Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Ghislaine Maxwell Asks Supreme Court To Overturn Conviction; Trump Disputes Netanyahu's Claim Of No Starvation In Gaza; Buttigieg: Dems Can't Go Back To Status Quo After Trump. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired July 28, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:01]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Not here in D.C.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: But like, you roll into the grocery store.
SANCHEZ: A hundred percent in flip flops. Tank top. Yeah.
KEILAR: No, you don't.
SANCHEZ: Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely do.
KEILAR: Without your shirt on.
SANCHEZ: Maybe a tank top.
KEILAR: Well, yeah, I think that's -- that's like it, right.
SANCHEZ: But like --
KEILAR: Look at the picture. No. Put the picture back up, you guys. Put the picture back up real quick.
SANCHEZ: I don't -- I don't buy this.
KEILAR: No, no, not at that one.
SANCHEZ: Not that picture, guys.
KEILAR: The one with the people not wearing enough.
SANCHEZ: They're messing with us. They made us say the name of this town.
KEILAR: That is not what you're rolling into.
SANCHEZ: I'll pull up in a public --
KEILAR: No, no, no, no, no.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
SANCHEZ: Cool hat. It's got a cool hat. JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Ghislaine Maxwell urges the Supreme Court to
take up her case. Will the justices hear an appeal from Jeffrey Epstein's closest and convicted confidante?
Let's head into THE ARENA.
Fresh off meeting with the Justice Department, Ghislaine Maxwell files a new argument with the Supreme Court, one that could see her sex trafficking conviction potentially overturned.
Plus, President Trump wheels, deals and tries to distract a trip to Scotland and an agreement with the European Union. Strong words for Putin -- anything to move on from Epstein.
And then President Trump breaks with the Israeli prime minister acknowledging, quote, real starvation in Gaza as a very small amount of food aid finally makes its way in, amid a brief pause in the fighting.
Hello, everyone, and welcome to THE ARENA. Kasie Hunt is off today. I'm Jim Sciutto.
Right now, Ghislaine Maxwell is urging the Supreme Court to take up her case and potentially overturn her conviction. The former accomplice and onetime girlfriend of Jeffrey Epstein is serving 20 years for sex trafficking. But she argues that she should have been protected by a non-prosecution agreement reached between Epstein and the Justice Department back in 2007.
In a new statement, Maxwell's attorney says, quote, President Trump built his legacy in part on the power of a deal, and surely, he would agree that when the United States gives its word, it must stand by it, end quote. A direct appeal, their right to President Trump himself a former associate of Epstein.
Today, the president once again did not rule out pardoning Maxwell, but said it would be inappropriate to talk about it at this time.
On a trip to Scotland, President Trump has almost been able to redirect the news cycle. He has announced a framework of a major trade on tariff deal with the European Union. He has broken with the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu by acknowledging, quote, real starvation taking place in Gaza.
He set a new, shorter deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. But still, attention and questions inevitably returned to the subject of Epstein.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I never went to the island. I never had the privilege of going to his island. And I did turn it down. But a lot of people in Palm Beach were invited to his island. In one of my very good moments, I turned it down. I didn't want to go to his island.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: My panel is here with me, along with CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny, who is in Scotland traveling with the president and CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.
Paula, to you first.
Ghislaine Maxwell appealing all the way to the Supreme Court. Now we have all three branches of government. The White House, Congress and the Supreme Court roped into this saga. I mean, does this have potential legs? Might the Supreme Court take this up?
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: The Supreme Court right now is on summer recess. But even that will not save them from possibly being dragged into this controversy. Look, the argument that Maxwell is making is that her 2021 conviction for helping Epstein abuse teenage girls is invalid because back in 2007, Epstein entered into what is called a non-prosecution agreement. This is a very controversial agreement, much of which has been found invalid. But at the time he was told that if he pleaded guilty to state level charges, he could avoid federal exposure.
Maxwell's lawyers are now arguing that that should have also covered his associates, like Maxwell, from being charged ten years later. Now, the Supreme Court, take this up. One of the factors that they look at is whether there is disagreement among judges across the different regions in the country, and Maxwell's claim is not a common one. That is something that comes up. And there is what is called a circuit split. So, the Supreme Court could be willing to take this up when they return in October.
But I want to note that the Trump justice department has actually opposed this appeal. That's notable. Of course, because it was just a few days ago that she sat across the deputy attorney general of the United States and answered questions. We're told about around 100 different people. It is unclear what the Justice Department is going to do with that information. And even if this appeal to the Supreme Court does not work, the president still hasn't shut down the idea that he would either commute or pardon Maxwell.
SCIUTTO: Jeff, president, thousands of miles away from D.C.
[16:05:00]
The Epstein story certainly following him to where he is. He's done his best to make other news this weekend. Where does that effort stand?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, I mean, there has been much news here that trade deal, like you said, but it was the president's decision to hold about a 75-minute question and answer session with reporters that invariably brought up the Epstein matter once again.
