Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Admin Ramps Up Threats Against the Free Press; Sources Say, ABC Wants to Bring Back Kimmel, But No Path Forward Yet; Trump and Starmer Skirt Question on Former British Ambassador's Links to Jeffrey Epstein. Farm Aid Celebrates 40 Years Of Helping Farmers. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired September 18, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.

This hour, President Trump is heading home from London, making news in the air, threatening any network station that criticizes him could lose its license, all as the FCC chairman just said on Fox, Comedian Jimmy Kimmel is not the last shoe to drop.

Also, former U.S. attorney Alex Acosta under the spotlight, House Oversight Committee members are gearing up to grill the man who approved the sweetheart deal for pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

And Superstar Dave Matthews tells us how his song at the Farm Aid concert provide a voice for farmers around the country who could lose their land.

The Lead tonight, the Trump administration's attacks on the free press reaching new altitudes today after pressure from the FCC chairman to yank late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel's show off the air, and here's the president on Air Force One.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I read someplace that the networks were 97 percent against me. I got 97 percent negative, and yet I won it easily. I won all seven swing states popular. I won everything. And if they're 97 percent against, they give me only bad publicity or press. I mean, they're getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Just moments ago, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said there's more to come.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENDAN CARR, FCC CHAIR: I don't think this is the last shoe to drop. This is a massive shift that's taking place in the media ecosystem and I think the consequences are going to continue to flow. (END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: CNN's Kaitlan Collins is live near Windsor Castle. And, Kaitlan, this wasn't what the purpose of the trip, the reason why you are in London was supposed to be about. Do we have any idea what's happening next here?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: No, it wasn't supposed to be about this, Phil, but, obviously, all of this was quickly overtaken after it was just about 24 hours ago when we heard from ABC that they were indefinitely suspending Jimmy Kimmel from his program, something that President Trump was actually spending last night here in Windsor Castle. He was posting well past 1:00 A.M. about Kimmel's indefinite suspension and cheerleading, basically declaring a victory.

And so there was this press conference today. There was a highly anticipated moment where we wanted to see what exactly the president was going to say about Kimmel being ousted from the airwaves because of comments that he made about President Trump and Charlie Kirk.

And so in that press conference though, Phil, he was only talking about Jimmy Kimmel's ratings. He made no mention of his FCC chair, Brendan Carr, who had put an intense amount of pressure on ABC and on Disney to rethink its programming changes essentially in the hours before Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air.

But you heard those comments there on Air Force One, as the president is making his way back to Washington, and he also said at one point, Phil, that he basically believes broadcasters and the regulators should consider taking broadcasters' licenses away if they have late night hosts on their programs who criticize him.

Listen to what he told reporters just a few moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: When you have a network and you have evening shows and all they do is hit Trump, that's all they do, if you go back, I guess they haven't had a conservative order in years or something, somebody said, but when you go back and take a look, all they do is hit Trump. They're licensed. They're not allowed to do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: That comment there at the end is what stood out to me. He said they're not allowed to do that, talking about them criticizing Trump and basically saying that is the number one offense in his mind, Phil.

Now, keep in mind, this is a Republican president who came into office and he assigned many executive orders since taking office. But on his first day in office, he signed an executive order about restoring free speech and banning government censorship. He has since touted that executive order, but today we saw him praising Brendan Carr, who, as you just noted there, is basically saying this is not the end of the work that he is going to do. Obviously, these companies do have an option, as our legal experts have noted, to fight this, but ABC clearly is not fighting this. They went ahead and announced at him from the airwaves for the time being.

And so what the president is making clear, Phil, is that this is his viewpoint, that late night hosts on these networks that have these licenses should not be able to criticize him or otherwise, they are at risk of losing their license. He is saying it very clearly what he believes that standard is. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Kaitlan Collins, thank you and I am very sure you're working on new reporting for her new show -- for her show, not her new show, there's just a lot of newness happening right here, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. Great reporting, as it always is. Look for that tonight at 9:00 Eastern on CNN.

[18:05:00]

Well, joining me now is Democratic Senator Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland. Senator I, it seems like two years ago now that I was watching you at the hearing with the CDC officials. That's just how fast things are moving. I want to get to that in a moment. But to start with the kind of big news we've all been talking about, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said much like we've heard from the president during the press conference and Brendan Carr earlier today with our colleague, Scott Jennings, that this was a market decision. This was not a regulatory or a government decision. What do you make of that?

