Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Democratic Senator John Ossoff Launches Fresh Attacks On Trump Ahead Of Midterms; Trump: Kim Jong Un Has Responded To Request For Conversation; Blanche: Don't Need Congressional Approval For Ballroom. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired August 17, 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: The pearls, though.
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: The pearls.
SANCHEZ: Clean it up.
HILL: These are really something.
SANCHEZ: Clean it up.
HILL: I have to talk to my dog about accessorizing.
SANCHEZ: Not a bad idea. Shout out to Dakota.
HILL: And to Harley.
SANCHEZ: To Harley as well.
HILL: Our favorite dog.
SANCHEZ: "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.
As we come on the air, a rising star in the Democratic Party is picking a fight with the president, and he's making it personal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): And while the sailors on the Lincoln fight his war, while he fruitlessly drains our munitions and oil reserves, the president sleeps through his meetings. He golfs and trades stocks. See, he doesn't want to do the job. He wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the emir of Qatar.
(CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Democratic Senator Jon Ossoff there attacking President Trump and referencing Natalie. That, of course, would be Natalie Harp, an executive assistant who's so close to Trump that, according to "The New York Times", she leaves him little notes, including one that said, quote, "You are all that matters to me," end quote.
Harp was even on that secret flight out of Turkey, one that even the Secretary of State couldn't get a seat on. The White House today responding with some, let's call it creative language. The communications director, Stephen Cheung, called the senator Jon Jackoff, then, you know, you just -- you can read what else -- what he -- you read what else he said for yourself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, Jon Ossoff said you'd rather travel with your aide, Natalie Harp, and build the ballroom than do your job as president.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Who said that?
REPORTER: What is your response? Jon Ossoff.
TRUMP: You mean Pee-wee Herman? Pee-wee Herman look-alike?
No, I would much rather do other things. We're building a great facility here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I guess that's a little nicer.
In the 11 years since Donald Trump rode that golden escalator into the heart of American politics, he has proved over and over again that attention, whether good or bad, is everything.
And Senator Ossoff seems to have internalized that lesson by attacking him from the Oval Office, President Trump giving the senator exactly the kind of attention that can help propel a campaign that sure sounds like a soft launch for a race for the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OSSOFF: Under Donald J. Trump, it costs more than ever to stock your fridge, to power your home, to make a cup of coffee, to buy school supplies for your kid or a tractor for your farm. They made you pay more for everything and took us to war on lies and spent most of last year trying to cover up for the world's most famous pedophile while the --
(CHEERING)
OSSOFF: See, they are literally the elites they pretend to hate. So, say it again with me now, Atlanta -- enough is enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here. They're going to weigh in.
But let's get started with CNN senior political and global affairs commentator Rahm Emanuel.
Mr. Ambassador, again, Mister -- I never know which hat to introduce you with. But in this one, I think it might be former White House Chief of Staff and potential 2028. contender yourself? I don't know.
What do you make of how Jon Ossoff has exploded into the political arena this way with these rallies that he's doing, often followed by cable appearances? He's got this pretty coordinated media strategy at a time when Democrats are really searching for a standard bearer?
RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Yeah, look, I mean, that's going to happen. I take him at his word. He's focused obviously on 2026. That's going to be an important signal sender, especially in a bellwether state. And I do think taking, and this tells you a lot about the race in a bellwether, that this is a referendum on Donald Trump. And he's making it very direct to Donald Trump, and that's going to help him not only with the Democratic energy, it's also going to help him with independent swing voters in the state.
And I also, as somebody as you and I have talked about this, hitting on the corruption is exactly where there's a lot of anger at people, that there's a ballroom that's going to cost billions of dollars, and you're going to be left with a bill, a $450 million Qatari jet, and you got $4.50 gallon of gas, and he's talking about an arch in D.C. when you can't afford a meal at the Golden Arches. And so, I think all that matters because when the corruption hits your wallet, you're pretty ticked off, and that's good politics, and it's good policy.
HUNT: You heard kind of what you're saying from the crowd there, but in fact, he was talking about when they really went up about Jeffrey Epstein and that -- I'm curious what you make of that, because I mean, obviously anybody can build a crowd, but that was a pretty authentic reaction.
EMANUEL: Right, there's no doubt. Look, there's a whole group of people that are trying to operate by one rule book that applies to them because of their position, their power, their wealth, and everybody else that gets actually the rule of law. I mean, I think this is an indication over the weekend it was an amazing thing. Everybody kind of blasted out about breaking news about the DNC primary schedule, and yet the president's crypto account that he's made billions off of and people lost billions just got a bank license approved by his own regulator for his kids and Witkoff's kids. And nobody thought that was news.
