Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Gets Losses On Mail Ballots & Attempted Fed Firing At Supreme Court, But Justices Expand Firing Power Elsewhere; Mamdani: Dem Socialist Candidates "Can Get Elected Anywhere"; Trump Must Pay E. Jean Carroll $5 Million As Justices Deny Appeal. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired June 29, 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]
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: But do you think there is actually an appetite, though, to have that conversation about differing views, both within the party and, frankly, on a broader level?
SCOTT WIENER (D), CALIFORNIA STATE SENATOR: I think it's getting harder and harder. And as you saw, there are people who want to shut down the conversation. And if you're -- and that's so unhealthy for democracy and for the Democratic Party.
HILL: State Senator Scott Wiener, we appreciate you joining us this afternoon. Thank you.
WIENER: Thank you.
HILL: 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 Monday.
Right now, the win, the loss and the sort of draw.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REBECCA SLAUGHTER, FORMER FTC COMMISSIONER: I'm very worried about a future where presidents, like President Trump, can wield this enormous grant of executive power that the president -- that the Supreme Court just handed to him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Donald Trump, already synonymous with the phrase, "You're fired," will now wield that power like never before. The Supreme Court's conservative majority today overruling nearly a century of precedent, saying the president can fire independent government regulators at any time for any reason.
That includes Rebecca Slaughter. That was the woman that you just heard there. She was a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission until the president unilaterally removed her last year. At the same time, a sharply divided court ruled the president can't
fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook. That is, at least for now, the majority saying she can stay in place while her while her case plays out. suggests Fed independence is a line that not even Trump can cross.
Perhaps the day's most stinging loss for the president, though, is on an issue he brings up almost daily. That includes today. In a surprise, the justices said that states can count mail ballots that arrive after Election Day.
As you know, the president has long claimed, without evidence, that mail-in voting leads to rampant fraud. That is despite voting by mail himself, just as recently as a few months ago. He is now using this ruling to renew pressure on Republicans to pass his massive and divisive elections overhaul bill, something they've repeatedly told him isn't going to happen, and something he isn't taking no for an answer about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We have four Republican senators, maybe five, that just won't vote for it. It's crazy. Somebody, Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. Nobody's done more for Alaska than me.
She's a Trump deranged. What can I tell you? But those four or five people that I mentioned should vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Today's decision impacts more than half of the states, states led by Democrats and by Republicans. Conservatives directing much of their anger at the justice who wrote the majority opinion, Amy Coney Barrett.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, HOST, "BANNON'S WAR ROOM": This was important enough to the government, important enough to the Trump administration. This wasn't just the RNC. John Sauer, the great solicitor general, went over and argued this case.
MIKE DAVIS, PRESIDENT, ARTICLE III PROJECT: It's an asinine ruling, of course, what you would expect out of a law professor, an esteemed law professor, instead of a rattled law professor with her head up her ass as I've called her before. I won't call her that again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Can you just call her that again?
Anyway. All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
We're also joined by CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.
Paula, always good to see you.
At first, take us through the Supreme Court's decision around presidential powers.
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So this is a pair of cases dealing with two different federal officials who are both fired by Trump. And look, at first blush it looks like, oh, he won one, he lost one. But make no mistake, Kasie, this pair of decisions represents a massive expansion of executive power. They are giving him sweeping new authority to fire officials at approximately two dozen multi-member agencies that Congress had intended to be independent.
Here, the Supreme Court ruling that it's a violation of separation of powers to have a law that limits the president's ability to fire some federal officials unless they are guilty of malfeasance, neglect, or some sort of inefficiency. So, they're overturning a precedent that's roughly a hundred years old. This is a big win overall for proponents of the unitary executive theory, the president's lawyers who have argued that he should be able to fire any official that he wants.
Now, they did sort of draw a little circle of protection around the Federal Reserve, saying the president cannot fire an official there without letting them respond and going through the appropriate steps. There needs to be a process there. But this is overall a big win for the president.
[16:05:01]
The question now is, will this result in another round of firings? Well, the president gave us an answer a few moments ago. Let's take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Should we expect more firings as a result of this ruling?