SEN. ANGELA ALSOBROOKS (D-MD): Well, you know what, I think what we are experiencing right now is literally a five alarm fire in our country. The United States of America has the strongest free speech rights in the world through our First Amendment. And if it becomes the case that the government can restrict expression in the way that we've heard the president say that if you criticize the president, that the network can lose its licenses, we cease to be the United States of America.

This is a very, very dangerous precedent. It is something that all of us should feel alarmed about. The First Amendment is what undergirds us as Americans, and, again, it makes us a leader around the world. And we are now experiencing a five alarm fire if this is allowed to stand.

MATTINGLY: I think one of the questions that I've had is Brendan Carr hasn't actually done anything. He said it and he very clearly believes he can do things and the way the law is written there are actions he can take, but this is just a kind of verbal threat at this point. Is it not?

ALSOBROOKS: It is a threat and they've already acted on the threat. That's the reason Jimmy Kimmel is no longer on television. And the administration doubled down on it by saying, of course, if you criticize me, you should lose your license. And, again, this is an issue regarding free speech, which is a basic guarantee of every single American, is that you have the right to criticize the government. It is free expression and it should be protected speech. And it is again what makes us American.

So, this is a very dangerous precedent. It is one that we should all reject out of hand. You don't have to like what is said. We have a right to have the expression and to criticize the government is a right of every citizen.

MATTINGLY: It also strikes me as the latest in a very long and running list of executive authority related actions that have been taken threats, implicit or explicit, that we've seen over the course of the last seven or eight months that lawmakers like yourself either can't or don't have the capability to respond to. What are Democrats saying kind of inside the caucus meetings right now in the wake of this?

ALSOBROOKS: Well, you know what, everyone, by the way, we all have the opportunity and the obligation to speak against it. I know you said a moment ago that we can't we have an obligation on both sides of the aisle. We all represent the American people.

This issue, by the way, is not a partisan issue. The First Amendment applies to all of us. And what we are saying in our caucus, I'm sure, is what is privately being said as well in the Republican caucus and is that people feel concerned about this. And we need to move beyond feeling concerned and, again, recognize what our higher obligation is. It is to the people who sent us here to protect their rights, their liberties, and to protect their way of life. And criticizing the government is fundamental to the rights of Americans. And, again, it is a right that makes us different from the rest of the world, and we have to protect it.

MATTINGLY: Yes. And you pointed out, but just for clarity by can't, I meant 60 votes needed on one side or 218 in a House Republican conference that isn't going to do that at this point, not that you're incapable of doing it.

I do want to get over to the hearing from earlier this week. You're on the committee, questioned ousted CDC Director Susan Monarez yesterday. Earlier this month, you told CNN you were urging your Republican colleagues to do more than just raise concerns about RFK Jr. shakeup at the CDC. What is your sense of where Republicans are on this right now?

ALSOBROOKS: Well, you know what? I think that there are concerns expressed on both sides of the aisle. I think that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can see very clearly the damage that has been done. And you know what? Dr. Monarez is a Republican. She's a person that the -- who was confirmed a little over a month ago and was said to have unimpeachable credentials. And she was a person who was put forward as a person who had the background and the integrity and credentials to lead us at the CDC.

And then 30 days later, because she disagreed with the secretary of Health and Human Services, she's now been removed and replaced with a venture capitalist and with other individuals who believe in pseudoscience. And we see now what Dr. Monarez said we are facing is a country where we'll see a resurgence of measles, hepatitis, polio, these diseases that will kill will not only make sense, but will make sick, but will kill our children if we don't adhere to the vaccine schedules and to the science, if we don't stick to the science.

The president said that there's no dispute vaccines, there's no controversy there because they work.

[18:10:05]

And Dr. Monarez has said as much as well. And having her fired for not agreeing, silencing with the vaccine panel made up of people who are anti-vaccine was the wrong decision. It will make us sicker and people will die as a result of that decision.

MATTINGLY: Yes. You make a very important point about what some Republicans, particularly in the Senate say privately versus what maybe we may have seen at the hearing.

