Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
WSJ: Trump Urges Pulte To Fire Intel Community Leaders; Blanche's Path To AG Confirmation Unclear Amid Bipartisan Skepticism; Platner Says He Won't End Senate Campaign Amid New Allegations. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 05, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Steel Russell, Sean Morrison, the "BravBros", thank you both. Appreciate your time.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: So much fun you guys.
SANCHEZ: And your passion for this. This is great.
STEEL RUSSELL, CO-HOST, "BRAVBROSS" PODCAST: Yeah, we love it. Thank you for having us.
SANCHEZ: Cheers.
KEILAR: I'm going to do -- I'm going to watch this tonight.
SANCHEZ: Let me know how it goes.
KEILAR: Okay. You should watch it, too, Boris.
SANCHEZ: I prefer reading books and, I don't know, other stuff.
KEILAR: THE ARENA with Kasie Hunt starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone, I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Friday.
Right now, first the hiring, then the firing. President Trump urging his new pick to oversee the nation's sprawling intelligence community to get rid of a sizable number of U.S. intelligence officials. It's part of the latest shakeup in the intel community under the Trump administration, and it's unlikely to be the last.
The president also telling "The Journal" today that he thinks the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is, quote, "unnecessary and or too big", suggesting he wants to get rid of it altogether. And today there are new details on Bill Pulte. He is, of course, the incoming acting DNI.
Sources telling CNN that the current housing official did not have even the lowest form of security clearance when the president announced him earlier this week. One of those sources says the vetting process for that clearance has now started, beginning with a basic request for background information. And while the president says he won't put him in the role permanently, he's standing by him amid bipartisan criticism and backlash.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, he's very smart. He's a person who's got high integrity, did a great job, and it's an acting position. It's not a permanent. He's not going to be permanent because, you know, I don't think he'd want to be permanent, but he's a very smart guy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
We're also joined by CNN senior national security correspondent. Zachary Cohen.
So Zach, what more are you learning about the president's plans for the DNI?
ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, Kasie, President Trump was, frankly, pretty honest with "The Wall Street Journal" when he was describing what he wants to see from his new acting DNI, Bill Pulte, and that's for him to start carrying out the process of firing a large number of U.S. intelligence officials, specifically at the Office of Director of National Intelligence, which he will oversee even if just for a brief period.
Now, Trump telling "The Wall Street Journal" about ODNI, quote, "I'd like to see it smaller. I think there are a lot of people in there that shouldn't be there." It was interesting because he went on to also say that he thinks that Pulte's acting title really does come with some benefits and potentially makes it easier for him to carry out the kind of things that President Trump wants.
He says, quote, "You're less shackled. It sort of gives you more power, you know, for a somewhat limited period of time."
And so that's even though it's going to be an acting role for Pulte, heard from Republicans and Democrats who have really criticized his lack of any obvious or queer national security experience or interaction with the intelligence community writ large. And as you mentioned in the open, we're reporting today that Pulte did not have any security clearance nor vetting done before he was tapped for this job, which seems to underscore what he is there to do. And according to Trump, that is at least in part to help get rid of some of these intelligence officials.
And it's worth noting and reiterating, Kasie, that President Trump has been very skeptical of the U.S. intelligence community, not just during this term, but going back to his first term in office. And this was a directive to essentially get rid of the, quote, deep state that he also gave to his now former DNI, Tulsi Gabbard. She did initiate some of those processes, but obviously he thinks that He didn't do quite enough. Now plugging in Pulte, who does not, again, have any sort of intelligence experience.
Really, there's an indication that he's never even interacted with classified information before. But it'll be interesting to see how he follows through on what President Trump is clearly indicating is his directive.
HUNT: Right, because the job is classified information, right?
COHEN: Exactly.
HUNT: All right. Zach Cohen, thank you, sir. Really appreciate your reporting.
My panel is here in THE ARENA, CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; CNN political analyst and historian Leah Wright Rigueur; CNN political commentator, former DNC senior advisor and communications director Xochitl Hinojosa; and former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short is here.
We are also joined by CNN national security analyst Beth Sanner, who previously served as the deputy director of national intelligence.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.
Beth, I want to start with you just because I'd like to clarify what the president said here about the idea that the act -- as an acting DNI, Pulte could have more power than one with Senate confirmation. True or false?
