visitors after posting videos of Moo Deng's life there last fall. Oh, look at the fan base there.
DEAN: Big.
WHITFIELD: A single clip garnered more than 5 million views. In fact, the little hippos appeal even prompted "Saturday Night Live" to dedicate a skit to Moo Deng. I missed that one. The name, by the way, means "bouncy pig" in Thai.
Happy birthday, Moo Deng.
DEAN: That's so cute.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now. We'll see you tomorrow.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's the Trump administration versus the courts. How will the president respond to the latest pause in his agenda?
Let's head into THE ARENA.
Another showdown over the president's immigration policies as a district judge greenlights a class action lawsuit to protect birthright citizenship.
Plus, President Trump nominated one of his former attorneys to be a federal judge for life. And now, a DOJ whistleblower says he has documents to support his claim that Emil Bove suggested ignoring court orders.
And then the White House launches a major new attack on the Fed chairman. Ahead, why Jerome Powell is being accused of lying to Congress about rooftop terraces and VIP dining rooms.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hello, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Thursday afternoon.
Once again, the Trump administration clashing with the courts and attempting to fundamentally change the balance of power between the executive and the judiciary.
This morning, a federal judge halted President Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship. The ruling is sweeping and applies to all babies born in the U.S., even if their parents are undocumented immigrants or here on student visas. So, of course, if you've been keeping up with President Trump's seemingly endless fights with the judiciary, you might think, wait a second, didn't the Supreme Court just say that judges can't issue nationwide injunctions?
The answer to that is mostly yes. And you'll remember it was a ruling that the White House celebrated as a significant win.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It was a disaster where somebody from a certain location in a very liberal state, or a liberal judge or a liberal group of judges, could tie up a whole country for years because their decision was sometimes take years to overturn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, what exactly happened today? Well, a federal judge ruled that a lawsuit against the Trump administration can proceed as a class action lawsuit. So that's the kind that permits the nationwide sweeping nature of things, according to the Supreme Court.
The class that this one applies to, according to this judge, is all babies born and unborn who could be deprived of American citizenship. This is just the latest instance of a judge pausing a Trump immigration policy. While legal challenges play out. But it's not clear that the Trump administration, of course, is always obeying courts orders.
Enter Emil Bove, a high-ranking Justice Department official who used to be a member of Donald Trump's defense team during his criminal trials. The president has nominated Bove for a lifetime appointment as a federal judge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Did you suggest telling the courts fuck you in any manner?
EMIL BOVE, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I don't recall.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That colorful moment came to us courtesy of an allegation made by a whistleblower, a former DOJ employee who claims that Bove suggested the department could simply ignore orders preventing deportations.
This morning, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee announced that the whistleblower has provided documents to substantiate his claims. In response, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, described him as a disgruntled employee, saying he was, quote, asserting false claims seeking five minutes of fame, end quote.
Our panel will be here and we also have with us CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz.
Katelyn, wonderful to see you. And I do want to start with you with this birth citizenship story first, because we just got the lengthy, we should say, written opinion for the judge -- from the judge in this case. What's it say?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, before we get to exactly what the judge writes, because he writes 38 pages here, I just tore through it. But in this case, the birthright citizenship decision by Donald Trump to put this executive order in place to end birthright citizenship, it keeps getting looked at by lower courts. And they keep saying, no, this just isn't going to fly under the Constitution. I need to block it.
What happened with the Supreme Court was they had given direction to the lower court at the end of their term, saying, you can't just say that birthright citizenship, the executive order is blocked for anyone, anywhere.
[16:05:02]
You have to be more specific. So, the specific group here that got the relief from the court, it's babies born after February 20th of this year and babies still to come, babies that have not been born yet. So that's the specific group. The judge today saying, though, I looked at the Supreme Court ruling, I have done my due diligence to narrow that class and certify it here in this court in New Hampshire.
Judge Joseph Laplante, he also says it wasn't a close call. Kasie, here's the quote that he wrote in this 38-page order that just came out through his court. He said he has no difficulty concluding that the rapid adoption by executive order without legislation and the attending national debate of a new government policy of highly questionable constitutionality that would deny citizenship to many thousands of individuals previously granted citizenship under an indisputably long-standing policy, constitutes irreparable harm.
That's a lot of words by this judge to lay it out, but breaking it down, he's blocking the policy. He's saying he's doing it because it hurts a lot of people that giving birthright citizenship to people in this country was a longstanding policy. And when the Trump administration put this in place, they did it fast without input from Congress, without any ability to have public debate as a precursor to that executive order. And now, he's saying also, probably not constitutional. It is highly questionable.
