Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Backtracks On Releasing Double-Tap Strike Video; Trump Gives $12 Billion Bailout To Farmers Hurt By His Trade War; Supreme Court Appears Ready To Expand Trump's Power; Paramount Makes Hostile Takeover Bid For Warner Bros Discovery. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired December 08, 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: That's today's edition of what are we doing?
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: That is the fakest smile. He's like, I'm so glad this robot just kicked my you know what?
SANCHEZ: Yeah.
KEILAR: My goodness.
All right. "THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Monday.
Right now, the boat backtrack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: You said you would have no problem with releasing the full video of that strike on September 2nd, off the coast of Venezuela. Secretary Hegseth now says --
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I didn't say that. You said that. I didn't say that. This is ABC fake news.
REPORTER: You said that you would have no problem releasing the full bit. Okay, well, Secretary Hegseth said --
TRUMP: Whatever Hegseth wants to do is okay with me.
REPORTER: He now says it's under review. Are you ordering the secretary to release that full video?
TRUMP: Whatever he decides is okay with me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, the president, just moments ago at the White House says, quote, I never said that. He was denying his past support for releasing the video that shows that now infamous double tap strike on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean.
So, what did the president actually say last Wednesday in the Oval Office? Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: You released video of that first boat strike on September 2nd, but not the second video. Will you release video of that strike so that the American people can see for themselves?
TRUMP: I don't know what they have, but whatever they have would certainly release. No problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Last Wednesday, it was no problem. Now, apparently there is a problem. The president's comments are in stand in stark contrast to the now growing bipartisan support for releasing the video of that second strike from September 2nd.
And today, tucked away in a must pass defense bill, CNN found a provision that would limit Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth travel budget until he gives the Armed Services Committees in the House and the Senate the unedited video of the strikes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: Do you think that the video should be released in full to the American public, as President Trump has said he would support?
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): So, I personally don't -- I don't have any problem with it.
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): I think it's really important that this video be made public. The American public needs to judge for itself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
We're also joined by CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
So, Kristen, how is the White House explaining what is very clearly a total about-face?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, we reached out, of course, about these remarks that just happened moments ago. We have not heard back on their interpretation of this complete about- face, as you noted, but a couple of things have changed since he first made those comments. One, we know that a bipartisan group of lawmakers has now seen that second video that wasn't released, and many of them condemned the video. Most of them Democrats. But there are still a lot of questions about the legal authority that was given to make those strikes.
Now, the other part of this that is so fascinating to hear is President Trump, a president who, by all accounts, really tries to command his authority over every aspect of his administration, over every agency in this moment, even though he has the full power as commander in chief to order that video to be released, is now saying that it's up to the secretary of defense. So you're seeing him put squarely on Pete Hegseth this decision to either release this video or not release this video.
And that is something that should be noted. President Trump privately has said that he likely wouldn't have done the second strike. We know that he has said multiple times that he -- that Pete denied that he knew about these people being injured. So, there are still a lot of questions here, and it is incredibly notable that President Trump is essentially passing the buck to secretary Hegseth, who I will note, just arrived at the White House about five minutes ago, when it comes to this video.
HUNT: All right, monitoring that. Kristen Holmes, thank you very much for that reporting.
All right. Joining us now in THE ARENA to discuss, Democratic congressman from Colorado, Jason Crow. He's a former Army Ranger. And he now sits on the House Armed Services and Intelligence Committees.
Congressman, how do you explain the president's about-face on whether the video of this second strike should be released?
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Well, there's nothing to explain, Kasie. I mean, the only thing this administration appears to be good at is a cover up. You know, we don't have to have a debate about the video and what it shows and doesn't show. They can just release the video.
And we happen to know that this the Defense Department, Pete Hegseth is actually very good at quickly releasing videos when he wants us to see what's in it, which is very telling, frankly, about why this one hasn't been released.
HUNT: How do you explain the difference between what Jim Himes, the number two on the House intelligence committee, says about what's in the video versus Tom Cotton?
[16:05:01]
They have totally different things to say about it. Cotton saying that it is entirely lawful what he saw. Is he telling the truth?
CROW: Yeah. Here's how you explain the difference. You have Jim Himes, who's interested in the truth, in the law and conducting congressional oversight. And you have Senator Cotton, who is interested in just appeasing Donald Trump. That's the difference. Right?
So, but again, we don't have to debate this. We don't have to have a back and forth. They can just release the video, much like I've been calling for them to release the Epstein files. People can see for themselves.