TRUMP: I don't think so. It gives me the right and not me. It gives a president the right to do what the president should have, the right to do. It bestows additional powers, or maybe the same power on the president. The president has the right to do this, and that has to do with a lot of agencies all throughout the system.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Well, again, it's definitely a new power. They're overturning roughly 90-year-old precedent. Another big question, though, Kasie, that we're waiting for an answer on is whether the president can limit birthright citizenship through executive order. Based on what we saw in oral argument, what I've heard from sources inside the administration, it is unlikely that they are going to grant that kind of expansion on executive power. We'll find out tomorrow, the last day of opinions.
HUNT: Indeed we will.
And, Paula, take us through the mail-in voting decision, a surprise in many ways.
REID: A surprise. And really, Kasie, I think sleeper case of the entire term. This is the one I've been watching the most closely because we know that the Trump administration wants to get a more federal involvement in our elections and really do everything they can to sort of limit the window in which you can vote.
So, we're watching this very closely. It was a challenge to a Mississippi law that says as long as your mail-in ballot is postmarked by Election Day, it will still be counted if it comes in a few days after Election Day. And there are similar laws in roughly a dozen states. So, the RNC see the Trump administration of fighting the fact that you would count these ballots after Election Day. And if they were to have prevailed here, that would have opened the door to other questions about early in-person voting and really other pathways to limit your options to vote outside of Election Day.
But here, the justices siding with Mississippi and sort of allowing the states to retain this particular authority over how elections are administered. So, this was really a big loss for the RNC and the administration, and like you said, a bit of a surprise. We sure which way this would go.
HUNT: Indeed.
All right, Paula Reid, thanks for starting us off. I really appreciate it.
My panel's here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; CNN special correspondent Jamie Gangel; senior spokesperson for the Harris -- former spokesperson for the Harris and Biden presidential campaigns, Adrienne Elrod; and former White House deputy press secretary in the first Trump administration, Hogan Gidley.
We're also joined by professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University, Michele Goodwin.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
Michele, let me start with you about -- I really want to dig in on the mail-in voting question here. And Amy Coney Barrett's kind of unique role. I mean, she has ended up serving in a way on this court that obviously has angered many of President Trump's MAGA supporters.
Pretty noteworthy. What stuck out to you?
MICHELE GOODWIN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Well, Amy Coney Barrett needs to create her own pathway on the Supreme Court. Note that when she was appointed by Donald Trump and then confirmed, he was very clear in making it known that she was his, along with the other justices, Kavanaugh and also Gorsuch. And I said then, and I continue to say, that how awful that could be for a federal judge who are supposed to have clean hands. arm-length distance from the president to be perceived as being bought and paid for. So, it is important for Amy Coney Barrett to be able to plant her own
feet, to be able to articulate independently and show that she can have her own analysis that is independent of the president and his reach, and independent of the Republican Party.
Now, that said, she, along with other justices on the Supreme Court, have been mired by the perception that they are just simply politically owned by the Republican Party and by this president. And there has been efforts made by federal judges to make sure that the chief justice, John Roberts, continues to articulate that there's no such thing as a Trump justice or judge or Obama judge or justice. And so, Amy Coney Barrett was showing her own in this opinion.
HUNT: Jamie Gangel, the politics here, fairly remarkable. What are you hearing from your sources on this?
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So, look, just for perspective, does it take a while to count ballots in certain places? Yes. If they're coming in after election day, can it extend it longer? Is it a little messy? Yes.
But what everyone keeps saying -- both Democrats and Republicans. Remember, Congressman Massie pointed out last week, Oh, my gosh, we won the House. We won the Senate.
It's not about corruption or fraud. The reality is, many people, as you pointed out, President Trump himself vote by mail.
So, is this a loss for President Trump? Yes.
[16:10:00]
But big picture, he's obsessed with this. It is sort of a loss of his own making because the underlying problem here is he doesn't want to admit he lost in 2020, so he's looking for fraud and corruption where there isn't.
HUNT: And let's remember, of course, the degree to which the president is focused on this, okay? Because there is a massive bipartisan bill aimed at driving down housing costs, or at least limiting how fast housing costs are going up. It has been sent to his desk, and we still do not know if he is going to sign it because he so wants the elections overhaul bill, called the SAVE Act, that he's been pushing.
Here was President Trump in the Oval Office just a few minutes ago talking about how -- whether this major bipartisan bill matters. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Will you sign that housing bill?
TRUMP: I have that. It hasn't been sent to me yet. It's coming, I understand. And then I'll make it. Then I'll make it --
(CROSSTALK) TRUMP: Here's what I would like to sign. Much more than a bill that big deal. It's a yawn. Some people say it's wonderful. To me, compared to the Save America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: A big yawn.
