Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
MAGA Infighting Takes Center Stage At Turning Point Conference; Awaiting Release Of More Epstein Docs From Trump DOJ; Mixed Reaction To 2028 Vance Endorsement At Turning Point Event; Trump To Announce New Battleship, Considered Calling "Trump Class". Aired 4-5p ET
Aired December 22, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Monday of the week of Christmas, for those who celebrate.
Right now, the parting of the Red Sea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, JR., SON OF PRESIDENT TRUMP: This isn't the Republican Party anymore. It's the America first party. It's the make America great again party. And we are not going back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Looks like that big Turning Point convention was actually probably a turning point for the party. There was bitter infighting over things like free speech, antisemitism and discrimination. It's exposing a debate inside the GOP about the party's present and its future. Should conspiracy theorists be welcomed in the party? What about white supremacists, religious extremists?
Vice President J.D. Vance, who as of now is further cementing his spot as the heir apparent after another 2028 endorsement from Erika Kirk, is trying to answer that question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: When I say that I'm going to fight alongside of you, I mean all of you, each and every one. President Trump did not build the greatest coalition in politics by running his supporters through endless, self-defeating purity tests. He says, make America great again, because every American is invited.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And while Vice President Vance did say the MAGA movement does not care if you're white, black, rich, poor, controversial, even boring, he did not go so far as some of the others in what were vocal criticisms of things like antisemitism and suggestions of a moral line in the sand.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEN SHAPIRO, HOST, "THE BEN SHAPIRO SHOW": Today, the conservative movement is in serious danger.
VIVEK RAMASWAMY (R), OHIO GOV. CANDIDATE: If you believe that Hitler was pretty (EXPLETIVE DELETED) cool, you have no place in the future of the conservative movement.
SHAPIRO: The conservative movement is also in danger from charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle, but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty.
RAMASWAMY: If you call Usha Vance, the second lady of the United States of America, a "jeet", you have no place in the future of the conservative movement.
SHAPIRO: These people are frauds and they are grifters, and they do not deserve your time.
RAMASWAMY: And if you can't say those things without stuttering, then you have no place as a leader.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines. Head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams; CNN political analyst, investigative reporter at "The New York Times", David Fahrenthold; CNN political commentator, former Biden White House communications director Kate Bedingfield; and CNN's senior political commentator Scott Jennings.
Welcome to all of you. Great to see you.
Scott, we talked a little bit about this on the set of "STATE OF THE UNION" on Sunday, but it was pretty stark when you laid out that way, right? When you saw Vivek Ramaswamy and Ben Shapiro going directly at what are some of these conspiracy theories and antisemitism, let's call it what it is, that are in some corners of the movement. How do you see the way that J.D. Vance kind of threaded this needle?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, J.D. Vance was and is trying to appeal to the most people possible because he anticipates being the nominee of the Republican Party in 2028. And he has had relationships with a lot of the people whose names you heard on the stage. You know, there's more information today than we had yesterday.
They took a straw poll of all the people who went to Turning Point's event. So, this is thousands and thousands of people, 87 percent of them in the straw poll said that Israel was either a top ally or an ally of the United States. On top of that, they asked the people who were there, what are the biggest issues facing the United States? Number one, radical Islam.
So, when you look at what the people who were in the audience think, it sounds like they were really more with Ben Shapiro than they were with some of the other people who were attacking Ben Shapiro. They were rather clear-eyed about who our friends are. And the difference between right and wrong, at least as it relates to the people who were in the crowd.
HUNT: So it's interesting you bring up the crowd, because I do want to show some of what the state, what happened on the stage, the kind of underscores what we saw here. So, you saw Vivek Ramaswamy and Ben Shapiro. Okay, so Ben Shapiro directly addressing this issue. Ramaswamy taking on issues around ethnicity.
But Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Megyn Kelly had some choice words for Shapiro and some of these other more difficult topics. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST, "THE TUCKER CARLSON SHOW": To hear calls for like deplatforming and denouncing people to Charlie Kirk event. I'm like, what? This is hilarious.
STEVE BANNON, HOST, "BANNON'S WAR ROOM": Ben, I've known you a long time, brother. You can't handle the truth.
[16:05:02]
Let's face it, Ben Shapiro is the farthest thing from MAGA. Ben Shapiro is like a cancer. And that cancer spreads.
MEGYN KELLY, HOST, "THE MEGYN KELLY SHOW": I found it kind of funny that ben thinks he has the power to decide who gets excommunicated from the conservative movement. I don't think we are friends anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, Scott, if the crowd is with Ben Shapiro, you're arguing that, I mean, what are they doing?