You know, if this video is anywhere near what has been described to me, which is, you have two unarmed combat, ineffective stranded individuals who are holding on to a burning, sinking wreckage who have been taken off the battlefield. And then a long time after the initial strike. Another one is taken to kill them. There is no justification, no justification for that.
I'm a combat veteran. I've been in these situations before, and we learn from the very first days of our training that if someone is injured, if they are trying to surrender, if they are retreating, if they have been rendered combat ineffective, you would not only have a moral obligation, but a legal obligation to refrain from striking them.
HUNT: The administration's defenders have essentially tried to argue that there's something on the video that shows that these survivors were trying to stay in the fight. What would that look like? And is your understanding of the video that it shows anything like that?
CROW: No. My understanding is there's nothing remotely like that. In fact, some of the folks who have briefed congress have refuted that account already.
Again, what has been described to me, and I have no reason to believe that this is different to individuals holding on to a burning, sinking wreckage over a long period of time. And I again see no justification for why you would kill those individuals.
And here's why these rules matter, because everyone's like, well, these are drug runners and these are combatants. Here's why it matters -- you know, the world came together and said, there has to be some rule to govern POWs, prisoners, wounded people on the battlefield because America also benefits from that.
In every recent conflict we've had -- Iraq, Afghanistan, the First Gulf War, Vietnam -- American service members have been taken hostage, have needed aid on the battlefield, and we have benefited from those very same rules. Our men and women that that can benefit from them. So, we break those rules and we are putting our own service members at risk in the future.
HUNT: Congressman, the global war on terror did in some ways see the United States of America adjusting some of the way these rules or versions of them were applied. I mean, President Obama came in for not an inconsiderable amount of criticism for the way he used drones. For example, Pete Hegseth over the weekend said, quote, these narco terrorists are the al Qaeda of our hemisphere.
Do you think that's the correct assessment? And what does it mean that he's putting it that way?
CROW: Yeah. What it means is they've learned nothing from the last 20 years of our failed military interventions and adventurism. Right? We spent 20 years, $3 trillion, 7,000 American lives, two decades of lost opportunity, tens of thousands of Americans who now have suffered the visible and invisible scars of those battles and those wars. And they ended poorly, right? So, what that tells me is that if something was wrong, then it's also wrong now.
And why in God's name would we be using a counterterrorism or nation building construct to do any of this, right? Because why? We're so good at counterterrorism operations. Is that the lesson from the last 20 years, or that were great at regime change or nation building? This administration hasn't seen a problem that they don't believe they can solve by dropping a bomb on somebody and is turning their back on all of the lessons that me and others learned in a really hard way in the last 20 years.
HUNT: Do you think that these groups pose anywhere near the same danger to the United States of America as al Qaeda?
CROW: Well, here's the deal America deserves actual, real counter-drug strategy. You know, tens of thousands of our kids are dying by fentanyl. This administration is actually doing nothing about that, right? Not a single one of these strikes have targeted fentanyl. Like, that's a shocking fact.
And it hasn't done anything to disrupt air routes, to disrupt land routes, to disrupt the demand within the United States, there is no counter-drug strategy for this administration. And America deserves better than that. Our children deserve a real strategy.
[16:10:01]
What this is, is a performative exercise where Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth want to show videos of wooden boats being blown up. And oh, by the way, we're spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars to do that. And it's not actually going to solve the problem.
We have been fighting the war on drugs in this nation for 70 years, and this is the same old tried model that has failed. We need something real and something serious.
HUNT: Before I let you go, I want to ask you for an update on the FBI investigation interest into you and the five of your colleagues who were featured in that video. Has the FBI made additional contact with you? Do you plan to sit for that FBI interview?
CROW: Yeah, there have been multiple outreaches by the FBI. Listen, I'm not going to be threatened. I'm not going to be intimidated.
Let's be clear about what this is. There is no basis in law and fact for their investigation. Donald Trump is weaponizing the Federal Bureau of Investigation and pulling it away from counterterrorism operations, pulling it away from focusing on elder fraud, from focusing on organized crime, all the important things he is instead using it to attack his political opponents, me and others, which should upset every American, not just for what it is, but for what it's not doing because of the detours and the distractions that Donald Trump is having its focus on.
But I'm not going to be threatened. I'm not going to back away from this. And no, we are going to treat this for exactly what it is, an attempt to threaten and intimidate members of congress who are doing their job and who are upholding the law. And I am sure as hell not going to back away from that.
