Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Rages As Key Intel Official Quits Over Iran & Allies Rebuke Help; Trump Slams NATO As Allies Rebuff His Call For Help In Iran; GOP Chair Of Oversight Committee Subpoenas Bondi In Epstein Probe. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 17, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: But the red version, yeah, what's going on here?
[16:00:03]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Okay. I actually really like these, but I want them together. Like I want the shorts to be the blue, and I want this. Otherwise, you're -- you might be in danger of like a where's Waldo World Cup edition
JIMENEZ: Santa's elves situation debate, hopefully with this will continue with Kasie Hunt and "THE ARENA" starting right now
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Tuesday.
Right now here in Washington, the Trump administration suffering its first major defection over the war with Iran. This morning, Joe Kent announced his resignation as director of the National Counterterrorism Center. He writes this, quote, I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation and its clear we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby, end quote.
It is worth noting that during an unsuccessful congressional campaign, Kent was criticized for past interactions with white nationalists and a Nazi sympathizer. At the time, Kent disavowed those extremists, claimed not to know who one of them was.
Here was how President Donald Trump reacted this morning to Kent's resignation and his comments about the threat from Iran
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I read his statement. I always thought he was a nice guy, but I always thought he was weak on security, very weak on security. When somebody is working with us that says they didn't think Iran was a threat, we don't want those people because -- and there are some people, I guess, that would say that, but they're not smart people or they're not savvy people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, this high profile resignation comes as this war escalates with no apparent end in sight. Today, we've seen new airstrikes across Iran, and overnight, a drone attack near the American embassy in Baghdad.
As for Kent's stated reason for his resignation, his claim that Iran posed no immediate threat to the United States, that raises questions about the core arguments that the Trump administration has made since the lead up to the start of this war, as it continues, again with no apparent end in sight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE WITKOFF, TRUMP ENVOY: They're probably a week away from having industrial -- industrial grade bomb-making material.
TRUMP: They're working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.
Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Iran had a conventional gun to her head as they tried to lie their way to a nuclear bomb.
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president had a feeling, again, based on fact, that Iran was going to strike, the United States was going to strike our assets in the region.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The president felt that he had to strike first to prevent those mass casualties.
TRUMP: Iran was a tremendous threat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here. And we're also joined by CNN's senior national security reporter, Zachary Cohen, and CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John miller.
Zach, I want to start with you.
What more are you learning in your reporting about Joe Kent's decision to resign?
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, Kasie, it's incredibly notable here that Joe Kent was not only a political appointee put in this position by President Donald Trump, but he's also somebody who has been a faithful MAGA supporter for several years now. In fact, really entering Trump's orbit based on his views that the 2020 election was effectively stolen and aligning with Trump in that regard.
Now, his resignation letter today is obviously being criticized for its alleged antisemitic undertones. But from a national security perspective, this issue of an imminent threat once again being pushed to the forefront. And this is something we've talked about at -- extensively, Kasie, as you know, back -- dating back to the beginning of this conflict, when Trump first cited the idea that Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States as the reason and justification for starting this military campaign.
Pentagon briefers, we've been told, really contradicted that in private, telling lawmakers that, no, there was no indication that Iran was planning to preemptively strike U.S. assets or abroad or try to target the U.S. at home. So that's been a lingering question that Joe Kent once again pushing into the limelight here. And he writes very clearly that Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation.
Now, obviously, the White House and even Joe Kent's now former boss, Tulsi Gabbard, pushing back on that, and asked on that today in the wake of Joe Kent's resignation, saying that they're -- Iran most certainly posed an imminent threat to the U.S. Tulsi Gabbard, though a little more hedging in her language, saying effectively that Trump was presented with all the information. And he decided that there was an imminent threat that warranted this military action.
[16:05:00]
So, this is going to continue to be an issue that's going to be debated going forward. Obviously, Joe Kent's history and his background will also play a factor into this. But from a national security perspective again, the Trump administrations justification for launching this military campaign, a question mark and remains one.
HUNT: Yeah, and John Miller, you obviously deeply sourced in our law enforcement and intelligence communities. What do you make of this resignation?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, it's complicated and fascinating. First of all, we should cover what is the NCTC. What is it that he's the director of? Why does it matter?