JENNINGS: Well, I think it's gotten rather personal between some of these personalities. And that's unfortunate.
But look, I didn't hear ben actually necessarily calling for the de- platforming of anyone. What he was saying was that particularly as it relates to Candace Owens, you know, we don't have to accept someone who's out here monetizing the grief of a widow. I mean, Charlie Kirk was graphically and savagely murdered, and you've had someone out here for months and months monetizing that, and for the purposes of self- aggrandizement going on and on and on about all these conspiracy theories. Some of them revolve around Israel, of course, as they always do. But specifically, I think he had a great point, which is that, just
because someone shows up and says, I want to talk about this doesn't make you a leader or necessarily accept it in the conservative movement, especially, especially if it's at the expense of a grieving widow, erica kirk has had to put up with this up to the point of meeting with Candace Owens, and it still hasn't stopped.
So, can you have debates about things? Sure. Should we be platforming or accepting people who are trying to terrorize a grieving widow? I don't think so.
HUNT: So that -- I mean that platforming question. Ben Shapiro and I want to play a little bit of what Ben Shapiro said, because this, at the root, is about Nick Fuentes, right? Who is the neo-Nazi, essentially, who went on Tucker Carlson's show and you saw Tucker Carlson there at the top of the last sound mash that we played.
But I want to play a little bit more of what Shapiro said specifically about Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson. He also mentions Candace Owens, as Scott was walking through.
Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHAPIRO: The conservative movement is also in danger from charlatans who claim to speak in the name of principle, but actually traffic in conspiracism and dishonesty. The people who refuse to condemn Candace's truly vicious attacks, and some of them are speaking here are guilty of cowardice.
There is a reason that Charlie Kirk despised Nick Fuentes. He knew that Nick Fuentes is an evil troll, and that building him up is an act of moral imbecility. And that is precisely what Tucker Carlson did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, how is it that -- go ahead, Scott.
JENNINGS: Just one more thing. I don't know if we're going to play it today. There is video of Charlie Kirk addressing these kinds of issues and some of his events, and he specifically and explicitly stated, I'm not going to be associated with Jew hatred.
He would face these questions about anti-Jewish conspiracy theories. And he was clear, clear, clear every single time. And so, I think what Ben is responding to and talking about are these --
HUNT: So why is Tucker on stage at Turning Points USA now?
JENNINGS: Look, he's had a long standing relationship with the organization. I don't speak for them, but all I'm -- all I can tell you is that what Charlie Kirk stood for was that, he said, I'm not going to be associated with Jew hatred, period. And when he talks about Nick Fuentes and Candace and others trafficking in these conspiracy theories, I think ben is doing it in the spirit of Charlie, who was very clear on this matter.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, this is -- it does seem to me an all eyes on J.D. Vance situation and Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, frankly, you know, if the -- if the elected leaders, the self-proclaimed, excuse me leaders of the MAGA movement are willing to tolerate the platforming of a avowed Hitler apologist in Nick Fuentes. I mean, that seems to me like where the pressure should be.
I certainly agree with Scott that Ben Shapiro and others who are calling out the antisemitism, the conspiracy theories of the likes of Nick Fuentes, Candace Owens, frankly, Megyn Kelly as well, you know, I think that is that is an important and good thing for them to be doing.
But ultimately, this flows up to, you know, who are -- what are the elected leaders of the MAGA movement willing to tolerate? And I -- you know, J.D. Vance, to me, he really failed this moral moment. He failed in this moral moment.
He had the opportunity to say, you know, I disavow this. He has said that in the past, by the way, he has said he disavows Nick Fuentes. This was clearly a stage where that was called for and he did not do it. And that I think he is going to have to continue to answer for.
HUNT: Well, and to this side of the table, you know, if we're focusing in on J.D. Vance, it is worth noting that he gave another interview around this speech. Now, he did not say this from the stage, but this is what he said to "UnHerd", this outlet. Quote, "Let me be clear, anyone who attacks my wife, whether their name is Jen Psaki, she's, of course, the former Biden press secretary, now MS NOW host, or Nick Fuentes can eat S-H-I-T. That is my official policy, as the vice president of the United States."
So, he's willing to say that in this forum, but not on that stage.
DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: To me, this is a really interesting view into the people that are following in Trump's wake.
[16:10:00]
So many of them have defined themselves by jettisoning whatever policies and beliefs they had before, and just glomming on to what Trump says now. Trump's off the stage and they have to think for themselves, again.