HUNT: And finally, there's a group of Republican veterans in the House who have condemned you and your colleagues for this video. What do you have to say to them?
CROW: Yeah, it's extremely disappointing because you know better. You know well that what we talked about in the video is exactly what we talk about when were in the military, exactly what we train our troops on before we go on operations and go on deployment. And it is unfortunate that you have decided to bend the truth and to take Donald Trump's side for political expediency instead of side with rule of law, the Constitution and what our service members deserve.
So, it is never too late to do the right thing. I will call on them to join us to uphold the Constitution, uphold the rule of law, and to stand by our service members who have been put in terrible, untenable positions by this administration. Stand by those men and women who have taken the oath, and we have an obligation to stand by and let's support them together.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Jason Crow, thanks so much for your time today, sir. See you soon. I hope.
CROW: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, the blockbuster case today at the Supreme Court involving Donald Trump, liberal justices say the outcome could, quote, destroy the structure of government. That is quote.
Conservatives -- well, they think the opposite. But first, President Trump declaring today that affordability is in fact a real problem, how the White House is putting their economic agenda front and center, including a $12 billion bailout for Americans hurt by the president's global trade war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We inherited a mess, affordability. But you can call it affordability or anything you want, but the Democrats caused the affordability problem, and we're the ones that are fixing it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:18:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We inherited a mess, affordability. But you can call it affordability or anything you want, but the Democrats caused the affordability problem, and we're the ones that are fixing it. (END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump, last hour at the White House, announcing a $12 billion government bailout to frontline Americans that are getting squeezed by the president's own global trade war. Most of this money is going to what the administration is describing as a bridge program for farmers across the country. This tangible lifeline being thrown out as the White House ramps up public events around the issue of affordability. Something today that the president did acknowledge as a problem after previously saying, well, you know?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There's this fake narrative that the Democrats talk about affordability. The word affordability is a con job by the Democrats. Affordability is a Democrat scam.
Affordability is a hoax.
It's a con job. I think affordability is the greatest con. They use the word affordability. It's a Democrat hoax.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I guess the hoax is real. Tomorrow, the president will head to Pennsylvania to promote his economic agenda amid new data and new criticism. A Fed survey out today shows a rising number of Americans say their finances are, quote, much worse now than they were a year ago. It's now at a level that economists last saw in April, and that was when the president launched his trade war with that liberation day announcement.
And some friends and foes in his Republican Party are hoping it's not too little, too late.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): Affordability is a real issue.
LESLEY STAHL, REPORTER, "60 MINUTES": The president says it's not, says it's a hoax, affordability.
GREENE: It's one of the top issues not only in my district, it's across the country.
For an America First president, the number one focus should have been domestic policy. And it wasn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. My panel is here in THE ARENA. Correspondent for "The New York Times", Annie Karni; CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams, former DNC communications director Mo Elleithee; and former RNC communications director, Republican strategist Doug Heye.
[16:20:07]
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
So, Annie Karni, it looks like suddenly, a problem that wasn't a problem is actually a problem. And this seems to be one of a number of about-faces that the president is making today. But it also seems to underscore that they're learning some of the same lessons that the Biden team learned the hard way, which is that you can't actually convince people what is very plain when they show up every day at the grocery store.
ANNIE KARNI, CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK TIMES: That's right. You can't -- I mean, it was a matter of time before saying, well, this is still a hangover from the Biden administration. The bottom line is that people blame their cost of living is rising, and the president is in the White House.
But I think today's announcement was an acknowledgment that the trade policies are having negative consequences on the agricultural sector. Farmers are a key part of Trump's voters. And basically what, you know, usually bailouts are something that Democrats are more associated with. And on the Hill, what I'm hearing today is just Democrats denouncing this, saying he's using like the only reason he has to do this is because he's fixing a problem that he created by doing tariffs on China. So, like, this whole thing is him getting out of his own mess.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. This what I find fascinating, though, is that comment about affordability being a con job in any other era would have been devastating and would have shown up in every campaign ad from every Democrat across the country.
MO ELLEITHEE, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Wait --
WILLIAMS: No, no, no, no. But listen. But sure, but it does not have the same impact that it would have had a long time ago, because we've sort of become desensitized to comments like that and just sort of behavior like that from the president. But it is really fascinating, the timeline we're in that you can get away with being president United States and make a comment like that.
