Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Katie Zacharia Addresses Questions On Her Legal Credentials; Midterm Anxiety Mounts For GOP As Dems Try To Expand Map; Trump Reverses Hegseth On Public Execution Of Fort Hood Shooter. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired October 15, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:01]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And 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 Thursday.
As we come on the air, new questions and maybe some answers about the new White House press secretary's legal credentials.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATIE ZACHARIA, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I consulted for a very long time, many people in the field. Is it okay and acceptable if I label myself lawyer, not attorney at law, not Katie Zacharia Esquire, but lawyer and provide legal analysis, not legal advice. And they said absolutely -- absolutely across the board. You can call yourself a lawyer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That's Katie Zacharia today explaining that she sought advice, potentially legal advice before referring to herself as a lawyer, despite having failed the California bar after graduating from law school.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZACHARIA: I was a corporate lawyer. The friendliness of -- you know, a Westerner being in it. It was a Chinese law firm. It was amazing.
I love to be able to break that down. I'm a lawyer.
I am a lawyer and I'm a rigorous researcher.
I'm a lawyer. I went to Pepperdine, Pepperdine law.
As a lawyer, the procedural steps are absolutely critical.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: Lawyer, attorney, attorney at law, esquire. So, a lot there.
We're going to dive into it with our own lawyer. But first, let's just remember why we're talking about her and her new role at all.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZACHARIA: He had a historic one-day war, and now we have a booming economy and a great relationship with Venezuela. In addition to that, we will be -- there is $54 billion tied to the Alaska LNG pipeline. So, my president -- excuse me, my husband -- that's a good one.
To the question on -- the president will be back on Thursday, and that's what I will answer. I'll leave it there.
He will answer those questions out --
(CROSSTALK)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Zacharia's first press briefing on Tuesday made headlines for all the wrong reasons. And these persistent questions over how she's represented herself and her resume have kept her in the news. She does risk learning one of the most important lessons of Trump world the hard way. Don't steal the boss's spotlight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOST: "Saturday Night Live", you know they're going to be coming. You know this Saturday, they're probably going to be doing something. Who would you like to have play you on "Saturday Night Live"?
ZACHARIA: That's -- I know it's coming, yes. I think -- who would I like to have play me? Maybe a Scarlett Johansson type character.
HOST: I could see that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay, let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg; Capitol Hill correspondent for "Puck News", Mariana Sotomayor; former senior advisor policy director for the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, Josh Orton; and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings.
We are also joined by CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.
Elie, can I start with you? Because she basically said at the top there, she asked a whole bunch of people whether it was okay to call herself a lawyer. Is it okay? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Kasie, up until exactly yesterday, I had always been taught and understood that a person who went to law school but had not passed the bar was a person who went to law school. But a person who had passed the bar was either a lawyer or an attorney, and I always understood those two terms were synonymous and interchangeable.
However, as of last night and this morning --
HUNT: Since then.
HONIG: I have from various attorneys, including people who I know and respect, including Michael Smerconish, said this morning on the radio that he always understood that lawyer meant you went to law school, and attorney meant you passed the bar.
So as often happens in the law, there is some ambiguity there, but let me say this, if any friend of mine or any of my students who I teach were to come to me years later and say, well, listen, I passed the -- I graduated law school, but I did not pass the bar, and I'm going to go put myself out there as a lawyer, quote/unquote. I would say, let's not do that, because at best, it's misleading, and at worst, it could be worse than that.
HUNT: So, Jonah Goldberg, does this matter? How much does this matter?
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think the press secretary job under this White House matters less than it otherwise might. I think this matters because in her case, it matters for her because her credibility took a massive hit her first week out and then she didn't do a great job. I think she'll get better at it. It's sort of axiomatic because I don't think she can get a lot worse, but I also think she'll get better at it.
But she goes around, if she's gone around representing herself as a lawyer, an attorney, or whatever, and she wasn't one, it gets at her fundamental credibility for a job that requires a good bit of credibility.
[16:05:05]
And I think your point in the intro about making herself the story, Trump doesn't like when people make money off his presidency. People don't like it when they he doesn't like it when people embarrass him. He's fine with embarrassing himself.
And so, I don't know if she's in Scaramucci territory, but she didn't come out of the blocks great.
HUNT: Scott, what is your assessment of that last point, of where she stands with the president?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, let me answer the first question. I don't think it matters. Press secretary doesn't need to be a lawyer, and he's not hiring a lawyer. They got plenty of lawyers in the White House counsel's office, and I'm sure they're going to have to hire a bunch more. She doesn't need to be a lawyer.