You're in a position where J.D. Vance is in this spot and has really no background to draw on. How did he get to where he is? Just by agreeing with Trump? Trump's gone. All he can do is sort of invoke Donald Trump's name, but not make any of his own decisions. It shows you how thin the bench is and how unprepared they are for a moment without Trump.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: What I find fascinating is that the idea of a civil war in any political movement isn't anything new, particularly as you approach midterms halfway through a presidential administration. That's usually the party that's out of power. And I think part of what's driving this is the singularity of Donald
Trump and the MAGA movement. And this was sort of inevitable, this moment. Now it's painful to watch that in part it deals with antisemitism and whether people are willing to push aside. But at the at its core, it's sort of the natural political fight.
BEDINGFIELD: I think it's also worth considering that for the Tucker Carlsons the Megyn Kellys of the world, they are trying to build followers. They are trying to make money. And so there is a divergence of interests in terms of, you know, conflict cells and whether the Megyn Kellys and Tucker Carlsons of the world, whether, you know, again, MAGA and the people who are running for office asking to represent the American people are willing to tolerate having these people who are fundamentally out to, you know, to make money, often to shock, often to create conflict, you know, are they are they going to be allowed to speak for the MAGA movement?
Again, I really -- I think that the elected officials who want to represent Americans across the country need to say with a clear voice, we don't tolerate this. This is not what we -- this is not the kind of language that we're going to tolerate in our party.
JENNINGS: I don't disagree with you. I think ultimately it will be up to the nominee of the party, most likely J.D. Vance, to basically say, who's in my group and who's out, and to separate himself from people who are trafficking in hate and conspiracy theories.
I would just draw you back to the straw poll results from I mean, there was thousands upon thousands of people clearly stood with Israel, clearly believed radical Islam is the top issue facing the United States. So, the debate happening on the stage was one thing. There really wasn't that much of a debate in the crowd.
I think some of the civil war talk is a bit of a mirage when you actually look at the results of the polling among the people in the stands.
HUNT: Well, I mean, do you think that saying radical Islam is the greatest threat automatically means support for Israel? I mean, because like there is like this white Christian nationalism situation also, that is where some of this antisemitism comes out of.
JENNINGS: Well, look, Tucker -- Tucker was on the stage attacking Republicans who were up there saying, you know, we have to worry about radical Islam. He was kind of defending it up there. That wasn't where the crowd was at all.
And so, I think some of the people who are dabbling in some of these things that I think are wrong, they don't have as much support among the people in that crowd as they think they do now. I think you might be right that they see benefit to it and growing an online audience, but in that arena, I think that arena is much more where Charlie was, much more where Ben is than where some of these conspiracy provocateurs are.
WILLIAMS: Quickly, because really interesting point that Kristen Soltis Anderson just made in the chat. This idea of whether this very fight is, is mostly of interest to conservative voters, or if median voters actually care about it, or is a particular interest to it. It would seem like this is a family feud happening. That one segment of the population really cares about. But I'd be curious to hear how --
HUNT: Well, look, I think that there's also -- I think it's an important big picture question about whether the base of one of the major parties in our country is going to tolerate antisemitism coming from its stages, regardless of, you know, what breaks through.
JENNINGS: Well, to be fair, if you're going to make that comment, we haven't once invoked the Democratic Party or what's going on on the left right now. You're talking about antisemitism.
HUNT: We can absolutely.
JENNINGS: I mean --
HUNT: We are not afraid --
JENNINGS: We're pikers compared to them.
HUNT: -- to talk about that on the left either. Scott, you know that about me and the show.
JENNINGS: I'm just saying --
HUNT: We're not afraid of doing it.
JENNINGS: You know, I'm just saying.
WILLIAMS: But if the names were changed and it were, you know, pick the moveon.org conference, and there was the still -- the same sort of debate happening over antisemitism, we all ought to be calling it out. And I think we're in agreement about that.
HUNT: Yeah. And I think, honestly, Scott has called it out.
WILLIAMS: Yeah. No, I'm not saying --
BEDINGFIELD: Anybody who apologizes for Hitler, you should call out. I'm willing to make that blanket statement.
WILLIAMS: I think we're -- I think we're in agreement. There's antisemitism on all sides and it's really bad, and we want to stamp it out of American political debates. Full stop.
HUNT: Yes. Full stop.
All right, coming up next, here in THE ARENA, we are going to talk with Republican Congressman Mike Lawler about all of this and more. He is here live this hour.
Plus, the story about the story. New details on why the new head of CBS abruptly pulled a planned "60 Minutes" report on a part of the president's deportation policy. But first, the Justice Department could release more Epstein files
really, at any minute, as some in congress float potential consequences for the attorney general after all of the documents were not released by Friday's deadline.