ELLEITHEE: I mean, we'll see, right? I mean, this is the first time in the last decade that Donald Trump's job approval on the economy is underwater, right? Even when he lost in 2020, he was still had a net positive job approval rating on the economy, not on anything else, but on that.
And for the first time, Americans are really souring on the way he's handling it. This farm bailout is a great example of that. I mean, look, American farmers, you know, he announced, what, $12 billion, I think 11 billion of it goes in a one-time payment. So that's not really going to, you know, fix any of the farmers' problem, especially since they've lost $13 billion overall.
China's not buying the goods they said they were going to buy. They're buying soybeans instead from Argentina, who we gave a $20 billion bailout to.
HUNT: Marjorie Taylor Greene is also very upset about it.
ELLEITHEE: We are subsidizing our main competitor while our farmers on -- in this, while farmers are losing money and the rest of us are paying more in groceries.
WILLIAMS: And on top of that, Mo, the challenge is getting that $12 billion or $11 billion to small farms, which is logistically and again, I'm not an expert in farm policy, but its logistically quite complicated. And in fact, most of it's actually going to go to much larger farm entities that may not need it as much as the folks really struggling.
ELLEITHEE: And our prices in the produce aisle are still going up.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, Doug Heye, so the there was a recent CBS poll on the economy, 58 percent of Americans say that prices are going up. So, they just ask people, do you feel like it's more expensive today? Right? And 58 percent of them said yes. Only 32 percent said they thought the economy was good and 60 percent say that they think that Donald Trump makes prices and inflation sound better than they are, right?
Is that where you want to be?
DOUG HEYE, FORMER RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: No, it's not where we want to be, and it's -- what's surprising to me --
HUNT: Is that obvious question?
HEYE: -- is that Donald Trump, you know, regardless of how he throws mud and tries to distract us, he has a pretty good idea of where the pulse of the country is. And so, to hear him say that prices are just a hoax and all of that affordability is a fake word and that kind of stuff shows that he's sort of lost touch on that. This is an issue that he's done very well on, certainly in the last election.
And it's something that was a big motivator for not just his base but for independent voters who said things are too expensive, the rent is too damn high, and I'm going to support Donald Trump. And now, just a year later, he's the one who's now sounding like sort of the Biden White House. It's a real surprise.
KARNI: Well, he spent so little time on domestic issues or traveling domestically. He's been abroad a lot. How would he have that finger on the pulse of what people are feeling?
I interviewed Marjorie Taylor Greene a little while ago, before her extreme break with Trump, and she was saying that she was very concerned that he's in the White House surrounded by a small group of aides, and losing that connection.
HEYE: Doesn't that sound familiar?
KARNI: Yeah. HUNT: That's so -- it's so interesting that you say that. And, you
know, I do want to play a little bit more of that Marjorie Taylor Greene interview with Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes". And she talked a little bit about the death threats and the violence that's come her way since she has made this very public break with President Trump.
[16:25:07]
Let's watch that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STAHL: Does the support come about because they're afraid that they'll get death threats?
GREENE: I think they're terrified to step out of line and get a nasty Truth Social post on them. Yes. The subject line for the direct death threats on my son was his words. Marjorie traitor Greene. Those are death threats directly fueled by President Trump. I -- and I told him. I told J.D. Vance, I told them all, sent those directly to them.
STAHL: And response?
GREENE: J.D. Vance replied back to me. We'll look into it. I got response back from President Trump that I will keep private, but it wasn't very nice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, Annie, pretty remarkable to hear her say what many others have said about the way that President Trump's threats or words can land in that they show up in the real world in these kinds of threats. But she has been making the very argument that you were just outlining, right? She's been saying, like, country's not affordable enough. The president is doing things that don't focus on the issues that she thinks that he ran.
KARNI: Right. Yeah. And I think she's really interesting to watch because she's not -- she is a person who really is -- she's channeling her the base. She's channeling her district, her deep red district in Georgia. You know, she goes home a lot and still shops at the grocery store and hears from voters and kind of is like, she's not acting as like a one off.
So, I think you need to listen to what she's saying. And, and her shift, I think, is indicative of a fracturing of the MAGA movement because she's still -- she's not resigning from Congress because she couldn't get reelected there. And I have seen her shift. A few months ago, she was saying the effects of the build back better bill, like, we just need to give it more time. And now, she's really saying no, these, like, it's not affordable. It's on Trump.