What she needs to do is deliver the message from the podium in a way that is concise, on point, and that he likes. And that's really the only thing that matters.
And that gets to your second question. Where do you stand? So I would say, look, she's going to have to come out and do the next briefing and do well.
And do well in his eyes because obviously she speaks for him. She speaks for the White House. She speaks for the U.S. government, but he picked her. And this is his choice.
And now, she's -- I mean, look, my advice is take a few days, get briefed, hang out with people in the administration, get in the jet stream of how they're talking about issues. And be comfortable because if you walk out there with butterflies, it could be hard again. So, I think that's what they're going to do is give her a few days and get her briefed up. And that's the right answer.
So, I think the legal issue is a non-issue. I think we're obsessing over it for no reason.
HUNT: Well, part of it might be because she stood next to the president and was asked, where did you pass the bar? And the president turned around and looked at her. So now there's video of him, of the two of them standing together.
JENNINGS: I think it's super loud out there, just to be honest. And I think she was saying, I moved to China, which is true. After she went out of law school, she moved to China, I guess, with her boyfriend who then became her husband.
HUNT: My point is just it put Trump in a weird position in that moment.
JENNINGS: Well, yes, but it's easily cleared up. And again, it's inconsequential to the job whether or not she has a law degree.
HUNT: All right, let's watch a little bit more of her explanation of how her initial briefing played out. It did, of course, happen on Monday at Columbus Day. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZACHARIA: Monday, Columbus Day, is when I got the briefing materials. and then Tuesday morning, they were completed and I woke up at three in the morning on Tuesday to prepare with what I had but they weren't finalized until we didn't finalize everything until about 8:00 a.m. and I never had a full briefing beforehand. And I went out and I effectuated the briefing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, of course, that briefing excuse me happens and then she travels with the president, and this was that moment where she was asked about her own legal credentials. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What state did she pass the bar exam in? You said she's an attorney, where did she pass the bar exam? Which state?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Which state?
REPORTER: Can she tell us?
ZACHARIA: When I moved to China.
REPORTER: Where did you pass the bar exam?
ZACHARIA: When I moved to China.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, again, Elie Honig, can I just get you to weigh in on this? Because, I mean, as Scott did explain, like, yes, that's how it played out with her biography. What around her legal career do you understand that she did or did not do correctly?
HONIG: First of all, Kasie, if you watch that clip, there is that notable moment when she first says, well, when I went to China, where you see the president do a double take, like, what did you just say? There is an expression that we lawyers or attorneys use, which is if you're explaining, you're losing.
And if you have to go after your first ever briefing and do a round of press and say, well, if you view it in a certain light, then the term lawyer arguably could apply to me, that's a losing argument. I think the bigger point here, Scott's right, the press secretary does not have to be a lawyer or an attorney or any of those things but I think Jonah has the better point which is the person who stands in front of that White House insignia and briefs the American public has to be credible and you can't be thinking -- well, wait a second is this person telling me the straight-up 100 percent truth or is this person playing semantic games and sort of wiggling around the margins. I think that's really the bigger issue here.
HUNT: Yeah. Josh Orton, I mean you've spoken on behalf of candidates in your career. I mean, what does that mean to you? Because obviously, when you're a reporter sitting and I've sat in that briefing room, I've sat in, you know, hundreds, if not thousands of press conferences and pressed spokespeople, pressed principals, you expect them to give you a version, their preferred version of the truth. But the truth is, in fact, demanded, typically, and the lack of credibility does become an issue quickly if, in fact, it becomes obvious that that's not what's going on.
JOSH ORTON, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR AND POLICY DIRECTOR, SANDERS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: Totally. And look, this is sort of an insider take, but as a White House staffer, it is not exactly the dream to have to go do cleanup. on your stories about yourself on the first week of the job.
[16:10:03]
This is -- she's in very perilous territory.
But I actually sort of agree with Scott a little bit, too. I don't really think it matters who's at that podium right now, because what we've seen is that this White House and this president is not actually campaigning for his party in the midterm election that is happening in two weeks. They do not have an affirmative message on affordability, on corruption.
And so, on some level, if the ship is going down, I'm not really sure it matters who the cruise director is.
HUNT: Well, Mariana, I mean, You cover every day all these members of Congress who really want-- like, put this on the list of distractions, right, that Republican members of Congress wish that they weren't talking about instead of the things that actually matter to voters.
MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR, CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT, PUCK NEWS: Correct. That is exactly it. And even when I've tried to ask some of these lawmakers, like, hey, what do you think about the new press secretary? They're like, I'm literally just trying to win an election. I'm not necessarily paying attention to that.
But yes, do they wish that there was somebody every day going out there, like Karoline, that's the thing. People are missing Karoline Leavitt. She was someone who had the experience, which it's so different to be a panelist, let's say, just like us, and stand behind a podium and deliver remarks.
And she has not had that experience before. And she even outlined how quickly from getting the job to getting all those prep materials, you have to have that talent and also maybe not go out with too many nerves to be able to do that job. I think she'll have, of course, another opportunity to prove herself, but the distractions can absolutely mount.
GOLDBERG: It's not -- just one quick point. It's not a good sign that the person that she went to, which a lot of people in this administration go to, was Jack Posobiec.
HUNT: Yeah, I wanted to raise that point, too, and explain why.
GOLDBERG: So, Jack Posobiec, big guy from the pizzagate conspiracy theory on his podcast. He has Franco Fridays, which is all about the Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco. I would argue he's racist.
He's definitely a conspiracy theorist. And he carries more water than Gunga Din for this administration. And so, the idea that she has to go to this guy, where she knows his mission is to not ask a hard question because he is essentially part of the administration, for all intents and purposes, and on the sort of wacky wing of it, is a sign that we still don't know how she's going to do in a real interview with an actual journalist. And that would make me nervous, too. HUNT: Jonah, I want to play for you one other thing that she said in this interview with Jack Posobiec. And the -- well, the quote is about a conspiracy, and she alleges that people want to put me in a camp, is the quote. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZACHARIA: It's unfortunate that people dub this as some kind of conspiracy or want to put me in a camp. The truth is, is I was very careful how I executed this, and I never came across as someone who was an attorney at law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: What does she mean by that?
GOLDBERG: There, I'm going to give her some grace and think she just means put her -- I'm guessing. put her in a category of something I don't think they want to put her in -- I don't know. She is trafficked in a bunch of conspiracy theory stuff too on her social media accounts in the past which have been deleted, but she wasn't careful about how she characterized herself and Posobiec clearly didn't have any follow- up questions about it.
HUNT: Scott, how would you characterize what you think you heard from her there?
JENNINGS: I -- I'm with Joan on this I don't read anything nefarious into -- look, I think she -- I think she's a very nice person. I think she earnestly wants to serve the president. I think this is an exciting opportunity. I think she is wanting to try to put this early stumbles behind her and get on with the job, and she thinks she needs to go out and explain the attorney thing and sort of answer for it.
I'm not actually sure she needs to, to be honest. Because, again, you don't have to be an attorney here. I don't know that she's done anything wrong. I think some people are trying to pick at her over it.
But if I were her, I think I might just go quiet for a few days, get brief, get ready, and nail your next opportunity behind that podium. Go out there and absolutely nail it. That's the only thing she should be thinking about.
ORTON: Can we talk about how the guidance from Scott right now is for the press secretary to go quiet for a few days? I mean, let's back up a little bit.
JENNINGS: To get briefed. To get prepared.
ORTON: Well, she could have done that before she started the job. Let's back up. The issue here is that we have a president and administration that does not care about the morality of the staff, the experience of the staff, or the merit of the staff.
This is -- she was not set up for success, either politically, professionally, policy-wise. This was a train wreck before it ever happened.
HUNT: All right. Elie Honig, thank you, sir. Always appreciate seeing you.
HONIG: Thanks, guys.
HUNT: All right. The rest of my panelists will stand by. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, California Senator Alex Padilla will be here live in THE ARENA as the Trump administration today sues his state over ballots in the midterm elections.
But first, all eyes on Michigan. Top surrogates from both parties deploy to the state today as new polling shows the president with a record low approval rating.
[16:15:07]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: The polling is similar about the president himself. You know, he's out there saying he wants everybody to act like he's on the ballot. Well, that's fine if you're simply trying to turn out Republicans. But the polls, the polling that we now have show that support among Republicans has diminished since election day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're taking in massive amounts of money through tariffs and record-setting economic success. We're taking in massive amounts of money through tariffs and record-setting economic success. All this money, we're making a fortune in our country.
The golden age of America, and that's what we have right now.
[16:20:03]
We're in the golden age. There's never been anything like it.
We're taking in massive amounts of money through tariffs and record- setting economic success, success like we've never seen before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Nineteen days until Election Day, and that number, 19, is about the same as the percentage of Americans who say they're financially better off under President Trump.