Now, we've seen Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump on signs of protesters here at some rallies demonstrating against him. But it was the president who said this today about that elusive pardon that he still has not given a definitive answer for.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, I'm allowed to give her a pardon, but nobody's approached me with it. Nobody's asked me about it. The whole thing is a hoax. They ran the files I was running against somebody that ran the files. If they had something, they would have released. Now they can easily put something in the files. That's a phony.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENY: Now, that was a bit of a new story line that the president injected into all of this. If you'll remember, Jim, the president has been asked a couple of times in recent weeks if he was briefed on the fact that his name was mentioned in the Epstein files, along with many other people. He has answered, no, he did that in Washington. He did that here in Scotland when he arrived.
Well, the reality is, the White House officials have said yes, he was briefed by the attorney general. His name was in the files. So today, for the first time, he called the idea a hoax, so dismissing. The idea that even if his name happens to be mentioned, it was a hoax that he said put in there by other people. So, look, we've seen this before. On other matters. The president trying to contort reality.
But again, we have no idea the context in which his name was in the files. But, Jim, you just get the sense as the president finishes his final day here in Scotland tomorrow and makes his way back to Washington by tomorrow evening, the Epstein controversy is going to be waiting for him -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: And there are unanswered questions.
Jeff Zeleny, thanks so much. Paula Reid, please do stand by.
Panel joins me now. CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams; senior political correspondent for "The Wall Street Journal", Molly Ball; CNN political commentator Jamal Simmons; former Republican governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu.
Good to have you all on.
Elliot, just from a legal basis, my understanding of Ghislaine Maxwell's argument is this Justice Department makes agreement back in 2007. We're not going to prosecute any accomplices. And then federal prosecutors in New York do, and they get a conviction, by the way, sentenced to prison for 20-some-odd years.
Is there a basis here for the Supreme Court to consider this?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, there's a basis for the Supreme Court to consider it. Now, the question is whether they will.
The Supreme Court hears -- gets about 7,000 or 8,000 petitions for cases a year. They only take about 70 or 80 of them, maybe no more than about 100. What -- now, what's the one thing that's more likely to make the
Supreme Court take on a case? Speculation about internet conspiracies. I'm just kidding. No.
(LAUGHTER)
WILLIAMS: No, no.
SCIUTTO: I took you I took that at face value.
WILLIAMS: I know.
SCIUTTO: Yeah, yeah.
WILLIAMS: But the one thing that -- well, as Paula had said a moment ago, is when there is a dispute in the law between different regions of the country, and there's an open question in the law as to whether this idea of and your associates applying to one of those non- prosecution agreements. It says one thing in New York. It says something else in different parts of the country.
Now, the Supreme Court could think that's just not a big deal and not worth taking on. Or they could think that, you know, let's just let it percolate and let more circuits around the country weigh in on it. It may not be the kind of thing that they take on. It's just up to them.
SCIUTTO: So, Governor Sununu, Ghislaine Maxwell was basically Jeffrey Epstein's groomer for years, bringing him young women, and she was convicted and sent away for 20 years.
Is this a case President Trump wants to pick up?
CHRIS SUNUNU (R), FORMER NEW HAMPSHIRE GOVERNOR: No. And I don't think the Supreme Court wants to touch it. I think it's just an absolute fireball. I love how he's like, and I was never at the island. I could have gone to the island. Never had to go to the island.
SCIUTTO: Never had the privilege. Never had the privilege.
SUNUNU: Where he's like the rest of us saying, you know, I could have gone to McDonald's, but I went home and I ate a salad instead. So, look, this is a -- what I think is ultimately going to happen is there's a deal to be made. She, as Dershowitz said, she's the Rosetta stone. She has all the information.
She's very carefully. She hasn't written a book. She hasn't done any of that. She's holding it all for that deal once the Supreme Court rejects her, and I think they will, I think it's just too much of a of a political handle.
The deal is give me a reduced sentence. She's not going to get a pardon. I mean, Trump pardoning her would be like worse than Biden pardoning Hunter Biden, right? I mean, it would be really.
SCIUTTO: But commuting a sentence for a child sex trafficker? SUNUNU: If it means getting more information. I don't know if the sentence is commuted. Maybe it's reduced. The opportunity for her to get out at some point, write her story, make millions, because believe me, if she ever -- if and when she ever gets out, she's making millions on this story one way or the other.
Trump needs this Epstein thing to go away, and it's not going away unless somebody gives up the goods and she's the only one.
SCIUTTO: Jamal -- Jamal Simmons, are you comfortable with that deal? What would your reaction be if you saw the president make a deal with Ghislaine Maxwell?
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, of course, I'm not comfortable. And, of course, the Democrats would leap into that very fast, and see what they're doing already going after Republicans. What shows you how much the president is flailing is the lame excuse that he had today.