HUNT: Doug Heye, how are Republican leaders explaining Marjorie Taylor Greene and what her decisions have been like recently to themselves?
HEYE: By and large, they're not. And, you know, part of that is a concern that she's not just the canary in the coal mine. I think to use Kevin McCarthy's word, but the canary in the coal mine that we could have. We're coming into the Christmas holidays, obviously, and the expectation is that when we come back, all these members who spent time at home, not during a shutdown, are going to say, I want to stay at home more and were going to see a lot more Republican retirements, especially if you're -- if you're concerned of going from a committee chair to a committee ranking member, your life is not really as great, if you make that you know, that transition.
So that's the bigger concern. It's not this member or that member, it's how many members and are these -- are these members of congress who are looking at retiring? Are these the animals that sort of scurry before we see the earthquake?
HUNT: Well, Annie, Nancy Mace is one of these people. She's congresswoman from South Carolina, Republican. I know she you wrote about her and a couple of the other women Republicans.
She just put out this opinion piece in "The New York Times", Nancy Mace calling, "What's the point of Congress?" she asks. And she says, "The obstacles to achieving almost anything are enough to make any member who came to Washington with noble intentions ask, why am I even here?"
KARNI: Look, that's going to get some eyerolls because Nancy Mace is one of the people in Congress who seems to be here in order to get attention. But that being said, I think the sentiment -- so forget her motivations for it, the sentiment she is speaking the truth.
A lot of people across -- like the showboats and the workhorses both would agree with that statement. Why are we even here? We have a trifecta of power. We have little to show for it. We were home for eight weeks, you know, during the government shutdown. I think there's deep frustration in that, like these jobs are really hard and taxing.
And if we don't even have work to show for it, it's just like really sours you on your leadership and on doing the job at all.
ELLEITHEE: But we can do something about that. Congress, they have completely abdicated their constitutional authorities and responsibilities to the executive branch. The Article One, the power to tariff lies with the Congress, not with the executive branch. And the degree to which they have just said, "Here, Mr. President, take all of our roles is really stunning."
HUNT: The degree to which they shy away from making difficult decisions for themselves in order to retain their seats. Yeah.
Okay. Up next in THE ARENA, the Supreme Court on a power trip, literally the justices giving big clues today on whether they'll give Donald Trump even more control of the government.
Plus, one of the president's most vocal critics telling CNN she's not crazy as she jumps into a key Senate race and pushes a fellow Democrat out in the process
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Can you tell me about the conversation that you had with your friend Jasmine Crockett, how that went down and how you made the decision to let her take the wheel? I assume that's the way that you view this.
FORMER REP. COLIN ALLRED (D-TX): Yeah. Well, I wouldn't say -- I view it that way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:34:28]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
Today at the Supreme Court, justices hearing oral arguments in a case that could dramatically expand the powers of the executive branch. At the core of the case, whether President Trump had the power to fire a leader of the Federal Trade Commission who was fired back in March. The court's ruling will essentially determine whether the executive branch has the power to control what has -- have historically been considered independent agencies.
The high court did rule on this 90 years ago. That was in 1935, a precedent that conservative justices today seem willing to overturn, or at least narrow.
[16:35:00]
The court's more liberal justices appeared concerned doing so would fundamentally reshape the structure of the U.S. government.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, SUPREME COURT: So the result of what you want is that the president is going to have massive, unchecked, uncontrolled power not only to do traditional execution, but to make law through legislative and adjudicative frameworks. Once you're down this road, it's a little bit hard to see how you stop. It does not seem as though there's a stopping point.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HUNT: Addressing those concerns, the lawyer for the Trump administration said this.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
D. JOHN SAUER, SOLICITOR GENERAL: The sky will not fall. In fact, our entire government will move towards accountability to the people.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HUNT: The sky will not fall. Our panel is back.
Elliot Williams, is the sky going to fall?
WILLIAMS: Sky is not going to fall, but the country will be dramatically different than it was, and the government will operate differently. Independent agencies and sort of to step back, there are a series of agencies across the government that Congress has said ought to be independent. The Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and so on, right?
There has been a push among certainly conservative voices in the legal movement for about 25, 30 years or so to say that, no, the president has the power. These are, in effect, executive branch agencies, and the president ought to have the fire to the power to hire and fire their leadership. That's going to change how they operate. If they cannot be on sort of terms that are staggered, that go from Democratic to Republican administrations, and a president can remove them at will, that'll change.