Hogan Gidley, welcome to THE ARENA, by the way. It's great to see you. It's been a couple years since I've been on TV with you. I appreciate you joining us.
You've worked on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. The speaker, of course, has been back and forth recently trying to get this done. And yet, the president calls it a big yawn.
I mean, how is that -- why not take the political win on housing under these circumstances?
HOGAN GIDLEY, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: It is a political win. I think he is going to take the victory lap in some form or fashion. I do think, though, he is focused on making sure that our elections have some semblance of faith, trust, and confidence, which they have been losing now in this country for decades.
You'll remember, around 65 percent of Republicans did not believe that Joe Biden won the election. But around 60 --
HUNT: Is that President Trump's fault?
GIDLEY: But around 63 percent of --
HUNT: Didn't he tell them that he --
GIDLEY: But around 63 percent of Democrats did not believe that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton. People have been complaining about this process for a long time.
He is not obsessed with this.
GANGEL: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
GIDLEY: Unless you consider obsessed with 90 percent of the country, which also agrees only American citizens should decide the outcome of American elections.
HUNT: But that's already a law.
GIDLEY: I don't get to vote in Italy, I don't get to vote in Germany or France, and I'm sure you don't either. Only in this country --
HUNT: It's also the law -- Hogan, I mean, the law is that -- GIDLEY: Well, it's also the law you can't come into this country
illegally, but yet people do it all the time. It's also the law you can't murder somebody, yet murder happens in big cities all the time.
So, to pretend as though just because it's a law, it doesn't happen is ridiculous. It happens constantly.
HUNT: There's a big difference between -- and the Heritage Foundation is the one that has studied this, right, between someone voting when they're not a citizen and the number of votes required to change the outcome of an election.
GIDLEY: Sure, but how many -- how many instances of fraud are okay? Is it one? A hundred?
HUNT: I'm not arguing instances of fraud are okay. The question is, can we trust or not the results of our elections. And it's required for us --
GIDLEY: No question. And on both sides, people don't trust it. That's just the statistics.
HUNT: Adrienne?
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, look, a couple of things here. I think, you know, my friend Hogan here is, I think, sort of convoluting two different things. You're talking about U.S. citizenship and elections. Those are two different things.
But secondly, here's the bottom line. And I think when we really look at the big picture, we have a sitting president of the United States, Kasie, who is actively trying to disenfranchise voters. He is trying, the sitting president of the United States, a country that was built on democracy and built on participants, people being a part of the process, who is trying to keep people from voting.
Also, by the way, mail-in voters, a lot of his voters who live in rural parts of the country are mail-in voters because it's harder for them to get to the voting locations. There's a number of reasons why.
So, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But I think when you look back at this for the first time -- for the first time, certainly in my lifetime, we have a president of the United States who is working very hard to try to keep people from voting.
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, there was a point, Hogan, where the Republican National Committee was really hoping that Trump would stop saying bad things about mail-in voting because they felt like he was suppressing the vote.
GIDLEY: He's not against it. He did it.
HUNT: I understand that he did it, but he's also warned quite --
GIDLEY: He's against mass mail-in voting which I think a lot of people don't like. HUNT: -- about it.
Let's watch with Thom Tillis, the senator from North Carolina, who's been sort of liberated by his own decision to leave the Congress, what he had to say on Sunday about how Republicans should be talking about voting. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Why are we doing more things to undermine our confidence in elections, rather than getting the strong message out that we'll win for Republicans this year? Talk about the emergence and the rise of the Democrat Socialists of America, accept that the voting laws are going to be fundamentally what they are today, win by them, win by the good results that Republicans have produced, and stop undermining the confidence in the elections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:15:05]
HUNT: And, of course, that's our own "STATE OF THE UNION" at not "Meet the Press".
I mean, Elliot, a measured voice.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's -- unshackled by having to be elected as a Republican again. And right, it is odd politically, I think, for the president to be out there talking about this. I think it's just important to pull back and look at what did the Supreme Court decide and not decide today.
And there are sort of three big and broad principles that should be, that we should all agree with. Number one, the federal notion that elections are administered at the state level. This was about Mississippi state law, it wasn't about the country, it wasn't about, all the places and how long people's times are to get their votes in, number one.