Senator Angela Alsobrooks, I really appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

ALSOBROOKS: Thank you so much. Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, new video just in showing protests right now outside Disney headquarters in New York and at Disney Studio in Burbank, California. We're also hearing from other comedians lining up to defend Jimmy Kimmel. We'll play what legendary late night host David Letterman just said.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID LETTERMAN, FORMER LATE NIGHT SHOW HOST: We all see where this is going, correct? It's managed media. And it's no good. It's silly. It's ridiculous. And you can't go around firing somebody because you are fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian criminal administration in the Oval Office.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:15:05]

MATTINGLY: That, of course, the one, the only David Letterman weighing in on the Jimmy Kimmel suspension.

Let's get straight to CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister in L.A. Elizabeth, you have brand new details on what's happening at ABC. What do you know?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Phil. So, this is a really messy and quite, frankly, untenable situation right now at ABC. What I am hearing from sources is that they are very hopeful that they can figure out a path forward and figure out how they can bring Jimmy Kimmel's show back. All of the executives at Disney and ABC, they love Jimmy, they adore him. But with the threats from Brendan Carr that he made yesterday with station groups dropping them, the executives just felt like they had no choice.

I am hearing that ABC executives feel like this is bigger than Jimmy Kimmel. This impacts the entire organization. I am hearing that employees at ABC at Jimmy's show are getting threats, that they are being doxxed, that this is now a safety issue for the entire organization and that is what is under consideration.

Now, here is what I heard went down, Phil. I heard that the decision was ultimately made by Bob Iger and Dana Walden. I hear that Dana Walden was the one who picked up the phone and called Jimmy Kimmel herself. They have a very good relationship. I hear that it was a cordial phone call but that it was a heavy phone call and that she said that we want to figure out a way to bring you back and we have to figure out how to move forward together.

But Jimmy wanted to go on his show last night. And in his monologue, I hear that he wanted to address the backlash from the right regarding his commentary about Charlie Kirk's charged killer. And I hear that that monologue was very hot. It very much took aim at MAGA, and that is when the executive said, we can't have him go on the air tonight.

Now, I want to read you one quote from a source, Phil. They said, quote, if Jimmy went on the air, there would've been no way back from that monologue for Jimmy. We didn't want that. Everyone deeply values him and wants him to come back, but he has to take down the temperature.

So, again, they are dealing with serious threats. Station groups pulling the show across the country and they want him to come back, but they are going to have to figure that out.

Now, I do want to note that ABC did not respond to me about my reporting and that Jimmy Kimmel also has not yet spoken out. I have reached out to his team, have not heard back yet.

MATTINGLY: We are in a very different world right now. Great reporting, as always, my friend. Elizabeth Wagmeister, thanks so much.

Well, up ahead, President Trump's response today when asked about another controversy, the former British ambassador and his ties to Jeffrey Epstein, how this scandal will be front and center again tomorrow. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, one of the highly anticipated moments of President Trump's trip to England actually happened today. The president and the British prime minister asked about the Jeffrey Epstein scandal and last week's firing of the British ambassador to the U.S., Peter Mandelson, because of new revelations about his ties to Epstein. Both leaders tried to quickly dispose of the question and move on.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I don't know him actually. I had heard that and I think maybe the prime minister would be better speaking of that. That was a choice that he made. And I don't know. What is your answer to that?

KEIR STARMER, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: Well, I mean, it's very straightforward. Some information came to light last week, which wasn't available when he was appointed, and I made a decision about it. And that's very clear.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: We're joined now by Florida Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. And, Congresswoman, putting aside that the president was like very complimentary of the former British ambassador in the Oval Office when they were announcing the trade agreement, and I don't know him as a weird thing to say. From your perspective, the House Oversight Committee will interview one-time U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta, about the plea deal he made with Epstein in 2008. What do you want to know about it?

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (D-FL): I want to know first of all that we are going to actually have a transcript or a recording of this interview that. You know, right now, as far as I know, it's going to take place under wraps. And we may never know what the content of it was.

But what we really want to make clear is why did Alex Acosta cut this sweetheart plea deal and allow Epstein to have the easiest aftermath of a heinous, massive human and sex trafficking crime of over a thousand young women? It is a total outrage. And what was even more outrageous is it was done without the victims knowing and having an opportunity to have their day in court, which was required under federal law.