[16:15:04]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. YASSAMIN ANSARI (D), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: I believe impeachment should be on the table as well, which she has done is impeachable. But of course, a much larger political hurdle to have to overcome.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESS MICHAELS, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: I think the law was clear that the deadline was 11:59 p.m., December 19th. And once that time frame was crossed, we've broken the law. They've broken the law. The Department of Justice, the department that is supposed to protect us and provide law and order, has broken the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Accusations of a cover up over the Epstein files continue to grow as the Justice Department admits to erring on the side of caution and, quote, "overredacting," they say, to protect victims.
[16:20:00]
Hundreds of thousands of files are still being processed by the DOJ. Despite Friday's legally required deadline, we're expecting more to be released at some point today. But for the coauthors of this Epstein files law, it's too little, too late. Congressman Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna, a Republican and a Democrat, respectively, are now threatening contempt proceedings against Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Let's bring in CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz.
Katelyn, so former President Clinton's spokesman just put out a lengthy statement, because one of the things that we saw in this initial dump of files were a number of pictures of the former president of the United States. Walk us through what the Clinton camp is saying now and why it matters for what happens next.
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, one of the things that the Clinton camp is saying is that this is one of the criticisms that are out there. They're highlighting that the way the justice went about this is something that we should be questioning. So there already is a fair amount of criticism, even without a spokesperson for Bill Clinton speaking up following the release of photos of that former president, the photos that really made a lot got a lot of attention on Friday. The idea is that there is both over redaction throughout these files.
We do know that because Justice Department is saying it, but there also is a selectivity as to what is coming out early. We don't know if that is intentional or not. That is a question to be asked of the Justice Department. But we know that there are many people, the justice department, who are scrambling still to comply with that law, that they haven't fully complied with.
What the Clinton spokesman says, this is a post on social media today, "We call on President Trump to direct Attorney General Bondi to immediately release any remaining materials, referring to, mentioning or containing a photograph of Bill Clinton." So they want more transparency. They, too, are calling for that.
Also, they say, "Refusal to do so will confirm the widespread suspicion the Justice Department's actions to date are not about transparency, but about insinuation. Using selective releases to imply wrongdoing about individuals who have already been repeatedly cleared by the very same Justice Department."
Bill Clinton has not been accused of wrongdoing or a crime in this circumstance, but he is one of the names that people are talking about following that release.
Another thing that had happened in this, Kasie, is that the Justice Department, they went very broad with these redactions. They redacted all women in photographs with Epstein, and they also redacted things under privileges of the executive branch and for lawyers, attorney client communications.
We don't know exactly why things were redacted yet. That is to come when Blanche is or the Justice Department sends a letter to congress in a few days, about two weeks from now, explaining the redactions that they made. But that is something to also see.
What are they choosing to redact now and what haven't they even gotten through? This is still such a work in progress that members of Congress are rightfully saying not all the documents are out there yet.
HUNT: All right. Katelyn, thanks for that reporting. Stand by for us.
Elliot Williams, I mean, it seems pretty black and white here that like, if the Justice Department couldn't get all the material out the door in time, they should have just, you know, applied more lawyers to the problem if they were going to meet the law.
I mean, what's going on?
WILLIAMS: Right. Absolutely. Or at least signified that they were not going to be able to meet the deadline prior to the deadline. That happens all the time. Issue a status report or whatever, to the court or to congress or whatever.
The big challenge here is that in Congress' law, they did not write in a penalty or a way for someone to sue. And so, the question is, if Congress -- pardon me, if the Justice Department has not met, met the letter or the spirit of the law, then what happens? Like, does a victim sue Congress? The Justice Department doesn't seem to make sense because they don't really have what's called standing to do that.
I mean, the obvious thing to happen would be for congress to call the justice department in and just ask them questions. Now, the extreme would be congress holding the attorney general or members of the Justice Department in contempt for failing to meet. Now that get that out of your head, because that's not going to happen. At a minimum, they'll maybe have a hearing or call people up to answer questions. But a lot of this flows from how the law was written. There's just no way to enforce it, really. And you just have to hope that they did a good job.
HUNT: David Fahrenthold, you've done a lot of investigative reporting in your time. Can you -- I mean, you're used to seeing these kinds of redactions, right? These are -- these are pages and pages of stuff that's blacked out, right. And absolutely, the victims have said, you know, we want to be protected. The Justice Department also had to put out a warning at the top that was that said, hey, if you see something, could you say something and then well redact it. You know, I mean, a lot of this seems very slapdash.
FAHRENTHOLD: It's an enormous amount of material that they've been asked to go through. And you're right, they should have applied more lawyers --
HUNT: But didn't they say that they read it all when they first got there?
