Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
New Group Chat Texts Released as White House Grapples With Fallout; Appeals Court Rules Against Trump on Deportations; Trump Announces 25 Percent Tariff on All Cars Not Made in U.S. Prince Harry Steps Down From Charity He Founded; New Report Digs Into How The Mets Secured Juan Soto. Aired 6-7p ET
Aired March 26, 2025 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:00:00]
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.
And we start with breaking news. This hour, President Trump in the Oval Office moments ago defending his defense secretary and saying he won't oppose a new investigation into why highly sensitive details about U.S. military strikes were shared in a group chat that inadvertently happened to include a journalist.
Plus, an appeals court hands the White House a loss, upholding a block on Trump's deportations using the Alien Enemies Act. So, what happens next? Is this headed straight to the Supreme Court?
Also, food banks across the us, which were already reporting Americans in increase of necessity of help, are now bracing for a new round of struggles after the Trump administration cut $500 million of food deliveries. The steps they're now taking to try and close that gap.
And a new filing today in the case of accused murder in Luigi Mangione. Why prosecutors are accusing Mancini's attorneys of using fashion to encourage more publicity around his already very high- profile case.
The Lead Tonight, moments ago, President Trump was pressed by reporters on why some of his top officials were discussing sensitive military plans in a group chat that included a journalist.
We start things off tonight with CNN's Alayna Tree at the White House. Alayna, what do we hear?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: There's a lot of knowable moments actually, in some of those exchanges in the Oval Office, Phil. One was when he was pressed on whether he believed some of the information in that Signal exchange was classified. He said he didn't know. He wasn't that involved. You'd have to ask others. Of course, that comes after we heard the White House press secretary say that he had reviewed the text message, or excuse me, Signal message exchanges himself.
He also seemed to say that Hegseth, the defense secretary, had nothing to do with it despite, you know, noting the timing and the specific weapons that were going to be used in that strike. Take a listen to how he put it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you still believe nothing classified was shared?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Well, that's what I've heard. I don't know. I'm not sure. You'll have to ask the various people involved. I really don't know.
REPORTER: Senate Republicans have asked said that they have formally asked the administration for an inspector general report on the Signal issue. Will you agree to that?
TRUMP: It doesn't bother me. You know, I want to find if there's any mistake or if Signal doesn't work. It could be that Signal's not very good.
Well, yes, Mike Waltz, I guess he said -- he claimed responsibility, I would imagine.
Mike did -- he took responsibility for it.
REPORTER: Should Secretary Hegseth consider his position over the Signal?
TRUMP: Hegseth is doing a great job. He had nothing to do with this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TREENE: So, you could hear there are a lot of different notable moments. Also, his messaging and rhetoric there is very different from what we've heard from the White House so far. What top White House officials, including some of the secretaries involved in that chat. Pete Hegseth for one, Michael Waltz, Caroline Leavitt, the list goes on, have been very defiant in their language on this, really trying to downplay the seriousness of what was discussed on that Signal chain and kind of deny the most egregious parts of this.
But what was interesting really to me and what stood out, Phil, someone, I know you've covered the president, just like I have it seems like he's not as well versed in how Signal actually works. And we know that he was fully briefed on this. I know he was briefed on what had happened on Monday. I know Michael Waltz was one of the first people to actually have a conversation with him about the contents of that Atlantic story, but it still seems like the president is, you know, pointing to others, particularly when it comes to the classified information, saying you'd have to ask others. So, some questions to be answered there.
MATTINGLY: Yes. Intentional ignorance is something we've seen in the past. It's been rather effective for him. We don't know what the back story is here, but I know Alayna Treene is definitely reporting it out as we speak. Thanks so much, Alayna, over at the White House.
Now over to CNN's Manu Raju on Capitol Hill, where earlier today, top Trump intelligence officials were grilled again about the group chat after The Atlantic released the sensitive messages.
Manu, what did lawmakers make of what they heard this time around?
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, there are really three camps here. There are Democrats who say that we are outraged, and they believe that Pete Hegseth should be fired or should resign from his position. And there are Republicans who are defending Donald Trump's team, defending Trump and say, there's really nothing to see here and ready to move on.
And then there are other Republicans who I have spoken with today, including some key Republicans who sit on the Oversight Committees over all of this, who believe this all warrants further investigation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JERRY MORAN (R-KS): I can't see any rationale for the kind of conversation that took place over Signal for not taking place in a more secure manner than that.
