Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Cornyn: No Deal Yet On Blanche As Judiciary Committee Vote Nears; Soon: Senate Vote On Confirming Jay Clayton As DNI, Despite His Refusals To Say Biden Won 2020 Election; Michigan Primary Now A Week Away As Senate Race Intensifies. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired July 28, 2026 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:06]

WILL RIPLEY, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Ukrainian forces say some North Korean soldiers have shouted Kim's name before pulling the pin on a grenade, choosing to die instead of being taken prisoner.

Will Ripley, CNN, Taipei.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Our thanks to Will for that.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Still plenty more news to come.

"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.

(MUSIC)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right. Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt. It's good to have you with us on this Tuesday.

As we come on the air, President Donald Trump is at risk of losing one of his most important cabinet nominees. Todd Blanche could be the nation's next attorney general, but two Republican senators and that $1.8 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund are standing in the way.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: A moot issue, meaning there is no weaponization fund. The weaponization fund is dead. It's not moving forward.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: It's not moving forward. That's what Blanche repeatedly told the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month.

But that's not good enough for two outgoing Republicans, John Cornyn and Thom Tillis. They want the Justice Department to formally kill the fund before they will be willing to vote Blanche out of committee. Their concern, it seems, is that President Trump could bring the fund back, regardless of what Blanche says.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): But just to be clear, the president of the United States, who was a plaintiff in this lawsuit, has not agreed in writing to delete the weaponization fund.

BLANCHE: I suppose they could bring a lawsuit and then we would litigate it, but even if we were litigating it, there's no fund.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: "Politico" is reporting that Cornyn Senator John Cornyn wants the Justice Department to put it all in writing. But today, just two days before this critical vote, Cornyn says that still hasn't happened.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CORNYN: They've been kind of radio silent for the last 24 hours. So, I think my staff is talking to them, but we're not -- they know what they need to do. They just don't want to do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: They just don't want to do it, he says. So, the solution seems like it could be pretty simple. The Justice Department just has to promise in writing that it will not create this billion-plus dollar fund to give money to people who claim to have been unfairly targeted by the government, people that may include convicted January 6 rioters. The trouble is that Todd Blanche, who is the man who wants to be the nation's chief law enforcement officer, says he just doesn't understand the importance of getting things in writing.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. GRACE MENG (D-NY): Mr. Attorney General, I want to thank you for verbally committing to not moving forward with the so-called anti- weaponization fund. I just want to make sure, are you going to issue a new memo in writing, rescinding that May 18th memo?

BLANCHE: I'm not committing to putting anything in writing. I'm going to set it all over again. I mean, I don't know what the purpose of putting something in writing. I'm telling you what we're doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Have you ever met a lawyer that doesn't understand the importance of putting something in writing? Because I have yet to find one. And usually when they don't want to put things in writing, it's because, you know, they don't want to. have to actually abide by whatever it is that you want them to put in writing.

All right. On that note, let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.

We're going to get started with CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez, who has more on this. So, Evan, are you getting any indication that the Justice Department

is planning to clear this up? I mean, there's a Thursday vote that's set.

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, no, look, I mean, I think the idea of putting this in writing is, it's an incredible thing that we're sort of like fumbling at the finish line here. The acting attorney general is hoping that he comes out of committee on Thursday. This is a Thursday Judiciary Committee meeting that they are planning to bring his nomination up for.

And what I'm told behind the scenes is that the administration, that the Justice Department is having these discussions with Senator Cornyn, with Senator Tillis, that they're trying to come up with some kind of arrangement to satisfy those concerns. But it goes beyond the weaponization fund, which is one of the issues that you saw brought up during his confirmation hearing.

There is another part of this that Senator Cornyn has been focused on, and, you know, frankly, one of the best questions that arose at that hearing for the nomination of Todd Blanche was him asking questions about that addendum, which basically gives the president, his sons, his family members, his companies immunity.

They're getting out of any audits that are ongoing. It also seems to bind not only the IRS but any other agency of the U.S. government it says for investigations that they don't even know about.

And, look, Kasie, you know, I've talked to lawyers who have done these types of deals with the IRS and with the U.S. government and they say they've never seen language like that.