We've basically, the whole system's become inured to the corruption except for one group of people, the American people. They know they're left paying for this corruption, whether it's on the Epstein piece, or whether it's on the type of the president enriching himself, and he's driven by three things: his greed, his grievances, and the grandeur for himself. And people know it, and so they're going to give him a lesson this November, because the American people, the public, is a thin blue line.
Corporate America has failed, the Republicans in Congress have failed, holding the administration accountable. And that's what's going to come. And that reaction makes sense.
HUNT: So, you mentioned that, of course, he's in a purple state, really a very close to red purple state in Georgia. I want to play, this flashes back to 2020. This is Ossoff talking to "Axios", but it really plays into the conversation we're having today in 2026 about the split in the Democratic Party. And, of course, if Ossoff wants to be part of a '28 conversation, he's got to win in '26.
We know that. I want to play this for you, and we'll talk about it on the other side. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INTERVIEWER: Do you support the Green New Deal?
OSSOFF: No.
INTERVIEWER: Do you support Medicare for All?
OSSOFF: No.
INTERVIEWER: Do you support D.C. statehood?
OSSOFF: Yes.
INTERVIEWER: Do you support Puerto Rican statehood?
OSSOFF: Yes.
INTERVIEWER: Do you support defunding the police?
OSSOFF: No.
INTERVIEWER: Do you support abolishing ICE?
OSSOFF: No.
INTERVIEWER: Do you support expanding the Supreme Court?
OSSOFF: No.
INTERVIEWER: Do you support ending the filibuster?
OSSOFF: Maybe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: How is that going to stand up in '26 and '28? EMANUEL: Look, I mean, I think this is a very important thing for Democrats who are having a debate between the progressive wing and the pragmatic wing. The way I look at it, you've had three presidential elections, seven states and 500,000 voters across those seven states have decided the president in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
And nothing that's, whether it's like defunding the police or open borders or letting prisoners out of jail or canceling the Pentagon, eliminating the department, let alone the budget, none of that works in those seven states, let alone their bad policies. Put aside the policies just of pure politics.
And so, in a state like Georgia or a state like North Carolina, I kind of made this comment the other day. What senatorial candidate, a gubernatorial candidate in any one of those seven states wants a member of the Democratic Socialist Party to come campaign for them? I'll pay the travel and lodge expenses.
It's not going to happen. And we should be very smart and strategic about, the fact is, seven states have decided that, and you know, Senator Ossoff probably thinks of himself. out of the kind of pragmatic progressive wing of the party, he knows that that stuff won't work in Georgia, and he's been very clear about it, let alone -- and I want to repeat this -- it's bad policies, and it's really bad politics.
So therefore, we'll have a good debate. The party has a consensus that the system is rigged against people that work paycheck to paycheck. What the answer is to that -- I'm kind of like 20 buck minimum wage by 2030, banning all trades for members of Congress, the administration, the executive branch, the judicial branch, having an ethics package like that, something also on energy like 30 percent renewable by 2030. That we can have a consensus on and start to actually address the economic inequalities that exist in the system in a pro-growth way.
But he tells you from Georgia what war -- as we like to say in Chicago, that dog won't hunt. Defunding the police just won't work down in Georgia. It just doesn't. And you should be pragmatic about it and about winning, let alone, again, as I want to repeat, it is bad policy and really bad politics.
HUNT: That shows you where his political instincts are, that he was there in 2020 when this was really at the height of it.
Rahm, stand by for me. I want to bring the rest of my panel in to weigh in.
CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; the managing editor of "The Cook Political Report", Carrie Dann; Democratic congressman from Maryland, Congressman Johnny Olszewski; and senior advisor to the Trump 2024 campaign, Bryan Lanza.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
Congressman, let me start with you. Do you agree with Rahm? Is he right? REP. JOHNNY OLSZEWSKI (D-MD): Look, yeah, we have to put forward policies that address the concerns of Americans. People are pissed off. They're hurting. They're paying way too much for energy, for health care, at the pump, at the grocery store.
And this is a president who promised to lower cost day one.
[16:10:02]
Democrats have to find ways to deliver. That's what I've been focused on in my time in Congress. And they're even more frustrated when you tie it to the corruption.
So, Rahm's absolutely right. The mayor, the ambassador, whatever.