Number two, and they said this pretty explicitly, that an election is an opportunity for an electorate to pick its choice of candidate, full stop. That is the point of an election, and methods that are designed to help people pick the candidates of their choice, even if they come here up to five days after election day, are still valid.
And finally, an election is done when voting is complete. People voted prior to election day. Mississippi has said they are to vote up to five -- or at least get their previously postmarked votes up until five days after.
They have not issued sweeping rulings that affect the whole country here and I think it'll be interesting to see over the coming weeks what do other states that have longer periods after election day, how do their procedures hold that.
HUNT: Sure. GIDLEY: Can I make a quick point?
HUNT: Yeah.
GIDLEY: Interestingly enough, he's correct in that the Constitution is very clear. It gives time, manner, and place up to the states. What works in Mississippi may not work in Massachusetts or Maine or Montana.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
GIDLEY: What I did find fascinating, though, the court focused so much on the word in or in the country as it related illegal aliens coming across the border or temporary protected status. It's actually temporary.
But they didn't focus at all or make the argument about Election Day. So, it was like it was good to have the conversation about those two words In some instances, but not others, I thought that was really interesting.
WILLIAMS: Yeah, I mean, but they do talk about the fact that the notion of election day, quote/unquote, "has evolved over time".
GIDLEY: Sure.
WILLIAMS: And is it locked in place as of the first Monday after the first Tuesday in November? Or is voting prior to election day with an intent to cast a vote for a particular candidate, even if that vote comes in after election day still valid? They're going to keep grappling with that question for some time.
HUNT: For sure.
All right, coming up next here in THE ARENA, more on the twin rulings today from the Supreme Court, on just how much power the president has when it comes to requiring people and whether, quote, "chaos will follow", as one justice predicts.
Plus, the growing debate inside the Democratic Party about what a Democrat is and isn't ahead of another key primary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK: I'm interested in delivering, and that's exactly what we've been showing.
JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS HOST: But they're saying that if you're a socialist, you're not a Democrat. I mean, is there room in the party for both of these views?
MAMDANI: Yes, here I am.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [16:22:18]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The Slaughter case was the big case today, and it was really a big case because it gave strength to presidents and strength to the presidency, a very important case. This was the ruling that really topped everything by a lot today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Out of all of the Supreme Court decisions that came down today, President Trump appears most excited by a ruling that determined he was, in fact, allowed to fire Rebecca Slaughter, a Democratic Federal Trade Commissioner, without cause, a decision that significantly expands the president's power to fire officials at independent agencies.
The exception to that, for now at least, is at the Federal Reserve, where the Supreme Court said that Trump could not fire board member Lisa Cook. The Slaughter decision alone, though, is enough to completely transform how the president wields control over agencies originally designed by Congress to be separate from political influence.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing her dissent, quote, "The one thing that does appear to be clear going forward is that chaos will follow."
Our panel is still here, and of course, that also includes constitutional law professor Michele Goodwin. She's back with me.
Michele, can you walk through some of this decision here with us. I thought it was particularly interesting the way -- the fact that, you know, Brett Kavanaugh actually went along with this Lisa Cook piece of this, and he said this is why, "Even temporary uncertainty about the status of the Federal Reserve could spark political upheaval, including confusion about whether the president could immediately remove multiple governors at will, as well as turmoil in the U.S. and world economies. I would not go down that road. I would not risk destabilizing the U.S. economy."
So, on the one hand, they say the president has nearly unilateral power at these other independent agencies, but the Fed, very important exception.
GOODWIN: Well, the question is, how do we make sense of it? Make it make sense, and it, of course, does not make sense. It's overturning nearly a centuries-old precedent, where this is a Supreme Court whose conservative majority have said that they lean into originalism, and you can see that that is just simply cherry-picking.
The real victor today, actually, is Chief Justice John Roberts. This has been a campaign of his since he was a young lawyer in the Reagan administration. This unitary theory of executive power, we see that being solidified. And although Trump is the immediate beneficiary of it, you can think
about it as a Reagan legacy, and that John Roberts, for all of the scorn that has been placed at him by those on the right and the left, he has been very steadfast in what he has sought to do, and he has achieved that today.
[16:25:13]
Now, make sense of the ruling as it relates to Lisa Cook and the Federal Reserve. Well, it's hard to make sense of that, save for the fact that, yes, financial markets have been destabilized by this president, and more could actually come.