MATTINGLY: Acosta's -- the need to question Acosta seems to be one of the very few things in all of Washington that Democrats and Republicans agree on, which is why I want to ask you, but the point you were making at the start. How is this process playing out from a Republican, Democrat, bipartisanship, or no partisan or all partisanship on the committee?

SCHULTZ: Well, I'm really proud today to be able to share with you that myself and Congressman Tim Burchett, a Republican from Tennessee, introduced once again the bipartisan Courtney Wild Reinforcing Crime Victims Rights Act. That is bipartisan legislation that will ensure that, you know, we don't have any more, you know, sex trafficking deals done cut in the dark. And crime victims like Courtney Wild and so many other of these young women who were victims are not able to make sure that they can be in court and stand up for their own rights and push back, which they were denied by Alex Acosta through this sweet sweetheart deal cut in the darkness.

[18:25:02] MATTINGLY: Yes, and I cannot stress enough to viewers. There are no two further ideological parties in the House chamber than you and Congressman Burchett. So, that's a very positive development.

I want to ask you before I let you go on another subject, you're on the House of Appropriations Committee. Do you think there will be a deal to avoid a shutdown? CNN's Manu Raju, who you have to know well, whether you like it or not, if you're up there on a daily basis, reports that House Republican leaders may try and pass their version of the spending bill and send everyone home until October at this point.

SCHULTZ: Look, the ball is in the Republicans' court. Democrats will support a bill that cancels the cuts, that lowers costs, and that will save Americans healthcare coverage. If we have a bill on the floor that ensures that, then, you know, Democrats are all about it. But, you know, if Republicans want the status quo, we're not going to allow people's cut costs to spiral for healthcare cuts and 15 million people to lose their healthcare and for their healthcare coverage to be endangered.

So, we filed legislation countering their proposal, and we need to come together, work together, ensure that we can cancel the cuts, we can lower costs, and we can save America's healthcare coverage. That has to be something we sit down together to work through.

MATTINGLY: I have tremendous respect for your ability to work through whatever event they're setting up in the old House chamber behind you. Having been through that before, I very much appreciate it.

Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz --

SCHULTZ: Welcome my workplace.

MATTINGLY: Yes, I know, right? Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

SCHULTZ: Thanks, Phil. Take care.

MATTINGLY: Well, does Comedian Jimmy Kimmel have a case if he wants to sue over ABC suspending his late night show? Could he take it to the U.S. Supreme Court? We're going to ask a CNN senior legal analyst next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:30:00]

MATTINGLY: We're back with our Law and Justice Lead. In light of Jimmy Kimmel's ousting, you may be wondering, has the Trump administration and FCC violated the First Amendment? A 9-0 Supreme Court decision last year reaffirmed, quote, government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors. That same summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately dismissed a suit on federal agency's efforts to shape social media companies rules on speech about COVID. But the justices were clear the First Amendment prohibits the government from silencing private media company's speech, even if it's potentially false or misleading.

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig joins us now. And, Elie, we're most of this time talking about your new book called, When You Come at the King, Inside DOJ's Pursuit of the President from Nixon to Trump. He spoke with more than 30 people involved in the highest stakes political investigations of the past half century throughout history. It's out now.

Anderson Cooper gave it a blurb. That's pretty praise. I will grant you that. I want to start though with what we were just talking about before we get into it, which is, what is the legal, if any, path here?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, so Jimmy Kimmel may be able to sue ABC if they violated his contract. We don't know the details of his contract, but the bigger question is can he sue the government? Because the government is only -- is subject to the First Amendment, ABC is not because they're a private entity. But in order to sue the government, and he would allege coercion, he would allege the statements by the FCC coerced ABC into releasing him.

That's a little bit of a bank shot, though. That's an indirect way to do this. The more direct way would've been if ABC stood up and said, no, we're not getting rid of him, and then the FCC had punished him, then ABC would have had a very clean First Amendment argument.

MATTINGLY: Moving to your book, like that part point here of there's another party and those are the companies, and the companies are making business decisions the last 15 months that are changing the shape of what we have long kind of lived within, and people should not forget that. Your book quotes Omar for the title, which is Epic, and I deeply appreciate it. But let's start with, explain to me why you decided to write this, why people should be reading this.