HUNT: It's really a panoply of titles.
OLSZEWSKI: But he's 100 percent right when you couple the fact that people are struggling. This administration, this Congress has done nothing about it. And then you see the president and his associates stack up billions of dollars of personal wealth. It is absolutely disgusting and we have to take charge, take power and do something about it in a way that is upright and moral and not corrupt.
HUNT: So we, of course, showed you what Jon Ossoff and that's been making the rounds on social media, what Jon Ossoff said in 2020 and a lot of these basically progressive litmus test issues, right? So, we heard also and this is from about a week or so ago, but it's worth looking at when you think about what some of these others are doing in positioning themselves for 2028.
This was Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who, of course, had championed some of the things that Ossoff rejected in that 2020 clip, including things like the Green New Deal, et cetera. Here's what she had to say earlier this month. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): I have a local city councilman that has this saying, Woke one was crazy.
During this time, and especially during COVID, the doors were really open in trying to entertain any and every policy that was going to get us to a better place. And I actually think that the discussions that were had in that time were quite fruitful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Woke One was crazy, she says. Bryan Lanza, she's obviously being talked about as a '28 candidate as well. You heard what Rahm said about the seven states that really choose our president. She seems to get that some of whatever was in woke one, as she's defining it there, might be a problem if you want to win that kind of a general election or not.
What's your take on whether she can make that pivot? BRYAN LANZA, SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: First of all, my take as a Republican operative is go AOC. We would love to run against AOC in 2028 because her positions are outside the mainstream of America. They're more in line with San Francisco, which this country's rejected those types of politics. But woke one, she calls it crazy. Woke one ruined people's lives. Some people committed suicide as a result of woke one.
So, for her diminish it with a laughter after it, like they have a real wrecking to do with what they did to the American people pre woke one, because let's remember, it wasn't only COVID that these views took place, it was before and during COVID they've ruined lives, they killed lives and the joke about it, I find it rather disgusting. And I'm pretty sure when the American people are reminded of what they did, these woke one folks did, they'll find it equally disgusting.
HUNT: Okay. Congressman, what did you make of, I know you worked with AOC in Congress, of her switch, I don't want to call it a switch, of her evolution on some of this stuff.
OLSZEWSKI: I think evolution is the right term. And I think that's what we want to see from those who are in politics. Unfortunately, far too many people who are elected can't admit that they've made a mistake, can't admit that perhaps policies aren't best for the country or aren't popular with the country. And so, I welcome it. I think it's actually helpful for the debate and the conversation. I wish more people who are my colleagues could acknowledge that perhaps positions they've taken in the past need to have that evolution so that we can move forward as a country.
So, I actually welcome it as a member of the Democratic Caucus. I think it makes us stronger moving forward into the 2026 and the 2028 cycles.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: At the same time, a lot of voters just don't have much of an appetite for -- I mean, look, remember John Kerry 2004 and the idea of, quote/unquote, "flip flopping". You know, it really does provide an opportunity for someone like John Ossoff to say, look, I told you so several years ago.
But that said, you know, before everybody gets excited about any candidate, you know, let's think about President Rudy Giuliani or President Wesley Clark, people who, because their parties were hungry for some fresh face, some new voice, and they flamed out after a certain point.
HUNT: There's also a guy named Obama, though.
WILLIAMS: Sure! Occasionally, a generational talent will come along, and maybe that's Jon Ossoff.
No, it could be, you know, but, you know, the history is littered with the tombstones of the next president --
HUNT: Fred Thompson! Fred Thompson!
WILLIAMS: Fred Thompson!
LANZA: Let's look at what Obama did. He didn't attack a young woman for doing her job. That young woman, Natalie, she has parents who are probably appalled by the behavior of Ossoff today, implying what he did.
So, I think where we've seen the Democratic Party is a race to the gutter. I think the Republican Party has sort of been there already. We've sort of floated in that space. But now the Democratic Party --
(CROSSTALK)
LANZA: Now the Democratic Party, like Ossoff, who's a potential frontrunner for the Democratic Party, people are cheering the fact that he maligned somebody who sacrificed a significant amount of their livelihood to serve this country and has and to do --
HUNT: It led to the White House communications director --
LANZA: I think -- I think the response was tamed.
HUNT: I'm not going to say -- really, that Jon Jackoff and the other thing that he said?
LANZA: I think 100 percent. I have a daughter.
HUNT: So, wait, the gutter is Jon -- what Jon Ossoff said at the rally, that's the gutter and what the communications director responded is not?