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Do you remember the Hillary Clinton email server? And there are different laws that require certain records be maintained and preserved for public review. So, I think we should look into it.
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS (R-SD): They thought it was safe and they had a discussion.
[18:05:00]
And I think they made some mistakes in that regard.
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): Whether it's considered, quote, classified or just highly sensitive, it was too detailed in -- whether you can call it a war plan or not. It's just too detailed to pretend it wasn't a big deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: And we're also seeing a split among the top Republican leaders in Congress. You have Mike Johnson, the speaker of the House, who essentially says that there's no need for further investigation, defending the Trump team. And then there's John Thune, the Senate majority leader, who I caught up with this afternoon, Phil, and he told me it's obvious that mistakes were made and you just have to acknowledge that, talk about what you're going to do to correct it and fix it so it doesn't happen in the future, going further than what the White House has said so far.
MATTINGLY: Notable throughout the day, notable camps as well. We'll see how this continues to play out on Capitol Hill.
Manu Raju, thanks so much.
My panel is here now to discuss, CNN's Jamie Gangel. Larry Pfeiffer, former senior director of the White House Situation Room, and co- founder of the dispatch, Jonah Goldberg, we want to make clear Jonah Goldberg. We have to clarify if you happen to look at his mentions. It is not Jeffrey Goldberg.
Jamie, when you talk to your sources in the intelligence community in the national security sources, what are they telling you right now about how this has evolved?
JAMIE GANGEL, CNN SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT: So, first of all, you can deny, you can downplay, you know, you can attack Jeffrey Goldberg or Jonah Goldberg, but at the end of the day, what they're saying is that they're playing word games about a situation that's really very serious. One source called claims that this information wasn't classified before, quote, B.S., but he used the real word, a second source called it effin B.S.
Look, this is a cardinal rule at the Department of Defense. You do not talk about these kinds of details before an operation.
The other thing that I'm just hearing over and over again from intelligence, national security and military officials is there's an easy way to do this. You call up the White House signal office, that's a different kind of signal, and they can put everybody together on a secure video conference. Why didn't they do it?
MATTINGLY: It's one of the questions, I think, probably the biggest question that we just don't have an answer. It seems like the most obvious thing and we don't really have a great answer for it right now.
Larry, over to you. The Trump administration's defense, as Jamie was kind of laying out, it's steeped in semantics right now. The Atlantic initially used the term war plans to describe what was in the group chat. Trump officials have repeatedly denied that war plans were part of the chat. So, here's what they said today after The Atlantic used the term, attack plans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: There were no war plans discussed. Why did The Atlantic downgrade their allegation about war plans to attack plans? They're now playing word games because they know this was sensationalist spin.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: They even changed the title to attack plans because they know it's not war plans. There's no units, no locations, no routes, no flight paths, no sources, no methods, no classified information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: Larry, what I found interesting is, I was talking to a defense official earlier today who said, look, war plans would actually be less problematic on some level because they're usually further looking in terms of what's going forward. Attack plans or operational plans are the real issue here. This semantic debate, does it matter?
LARRY PFIEFFER, FORMER SENIOR DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE SITUATION ROOM: No. The semantic debate is pure silliness. I mean, fundamentally, what you have here is you have military operational -- military operations being discussed before the operation commenced, even if it was two minutes before the operation commenced. If somebody was exploiting or somebody was on this call that shouldn't be and was less noble than Mr. Goldberg, a warning could have been given that could have given these people enough time to get out of the way, go to a hardened shelter, launch defenses. It's ludicrous to be playing word games like this.
MATTINGLY: Jonah, the president's response that we just saw that Alayna was pushing to, I was serious. I think we all know this very well. We've seen this before in the sense of when something's actually becoming problematic, he will -- there will be distance. You get a little Heisman stiff arm there. How does this progress inside the White House based on kind of all of our observations of him over the course of the last decade?
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. So, part of it is now we are in the sort of Game of Thrones kind of portion where the people who are on sort of Team Vance, who are more sort of non- interventionist, isolationists, pick your own semantics, are -- they have it out for Waltz because they think Waltz is too much of a sort of Reaganite type and so they want to really go after him. Other people are sort of saying, well, Hegseth is sort of closer to that. And so it's a lot of who are they going to stab in the back.