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I'm not sure that they would have more power. I think his point is is that he won't be shackled by belonging to the bureaucracy. He'll be kind of like an uber DOGE figure. And I think if we look at, you know, kind of the carnage that was created by DOGE, even though everybody would agree that much of the government bureaucracy is too big in places, that ODNI is too big in places.
[16:05:10]
But you don't want kind of a repeat of what we saw with DOGE, where you get people who are actually vital, like Ebola, like the Nuclear Safety Administration, like Iran linguists. You know, you can go on and on with this list of the kinds of people that they fired and then they had to bring back because, oops, they didn't realize that they were important. And someone who has no understanding and is just going in there and told to do surgery without having a medical degree is dangerous.
HUNT: Beth, I want to play something that the president said yesterday about elections, because that does seem to be a key focus here, as he looks at the DNI.
Let's watch what the president said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's an acting position. It's not a permanent. He's not going to be permanent because I don't think he'd want to be permanent. But he's a very smart guy, and he may find out some things about the rigged elections, et cetera, et cetera. I think he'd like to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: And of course, we saw his predecessor, Tulsi Gabbard, in Fulton County when they were seizing ballots. I mean, what, in your understanding, does the DNI have to do with elections?
SANNER: Very little. There is a very important part, which is foreign influence, but Tulsi Gabbard eliminated the part of the Office of Director of National Intelligence that was foreign malign influence that monitored foreign efforts to try to influence our elections. And so with that being gone, there's even less reason.
But mainly, I think it's really important for Americans to know that the director of intelligence and that organization, CIA, NSA, all of these organizations do not have the authorities to be involved in domestic issues, and the DNI and that organization do not have the authority to be involved in law enforcement issues. And so, you know, this is completely outside of what it was intended to be and it really gets into an area that I think most Americans would not be comfortable with, which is ironically you know -- maybe not ironically but this whole discussion about the 702 renewal which is about the collection of data and you know and so these are questions that are not unrelated in my mind.
HUNT: Yeah, for sure.
Marc Short, I mean, the president seems so focused on this, and there are some Democrats on the Hill, Mark Warner, actually chief among them, right, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote an op-ed in "The New York Times" a couple months ago, essentially with concerns that the Trump administration was going to use the intelligence apparatus in some way, declare some kind of national emergency to influence elections.
What is your view of where the president is on this and like what his goals are having, you know, been close to him in the first administration?
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO FORMER VP MIKE PENCE: I think that the use of Tulsi Gabbard to go down to Fulton County, Georgia and looking at voting records is absurd. I think if he were to use Pulte in the same way, it would be absurd. I think some of those concerns candidly are a little bit exaggerated, but I don't think he minds that sort of speculation that's out there.
I think that the Pulte nomination or throwing him out there is what Trump often does is to get people exercised and basically make a mockery of the confirmation process in many ways. But, you know, at risk of being at odds with Beth when I was fortunate to be in the Oval for many of her briefings and know how talented she is, I do think that -- I think that in the aftermath of 9/11, it's like our native reaction is always to say, hey, let's go create another federal bureaucracy.
And the intelligence communities operate in ways where they intentionally don't want to share information. And some will say, well, that's the purpose of it. But I question, honestly, 20 years later how really efficient it has been and its purpose. And so I, big picture, don't really disagree with the President on his desire to shrink it.
HUNT: Well, I certainly have to say when I was covering Capitol Hill, I heard bipartisan often criticisms or complaints about the DNI, usually when they weren't talking to members on the Hill accurately, right, or enough for their liking. But I do think it's worth underscoring here that if the president is saying he's going to go in and fire some people, what understanding does he have, to Beth's point, of the apparatus and what damage may or may not be done by that.
Here were a series of Republican senators talking about Pulte and whether or not they would support pushing it does not sound like there's going to be any sort of confirmation based on what the president said. But let's watch this is Cornyn, Tillis, some of our unshackled Republican friends on the Senate side. Watch.
[16:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): I see no -- no evidence of any qualifications for that job.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I think he's the worst form of sycophant and advisor to the president.
SEN. TODD YOUNG (R-IN): I'm waiting on the administration to explain to us his credentials.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-NC): Well, I think it's a funny pick, to say the least. It's interim for now. I guess we'll see.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Elliot Williams, not a lot of confidence there.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No, not a lot of confidence. No, I think it is important to talk about what the ODNI is. There's 18 intelligence agencies around the country, and ODNI is the Office of the Director of National Intelligence oversees them.