[16:15:01]
LANZA: I think they're both the gutter -- I think they're both the gutter but that's gutter politics. That's where we are today. That's where we've been for a while. That's we've been led. That's where we're going to stay.
WILLIAMS: I love you, man. I appreciate that.
I just -- it's a little rich, after nearly a decade of Donald Trump, for anyone in the United States to start pointing a finger at someone for the rhetoric of foreign language, frankly, around sex or any sort of bolder language.
LANZA: Natalie has parents and that is -- that is appalling what Ossoff did. And the fact that he's talked as a presidential candidate.
HUNT: Look, I will also say that all that Senator Ossoff said was he wants to --
LANZA: We know what he was implying.
HUNT: Well, the president has done a lot more than imply, quite a wide variety of things about people over the years.
Carrie Dann, let's look at this, you know, brass tacks. I mean, if someone like Ossoff wants to be in the conversation, he has to win. What does Georgia look like right now? And more broadly, these questions about socialism, how do they play in the places where Democrats need to win?
CARRIE DANN, MANAGING EDITOR, COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Well, Jon Ossoff will have a very good talking point if he is to win this race. The Georgia Senate race on paper should be the most competitive race in the country. We currently have it in a lean Democratic slot at "The Cook Political Report". I would not be surprised to see that move into a less competitive category.
Jon Ossoff has consistently led in polling. He probably looked up by having Mike Collins, the Republican in that race, was probably the weakest of the three major candidates to come out of that primary. But he will be able to say, look, I can win in a state that has voted for Donald Trump to your point was a sort of a reddish purple state in a convincing manner. That's a great argument for him going into 2028 to say I can win in these kinds of places with the kinds of positions that he has.
One thing I do think was really striking about that clip about him responding with the yes or no answers, I think Democrats don't as much demand ideological purity as they want people who can answer questions, yes, no, yes, no. They don't want equivocation. They want people who say what they believe in.
OLSZEWSKI: Authenticity.
HUNT: Rahm, last word to you. Do you agree with that?
EMANUEL: Well, 2026 is a referendum on Donald Trump and the rubber stamp Republicans. Anything that distracts from that is malpractice. 2028 is a choice election, and we better be able to show people that we're grounded in their values and grounded in their economics.
And anything that gets into defunding the police or bathroom access rather than classroom excellence is a distraction from actually what President Clinton, President Obama, who both not only get elected, reelected, showed us how to win. We don't have to relearn this letter. We have to execute it.
HUNT: All right, fair enough. Rahm Emanuel, always great to have you, sir. Thank you so much. Come back soon.
All right. The rest of our panel is going to stand by.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, what does this look like to you? A big, beautiful White House ballroom? Hmm, no. That's also a military complex, the president says. We'll explain.
Plus, President Trump today revealing that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has responded after the White House ordered the Pentagon to cut back on military exercises with South Korea.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: We have 39,000 soldiers over there guarding you from Kim Jong- un, your next-door neighbor, and you're not going to help us on a very easy military operation in Iran? That's strange. No, no, we'd rather not get involved. I say, well, why are we involved in helping you?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:39]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: How hasn't Kim Jong-un responded to your request to have a conversation?
TRUMP: How do you know he hasn't responded?
REPORTER: Has he?
TRUMP: Yeah, he has. I understand him. He understands me. You're doing war games. I get along with him.
You know, he didn't like Biden. He didn't like Obama. He didn't like anybody. But I get along with him very well. No, what I'm doing is making things safer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump revealing this afternoon that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un has responded just a day after Trump announced that the U.S. will scale back its joint military exercises with South Korea. Now, why reduce cooperation with a key regional ally? Because, apparently, of Trump's very good relationship with the North Korean leader, as well as his frustration over South Korea's lack of help with the Iran War. that war now well into its fifth month with a 60- day deadline to reach a final deal with Iran having come and gone this morning. Trump today, though, indicating he's in no rush to get there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They want to make a deal, but they're not going to make the kind of a deal that I feel is necessary. Look, we're in there for one reason. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. You understand that? Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon, and they won't have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining us now in THE ARENA, CNN senior military analyst, former Supreme Allied commander of NATO, Admiral James Stavridis.
Admiral, thanks very much for being here. There's really no one I'd rather talk to about this.
I want to start with this just this afternoon, the president revealing, saying that there has been some sort of response here from North Korea. And of course, their relationship was famously complex or maybe very exactly what you see there on the screen, straightforward. It's a little bit unclear.