So that's the judge wrapping up. Now, of course, his ruling is going to be paused for a short period of time, just a couple of days, so that the Trump administration could appeal. We expect them to and we expect them to appeal this all the way up again, very likely to the Supreme Court.
HUNT: All right. Katelyn, very interesting. Thank you. Stand by for me.
I do want to bring in our panel, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams, CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel, CNN political commentator Xochitl Hinojosa, and former Republican governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you all for being here.
Elliot, let me start with you just on the legal piece of this. This is, you know, the Supreme Court said no nationwide injunctions from a single judge. But if there's a class action lawsuit, that group of people is entitled to nationwide relief functionally. So, this judge in New Hampshire has gone ahead and said, okay, there is a protected class here.
Is this you think how the Supreme Court intended this to play out, essentially? I mean, because they've got -- they've got a very tough needle to thread with President Trump. They were clearly trying to give him a win on the injunctions thing. But this is a really tricky issue.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This is 100 percent what the Supreme Court willed into existence. They said at oral argument. They said it in their opinion, and it has now played out.
They were abundantly clear about this. And before anybody starts with arguments about how popular Donald Trump is and how judges are undermining his actions, this is what the courts wanted. The Supreme Court said a single judge can't issue an injunction against one party that applies to other, you know, parties around the country, but come together as a class, certify yourself as a class, ask a court to form a class action.
If we want, we can talk about what it takes to become a class. I don't think you want to hear that, but the simple fact is you don't want to --
HUNT: I appreciate -- I appreciate your discretion.
WILLIAMS: Commonality, numerosity, typicality and adequacy. No, you don't want that. But needless to say, I still did it.
(LAUGHTER) WILLIAMS: But needless to say -- needless to say, the court said form a class. Maybe it's a nationwide class and go ahead and then file it again in court. And they did that. Notably, the judge did not apply the parents to the class. So, it's not a willy-nilly application of this.
HUNT: Oh, that's interesting. Okay.
WILLIAMS: No, it's just limited to children. Future and present children as of, I believe, is February 10th of February 20th, the day that -- that it.
So, it was a -- it's somewhat narrow and limited and what the Supreme Court invited. We need to make that clear. A conservative Supreme Court made this happen.
HUNT: Well, and, Jamie Gangel, I mean, this is -- there are obviously instances where people would file lawsuits in court and you saw various groups in Washington doing this around a host of political issues. Abortion is a good example, right, where states would make different laws and a single injunction in a single state would apply nationwide.
You know, we can obviously debate whether that's good or not good. But this question of birthright citizenship is not one for the states in the way that other questions might be, right? I mean, the idea that different rules apply in terms of being an American citizen versus in terms of what state you're born in, would be remarkable.
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: Can you just imagine? Elliot, I think we talked about this when the when the Supreme Court case first came up, if in Texas, you could have birthright but you couldn't in Arizona or -- I mean, I'm picking the states here and there, but what if we had a country where in a bunch of red states, you had one situation.
HUNT: And then what happens when you move to another state, et cetera.? Right?
WILLIAMS: If you're in Pennsylvania, you know, a child is born in Pennsylvania, crosses the border into the state of New Jersey, or their parents, do they have different sets of laws regarding their citizenship, regardless of what anybody thinks about what's right, that is not workable in a country where everybody is ought to be entitled to the same federal laws.
GANGEL: And just quickly, in addition to the class action, the judge said that's irreparable harm, deprivation of U.S. citizenship. This is a case unlike, I think, a lot of others that are coming up, that where everybody feels they're on pretty firm ground when they look at the Constitution about how this is going to go as it goes up to the Supreme Court.
HUNT: Governor Walker, you were pointing out to me before we went on the air that we were in -- ten years ago, almost to the month, maybe we were at the Iowa state fair. You were campaigning for president. We were this this issue of immigration was front and center. But obviously, the politics have changed pretty dramatically since then.
What is your sense on this birthright citizenship question? I mean, we know where -- how people feel about the border. Is this one of those things where President Trump is with the majority of Americans?
SCOTT WALKER (R), FORMER WISCONSIN GOVERNOR: I think people feel very strongly about it. I do think it is different, though, than the larger issue, particularly when people see people who have been here legally who also have committed other acts of criminal intent. I think that's a clear cut. Thats an 80/20 type issue. Each step you move away from that. It's a little bit dicey along the way.