[16:05:03]

And Cornyn pointed that out to the attorney general -- the acting Attorney General and said that's not the way I read this you know and so that is also one of the issues that they're trying to work out behind the scenes because let me tell you something, you know, once Todd Blanche becomes attorney general, you know, all the bets are off, right? He can do whatever he wants. The president can bring back this weaponization fund if he wants to because frankly he is the president and he can, you know, overrule anything Todd Blanche says at least in at this point.

HUNT: All right, Evan Perez for us. Evan, thank you very much for that.

My panel is here in THE ARENA. Former policy director for Mitt Romney, Lanhee Chen; CNN political director and Washington bureau chief, David Chalian; former Biden White House communications director, Kate Bedingfield; and Republican strategist Shermichael Singleton. They are, of course, both CNN political commentators.

And we're also joined by our CNN senior law enforcement analyst, the former FBI deputy director, Andrew McCabe.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.

I want to get to Andy McCabe on some of the details of this, but in just a second. But David Chalian, let me start with you because the perils, the perils of very angering -- very much angering -- personally taking on someone who -- you know, John Cornyn may be soon set to have almost no power in the Trump universe. But he's got some power right now.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR AND WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: I mean --

HUNT: And he's using it.

CHALIAN: Yeah, and we discussed this like in the immediate aftermath of Donald Trump getting involved in the Texas Senate primary and endorsing Cornyn's competitor Ken Paxton who went on to win the nomination that there could be potential fallout in the short term for the president, that there may be some blowback because he made a political enemy of somebody who still has an actual vote in the Senate when you need as many of them as you need to get your nominees through.

And Thom Tillis is the other one here. Again, both of you guys at the end of the day may vote for Todd Blanche. I'm not suggesting --

HUNT: Todd Blanche still may well become attorney general.

CHALIAN: May well be attorney general. I don't -- I don't want to suggest otherwise, but the process is bumpier and thornier because of Donald Trump's actions, and Thom Tillis and John Cornyn are just the perfect examples of when, you know, what they call the YOLO caucus or whatever.

But when you have free rein and you don't feel, because you're retiring or you've been retired by the president, you don't feel that you have to do his bidding in every way he wants, and this is what it looks like.

HUNT: Lanhee Chen, I mean, you're acquainted with the Senate Republican Conference, and especially some who come from the wing that Cornyn and Tillis essentially represent. It's noteworthy that this is what they are taking their stand on, that this weaponization fund is something that they see as so worth opposing, that we're here.

LANHEE CHEN, FELLOW AT THE HOOVER INSTITUTION AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Yeah, I want to rewind the tape a couple months. You may recall when Senator Tillis briefly held up the nomination of the now Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh over an issue that the president was having with some of the renovations of the Fed and an investigation into former Chairman Powell and Senator Tillis said, look, I'm not going to vote for this unless this gets resolved. Well, I think we're back in that situation again.

And Senator Tillis and Senator Cornyn, this time it's actually two senators have a tremendous amount of leverage in this situation. Look, I actually have very little doubt that Mr. Blanche will be confirmed. I have very little doubt that that will happen. Yes, this is a bump along the way.

But it just shows you how the dynamics, to your point, David, of intervening in a primary when you've got two people that can still have some weight in terms of what you're trying to do in government, how that makes a difference. But again, I think we're going to be looking at this as a minor bump along the road when we get to the other side of later this week.

HUNT: I suppose we'll see -- I'm sorry.

KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, I would argue, wouldn't it be nice for the country and the Republican Party if it didn't take two senators who'd been the subject of Trump's retribution campaign to lodge any kind of complaint or use any element of their power to try to limit Trump's retribution campaign? I mean, I think This point about the amendment to the weaponization fund and the protection of Trump's family, Trump's businesses from IRS audit is obviously incredibly salient.

But the other thing I would add here is if Todd Blanche becomes the attorney general, whether we have this in writing or not, has Donald Trump ever been limited by anything being written on a piece of paper? So, for John Cornyn, who I applaud for raising these issues, for him to say that ultimately, he will vote to confirm Blanche if he gets this written on a piece of paper, At the end of the day, I don't think we've seen any evidence that that's going to hold the Trump administration or President Trump back from moving forward on this kind of thing.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He ultimately gets confirmed. I know the acting attorney general personally very well. And I've spoken with several folks on his team. And the belief is they're going to figure this out with Senator Cornyn's staff.

They're going to negotiate here. This is very common. And they will ultimately get to a resolution.

He will be confirmed.