[16:10:06]
It's a hoax purportedly by the Democrats, but at the same time, if the Democrats had something, they would have released it.
So, he's got to choose, right? He's not actually saying whether or not -- he's saying that the Democrats both had it, but maybe they didn't have it because they never used it. Weve got to figure out which one of these things Donald Trump is laying into.
SCIUTTO: So the truth is, Molly Ball, it's not just Democrats who are seeing, smelling a fish here, smelling a rotten fish here. It's actually Republicans.
Listen to Joe -- Joe Rogan or those who traditionally supported Republican positions. Listen to Joe Rogan on this just over -- on Friday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, PODCAST HOST: When Kash Patel was on here and he was like, there's no -- there's nothing. And I was like, what are you talking?
The whole thing was nuts. And then he's like, well, we have a film. We're going to release that film. And the film has a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) minute missing from it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.
ROGAN: Like, do you think were babies? Like, what is this?
There's a line in the sand.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.
ROGAN: And when you have this one hardcore line in the sand that everybody has been talking about forever, and then they're trying to gaslight you on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Line of the sand. They're trying to gaslight you. He's talking about Republicans, by the way. You think were babies.
Is that a political force that President Trump and other Republicans can ignore?
MOLLY BALL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: And that is what continues to drive this thing is not -- as much as Democrats are seizing on this as an opportunity to drive a wedge in the Republican base and make Trump look bad, it really is. Republicans who are driving the fact that this story continues to have legs.
It's Joe Rogan and Theo Von and other podcasters in that sort of extended MAGA universe. It's Thomas Massie who's keeping up a drumbeat on the resolution that he's introduced and wants to bring forward in Congress after the August recess, which means it's going to be a long, hot month for those Republicans back in their districts. And it's the Republican base voters, the rank and file who Democrats and Republicans, elected officials keep telling me that they are hearing about this so much more than they would expect to.
That it is -- it is rank and file voters who are seized with this in a way that they are not seized with an obsession with what's in the tax legislation or what is the future of entitlement reform. This has really penetrated to regular folks in a way that has made it impossible for their elected officials to safely ignore.
SCIUTTO: Elliot, from a legal perspective, the a reasonable concern might be Ghislaine Maxwell wants to get out of prison, right? Perhaps early, or maybe even get a pardon. Aiming for -- aiming for the stars here might therefore be tempted to tell the president's personal lawyer, now deputy attorney general, what he wants to hear or what perhaps the president wants to hear.
WILLIAMS: Sure. But if she doesn't actually have information, she has nothing to tell them. I mean, this is this has been out there for well over a decade, if not longer. It's hard to see what information she might have that she wasn't able to disclose to law enforcement or someone else along the way.
And to add to Molly's Joe Rogan point, comments like that are indicative of why the president cant not just not pardon her, but also not commute the sentence because how much rank-and-file people in both parties just are whipped up by this case. And knowing that the president let someone out of prison shorted, shorten the sentence or pardoned someone.
SCIUTTO: Well, let's remember, the case was whipped up by Republicans, including Trump, prior to the election, right? It didn't -- it didn't come out of nowhere.
We do just hold that thought for a moment, because Paula Reid, as I understand it, has some news about the presidents continuing lawsuit against "The Wall Street Journal".
What do we know?
REID: Yeah. So here, the president's legal team, they are moving to depose Rupert Murdoch in roughly the next two weeks. And there's no real polite way to say this, Jim. They're arguing it's because he's old and in bad health. They said, quote, Murdoch is 94 years old, has suffered from multiple health issues throughout his life, is believed to have suffered recent significant health scares. Taken together, these factors weigh heavily in determining that Murdoch should be -- could be unavailable for in-person testimony at trial. I mean, they're basically suggesting that he might die before this case goes to trial, if it ever goes to trial.
But here, in speaking with sources familiar with the legal strategy around this lawsuit, it is largely animated by anger from the president. So, they have been moving very quickly. And if you remember the night that this was filed, it was a little chaotic, but the boss was so mad that they wanted to fire this off within 24 hours of that story being published.
Typically, executives at this level had a lot of layers of protection from depositions, especially this early in litigation. So, it's unclear, this is going to be successful. But if you see these comments through the lens of the animus that is animating this litigation, look, I think we're going to see a lot more of these kinds of requests. Unclear if they're going to be successful. Most legal experts don't think this lawsuit will be successful, but it shows the president is still really upset about this story.
[16:15:02]
SCIUTTO: I mean, maybe not in the court of law, right? But we have seen multiple media companies make deals, right? I mean --
SUNUNU: This is all -- yeah, this is all driving for a settlement. I mean, that's what it is. He wants to kind of put Rupert in a -- in a tough position in his old age, and in an embarrassing moment in his later years and hoping that moment of -- for lack of a better term, weakness, Rupert says, just settle with this guy and make it go away. I don't want to have to testify and take the stand at this point.