I just want to make just one or two quick points here, although, is that one is, you know, there's an understanding, it's a cliche in legal talk. Going back a century in Supreme Court cases that says, like there are times where you could have prior restraint and the example people always use is troop movements, right?
[18:10:03]
It goes back to 1931 case, it's repeated in New York Times v. Sullivan in, what, '71, something like that.
And the thing is just imagine the hypothetical of Jeff Goldberg had revealed this information two hours before the attack. This administration, Republicans would be screaming murder. They would be citing these cases saying, this is the kind of thing, the grand tradition American journalism, that you don't report this kind of thing, an ongoing things. But since he waited until afterwards, they're now saying, oh, there's nothing there, where they would had the exact opposite argument if he had done it beforehand.
And the other thing is I think all of this is very important and I don't want to downplay it. The lasting damage here is that they have now confirmed, they removed all doubt that members of this administration have sovereign contempt for our allies. They've painted our allies into a corner, they're politicians too, and they can no longer say, well, you know, the adults will prevail. We now know that the adults are actually utterly contemptuous of our allies, utterly contemptuous of Europe, and that's going to make saving this alliance even after Trump is gone much more difficult.
MATTINGLY: To that point, Jamie, what are your sources saying about that, kind of the long-term policy effect of what we saw in these chats?
GANGEL: Look, this is a big problem. Whether it was done because it was reckless or hubris or what they didn't know better. Our allies are not going to trust us when we're supposed to be going into a situation together.
I just want to note I thought it was a very interesting, President Trump said that Mike Waltz was taking responsibility for this, Hegseth, no problem there. Everyone should read the texts. The most sensitive information that's in this chain is from Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, should never have been there.
MATTINGLY: Yes. And the president --
GOLDBERG: But if you fire a Secretary of Defense, you have to get another one approved by the Senate. You don't have that problem with your national security adviser.
MATTINGLY: A very, very important point guys. Thank you very much for the conversation.
Another breaking story, we're following this hour in appeals court ruling against President Trump and keeping an order in place that blocks his deportations using the Aliens Enemies Act. Our legal experts are here next.
Plus, President Trump just moments ago announcing 25 percent tariffs on cars not made in the United States. How much could this affect prices for not just cars, but car parts? That's ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:15:00]
MATTINGLY: We have breaking news in our Politics Lead, a major legal loss, at least for the moment, for President Donald Trump. A federal appeals court is upholding a temporary block on Trump's ability to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.
I want to turn to CNN's Evan Perez, who is tracking this for us. Evan, walk us through what we saw here.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, this was a 2-1 ruling by the Appeals Court and one of the things that they point out is that if the president is allowed to continue to use this law, the Alien Enemies Act, 1798 law, that's only been invoked now, this is the fourth time that it's ever been used, that people could be rendition to countries that where they didn't come from. These are third countries basically, and that they would be subject to torture.
That's one of the points that Karen Henderson, one of the judges, who didn't say very much, by the way, during the oral arguments, that's one of the things that she points out. She says that if these alleged members of the Tren de Aragua gang are sent to this notorious prison in El Salvador, plaintiffs have already shown or at least alleged that they were subject to torture if they were sent there.
So, for now, this temporary restraining order stands and the judge, remember, is still trying to figure out whether to hold someone accountable for essentially defying his order, which was that those planes were supposed to turn back in the air that day when they were deporting these members.
MATTINGLY: So, Evan, this is one element of obviously a very expansive deportation operation the administration's been pursuing. What does it mean big picture for the administration on those deportation efforts?
PEREZ: Well, really, big picture is that they can continue to do deportations. They just can't use this law. And that's one of the things I think you and I were talking about this, Phil. You know, they could be deporting these people under other authorities. They chose to make this fight. They wanted this fight, and they want to test to see whether the president has this authority using this very rarely used law. And if they're successful, obviously, it opens a big -- certainly a big door for them to do even more of this.
But for now, they certainly can continue to do deportations and they're continuing to do that. They just have to use a different law to be able to do that. Phil?
MATTINGLY: Yes. And many other statutes they can utilize.
Evan Perez, thanks so much.
I want to bring in former FBI Director Andy McCabe and CNN Legal Analyst Carrie Cordero.
Carrie, I want to start where Evan and I left off of, you know, the big picture here for the Trump administration as they test the bounds with this law specifically, where do you see this going?
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think the president has made clear in many different contexts when he's litigating something, that he will take the appeals as far as he possibly can. So, I think they will continue to push until they can probably get this case all the way up to the Supreme Court as this process plays out.