It is not some government think tank. The National Counterterrorism Center is the bullseye. It's the place where the CIA, the NSA, the DIA, the NGA, the DNI, all of the intelligence agencies, the FBI and DHS come together. They put all their marbles on the table. If there's a place where they're going to connect the dots, the NCTC was created to do that. It is an essential hub of the intelligence community, particularly when it comes to terrorism.
So, what is Joe Kent doing there as its director? He was picked because of his background as a Green Beret. Before that, an Army Ranger. After that, a CIA paramilitary special forces leader. He's someone who has a lot of ground experience highly decorated American hero, 16 bronze stars.
Remarkable in that sense, although not with the depth in the intelligence world or leading a large complex organization that an NCTC director before him, that he or she would have had. So, not a natural choice, but a Trump loyalist. And that, as you all know, has become an essential in important jobs.
But you know, as this letter came out today saying it was a manufactured war by Israel, just like the one against Iraq was, and that we were tricked and drawn into it, a lot of what is going to harken back are things that came up during his failed congressional campaign and his confirmation hearing. Associations with Nick Fuentes who he contacted in 2021, who was an avowed antisemite, Holocaust denier, Nazi sympathizer who also had dinner with Donald Trump at Mar- a-Lago at one point, his contacts with members of the Proud Boys. So that will become an overlay to discuss whether this was about his beliefs based on intelligence or about politics, or about his views on Israel.
HUNT: Now, of course.
All right, Zach Cohen, I want to say thank you to you, really appreciate your reporting,
John, you're going to stand by for us as we continue this discussion with our panel, which is here in THE ARENA. The host of "The Chuck Toddcast", Chuck Todd; former Biden White House communications director, CNN political commentator, Kate Bedingfield; and former Republican congressman from Louisiana, Garret Graves. We're also joined by the retired Major General James "Spider" Marks.
Thank you all for being here.
And, General Marks, let me just start with you here. I mean, how did you take in what Kent is saying here about why he's doing this? And what do you think the implications are for the war effort?
MAJ. GEN. JAMES "SPIDER" MARKS, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, the NCTC, I know it quite well is a phenomenal organization created in the, you know, the aftermath of 9/11 and has provided some incredible targeting information, as John Miller described so aptly, it brings it all together critical position. I don't personally know Joe Kent. I know the kind of person he is and the experiences he has have -- has had over the course of many, many years, multiple combat tours. As described, he's an American patriot.
You get into whether his departure now is going to alter the engagement packages in the campaign that were creating or we have now begun and are really in the midst of against Iran. I'm not saying when that it really matters in that particular case. Look, the NCTC really has a bench of incredible strength and the next person up is going to be able to fill those shoes. So, I think we need to take this for whatever his personal, we've all read his letter, whatever his personal concerns are, put those to the side, understand what the NCTC can do, get about the business of doing that without interruption.
HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough.
Chuck Todd, I mean, one thing that this underscores is the degree to which the president did or didn't sell his war effort with those who have been his most loyal supporters in the MAGA wing.
I mean, here was Tucker Carlson's reaction to Joe Kent stepping down. He says this, quote, "Joe is the bravest man I know, and he can't be dismissed as a nut. He's leaving a job that gave him access to highest level, relevant intelligence. The neocons will now try to destroy him for that. He understands that and did it anyway."
CHUCK TODD, HOST OF "THE CHUCK TODDCAST": Look, I think I want to underscore something Zach was reporting about Tulsi Gabbard's statement. The fact that she was very careful because, I mean, you know, Tulsi Gabbard's -- arguably, her entire political identity has been around, you know, her reasoning for leaving the Democratic Party and supporting Donald Trump was to prevent a war against Iran.
[16:10:07]
So -- if I was looking for the first resignation in the intelligence community, and I actually expected it to be from Tulsi Gabbard.
HUNT: OK.
TODD: The fact that this is among her deputies, I think, is not surprising.
But what I find fascinating by this is a couple of things. One is it's quite the Rorschach test on your own political views, right? If you're against the war, you pick, you can cherry pick from a statement. If you're for it, you can go after certain aspects of it.
But I look at it in a couple of different ways. Way number one, this reminds me of the Marjorie Taylor Greene split.
HUNT: Right.
TODD: I think Joe Kent was a true believer. And so, you've now -- just like Marjorie Taylor Greene, a true believer in the MAGA movement really thought that Trump said what he believed when it came to foreign wars. I think really saw himself more in that this, you know, sort of old/new wing of the Republican Party that's more isolationist. Hey, what are we doing here? Right?