SCIUTTO: Is that a reality for this country you're comfortable with, that in effect, if stories the president, even if they're based in fact, he doesn't like them, let's find a way to squeeze some money?
(CROSSTALK)
SUNUNU: I think it's a reality for the legal system that you can kind of you can do this stuff, whether it's the president or others. So, but -- look, there's -- he's been very successful with settlements, with all these different media companies and outlets. So, it's logical that, you know, for them to implement yet another one of their strategies to kind of get the result they want, which is just why they may not get the apology. They get a check, which is effectively the apology. SIMMONS: And frankly, Jim, it's a -- it's a fear based political
economy that the president operates in. It's always -- I mean, think about tariffs. We're going to do 30 percent tariffs. And then you settle at 15, which is still ten points higher, or 11 points, 11 percentage points higher than it was supposed to be or what it was initially.
So, the president goes around, whether it's universities, it's companies around tariffs, it's polygraphing Defense Department officials, because they're looking for, you know, they're looking for leakers. And it's all about exacting fear on people to get what the president wants.
SCIUTTO: And many end up paying. And then they're asked to pay again.
SIMMONS: Right.
SCIUTTO: We've seen that that that pattern.
Paula, you had a thought.
REID: Yeah. I think what differentiates this from the litigation that we've seen with ABC News or the threats against CBS News and those settlements, is that Rupert Murdoch, he has no incentive to settle. He doesn't want anything from Trump.
I mean, the idea that he could go through the discovery process in this litigation, potentially depose President Trump, that could be a gold mine. And even sources familiar with the Trump legal strategy concede that this is much less likely to end in a settlement.
SCIUTTO: We'll see.
Paula, thanks so much.
Panel, stay with me. Exactly, exactly -- or a second or a third.
Coming up inside, the new shakeups in the fight for control of the Senate, including a high-profile primary challenger for Lindsey Graham.
But first, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at odds over what is really happening in Gaza as the crisis over access to just clean water and food reaches a new height.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: That's real starvation stuff. I see it, and you can't fake that. So we're going to be even more involved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:59]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This aid is disgraceful. We are not dogs to be made to run after aid. People fought over it. We'd rather die of hunger with dignity than die in humiliation and filth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: We are not dogs. That was a Palestinian in central Gaza criticizing aid airdropped into the region. For some, the food in these boxes is the only meal they will eat today. Some Gazans have called the airdropping a, quote, insult to their dignity, and they'd rather be formally have aid formally distributed instead of having to fight to get their hands on just the most basic necessities.
This all comes as President Trump has broken with Prime Minister Netanyahu on whether mass starvation is taking place in Gaza.
CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us now from Jerusalem.
And, Jeremy, the president's words were notable. Netanyahu says no starvation. Trump says you can see it happening before your eyes.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, that's exactly right, Jim. The Israeli prime minister continuing to deny the reality of starvation on the ground in Gaza, even as his government has now taken steps to implement effectively ceasefires for ten hours a day in certain parts of the Gaza strip to help facilitate the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. We have seen those tactical pauses now go into effect for the last two days.
Yesterday, we know that about 120 trucks from the United Nations were able to make their way into the Gaza strip. And so, we are starting to see efforts to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
But even as that is happening, the Israeli prime minister still denying reality.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: There is no starvation in Gaza. We enable humanitarian aid throughout the duration of the war to enter Gaza. Otherwise, there would be no Gazans.
TRUMP: We can save a lot of people. I mean, some of those kids are -- that's real starvation stuff. I see it, and you can't fake that. So we're going to be even more involved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DIAMOND: And now, President Trump also talked about establishing food centers in Gaza. Nobody really knows exactly what the president is talking about. He could have been referencing those Gaza Humanitarian Foundation sites, which are backed by, you know, established by a private American organization now backed by money from the U.S. state department, but have also been where the majority of the violence that has taken place, as people have tried to make their way to those aid distribution sites and Israeli forces have opened fire.
Now, in terms of the impact of these latest Israeli policies, these tactical pauses and all of that, it will really be judged by how long those policies actually remain in effect, as the United Nations makes clear that much more aid than just 100 trucks a day is going to need to get into the Gaza strip in order to even begin to alleviate what is happening in Gaza.
But those new Israeli policies to facilitate the distribution of aid in Gaza are perhaps the best evidence yet, Jim, that Israel has in the past restricted the flow of aid distribution in Gaza.
[16:25:12]
And of course, they could have taken these steps, which the United Nations and other aid organizations have urged them to take for much longer. Now, they could have taken those steps, for example, before the 77 people inside of Gaza who have died of malnutrition in just the last -- this -- in just the last month, passed away -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: Jeremy Diamond in Jerusalem, thanks so much.
Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton, who served four tours in Iraq in the Marine Corps and now sits on the House Armed Services Committee.
Congressman, thanks so much for joining.
REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): Good to see you, Jim.