But this particular law, you know, if we end up do getting to that point, this particular law, this is not what it was designed to do. It was a wartime -- if we look back at the history of this law, this is a wartime provision. It has a history that is not good in the history of the country in terms of how it was used after World War II, during World War II. And using it in this novel way just puts so many different people at risk and would open the door for, you know, teenagers even to be potentially deported under this provision.
So, there is a lot of other -- as Evan was saying, there's a lot of other opportunities for the administration to be able to use the executive authority and immigration laws to deport people. And they even have control of the Congress, and so they could go to Congress and have the immigration laws changed if they want given the Republican control of Congress.
[18:20:06]
MATTINGLY: Yes. I'm really glad you brought up the precedent here and the prior uses, some of them quite ugly, of the law, as few as there have been. Because the ambiguity here is what's really difficult as people trying to figure this out, including, Andy, during the House Intelligence Committee hearing today, everyone was talking about Signal and watching the Signal issue. CIA director John Ratcliffe said, the CIA has, quote, no assessment that the U.S. is at war or has been invaded by Venezuela. I'm trying to figure out if that undercuts the administration here, if we're going to see that in legal filings going forward on this specific case.
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Oh, you'll definitely see it. I agree with Carrie's assessment that we're going to have to -- we'll be back here reporting on a number of appeals or attempted appeals, but eventually this thing is going to get in front of the district court judge for a ruling on the substance of what the -- of the administration's use of this law. And they are going to have to pony up some evidence to prove their current assertion that we are currently at war with this Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua and that the gang has invaded the United States of America. That's going to be a hard thing to prove, especially now that we've heard that the CIA doesn't currently have an intelligence assessment that supports that assertion.
You should expect that the administration will now look to the FBI. The FBI, of course, has a long time program tracking and mitigating threats from transnational organized crime. I would expect the administration will look to the FBI and hear their opinion as to whether or not we are in a state of war with this gang and then the gang has invaded the United States America. It'd be interesting to see what Kash Patel's FBI has to say about that.
MATTINGLY: Yes, important point. Carrie, you know, there has been a reticence to the point of absolute refusal to share information with the district court judge who has asked for it from the administration attorneys up to this point, they're saying, look, this is a national security issue. This is based on where the statute stands. We don't have to do that. They were pursuing an appeal. Is that going to change now? Is their posture going to change with Judge Boasberg?
CORDERO: I don't know that the administration's posture will change, but the court can really compel. I mean, normally, arguments would be made that you can't -- the government can't provide information to a court if they're making classified arguments, you know, classified information. And even then, some judges can see information under seal. In this case, this is immigration information. This is not classified information. There's really not a good justification to not provide information to the courts.
But the situation overall, you know, it also -- it reminds me some with respect to the status of these current individuals who have been deported under this provision. It reminds me some of the family separation situation that we saw in the last Trump administration, in which you had a situation where something happened to people, the courts then pushed back against it, and it has taken years to make the lives whole of those individuals at a personal level who were affected.
MATTINGLY: Yes, important point, through an entire next administration. It was still ongoing.
Andy, just final word to you here. From the Supreme Court perspective, where I think a lot of these things are going to end up across the administration's immigration efforts, how do you see this playing in a 6-3 conservative majority?
MCCABE: Well, you know, the administration is going to key on to what the real nugget of this fight is is presidential power, right? This is the administration saying, hey, it is exclusively the province, the constitutional duty of the president as his under his commander-in- chief authority to determine when in fact we are being invaded by a foreign hostile power, what the terms that are, what needs to be done to protect us against it. I think that's an argument that we've seen this court is very favorable towards.
But as we said just a minute ago, here, do they really have the receipts to prove that assertion? I'm not sure they do. So, it'll be interesting to see how that plays out,
MATTINGLY: And we will certainly be watching every step of the way.
Andy McCabe, Carrie Cordero, thanks guys. I really appreciate it.
Well, food banks say they could soon struggle to keep up with demand after Trump recently halted $500 million in deliveries. The behind- the-scenes scramble, we'll have it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This is something that people have wanted to do, presidents have wanted to do for a long time. A lot of them didn't understand it, but foreign countries understood it very well. And they've really ripped us off at levels that nobody's seen before.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: That was President Trump just moments ago in the Oval Office when asked how he'll make sure Americans won't end up paying for the 25 percent tariffs he's imposing on all imported cars set to go into effect next week, just one element of a sweeping tariff regime (ph) set to go into effect on April 2nd.