So, in some cases, this is, I think, a canary in the coal mine on that aspect of it. But the other thing that's been very troubling to me about this, besides the fact that he didn't prepare the country for this and sell the rationale for it was the president also has not warned the country that we are more vulnerable today. We are less safe today, particularly those of us living in Washington because of this war than we were before the war started. It's just -- it's just a fact and nobody would see that any clearer than somebody working at the national counterterrorism center.
HUNT: Congressman, do you see it the way Chuck just outlined there? I mean, especially the considerations inside the party?
GARRET GRAVES, (R) FORMER LOUISIANA CONGRESSMAN: I don't know that I do. Look, number one, Joe Kent wasn't elected president. Donald Trump was.
Number two, Trump has a much broader array of considerations than just those that Joe Kent's looking at. And the second thing that I can't get over, Joe Kent's letter said that there was no imminent threat. So, are we supposed to wait for Iran to get a nuclear weapon and then we go?
Like, this doesn't make sense to me I will tell you if 50 years ago if I were president and had a chance to go prevent North Korea from ever getting a nuclear weapon because they're crazy as Iran is crazy, has killed American soldiers, largest funder of terrorism across the globe, I would have gone in and prevented North Korea. And I think that what President Trump is likely doing in this case is preventing Iran from becoming a North Korea and cutting off the largest funder of terrorism in the world.
HUNT: Worth noting Tulsi Gabbard posted this at 3:32, just a short while ago, "As our commander in chief, he, Donald Trump, is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat."
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, but it's interesting because the president and his --
TODD: Don't look at me. Don't blame me. I'm just the DNI here.
BEDINGFIELD: But you know, the president and his team are not making as cohesive and coherent a case as you just did, Congressman. I mean, they're not -- they're not making an argument, you know, from the person on down that this was an effort to prevent an imminent threat to defang Iran's nuclear capabilities. In fact, we were told after the bombing last summer that their nuclear capabilities had been obliterated.
So, I think the fact that what the American people are consistently hearing from the administration is an array of different excuses, an array of different reasons. They're not making a clear, concise argument to the American people. And so, now, you have somebody sitting in a job in the CTC who, by the way, I and many other Democrats would have argued should have never been there in the first place.
So, this is not, you know, this is not an argument for you know, for Joe Kent to be in that role. But the idea that what the average American is going to see today is a significant counterterrorism figure in President Trump's administration has now stepped down because he doesn't believe that the case that the administration is sort of haphazardly making is accurate. That's not a -- that's not a convincing message for an American public. That is weary of this incursion in the first place.
HUNT: Yeah, I want to play chuck for you. Something that Congressman Jared Moskowitz said about Joe Kent here, because we have seen some Democrats seize on this letter that he wrote to say that, you know, they were right on the policy of Iran. But Moskowitz had some comments about the person that Joe Kent is.
Let's watch what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL): He may have been confirmed by the senate. He wasn't confirmed by Democrats. He was confirmed by Republicans. Okay? This is a guy who was a went on Nazi sympathizer, podcasts. You know, this is someone who has espoused pro-Kremlin. He's not exactly the messenger here that I think we should be putting up, even if you agree with some of his points in the letter.
So, I'm glad he's gone. You know, he should never have gotten that position, quite frankly. He ran a very extreme campaign with you know, racist Islamophobic sort of language when he ran for Congress, when he lost, which is why he wound up in the administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And chuck this was Joe -- Josh Gottheimer, "Joe Kent resigning and immediately pivoting to blaming Israel for everything is as predictable as it is unserious. Scapegoating Israel isn't just a tired antisemitic trope. It's anti-American, then he calls him a guy with ties to white supremacist and has panzer tattooed on his arm, which refers to a Nazi tank infamously used in crimes against Jews.
[16:15:05]
TODD: This is what I mean when it's like this is such a -- this -- there's so much to grab at. It is why I view it almost as a Rorschach test for the -- for the critics, as much as the person who he is. I mean, look, the reason a Democrat represents the district in Washington state that he ran in, Marie Gluesenkamp-Perez is because of this candidacy. He was that out there, that far out of the mainstream.