Eighteen is a lot. We're in agreement about that, and both you and Beth in some ways, Mark, made that point. I think the problem that we have here is the same thing that we had with DOGE, which is just this idea that if we go in and just start cutting people and just start firing people, everything will be fixed. It has to be done with a certain degree of care.
When we talk about the 18 agencies, these are intelligence agencies in the Army, the Navy, the Space Force, the NSA, and one cannot simply go in with a hatchet and just start firing people, particularly with the nation at war.
It needs to be done with far more care than certainly the President or Bill Pulte are capable of doing right now.
LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST & HISTORIAN: Yeah. So, I was going to say one of the lessons that has come out of DOGE already has been that yes, there is a need and there have been lots of presidents who have said we want to scale back on these different agencies, whether or across the federal government, but it has to be done with transparency and it has to be done with care and it has to be done over a significant amount of time. It's not something that you can just come in with a hatchet and take a, you know, take a hatchet to it and chop it up and say everything will be, you know, everything will be okay.
In fact, it has these very big repercussions when we go in. One of the things that we haven't talked about, I think, in terms of consequences of going in like this, unshackled, is that it tends to breed corruption, right? There's no transparency. There's no oversight. It's the president saying, do what you want.
And historically in these places, in these kinds of events before, we've seen it during the Reagan administration, we've seen it at times during the Clinton administration, we've certainly seen it during the Nixon administration, when there is no oversight, when there is no, you know, order. we actually see corruption over and over and over again.
HUNT: Xochitl Hinojosa, I mean, while I take everyone's point about DOGE and hatchets and things like that, Elon's -- Elon Musk's role with DOGE was broad, indiscriminate across the government, okay? This particular position, I mean, this is a person who has shown a willingness to find out a way to go after the president's named enemies in a very surgical way, specifically using information that was available to the government. So I think my question is, is this indiscriminate or is this very specific?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: To me, this seems very specific. And I think that Trump even signaled that in his statement. He said that there are less shackled for a limited period of time.
What is happening in the next few months? It's an election. It is a limited period of time. There is one purpose for having someone who is acting, who is loyal to the president, reports to the president, and also has a role in the elections in terms of determining whether or not there is interference.
We've already seen the president of the United States in the state of California talking about how there might be some something is happening in California. Why? Because it seems because it's taking a lot longer to count votes. That is just a little bit of what Trump does around an election.
He knows Democrats are about to sweep the House and maybe the Senate. He is preparing for that and he is preparing to use every potential tool at his disposal to sow doubt in the election and to potentially not seat the Congress. And I think that's what a lot of Democrats are thinking about as they're preparing for next year and a potentially contested election of some sort if Donald that uses the government to sow doubt there.
HUNT: Marc, do you want in on that?
SHORT: Look, I'm not sure California is the best example. I think a lot of Americans who wish California could run an election on time, and I know that it's mail-in ballots, but it seems you can have mail- in ballots come in before election day, so they continue to trip out and not know what the answer is for election results.
HINOJOSA: He doesn't have to sow doubt in the election. He's already, you know, I mean.
SHORT: I think it's pretty bipartisan. People are like, what the heck's going on in California? Why does it take so long?
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: I think we can all agree on that.
HINOJOSA: But no one thinks that there's interference, and that's what he is trying to insinuate. That's what he does every time. Every -- you know, he did this in 2020. We saw before our eyes, right? And he will continue.
SHORT: I think I left it. I know.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Beth Sanner, I want to give you the last word here. Do you think that this is or that this could be very specific?
SANNER: Sure. I mean, I think that this is the thing. I do think that CIA, I think John Ratcliffe will push back. I think that NSA will push back. It won't be that easy for someone, especially who doesn't know how the mechanisms work.
[16:15:04]
But I think that this is the danger. And I know Marc, I agree with Marc. I don't think we should be too hyperbolic yet, but we should definitely be paying attention because we've seen this movie before. Americans don't remember than in the 1970s, the reason we have oversight committees on the Hill, the reason we have the FISA court. The reason we're having this debate over 702 is because these agencies were spying on Americans and we can't go back to that.
HUNT: All right. Beth Sanner, thank you very much for being here. Really appreciate your expertise. The rest of the panel is going to stick around.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, Democratic Senator John Fetterman is here live. How he says he'll vote on Todd Blanche's nomination to be attorney general.