Can you help us understand what such a response might be and, really, what the implications are of the president taking this action?
ADMIRAL JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Let's start with the spectrum of their relationship. These two men have gone from President Trump calling him Little Rocket Man and threatening fire and fury to destroy his entire country to, on the other end of the spectrum, he sends me beautiful love letters.
[16:25:01]
Who the hell knows what their actual relationship is?
What's important is not words and descriptions and photo shoots like this. What is important is action. And so, when we talk about a response from Kim Jong-un, I'll give you the number one response I'd like to see, which is him pulling the tens of thousands of North Korean troops that he sent fight on behalf of Vladimir Putin in an illegal, immoral war against a partner of the United States. That would be Ukraine.
Another response I'd like to see is Kim stopping proliferating nuclear weapons, building more and more of them, potentially getting ready to test one, testing ballistic missiles, firing them at a real ally, Japan. Those are the kind of responses we should be looking for, none of which we've seen.
Final thought, Kasie. in the slight good news category. new president of South Korea, President Lee, has reached out with a tenuous, a small, but a very real olive branch to North Korea. Kim Jong-un has knocked it away, doesn't want to talk to them. So, when you put all that together, in my view, not a good time for us to be degrading our relationship with South Korea and showering Kim Jong-un with compliments he does not deserve.
HUNT: And of course, part of this conversation, I mean, well, this conversation is all tied with an entirely different region in the world, in the Middle East, of course, because the president, part of why he's doing this, he says, is because of the help he wants with the conflict with Iran.
He's also threatened to bomb Oman, which is one of our key partners in the region in terms of trying to get this wrapped up, what implications does that have in this really, I mean, this geopolitical conversation spans the globe.
STAVRIDIS: Let's try and tie the two things together and even add a third. The two things are President Trump's frustration with South Korea being unwilling to come and help us open the Strait of Hormuz and to participate in actions against Iran. He's also frustrated tying it together with our European allies for the same reason. And I think he's somewhat frustrated with Japan for the same reason. Now, those can be legitimate frustrations, but in my view, they don't
rise to the level of coming close to a sworn enemy of South Korea, like North Korea, or truly inexplicably talking about bombing Oman, who has been working very hard to help us solve this problem in the release by creating kind of a face-saving way to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
So, I don't get it on cozying up to Kim Jong-un, and I don't get it on threatening to bomb Oman. Those are actions exactly the opposite of what we should be doing right now.
HUNT: Admiral, speaking of Iran, there was a very long story in "The Wall Street Journal" today that details the way the current leadership of Iran are thinking about the conflict. And again, this is "Wall Street Journal" reporting, but I want to walk through some of this. I mean, this was the 60-day deadline. that we just crossed through.
"The Journal" writes this, quote, "Arab intelligence officials have picked up evidence of a strategic shift inside the country's hardline leadership to get their forces ready to widen the war and raise costs for the U.S. Iran's leaders are increasingly talking about offensive operations on enemy territory.
There's also a widespread view in Iran that the main war has not yet begun, a Tehran-based defense analyst close to the government told "The Journal", quote, "What we have seen so far is increasingly interpreted through the lens of salami slicing tactics, limited incremental escalation designed to weaken capabilities before a larger confrontation."
Are they playing chess while we're playing checkers?
STAVRIDIS: They are certainly playing chess. And I have worried from the beginning of this conflict about a dog that hasn't barked yet. We should not have been surprised by the closure of the Straight of Hormuz. What I worry about is the size of the Iranian ground forces, their land armies. This war thus far has been confined to the air and the sea.
If we have to grapple with the Iranians ashore, and if they decide to push ground forces toward the Arab states, that's an entirely new battlefront.
[16:30:11]
And don't forget, back in the 1980s, the Iranians mounted massive ground campaigns against the Arab world, specifically against Iraq. So, not impossible to conceive of, very worrisome events kind of trending in a very dark direction, which to close brings us back to who's in charge in Tehran. And it's not the previous set of officials because we killed them. It's not the relatively friendly faces of people like the foreign minister, the speaker of the Parliament with whom we negotiated the agreement, which has failed increasingly.
We're in the French Revolution and we have gone through any form of rationality. We're in Robespierre and the terror in Tehran right now. I don't think it's going to get better quickly.
HUNT: Well, that's cheerful. Although I very much appreciate what you're saying, for sure.