But I think all along, any of us looking at this knew that this would be one that would end up with some sort of -- some sort of a court challenge. What I worry about. And, Alito, you're right, Alito actually warned in this -- in his concurring opinion. He actually warned about class action suits.
My bigger worry is not on this, but on some of these other issues. Have they opened the door for class action suits on things where I think most of us, or at least from my point of view, would say, no, the courts should let the president and the Congress act on things and not stick their nose in it unless it is a constitutional issue. I worry about that, as an aside, and one of this, you did bring up the issue of abortion. It is interesting now that the court has said born and unborn, and acknowledged that in an action.
HUNT: That stood out to me too.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, absolutely.
I think to the governor's point, Donald Trump campaigned on deporting the most criminal people in the United States. I think the vast majority of Americans believe that criminals should be deported if they're here and undocumented.
When you're deporting families and when you are targeting children and what is happening here with birthright citizenship, the vast majority of American people don't support that, and they don't support chaos in our immigration system.
And that's why you see Donald Trump's numbers going down on immigration because you saw what happened in Los Angeles. They don't want to see that chaos. They don't want to see families broken apart.
It just took one, two, three attorneys to explain to us this decision. And I will tell you -- oh, sorry. Sorry. Okay.
GANGEL: Daughter of a judge, daughter of a judge. That's it.
XOCHITL: Okay. It's three experts to explain to us this decision. I will tell you my phone has been blowing up saying, do you think I'm going to be deported? My mom is a Mexican citizen. Do you think I'm going to be deported?
My sister text messaged me. Do you think we're going to be deported? Our mom is an immigrant.
Like that is the kind of chaos that people are feeling right now. I was in a cab on the way over here, and someone asked me, the cab driver said, my wife is pregnant and we're not U.S. citizens. Will my baby be able to stay here when he is born in August?
I didn't know the answer to the question, but that's the type of chaos that these decisions and these executive orders are causing. And I think it causes real fear in communities that actually translates to hurting Donald Trump and Republicans.
WALKER: But to be clear, just on that point, that simple answer in the larger issue, if people are concerned about that, is come to America legally, we offer more than a million people legal passage to the country every single year. That's four times more than the next closest country in the world.
We want legal immigrants here. Come here legally, and you're fine.
HUNT: All right. I do want to switch gears slightly, although, as we noted at the top, these two stories are very much tied together because we're talking about -- okay, what are courts saying about what should happen in America? There is this whole question of whether the administration is following the orders that all the courts are handing down.
And to that point, Katelyn Polantz, we have this sort of new information coming out about, again, Emil Bove who everyone may remember as Donald Trump's personal defense attorney, now nominated to be a judge and a whistleblower who Pam Bondi called a disgruntled employee.
So why might this person be a disgruntled employee? This person was the person who acknowledged, on behalf of the Department of Justice that they made a mistake when they deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He promptly lost his job. And now here we are.
What else have we learned about this today and this whistleblower's allegations that there was an explicit attempt instruction. I give it to you to describe it in its most accurate way, to not follow court orders.
POLANTZ: Yeah. Kasie, what's going on here is a question of whether Emil Bove, who is a top official at the Justice Department, was a private lawyer for Donald Trump.
[16:15:06]
Whether he is a suitable person for the Senate to confirm, to have in a lifetime position on the federal bench, specifically the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. So that's the Mid-Atlantic States, essentially. And it's an appeals court, a really big, meaty, thoughtful position for someone to get as a federal judge.
Emil Bove has had a couple people come out and criticize his ethics. And this whistleblower, a man named Erez Reuveni, he was working on immigration cases for the Justice Department, was ultimately fired a couple months ago.
He previously went to the Senate Judiciary Committee and to inspectors general, and said that Bove told us that DOJ -- this is his quote from his whistleblower letter -- DOJ would need to consider telling the courts F you and to ignore orders. If a judge said stop deportations of immigrants under the Alien Enemies Act.
That policy did get put in place. And then a judge did say, turn the planes around, and there's still a lot of question of whether the Trump administration behaved appropriately whenever there was a court order in place.
But the new information here is that there are text messages from Erez Reuveni with this this whistleblower, with others in the Justice Department talking about Bove and talking about what they believe he said, this F you to the courts. And those text messages say things like, guess we are going to say F you to the court. This doesn't end with anything but a nationwide injunction and a decision point on F you presumably from the bosses of Erez Reuveni, this whistleblower, people like Emil Bove.