But you know, look the -- this smearing of all things, you know, Israel when it comes to this decision is something the administration themselves have invited. And it's very frustrating to watch when, especially when Marco Rubio said what he said, right? That was the statement that is sort of, I think, done the most damage to people that are trying to be supportive.
HUNT: When he said -- well, Israel was going to go ahead and --
TODD: Going to do this.
HUNT: So, we needed to do it.
TODD: Yeah. And it was this. And I was like, oh great. You know, and we do you have a unification of the anti-Israel left and anti-Israel right on this and it's collectively, I don't know if you've seen this, but there's some new polling for the first time. There's more sympathy to the more -- the less sympathy for Israel. It used to be.
I think Gallup asked this question, more sympathy towards the Israelis or the Palestinians. And it was always the Israelis would have the plurality advantage. No longer anymore because of what's happening here on the far right and the far left, where Israel is being used as this wedge issue.
HUNT: Yeah. General Marks, we're wrapping up here, but I wanted to ask you big picture here where do you think things stand in this conflict as the president clearly under some political pressure, we have seen him kind of go through moments where he seems to want out the Strait of Hormuz, has become a significant challenge for him.
How do you -- how bad do you think things really are here? How much control does the president have right now over how this ends
MARKS: Look, I think we started this with a level of strategic clarity and tactical brilliance. And then we got lost. Anything beyond nukes and missiles and proxies I think is unnecessary. It's excessively punitive.
So, relative to the straits of Hormuz -- look, the United States Navy has got the capacity, that maritime air campaign that's ongoing right now can open those straits. And oh, by the way, we talk about open and closed. They're not open or closed. They're disrupted.
But the United States Navy has the capacity to do that. Whether they are given that mission or not is a policy decision. We don't jump into the middle of the policy stuff. We tell them what the capabilities are. And yeah, we can do it and here's the amount of time we need. And if there's any other additional resources please, here's what they look like.
But I think where we are now is absolutely essential that within the next couple of days, you've got to relieve pressure on the tankers coming through. That can be done by our navy and if other nations don't get on board, I got it. It's a little late to ask for help. Should have done that a priority.
HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough.
All right. Retired Major General Spider Marks, very grateful to have you on the show. Hope you'll come back.
John Miller, thanks to you as well.
The rest of our panel is going to stand by.
Coming up, were going to talk with a former CIA director about what exactly Joe Kent's resignation means for U.S. intel efforts and the current state of the war.
Also this hour, the Republican controlled oversight committee now officially issuing a subpoena to a member of the president's cabinet.
Plus, the new warning from a top TSA official about what could be next if lawmakers don't work out a deal on money for DHS.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADAM STAHL, TSA ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR: As the weeks continue, if this continues, it's not hyperbole to suggest that we may have to quite literally shut down airports.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:23:10]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We don't need help. You know, we've -- we've -- that war is -- has been long prosecuted as far as I'm concerned. I think NATO's making a very foolish mistake. And I've long said that, you know, I wonder whether or not NATO would ever be there for us.
So, this is a -- this was a great test because we don't need them, but they should have been there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump today announced that NATO countries will not aid in his war against Iran. Trump's prior ask for assistance in securing the Strait of Hormuz, apparently was just a test after all, one that they apparently didn't pass, according to the president who fumed in a Truth Social post that the U.S. never needed or desired NATO's help in the first place, adding, quote, "We do not need the help of anyone."
Joining us now in THE ARENA, Leon -- is Leon Panetta. He, of course, served as defense secretary and CIA director in the Obama administration.
Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for spending some time with us today.
I'm very interested to know what your assessment is of the American capability to secure this strait alone. And what difference NATO could make here -- what are we sacrificing by not having asked for their help in a way that made them willing to give it?
LEON PANETTA, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Well, you know, I think the problem here is the president did not consult with our allies, didn't pull together our allies before going to war as kind of walked away from our alliances. So I'm not -- I'm not surprised by the -- by the reaction because frankly, the president needs to have a plan of how we are going to open the Strait of Hormuz and then what role our allies can play in that effort. And as far as I can see, there is no plan, and that's the problem.
[16:25:01]
Look, the president's between a rock and a hard place right now when it comes to the war in Iran. The objective was to change the regime. That's not going to happen. The regime is more entrenched than ever.