[16:25:01]
FAHRENTHOLD: I mean, how many times have they said they were done reading it? Right? There were the binders of material they gave to those folks a few months ago.
HUNT: Right.
FAHRENTHOLD: So yes, they should have done -- should have done more. But we're dealing with a situation where its several different kinds of redactions at once. There's victims, there's privacy, but they've now applied things like executive branch, attorney client privilege. It's really hard to look for all those dimensions, even in a smaller release. But this is thousands and hundreds of thousands of pages.
That said, this is a judge job. They said they wanted a job that said they could take on. It's a job they should have been prepared to do, to tell us five minutes before they weren't ready to do it. And there were hundreds of thousands of pages -- of pages left. That's not what they were. That's not complying with either the letter or the spirit of the law.
WILLIAMS: There's two important words in that statement from the Clinton folks that came up, which were widespread suspicion. And all of these, this back and forth over, did they do it? Did they not do it? Should they have done a better job in advance? Only fuels what is the suspicion before? It's -- it's far less of a legal issue than a P.R. issue that started back with the attorney general several months ago, claiming that she had a big list on her desk.
BEDINGFIELD: That's exactly -- right.
WILLIAMS: That she was handing out to people.
BEDINGFIELD: That's exactly.
WILLIAMS: It's a blunder.
BEDINGFIELD: That's exactly what I was going to say, the selective release and the sloppy redactions and the removing an image, for example, of Donald Trump that was initially posted on the website and then was taken down. They've done nothing here to solve their P.R. problem, their political problem, and have only -- have only further fueled suggestion that they are hiding or not being forthcoming with all the information.
So, this -- it continues onward in perpetuity, in part because they've handled this in such a sloppy way.
WILLIAMS: And there might have been a perfectly plausible reason to remove the photograph of Donald Trump. Maybe it was, maybe it was privileged, maybe it was protected in some way. Maybe it just shouldn't have been released in the first place.
But the problem is, because of what the public already thinks of the failures of the Justice Department in how they've handled it thus far. That's why everybody is clamoring, oh, there must be a conspiracy to protect Donald Trump.
FAHRENTHOLD: You're right that the expectation set by Pam Bondi herself, who said that there is a list. It's on my desk right now.
BEDINGFIELD: Months ago.
HUNT: Katelyn Polantz, jump in.
POLANTZ: I want to raise my hand over here and be like, remember, court -- court is out there. And in this context, regarding that photo of Donald Trump, there is the protection of crime victims that is having to take place even over what the Epstein Transparency Act says.
And so, one of the issues, how that bubbled up, that is a really great example, at least in the way the Justice Department said they responded to it. They say that their office in New York, the Southern District of New York, prosecutors had flagged that image that contained Trump amid a mess of other photographs, that that image could have had victims in it. They wanted to be extra cautious. And we even see in their court filings in the Southern District of New York in the cases against Epstein and maxwell, that, yeah, they are taking these pains to make sure that they don't violate victims privacy.
Now, does the court respond and do victims speak up in some way and say, no, put it out there. Stop the overredaction. We don't know. We're going to have to see what happens there.
But, Kasie, I'll be watching very closely to the court record going forward in that case, as well as in a number of other cases about public transparency around Epstein files.
JENNINGS: Yeah, I see this actually differently. You call it sloppy. I mean, it sounds to me like they're being extra careful with victims images and names, which they should be, A.
B, everybody's quick to blame. The executive branch here. Maybe congress wrote a stupid law. I mean, they gave him 30 days for millions of documents. And you just said they didn't put any penalties in.
I mean, look, this is Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie's baby. Did they not give the executive branch enough time? Did they not give them enough motivation to do it? That's not Donald Trump's fault. That's not the administration's fault. I think they're doing this as fast as they can. But I think this issue of making sure you don't release to the public someone's name or image, that could jeopardize a victim or put them in harms way in any way, that's a real issue.
WILLIAMS: Scott --
JENNINGS: If you get that wrong, you can't put that back in the bottle.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
BEDINGFIELD: Maybe the executive branch should have delivered on their promise to release the files, and not required Congress to step in and write the law. So, if that's the argument, then, you know, the Trump administration should have been forthcoming and done voluntarily. What they said many times, how are they going to do voluntarily.
JENNINGS: How many documents has Biden -- has Trump released? Hundreds of thousands. How many did Biden release? Zero. They are being transparent. They are releasing documents.
BEDINGFIELD: Because this is a foolish argument. Ghislaine Maxwell --
JENNINGS: It is not.
BEDINGFIELD: -- was still appealing.