So, now, it's up to the Senate to decide, will they confirm this man to a federal judgeship? And do they want somebody on the court who may have said at the justice department, we don't need to follow court orders when they're coming from district level judges?
HUNT: I wonder how he might feel about that if he were to, in fact, be confirmed to such a position, Elliot Williams.
WILLIAMS: Yeah, you know, it's a couple things. It's not just the F you and I think, you know, don't get lost in the language. Look --
HUNT: It's so easy for a banner, though.
WILLIAMS: It's so easy for the I know it's good. And I wanted to say it, but I've never said that word before. And I'm afraid to. But no, it's not just the language. It's the text messages. They are memorialized in the moment by the people saying, oh my God, did I just hear what I heard? And I -- and am I being directed to engage in this conduct?
That's what's troubling here. It's the -- also coupled with the Justice Department's behavior in court at the same time, where they're playing fast and loose with the judge who's repeatedly asking them questions about whether the planes were in air, that's what's troubling.
But really, Kasie, more than anything else, far more than what's right about the swearing or anything else, is for Senate Republicans to really ask themselves, is this what you want? This level of proximity to the president for a federal judge, this kind of behavior for a federal judge, he might be a great attorney, a great person. Is this what you want? One step from the Supreme Court? I think the answer is no.
HUNT: Yeah. Go ahead. HINOJOSA: Oh. I was going to say, and this is a lifetime appointment
and Republicans need to consider that. And one of the things that Bobby said in his testimony was, I've never advised a Department of Justice attorney to violate a court order, right? And now we have text messages -- we -- he also said, I don't think there's any validity to the suggestion that the whistleblower complaint filed yesterday calls into question my qualifications to serve as a circuit judge.
So, looking at his testimony and now what we see in text messages, I mean, and there was another person on that text message too, right? And do they come out and do they speak out. And so, I think the real question for Republicans is, did he perjure himself? He may have.
And I think the second question on this is if he has a lifetime appointment, is he actually qualified. And with his firing -- potential, trying to fire January 6th, prosecutors going after January 6th, FBI agents, and now this, I would say he is not.
GANGEL: Just on perjury --
HUNT: Very quickly.
GANGEL: -- he twice said he did not recall saying that, which is one lawyer said to me, that's what you say when you don't want to lie under oath.
HUNT: Right. Well, and there's a very long history of --
GANGEL: I don't recall.
HUNT: People saying that they do not recall, no way to prove if they can or they can't.
Katelyn, thank you very much. Really appreciate your reporting.
Our panel is going to stand by for us.
Coming up next, could President Trump be inching closer to potentially firing the head of the Federal Reserve, or at least trying what's happening today that makes it seem like that might be what's happening?
But first, former Vice President Mike Pence was here on CNN. His new comments about his former boss. And we'll tell you who he was talking about when he said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE PENCE, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I think -- I think they may have lost some of their footing with the president, but -- by leveling criticism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:24:10]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PENCE: I think President Trump, as president should, has changed aspects of the agenda of the Republican Party. But I don't think he's changed the Republican Party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I don't think he's changed the Republican Party. An interesting -- I'm going to go with -- well, let's let the panel weigh in on what exactly this observation from former Mike -- Vice President Mike Pence about his old boss, Donald Trump, made in an interview with CNN today.
Jamie Gangel --
GANGEL: That may come as a surprise to L Cheney and countless other --
HUNT: What about Governor Scott Walker?
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Does it come as a surprise to you, sir?
WALKER: Well, there are some things that are similar in the sense of you see tax cuts, you see reining and the overreach of the federal government. Those are things that are consistently been there before.
But I think in terms of the tone of the party -- I mean, it's a much more blue-collar party than it has been for decades. I think anyone, whether they're a fan oof the party or not, would acknowledge that.
HUNT: So, let's play a little bit more of what Vice President Pence said, because he talked about some of the he called them isolationist voices, because a piece of what he's talking about relates to America's commitments in the world. Speaking of the Cheneys, as longstanding members of the Republican Party.
Let's watch that piece of what Pence said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PENCE: Some of the isolationist voices in and around this administration that recently condemned the president's correct and courageous decision to launch a military assault against Iran. I think -- I think they may have lost some of their footing with the president. I think some of those isolationist voices may have literally lost some credibility with the president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That's an interesting way to look at it. Jamie. And honestly, you know, certainly there was a lot of pressure from the MAGA base on Trump not to do what he did in Iran, and he did it anyway. GANGEL: Correct. And I think a lot of people were actually surprised
because he has made it known that he really does not want to get involved with these things, but surprise, he did.