Before I let you go, sir, I did want to briefly ask you about the status of the USS Abraham Lincoln. What do you think could have been done differently to prevent us from getting to this point? I mean, how could the leaders of our military, starting with Pete Hegseth on down, have handled this differently?
STAVRIDIS: Let me start with the question I get all the time, which is, is this a normal deployment? Is this a normal or is it a complete one-off?
You know, a lot of the commentary online on the one hand takes the form of, hey, those sailors ought to suck it up, it's a war, get over it. And on the other end, it takes the form of, oh, my gosh, it's a complete crisis in the ship, somebody better pull them into port right now, as though we are back in COVID times and a virus is ripping through the crew.
Neither of those views are correct. This is not a normal deployment. It is an extraordinary one. The sailors have risen to huge challenges to meet it. We ought to look carefully at this deployment, the previous ones of our other big carriers. We ought to recognize that these sailors have had to deal with very difficult circumstances.
And we, above all, we ought to look at logistics. Did we get the right food there? We ought to look at the morale in the ship. And we probably ought to have an outside set of eyes to go in and take a look at it. That would be my prescription.
HUNT: All right. Retired Admiral James Stavridis, always grateful to have you, sir. Thank you so much for being here.
STAVRIDIS: Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: All right, ahead here in THE ARENA, it's what's beneath the surface that matters here, the latest case the president is making for the construction of a White House ballroom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The people that are opposing the ballroom are people that, in my opinion, are very disloyal to our country, very, very disloyal to our country. It's not for me, because I'm going to be here a very short period of time when it's finished, if it finishes right on time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:37:47]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: The people that are opposing the ballroom are people that, in my opinion, are very disloyal to our country, very, very disloyal to our country.
We also are getting tremendous military protection, drone protection, the building is drone-proof, it's missile-proof as much as something can be missile-proof. It's totally bulletproof. Any bullet, nothing can go through the windows. We have, you know, all top-of-the-line stuff.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump there, not mincing words, calling those who oppose his White House ballroom, quote, "disloyal". President making a case for the $400 million project that he's recently started calling a military complex. You just heard him there listing the upgrades that he says are necessary for national security reasons.
It is the same argument that his administration is making to the Supreme Court asking the justices to bless a project that lower courts have repeatedly said requires congressional approval. His attorney general, though, saying yesterday that lawmakers on Capitol Hill already signed off. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: We don't believe we have to go to Congress. We believe Congress has already given us the authority to do what we're doing. Many presidents have done a tremendous amount of work to the White House as they should.
President Trump has said for many months now, almost a year, that he has the authority to do this. And he said that because he absolutely does have the authority to do this. And we're hopeful that the Supreme Court recognizes that and so that we can get the ballroom finished as soon as possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. My panel is back.
Bryan Lanza, the president, is still all in on all of this. I mean, he posted on Sunday an A.I.-generated image of himself giving a tour of the ballroom alongside George Washington. Definitely A.I., OK? At least we can all agree on that.
And yet, the American people are really not happy about this. They were asked at large about the D.C. construction projects in the CNN poll at the end of July, 58 percent said they are dissatisfied or angry, 25 percent says it doesn't matter. And only 17 percent were satisfied or happy about it.
And the ballroom in particular seems to have broken through with voters months out from the midterms. Why is the president so focused on it given the politics don't seem to be good for him?
[16:40:04]
LANZA: No clue.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Well, I appreciate your honesty.
LANZA: Politics does not appear to be good, but it doesn't take the argument away that the White House needs to be a more secure facility and that there is a military component to it that just so happens could be coupled with this ballroom. But I don't know why we're still pushing on this one. I have got nothing on this one.
HUNT: Okay, well, there you go. The conversation's going to be wrapped up.
I mean, the fact that he has started, I mean, obviously this president has been the target of violent attacks. Elliot, no question there. However, you don't need military grade windows in a ballroom if there's no ballroom in the first place, right? So, what he's talking about here are things that would be required to create a structure of this size and have it be safe.
LANZA: I would add that there's an underneath component to this facility that it's not ballroom, that is military, that's not discussed. That is critical. And that's what I say when he's merging the military component with the ballroom, the underneath needs to be covered up with something like it needed to be dug out. We needed to some upgrades underneath, which is military capabilities, military components.
But as for selling the ballroom, I would have sold it a different way.
WILLIAMS: But to be clear, none of that is being touched by any of these lawsuits. The construction on the underground portion of this is still allowed to proceed. It's the ballroom on top that's up in the air.