The president has virtually declared victory. I mean, we have obtained, I think, a lot of our military goals. But the problem is you're not going to get a ceasefire as long as the Straits of Hormuz are closed. And so it comes down to the United States having a responsibility now to basically open up the Straits of Hormuz. You're going to have to do that if there's any hope here that we can bring this war to an end.
Now, that's not going to be easy. It could involve expanding the war. It could involve boots on the ground. It could involve a lot of casualties.
But the bottom line is you've got to have a plan now to open the Straits of Hormuz, because right now, Iran has a gun to the United States head because it's the largest disruption of oil. It's going to damage our economy. It's going to damage the world economy.
We're not going to be able to end this war as long as the Straits of Hormuz are closed.
HUN: Fairly dire assessment. And, you know, it's worth noting that global prices, oil prices settled today at $103.42 which is the highest since the start of the war -- the highest since July of 2022.
Mr. Secretary, you're someone who has seen everything there is to see about our defense strategy. And one thing that we have been reporting here is CNN, is that the Trump administration effectively underestimated the willingness of the Iranians to close the Straits of Hormuz. It's not to say that we didn't have a plan, right? I mean, the United States of America has had a plan in place for the possibility that this could happen.
Do -- if you had been inside the administration considering this as a range of military options, would you have told them to expect the Iranians to do what they did in terms of closing the strait?
PANETTA: No, absolutely. As a matter of fact, when I was -- when I was director of the CIA and secretary of defense, in our discussions about Iran in the National Security Council, it was always, always determined that one of the vulnerabilities was the fact that they could close the Straits of Hormuz and how would we keep the Straits of Hormuz open if we suddenly had a conflict with Iran?
So, it's a little bit -- I mean, from my experience, it was based on a national security process that involved bringing all of the key players into the National Security Council with the president walking through the plans for any type of crisis, talking about the consequences that would take place and what we would do if those consequences occurred. And in discussing any kind of attack on Iran, clearly, it needs to be -- it needed to be raised that the Straits of Hormuz were likely to be closed. And what is our plan in order to deal with that?
I don't think there was a plan that was prepared or we would have seen it take place. So they're now trying to do catch up. And that's not easy because you've got a lot of -- of our military assets are deployed in the area in different places. Youve got to bring them together. You're going to have to focus on an area probably around 50 miles on either side of the strait, plus 100 miles inland. That has to be cleared.
It could very well involve putting boots on the ground. It's going to involve putting heavy air intense air cover over it with help armed helicopters, F-35s and its going to involve bringing a lot of aegis destroyers there in order to be able to provide armed escorts for any ships going through.
That's -- those are the -- that's what you need. And I think the longer this goes on, the more damage that's going to be done to our economy and the world economy. That's why the president has to act quickly here. He can't wait for allies. He can't wait for Israel. This is the United States's war. We've got to act.
HUNT: A pretty dire warning there. Former defense secretary and CIA director, Leon Panetta, thanks very much for spending some time with us today. I really appreciate it, and I hope you'll come back soon
PANETTA: Good to be with you.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next, what the Justice Department is now saying and not saying about that congressional subpoena for Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Plus, just when might there be public hearings on Capitol Hill over the Iran war?
[16:30:00]
Democratic Congressman Jason Crow, a veteran of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, will be here live.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Why has the House not heard testimony from a cabinet official about this war?
JOHNSON: I don't know if you've noticed, but they gave -- they've given us multiple briefings --
RAJU: A public hearing, a public hearing.
JOHNSON: Well --
RAJU: Not classified briefing.
JOHNSON: Well, it's still -- we're in the midst of a couple of weeks long operation that's very sensitive in its mission and scope.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: We're following breaking news right now on Capitol Hill. The Republican-led House Oversight Committee has now officially subpoenaed Attorney General Pam Bondi as part of its investigation into the Epstein files. The move comes two weeks after the committee voted to subpoena the A.G. to testify about her role in the release of the files.
[16:35:05] CNN's Annie Grayer has been covering this for us, channel, and she joins me now.
Annie, do we know? Does she intend to comply?
ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Kasie, the Department of Justice spokesperson, says that this subpoena is, quote, completely unnecessary, but because they say the department has been complying and helping lawmakers throughout this process, but they don't rule out whether or not they're going to comply with the subpoena.