I want to add one other thing, and that is from President Trump's son in law, who famously said, I believe I'm more than one occasion that Donald Trump had hijacked the Republican Party. So, there may be, as the governor says, some similarities, but I think by and large, you know, most Republicans, whether they'll say it publicly or privately, do not see this as their father's Republican Party.
WALKER: Well, Kasie, I was on your show two days before the -- before the B-2s went into Iran, and I predicted right here, I said that I thought the president was in line with where most Americans were, in the sense that he didn't want a protracted, endless war. At the same time, he didn't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
And so, I think what you see here is not necessarily the traditional what people may think of, or at least some thought of war mongering in the Republican Party. But at the same time, it wasn't an isolationist view either. I think he was on track with where most Americans, not most Republicans, but most Americans were in that instance.
HINOJOSA: And I think that the -- one of the problems, and the reason that he jumped to a victory and took a victory lap immediately is because he knew that the MAGA base and he knew that there were people that were going to criticize him if he was going into a war and if this was, did it have some sort of ending and that got him into trouble, right? He claimed victory and he claimed that he essentially was able to get rid of all the weapons. But then after then we saw what happened after that and that wasn't necessarily true.
And so, I think that that also got him into trouble. And that's why he completely sprung to that conclusion.
HUNT: So, I'm glad that you brought that up, because I want to play something from Andrew Schulz, a member of the I guess, the quote, unquote, "manosphere" podcast universe. Not always been on the right necessarily, supported Bernie Sanders at one point, but has become a voice here in the MAGA movement.
And he had some pretty tough words for the president. And this plays into a lot of things we've been talking about in the last couple of days. Let's -- let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW SCHULZ, PODCASTER: He's doing the exact opposite of everything I voted for. I want him to stop the wars. He's funding them. I want him to shrink spending, reduce the budget. He's increasing it.
It's like everything that he said he's going to do except sending immigrants back. And now he's even flip flopped on that, which I kind of like.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: Governor Walker, does -- is this a problem for President Trump? I mean, in a lot of ways, there have been a series of things he didn't talk about Jeffrey Epstein, but that's another one where he's gotten crosswise with MAGA.
WAKLER: I think a number of these things have come around. I actually think in the case of Ukraine, he's trying to use that to leverage, to put pressure on Putin, because he does want to resolve that issue. And he doesn't do that if there's not pressure exerted, it's the whole art of the deal. Anyone's ever read that can see exactly what his negotiating style is.
But in the end, I mean, you look at the bill that was signed, 28 of the executive orders that he signed since he became president were actually codified in that federal bill. The only complaint I have is spending levels, and I've had that with Republican and Democrats for years. But other than that, the tax cuts, immigration reform, even simple things like we did work requirements for people who are able bodied, working age adults happened in this bill. Those are all good things that conservatives and commonsense people across America can support.
WILLIAMS: Nobody said the word tariffs yet, and I would just note that it's another area in which what we think of as what Republicans believe for a long time seem to be upended. Obviously, the populism is something new or novel somewhat in the Republican Party.
And so, the idea that he hasn't changed the party is kind of ludicrous. Come on. I think we can all agree with that.
HUNT: I mean, the amount of conversations about how we've said it's Donald Trump's party now.
[16:30:01]
I mean, I -- anyway, okay, coming up next, we are going to go to get a live report from Texas because we have new details on the search for more than 150 people who are still missing in that historic flooding.
Plus, why the White House is accusing the Fed chair of violating the law. What it might mean for Jerome Powell's future.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
So, there's this story breaking today. The White House's Office of Management and Budget just sent a letter to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. It's kind of like the expense department at your company slapping your wrist.
[16:35:00]
They're accusing him of, quote, grossly mismanaging the Fed and misleading Congress.
CNN White House reporter Alayna Treene joins us now.
Alayna, wonderful to see you. Take us through this letter. And of course, the context here, President Trump has spoken openly, been openly critical of Jerome Powell and his decisions, his consistent decisions to hold interest rates steady.
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Now, that's exactly right. I think that context is just so important. The president has long gone after Powell, and he is -- I mean, he has had an issue with Powell even dating back to his first term. But he has been pushing him in recent months, repeatedly trying to get him to lower interest rates.