Plus, the candidate in a state that Democrats have to win if they want to control the Senate under new and growing pressure. What Graham Platner is saying about the latest story about his past.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM PLATNER (D), MAINE SENATE CANDIDATE: The fact that I was a bad boyfriend a decade ago, that's something I've talked about openly at length for quite some time in multiple places.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:20:31]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TILLIS: I haven't made a decision yet that the key for Todd or anybody going through Judiciary Committee has been pretty tight on January the 6th. They better not have said for one minute that the people that beat up police officers like these right down here were righteous people. You come even close to saying that, you don't have a chair of getting my vote in judiciary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: It remains unclear. Will the acting Attorney General Todd Blanche have enough support in the Senate to be confirmed into the role? Republican Thom Tillis there just among the several Republicans who have expressed concerns about Blanche's leadership on the DOJ's anti-weaponization fund. It's worth noting Congress did not kill it outright during their marathon vote session last night.
Democratic Senator John Fetterman, who in the past has bucked his party a number of times to confirm a Trump nominee, also saying yesterday he's a no on Blanche for attorney general.
And John Fetterman, Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, joins me now.
Senator Fetterman, thank you so much for being here in THE ARENA.
Why are you going to vote no on Todd Blanche if it comes to that?
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): Well, I mean the -- I just would like to remind people watching that it wasn't that long ago that it was very normal for members of the opposite party would vote for their nominees. I mean that really wasn't scandalous or outrageous and now, as you pointed out, there are some that I have voted for and I've been able to work together on them and that's actually been a really productive right now. So with him, I don't believe that someone that I could support.
I think everyone was collectively horrified by like that slush fund or whatever you want to call, like that 1776 fund whatever. I didn't even encounter anyone on the other side that even thought that was a great idea. So, overall, I mean the attorney general is never, ever the president's personal attorney, and so that would be, you know, my concern.
And now for me, I'm -- it's really not shocking that me -- that I wouldn't vote for him. You know, I evaluated, you know, all of them and met with all of the nominees and in this situation, it's pretty straightforward right now.
HUNT: So for you, opposition to Blanche is about the fact that he was the president's personal attorney and he backed this slush fund?
FETTERMAN: Well, I mean, you know, that's essentially what the president demands of his attorney general. Now, I suspect he'll have enough votes, you know, just on the Republican side, but vote overall, I would be surprised if there is a Democrat that's going to vote for him at this point.
And it's not like a personal thing. I'm not implying that he's breaking the laws or he's the thing, but it's just not someone that it wouldn't be my choice, and that's -- that's where I've been.
HUNT: Fair enough. I want to ask you also about the ongoing Senate race in Maine, where Democrats are on the verge of nominating a Graham Platner.
FETTERMAN: Oh, P-Hustle.
HUNT: Go ahead.
FETTERMAN: Yeah, P-Hustle. Yeah. Uh-huh.
HUNT: Can you, can you clarify, do you think that voters in Maine should back Susan Collins, the Republican, over Graham Platner, the Democrat, if that's the match-up in the fall?
FETTERMAN: I mean, that's -- I mean, clearly, P-Hustle is going to be the guy that the Democrats are going to pick on Tuesday. And now I think people have -- well agree. You know, at least at least in the caucus. They're all aware that he had a Nazi tattoo and he has been a membership at the Kik, the Kik online community and dropping, you know, texts and dick pics and other things with women up as last year.
And now, as "The New York Times" pointed out yesterday, he's had an abusive history of women that he dated. So people have the opportunity to evaluate, you know his -- his credentials and his behavior and the things that he's been saying online for -- for a while, whether it's slandering American soldiers and saying other things.
[16:25:08] I mean, it's pretty much people are aware.
HUNT: Let me follow up on something you said there because I don't think that we have this reporting. Did you say, or did Senate Democrats discuss Graham Platner posting pictures of his, you called it dick at, did you discuss this in a lunch?
FETTERMAN: No, what I'm saying is, is that he has been sending sexually explicit kinds of messaging with women.
HUNT: Right.
FETTERMAN: And I assume over the 10 years that he was a membership in that, you know, and I --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: So you're assuming that that's what he was doing. I just -- that's what I just wanted to follow up on, because if that's something that is in active conversation among Senate Democrats, I -- that I think would be of interest.