As of right now, more than 5-1/2 million early ballots have already been cast, and if this midterm is a referendum on the president, there is not a whole lot of great news for him in this new Fox News poll, where his approval rating sits at 36 percent. That is the lowest approval rating for him ever in that poll. Just 18 percent of voters are saying that their family is doing better financially now than they were two years ago.
The president last night brought his everything is amazing message to Arizona and Montana. Today, though, the Labor Department announcing that wholesale inflation surged last month much more than expected. In fact, it jumped to its highest level in more than four years. when people are really feeling it.
Also in that Fox News poll, an overwhelming majority of voters say inflation is either not at all or only somewhat under control.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): We go into a grocery store every single week. Beef is getting recalled. Chicken you can't eat. Lettuce you can't eat. Blueberries you can't eat. We can't even -- even if you can afford your groceries, you can't even know if you're going to get your kids sick or not.
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez today connecting the affordability crisis to cuts to food safety inspectors, making those remarks in Michigan today as she campaigned for Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El Sayed. Vice President J.D. Vance also in Michigan this afternoon, stumping for Republican Mike Rogers. Already more than $300 million has been spent on the Michigan Senate race.
And today, the Rogers campaign announced a seven-figure ad buy releasing this new ad attacking El Sayed on prices and affordability.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARB: Our utility bills are already the highest in the Midwest.
CASEY: And Abdul El-Sayed wants us to pay even more.
CHRIS: Abdul's energy tax would jack up our utility bills $2,000 a year.
CLINT: We can't afford Abdul.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, my panel is back.
Scott Jennings, the president's numbers are the worst they've ever been, his approval rating, in this Fox News poll. We've obviously seen the strategy he's deploying. He's going to red states, trying to turn out the base. But the blame game is kind of already playing out behind the scenes. We've talked to Republicans about how this is going to go.
What is your sense of where things stand right now heading into-- I mean, we're in 19 days from the election.
JENNINGS: Bunch of close races out there. I mean, all these Senate races are incredibly close. You talk to people who are working on them, and they'll tell you they got a lot of close polling. Obviously, the environment is what it is.
Not here to dispute the polling, really, but there are a lot of Senate strategists out there who feel like Republicans are more than in the game in places like Michigan, where they think they've got a very good candidate, Mike Rogers, and a very flawed candidate with a lot of weird, problematic stuff in Abdul El-Sayed.
You got the same thing going on in Minnesota. The Democratic nominee there not great.
Got the same thing going on in Maine. The Democratic nominee there kind of weird.
So, you know that there's. There's a close large playing field out there and more than a path for the Republicans to maintain a majority in the Senate over in the House could be more problematic. You hear some more pessimism out there, but the Senate, you know, I think there's some. There's some belief that they may -- they may have a shot at holding it.
HUNT: Well, the fact that we're -- while I agree with that assessment, Republicans may have a shot at holding it. I mean, Josh, the fact that we're talking about that with the landscape of states being what it is is remarkable considering where we started.
ORTON: Well, exactly. There are a lot of close races out there, but for Republicans, they shouldn't be close, right? Let's look at Texas.
And I think what's interesting here is Donald Trump knows how to campaign in this environment. You have to give him credit in his first two campaigns. He puts on the McDonald's apron. He goes into the 18- wheeler, right?
HUNT: He's driving a garbage truck.
ORTON: He attacks private equity. He once said that Amazon was a monopoly.
He's not doing any of that. So, there's really nothing for this party, the Republicans, to run on for working people who are experiencing these economic hardships. There is nothing from the current administration or the Republican leadership that they can point to and say, we need more of that. There is nothing.
And so, I mean, look, I think there's a lot of close races, and I think a lot of people are treading water, but so what do they resort to? Islamophobic attacks on Abdul, right? Like this stuff this weird ad hominem stuff uh against Talarico.
So, yeah, there's close races but they shouldn't be
HUNT: Jonah Goldberg, I want to play something that Brit Hume said on Fox News. He was talking here about 1994 and what happened to Bill Clinton, because, of course, the president's been out on the campaign trail, you know, claiming he's getting big crowds. There have been people meeting him, cheering. You can see it in the footage. But just watch how Hume analyzed that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HUME: You got big crowds, and the Democrats and the president's party absolutely got slaughtered in that race. The Republicans have to worry that something like that may happen to them in this race, where not only do they lose the close ones, but they lose a lot that weren't even thought to be close, and you get a big washout.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Because that, of course, can happen in a wave, right? Like on election night, we end up talking about races that weren't even on the radar.