But it's hard to make sense of it when you think about the dozens of other agencies do very important work, that need to be at arm's length distance from the president, that need to operate independently in order to preserve and protect the nation's health and well-being, not just financially, but literally its health when you think about the Food and Drug Administration, the EPA, and many other agencies that deal with our finances. It's not just simply the role that Lisa Cook has occupied and will continue to occupy for now.
HUNT: Jamie Gangel, you were nodding about John Roberts.
GANGEL: Yeah, I was just looking up this quote from him, which I think says, I mean, it is his victory march. Quote, "If anything more is left of Humphreys, we overrule it. This is not a close case." And he goes on to -- there's no question, as the professor knows better than any of us, that this was a day he's been waiting for.
HUNT: Elliot, given this ruling --
WILLIAMS: Yeah, yeah.
HUNT: -- what would stop a president from showing up on the first day and firing everybody and putting all their own people in?
WILLIAMS: Absolutely nothing. There's nothing that precludes a president from firing people for whatever basis he or she perhaps one day wants. There's a couple things going on here. One, the court today affirmed a principle that we all knew but don't really talk about, which is that the court doesn't just decide based on the law and the facts. They decide also based on political considerations.
Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence here winks at the fact that part of their concern was not destabilizing markets, which believe it or not, has nothing to do with the law, right? It's like there's nothing in the Constitution that the Supreme Court is obligated to look out for how the Dow is doing.
Now, look, it's important to us to have a secure economy, but that's not the justice's job. So, Justice Kavanaugh today said the quiet part out loud. But Kasie, to your bigger, broader question, no, presidents have tremendous power, and turnabout is fair play when someone else from another political party comes in and sweeps through all of these government agencies. This was the door that was open today. GOODWIN: And if I could just build on that for one moment. What this actually shows is the political beast and animal that the Supreme Court can be. That's not traditionally how Americans see the court as a politicized branch of government, but it has more and more been clear to Americans that the Supreme Court itself does act in ways that are political, that are divorced from looking at precedent, that are divorced from looking at what the Constitution actually says, and that's divorced from looking at actually what legislation, whether state or federal, has to say, because just as we heard, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the Supreme Court has to look at financial markets when it's making decisions such as this.
HUNT: Yeah, well, and it's interesting you make that point. I want to play what Rebecca Slaughter, who is, of course, the woman at the center of this particular case today, had to say about the difference between someone like her and someone that sits on the Federal Reserve Board.
Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REBECCA SLAUGHTER, FORMER FTC COMMISSIONER: Very difficult for me to reconcile Cook and Slaughter decisions is that, somehow, Wall Street is special and gets special treatment, but other than that, the agencies that look out for everyday Americans do not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Hogan Gidley, how do you see this from that perspective? Obviously, she's making this argument, but, you know, the justices writing this opinion about Lisa Cook are not exactly liberal.
GIDLEY: True. A few things here. Michele pointed out in the first segment how important it was for someone like Amy Coney Barrett to cut her own path, and when she goes against the Republican majority, it's objective and she's following the Constitution, but yet there is no concern or care for the fact that the leftists stick together every single time on the court.
The interesting thing about the Kavanaugh quote that you just said to me was the destabilization part of it. It was almost as though he were saying, you have the right to fire all of these people, but the subsequent destabilization really kind of is on you.
And I found that fascinating because it is up to the president to hire and fire these people, in my estimation. You talked about Turnabout being fair play. Of course it is.
However, Republicans are quite frustrated with this and have been for decades because so many of these agencies are packed with people who will and you've heard them say this in cocktail parties, I'm most certain they will say, we'll just wait it out four years, he'll be gone, the next person will be in.
And they slow-walk and slow-roll the duly-elected president's agenda at every level, whatever their three million federal employees across this country. Now, while this was narrow, we're talking about different -- different -- these agencies here. The fact remains, the president should have a right to fire people.
It'd be like if I came in as a head football coach, and you're a football fan, Adrienne, and you said I have to keep all of the coaches from my previous from the previous.
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: That would make sense, there were 90 years of precedent saying that all the coaching staff were independent entities. Like I -- look, I think we're largely in agreement here, but I think -- you know, I don't think it's a fair analogy given that there number one, was language -- statutory language that laid out how people ought have been laid off.