FETTERMAN: A guy, a guy that he talked about and described dicks. You know, he's already done that in his -- his writings and when he would used to sit in the port-a-potties, you know he would say that he would want to masturbate in them and describe those things.
So I mean he has very interesting kinds of --
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Glad my children aren't old enough to watch this show.
FETTERMAN: But again, I had invited P-Hustle. He could just -- he could just submit all of the messages that he sent to the dozen women last year. He could confirm that he is not sending those images and he really should really confirm that -- that all of those people that he was engaging in that were at least 18 years or older.
HUNT: So you want Graham Platner, the Maine nominee, to confirm that people that he was exchanging sexual messages with were over 18 because you're concerned that they were underage?
FETTERMAN: No, what I'm saying, like if I was a Maine voter, and I am not, I would have been concerned by some of these things, whether it's his 10 year old membership with Kik, and some of the other things. So it's clearly those things, but that's going to be the decision of the Maine voters, and I'd be surprised if he's not the one that prevails.
But I know we all understand that candidates have baggage, but in his case, he is baggage that happens to be a candidate. You know, incidentally.
HUNT: Do you think that it would be better for the country if the Senate stayed in Republican hands because Susan Collins kept that Maine Senate seat, then it would be to have Graham Platner be a senator.
FETTERMAN: No, what I'm saying is I'm a committed Democrat and now we have, I know at least two really outstanding Democrats in Maine, whether it's the current governor or Representative Golden. And then all across the map in America, we have insanely awesome kinds of candidates, you know, whether -- whether it's Georgia, whether in Texas, whether in Ohio or in Alaska all across the map, you know, we have them.
So I think it's fair to say that the situation in Maine is quite an outlier and is -- puts people in Maine to wonder is this really? It's the guy that we really want to lean in now and that's consistently been lying to the Democrats. He was just in Washington, D.C. a couple days ago and told them no, there won't be anymore sleazy any kind of more things. And then "The New York Times" thing dropped.
I think the next day after that, so he was aware of it. Now he is the saying in Texas for every ranch you see in Texas, there's 50 that you haven't seen. So there's probably a lot of ranches in P-Hustle's life and now, it's only June, between now and November. You probably -- probably be looking out for -0- for some more given the way that he is living.
HUNT: Considering "The New York Times" story and what it said, do you think Graham Platner should drop out of the race?
FETTERMAN: That is not my choice or that is my -- it's not up to me. Clearly, he -- P-Hustle is going to stay in the race and now that's going to be up to the Maine voters. I do believe he will prevail on the primary, but it's going to come down to Maine's voter and they're going to decide who's going to be the voice in the Senate.
HUNT: All right. Senator John Fetterman, thank you very much for joining us today, Sir. I appreciate it.
FETTERMAN: All right, thank you.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, more on some of the biggest Senate races and just how much candidates' character will come into play this midterm season.
Plus, inside the court arguments today over the White House ballroom, hear what the DOJ says when asked whether President Trump has the legal right to tear down the Statue of Liberty.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:34:22]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLATNER: That was a pretty dark period of my life after I came back from my combat service. And that's what that combat -- that's what that kind of life -- I firmly believe that if you believe in a transformational politics, you got to believe in the ability for people to transform. And my journey is one of transformation. I do expect the Republican
Party to fight as dirty as possible. And I expect them to try to create things. I expect them to try to drag stuff up consistently. But there won't be anything new.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Democratic Senate candidate in Maine, Graham Platner, defending himself last night after that "New York Times" report detailing allegations of unsettling behavior towards his former girlfriends -- including accusations of heavy drinking, infidelity, demeaning behavior toward women, and in one account, physical intimidation.
[16:35:12]
Platner, who's a combat vet, denied, quote, "anything alleging physicality" toward the women, but acknowledged that he struggles with PTSD, depression, and drinking after leaving military service.
He also said he'll be sticking by his Senate run despite a series of recently unearthed controversies that have some within his own party wavering, even encouraging the main governor, Janet Mills, to get back into the race, a source says.
Part of Platner's defense was also an argument that American politics is in need of more, quote, unquote, regular people like himself, and that these controversies are just, well, kind of par for the course when that happens.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLATNER: We need to have a politics where we're talking about policy, where we're talking about the future, where we're talking about really the kind of political system we want to see, and the only way that we're going to get that is by getting more regular people into it. And those of us who are going to really start off, we're going to take a lot of lumps, but somebody has to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, my panel is back. There are a number of ways that we could go with this conversation.