SCIUTTO: So, President Trump says the U.S. will be more involved. I mean, the fact is it already is as a partner in this Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, is it safe to say that that foundation is failing in its job of feeding the people of Gaza and that responsibility should go back to the U.N. and other aid groups that had the responsibility prior?
MOULTON: Well, there are a lot of problems with the U.N. as well, but it's obvious that Gazans are not being fed enough. And the simple fact that there's all this fighting over aid shows that there\s not enough aid to go around.
This is a point that I made to the Israeli ambassador when I had him in my office last week. We had a very robust discussion, and he asked me, you know, how did you do it in Iraq and Afghanistan? I said, you know, in 20 years of war, you never saw people fighting over aid. And God knows we had a lot of problems in Iraq and Afghanistan. We made a lot of mistakes, but we never had people fighting over aid. We never had terrorists groups controlling aid because there was too much to go around. There was enough to go around.
SCIUTTO: Right.
MOULTON: And that's the fundamental mistake that I think the Israeli government is making here from a strategic perspective. If they want to win this war, they shouldn't be limiting aid. SCIUTTO: And you've been on the record for that. You wrote a piece
back in October 2023 saying that Netanyahu needs an endgame.
I wonder if there's a fundamental difference there, because I remember covering and you know this better than me having served in Iraq and Afghanistan, that it was the calculation of U.S. commanders there that you had to win hearts and minds, right? That part of the battle was being an effective manager of life, not making the people suffer.
I mean, are you saying that Israel is either deliberately or by acts of omission making that mistake, that it does not consider taking care of the people of Palestine, of Gaza to be their responsibility.
SCIUTTO: Well, I think it's important to start by pointing out that a lot of Israelis do believe this, including a lot of people I've spoken with in the IDF who understand basic counterinsurgency doctrine here, which is that you have to win hearts and minds, and you have to have a political endgame that both sides can agree to, can believe in, because that's ultimately how you have peace, both for Palestinians and for Israelis.
But it doesn't seem that the way Netanyahu, the prime minister himself, is running this war, acknowledges that reality of how you win a conflict like this. And it was telling that Prime Minister Netanyahu -- I'm sorry, Jim?
SCIUTTO: No, go. I was going to say to your point, it was notable that not only the president contradicting Netanyahu, but Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene, who posted, I can unequivocally say that what happened to innocent people in Israel on October 7th was horrific. Just as I can unequivocally say that what has been happening to innocent people and children in Gaza is horrific.
Is this a possible moment of rare bipartisanship on the approach to the war in Gaza?
MOULTON: Well, I have been trying to find common ground here for a long time because the basic principles here are things we should all agree with. And I say this as someone who is a longtime supporter of Israel. I strongly believe in Israel's right to exist, something that Hamas denies.
So, we should be able to establish the basic goals here that were all trying to achieve one. Hamas needs to be eliminated, and I want Israel to win that fight. I think that's essential for peace in the Middle East, for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. You cannot have Hamas, an organization with the destruction of Israel written into its charter ruling Gaza at the end of the day, or any part of Gaza, right?
But we also can also -- we can also all agree that innocent people on either side should not be killed. The attacks of October 7th were horrific, and anyone dying of starvation, of course, is horrific as well. So, if we can establish these basic goals, then we can say, what's the strategy to get there? And I tell you, I want Israel to win this war. I don't think that allowing Gazans to starve is a good way to get there. [16:30:02]
SCIUTTO: Yeah, and certainly a lot of suffering for the people of Gaza.
On another topic, and that is Russia and the war in Ukraine, President Trump seems to be losing even more patience with the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.
I want to play what he said this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm going to make a new deadline of about 10 --10 or 12 days from today. There's no reason in waiting. There's no reason in waiting.
It's 50 days. I want to be generous, but we just don't see any progress being made.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: I mean, to be fair, the deadline has moved a lot. A few weeks ago, it was one week and then it was 50 days. And now he's saying it's 10, 12 days.
Do you have any sense that Vladimir Putin takes those deadlines seriously?
MOULTON: No, I don't. I mean, Trump seems to be Putin's best friend. He said that himself many times, so he would be more adept, perhaps, at assessing Putin's assessment of his own statements here.
But I think this is a huge problem. We have a huge problem with credibility under the Trump administration with simple distinctions between right and wrong in Ukraine. I mean, he couldn't even get right who was the aggressor in this fight when he was saying that that actually it was Ukraine that invaded Russia? I mean, that was just a mere month, a few months ago that he was -- he was saying that.
So we've got a long way to go here with basic credibility. And if we want to be a strong ally for Ukraine, standing up for their rights to exist and freedom, but also standing up for the basic principle that you don't get away with invading foreign countries. Just like, by the way, we came to Israel's aid because we said to Hamas and other terrorists around the world, you don't get away with just killing a whole bunch of innocent civilians and a terrorist attack, right?