GOLDBERG: Yeah, and also just the way our brains process crowds, messes people up. I mean, there's a great line, maybe apocryphal from Richard Nixon. He was once asked if he thought overpopulation was a problem. And he said, it's obviously a problem. I mean, everywhere I go, I see huge crowds.
(LAUGHTER)
GOLDBERG: Maybe that's because you're president of the United States, right? If you see huge crowds at your rallies, like, that's great, but that doesn't necessarily --
HUNT: Doesn't mean there's too many people in the world.
GOLDBERG: Right. The polling that you showed basically says that almost two -- two to one, people have an unfavorable view of the president. So, they're in a situation where he goes around, he constantly says, make the election all about me. Their gamble is that they're going to get more of those ones to turn out and not intensify the turnout from the twos. But it's sort of like the salesman who says, sure, we're losing money on every sale, but we'll make up for it in volume.
Like just the idea that they're not attracting more disfavorable votes than a favorable is unlikely to me.
HUNT: What are you hearing on the Hill, Marianna?
SOTOMAYOR: I mean, even talking about that, the money, there's been so much money spent in the Senate and House races. The interesting thing that I have heard largely on the House side, and this has been a change from even last week when There was some hope out there that maybe Republicans could keep Democrats to a slim majority.
Now I'm hearing from so many strategists who've been watching these races saying that it's probably going to -- Democrats will be able to flip at least 10, 15, probably 20 seats, and that the money hasn't necessarily tightened the races too much. That's why you're seeing a lot of Republicans conceding a number of seats already two weeks out.
The Senate is a little different. I think, Scott, you're right. I've heard very much where there are a number of Republicans who are hopeful that they can keep a number of seats. Democrats are hopefully like, they are positively optimistic, really trying to hold on. But you hear more doubt from Democrats as the weeks are going on, that does not mean that there isn't obviously the Senate is in play, because the fact that we are even talking about the Senate being in play is something that we would not have talked about a year ago, several months ago. Like, this is still easy and helpful terrain for Democrats.
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, when it's like Georgia and North Carolina are basically already off the map for Democrats, and you're talking about Ohio and Alaska and Texas, that kind of territory story is really firmly read territory. Speaking of Texas, let's watch a little bit of the town hall that CNN held last night with James Talarico. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES TALARICO (D), TEXAS SENATE CANDIDATE: Show of hands, how many people here have an elderly parent or grandparent who needs care? So do I.
How many people here struggle to afford the high price of everything these days? So do I.
How many people here know what it means to carry the burden of student debt or credit card debt or medical debt? So do I.
Do you want a good job with good benefits? Do you want a safe neighborhood? Do you want a high-quality, well-funded public school? So do I.
The truth is that we are all on the same team.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Scott Jennings, I mean, this race is one that is, I would argue, very candidate driven because of the weakness on the Republican side in particular, right? If it were John Cornyn going up against Talarico, the idea that we would be talking about this race, we are like the way we are, probably not the case, right?
Talarico, of course, Republicans trying to make hay out of his past statements. Fair enough. But I think you saw in that clip that his ability to command a room is something that not every politician possesses, right? The audience is there. He's talking directly to them.
How do you think he performed last night, and how do you stack him as a candidate? If he wins this race, he's going to be a huge Democratic star. What are your thoughts on that?
JENNINGS: I thought he had some interesting moments, but I thought his moments with the individual voters were very slippery. I mean, the veteran sat down in front of him, and all he wanted to know was whether he was going to vote for the SAVE America Act. [16:30:03]
And Talarico sat there and lied to his face and told him he'd never heard of it when he's been out trashing it all over the campaign trail. He tried to make the Catholic lady believe that they were on the same page when it comes to abortion. They very much are not on the same page when it comes to pro-life issues.
He has this little rhetorical device where he tries to get everybody to believe that he wants them to walk away from the table thinking -- well, I don't, maybe, he would. Something that I wanted to do.
HUNT: Isn't that?
JENNINGS: Nope, that's being slippery. He has no intention of voting for the SAVE America Act, voter ID, pro-life laws, or anything else that any conservative leaning Texan would ever think about. And so, I just-- it's very slippery. He's got a real talent for being slippery, but I'm not sure that's what you want in a politician.
ORTON: I would ask how Ken Paxton did at his town hall, but he refused to do one, and he has not done a single debate. So, that's actually off the table.