Leah Wright Rigueur, why don't I start with you just in terms of this point about regular people being members of the U.S. Senate, that's the defense that he's offering, considering everything we've seen, you know, that has come out with him. I mean, what is your sense of the kind of people that have served our country in these roles in the past and how the people that we are seeing serving them today stack up?
RIGUEUR: Okay, so first, I think this is a terrible point for him to decide that this is going to be his defense, that he's just a regular person and regular people and sexy text messages and you know, I'll censor myself -- genital pics, unlike our last guest.
HUNT: Fair enough. RIGUEUR: And all kinds of things in fact the part that was I think was so attractive initially about Platner and where he's had the most strength is the idea that regular folks actually means good hard- working folks who are just like ordinary people who are down on -- you know, down on their luck they're suffering under the Trump economy they're working-class people they're middle-class people they're ordinary people.
Not this idea that, you know, sexually offensive, sexual harassment, possibly even sexual assault, this kind of crude behavior is normal or regular behavior. I think a far stronger argument is for him to talk about his vices and the turmoils that he's gone through and this idea of rehabilitation and redemption.
Because when you talk about this idea that, hey, this is just behavior that regular people engage in and regular people do, it completely invalidates this argument around what it means to be regular, ordinary Americans and it puts -- realistically, it puts voters particularly in Maine and donors in a bind, right? Is this about winning at all costs or is this an ethical, moral conundrum that we have to face?
WILLIAMS: Yeah. Look, I think he's unpolished and has tattoos in his course and we probably need more of that in American politics. He also has a Nazi tattoo on his chest and --
HUNT: He has covered it up.
WILLIAMS: Okay, wait --
HUNT: Yeah, no, I know and he's denied that he knew that that's what it was when there's writing online that CNN reported about that said he actually did know in 2019.
WILLIAMS: Exactly. And I just -- you know, look, we all know politics is about winning and there isn't intellectual consistency between the parties when they're looking at the other guys. I get that.
But if a Republican with a Nazi tattoo, with a history of questionable behavior toward intimate partners came up, Democrats will be losing their minds right now. And I just think the fact that more people aren't running and screaming from this candidate. Now, look, I don't know what the solution is for Democrats because I don't know what's the worst that could happen, switching a candidate out at the last minute before an election. That never works out badly for Dems.
So I don't know, but my goodness, what -- where are we?
HUNT: I mean, and here, one debate that, Xochitl, I want you to weigh in on this in a second, but one debate Democrats have been having among themselves in the Trump era is whether or not they need to be the party that continues to say, we need to defend the rules and the norms, right? Or do they need to throw out the rules and play by whatever rules Republicans have written?
And you have seen a number of Democrats standing by Platner so far and essentially saying, well, if it was okay for Donald Trump to do the things that Donald Trump did, why shouldn't it be okay for us to back this candidate?
Here's a couple of them defending Platner in this way. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Are you talking about morality and corruption with President Trump? Have a nice day.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Platner has admitted that he's made big mistakes. That's fundamentally different than what Donald Trump is doing and saying. Donald Trump doesn't admit any wrongdoing in his life.
[16:40:00]
He lies about everything.
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): It's pretty rich for this to be something I'm asked about now every half an hour. when we have a president who cheated on his first wife for the second, on his second wife for the third, and paid off Stormy Daniels to conceal it from the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, Xochitl, what do you make of all of this?
HINOJOSA: Yeah, I think that's crap. I mean, I think it is -- the Democratic Party is struggling right now, and it is very painful to watch that people will not just come out and say that what he did was wrong. And it is, we're going to continue to have some, I think, things happen like this within the Democratic Party, and we need to learn how to respond in a way that Republicans are not responding.
Republicans are defending their elected leaders at all costs. I'm not sure that the Democratic Party wants to be in that scenario. The best thing the Democratic Party can do right now is have competitive primaries. This is the way that this information comes out. This is the way the information came out on Eric Swalwell.
You know, we saw that maybe nominated --
HUNT: In this case, Platner basically mean he had a somewhat competitive primary --
HINOJOSA: He has, but it was the -- a lot of the Democratic Party. There are a lot in the Democratic Party that he was sort of like the anointed when they lifted him up. There was a lot of a lot of people who wanted him and are pushing through regardless.