HONIG: So, first of all, I was just interested in the history. I mean, these are the biggest, highest stakes political cases from Watergate all the way up through Jack Smith and Donald Trump, which just ended. And to get to talk to the actual prosecutors, defense lawyers, some of the defendants who were prosecuted, White House officials, I thought it was important to tell the history. But also in this moment, and by the way, this plays into the Jimmy Kimmel story where you have Donald Trump in his second term, making clear, there will be no dissension, there will be no internal investigations, and anyone who does cross him will be the subject of retribution, hence the title, right, the quote from Omar is, you come at the king, you best not miss. Meaning if you attack the president, he's going to strike back at you. And I make the argument here that what we're seeing now is fundamentally different from anything else we've seen in history.

MATTINGLY: Yes. A lot of corners being hit to continue the --

HONIG: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- to drag out the metaphor a little bit.

You interviewed Saul Weisenberg, who, if people don't remember, is a critical player, central player in Ken Starr's prosecutors on the prosecution team, the independent counsel, looking into former President Bill Clinton. Weisenberg questioned Clinton in 1998 and elicited the infamous response of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The statement that there was no sex of any kind in any manner, shape, or form with President Clinton was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?

BILL CLINTON, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: It depends upon what the meaning of the word is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Famous line.

HONIG: Famous line.

MATTINGLY: What did he say about that?

HONIG: You know, this is why I love doing this book. So, I interviewed the guy who asked Bill Clinton that question. I also interviewed Bill Clinton's lawyers who were sitting at his elbow. But Weisenberg, the guy who asked the question, he told me, he goes, I got to tell you the truth. Up until that point, Clinton was kicking our butts. We didn't get anything out of him. He was in control. We didn't get any admissions. But Weisenberg said, when he gave me that answer, the way he said it, if that was a trial, I would've turned to the jury and said, do you believe this guy? He said, that would be the only thing that lived on.

But Weisenberg also made some really interesting concessions, and a lot of people did. He admitted that, in some respects, the Starr team went too far. Of course, Clinton's lawyers felt they went way too far.

[18:35:01]

He admitted that the Starr team leaked to the media something that's not been admitted before. So, you get a lot of firsthand insight like that into how these cases have actually played out.

MATTINGLY: I think there's a Supreme Court justice who is on that team.

HONIG: Brett Kavanaugh.

MATTINGLY: There's a lot of Republican legal talent there. You interviewed Abbe Lowell, who we see a lot these days in terms of representing government officials who have been fired by the Trump administration. He told you that then-Attorney General Merrick Garland's appointment of David Weiss as the special counsel was, quote, a disaster or was a disaster, quote, appointment of a special counsel with all its ramifications shouldn't be the same as picking which dish to order from a Chinese menu. But this was done in the mode of giving into political pressure from Republicans, from those IRS agents yelling for appointment of special counsel.

After the plea deal unraveled in 2023, you came on CNN and said it was, quote, really surprising development that didn't reflect well on either party in the case. What did you learn about the missteps behind the scenes here?

HONIG: Abbe Lowell, who represented Hunter Biden, did not hold back at all. He strongly objected to that case going from a normal DOJ prosecution to a special counsel prosecution. And I think he made a good point that, in elevating it to that level, it caused the whole thing to go off the rails.

And one of the points I make in this book is special counsel cases need to be reserved for investigations of the president or high government officials, not the son of the president. And, look, we can learn, I think there are valuable lessons in a lot of the missteps, including in recent years.

MATTINGLY: Yes, there's no question about it. The book again is called When You Come at the King, it's out now. Let's stick around and hang out. Stand by, because we've also got other folks who've just randomly been sitting here hanging out, mostly they just wanted to listen to Eelie over the course of the last ten minutes, and we're going to all talk about a lot of news after the break. So, stay with us.

What the president said today about protesters who interrupted this field trip to a D.C. restaurant last week. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

MATTINGLY: The breaking news just in, CNN has confirmed that White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt now has Secret Service protection. The decision coming in the wake of the heightened political climate after Charlie Kirk's assassination.