I mean, will the republic fall? No, I mean, the country literally has gone through profound changes over the course of its -- of its lifetime. But this is a big one because in part, at least as the argument from opponents has said, you know, you want regulation of food or objects, but, you know, the like, like things -- things.
HUNT: Consumer products.
WILLIAMS: Consumer products. Sorry.
HUNT: Like, you don't want to have lead --
WILLIAMS: You don't want, you don't want and you want that, too.
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: And you want that to exist outside of who the president is and to be independent.
HUNT: Well, Mo, this seems to be furtherance of what you were talking about before, which is the general kind of the amassing of power in the executive branch with the president of the United States.
ELLEITHEE: Yeah, I just finished watching, that series on Netflix, "Death by Lightning", about the assassination of President Garfield. And one of the really interesting things about that was how it precipitated the first major push for civil service reform by his successor, Chester Arthur, because --
HUNT: I love that people are talking about Garfield and Chester Arthur because of the --
ELLEITHEE: I know, right?
HUNT: You're not the first person to have brought it up. I need to watch it. ELLEITHEE: It's a great show. It's a great watch.
But, you know, we have for over a century and a half, been making moves to protect the American people from the whims of -- unchecked whims of the executive branch. And this president, from the day he took office in his second term, has seemed more than happy to eliminate all of those are. We're not fighting the same old left versus right battles that we used to fight about regarding the size and scope of government. Instead, we are seeing a reshaping a reconcentration of power between the president and the -- and the legislative branch. And that's dangerous.
HUNT: Well, and one place, Doug Heye, where this could actually really matter in a way that average Americans may feel, right, that's a little less no offense, Elliot, in the legal weeds, as we can sometimes be, is the Federal Reserve, right? Because there is this decision about whether the president can simply fire and, you know, Jerome Powell, for example, who has clearly said he wants to fire, and that could have significant repercussions for the economy.
I mean, how much of this do you think is about that?
HEYE: Look, that's the -- that's the golden pot of honey that Trump clearly wants, but he also wants to do that in every independent agency that he can. And I hate agreeing with Mo, but I certainly because --
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
HEYE: -- everybody likes to --
ELLEITHEE: -- have that effect on me.
HEYE: The worst.
If I go back at previous in my career, when I worked for the House majority leader, we put out press releases almost every week warning about the imperial presidency of Barack Obama and all the executive orders that he was doing and all the pardons that he was doing. And Donald Trump has taken that, and he's gone to full warp speed with this. And what it means is the next Democratic president is going to have more power because of Donald Trump, just as Donald Trump has more power because of Joe Biden. Trump before him, Obama.
Congress has ceded this authority for generations. It's a bipartisan problem. And it now because we view it under the lens of Trump, we view it as now. It's a national emergency. This has been coming for a long time.
WILLIAMS: It's not just Obama or Bush changing norms and doing things a little bit differently. This will be blessed by the Supreme Court, the next Democratic president will have a long runway to take actions that are going to make supporters of Trump very uncomfortable. So be careful what you wish for. The floodgate that is opened here for
what the mischief that a Democrat can do to agencies like the FTC and the Consumer Product Safety Commission and so on.
[16:40:06]
HUNT: I feel like be careful what you wish for has been the arc of the last however many decades that I've been covering Washington in terms of people blowing through one norm after the other.
All right. Ahead here in THE ARENA, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett is about to formally announce her Senate campaign in a state that Democrats have been desperately trying to turn blue. Can she do it?
Plus, Hollywood giant Paramount says, not so fast to an attempted takeover of Warner Brothers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID ELLISON, PARAMOUNT SKYDANCE CHAIRMAN & CEO: You are handing Netflix unprecedented market power, which is anti-competitive in every single measure, every single metric you can measure. And we think that is bad --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:06]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): I am absolutely thinking about running for Senate, and I'm hoping to have an answer within my inner circle, probably within the next week and a half or so. I'm polling to determine whether or not I can expand the electorate, and I believe that I can, but if I can't, I can tell you for sure 100 percent that I will not run.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So that was Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. She told me about four weeks ago that she was getting close to a decision about whether to jump into what, at the time was a pretty crowded, competitive Democratic primary for Senate in the Lone Star State.
The breaking news this afternoon, Crockett has now officially filed to run for Senate. We expect to see her formally announce her campaign in a little under an hour, she told our Isaac Dovere over the weekend that she was waiting until the very, very last minute out two cashier's checks made to use today. One she would have to submit if she was going to run for reelection in the House, the other to launch her senate bid.