I think one thing --
JENNINGS: By the way, very fair. Ken Paxton -- I think every candidate has a responsibility to talk to the voters.
HUNT: Yeah.
JENNINGS: And I could-- it's totally fair, and it's hard to-- I mean, that's why Talarico's doing this, because that's one of his core talents, but I'm with you, it's fair.
ORTON: I think Talarico said something interesting last night. He connected the corruption scandal to the affordability crisis, and I think that's working everywhere.
HUNT: Yeah.
All right. Come up next here, why the Justice Department is today asking a judge to block California from counting tens of thousands of ballots in the November midterms. The state's senior senator, Alex Padilla, will be here live in THE ARENA, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:35:50]
HUNT: All right, welcome back.
The Trump administration is suing California election officials. With the midterm elections just weeks away, the Department of Justice is asking a judge to block the state from counting tens of thousands of mail-in ballots, alleging they're from non-citizens. Governor Gavin Newsom calls it a, quote, sad and desperate attempt by
the White House to suppress votes.
Joining me now in THE ARENA is Democratic senator from California, Alex Padilla. He sits on the Judiciary Committee and also, of course, notably served previously as California's secretary of state.
Senator, thank you so much for being here. It's great to see you.
Let's start here with this lawsuit around these mail-in votes. What is the administration trying to do here?
SEN. ALEX PADILLA (D-CA): Well, let's talk about what's happening and then why it's happening. The administration is clearly without any authority, by the way, trying to interfere with the elections. I mean, the department's own policy is to not engage within 60 days of an election. We're 19 days out.
Number two, they're trying to suggest, oh, we happen to have this database, cross-reference your voter registration list, and these are all people who aren't eligible to vote to take them off the rolls.
The Department of Homeland Security, the department, nobody there runs elections. The Constitution is clear. States administer elections.
So, they're desperate. They're looking for this proof that Trump has been barking about for more than 10 years about massive voter fraud which simply does not exist.
Now to the why. This close to the election, they see the same polls that you guys have been talking about for days and weeks now. They're walking into a horrible midterm election cycle where voters -- voters will hold Trump and Republicans accountable for their horrible record of the last two years.
Their only hope for trying to maintain any sense of power is to interfere. It's to change the rules. It's to rig the elections. That's why they're doing this.
HUNT: What can you say to voters who say perhaps they saw the news out of New Jersey, for example, that there were, in fact, non-citizens who were able to vote in the elections? If voters here, this might be a problem, knowing what you know about the systems in California that are designed to protect against that, what would you say to them?
PADILLA: So, a couple of things. Number one, California does verify a voter's eligibility on the front end not when you go vote but when you first immediately register. Number two, our system by the way of automatic registration through the Department of Motor Vehicles in California has provided the most accurate voter rolls we've ever had because on a regular basis, people are renewing their driver's license or their IDs once again verifying their information.
But you have to wonder you know this Thumb drive that appeared in the mail in Los Angeles County, where did it come from? The database, the list of voters are suggesting, how do they arrive at that list? We've known that the SAVE database that the Department of Homeland
Security has tried to use before for this purpose is inaccurate. They acknowledge there's large false positives here. That's been the result of other states that have tried to utilize it.
And again, why it was close to the election? They could have had this conversation months and months ago.
HUNT: Are you concerned that what comes of this may be used after the fact to try and interfere with the certification process, the seating of members?
PADILLA: Look, I don't put anything past Donald Trump and his administration to try to interfere with the elections before the election, on Election Day, or after the election.
So, yeah, that's one of the more than working theories here. That's a very good possibility. They're trying to lay the foundation to try to litigate this after the fact. I know how California elections work very, very well. They're safe, they're secure, they're fair, they're free, and they're going to stay that way.
HUNT: Why does it take so long to count in California? Does that undermine faith in the system?
PADILLA: The longer it takes to finish counting, the ballots does create a little bit of space for people to wonder, why is it taking so long? What's going on?
For starters, there's more voters in California than there's people in Florida. The sheer volume alone makes it take a little bit longer. Number two, 80 percent of California voters vote by mail. And you want, out of concern for safety and security, to verify.
So, there is the signature verification. There isn't just ballot counting. There is auditing before you certify the final results.
Can they -- should they count a little bit faster? Yes, and we've pushed the governor and the legislature to provide the resources to do so. Is it more staff depends on the county? Is it more warehouse space? Is it more equipment?
Whatever it is, let's -- let's speed it up a little bit, but again, you'd rather get it right than get it fast.