(CROSSTALK)

SINGLETON: Tillis has stated that he will ultimately vote to confirm him. Senator Cornyn himself has alluded to the fact that he ultimately will vote for him once this is resolved.

[16:10:04]

And so, I think all of the hoopla that we're seeing across Capitol Hill is a little bit overblown, in my personal opinion.

HUNT: So, Andrew McCabe, I want to play for you what President Trump has said about, in particular, those people who were at the Capitol on January 6. And of course, he issued a blanket pardon to people who faced convictions, including people who had been charged with violence against law enforcement. And let's watch what the president said earlier this summer when he talked to NBC about this. Watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If it was up to me, I'd pay them the kind of money that they deserve. So, me, personally, I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans.

You have to get it approved. If they get it approved, that's great. If they don't get it approved, I'd be disappointed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: What are the implications of potentially giving money to these people, which is, of course, what this fund would be set up to do, and it's what these senators are standing up against?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Yeah, you know, it's a good question. I think it stands alone from the question of whether or not these people should have been pardoned. That's obviously behind us now, well within the president's power to do that. doesn't say whether that's a good idea or not, but he did it.

They've been pardoned. They no longer face any sort of criminal penalties. I think the idea of creating a slush fund that the president and his people can use to pay these January -- formerly convicted January 6th offenders, or really anyone else for that matter, it wasn't that specifically defined, is -- well, as it affects the January 6th folks, let's not forget, about 1,600 people were convicted, most of them by guilty plea standing up in federal court under oath and agreeing with the charges as they were laid against them, and many others convicted after being tried by jurors of their peers.

So, there is an offense here to the concept of justice that you are now going to reward people who grand jurors evaluated the charges and voted to impose them against these people, judges and men and women of trial juries spent their time and consideration following the law, following the evidence, and ultimately using their judgment to convict them of crimes. Like, there is something offensive about that. This is a violation fundamentally of the rule of law, of the process that we have in this country to ensure that people are subjected to a free and fair criminal judicial system.

So, in addition to that, and I am certainly not the political analyst on your panel today or any day, I just can't imagine this is a super popular thing at a time when costs are going up. People are having a hard time paying for housing, for gas, for normal day quality of life things. And to look at people who, simply because they are favored by the president, would potentially be walking away with massive sums of money from doing nothing other than attacking the Capitol in an insurrection -- boy, I don't know how that wins you a lot of votes, or the Republicans, for that matter.

HUNT: You may not be a political analyst, of course, but having held the kind of job that you did at the FBI, unfortunately, one needs a better political nose than I think any of us probably would have expected you should need to have.

But let's talk for a second, too, about this IRS question mark, because that's another piece of this. I mean, you just talked a lot about, okay, we had a process. There were people who were convicted by jury or who pled guilty. This IRS question is preventing, is basically saving anyone, the president and his family, from even having to face anything along those lines.

What are the implications of that?

MCCABE: Well, let's remember, there essentially was never really a true lawsuit here. The president sued the IRS for $10 million. The Department of Justice never even answered the complaint.

So, there was never two opposing parties. The Justice Department never stood up and defended the United States in the way that it did in every other suit brought by the same leak from the same person, okay?

And because of that oddity, that's very suspicious decision on the part of people like Todd Blanche and others, the lack of a true controversy meant that the entire thing was about to get dismissed. Before that could happen, they entered into these agreements. One of them, of course, created the weaponization fund, and the second one essentially granted complete immunity forever to Donald Trump, his family members, and businesses regarding definitely IRS tax liability and potentially, as any aggressive lawyer would read it, possibly immunity from investigations from any other government agency going forward.

[16:15:16]

So, it was basically a giveaway from the Department of Justice to the president.

How this thing stands or was ever conceived, I have no idea. I've been around many, many settlements of criminal matters, some of which involved IRS criminal matters. Never seen any kind of language like this. I think it's absolutely unprecedented and an incredibly bad idea.

HUNT: All right, Andy McCabe, thank you, sir. Very much appreciate your expertise.

The rest of my panel is going to stick around through the hour.

Coming up next here, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee will be here live in THE ARENA. Congressman Jamie Raskin will react to this uncertainty over Todd Blanche's future as lawmakers prepare to vote on another one of the president's high-level picks, Jay Clayton.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election, but you asked to lead America's intelligence community? Isn't it humiliating to be unable to answer this question, to have to indulge the president's delusions? (END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:50]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OSSOFF: Who won the 2020 election? Answer it. What is your answer?