But also to Supreme Court precedent that got overturned today, like the courts allowed to do that is their right to overturn correct prior decisions but I just -- I just want to question the analogy.
GOODWIN: It's not an apt analogy. It's not. Because let's be clear, we just experienced a global pandemic. And in the space of that global pandemic, and it's not as if during prior administrations there hadn't been global health scares, whether Ebola, Zika, et cetera.
But we had a president that was in office that suggested that if people looked at the sun and just drank bleach or bathed in bleach or something with regard to that, that COVID might not reach them. That was absolutely ridiculous.
This is exactly why you need experts who are learned, that are in agencies, and it is why they need an arm's length distance not only from the president, but also from Congress and the Supreme Court to be able to do the work for the American people.
Let's be clear that our government is one of We the People. It is not one of the president, and it's not one of the Congress or the court. It is of We the People and the protection of Americans.
And what we see today, and what we've seen over time with the gunning down of people in the streets of Minnesota and much more under this administration should cause all of us to worry about the reach of this decision.
GIDLEY: Those experts lied to us about the COVID vaccines and efficacy for a long time.
HUNT: We just opened a massive political door. We could all fall down, and unfortunately, we are out of time.
But to Hogan's point, some of the experts during the COVID pandemic certainly got us to a point where there's less trust in government and some of those experts.
GIDLEY: For their own making. HUNT: Michele Goodwin, thank you very much.
The rest of our panel's going to stand by. Coming up next year in THE ARENA, what the Supreme Court is also saying about the $5 million civil verdict against Donald Trump in the E. Jean Carroll case.
But first, Democrats are bracing for what could be another primary earthquake this week as major players debate the party's future.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Voters aren't super happy with establishment Democrats or establishment Republicans these days. I will say, though, what binds together, I think, every Democratic candidate that is running, including the ones in New York, is that they are standing up to protect American democracy. And right now, the biggest threat to this country is -- you know, are not a handful of House candidates in New York.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:37:46]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAMDANI: I think a Democratic socialist can get elected anywhere across this country for any position. For far too long, all we've had to say as a party is opposition to the current administration. What do we have to say beyond that? And what these candidates offer is a vision that extends beyond the midterms, that extends beyond 2028.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani boldly declaring that Democratic socialists can get elected anywhere in the country to any position. His comments come after a slew of candidates he backed in New York City swept their primaries. Their victories have prompted new questions about the direction of the party.
That debate is also attracting the attention of the White House. They're seizing on this moment to frame the November midterms as a choice between communism and common sense. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: This is not your granddaddy's Democrat party. These are communists. The president is right to call them that. These are radical Marxist ideas that have never worked in the history of the world, and I think it's a choice coming up between communism and common sense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Choice between communism and common sense. Jamie Gangel --
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Well, many directions in which to go, but I mean, listen, Mamdani's claim that a socialist could win anywhere at any position, sources say.
GANGEL: I'm a New Yorker. I say this from a place of love. New York is not the center of the universe.
HUNT: Don't tell me that you're --
GIDLEY: Amen.
ELROD: Thank you.
GANGEL: And, you know, I appreciate the mayor's confidence, but one thing, people across the country are feeling pain.
And so, the one thing I think we have to look at is Democratic leaders are actually worried about this, even though -- look, we may see it in blue places here and there, but here's why they're worried. A primary is not a general. And to win in contested or close places, that requires independents, swing voters. They're not going to win if these aren't primaries.
[16:40:01]
ELROD: Yeah. But I think you raise a very smart point. I mean, New York City, as much as it is, the largest city in America, it is not America writ large in terms of how Democratic voters are voting across the country. I mean, the same state that elected three Democratic socialists last week also elected Cait Conley, who is a national security rock star in the Democratic Party in the Hudson Valley.
So, I mean, we're seeing it in New York. We are not seeing it everywhere, much to, I know, Hogan's chagrin, because Republicans would love to say that we are now the party of DSA. We just saw Karoline Leavitt saying that. But that is not who we are writ large.
And look, I think also voters are frustrated. You know, they're frustrated with incumbents. They're frustrated with establishment candidates, which is why you are seeing a little bit of a protest vote here. But at the end of the day, we're a big tent party. This is an isolated place in more urban areas versus suburban.