I want to bring in the panel right now. And I have no issue with this at all. People should get the protection that they need and I think this moment certainly calls for House and Senate. Both parties are trying to add that into a funding bill right now. But it is interesting that it comes a couple months after the Secret Service protection was taken away from the former vice president.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I think that's right. I agree with you. I think that if there is a threat against a government official, it is the responsibility of the Secret Service or if it's DHS or another agency, the U.S. Marshals or the FBI, to provide protection to those officials. They're acting on behalf of the American people. They should get that protection.

I think what bothers me a little bit is you point out that Vice President Harris had her Secret Service, or her detail pulled, so did Anthony Fauci. I will say that when I was at the Justice Department, he was receiving threats. He had the U.S. Marshals protect him. Many times the Justice Department protects all sorts of government officials. They do not announce it, but it's on a threat basis. And that means there is a heightened threat environment. There are threats against these real, credible threats against these people, and they need protection.

And so what bothers me a little bit is I think that while I think that the White House should be protecting everyone that they can, this administration should be protecting everybody, it shouldn't just be the people that they like and the people who are close to them. They need a lookout for everyone who has served in the government.

MATTINGLY: And to be clear, President Biden extended in a different manner than had ever been done before the protection for longer, which has been the point the Trump team has said, but the president has pulled a lot of people's protection, Fauci being one of them.

I'm interested in kind of just this moment, big picture, as you kind of look at what the president has threatened, what the president has done, what the president's team has done in a moment where the climate is so hot that people are getting service protection that wouldn't normally have.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, just it goes to show you the moment that we're in. I would agree with Xochitl. I mean, obviously, you're going to have political differences with the vice president, whomever else. But I think now would probably be a pretty good time to sort of reassess and maybe re-grant that protection. We have no idea what's to come. You know, that old aphorism when something as bad that we just saw happen to Charlie, usually you have someone who wants to copycat. We pray that doesn't occur, but we know what the past tells us.

And so with that in mind, I would just look at every single person that was a high statue political official and just grant them at least a temporary protection on that basis. And I don't think that's a partisan thing. I just think we want to keep people safe.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's a great point. I do want to talk about the president's comments today on those protestors who disrupted his dinner last week. This is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: And I thought it was very inappropriate. And they said things that were very -- and it was a question of when you take a look at the way they acted, the way they behaved, yes, I think they were a threat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: It follows his post on Truth Social overnight saying, quote, I'm designating Antifa, a sick, dangerous, radical left disaster, as a major terrorist organization. I'll also be strongly recommending that those funding Antifa be thoroughly investigated in accordance with the highest legal standards and practices. Those two things are not connected like people ignore the thing about the people being a threat at Joe's. What the Antifa post -- what does that mean? HONIG: So, this is a bizarre twist in federal law. There is a definition of domestic terrorist organization.

MATTINGLY: Right.

HONIG: There can be an argument you, maybe you guys will have it about whether Antifa fits, but that's it. It's a floating definition with no actual law attached. There's no crime of being part of a domestic terror organization. There are separate offenses that go with a foreign terrorist organization designation. So, it's a political statement. I don't necessarily mean that in a bad way, but Donald Trump is saying, we view this group as falling within this definition. But it gives the government zero additional powers of law enforcement or anything else.

And, look, is Antifa an organization or not? I understand.

HINOJOSA: That's my question.

HONIG: Well, I understand it both ways.

[18:45:00]

And I've heard some people say, well, you know, they don't have a defined president, they don't have uniforms, whatever. But you don't have to have -- I mean, as somebody who tried racketeering cases, we used to say to juries like, not every criminal organization is going to have an org chart like you would see in a corporation or matching jackets or tattoos. So, it helps if there's a defined structure, but it's also not necessary to have a defined structure if you're going to define an organization that way.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But also I -- my question is who does this apply to? I don't know who antifa is. And last I checked, organizations aren't going around and claiming that they are antifa or that their views align with antifa. And so, I guess there is -- there are some questions in the stories I've read about this is who is he referring to in this? Who will actually be named a terrorist organization?