Of course, the other piece of this, Annie Karni, is essentially pushing Colin Allred, who was running for Senate, out of the race. Where are Democrats on whether they have any pipe dream of turning
Texas blue or winning a statewide federal office. It's repeated and frequently fails. We'll let Mo walk --
(CROSSTALK)
KARNI: Thank you for the history. But it's been like three decades since they won a statewide race in Texas -- Senate seat in Texas. This does seem like a prime opportunity. The Republican side is messy.
Jasmine Crockett has high name recognition. She also has a lot of remarks that Republicans are excited to use against her. Cornyn, earlier, when she was talking about it, was Senator Cornyn was already like, goading her to get in, saying, "Run, Jasmine, run."
So, I think she's divisive. They can paint her. They want to paint her as too far left. She kind of really popped on the national stage when she did that bad built, bleach blonde.
HUNT: Well, yeah, we can watch that. Let's take a look at that. Look at that moment just because it helps explain, especially in kind of our celebrity, political culture, part of why (AUDIO GAP) on the stage. Here is the confrontation between her and Marjorie Taylor Greene.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREENE: I think your fake eyelashes are messing up --
CROCKETT: No, ain't nothing.
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): Hold on, hold on.
CROCKETT: I'm just curious, just to better understand your ruling, if someone on this committee then starts talking about somebody's bleach blond, bad built, butch body, that would not be engaging in personalities, correct?
COMER: A what now?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARNI: That was a great moment in last year's -- last year's Congress. Like, look, she took she went viral after that, Biden, I remember, sent out a fundraising email with like "BBB" as the subject line. They used her after the debate in the spin room. So that kind of launched her on the national stage.
But there is a lot of comments that she has made about immigration that are just going to be easy to pound her with. I actually was surprised that she's strong enough that Colin Allred gets out because she gets in. That actually caught me by surprise today. I thought. I didn't see that that was an obvious -- she wipes him out.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, I think it's interesting. I found it interesting. She was willing to admit to me that she was -- she was out in the field with an internal poll, and she basically said, look, if this poll comes back in my favor, I'm going to run. And if it doesn't, I wont, which is actually how these decisions get made. But people rarely say it in public.
I mean, Mo, what do you think her chances are?
ELLEITHEE: I don't know. First, she's got to get -- I mean, Allred's out, but she still has a competitive primary here, right? James Talarico, state legislator, is still in this race. He's been building a real strong grassroots movement when everyone thought it was going to be Allred versus Talarico. That's what they were touting was his grassroots fundraising, his grassroots organizing.
She certainly brings quite a bit of heft to the race, too. So I think the Democratic primary, if you're just a student of politics, is still going to be a really fascinating primary to watch. And the Republicans are a mess. I mean, John Cornyn is no shoo in for renomination --
KARNI: I don't know.
ELLEITHEE: -- with sort of MAGA favorite Ken Paxton.
HUNT: Well, it's worth kind of running through for viewers who are not in the weeds with the rest of us right on the we can put up who's running in these -- in these primaries, the Republican primary, Senator John Cornyn, long standing member of Senate leadership, has been around Washington a long time. He's done a lot of legislation, including working with Chris Murphy and other Democrats on some gun -- on gun-related package that in some ways opened him up to challenges from the right.
The Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, is that right wing challenge.
Now, Paxton, Doug, he has a heck of a lot of baggage because he, of course, was, you know, the subject of investigation and criminal investigation. And yet there are a lot of Republicans in Texas who don't want him to run, but he's doing it anyway, right?
So that's the backdrop against which Democrats think, well, maybe we have a shot here.
[16:50:02]
HEYE: Yeah, we often hear, don't mess with Texas. The reality is Texas is a mess and it's mess in both parties. Thank you.
WILLIAMS: You can't mess with Texas because it's --
HEYE: And it's a mess on both sides. I mean, you've just outlaid there. I follow John Cornyn on Twitter, and he talks about crooked Ken almost every 10 minutes. There's a lot of baggage on that side, but it is still Texas. It is still a Republican state.
And if we go down to Second Street Northeast, where the Republican Senatorial Committee is, they are very happy that Jasmine Crockett has gotten into this race, that she somehow chased out the candidate that they feared the most, Colin Allred, tells us a lot about where the Democratic Party is, but they feel in a much better position. Republicans do today, like right now, than they did, say, six hours ago.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
KARNI: I think these primaries are, look, Maine and Texas, Susan Collins, John Cornyn, if there was a time to beat them, for Democrats to beat them, it is this cycle and their own primaries are becoming very messy. And it's no sure thing.