And I will also say, I think what's disturbing about all of this is that the -- you know, whether it is Democrats doubting "The New York Times" reporting and in Platner, the Platner campaign also talking about how it is false what is in that reporting or whether the woman talking about how "The New York Times" is just doing a favor to Graham Platner and to Democrats -- first of all, let me just say and I think you know this well, any allegation of whether it's sexual misconduct or any misconduct or assault, you know that that is reviewed by so many lawyers before it comes out.
And reporters like Lisa Lerer and Katie Glueck who wrote the story are some of the best reporters on this. And so this to me seems like a big problem overall for Democrats if we are not taking this reporting seriously and then responding in a way that is realizing that, yeah, maybe he's going to stay on the ballot, but we don't agree with what he did.
HUNT: You want the last word.
SHORT: Sure. I think that there's enormous hypocrisy here, Kasie. I think that there's a narrative out there. I've heard many Democrats say that, you know, in this cycle, it's going so well, we're nominating more mainstream Democrats because the tide's behind us.
And yet you see a candidate like Platner, it's not just the sexual harassments. It's trafficking on sites that are used by apparently child sex predators. It's condemning American heroes. It's having Nazi tattoos. And in New Jersey 12, it's a candidate who is a defense witness for the World Trade Center bomber.
And so when they keep saying this, the reality is they're out of the mainstream with a lot of their nominees.
HUNT: All right, I guess we'll see. There's maybe more shoes to drop here.
Ahead here in THE ARENA, a federal judge says President Trump has to stop construction on the Kennedy Center. But the president may have other plans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The judge really hurt the Kennedy Center because we have to bring it back -- physically, we have to bring it back. And we have to bring it back in other ways. I'm the chairman. So we'll just keep it going. Somebody has to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:47:43]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm the chairman, so we'll just keep it going. Somebody has to do it. We're going to spend a lot of money on fixing it and making it and bringing it back to health, and the judge really made it very hard to do that. But I'm going to look at his ruling on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump now suggesting he plans to continue renovating the Kennedy Center, despite a federal judge ruling the planned renovations must stop and his name must be removed. After the ruling last week, President Trump said he had no interest in continuing what could only be a hopeless journey into Never Never Land. Yesterday, the Kennedy Center's general counsel ordered staff to remove President Donald Trump's name from the building by June 12th.
Complying with the judge's ruling, earlier today, the Trump administration was in court trying to get permission to continue with the ballroom construction. The DOJ argued that no court would have the power to order Trump to tear down the ballroom.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
JUDGE PATRICIA MILLETT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS: When did it become impossible for courts to stop this project?
YAAKOV ROTH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL DIVISION, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT: I think it would have been improper to enjoin it even on day one.
MILLETT: So this is really something that can't be stopped in courts. It can only be stopped by Congress.
ROTH: I think that's right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, my panel is back.
Elliot Williams --
WILLIAMS: Yes, that's ludicrous. I don't know what the question was, but I will tell you --
HUNT: Go ahead.
WILLIAMS: -- the answer is that is ludicrous, that is incorrect. It just, you know. One can support the idea of the White House having a ballroom. It can be something that is a welcome addition to the East. Fine.
However, the courts have the power to enjoin actions by Congress and the president. That's how our courts have worked from the beginning. That's not about the activism of courts or anything else. The idea that somehow the president has unilateral authority that cannot be checked by the federal courts, it's just incorrect.
And it's not -- I'm not stating an opinion here. This is not a feeling or a vibe. That is simply how the separation of powers work in the country. That is incorrect.
HUNT: So just to take this like one step farther, the judge pressed the Trump administration lawyer about what would happen if they decided like tomorrow that they wanted to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty. Here's what she asked and what the lawyer said back.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) MILLETT: The government decided to move very quickly and bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, the people who ancestors, that was the first thing they saw coming to this country. But the government moved to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty, the people who ancestors, that was the first thing they saw coming to this country.
[16:50:07]
But the government moved too fast. Nothing can be done.
ROTH: I think -- I think that's right. It is.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: That is the -- no, this is a fun exercise to have. That's the definition of what you would call a constitutional crisis, where one branch of government decides to do something that they wish to do. Perhaps they think it is in the public interest to bulldoze the Statute of Liberty. Okay, fine. That's what they want to do.