So, I think there are a lot of questions about this. I understand he's trying to make a political statement and all of that fun stuff, but like, I don't actually know what this means.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, I think we have some idea of what antifa represents. I mean, I go back to 2020, a former FBI director, Christopher Wray, spoke about antifa before Congress, and he said members who are affiliated with this group are anarchists. They seek to find political moments to spread their extremist ideals and to cause violence. This is Christopher Wray, who once upon a time was respected by Democrats and Republicans.

And so if you're going to have domesticated groups, whether they're extremists on the left or even extremists on the right, I think the federal government absolutely has an obligation to observe those organizations to see what they're doing. If they are trying to cause disruptions, then we need to crack down on that.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: The deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, said, organized protesters could be investigated by the Justice Department. This is what he said to CNN on Tuesday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: What the administration is talking about is organized efforts by individuals who are not present at the protests but they're funding these protests, and they're not protests. They're inflicting damage and harm, and actually assaulting officers. They're damaging vehicles. And that's the conduct that we're trying to stop.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: To be precise, that's an interview with Kaitlan Collins and was an excellent interview. A ton of ground covered.

What is the mechanism here?

HONIG: Yeah. So, I mean, what the deputy AG said there is technically correct, right? It's not a crime to protest, but it is a crime if you smash cars and conduct vandalism. One thing that Todd Blanche said earlier in that interview on a great question by Kaitlan, which I could not believe the answer, Todd Blanche and Pam Bondi said the same thing that those people who protested Donald Trump and heckled him in the seafood restaurant can be prosecuted for racketeering. I mean, racketeering is used to prosecute ISIS and MS-13 and the Genovese family.

And when Kaitlan asked Todd Blanche about that, he got super defensive. He said, that's not all we use it for. Yeah, but we don't use it to prosecute protesters. People yelling in a restaurant. So that's of concern to me.

If they're thinking of extending racketeering charges to protesters who just only engage in speech, we've got a problem.

HINOJOSA: Well, but I also think that Trump has put the Justice Department and attorneys at the Justice Department in this interesting situation because he also said, I'm going to have Pam Bondi look at what happened at Joe's the other day, and Pam Bondi is like -- she knows she could get fired at any moment by Donald Trump. So, she's like, yes, yes, I will. I will look at that, and has to come up with something to look at in order to please the president.

But this has been the story of the administration. The president wants something. Pam Bondi runs and figures out how to do it. So, I think this is one of those examples where they have to kind of figure out what is the law, say and how do we please Donald Trump.

SINGLETON: We will see if this goes anywhere. I think there's an interesting duality as it pertains to this. On one side, we certainly want to protect free speech. You have a constitutional right to peacefully assemble. I'm a conservative. I want to protect that right. But we've also seen moments where people have stolen things from

stores. They've broken windows, they've attacked people in the public. And that's a separate group that I think we would all be in agreement.

You want to -- you want to protect everyday citizens. You want to arrest those folks and put them in jail where they belong. But you also want to protect people who are peacefully assembling politics. And maybe they dislike the individual. We have a right in this country to do that.

MATTINGLY: Yeah, finding that balance is always a challenge --

SINGLETON: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: -- over the course of history. It certainly seems that way. By the way, didn't like Capone get taken down by a IRS? Different use of RICO? Am I making that --

HONIG: Tax charges? Pay your taxes.

MATTINGLY: Sorry. There's expansive views. Be creative, Ellie.

HONIG: I was very creative as a prosecutor.

MATTINGLY: Thank you guys very much. Appreciate you as always.

Well, a big name in music is coming up next on THE LEAD. Dave Matthews, his close connection to a big project will carry live on CNN Saturday night.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:53:25]

MATTINGLY: In our pop lead, this Saturday, CNN will broadcast the 40th anniversary of Farm Aid. It's an all-star lineup of musical artists who donate proceeds to support family farms and homegrown food.

Jake Tapper spoke with farm aid board member Dave Matthews.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Dave, it's so good to have you. Congratulations on all the success. You first played at Farm Aid 30 years ago. Tell me how you got hooked up with them and why you feel so passionately about farmers and making sure that family farms stay strong?

DAVE MATTHEWS, MUSICIAN: I think my -- I was -- I was excited with the band, you know, we were sort of just come -- you know, we were just sort of making a making a name for ourselves then, and, so the opportunity to play with Willie and Neil and John and everybody was sort of, you know, kind of a bit of a dream come true.