And I just -- I just think that it speaks to the dysfunction of both parties, that if there was ever a time to get these two Senate seats this year, and it doesn't look like it's on the track to happen.
WILLIAMS: Yeah. To Doug's point, this is the year for lightning to strike with the messed up Republican Party in Texas, it's still Texas. She's a compelling candidate, successful politician. It is still Texas.
All that talk in 2024 about Latinos shifting toward Trump, you're going to dig out that support and then make gains elsewhere across the state. I think it's just very hard for her to win.
HUNT: All right. And Jasmine Crockett, the congressman, will join Laura Coates live tonight at 11:00 p.m. Eastern.
Coming up, the hostile takeover bid that's shaking up Hollywood (AUDIO GAP).
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:56:33]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELLISON: You are handing Netflix unprecedented market power which is anti-competitive. This deal if it is allowed to move forward will actually be the death of the theatrical movie business in Hollywood. We're sitting here today trying to save it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Today, Paramount launching a hostile takeover bid to buy Warner Bros. Discovery after they lost to Netflix in a months-long bidding war. Paramount went straight to shareholders with an all cash offer to buy the company that just this past Friday, Netflix announced plans to acquire.
Now, of course, we do have to note that Warner Bros. Discovery is CNN's parent company. CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter joins us now.
So, Brian, the co-CEO of Netflix, we apparently just heard from him quite a day here in Hollywood. BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: That's right. And he is saying
this deal with Warner is moving forward despite the hostile bid by Paramount. You know, I explained this news to my kids, Kasie, by saying the streaming services are fighting. It's HBO Max trying to pair up with Netflix. And now Paramount saying, hold on, we were here first. We asked out HBO first.
And that's true. Paramount started this entire bidding war a few months ago by making unsolicited bids for Warner Bros. Discovery, and David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount, he doesn't just want to buy the Warner Bros. movie studio and the HBO streaming service, although those are key assets. He wants to buy it all, including this channel, CNN.
So, it is no surprise that in the wake of the Netflix deal on Friday, the signed paperwork last Friday, Ellison is now back making this counteroffer. He has rolled it out today in a P.R. blitz, saying that his offer is superior for shareholders, better for the consumer and better for Hollywood.
But as you mentioned, we heard from Ted Sarandos a few moments ago. Sarandos, the co-CEO of Netflix, and he essentially said the opposite. He said if Paramount wins this prize, then they're going to cut a lot of jobs. Sarandos said, quote, "We're creating and protecting jobs in production."
And then he said he knows that's what President Trump cares about because that's the X factor here, right? What does Trump care about? And how influential will the president be in this entire process?
Notably, Trump posted on Truth Social about Paramount earlier today. He was very angry at the CBS News magazine "60 Minutes" last night, and he blamed the new owners for not reining in the news coverage. So that tells us something really significant about Trump and his mentality when it comes to these proposed deals.
Now, as we've been saying throughout this process, Netflix is not trying to buy CNN, but Paramount is. So, we should pay attention to what Trump says and how he acts about these bidders.
And I think most, you know, contextually here, Kasie, I think it's clear what's happening. Trump welcomes being the kingmaker. He welcomes being -- having the prospect here of choosing or being appearing to be choosing between these bidders, even though he doesn't get an actual veto, he can slow the process down for whatever buyer emerges here.
So, next steps, will Paramount bid even more? Will shareholders go for the deal, or will Netflix and Warner continue to plan to merge? Netflix and Warner Bros. are continuing down that road. But you know, here we are with new developments pretty much every hour, Kasie.
HUNT: And the Ellisons, how do they view President Trump in this process?
STELTER: A year ago, a little more than a year ago, David Ellison was a donor, a donor, a big donor to Joe Bidens reelection campaign. But he saw how the political winds changed. He figured out a way to cozy up to Trump and his allies. You could call that business savvy, or you could call that media capitulation.
And there's a very vocal argument within the media industry about Paramount, about the Ellisons, about whether they're the right owners for these brands. What does WBD think? What does the board think? These are all factors to consider now, and this is far from over.
HUNT: Indeed. All right, Brian Stelter, thank you very much for that, sir. Always appreciate you.
Jake Tapper is standing by now for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake.