But this subpoena is a big deal and this Republican-led investigation, because it's not just Democrats, but Republicans have questions for the attorney general. There's been bipartisan frustration on Capitol Hill about how the Department of Justice has handled the release of the Epstein files and the redaction process. And that got us to the point of a subpoena for deposition in April.
And in the letter that House Oversight Chair James Comer wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi, he said, quote, "The committee has questions regarding the Department of Justice investigation to Jeffrey Epstein and his associates and its compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act. As attorney general, you are directly responsible for overseeing the department's collection, review and determinations regarding the release of files pursuant to the Epstein Files Transparency Act and the committee therefore believes that you possess valuable insight into these efforts.
Now, Comer said a deposition date of April. We'll see how the negotiations for that plays out. But in the meantime, the attorney general and her deputy Todd Blanche, are planning to brief members on the Oversight Committee tomorrow to answer any questions that they have. In the meantime, I'm told from a source that the DOJ offered this briefing because they know that the setting up a deposition could take a long time.
But this really is a rare moment where were seeing Republicans being willing to ask questions of this Trump administration, specifically the Department of Justice.
HUNT: All right. Annie Grayer for us on Capitol Hill -- Annie, thank you very much.
And CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams is now joining our panel. Worth noting he previously served as deputy assistant attorney general at DOJ.
Elliot, I'll give this one to you to start. What is the precedent here? Is there a precedent here? And I mean normally, Congress expects cabinet officials to show up when told. They usually do. Do you think she's going to?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I don't know, there absolutely is a precedent here, Kasie. And I think many viewers may not be aware that after funding the government, oversight of the executive branch is probably the most important thing Congress does. And to your point, there's a long tradition of cabinet officials coming to Congress to answer questions.
Now --
HUNT: They don't like it.
WILLIAMS: They don't like -- they don't like it at all. They don't like it at all. But it is their duty and it is their responsibility as a branch of government. Now to Annie's point, this is a very important one about the timing here.
It's not entirely clear that this could happen on April 14th, which is the note in the subpoena, only because there is now a process of negotiating the terms of this subpoena. When does it happen? Where does it happen? Are there cameras in the room? Is there a transcription? Is there a recording of it?
And to use a recent example, everybody remembers Hillary Clinton sort of blowing her top a couple weeks ago when someone took a cell phone photograph in the room during her deposition well, because that's -- that was a term that was negotiated with Congress over how the subpoena would play out those are the kinds of things that they're going to work out here.
So, I would expect a bunch of back and forth right now between the attorney general and congress about exactly how this testimony could go if it doesn't. Yeah.
HUNT: Well, Congressman Graves, I mean, this is the second topic today where we've had a split between MAGA and some of the things that they're wanting and looking for. And President Trump and the people that serve under him.
I mean, what does it say to you that Comer and other Republicans were willing to vote to have this happen in the first place?
GRAVES: Well, Kasie, look you got to go back to the original act that was passed where you basically had some detractors that effectively grabbed the gavel. They hijacked the committee and took off and in this case, Jamie Comer is smart enough to know how to count votes. And I think that he had one option here and it was to get in front of the majority.
So, that's the first point. I don't think he necessarily likes where he is right now but I think he will say it again. He can count votes. Secondly, this does put Bondi in a catch-22 because if she doesn't show up, then this is undermining the subpoena of Congress and presents some constitutional issues. If she shows up and says something different then it puts her in a quandary because she has potentially perjured herself by not complying with the original law.
So, this really is a difficult situation, but I think it is largely being driven by some folks that to some degree are looking for attention, but also it's the fact that people really are concerned about what happened with Epstein and want to understand --
HUNT: And the reality is, I mean, what we've learned from the files that have been put out there does not do anything to assuage the concerns of people who say, we need to see more of it.
GRAVES: Well, but, Kasie, that's because sometimes you can -- and look, I haven't seen it. So, I don't know the answer to this, but sometimes you can create a monster and you try and go there and fulfill it.
[16:40:03]
And it's -- you can't. And so, I understand that people have these large expectations, but if the evidence doesn't truly fulfill that, I don't know what to tell you. You got to go somewhere else.
And so, we're going to have to ultimately get to the situation where all the information is clearly verified and out there, and then we can draw our own conclusions. But until then, all we're doing at this point is speculating. I think that DOJ is going to have to come to the table. They're going to have to try and find some way to be more transparent and give more confidence to Congress that they have provided all the information.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, Chuck, Pam Bondi's handling of the Epstein files has been something that has definitely gotten her crosswise with her big boss.