And there's an open legal question. I mean, with all due respect to Todd Blanche, there is a question being litigated right now about whether it is Congress or the president that have the authority to issue or to proceed with that construction there.
And the court will decide that probably quite soon. But, you know, there's two different things happening here. Yes, we're all in agreement. There's underground security facilities that can be built that all the courts have said can proceed, but the ballroom is an open question.
HUNT: Well, and I think it's also --
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: Well, I don't know. There was an East Wing there that seemed to work just fine up until --
LANZA: As somebody who's been in East, it didn't work just fine.
WILLIAMS: It was ugly. I mean, we're in agreement about that, but I don't know what you put on top of it.
LANZA: OK, well, I think that the point is that the president wanted the ballroom. It does seem to have provided an excuse to build a giant underground bunker for the Secret Service, and perhaps those upgrades were required anyway. But I just -- let's flash back, OK, to 2016, because President Trump, before he was ever president, was trying to get the current -- the president at the time to build a ballroom at the White House. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: And so Donald Trump offered to build a $100 million ballroom here at the White House. Was that ever considered? What else can you tell us about that? Because it is confirmed that he made that offer.
JOSH EARNEST, OBAMA WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY I've read a little bit about this.
REPORTER: You didn't know about it?
EARNEST: I can -- I can -- I was not the one that was consulted, but I can tell you that this is not something that was at all seriously considered.
REPORTER: And why not?
EARNEST: I'm not sure that it would be appropriate to have a shiny gold Trump sign on any part of the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That aged interesting.
OLSZEWSKI: Did not age well.
WILLIAMS: Did not age well.
OLSZEWSKI: Well, look, I think the larger issue here is that obviously this is a president who's all about himself, being in the news, self- enriching. This is an administration that has tens of billions of dollars for ballrooms, for bombs, but absolutely nothing for basics. And so, it's, again, it's that sense that people are struggling.
HUNT: Let's see what you did there.
(LAUGHTER)
WILLIAMS: It was a big, beautiful --
OLSZEWSKI: But people are struggling, right? Gas is $4 a gallon, they can't afford to put food on the table, they can barely keep a roof over their head, and they see gold everywhere in the White House, they see this absolute infatuation with building this ballroom, And they're like, why is this president not caring about me?
And from my perspective, it seems like he doesn't, when you're more worried about that than what people are paying for in their day-to-day living.
HUNT: And is that breaking through with voters, Kerry?
OLSZEWSKI: I mean, look, every minute that Donald Trump is spending talking about the ballroom or the Arch or the Kennedy Center is a moment, to your point, that he's not talking about affordability and the issues that Americans care about. And Republicans, I think, are very frustrated with this, too, because the president's approval rating is, what, at 38 percent. The biggest question of the midterms to me is going to be, can Democratic candidates outrun the bad Democratic brand faster than Republicans can outrun Donald Trump's brand?
Every minute that he is spending on these kinds of projects, he's not increasing that. He's not taking up that approval rating, nor is he allowing Republican candidates to distance themselves from it and say, as you just said, I don't really know why we're talking about this. I want to talk about affordability.
So, I do think it is something that is kind of breaking through in a metaphorical way of why is Washington and why is Donald Trump spending time on things that aren't the issues that matter to me.
HUNT: Yeah, for sure. All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, the new comments from the new attorney general that's further raising concerns about independence at the Justice Department.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: No, I'm not going to pledge that. And no attorney general should ever pledge that. The president will never ask me to do something unethical or legal -- or illegal.
[16:45:01]
He never has. He never will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN WELKER, NBC NEWS ANCHOR, MEET THE PRESS: Can you pledge that the Justice Department will always act independently of the White House?
BLANCHE: Well, that's -- there's a big difference between saying we will always do our job and investigate any case and act independently of the White House. No, I'm not going to pledge that, and no attorney general should ever pledge that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The Attorney General Todd Blanche there refusing to pledge the Justice Department will always act independently of the White House. The A.G.'s comments coming just over a week after he narrowly survived a bruising confirmation battle where some Republican senators voiced concerns about his close ties to President Trump and, of course, whether he would carry out the president's political agenda.
[16:50:12]
Elliot Williams, there -- you know, there are a variety of precedents here. I mean, JFK's attorney general was his own brother, right?
WILLIANS: Yeah.
HUNT: However, this president has been using the justice I mean he has transparently said I am your retribution and then we have seen him ask untruth social for his former attorney general to go after certain people. So what is this supposed to be?