Joining me now to discuss all of it, CNN Global Economic Analyst Rana Foroohar. Rana, the question of, you know, should consumers expect car prices to go up, what is their patience or willingness to accept that is not one the administration has really delved into in detail. What should consumers expect here?
RANA FOROOHAR, CNN GLOBAL ECONOMIC ANALYST: Well for sure if these tariffs hold, and we know the president is liable to change things at the last minute, if tariffs hold, you are going to see increases on automotive prices. I mean, even the big three here in the U.S. have said that this will increase costs in their own supply chains. It'll take time for those increases to funnel through.
I mean, this is not like getting a tariff on, say, an agricultural product that's in your grocery store that's perishable and it shows up immediately. Auto tariffs are something that they're going to take weeks, months, even years to flow through to the, their full effect. But, of course, the president is hoping that this is going to mean more manufacturing is going to come back to the states.
[18:30:00]
And that's one of his stated goals and he is clearly following through on it,
MATTINGLY: The reality or the possibility, I guess, of that goal, it's not just the president, his entire team, and this is very different from the first term. The economic team is very aligned publicly, and I think in large case, privately on this idea of kind of re-shoring manufacturing, take at least some level of pain in the near term for the long-term gain of really reorienting the global trading system. What does that mean? Explain to people what that means as this kind of really starts to kick into gear next week.
FOROOHAR: Phil, I'm so glad that you phrased it that way because this is a sea change. I mean, you know, if the president is willing to stay the course, this would be a 50-year change in America's economy. He's talking about taking the philosophy of the last half century, which is as long as share prices are going up and consumer prices are going down, there's no problem in saying actually we need a balance. We need more production in the U.S. We need income growth in manufacturing sectors.
He's concerned particularly about areas like steel. You know, you've heard him say if you don't have steel, you don't have a country. Automotives are the biggest user of steel and these are things that are connected to supply chain security in areas that are, you know, go well beyond cars. You know, you've seen him talk about ship as something he wants to bring back.
So, this is a sea change, that there's no two ways around it.
MATTINGLY: Yes. And it's going to be fascinating to watch in the days ahead. I have no doubt we will be talking about it quite often in the days, weeks and months ahead. Rana Foroohar, thank you, as always, for your expertise.
FOROOHAR: Thank you.
MATTINGLY: Well, food banks around the country are scrambling to keep their shelves stocked with nutritious basics, chicken, eggs, milk, cheese. That's because the Department of Agriculture recently halted $500 million in deliveries after the Trump administration made $1 billion in cuts to two separate programs under the USDA.
Radha Muthiah is joining me now. She's the president and CEO of the Capital Area Food Bank here in D.C. Thank you for joining me.
One of the things, obviously, this is a federal government town but I also want to talk a little bit bigger picture here in terms of how do you plan for what's happening right now as you watch what's happening with the government, not just in terms of layoffs, but also funding kind of how to map out 3, 6, 9, 12 months from now.
RADHA MUTHIAH, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CAPITAL AREA FOOD BANK: Sure. First, just maybe just set into some context, the Capital Area Food Bank provides food to our neighbors in need across the greater Washington area, and we do that through about 400 different community organizations. And last year, we provided about 64 million meals worth of food, double pre-pandemic levels.
So, as you talk about how we should prepare, you know, we're not in the business of speculation, but we do need to prepare for what the eventual scenarios might be. And so we've got a variety of different scenarios that we've looked at.
On one hand, you've got potentially demand or need, in this case, increasing in our community. We have a disproportionate number of federal government workers here and those contractors who are reliant on federal government funding. And if you're on the lower end of the federal government pay scale, then, you know, a month or so without a paycheck and you start to really feel the pain, if you will. And so we're looking at those individuals up to about 11,000 of them in our area who may be in need of additional food resources.
At the same time, as you just mentioned, we see one of our sources of supply reducing. USDA foods are about 30 percent of the food that we provide in the community. And as you just mentioned, there are two different programs there that have been cut or paused and they're having a significant effect.
MATTINGLY: Is it possible to fill that gap through private donations, through -- you know, that's often the case that's made of, you know, look, especially, you know, you add tax cuts, you add the entire economic plan, there's more money that's available. That's who should be helping to finance this, helping their own neighbor. Is that possible?