JAY CLAYTON, DNI NOMINEE: I've given you my answer.

OSSOFF: What is your answer?

You refuse to answer a basic question about who won a presidential election?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: This evening, the Senate poised to confirm the man that you saw there. You didn't hear very much from him, but you saw him. That's Jay Clayton, the new director of National Intelligence, possibly. His nomination is expected to pass along party lines after Clayton's refusal to answer that question about the 2020 election left Democrats with serious concerns about how he might handle sensitive election- related issues.

If confirmed, Clayton will become the permanent head of the country's intelligence agencies just 98 days ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

And joining me now, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jimmy Raskin of Maryland.

Congressman, always great to see you. Thanks so much for being here in THE ARENA.

Of course, you heard Clayton there essentially refuse. He called it a game that Democrats were playing in that committee.

My question to you, is this a situation where confirming Jay Clayton would put the country in a better position than allowing the current acting DNI, Bill Pulte, to remain in place?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, that's setting a rather low bar for determining who should be the director of National Intelligence for the United States of America. Obviously, he's got slightly more qualifications than Pulte, but that doesn't mean that he's necessarily qualified.

But from -- of course, from Donald Trump's perspective, he's perfectly qualified because he's willing to do whatever Donald Trump wants him to do, and that's what that freakish exchange betraying him and Senator Ossoff demonstrates that he's going to stand by Donald Trump no matter what, even on just a question of fact. I mean, Donald Trump lost that election by more than seven million votes, 306 to 232 in the Electoral College, but he doesn't want to hurt his feelings.

We saw that also with the Epstein files as he participated in, you know, the botched release of the Epstein files and the suppression of, you know, more than a million documents relevant to the search. He's clearly another person who's going to go in to work for Trump. And what's really troubling is they're cleaning out that office as they go. I think he just bragged about firing dozens more employees, and Tulsi Gabbard fired hundreds of them, and Trump has apparently ordered him to get rid of people, so it's going to be a shell of itself.

And he's not really interested in the kind of national intelligence that we got, for example, about Vladimir Putin's involvement and interjection of himself in our 2016 campaign. And that's where Trump rejected the findings of 15 different U.S. intelligence agencies and said he believed Vladimir Putin because Putin told him he didn't do it.

HUNT: Congressman, the previous DNI, Tulsi Gabbard, inserted herself into election-related controversies here on U.S. soil in Fulton County. Georgia.

Chuck Schumer now is reportedly conducting or has said that he is conducting hypothetical doomsday scenarios for the 2026 midterm elections, including how to handle voter roll purges, potentially National Guard or ICE deployments.

Do you think that the DNI is likely to be involved somehow in our upcoming midterm election? Do you have reason to believe that?

RASKIN: The Constitution does not provide for the president of the United States, much less any member of his cabinet or executive staff, to be involved in the presidential elections or congressional elections in any way. Electoral administration is left up exclusively to the states. Congress can regulate the time, place, and manner for particular kinds of purposes. But the law is set for these elections, which is now less than 100 days away.

[16:25:01]

So, the president has no role, despite his ridiculous executive order. The director of the Postal Service has no role. And the director of national intelligence has no role in our elections. The Constitution's working just fine, and we don't need the executive branch monkeying around with it. Maybe you should get back to trying to figure out how to extricate America from his disastrous, illegal, unconstitutional war in Iran instead.

HUNT: Congressman, have the House leadership, have Hakeem Jeffries or others or you participated in or held similar doomsday exercises, as Schumer termed them, that relate to the elections?

RASKIN: Well, sure, we're talking about this kind of stuff all the time, because, look, I'm out campaigning in the country, Kasie, and I'm seeing huge surging enthusiasm for Democratic candidates all over America. I'm here with my friend Josh Riley right now, Blake Gendebien next. I'm in Upstate New York. But we see no Republican -- no evidence of Republican activity

anywhere. I don't even see MAGA hats anymore, which makes me afraid that they're just focused on trying to undermine the election or take the election through some kind of strategic mischief. But we're not seeing Republican campaigning, and the bottom seems to have fallen out in terms of their public support.

So, yeah, my colleague Joe Morelle, who's from this part of New York, he's working almost full-time on sketching out all of the different ways they might try to replay what they did in January of 2021. And so, we're looking at every possible line of attack that they might have.