And I -- you know, I'll never forget standing on the side of the stage and watching Neil just by himself, you know, in front of, in a stadium full of people, just sitting on those chair and just completely rocked the house and then watching Willie Nelson -- Willie go to the side of the stage where the back stage and the -- and the front of the house connected. There's little gap in the fence, and he just stood there would seem like for hours, just signing autographs, just talk -- just felt like I learned a lot on that one gig about how to present yourself and how to remain humble.

And but -- the bottom line is that, you know, I have -- I have a farm -- a couple of farmers in my family going back, you know, my uncle and my grandmother.

[18:55:05]

And, you know, what we -- what we sort of imagined farmers to be, you know, you know, the sort of paintings that we imagine and, you know, caring for the land and caring for the food you make and caring for your community. Sort of the source, that idea, that poetry that exists, but it's, you know, it's but it's always under threat from a very different version of farming, which is the corporatized, profit- driven, you know, the, you know, so that poisons the land and produces, you know, food that will last, but not necessarily the best food.

And there's so many reasons and it's all driven by profit and, and so it undercuts the people, the real farmers, that's what I would call them, the family farmers, the people that that believe in the sort of sacredness of the land and working with the land these family farmers, the smaller farmers that that produce good food and are sort of a foundational part of real community.

And so that's what Farm Aid has been trying to defend, because it's always under threat by this other style of farming. And so Farm Aid commitment is really to nurturing the family farmers that are still there and struggling to survive and also inspire new people to join that sort of healthy, wonderful food system that we that we should be more connected to and that should connect us to the land more.

It's just like a -- it's just a -- it gives me faith when I see people that believe so wholeheartedly in the importance of the earth and the food we get from it, and how food we get from it, and how that translates into our society and our community.

TAPPER: And I know Willie Nelson's son, Lukas, sometimes performs with you. I saw you guys playing out in Montana not long ago. So that's a -- that's a lovely musical tradition going full circle.

On CNN, we just interviewed farmers from the Midwest. They talked a lot about the challenges facing them. In terms of the government subsidies and the weather, the decrease in farm workers. What are you hearing from farmers on the ground?

MATTHEWS: Right now? Theres so many things. On top of that, sort of trying to compete with, you know, this profit system of sort of giant corporate farms and trying to and trying to compete with factory farms, which are poisonous both the food they produce and also poisonous into the land where they, where they're, where they're, you know, they're sort of concentrated amount mistreatment of the Earth, but also with some of the trade wars that are happening with -- soybean farmers are really struggling to sell because China is essentially not buying our soybeans anymore, which is about, I think, about 40 percent of where soybeans goes to China. And then, also, you know, obviously with the climate in a -- in a time at least when in a time at least when it's not as consistent.

And so, there's more sort of catastrophic weather events. And that's a real challenge. And being priced out, farms have gotten bigger. It's about 65,000 just in Minnesota where we're going to be, I think there's about -- there's over 65 -- just over 65,000 farms. And the sort of physical land that those farms, on average, cover has grown quite a bit, I think in the last few years, which you'd think might amount to something, but actually the average, the median income, I think of, of farmers is under $25,000 a year, which is, you know, that's barely getting by. And, it's the lowest in this century. I mean, it's so -- things aren't looking up.

So, we have to find solutions to connect farmers to at least a fair way of being compensated for their, you know, it's hard work that these people have committed their lives to and they should be compensated in a fair way. It's a -- these are truly heroes, and unsung.

And the thing that's so great for me about being part of farm aid is that we get to -- and thank you guys for airing it -- is that we get to be a voice for people that, you voice for people that, you know, for very obvious reasons. Farmers, it's hard to hear their cries, you know, because --

TAPPER: Yeah. Well, Dave, we thank you so much for your activism for them, and for your time today. We really appreciate it. God bless you for what you do for those hardworking men and women.

The big shows this weekend, "The Farm Aid Benefit Concert" live from Minneapolis. CNN's John Berman and Laura Coates, they got the lucky gig. They're going to host. That's Saturday night at 7:00 Eastern, only here on CNN.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTINGLY: Well, if you ever miss an episode of "THE LEAD, you can listen to the show wherever you get your podcasts.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.