MUTHIAH: Well, to put it in perspective, one of the programs that's been cut, we were supposed to get 58 tractor trailer loads worth of food between now and the end of June. We're now only getting half of that. So, the immediacy of the cut combined with the amount, about 670,000 meals of a gap that we need to be able to close, that's going to be hard to do in a short timeframe.
Of course, we will turn to other sources of supply and that includes our neighbors who will be generous in supporting us if they can, you know, with private donations to do it. But it'll take quite a bit to close the gap for 670,000 meals worth of food.
MATTINGLY: No question about that. Have you had communications of -- this will sound kind of like a simplistic question. Is there a trade operation? How do you guys communicate with the administration?
MUTHIAH: Sure.
MATTINGLY: The uncertainty, what's going to happen? This is a pause. Will it be unlocked at some point? How do you know?
MUTHIAH: Well, the kind of situation that's playing out for us in the greater Washington region is playing out across the country.
MATTINGLY: Right.
MUTHIAH: So there are another 198 food banks like ours who all come together under our association, Feeding America, to be able to advocate USDA, HHS, the Hill, to really understand how their policies affect very real people, children, adults who are working hard to be able to get by, just need a little bit of help to be able to make ends meet.
[18:35:02]
And so we're sharing that information,
MATTINGLY: Do you feel like they do understand? What is the feedback you've gotten or your groups have gotten as they've had those conversations?
MUTHIAH: Well, our understanding is that these programs have been paused, hopefully not canceled as the new administration reviews, how they'd like to put sort of their own signature on these programs. So, we are hopeful with the data that's being shared, that they will understand the impacts across the country, right? It's not just here in the East Coast. It's in the middle of the country. And how important these programs are, how nutritious that food is, and how that food helps a child focus at school, an adult concentrate at work. And, ultimately, all of us you know, continue to be active and productive in society. So, we're hopeful that they will take that information into account as policies are formulated.
MATTINGLY: It's such a critical through line for development for kind of an entire ecosystem on some level. What can people do who are watching this and say I want to help I want to help fill the gap to the extent I can?
MUTHIAH: Sure, yes.
MATTINGLY: You guys wait to see this --
MUTHIAH: I mean, there are three different ways. One is please come and help volunteer with us. You know, we count on thousands of volunteers a year to help sort food, pack food, get it out to people. Number two, if you happen to be in a circumstance where you're not financially affected by what's going on here, then, yes, please consider a financial donation as we're going to be buying a lot more food to help close that gap. And third, join us in the advocacy and education process. Every one of us knows someone who's been helped in some way, in some part of their lives.
And so when you know that and you know that that little bit of help helped them be who they are today, those stories make a big difference. And so join us in our education and advocacy efforts.
MATTINGLY: Radha Muthiah, CEO of the Capital Area Food Bank here in D.C., please keep us posted. Let us know how we can get help going forward. And thanks so much for your time. I appreciate it.
MUTHIAH: Thank you.
MATTINGLY: Well, the new development in the case of Luigi Mangione, who is accused of assassinating the CEO of UnitedHealthcare late last year, why prosecutors say Mangione's lawyers are trying to get the case even more publicity it's already had.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, an update in the case of accused murderer Luigi Mangione. Today, Manhattan prosecutors accused Mangione's attorneys of using fashion to encourage publicity around his already very high-profile case, including a pair of argyle socks that were delivered to him and reportedly contained notes with a secret message.
Now, according to the court filing, one said, quote, know there are thousands of people wishing you luck.
Joining now is Criminal Defense Attorney and CNN Legal Analyst Joey Jackson. Joey, we're showing pictures of Luigi Mangione's feet. You'll notice he's not wearing socks. In that court filing, prosecutors write, in spite of the two notes -- you see the feet right there. In spite of the two notes found in the socks, quote, the defendant was permitted to wear the argyle socks, which he first changed into and later changed out of because he felt that they did not look good.
Look, this is a serious case aside from what Mangione is or is not wearing. Do you agree with prosecutors that there's a level of special treatment here?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So, here's what the issue is, Phil, and this is why we're talking about this. Now, there may be a level of special treatment. This is a special case. But I think that we're talking about the dress code and prosecutors are getting a little crazy about it because this is what we call a jury nullification case.