But remember, the president doesn't have any role in it. This is just historically bizarre to have a president, you know, issuing an executive order telling the U.S. Postal Service to come up with state rules for mail-in ballots or for absentee ballots. It makes no sense.

And then he wants Homeland Security to be creating a list of citizens and non-citizens with, you know, less than four months to go before an election. The whole thing is absurd.

HUNT: The other story, of course, we've been following at this hour is news off of Capitol Hill that there still is no deal to move the attorney general nominee, Todd Blanche, through the Senate Judiciary Committee because Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis, Cornyn in particular, have questions about the anti-weaponization fund and the deal the president and his family struck to give themselves immunity from IRS investigations and potentially other things.

What are you hearing on the Hill on that front? And is there anything that you were doing on the House side?

RASKIN: Yes, indeed. Well, first of all, there are lots of reasons to oppose Todd Blanche as attorney general, including his orchestration of this outrageous cover-up of You know more than a million documents in the Epstein files in complete violation of the federal statute that we passed on a near unanimous basis in Congress.

But yes, he also cooked up the idea of the $1.8 billion political slush fund for Proud Boys and Oath Keepers and other convicted felons who attacked our police officers on January 6th, 2021. We need to shut that down.

But, you know, Kasie, that's just part. of that fraudulent agreement, which one federal district judge has said was basically a fraud on the court and therefore an attempted fraud on the country because it wasn't just that fund that they're using. They're also taking money out of the general judgment fund.

They did that to give money to Michael Flynn, Trump's disgraced former national security adviser, to Carter Page. They did it with $5 million to the family of Ashli Babbitt, despite two federal -- conclusive federal investigations saying that the Capitol Police had operated lawfully and responsibly in how they'd acted. But it's not even just all the money that they want to use to get to

their political foot soldiers in Donald Trump's private militia. It's also in that so-called agreement, Todd Blanche himself imposed on the other side Donald Trump without even getting him to sign it, proving how bogus the whole agreement was. He imposed a super pardon for Donald Trump and for his sons and for their whole family and for any businesses relating to any tax fraud or any civil fraud or any criminal fraud or other offenses that they've committed --

HUNT: Yeah.

RASKIN: -- up until this point. I mean, there's never been anything like that in American history. That's the other part of that agreement that the public hasn't focused on yet. Everybody has gotten the point about this $1.8 billion political slush fund, but there's also dealing themselves a secret pardon, an immunity from prosecution, an idea, unfortunately, they've taken -- the germ of that idea from the Roberts court, and now they want to spread it across the whole Trump family and all of their businesses for anything that they've done up until now.

[16:30:11]

HUNT: All right, Congressman Jamie Raskin, thanks, as always, for spending some time with us, sir. Appreciate it. Hope you'll come back soon.

RASKIN: Of course.

HUNT: All right, coming up next here in THE ARENA, a new demand is coming in from the governor of Kentucky, what he says he wants from Mitch McConnell. as questions grow over the health of the 84-year-old senator.

But first, election day and a bitter Senate primary now just one week away. Things are getting personal in Michigan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HALEY STEVENS (D-MI), MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE: Thank you for clarifying that you didn't call me an ogre.

ABDUL EL-SAYED (D), MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE: No, again, for the record, it was Mr. Fetterman that was apparently called an ogre in the call, not you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:35:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EL-SAYED: When you're bought off by DTE and Blue Cross and big pharma and big tech and AIPAC, don't be surprised that there's a pro quo that comes with that quid.

STEVENS: He is such a talented guy. He's written three books. He said 300 podcasts. You know, he's had all this attention. But the deal is, is we don't need a celebrity candidate.

EL-SAYED: If you need a $60 million crutch, you probably can't be elected on your own terms.

STEVENS: We need to ask him, what's he hiding?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So there was no shortage of personal attacks during the Michigan Senate primary debate last night, as Democratic candidates Abdul El- Sayed and Haley Stevens split sharply over Israel, ICE, and campaign finance, leaving voters one week to choose whether the party will go with a progressive firebrand or an establishment moderate in one of the country's most pivotal battleground states.

The debate, which bookends a bitter and combative primary, ignited a conversation about civility in politics, culminating in El Syed addressing a controversial comment that he made on a private Zoom call with donors that many had assumed was referring to Stevens.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MODERATOR: This week, we heard that there was some kind of a Zoom call in which you had referenced an opponent as ogre on a pike, and so many people took offense to that.