Obviously, we've seen Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell really showing no proclivity to do that, but to get into the specific letter, it's exactly what you said. We've seen the chairman of the White House's budget office essentially saying that they believe that he mismanaged -- he's mismanaging the -- his office or the Central Bank, I should say, and that this idea of a renovation of the Central Bank's headquarters is ostentatious. That is the words that was used in this letter.
I want to read for you just one line from it, though, it said, quote, the president is extremely troubled by your management of the Federal Reserve system. Instead of attempting to right the Fed's fiscal ship, you have plowed ahead with an ostentatious overhaul of your Washington, D.C. headquarters.
Now, to bring you back to some of this context, what I was saying about the issues that the president has with Powell, I think in his heart of hearts, the president does want to actually try and fire him and remove him. Now, Powell's term is not up until next spring. And we know that advisers close to President Trump have tried to urge him against that.
But even so, we've still seen in recent weeks the president floating potential replacements for Powell. He just recently was kind of arguing and joking that perhaps his treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, could fill that role.
And a key question through all of this, though, of course, has been does he actually have the legal authority to do so? Many people, many experts say he doesn't, particularly because there was a Supreme Court decision recently that suggested federal reserve board members had special protection from the executive branch.
However, this administration and the president specifically could be a much, you know, better legal standing. I should say, if they had some indication that Powell potentially violated the law.
And that's exactly what we're seeing now, the Office of Management and Budget try to argue, is potentially happening in this letter and also in the series of posts we've seen them sharing on social media today, Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Alayna Treene, thank you very much for that report. Really appreciate it. Jamie Gangel, the use of that word "ostentatious" is quite something.
GANGEL: Have you looked at the oval office recently? I mean, I just -- this is -- look, this is about as we frequently say, someone playing to an audience of one. Donald Trump absolutely wants Jerome Powell gone. There is no question that if he could fire him, he would like to do that.
HUNT: He has said as much on social media.
GANGEL: Yes.
HUNT: I mean, this is clear.
GANGEL: This is -- nobody's being shy here. That's what this is about. And so, the OMB, it's Russell Vought, right? He sent this out and he knows who will be very happy that he sent it out.
WILLIAMS: And perhaps the one way that a president actually can remove a Fed chair is for cause, which would be misconduct or malfeasance, and perhaps what they're trying to do here is lay the groundwork for doing so, saying that you've so grossly mismanaged the funds of your agency that therefore we now have a legal basis for taking you out. Now, it's nonsense.
HUNT: It's like building an HR file --
WILLIAMS: It literally is.
HUNT: -- right? The way, like --
HINOJOSA: They're absolutely trying to build an HR file. And the funny thing is that there's been reporting that Pam Bondi is trying to also remake her office, right? So, is he going to go after Pam Bondi now? Probably not, because she is a Trump loyalist.
One funny thing about the Trump administration has been that they start floating names when they don't want someone there, like the FBI director, for example. He had a term that was longer than Trump coming in on January 20th. He didn't want to fire him. So, what he started doing is he started putting out names like Kash Patel and other people to signal, no, man, I don't want you around and hopefully to get him to resign.
It was a smart tactic. Wray resigned. He did it on behalf of the FBI. So, this is what he's trying to do here.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, I take your point, but I mean, Governor, I remember reading "The Wall Street Journal" in it was like two days, three days after the election, and the headline was, Jerome Powell says, I'm not going anywhere, right? Like Jerome Powell wanted to be out there saying, I'm not -- I'm not going.
WALKER: Clearly, they're trying to make the case. And I actually think it makes sense. I do think more than this file that's being created, I do think our rates should be lower. I think if you look at what Paul Volcker did with Ronald Reagan in the early '80s, we went from a recession to massive economic turnaround. Part of that was the Fed easing up the rates, along with tax cuts and other changes that happened.
I'd love to see that again. So, I think there's a compelling policy to do that, whether or not they can legally do it before next year remains to be seen.
[16:40:01]
HUNT: I guess we're about to find out.
All right, stand by for me.
We do want to take a moment to go to the urgent search and recovery missions that are still going on in Texas for at least 160 people who have been reported missing after those flash floods swept through the Texas Hill Country. In just the last few minutes, officials have updated the death toll to at least 121 people.
Let's get straight to CNN's senior national correspondent, Ed Lavandera. He is in Center Point, Texas.
So, Ed, you went out with a volunteer firefighter. Walk us through what this search and rescue looks like. I mean, it's almost one week since this all unfolded.
ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. Well, just, you know, every little spot along the Guadalupe River right now, even though it's a small spot, gives you a snapshot of what so many rescue teams and search teams are dealing with, Kasie.
And we've heard officials here over the last few days talk about the possibility of some 160 people still missing. That number could go up. It could go down. It's very hard to pinpoint.
But what I can tell you is that up and down the river, we're seeing search and rescue teams operating as if that number is accurate and that anywhere in the debris piles and in the path of this river that swelled to an enormous size, you know, several hundred yards wide at some of the worst moments of this flooding.
You know, these crews are walking out into these areas, taking it very -- a very delicate approach as they try to find anyone that could be missing. We spent some time with a volunteer firefighter this afternoon, and they talked about, you know, we had come across this dry area where it was a teeming with large vehicles, heavy equipment, racing out, taking out cypress trees that were 100 feet tall. A lot of these crews have been on the ground literally going hand by hand through the debris piles.
And there was a debris pile about 20, 30 feet high into a tree. And the firefighter told us that there had been someone who was found deceased high up in the tree like that. That's what they are facing. And they say they will continue to do the work as long as it takes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RAZOR DOBBS, CENTER POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT: What they're doing, a lot of this has already been -- they had dogs this morning and they're going and they're -- they take little pieces and they look -- they go through it. And then when they deem it clear, that's when they'll haul it out.
And you know what? This is -- this is pinprick. This is a little bitty one frame of a whole movie of equipment.
LAVANDERA: Right.
DOBBS: I mean, this this operation right here is going for 30 miles plus.
LAVANDERA: All the way back to Camp Mystic.
DOBBS: Yeah. Ad so, it is crazy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LAVANDERA: And, Kasie, just to kind of give you a sense of the geography there, those firefighters from Center Point, they're running a command post that is really responsible for searching about a seven mile stretch of the Guadalupe River through the area that they're in. And it is a good 30 miles upstream to get back to where Camp Mystic is.
So that gives you a sense of the breadth and the scope that so many of these workers have to navigate, and they will be here for days, if not weeks.
HUNT: All right. Ed Lavandera for us in Texas -- Ed, thanks very much for that.
All right. Coming up next, a bipartisan group of senators just called on the attorney general to provide them with a new report on the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. "The Miami Herald" reporter who originally broke the story is going to be here live.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:01]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP AIDE: This is supposed to be about the most transparent administration ever.
TUCKER CARLSON, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: It's like a joke. But worse than that, it's a joke that we all get, like they're not fooling anybody. So I feel like we're at a dangerous point now.
LIZ WHEELER, PODCAST HOST: What on earth is going on? Was Pam Bondi set up by deep state FBI career officials? Is she stupid? Is she so click-thirsty that she got out over her skis trying to make news being a Fox News star? ALEX JONES, RADIO HOST: I'm physically going to puke probably right
now. For them to do something like this tears my guts out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, some parts of the president's MAGA base are continuing to revolt this week over the Department of Justice memo, concluding that there's no evidence that Jeffrey Epstein's so-called client list ever existed or that the disgraced financier was murdered, as opposed to committing suicide.
My panel is here, and were also going to be joined shortly by Julie Brown, who broke the story originally. We have a little bit of technical gremlins with her.
But, Governor Walker, can I give this one to you? Because on the right, there's a lot of -- I mean, there is so much anger at the president over this. Pam Bondi, I think we have pictures of these binders that she had at the beginning when she first came in purporting to show all the things that the government knew that they weren't putting out there.
She's on the record as saying that she had the list on her desk, and she was just waiting to release it. And then they come out and they say, no, actually, there's no list at all. Like what is happening and why is everybody so upset about it?
WALKER: Well, it's hard to tell. The best thing they could do is just put everything they have, put every detail just to have a flush of everything you know about this as full and wide as possible, because this bits and pieces is like a death by a thousand cuts.
In the end, my guess is if you believe what they're saying is that she probably did have a file, but it wasn't a file that included a client list and hadn't looked at it, but thought it was something else.
[16:50:02]
Spell out exactly what you had. Spell out all the facts. I think people, not just the Republican or conservative or MAGA base, whatever you call. I think people in general, there's people all across America want to know. For all the hype over the last decade or so, what's really there and what's not there, and I'd lay it all out.
WILLIAMS: And pick up on that -- pick up on that. It's not just the bits and pieces, it's the bits and pieces that are in conflict with each other. The story has not been consistent.