TODD: Well, but she brought it on herself when she started with the binders, that --
HUNT: She had the list on her desk.
TODD: Right. And the look she brought, she definitely brought a lot of these problems on herself. But I want to underscore something the congressman said, because it actually I'm going to -- and I -- and I don't mean to compare this to the JFK conspiracy in this respect, but I'm --
HUNT: Going to anyway.
TODD: But I am.
In that if you believe there's something there, no amount of information is going to be enough if it doesn't confirm what you believe is there, right? I have a -- you know, there's no amount of information -- for those that believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, no matter what government information is released, that doesn't necessarily. It -- they're like well, there must be there must be more that is hiding.
I think the Epstein story has fallen into this version of things there are, I think look, I think what we've seen is bad enough, don't get me wrong. And I don't want to dismiss that aspect of it. But I do think you're right that this is an unfulfillable, right. I think there are going to be those that its unfulfillable.
Now, politically this is just I -- you know, this is what happens when you overpromise and under-deliver, right? And, you know, this is you put it back on the president, you know, he
told he tells a lot of different various pieces of his faction, what they want to hear. It's his salesman brilliance. He tells everybody what they want to hear in the moment. Eventually, people come back and want to actually say, take you at your word, and that's what's getting them in trouble.
BEDINGFIELD: I -- there's -- I agree there's some element of, you know, for a core group of people who believe in a lot of deeply entrenched conspiracy theories around this, there may be no document that they can see that's going to satisfy them. I think that is true.
But I also think the information that has come to light, as in the course of these documents being released, has been shocking to a lot of people who were paying no attention, had never really thought about Jeffrey Epstein or any of his crimes. And I think that the handling, I think that Pam Bondi and the Department of Justice handling of this has created this this scenario where, again, people who were not otherwise invested are now demanding to see information because they have the perception that the Justice Department has not been forthcoming.
And in fact, Congress had to get involved and force them to put these documents out.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Look, Prince Andrew got arrested which is more than what happened.
TODD: Right, I do think that the Justice Department is sort of -- they're trapped by this. There's one part where you like you're uncomfortable releasing unverified information. I think there's real -- there's real concerns by some people at the Justice Department.
And at the same time, if you -- you know, that's just what we've done here. We're just releasing everything.
HUNT: Right
TODD: And it has created a weird precedence. But I'll tell you this, we now have former presidents that are going to go before Congress and sitting cabinet members. This is quite, quite something, precedence
HUNT: Yes.
GRAVES: So did I just hear you say that Lee Harvey Oswald is responsible for Epstein's death? Is that -- is that what I got?
HUNT: You did not hear that here first. Okay. No.
TODD: Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?
HUNT: No. All right, we have to go to break.
Elliot Williams, thank you. When you come back, you're going to have to tell us if Pam can prosecute herself, if she doesn't show up. We unfortunately, are out of time.
Ahead here in THE ARENA, intelligence committee member, Congressman Jason Crow, will be here ahead of public testimony by the director of national intelligence as the war in Iran nears two and a half weeks.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Our military objectives are being accomplished day after day. It's a methodical and deliberate effort because it's a very big country with a lot of weapons. But anyone who says that were already losing or we're in a quagmire, or the president can't succeed because of the threat that Iran poses to the Hormuz right now is akin to saying Eisenhower is losing because he hadn't made it to Berlin within two weeks of D-Day. It's going to take some time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:39]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
Today's sudden resignation of Joe Kent as director of the National Counterterrorism Center is raising new questions about the start of the Iran war, with Kent saying in his resignation letter that Iran posed no imminent threat to the U.S.
Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Jason Crow. He's a member of the intelligence and armed services committees and, of course, a former Army Ranger and combat veteran.
Congressman, this resignation from Joe Kent again, discussing this imminent threat question -- I want to read to you something that the director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, put on social media at 3:32 p.m. today. She said that Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our president and commander in chief. As our commander in chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat.
Is that accurate, in your view? Is it the president that gets to decide if there's an imminent threat to the United States?
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Well, Kasie, first of all, we should try to figure out which Tulsi Gabbard were dealing with here, whether it's Tulsi Gabbard that several years ago didn't want war in the Middle East and said war with Iran would be foolish, or the Tulsi Gabbard that's running around, showing up at election offices around the country, showboating for Donald Trump and trying to curry her -- his favor.