EL-SAYED: I was referring to a guy named John Fetterman, who's a senator from Pennsylvania, who has done terrible things, got elected on a set of values, and is now completely throwing those values in the mud.

STEVENS: Well, and thank you for clarifying that you didn't call me an ogre.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Okay. That's where we are, Kate Bedingfield. There's a reason he felt like he needed to clarify that he was not speaking about Haley Stevens. Please explain.

BEDINGFIELD: Yes. Well, typically, particularly a male candidate attacking a female candidate in such harsh terms, Donald Trump aside, typically it doesn't -- people don't like it. Independent voters are going to be so critical for whoever becomes the Democratic nominee in this race don't like it.

And so, he clearly felt like he was on his heels, needed to explain it. I was, you know, maybe not what you would expect to hear from me, but I, was going to say, I actually think, if he had just said, it's a metaphor, man. I'm talking about like taking out, centrist, moderate. elected officials and bringing forth the progressive movement. I do think we sort of police our language too much sometimes and that would have been perfectly reasonable.

I sort of think turning and saying well actually no I was talking about John Fetterman. I'm not sure that really helps in trying to assuage the concerns of independent voters in Michigan who feel like you're -- you know, like you're crass?

HUNT: So metaphor is not -- I mean, it's a very, fairly violent metaphor.

BEDINGFIELD: It is, but it's also, I mean, it's, you know, an ogre is a mythical creature, so it's not -- I don't know, man. I think our politics has gotten so ridiculous. But the one thing I will say about where this race stands, it is a dogfight. There was a poll today that showed that Haley Stevens runs stronger against Mike Rogers in a hypothetical matchup than Abdul El-Sayed does.

And so that's part of why you're seeing the intense rhetoric that you're seeing because this is really a dogfight coming down to the wire here.

HUNT: Yeah, I mean, David Chalian set the stage big picture for us where we are going a week out.

CHALIAN: This is a monumental race for a couple of reasons. One, it is going to help define this battle between the insurgent DSA wing of the party and the more establishment wing. But it is happening in one of America's major battleground states. This is not New York This is not Denver, Colorado.

This is a statewide race in Michigan. Michigan, which, by the way, if you didn't notice, just last week, the DNC put at the front of the calendar in the early window for the nominating process for Democrats. So, this is going to linger beyond the battle for control of the United States Senate, which Michigan is a huge piece. It's hard to see Democrats have any chance of winning the majority in the Senate without Michigan holding on to Michigan.

It is going to -- the result here is going to have reverberations immediately into the positioning of candidates in the presidential cycle because Michigan will be an enormous there.

CHEN: Yeah, I think the most striking thing about this rhetoric that you're hearing is the preview of coming attractions. This is what the 2028 presidential primary on the Democratic side some of these themes will be echoed undoubtedly which is are you in the pocket of big fill in the blank? Are you, you know, unwilling to embrace these ideas about eliminating the Senate and all these crazy things that the DSA apparently stands for?

That is going to be the crux I think of that and it's a fight for the heart and soul of the Democratic Party that I think will overshadow largely the early part of the presidential primary until they have some resolution. But you're going to hear language like that.

HUNT: Yeah, well, and I mean, Shermichael, the Mike Rogers team basically put out there and then had to kind of say, well, actually, no, we don't want to run. Anyone would be dangerous to run against, but they essentially acknowledged that it would be tougher for them to run against Haley Stevens than it would El-Sayed.

SINGLETON: Yeah, for the poll that Kate just mentioned, I mean we fare better even within the margin of error against El Sayed for a reason because when you paint the picture of this ultra uber progressive guy who's arguably a socialist to hard-working blue-collar people, they say, yes, my pain points are real but I don't want this.

[16:40:06]

When you put the messaging in front of black voters or his numbers are in the trash. It's why Congressman Clyburn did not endorse him he completely turns them off. And this is not a phenomenon that's relegated to just Michigan. You look at New York and across the country. You can't, in my opinion, run an effective campaign and a general election without your base, which happens to be predominantly African-American. That's a real problem that my Democratic friends are going to have to reckon with.

And so that aside, I hope he performs well, because Mike Rogers is a good congressman. We want him in the United States Senate, I got to tell you, Kasie.

But the reality is, these types of candidates have very real vulnerabilities in terms of putting together the type of strategic coalition that Dems need in order to run against a more, I guess, traditional type of Republican like a Mike Rogers, which is not very common in a lot of races we're seeing right now.