HUNT: Let's watch another -- so Adrienne, of course, Arkansas Democrat, right, like a former president we know. Here's a man who works for said former Arkansas president talking about whether or not the tent, the Democratic tent is big enough for some of these Democratic socialist candidate, James Carville.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I actually do think it's time for Democrats to talk the S-word, schism. I really do. And everybody's always said, no, no, we're a coalition, we're a big tent. And there's just some shit that I can't be in the same tent with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: I mean, Hogan Gidley, would your biggest fear be that they follow James Carver's advice on this?
GIDLEY: Yes, they don't call him Raging for nothing.
James is right, and Adrienne also. Calling out that side, though, I think has been something the Democrats have refused to do writ large, waiting to see maybe how much popularity they can gain, if they can win in other places. They're kind of waiting to see because they know a lot of the fire, a lot of the excitement, a lot of the money is flowing to that side of the political party, one which is completely antithetical to the values of this country, candidates who openly say they want violence in America, they want to undermine and eradicate America, that will not --
ELROD: Not every candidate who is a DSA candidate has said that --
GIDLEY: Chevalier said that and Mayor Mamdani didn't say that was wrong at all. Then El-Sayed in Michigan won't condemn Hasan Piker for saying 9/11 is our fault, and no one calls them out for it. That schism he's talking about, thank God, for the first time I can say this in my life, James Carville is saying it. Some other people with high profiles need to do that.
HUNT: Well, I will say, Senator Chris Murphy, who, of course, has potentially presidential ambitions in 2028, was pressed on this over the weekend, and he answered it in a way that -- well, watch. We'll talk about it on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RYAN NOBLES, NBC NEWS HOST: If you're saying the Democratic Party needs a bigger tent, does that include someone who called a former Democratic president of the United States a rapist?
MURPHY: Yeah, well, I mean, I'm not super familiar with that race. All I'm saying is that this party has to have a real contest of ideas. And I just don't think that our defense of incrementalism has worked. So, I don't mind a contest of ideas. And I just don't know that we have had it to the extent that voters have been satisfied.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean -- I'm not super familiar with that race. Adrienne, the number of times I put microphones in Republicans faces on Capitol Hill and they had not seen the tweet. It sounds like he's trying to say, well, I just didn't see the tweet.
ELROD: I know. I would love to see a two-minute clip of all the members on both sides who would try to subvert and not answer some of these questions directly. I mean, look, here's the bottom line. At the end of the day, I do think there is a sector of the Democratic Party, a sector of Americans. who are just fed up with the entire system. They want to see it all blown up and they're willing to forgive the occasional something that somebody said on Reddit or something that somebody said that might have not been politically correct or something that someone said that is flat out a horrific thing to say.
They are willing to forgive that because they want to see change in their lives. And of course, when you look at New York City voters, I mean, a lot of people can't afford their rents. They can't afford the cost of living, which is why Mandani went out there and said in his election, I want to reduce the amount of rents or free rent, which is crazy.
But he at least was saying that he's going to try to fight for them for the problems that they're facing. And I think sometimes people just want a fighter, even if they know you can't actually get it done.
WILLIAMS: Yeah, you're talking about a primary in the bluest -- one of the bluest states and the bluest districts, some of the bluest districts in that state. Look, the Republicans have had a member of Congress talk about Jewish space lasers. The idea of folks from different fringes of the party causing headaches from Washington is nothing So we're going to see it.
HUNT: Well, welcome to more of it, it sounds like.
All right, ahead here in THE ARENA, the other decision from the Supreme Court that handed $5 million loss to the president.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:49:23]
HUNT: President Trump was dealt a personal blow by the Supreme Court today after they refused to hear his appeal to overturn a jury's finding that he sexually abused and later defamed the writer, E. Jean Carroll. The decision means the president will have to pay the $5 million awarded to Carroll by the jury. Carroll's lawyer celebrated the ruling, saying it ends Trump's, quote, "quest to avoid accountability for his actions".
The president was quick to say it's not over. In an online post this morning, he said he will, quote, continue to fight. The president's attorneys are also expected to appeal the second Carroll case to the Supreme Court in the coming days.
[16:50:02]
Elliot Williams, you know, obviously the court didn't say why they did this.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
HUNT: But fairly remarkable that it got all the way there. I mean, obviously, the people involved, why, right?
WILLLIAMS: I'll tell you why they didn't. There's no federal question there, regardless of what anyone thinks of him, the lawsuit, the judgment, whatever, anything else. There's really no case or controversy for the Supreme Court to take up here.