[16:50:06]
So, I don't know. I mean, it's hard to tell who we're dealing with at any given moment. But you know, her comment, her tweet that only the president and president alone can determine what's a threat and only the president and president alone can determine what needs to happen to address it. If that were true, then there should be no Congress. There should be no war powers. There should be no Constitution, which of course, we know is what this president wants.
Too bad that Congress is here I am here, and we're going to try to stop it and stop this reckless war and put the American people back in the driver's seat.
HUNT: I want to ask you briefly about the resignation of Kent. Again, he used a number of antisemitic -- touched on antisemitic tropes in this resignation letter. Do you think Democrats should be sort of full throated in their support for him?
CROW: No, absolutely not. I mean, we would be here a long time discussing all the things that I disagree with Joe Kent on and that I frankly am appalled by his beliefs. But he's right here, right? I mean, he actually has security clearances. He has access to information. His job has put him in the driver's seat of seeing what is imminent and what's not.
He's been very clear. There's no imminent threat. Just like I have seen whether there's imminent threat or not. And there isn't. Right?
I'm on the intel committee. I'm on the armed services committee. Nothing has changed in the last nine months. The only thing that has changed is that Donald Trump has decided on a whim to launch the United States of America into another war in the Middle East.
Americans don't want it. Working class folks don't want it. The people that I grew up with and fought these wars in the past don't want it. It's got to come to an end.
HUNT: Congressman, we learned over the weekend the administration is sending a marine expeditionary unit to the Middle East. Have you been briefed on that as a member of the intelligence committee?
CROW: No, I haven't, and I find that pretty disturbing since Donald Trump has said that we've already won this war. And he's also said that this isn't a war. So, I'm confused what -- what's even happening here?
And frankly, it should be pretty appalling to every American that members of the armed services committee, the intelligence committee, that Americans have elected to conduct oversight, to make sure they're put in charge of when we send our sons and daughters to war don't know what's going on and what the administration's strategy is, because it seems to be getting worse. It seems to be devolving and spreading throughout the region, not getting better. At the same time that gas prices continue to skyrocket at the same time as we're spending $2 billion a day now on this war, $2 billion a day on this war.
We've spent over 20 billion at this point. This is really out of control.
HUNT: Sir. I was talking with the former defense secretary, CIA Director Leon Panetta, earlier in the program and he actually had a pretty dire portrait for the Strait of Hormuz. He basically said, listen, it's up to us. We're going to have to reopen the strait no matter what we do.
What is your understanding based on your briefings of what our policy is going to be on that, now that NATO has effectively said you're on your own?
CROW: Well, all of this underscores, Kasie, the fact that there's been no plan, there was no debate about this. There were no briefings about this. There was no plan.
Donald Trump, a couple of weeks ago, just decided to start a war because he wanted to, without any imminent threat, without any debate, without any accountability in congress, without any votes of the Americans, duly representatives in this in this capital. And here we are. Now, we're trying to figure out the path forward.
How do we get this straight open, which has a sizable amount of American energy that passes through it? How do we get the gas prices under control? How do we stop spending $2 billion a day in munitions? How do we actually protect our service members?
Probably the thing I'm most concerned about right now is that we have 50,000 American service members, these are my constituents' sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, who are over there, and I'm not sure we actually have the air defense capability and the interceptors and the munitions to protect them over the long run.
And Iran continues to sit on vast stockpiles of drones and missiles. This is a big, big problem. And at the same time, they just unleashed an enormous counterterrorism threat around the world. Iran has an incredible proxies -- counter -- terrorist proxies and networks and sleeper cells around the world.
The counterterrorism director just resigned today. Who's in charge? What's our plan to protect Americans both at home and abroad?
HUNT: All right. Congressman Jason Crow, thanks very much for being with us today. Really appreciate your time
CROW: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate you all being here on this new temporary, but new set to all of us.
For those of you at home, thank you so much for watching as well. Don't forget, you can now stream THE ARENA live or you can catch up whenever you want in the CNN app, you can scan the QR code below.
You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast, and you can follow the show on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.
But don't go anywhere now. Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Jake, you have like 30 seconds to scan the QR code this time.