A court -- parties would sue and a court would tell them not to do it. And if they don't follow that court order, we are in a crisis as a nation. You have an obligation as the executive branch of the government to follow what courts say.
I know this is -- I'm sorry to go back to 10th grade history or 11th grade history here, but these are just such basic facts and we're in the upside down right now having to explain something so painfully simple that has become normalized in this country. That's not healthy.
HUNT: So that's the legal view that Elliot holds very strongly. I know he also, if we start to talk about the fact that the Kennedy Center was named as a memorial, he'll also get going on that. But since you're the historian sitting here, I'm going to give that one to you.
I mean, it is Congress that named the Kennedy Center. And can you sort of speak to the historical significance of it and why that matters here?
RIGUEUR: Absolutely. So we don't name monuments or, you know, any of these things after living individuals. We certainly don't name them after living presidents. The way that the Kennedy Center was endowed was as a monument to the cultural and the artistic benefits in honor of a deceased president.
And the family has been very open about this. The family was among the first to speak out after the president decided he was going to put his name up. And I have to say that the courts agreed with this. This is part and parcel of how these things operate.
But one thing I think that is worth pointing out here is that history hasn't, particularly modern history, hasn't had a way of really dealing with these ideas of constitutional crises because we've had good faith actors for so long. Even our, you know, corrupt people, I mentioned Nixon earlier today, but even our corrupt actors still acted within the boundaries of, relatively, the Constitution. What Trump has decided and with the Department of Justice knowing,
lawyers from the Department of Justice knowing the Constitution, they know the Constitution, they know the law, they have decided that they want a different reality, that they are fine kind of putting a constitutional crisis forward. And I think one of the things that happens with the Kennedy Center is Trump has decided he wants his name on it, and so his name will be on it.
And so this is part of what sparks the backlash is that the director instructs the staff to take down the name yesterday. And Trump says absolutely not. But then the other part is that it's very clear when you look at the construction of the ballroom and when you look at the construction of the security apparatus underneath the ballroom that is a long-term plan and that Trump has no plans on stopping that, right? That it's going to go forward irrespective of what the Constitution or the law says.
WILLIAMS: One quick thing. I don't throw the term crisis around lightly. I know we get into sort of crisis hysteria in this country. And of course not, we're not constantly in a state of crisis. But what was being described there a branch of government deciding not to follow the orders of another one is literally the historical and legal textbook definition of a country in a crisis. That's what happens when we are following.
HINOJOSA: Trump doesn't care at this point. And I think that we are -- the more we get are in his administration, the longer he is serving as president, the more he does not care and he only cares about himself. I truly believe that people within the White House seem to tell him, well, what will happen if you don't listen? What will -- what occurs? You are the president. No one is going to tell you no.
He has an expansive view of the presidency and you're now reflect, it's now reflected in how he is acting towards the courts. And I don't think that this is going to be the last time. I think that this is just the beginning of Trump not -- not listening to the courts whenever they've made a decision.
WILLIAMS: There's a lot of threats not to listen to the courts, though. I mean, again, I don't want to alarm people unnecessarily about the president taking actions that actually haven't been taken yet. They've been threatened. They haven't been taken.
SHORT: I think the president's a maximalist. He'll go as far as he can, but I don't think there's evidence of violating the court orders. But I think he'd be in the best interest of the country and for Republicans this midterms if the president focused on defeating Iran and beating back inflation. That would be great.
HINOJOSA: He doesn't care about the midterms.
WILLIAMS: A strong message from Marc Short.
HINOJOSA: I don't know if you heard that, but he's actively sabotaging. SHORT: I believe as long as he's not on the ballot, he doesn't care as much. But I'm telling you, it would be better interest for the country and for Republicans if his focus was there.
HINOJOSA: Marc has said a lot by not saying a lot. Let's put it that way, all right.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:59:35]
HUNT: All right, thanks to my panel. Really appreciate all of you being here. Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. Really appreciate it. Have a wonderful weekend.
Don't forget, you can watch much more of THE ARENA with your weekend. We're on tomorrow, THE ARENA Saturday airs at noon and again at 4:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN. I'd be honored to have you join us.
Don't forget, you can also stream THE ARENA live. You can catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. You just scan the QR code below. You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. You can follow us on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.
But of course, don't go anywhere because Jake Tapper is standing by for THE LEAD. And, of course, he'll also be hosting "STATE OF THE UNION" this Sunday.
Hi, Jake.