That's why we stand by our allies. And Trump has not consistently stood by Ukraine. So, I think Putin is probably just thinking that, you know, maybe I'll wait him out a little bit and perhaps he'll change his mind again.
SCIUTTO: Congressman Seth Moulton, we appreciate you joining.
MOULTON: Good to see you, Jim. SCIUTTO: Coming up next, a big recruiting success for Democrats and
the party's effort to regain control of the Senate.
Plus, the warning today for the party from a potential 2020 candidate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST, NPR'S "MORNING EDITION": I think it's possible to say, looking at the last election, looking at the last several years, that the country has changed, that politics have changed, that Republicans figured that out and captured the moment, and Democrats have failed to do so up to now.
Do you agree with that?
PETE BUTTIGIEG, FORMER BIDEN TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: I would mostly agree.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:58]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROY COOPER (D), NORTH CAROLINA SENATE CANDIDATE: Right now, our country is facing a moment as fragile as any I can remember and the decisions we make in the next election will determine if we even have a middle class in America anymore. I never really wanted to go to Washington. I just wanted to serve the people of North Carolina right here, where I've lived all my life. But these are not ordinary times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Now he wants to go to Washington. We're getting a much clearer picture today of how some of the biggest midterm races will play out. Former North Carolina Democratic Governor Roy Cooper, you saw him there today confirming one of the worst kept secrets in American politics, announcing a run for the states open Senate seat next year. It took Republicans less than 60 seconds to respond with part of their statement, calling him a, quote, Democrat lap dog.
Cooper is the most high-profile Democrat to enter the race so far. President Trump's handpicked chair of the Republican Party, Michael Whatley, is expected to announce his bid soon after the president's daughter in law, Lara Trump, took a pass.
Meantime, next door, a chief architect of Project 2025 tells CNN he is going to shake up another Senate race. Paul Dans says he will launch a primary bid in South Carolina on Wednesday to try to prevent Republican Lindsey Graham from getting a fifth term there.
NPR's Steve Inskeep joins the panel now. He is host, of course, of NPR's "Morning Edition" and "Up First" podcast.
Good to have you all here.
Steve, you spoke -- your interview, a timely interview. Tell us what you're hearing, the state of the Democrats hopes for retaking the Senate is.
INSKEEP: Well, the Democrats have to figure out what is their message. What do they stand for? How do they get out of the very awkward position they've been in the last several years, which -- and Pete Buttigieg is not the first person to admit this. They've been defending the status quo.
When they said, stand for democracy, it turns out that people heard that as something they didn't want. Not that they're against democracy, but they don't feel the system is working for them. And Buttigieg said something that was rather striking to me. He said, okay, it was an atrocity. It was unconscionable that the administration pulled down the U.S. Agency for International Development and that people died around the world, or that they're trying to destroy the department of education.
But then he goes on to say, let's not pretend that those agencies were exactly as they ought to be. Let's not pretend that we should just tape them back together the way that they were. And so he's beginning not with a lot of detail right now, but beginning to sketch out an agenda of change and trying to work his way toward, as I think a lot of Democrats are right now and a lot of different podcasts work his way toward some kind of message of change.
SCIUTTO: It makes sense. So, Jamal, when you look at a candidate like Cooper in North Carolina, he's got a good record there. You look back to 2020. I mean, he wins by 4.5 percent for governor when Trump won by 1.3 percent. I mean, so, he typically does decently well in that state. Is he a lock or just a strong -- a strong frontrunner possibly?
[16:40:02]
SIMMONS: Nobody's ever locked.
SCIUTTO: Fair point.
SIMMONS: Certainly not in this era of politics.
But I think that Steve hits on a really important point. The Democrats are in the 20s when you look at polling around the nation.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
SIMMONS: So you don't -- you don't come back from that with a plan, a five-point plan, six weeks out from election day and try to get everybody to rally around it. That's something you've got to build over the course of time.
And so, what Democrats have to do is really build a case about what the world looks like. If their vision of government and business and all of it works together and politics work together, what does that look like in the future? You see people trying to do some of that, but they're not. But you don't see it out of the leadership as much as you need to.
Democrats have been very effective at making anti-Trump messages. You see them all over the Maxwell story and the Epstein story. You also see them around what was called the big beautiful, the big bad bill. One of the reasons that bills upside down in popularity is because Democrats are really good at making a case about it.
We have not seen it in terms of what happens after this is over of Epstein. And where do Democrats go next?
SCIUTTO: So, we have someone sitting at the table who decided not to make a run in the next cycle, and I don't -- I'm not in the habit of quoting people to themselves, but I'm going to quote you. I'm dying to hear because the quote was quite powerful at the time.
I want to play what you said just a few weeks back about the possibility of running for an open Senate seat. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUNUNU: Democrats and Republicans right now in Congress. I just decided I wasn't running for Senate, partially because I don't think that they have the -- sorry, the balls to do what has to be done. Excuse me?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SUNUNU: That's what you had to run.