HUNT: One other issue that's come up in recent days for you, well, today, this afternoon, law enforcement agencies are investigating suspicious substances. I understand something was sent to your office or attempted to be sent to your office. What do you know about that? Is everyone safe?
PADILLA: Thankfully, everybody is safe. I think we've been hearing about this developing story all day. It's a number of United States senators.
It's been secretaries of state across the country. It's been some local elections offices that have received this mysterious mail with some white powdery substance. It's been deemed non-dangerous. So, for folks who think back to the anthrax scare from several years ago, this is not that, but it kind of reminds us of that.
We'll let the investigators do their job to try to figure out who is behind this and why. But in the meantime, thanking everybody for being safe and getting back to work, because this is the busiest time for elections administrators.
HUNT: We talked a lot about the midterms. I want to talk briefly about the election that's going to start essentially the day after the midterm elections, which is 2028. And of course, a big piece of that conversation is in your home state, in California, with questions about what Governor Gavin Newsom is going to do, questions what former nominee and Vice President Kamala Harris is going to do.
Ro Khanna, who, of course, a member of Congress, part of the oversight committee here, potentially candidate himself, was asked to weigh in on Gavin Newsom's potential presidential bid. Let's watch that. We'll talk about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WAJAHAT ALI, HOST: Do you think Gavin Newsom will be a good president?
REP. RO KHANNO (D-CA): That would be better than the current, for sure. I mean, I would obviously support whoever our nominee is, but do I believe he will be the kind of transformational president on foreign policy and economic policy that we need? I do not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Were you surprised by his sharp words there? He does not believe Newsom could be a transformational president.
PADILLA: There's no secret that he's exploring a potential run himself, and I think my big picture takeaway is, look, yeah, California is blessed with a lot of talent. We're diverse, different types of talent and ideas that will bring to the table. Some may run, some may not run.
I bet you, Ro Khanna, Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris, just like me and everybody else, are focused on the midterms first before we get to 2028.
HUNT: Do you think Newsom could be a transformational president?
PADILLA: I've known him for a long time. He was transformational in San Francisco. He's been a good governor and we'll see what he decides after the midterms.
HUNT: All right, fair enough.
Senator Alex Padilla, thank you so much for joining us. Really appreciate your time today. All right, ahead here in THE ARENA, why the president is reversing a
controversial decision around the execution of the Fort Hood shooter.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:47:26]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: He's going to get a firing squad of soldiers, as it should be. And we'll make sure that people are able to watch it, that it's public, because people need to understand that there's serious consequences for these types of things.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: One week after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced the scheduled execution of the Fort Hood shooter would be livestreamed, President Trump is now saying it won't be. This morning, he went on his Truth Social platform to make the announcement, saying this, quote, "He will die as scheduled by firing squad, but this event will not be streamed. That said, the execution may be viewed in person by the immediate families of the victims if they so choose."
Sources told CNN that Trump was debating calling off the livestream, having privately remarked he did not initially know that the shooter, Nidal Hasan, was paralyzed from the waist down. There was bipartisan backlash to the initial announcement, and the president appeared to take credit for it last week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Did you verbally authorize or approve the execution, the livestream execution of the --
TRUMP: Did I approve?
REPORTER: Did you approve?
TRUMP: Absolutely.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Amy McGrath is joining our panel now.
Colonel, thank you so much for coming back to talk about this. The president, of course, announcing that this would not happen. What's your reaction? He did seem to outline some of what is usually done in situations like this. Obviously, a live stream, not typically what is permissible.
LT. COL. ARMY MCGRATH (RET.), FORMER MARINE COMBAT FIGHTER PILOT: Yeah, Kasie, this was never about whether Hasan deserved punishment. It was about whether the United States government should turn an execution into a public spectacle. And I think many of us we're glad President Trump called this off, but let's be clear, it never should have been considered in the first place.
And, you know, you just showed the clip of the secretary of defense. I mean, his judgment in enthusiastically announcing that the United States military would do this just shows you how poor -- how much poor judgment he has.
But you know, Trump took a week to reverse this. And I think we have to be honest about this. Does anyone really believe that the president suddenly found his moral compass here? He reversed the decision, which is the right thing to do, but it wasn't about decency.
It was about the bad press that he was getting and the pushback that he was getting.
[16:50:00]
HUNT: Colonel, in the span of that week, what impact do you think the expectation that this was going to happen had on America's reputation around the world and in the corners of the world where there are people who want to do us harm?