It's for the state courts in New York. And I think they ultimately just said, we're keeping our hands off of this and letting it play out. So, he can certainly try to appeal again.
But until we see some constitutional question, it's hard to see how this makes it, like the Supreme Court actually chooses to weigh in on a future version of this.
HUNT: I mean, Jamie, I think, you know, one of the things this speaks to is the bigger picture way the president is trying to take all of the various things in his life that he is upset about or looking for retribution or revenge or, you know, however you want to frame it. He is unhappy with an outcome. He wants to use his government position to change it.
GANGEL: Right. Look, President Trump lost. He knows he lost. And this one was personal.
That said, you got a classic Donald Trump response, which is, it's not the end of the story, because, you know, Donald Trump, at the knee of Roy Cohn, grew up with, never admit defeat, never admit you're wrong, keep fighting. And even if you lose, claim victory.
So, he's going to keep fighting here, but this was a loss.
HUNT: And of course, I mean, there still is this ongoing investigation by the DOJ, according to our reporting, into E. Jean Carroll. I mean, Adrienne, what does it say to you? I mean, this is what Trump's appeal said, quote, "It's deeply damaging to the fabric of our republic for President Trump in the midst of a historic presidency to have to take his focus away from his singular and unique duties as chief executive to continue fighting against decades-old false allegations and the myriad wrongs throughout this baseless case. The mistreatment of a president cannot be allowed to stand.
ELROD: Well, look, Kasie, I'm going to take this through the lens of a lot of undecided voters out there in America. Of course, Trump is not on the ballot in the midterms, but effectively he is. They're looking at this and they're saying that Trump's counsel is saying that he's above the law, that yes, he's the president of the United States, but therefore, the laws that we all are governed by are not subjected to him.
And I think that is something that has continuously turned off voters. And you couple that with the affordability crisis, him rejecting the housing bill that was passed in a bipartisan manner, he is not fighting for Americans. He thinks he's above the law. He's enriching himself while he's in public office. It's just another demerit in his line of, you know, demerits.
HUNT: Hogan?
GIDLEY: Yeah, this, I think she's just a flat-out nutcase from the word go. We can relitigate this if you want to, but I'm sure you don't.
On CNN, she said that rape was sexy. Ridiculous notion, and of course, that doesn't mean she deserves rape. But interestingly enough, that's what she accused Donald Trump of. A jury said he didn't rape her, but then on top of that, he owes money to her for a rape allegation, they themselves said he didn't commit.
The whole thing is ridiculous. Now, how far this goes legally, I don't know. It's obvious, Jamie, you're right. He is going to try and fight this another way.
Whether that goes one step further, whether that exonerates him further, whether that gives him his money back, remains to be seen. But I think this whole thing is disgusting.
HUNT: So, Elliot Williams, let's just spend a minute here as we're heading towards the top of the hour. We have one day left in this Supreme Court's term, right?
WILLIAMS: Right.
HUNT: And there are two, at least, blockbuster cases left.
WILLIAMS: Birthright citizenship. Can the administration or the president ultimately remove the language from the Constitution that says that all citizens born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. You know, that's obviously the big one. And then can states ban transgender athletes from participating in either youth or high school sports or college sports?
Those are the big ones. They're coming tomorrow. Buckle up. I might be on television.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: All day, all day, watch Elliott on CNN.
The birthright citizenship case, I mean, for people who are affected by that, I mean, what an incredibly -- probably torturous weight.
WILLIAMS: And for people who are affected by that is a really important way to start the sentence, Kasie, because I think that's something the court's going to hinge on. Is it people who are here already, people, Amy Coney Barrett focused a lot on, what about foundlings, kids where you don't know their parentage? What about kids whose parents come to the United States illegally tomorrow versus yesterday?
It's just creating a bunch of ambiguity.
[16:55:00] It's either going to be 8-1, 7-2, 6-3, a big loss for the president, I think.
HUNT: You do?
WILLIAMS: I do.
HUNT: All right, you heard it here first.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks very much, my panel. Really appreciate all of you for being here. Thanks to you at home for watching as well. Don't forget, you can stream THE ARENA live. Catch up whenever you want. It's in the CNN app.
Just scan the QR code below. You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. We're also on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN. Would love to see you there.
But don't go anywhere. Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake. Happy Monday.