SCIUTTO: Well --
SUNUNU: That's what you had to run.
(LAUGHTER)
SCIUTTO: The thing is, you're not apparently alone, right? Because Brian Kemp, who arguably would have had a pretty good chance in Georgia. He's not running -- he's not running either.
SUNUNU: Well, look --
SCIUTTO: Explain.
SUNUNU: So, I'll say this first about Governor Cooper. I served with him for eight years. Roy is a really nice guy, a very much an above average governor, and I really hope he loses.
And I think there will be strong Republican candidates there. But look, I would argue that no one has done no organization in America has done more to destroy their own credibility than Congress and the Senate over the past, I'd say 12 years.
SCIUTTO: They're literally giving up their constitutional rights.
SUNUNU: They really set the bar incredibly low in terms of getting things done, balancing the budget. I'm a budget hawk. By the way, this is the reason why governors should run for the Senate, even though we're smart enough not to, because we believe in balanced budgets. We believe that when you make tough decisions, you actually get rewarded politically, unlike these guys that just -- in Washington that are just so afraid of making tough decisions.
They're good people, but you need to empower them. You need to make it easy for them to get to. Yes.
So, no, I mean, it wasn't for me. You have to have the right personality for the job. I'm a CEO, I'm an executive. I'm probably a little too upfront and brash for a lot of folks.
The Senate and Congress are for policy and funding, policy and funding. Hopefully, they can get that right most of the time.
SCIUTTO: It doesn't sound like you were being complimentary of that personality. I'm just -- I'm just reading that from the way you described it.
So, when you look at the way Republicans are approaching this, though, Molly Ball, you look at look at a guy like Paul Dans, 2025 -- Project 2025 architect, which President Trump denied he was supporting but yet we're seeing much of Project 2025 come to be. He's going to challenge Lindsey Graham.
Here's his statement as he announces. He, Lindsey Graham, is a 70 year old childless warmonger and he has no stake in the future of this country. He is the very reason that MAGA started in the first place, and we only have to look at 2016, when he was a vehement Trump hater. A leopard doesn't change his spots.
It appears the Republican Party is going this way. Democrats are trying to go to the center to win some of these seats. Republicans attempting to go this way.
BALL: I -- look, I remember being on the campaign trail with Lindsey Graham 12 years ago. And at that time, there was a motley crew of right wing challengers who were all accusing him of not -- of being a squish, not being Republican enough.
Now, that was before -- that was before he ran in 2016 as a Trump hater. That part is definitely true and then made a big reversal and became a Trump hugger. But if there's anything you can say about Lindsey Graham, it is that he is a political animal.
And I would be shocked if this guy or any Lindsey Graham opponent gets significant traction, given that the people of South Carolina have been hearing this argument that Lindsey Graham is not right wing enough for a very long time, and they have continued to reelect him over and over again.
SCIUTTO: It was that word kook I think back in 2016. We played that tape sometime.
Stay with us. Coming up next, some of the fighting for 2026 is happening today. Texas lawmakers meeting right now on redrawing the maps in the middle of the decade, mind you, as Democrats prepare to spend big in the redistricting battle, there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D), CALIFORNIA: This party needs to wake up. These guys aren't screwing around.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:49:05]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BUTTIGIEG: Every defeated political campaign but certainly my party right now is vulnerable to the temptation to fight the last war. Youve got an administration that is burning down so many of the most important institutions that we have in this country. It's wrong to burn these things down, but it's also wrong to suppose that if Democrats come back to power, our projects should be to just tape the pieces together just the way that they were.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Former transportation secretary and possible 2020 contender Pete Buttigieg warning his fellow Democrats in a new interview that they must not retreat to the status quo that, he says, lost the party the 2024 election. That as national Democrats weighed into one of the biggest political fights nationwide, vowing to dump $20 million into Texas to thwart a Republican-led effort there to redistrict that, if successful, could give the GOP five more seats in Congress.
Texas state senators on the special committee for redistricting are meeting now in Austin.
[16:50:02]
Some Democratic leaders urging blue states to adopt a new approach and respond with gerrymandering of their own.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWSOM: If we want to still be in this game, we need to disabuse ourselves, disenthrall ourselves of the status quo in the past. We have got to enter a new mindset.
You've got to fight fire with fire. This is an existential moment. We have agency. We can act superior. We can act holier than thou and watch the last half century wiped out in real time.
I'm sick of -- this party needs to wake up. These guys aren't screwing around.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: My panel is back with me now. Steve, I wonder. I mean, that's quite a warning from Gavin Newsom
himself. Considered a contender in 2028. Do you get the sense that Democrats want to change their tune, not just in terms of message, but also in terms of strategy and tactics?
INSKEEP: I think they've only gotten to the point of wanting to change the message and the tone. I don't know if they know what the substance is at this point.