MCGRATH: Well, we would be -- if we were to do this, we would be up right up there with North Korea and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. And the one thing that really bothers me as someone who spent 24 years in the military and wore the uniform is what this would have meant to the soldiers ordered to carry it out.
You know, CNN, your network, reported that Army officials were concerned about the psychological impact on soldiers, and rightfully so. I would be, too.
We have the Archbishop of the United States military, the head of the Catholic Ministry of all of our military coming out and urging Catholic soldiers to basically request not to participate in the firing squad. And we know that at least, you know, 60 soldiers did just that. It was a bad idea. Never should have been even brought up in our country.
HUNT: Jonah Goldberg, can I ask you about just like the moral implications of this? It did -- initially, the president -- and this is often -- the president does try to take credit for decisions he thinks are strong. It took him a week to reverse it. Were you surprised he did?
GOLDBERG: No. I think the fact that he's-- I mean, it's telling that you included in the thing. Trump thinks very visually. And when you actually talk to people about what the optics of executing a guy in a wheelchair would be, would he leave him in the wheelchair? Would you take him out of the wheelchair and prop him up some way?
I mean, it gets gruesome, more gruesome than just an execution really, really quickly. And we were talking about in an earlier segment, Jack Posobiec. Well, Hegseth told this -- freelanced this idea to Jack Posobiec and did his sort of we're so macho, we're so cool, chesty Mick Rosoff (ph) stuff to impress Posobiec. And so, I think this thing was freelanced, and it sounded interesting
to Trump in the beginning, and as it started to play out, he just saw that it wasn't in his interest, but it's a good sign of how this administration thinks cultivating fans in a very fringy part of the right is central to their media operation and it plays poorly with the rest of America.
HUNT: Scott, you agree with that?
JENNINGS: Well, I think the president wound up in the right spot. I think he showed good judgment on it. And when presented with all the facts of it, he made the correct decision as commander-in-chief.
And I'll tell you this, he also made the correct political decision. I saw a survey this morning I talk a lot about 80/20 issues. It was literally 80-19. So, this is about as 80/20 as it gets. So, he wound up in the right place, I think, by his role as commander-in-chief, and he wound up in the right place politically.
Good call by the president. And I'm glad we wound up here. This guy deserves to be executed. We haven't had a military execution since 1961, so the livestream piece of this was never contemplated before. And I'm glad they've set it aside on this one.
HUNT: Yeah, I mean, the backlash was firmly bipartisan. I do think it's worth noting.
And, Marianna, you probably heard some of this on the Hill. I mean, Congressman Austin Scott, who doesn't always weigh in on things like this, said, I absolutely support the sentence of death, but livestreaming executions is what jihadists do. America is better than that.
SOTOMAYOR: Yeah, his statement, and I think was one of the first ones from on the Hill that people were like, OK, Republicans and Democrats are out how this should not be precedent setting in the United States, right? We shouldn't be livestreaming this.
And regardless of what you think about the death penalty or not, this is just not the way to go about it. And I think the bipartisan backlash was so swift and was so strong that clearly that reached the president.
HUNT: Yeah.
ORTON: I was going to say, look, this was morally bankrupt in almost a biblical sense. I mean, the idea that Pete Hegseth ordered these young men and women who are not, you know, wealthy, these are, you know, young men and women in the armed services are working class. The idea that he ordered them to, on live TV, shoot a paraplegic is insane. And I would just back up and say, look, this is what happens when you staff your cabinet with idiots, is you get these kind of decisions.
HUNT: Colonel McGrath, I mean, we saw as recently as October 8th, Pete Hegseth posts correct when CBS News issued a report that the thing was going to continue. Clearly, he still wanted to do it. What does that say about him?
MCGRATH: Well, it shows you how that he really should never have been secretary of defense to begin with. I mean he -- the fact that the secretary of defense thought this was appropriate thing to do in the first place really shows you how terrible he is in his job.
[16:55:02]
You know, Hasan betrayed his country. He murdered his fellow service members, and he should pay for that. But we do not have to be as barbaric as our enemies to prove that we're strong. And not only that, there is a huge propaganda risk if we were to have gone through with this. I mean, we forget about the 20, 25 years of war we just had in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. There's a reason we don't make spectacles of executions in this country.
HUNT: All right. Retired Lieutenant Colonel Amy McGrath, thank you as always for joining us. I really appreciate it.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: Thanks to my panel. Thanks to you at home for watching as well.
"THE LEAD", anchored by Pamela Brown, starts right now.