JENNINGS: I know it's always somebody else's fault.
BEDINGFIELD: Give me a break. Give me a break.
HUNT: I mean, Scott, they did run on it in the trail. They said they're going to release the Epstein files. The president said, sure. You know?
JENNINGS: The president -- this was not a core tenet of the president's campaign. Some people around him made it a big issue. He did not get up on stage. WILLIAMS: And I'll go even further than you will on this one, which is
that I think there's this blood thirst to get documents out just because people on the internet are hungry to see information about this case, the mere fact that people want to see information doesn't entitle them to it. A lot of times, it's legally protected. A lot of times, it's sensitive, both in terms of victims, also in terms of people who might have been accused of crimes but not charged with them.
And I just don't think the rush to get everything out there, I mean, there is a reason to go slow sometimes, and I just think.
HUNT: Maybe there is something wrong with the law.
[16:30:01]
Entirely possible.
All right. Katelyn Polantz, thank you very much for that reporting. I really appreciate it.
The rest of our panel is going to stand by.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, Republican Congressman Mike Lawler will be here live. We'll get his thoughts on this battle for the present and future of his party, including whether that future is J.D. Vance. Some say yes, while others -- less sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): I'm going to continue to try to lead a conservative free market wing of the party, and we'll see where things lead over time.
JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS ANCHOR: And that's not J.D. Vance.
PAUL: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIKA KIRK, CHARLIE KIRK'S WIDOW: We're going to ensure that President Trump has Congress for all four years.
[16:35:06]
We are going to get my husband's friend, J.D. Vance, elected for 48, in the most resounding way possible
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Charlie Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, once again vocalizing her support for Vice President J.D. Vance to run for president and win in 2028, promising that the powerful conservative group that her husband founded will throw its full weight behind electing Vance as president.
And in an interview published just days prior, Secretary of State Marco Rubio also lined up behind a potential Vance candidacy. He says this, quote, "If J.D. Vance runs for president, he's going to be our nominee, and I'll be one of the first people to support him."
But not everyone on the right is so sure. "The Washington Post" reporting today that Senator Ted Cruz is weighing another presidential run.
And Republican Senator Rand Paul said this yesterday about Vance's role in the party.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Is J.D. Vance, the heir apparent here?
PAUL: I think there needs to be representatives in the Republican Party who still believe international trade is good, who still believe in free market capitalism, who still believe in low taxes. I'm going to continue to try to lead a conservative free market wing of the party, and we'll see where things lead over time.
KARL: And that's not J.D. Vance?
PAUL: No.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Joining me now, Republican congressman of New York Mike Lawler. He sits on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Sir, same question to you. Is J.D. Vance the heir apparent to be the Republican presidential nominee in 2028?
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Well, he's the sitting vice president of the United States. And, you know, if we look back historically, the vice president certainly has a leg up heading into any presidential primary. But we've also seen in the past, you know, Ronald Reagan challenged a sitting president, Gerald Ford. So, I'm sure there's going to be a primary. I'm sure there's going to be a robust debate about these issues and the future of the Republican Party, from foreign policy to domestic policy. And obviously, of course, President Trump, I'm sure will have his say, in this as well.
So, it's going to be a robust 2028 cycle. You know, I know many of the players involved in considering it, and you know, like and respect many of them. But, of course, it's always --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Are you not ready then to say what Marco Rubio said, that you'd be one of the first people to support J.D. Vance if he runs?
LAWLER: Look, I like the vice president. We disagree on some things, but I like him very much. And I certainly think he will be a formidable candidate should he run, which obviously everybody anticipates that he will.
You know, I was asked the other day, about the polling between him and AOC. And, you know, I mean, at the end of the day, that would be a debate for all ages to watch J.D. Vance and AOC. If she chose to run for president from the left.
You know, I think the vice president is one of the smartest and most articulate members of our party as is the secretary of state. I don't see the two of them running against each other. Frankly, I think it's more likely that you'll have a Vance-Rubio ticket than anything else.
So, we'll see how this process plays out. But I certainly think the vice president is among the most formidable people on the stage today.
HUNT: All right. Fair enough. We saw him take the stage at the Turning Point USA conference in Phoenix over the weekend, where there was quite a bit of division on stage as well.
Donald Trump, Jr. said that this isn't the Republican Party anymore. He said it's the America first party, the make America great again party. I'm curious if you share that assessment, especially considering the kind of Republicans that you represent in your district.
LAWLER: Yeah. Look, Donald Trump is a singular force. And obviously was able to unify different factions within the Republican Party. But outside the Republican Party as well, and grow the tent, bring, you know, the blue collar working class voters to towards the Republicans, Latinos, et cetera.