WILLIAMS: That statement there is exactly why the world hates lawyers, Kasie, because he gave -- we all -- we hate ourselves. No, he gave a statement that is actually probably true in the eyes of the law because he parsed it, which, you know, to act independently of the White House, could you say that you never would?
And sure, the president or the administration can set broad policies. We're going to crack down on civil rights. We're going to crack down on civil rights enforcement. We're going to crack down on abortion clinic bombings or antitrust or whatever else. And presidents can do that, attorneys general can do that.
The better question for Todd Blanch is, would you take a directive from the president to violate standing Justice Department procedures or policies? Would you follow an illegal order from the president? And I don't think he could wiggle out of a question like that.
But he gave a statement there that was vague enough and open-ended enough that a lawyer could wink and nod and say that it was accurate. But come on, given the history of everything we know about the president, everything we know he's asked of his attorneys general, and quite frankly, everything Todd Blanche has done in the job, much of what he's done up to this point, we don't have any reason to believe that there's any space between the A.G. and the president.
HUNT: What was your reaction, Congressman?
OLSZEWSKI: This is a president who demands absolute fealty from anyone he lets into his orbit. If you so far as, say, you know, he was wearing the wrong color tie, you're gone the next day. And we see it from members of --.
WILLIAMS: That's why Brian Lanza doesn't wear ties.
LANZA: That's right. OLSZEWSKI: It is a clear and consistent pattern with this administration where he is happy to just toss people to the side if they're not willing to pledge blind loyalty and do whatever he asks of them. It's especially concerning in the DOJ if there's one agency that should be independent from politics and partisanship, that's it.
But it's consistent, it's par for the course, and it's why we're pushing so hard into November to change things.
HUNT: Bryan?
LANZA: The Attorney General is a political appointee. Let's be clear, he answers to the president. So, if he really does have this complete independence that means not answering to the president. Congress has had more than 50 years to change the rules regarding the attorney general change the Constitution and they haven't. It falls under the president. It's plain and simple.
And there's no reason, there should be any gap between the policy of the Justice Department the policy of this administration if President Trump says we need to crack down on drugs he should be able to turn to his in general and say hey you know what we have this policy --
HUNT: But that's a big difference between saying I think this particular person is dealing drugs even though I have no proof, go make the case.
LANZA: Yeah. It certainly is there is a difference but it is his prerogative. Voters know that when they elect the president that he's going to appoint an attorney general who's going to be responsive and receptive to him.
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: Let me say this like for instance these the reflecting pool vandalism cases are an excellent example of that point you're making going totally wrong where the president has said there was a crime committed here and I need -- in effect -- I need you to find evidence of this crime having been committed when it simply did not exist and the president is the one out there basically running the case of Encyclopedia Brown and the case of the lost box cutter that never existed. And he keeps pushing it.
The Justice Department went there and got embarrassed in court and got embarrassed, quite frankly, in front of the American people. And so, I'm with you on the broad point that a president can set, he appoints the attorney general, Congress confirms him, and he can set the broad policy of an administration.
But when it comes to the decisions on prosecution, investigation, and so on, the president has his finger, a thumb on the scale there in a way that is not good for Justice Department. And those cases we've seen recently are perfect examples.
HUNT: I mean, I also have in my mind that meeting between Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton on the tarmac. Is that not under your rubric, then, okay? Because Republicans were very upset about that. But if Loretta Lynch was at the time serving a Democratic president, he'd kind of do whatever the president told him.
LANZA: And it was a two-day story. right? I remember that --
WILLIAMS: Oh, I was not... No, no, no, no, no.
(CROSSTALK)
LANZA: It was not a month-long operation.
WILLIAMS: I was there that dogged the administration until its final day. And I'll tell you -- look, I was at the Justice Department at the time, the conversation about their grandkids, it was nothing to do with policy whatsoever, but it haunted Loretta Lynch and the entire -- just senior ranks in the Justice Department because of what it looked like to the American people, just the image of it, just the appearance of it.
And so, the idea --
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Elliot has dropped his microphone.
[16:55:01]
And that's good because we're out of time anyway. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks to my panel. Really appreciate all of you being here on this summer Monday.
Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. Don't forget, you can now stream THE ARENA live. You can catch up whenever you want to. It's all in the CNN All Access app. You just scan that QR card below.
You can also catch up -- this QR code is for our podcast. Or you can follow us on X and Instagram. We are @TheArenaCNN.
But as always, don't go anywhere because Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake.