As I listen to Newsom, as I listen to Buttigieg and others, I think of the Kamala Harris slogan from 2024. We're not going back, which is her slogan from then. We're not going to go back to the old days.
But now, that's in an entirely different context. Trump has arrived. Trump has profoundly changed politics and government, and there's an acknowledgment in some Democrats that were not going back from this point. You have to figure out a way to go forward.
There is a particular kind of voter, I think, that I've encountered in my life in hundreds, if not thousands of interviews who is kind of independent, not particularly partisan, maybe more conservative than not, maybe more male than not, more willing to vote for a Republican, but willing to vote for a Democrat.
That person, however, wants to see big change, and they don't want to be lied to. They don't want to be messed with. And so, Democrats are looking for that message that would deliver that person to them.
SCIUTTO: It looks like they're still searching. I wonder on the redistricting effort is this right? I mean, typically this is done -- it's done at the terms of decades when you have new census data, this looks like a pure power grab.
(CROSSTALK)
SIMMONS: -- tell your friends to stop it.
SUNUNU: So, a couple of things. First, Gavin Newsom should never use the term fight "fire with fire". If there's anyone in this country who doesn't know how to deal with a fire, is Gavin Newsom.
Second, the Republicans -- to think, to go down this redistricting path, understand no one in America buys that. They don't want to see it. They don't like it. And Gavin Newsom is just as bad going out there saying, yeah, we should now start thinking about gerrymandering.
Awful. It's awful on both sides. It's a lose-lose. It messes with a real democratic system. Does it happen? Yes it does. But you want to minimize it as much as possible, not say, well, the rules have changed because we don't like Trump. And he's kind of extreme. So we're just going to play by a different set of standards.
That's awful on both sides. And it won't yield you the results.
SCIUTTO: Well, Jamal, what should the party do because it looks like the Texas legislature is moving full speed ahead with this. And you'll -- you'll be -- you'll have a five-seat deficit in addition to the deficit. You already have to get over.
SIMMONS: Yeah. And some Democrats will say the deficit is even bigger than that when you start looking underneath the hood.
I tell you what Democrats want to do. But I hear about Democrats want to do with Gavin Newsom is saying.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
SIMMONS: Democrats want to fight. Democrats are tired of being punched. They're tired of being the goody two shoes. They're tired of being the ones who are going to stand up for the system.
Democrats want somebody who's going to get in there and mix it up. So, you hear about people like Gavin Newsom and people say, oh, well, at least that guy, he'll go on Fox News. He'll argue and he'll do debates with Republicans. He's somebody people are fighting for.
I don't know if they'll vote for him in a Democratic primary, but they like that stance, that forward leaning get off the couch, don't take, you know, don't take anything for granted. And getting Republicans faces, they like it.
SUNUNU: Is gerrymandering fighting, though? Gerrymandering is saying I'm going to change the rules --
SIMMONS: You start a fight, then Democrats have to match them. They can't just sit back and go, oh, bad boys, and then get away with it. They've got to like, do something.
SUNUNU: But I just don't. I just don't see America supporting it. I just think the average American, the average independent voter goes, you guys are both sides, right? Both sides are wrong.
But you guys are just trying to game the system, which would disenfranchise voters from saying, well, I guess my vote matters now because I'm just in a one-sided district, so why even participate in the process? I think both sides are really playing -- playing with fire to use Gavin's.
SIMMONS: Elon Musk's America's First Party.
SCIUTTO: We'll see. I mean, that could have an equal effect on some of these races. "Wall Street Journal" poll, we referenced Democrats historic unfavorability, but boy, it's not good. I think we have a full screen to put up on the air. Sixty-three percent unfavorable was 58 percent last year.
I wonder, Molly Ball, is a portion of that a perception that Democrats aren't willing to fight?
BALL: Yes. And it's coming from the Democratic base. What's driving those numbers down is that Democrats do not like the Democratic Party right now, because think about it, you know, 90 to 100 percent of Republicans already felt negatively about the Democratic Party. And independents are split, mostly negative. Most independents don't like either party.
It's Democrats who now look at the Democratic Party and have fallen out of love. They're very disenchanted. They're saying, we counted on you to win the last election and you let us down. We counted on you to fight Trump once he got back into office. They don't feel that their leaders have done that.
[16:55:00]
And to Steve's point, I think so much of this is generational. I think the bases of both parties are elderly, but it's the new generation that wants to see something different from their leaders, whether it's the new generation of MAGA that wants something more Trump like, not the old Republican Party and a new generation of Democrats is coming up who are much less partisan than the older generation. But they want to see something different. They want to see action.
SCIUTTO: And oftentimes contrast with the older -- I mean, if you look at the issue of Israel, for instance, in the Republican Party, younger voters, Republicans much less likely to support than older.
Stay with us. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SCIUTTO: Thanks so much to my great panel.
Jake Tapper, of course, standing by for "THE LEAD".
Jake, all yours.