BEDINGFIELD: Yeah, and I think that you've hit on, I mean, the two big dynamics that stood out to me in this poll. Now, obviously, polls don't vote, and one poll doesn't define a race. But the two pieces that were most interesting to me in this poll were Stevens has about, I think, a 30-point lead with black voters over Abdul El-Said. And then also when you look at the head-to-head with Mike Rogers, she has a nearly 30-point lead with independence against the Republicans.

So, those are two -- the black voters being the base of the Democratic Party, also a significant portion of the electorate in Michigan, and independents being a big piece of the electorate in Michigan. Those are two important dynamics. And that poll today was really good for Haley Stevens on both fronts.

HUNT: Well, and I mean, David Chalion, that is a piece of this, right? Like, there was a third candidate in this race. Her dropping out allowed Haley Stevens to consolidate support from the Black community, particularly in Detroit, in Wayne County, that sets up this race as it stands.

And I mean, to Lanhee's point, it is in some ways completely reflective of the nominating calendar for the Democratic presidential nominee in 2028, right?

CHALIAN: Yeah, there's no doubt about that. And I would just say, even if El Sayed wins this primary, given the political environment win, I don't rule it out that it is a possibility that he could defeat Mike Rogers in the fall. That'll create a whole other set of issues for the Democratic Party to grapple with, because seriously, if the progressive insurgent wing wins and has the power and the position, then you're going to have a conversation about like, hey, we just blew your argument out of the way, establishment, that we can't win a general election. We can.

Well, not general elections are the same. Not all of them take place in an environment like this one. So that may set up a -- again, this to me gets to the overall point. Democrats are looking at a very good 2026, but it may paper over a huge reckoning inside the party that they're going to have to contend with in '27 and '28.

HUNT: Yeah, no, it's a really good point.

All right, ahead here in THE ARENA. We've got new comments today from Kentucky's governor after his latest demand that Senator Mitch McConnell provide more information about his health, or resign from the Senate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. ANDY BESHEAR (D), KENTUCKY: But if he can have a 17 minutes conversation with his protege, he can call into any of your news stations for three. All we're asking is just a little bit of proof.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:47:41]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BESHEAR: He can have a 17 minutes conversation with his protege. He can call into any of your news stations for three. All we're asking is just a little bit of proof. And I get that everybody wants a certain level of privacy, but when you run for these jobs, you know you're given some of that up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: It has been 47 days since Senator Mitch McConnell was admitted to the hospital after a fall at his Washington home. And you saw there, Kentucky's Democratic governor. He wants additional proof of life.

Andy Beshear sent a second letter to the senator with this ultimatum, quote, "I'm calling on you to directly and verbally address the people of Kentucky and provide proof of your capacity to serve or resign."

On Monday, McConnell's office shared this new photo and provided an update on his health. The statement read, quote, "I'm still working hard to get back to my full schedule of work in the Senate and in Kentucky, keeping up with intense physical therapy per my doctor's orders." Joining our panel now is longtime Kentucky political columnist Al Cross, who has, of course, spent decades covering Senator McConnell and has interviewed him at length over the past couple of months.

Al, I'm so grateful to have you. Thank you so much for being here.

I, of course, had the honor of spending some time with you in Kentucky over the years as McConnell has held on to the seat. He faced at least a couple of re-elections that got a lot of headlines if he was never really at risk of losing his seat, but obviously, he is at the twilight of his career, and there are real questions about whether his constituents are being well-served.

What can you tell us about the senator, his decision making in a moment like this, and whether he is doing right by his constituents?

AL CROSS, POLITICAL COLUMNIST: Well, I guess the biggest legitimate question is why hasn't Mitch McConnell done a video At least, you know, 30 seconds. And I think. Mitch McConnell here in the twilight of his career really cherishes his independence. You know when he --

HUNT: Al is frozen for the moment. We're going to try to fix -- fix that there. He's frozen for a second.

But let me bring this to the to the table here.

David Chalian, I mean, we want to talk to Al. He's kind of the longtime dean of the Kentucky press corps, right? Knows McConnell really well. Kentucky's a fascinating political state. McConnell is a political fighter.

How do you assess the way he's fighting this particular battle he's facing right now?