So, I think the question will be how to actually make sure that whoever you know, is the standard bearer in 2028 and in the midterms, all of us running in the midterms in 2026, how do we actually broaden the tent? How do we broaden the base?
[16:40:00]
You're going to have robust debate. You see it on the Democratic side. You know, they are going through a battle right now, with the, you know, radical socialists that are primarying, you know, dozens upon dozens of members of Congress. So, this is healthy in America to have debate, to have you know, a free exchange of ideas.
We don't live in a dictatorship. We have a constitutional republic. And you need to allow for debate and conversation and difference of opinion. And obviously, within the Republican Party -- you know, I have different, different perspective on many of these issues than, you know, clearly, somebody like Tucker Carlson --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: I was going to ask you about that. I mean, does the Republican Party have an antisemitism problem?
LAWLER: I think there is an element within the party that, certainly has taken a very hard line against Israel. I would argue a lot of it rooted in antisemitism. I think you see a very big antisemitism problem on the left. And in the Democratic Party. And my perspective on this is neither side should tolerate it, neither side should accept that as you know, part of their base and/or part of the common discourse within their parties.
And so, I've been heartened to see, frankly including on that very stage that you referenced, that people were calling it out directly. That wasn't the case. On the Democratic side last year at the height of those protests on these college campuses. And as you see, you know, many fell in line behind Zohran Mamdani despite his antisemitic views.
HUNT: Before I let you go, Elise Stefanik announced she's dropping out of the New York governor's race. I saw that you spoke to one of my colleagues, Jake Tapper, and, said that you weren't quite ready to comment on what you might do. Have you reopened the door? Are you rethinking whether you're going to run for governor?
LAWLER: Look, I had a lot of people reach out over the last 72 hours, and certainly appreciate that outreach. I very much appreciate my colleague, Elise Stefanik. She's been a terrific member of Congress and a good colleague and friend. And I understand her decision and wish her and her family well in that process.
But I will not be running for governor. I'm sticking with Congress. This is a commitment I made to run for reelection. In my seat. I love what I do. I love representing the people of the 17th congressional district of New York and delivering on the issues that matter to my constituents from affordability and lifting the cap on SALT, to addressing the health care affordability crisis were facing as a country to standing up for our ally Israel and combating antisemitism.
And I'll continue to do that in a bipartisan way. I'm proud of the work that we've done during my three years in Congress and look forward to running for reelection next November.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Mike Lawler, thank you very much, sir. I really appreciate your time. I hope you come back soon.
LAWLER: Thank you.
HUNT: Merry Christmas. Happy holidays
All right. We are standing by for an announcement from the president and the secretary of defense amid the tensions with Venezuela.
CNN's senior White House reporter Kevin Liptak is in Florida with the president reporting on what we can expect.
Kevin, what do we know?
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yeah, we'll hear from them any moment now over at Mar-a-Lago, the president is set to announce a new type of battleship for the Navy. But where this gets interesting is what the president is considering calling this class of battleship. He's considering calling it the Trump class, essentially affixing his own surname to this entire new category of Navy vessel. Obviously, this is a pattern for the president putting his name on all
manner of things in Washington and beyond. This new battleship will be part of what the Navy is calling the golden fleet. They're updating their ships, their vessels, all meant to better counter China, but also to better adhere to the president's esthetic standards. He has complained behind the scenes, but also in public, that some U.S. Navy ships are ugly. He's used that word when he was talking to generals in Quantico earlier this year.
He said that I don't like the some of the ships you're doing esthetically. And so, this is all sort of a piece as the president works to update the Navy. Of course, the backdrop to all of this is the dramatic escalation in the Caribbean Sea, where we should note between 20 and 25 percent of the naval fleet currently is, as the U.S. puts this pressure on Nicolas Maduro as the U.S. interdicts these oil tankers that are going to and from Venezuela.
[16:45:07]
And so, an important moment for the president to perhaps update us on what his objectives are there as well -- Kasie.
HUNT: Fair enough. All right. Kevin Liptak, thank you very much for that update.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, the tumultuous 48 hours at "60 Minutes".
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: New details about a controversy now roiling CBS News. The newly installed editor in chief, Bari Weiss, is under fire for pulling this "60 Minutes" segment about the Trump administration's migrant deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
[16:50:01]
Her decision came after the network had been publicly promoting the story just hours before it was set to air.
In a statement to CNN, Weiss defended the move, saying this, quote, "My job is to make sure that all stories we publish are the best they can be. Holding stories that aren't ready for whatever reason that they lack sufficient context, say, or that they are missing critical voices, happens every day in every newsroom. I look forward to airing this important piece when it's ready."