What does that mean in English, right? We've all seen the video and that video, if it's him, appears, right, to be him killing someone, that being the CEO and really right -- you could call it the dark of day, the day of night, whatever, 6:45 A.M., December 4th. The evidence field seems to be compelling, right? The DNA evidence, they got the backpack. They have so many things. So, I think what the defense is trying to do is even the playing field by getting and playing to the public with respect to what he wears, with regard to issues saying, hey, the public was wearing green, our client has to wear green. Because at the end of the day, jury nullification means in English, you did it, but the jury buys your message and as a result of that, they're going to give you a pass.
So, that's why this is a big issue and prosecutors are going to be really clued in on what he's wearing, is it consistent with what the public's doing? Is it consistent with his supporters? Is there any special messaging going on? And how's this influencing public opinion? Because, Phil, at the end of the day, who's on the jury, members of the public, so that's why it's important.
MATTINGLY: What's striking about this is his defense team has made similar arguments related to kind of how prosecutors have handled kind of his perp walk. I don't think is the proper term here, but that seemed what it was when he was taken out of the helicopter. Mayor Eric Adams was there as well. How is it possible to get a fair trial given all of these dynamics playing out right now?
JACKSON: So, a couple of things, Phil. The first thing is I think the defense was very concerned as we look at, you rightfully call the perp walk, right? That's one of the really most defined perp walks in history. You've got the mayor there. You've got people all around. I mean, it's like he's a dignitary from a foreign land.
The reality is that the defense was upset about this because it skews it against it. Why all these people of import coming to get him? This is a security people's job, law enforcement. What is the mayor doing there? And so it puts undue influence on his case and may impair it in a negative way. So, that's why, really, they're upset about it.
But at the end of the day, it's going to come down to the evidence, the facts in the courtroom. But, surely, we'll be talking about what he wears, what he's doing, because the defense is really trying to pair him with the public. The public is a jury. If the jury believes in him and buys the message, they could excuse the conduct and that would be not guilty. That's what's important.
MATTINGLY: Nobody better in this business. Joey Jackson, thank you, my friend. I appreciate you.
JACKSON: Thanks, Phil. Good to see you.
MATTINGLY: Well, why Prince Harry is stepping down from an organization he founded nearly 20 years ago to honor his mother's legacy.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:48:47]
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: In our world lead, Prince Harry is cutting ties with the charity he helped start nearly 20 years ago.
CNN royal correspondent Max Foster is breaking down what happened.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): It's been a labor of love since the beginning.
PRINCE HARRY, UNITED KINGDOM: It's a way that both me and Prince Seeiso can relate to our mothers, who are both in sort of the same jobs.
FOSTER: A way for Harry to champion his late mother and her barrier breaking work with orphans and HIV/AIDS, even naming the charity after her favorite flower, Sentebale, translating into "forget me not".
Now, Harry leaving the organization he co-founded nearly 20 years ago. In a statement, both the duke of Sussex and Prince Seeiso of Lesotho announcing their resignation from Sentebale in support for the board of trustees, who had also quit over a dispute with the chair.
It's devastating that the relationship between the charity's trustees and the chair of the board broke down beyond repair, creating an untenable situation, they wrote.
[18:50:05]
What's transpired is unthinkable. We're in shock.
The chair in question is Dr. Sophie Chandauka, a lawyer appointed to the board in 2023. She released her own statement saying there are people in this world who behave as though they are above the law and mistreat people and then play the victim card. They use the press they disdain to harm people who have the courage to challenge their conduct.
Chandauka reporting the trustees to the UK Charity Commission she says to blow the whistle. An extraordinary public spat, putting the future of Sentebale in jeopardy.
But in an area where some of the highest HIV rates in the world, the organizations work has been life altering for many in Lesotho. Set up after Harry's visit to the small kingdom back in 2004, it's a cause that he's held on to through trial and tribulation, building on his mother's legacy.
PRINCE HARRY: When my mother held the hand of a man dying of AIDS in an East London hospital, no one would have imagined that just over a quarter of a century later, treatment would exist that could see HIV positive people live full, healthy, loving lives.
FOSTER: Even after leaving his royal role.
PRINCE HARRY: I will continue to be the same man who holds his country dear and dedicates his life to supporting the causes, charities and military communities that are so important to me.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
FOSTER (on camera): Prince Harry's office isn't reacting to the allegations made by Dr. Sophie Chandauka, but I did speak to someone familiar with the matter tonight and they say this was about the organization's finances. They were stable until she took control of the organization. That's why she was asked to resign, they say, and the trustees had to resign ultimately because it was a matter of conscience for them, Phil.