She had those binders suggesting people standing out there. We showed the photograph a moment ago, suggesting that there was some smoking gun in those binders or whatever else, and the comment that she had files on her desk or something. Now, these are isolated one off statements, but they're coming from the attorney general of the United States suggesting that there's more there. Of course, people are right to think that she's not being candid or straightforward. HINOJOSA: Because, Elliot, she doesn't do her homework. This is what
we constantly see with Pam Bondi is our attorney general that did all of his homework and would not announce anything unless he had read the entire brief.
WILLIAMS: To great detriment to his own -- to his own suffering.
HUNT: People did not love that.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
HINOJOSA: People did not like that, but he did his job. That's the job of the AG to understand what is happening. She does not do her homework. And you see that time and time again.
One of the things that I'll also point out is this is self-inflicted, Trump said released the JFK files, released the MLK files, and she's like, let's release the Epstein files. I have binders, I'm going to show up with them. And this is where we're at.
GANGEL: Someone else pushed it. President Trump pushed it. During the campaign, he said he would release it. And you may remember the Fox News interview where he's asked, will you release this? Yes, yes, yes.
But when it came to this, it was like, well, maybe we shouldn't because there might be some names in there that --
HUNT: Well, and speaking of those names, Julie K. Brown and I'm so sorry, this is going to be abbreviated, but can you tell us exactly what you think based on your reporting, the government has that we are not seeing, especially in terms of names.
JULIE K. BROWN, MIAMI HERALD INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: There is tons of information that hasn't been released. Tons -- I mean, I'm talking probably at least 10,000 files. There are -- this case, remember, dates back to 2005.
So there's tons of material that the DOJ has gathered, that the FBI has gathered, that the Department of Homeland Security, remember, that is responsible. The U.S. Marshals are responsible for monitoring his plane. The FAA has material.
There is all kinds of material that hasn't been released. And its hard to believe that they found they couldn't release anything because certainly some of those reports should -- I mean, they don't all contain victims' names and they probably contain names of people who helped Epstein because he did not do this crime alone.
HUNT: Well, and this client list idea, what -- do you think that that exists? Because right now, they're saying it doesn't. I mean, the attorney general said she had it on her desk, and then she put out this memo that says, well, no, actually, it doesn't exist.
What is there in terms of clients?
BROWN: Well, think about it. Epstein wasn't really -- he was a very smart man. He wasn't going to keep a piece of paper that had all -- everybody's names on it. I mean, he just didn't operate that way. He barely even used a computer on his own.
He -- but he -- but there were people that helped him, and he certainly had contacts for them.
Now, these included people who didn't have anything to do with his crimes. They were probably all grouped together. The little black book is more like a rolodex of people. That includes his gardeners, for example, on there.
But the FBI had to have interviewed people who knew about his operation, his employees, victims, witnesses, pilots -- there were so many people that they that they've interviewed over the years, and those are included in these files. And some of those people probably said so and so was here a lot with, you know, when there were girls in the house, for example. So there's a lot there.
HUNT: Indeed.
All right. "Miami Herald" investigative reporter Julie K. Brown, of course, the author of "Perversion of Justice," which is a book that's based on her reporting about Jeffrey Epstein. Thank you. I hope you will come back if we continue to talk about this. I really appreciate your time.
And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:59:01]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's $4,000.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And there's a waiting list.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I assumed.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Five years.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: For a bag?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's not a bag. It's a Birkin.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Love that show. And today, it is not just a bag or just any Birkin, but the original Birkin that was for sale. Today someone bought the OG Hermes bag for -- drumroll, please -- $10 million. I feel like we need, like, the Mike Myers.
I'm sorry. What? Yes. Not only is the bag iconic, it is now the most valuable single piece of fashion ever to be sold at auction in Europe. If you don't believe us, let's roll the tape.
(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)
HUNT: Wow.
So here is what we are talking about. It is the first prototype of a bag that was made by the Paris fashion house Hermes in 1984. Here is the TLDR version. The actress Jane Birkin was on a flight sitting next to the CEO of Hermes. She turned to her seatmate and basically told him that she needed a bag that could hold her stuff. It's every woman's problem.
So, they sketched out a design on an air sickness bag, commonly known as a vomit bag. And then here we have this.
Jake Tapper, we're out of time. Sorry. The story is what everybody seems to be obsessed with today, so I could really talk about it for the entirety of your hour-long show. But the floor is now yours.