CHALIAN: I mean, I think in Senator McConnell's own words, he acknowledged being of a certain age and of a certain generation we're talking about his personal health is not a comfortable thing for him. It's obviously gotten so far beyond that. It's beyond his personal comfort.

I mean, it's become such -- and it's the easiest thing to put to bed. That's the other thing. It's like the easiest thing in the world is like to hold up a phone, record a video, talk to your constituents, tell them your plan.

Like -- and there's a reason that's not happening. I don't mean a conspiratorial reason. I mean, he clearly does not want to do that. And so, the process by which he's addressing this issue is one that's not resolving the issue for him. And so that's just going to be a communications challenge for him in his office, as long as he chooses to stay in that stance of not talking directly to his constituents.

HUNT: Yeah. Al Cross, I think, is back with us.

Al, I'm so sorry. What were you saying? CROSS: Well, I said that he cherishes his independence and he could easily resolve this matter. But you know, he's just being a little cranky and pugnacious here in the twilight of his career says I'm going to do it the way I want to do it, and he's often done that. He's always been pretty private about his health and so on, so it's not really a big surprise. You know, I wish he would give us a short video and put all this misinformation to rest, but he's going out the way he wants to go out. So I guess you got to give him a little grace for that.

The other big part of the story is Beshear. McConnell has basically, I think, been happy to let Beshear stew in his own juice. Here, Beshear is coming under lots of pressure from people on the left to do something, and he really can't do anything except talk. It would be silly to try to appoint somebody to a seat that's not vacant, as some people have suggested, so he's trying to get off the back foot here as a presidential candidate, and look forceful.

So, this is the most forceful talk that we have seen from him yet. You basically say put up or resign, that's very tough.

HUNT: So, do you see any consequences, Al, for McConnell if-- I mean, say he doesn't do any of these things that Beshear is demanding if he continues to handle this the way he's handled it so far?

CROSS: There are hardly any consequences for Mitch McConnell, which is one reason we've seen him stay pretty well mum for 43 days.

HUNT: Fair enough.

Lanhee, what say you?

CHEN: You look at the definition of political stunt in the dictionary, you will see Beshear, Andy, in this episode because there is no power to forcefully vacate the seat. There is no power for him to do anything. This is strictly an effort by the governor to get some attention, particularly attention with voters who might determine his political future in a Democratic presidential primary. I think that is absolutely the right way to read this.

And it is a stunt. It's a political stunt.

And Senator McConnell, I think, has earned the right, frankly, for him to handle and talk about his health in the way he wants to handle and talk about his health.

So, look, I mean all the different arguments have been thrown out there, I just sort of chalk it all up to a political stunt. That's what I see this as.

HUNT: Al Cross, I mean, there is the question I mean McConnell's team has said you know he's working he certainly can take phone calls and get briefings and have meetings if he's well enough to do so. But right now, the one thing he's not doing is voting on the Senate floor which is, of course, the one thing that only he can do. I mean, his staff can do a lot of other things, and there's

potentially a vote on the attorney general for Donald Trump that could come down to a single vote, right? And if he's not able to vote, that could be a problem.

Do you think that's impacting their thinking at all?

CROSS: Well, that is the chief legitimate concern of the governor. You know Democrats politically ought to be happy the Republicans are down a vote, but the governor raises a legitimate concern for his shared constituents with McConnell. Are you representing them or not?

And I have an inkling that if a bill came down to one vote. That we just might see Mitch McConnell in a wheelchair on the Senate floor casting a vote.

HUNT: Even for the president's attorney general, or would he would he be happy to stick that one to President Trump?

CROSS: I think if his vote was going to matter, he would want to be there. Now the question, whether or not he will be there is a question for him and his doctors, and we don't know much about that.

HUNT: Yeah, for sure.

All right. Al Cross, thank you as always. Really appreciate you being here. Enjoy Fancy Farm.

CROSS: You're welcome.

HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:59:36]

HUNT: All right. Thanks very much, my panel. Really appreciate having all of you here today.

Thanks to all of you at home for joining us as well. Don't forget, you can now stream THE ARENA live. You can catch up whenever you want to in the CNN app. You can scan that QR code that you see on your screen if you want to find it.

You can also catch up by listening to our podcast. That's that QR code right there. You can follow the show on X and Instagram. We're @TheArenaCNN.

But don't go anywhere because Jake Tapper is standing by for the (AUDIO GAP) not yet had a chance to talk about the fact that in Philadelphia.