MATTINGLY: Max Foster, thanks for the reporting.
Well, up next, it is the most important time of the year, opening day, just hours away. Which teams get the best odds this year? I'm going to ask an expert.
Stay with me.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:56:24]
MATTINGLY: In our sports league, baseball lovers, Americans rejoice. Tomorrow is opening day and New York Mets fans will tell you that this is actually their year after they signed Juan Soto to a historic 15- year, $765 million contract.
"Sports Illustrated" senior writer Tom Verducci is out with a new cover story. It's a fascinating article, "Queens Gambit: How the Mets Stole Juan Soto from the Yankees".
He joins me now.
Tom, my producers want me to disclose that I once played baseball for the Ohio State University. I know you played baseball for Penn State. They just wanted me to force me to show the picture that looks like I'm 12.
I'm also supposed to disclose that I'm a Yankees fan, which means that I didn't actually want to read your article, but I was so fascinated by you asking the owner of the Mets, Steve Cohen, or telling him you were going to ask why he decided to go with the Mets. Why Soto decided to go with the Mets.
And Cohen wanted the answer. He asked you to get the answer. Walk people through this. TOM VERDUCCI, SENIOR WRITER, SPORTS ILLUSTRATED: Yeah. Well, first of
all, my condolences to you as a Yankee fan. That was a big hit. It just hasn't happened before, right, where the Yankees lose one of their own, not just as a free agent to anybody, but across town to the Mets.
And it was interesting to me that what Juan Soto told me and I relayed this back to the owner, Steve Cohen, was he believes, with the contract this long, you mentioned it, 15 years, his chances of winning are better with the Mets than with the Yankees. He told me for the next maybe four or five years, the Yankees will be good, but I don't know after that.
And I think Steve Cohen, the owner, convinced him that he will do absolutely anything to make sure that every year, the Mets are trying to win the World Series. He is the richest owner in baseball. So, he had that going for him as well.
MATTINGLY: And that's kind of been Cohen's pitch from the beginning. I think there have been kind of moments where Mets fans have questioned whether or not that was going to be the case.
Clearly, yes, last year, the Mets make the NLCS. That was a fun team to watch. Now they add Soto. Should they be considered the favorites in the NL?
VERDUCCI: No. I mean, what's great about baseball this year is that we have a clear cut favorite, and that's the L.A. Dodgers. I mean, last, last 11 World Series, half the teams in baseball have made the World Series. So there's been a lot of parity in the game.
This is the first time you have to go back to the Yankees in the late, you know, at the end of last century, winning three in a row, to find a team to me that is clearly the team to beat. And it's been a quarter of a century since we've had a team repeat as World Series champions.
Now the Dodgers have the best chance, I believe, in these 25 years. So, the deepest team in baseball. They are traveling all-star team with Shohei Ohtani., Mookie Betts, Freddie Freeman on down the line a very deep team. So, the World Series is going through the L.A. Dodgers. You're going to have to take down the Dodgers if you think you're going to win the World Series.
MATTINGLY: Yeah, they're terrible. The evil -- the new evil empire I believe is what they said in the athletic this morning. I completely agree with that. They're a travesty to baseball.
You know, this game and this space better than anybody. Who should people be watching this year that maybe they don't know about heading into opening day?
VERDUCCI: Well, team wise, I would say the Cincinnati Reds, you know, Terry Francona, great manager, won that World Series with the Red Sox. Did a great job in Cleveland, came out of retirement to take a job with the Cincinnati Reds. Now, they're loaded with a ton of young talent, especially a kid like Elly De La Cruz -- MATTINGLY: Yeah.
VERDUCCI: -- who can -- he can be an MVP if he puts everything together.
But the Cincinnati Reds are a team coming off a losing season. To me, keep your eye on them. And then, of course, individually, I think Paul Skenes, second year pitcher for the Pittsburgh Pirates, has the best stuff in baseball.
I mean, this guy is 6'6", 260, throws 100 miles an hour, and yet he has about 6 or 7 different pitches. He's just fascinating and fun to watch. And the Pirates are going to be pretty good this year as well.
MATTINGLY: Yeah.
VERDUCCI: So I'd start with those two stories, the Reds and Paul Skenes.
MATTINGLY: Tom Verducci, really appreciate it, my friend. Thanks so much.
"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.