The correspondent who worked on that story is disputing Weiss's statement, saying that the reporting team had requested comments from officials at DHS, the White House and State Department.
In an email to her CBS colleagues last night, correspondent Sharon Alfonsi wrote, quote, "After every rigorous internal check has been met is not an editorial decision. It is a political one. Government silence is a statement, not a veto. Their refusal to be interviewed as a tactical maneuver designed to kill the story. If the administration's refusal to participate becomes a valid reason to spike a story, we have effectively handed them a kill switch for any reporting they find inconvenient."
CNN chief media analyst Brian Stelter joins us now.
Brian, you have new information about the lead-up to this decision?
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: That's right. "60 Minutes" executive producer Tanya Simon talked with concerned staffers earlier today, and she said she supported the Alfonsi segment. She was not trying to stop it from airing, but she had to comply when Bari Weiss weighed in with those last minute questions and changes. This is a strange situation because of the timeline involved here.
Weiss was involved in the review of the story last week. She screened it ahead of time on Thursday night. She did not block it from airing initially. The announcement went out on Friday afternoon. Alfonsi lives in Texas. She taped her introduction. She flew back home. Everybody thought this was ready to go.
Then on Friday night, perhaps a total coincidence, President Trump railed against "60 Minutes" and CBS again at a rally. Then at some point Friday night, Saturday morning, Weiss emailed Simon, messaged Simon with her specific concerns, essentially pulling back the segment, deciding it should not air.
Weiss is focusing on the lack of a response from the Trump administration. She says she wants an on camera, on the record interview with someone like Stephen Miller, addressing the abuses that have been alleged at that prison in El Salvador.
But as you just mentioned, Alfonsi's argument is that if you wait around for the administration to comment and they decide to never engage, then you're giving the government a kill switch for the story. So there's a lot of concern inside CBS about why this happened, and a lot of questions about whether a parent company, Paramount, is involved.
All of this unfolding on the same day that Paramount revised its offer for Warner Bros. Discovery, that hostile takeover bid for WBD, including CNN now continuing to press forward. So far, WBD has not responded.
So that's a little bit of the business as well as the political backdrop for this drama.
HUNT: And, Brian, are any of the people that are actually featured in this report in the "60 Minutes" report speaking out now?
STELTER: Yes, and I'm really interested in that part because there's now so much more interest in this report. A lot of people wondering, is it ever going to air? Weiss has said that it will air at some point, but she's also been critical of the reporting. She said it didn't advance the ball enough because "The New York Times" and others reported on this prison last month.
You'll recall CNN was there on the ground earlier this year.
So, here's what the human rights watch executive director said in a statement to CNN. He pointed out that human rights watch was going to be featured in this segment. And he said, quote, "The allegation that CBS pulled its segment featured in our report for political reasons is troubling, especially in light of pressures on press freedom in the U.S. we look forward to the segment airing."
Human Rights watch went on to say, the evidence is clear, regardless of what airs the Trump administration disappeared. This Venezuelan men to a mega prison in El Salvador, where they were systematically tortured.
Now, Alfonsi has some testimonies on the record from some of these men. Of course, many viewers now want to hear them. Theres a lot more curiosity as a result.
We also heard today from FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez. She's the lone Democrat on the commission. And she said, quote, "The public has the right to question how CBS will ensure the independence and integrity of its journalism going forward" -- Kasie.
HUNT: Brian, has there been a commitment from CBS to air this at some point?
STELTER: Sort of. Right. So last night, Weiss said yes. She said she looked forward to it in the future. But, you know, going forward it is very hard to get some clear answers out of CBS News about this. And, of course, we're in the holiday season. So, it's not as if this was going to be airing next Sunday.
So, the question marks surrounding this segment are very real. And that's largely because of the political situation.
Paramount, the parent company of CBS, has tried to ingratiate himself with the Trump administration in recent months and frankly, staffers at CBS have been dreading a moment like this, dreading a moment where it feels as if political pressure is affecting the newscast.
HUNT: All right. Brian Stelter, thanks very much for that report. I really appreciate it.
Okay. All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks to my panel. Very much appreciate you guys being here. Thanks to you at home for watching as well.
Don't forget, you can now stream THE ARENA live, catch up whenever you want in the CNN all access app. That QR code is right there on your screen. You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. Theres another QR code for that, also on your screen. You can also follow the show on X and Instagram. We are at THE ARENA CNN. I'm also on TikTok @KasieCNN, so you can find me there, too.
Phil Mattingly is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Phil.
