Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Calls Judge Who Ruled Against Him Lunatic And Rogue; Chief Justice Roberts Rebukes Trump Over Judge Attacks; Putin Offers Trump Few Compromises In Ukraine Call; Elon Musk Lives Through His Version Of Groundhog Day; Sen. Schumer Questioned On Siding With GOP. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired March 18, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, the art of the bland deal. After a two-hour test of which world leader would bend or break, Donald Trump doesn't really get what he wants from Vladimir Putin.
Plus, the chief versus the commander-in-chief, John Roberts puts his name behind a statement telling the president to stop threatening judges.
Also, Democrats vent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think you caved.
BERMAN: As Chuck Schumer fends off accusations he gave up the fight versus Trump.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): No one wants to fight more than me.
BERMAN: And coming undone. A judge unravels the demolition of USAID by Elon Musk, and Elon Musk's cars become targets for vandals.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Ashley Allison, Shermichael Singleton, Neera Tanden, and Josh Rogin.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN (on camera): Alright. Good evening everyone, I'm John Berman in New York in for Abby Phillip.
Let's get right to what America is talking about, the judge, and the president's crosshairs, and the justice standing in the breach for the entire judiciary. Tonight, Donald Trump followed up his call for impeaching a federal judge who told him no, and Trump did it with an unrelenting rant. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT ELECT: I don't know who the judge is, but he's radical left, he was Obama-appointed, and he actually said we shouldn't be able to take criminals, killers, murderers, horrible, the worst people, gang members, gang leaders, that we shouldn't be allowed to take them out of our country. Well, that's a presidential job. That's not for a local judge to be making that determination.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: That judge, James Boasberg, is not radical left, he was a homicide prosecutor. He got his first job on the bench from George W. Bush. He served on the FISA court, the legal clearinghouse for the nation's most secret surveillance. And he's only in Trump's line of sight right now because he is standing in the way of the president's deportation plans, perhaps just temporarily, while he reviews the case.
But Boasberg is not alone, if not on the merits of the case, on the importance of the judges, any judge's right to weigh in. He now has an ally on the Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts, the almost never heard from chief of the nation's high court. He put his signature behind a statement that does not mention the president by name, but it's clear and unmistakable as it is aimed at an audience of one.
Roberts writes, quote, for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.
The president asked in that Fox interview about the Roberts rejoinder, said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What's your reaction to the courts stepping in to make a statement here? They didn't make a statement when Joe Biden, you know, decided to forgive all those student loans.
TRUMP: Well, he didn't mention my name in the statement. I just saw it quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Did not mention my name in the statement. I just saw it quickly.
All right, Scott Jennings, Chief Justice John Roberts nominated to the Supreme Court during the George W. Bush administration, in which you serve so honorably, why is he wrong?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I worked on his confirmation, in fact, when I worked there. Well, he's not wrong to defend the people in his branch of government. That's what the chief justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to do. And so -- and I'm not sure, you know, people need to be impeached over decisions.
However, I am quite sure that some of these judges are dramatically overstepping their authority. And I think not just in the rulings that we talked about in the intro, but in other rulings, there are legitimate questions about whether the president's core constitutional functions are being impeded.
I would hope that the Supreme Court would get involved in some of these questions sooner rather than later so that we can get some clarity here. Because I think it's crazy to think that individual district court judges should be able to stop the president from shipping terrorists out of the country, or even tonight, there's a ruling on the military saying the commander-in-chief of the military can't set standards for who can be in the military.
All of these rulings from these individual district court judges, I think it's ludicrous and the Supreme Court ultimately is going to have to be the final arbiter.
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: So, just to understand, are you saying it is wrong that the president called for impeaching a judge who disagreed with him, which is what Robert said? I just heard you say, just a second ago, that maybe impeachment, calling for impeachment is too much. Is that what you said?
JENNINGS: Yes, I don't think we should impeach judges over rulings, but I think it's also -- if I were Donald Trump, I'd be pissed as well, because I think some of these rulings are crazy, they put the national security of the United States in danger, and he needs to be allowed to operate as the president, as the Constitution dictates.
[22:05:06]
TANDEN: I think the question in these cases is really whether the assertions the president is making are actually true, or whether they're doing what we've seen in other cases, where they're rounding up people who have not committed any crime, who are not criminals in the United States, and sending those people to places they've never even lived before. So, I kind of think it's actually reasonable in our system of constitutional democracy, which we hear so many lectures from Republicans about why the Constitution is so important.
JENNINGS: Your administration let them all in. We're trying to get rid of them. I totally get why you're upset about it.
TANDEN: Slightly different. Actually, you know, see, I think it's a fascinating thing. Because this whole debate is you want to make it about just criminals. But that is not what's happening.
JENNINGS: They are.
TANDEN: And I think it's really --
JENNINGS: They are criminals.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: They are criminals there.
JENNINGS: They're illegally in the country.
SINGLETON: And then two --
BERMAN: Keep it on the court for just a second here and John Roberts and impeachment and the role that the judiciary has.
And I just want to read to you from a document that I'm fond of, the Constitution of the United States, Article 3, Section 1, judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress from may time to time ordained and established. One of those inferior courts happens to be the entire district court apparatus. Okay, Shermichael.
SINGLETON: So, politically, let us not pretend that Democrats have not in the past stated that a president of their party should not ignore judges. I remember AOC just a year or two ago talking about President Biden should ignore the ruling for judges as it pertains to forgiving student debt. There were a lot of Democrats who made that argument at the time. I disagreed
With that said earlier today, we had Alberto Gonzalez on, former A.G. under George W. Bush, who was pretty clear he didn't necessarily agree with the polls for the president. But he said from his opinion as an attorney, he's almost certain that the Supreme Court would agree that the president has the authority to absolutely ship these criminals out of our country. And the fact that Democrats want to die on this issue, more power to them, more power to them. This is not a winning issue for Democrats.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, it's the process that we have in our country that is democracy. It's easy to make this case be the test case because it is, as Scott likes to say, an 80-20 issue, right? And we're not dying on the hill. We're dying -- we're trying to protect our Constitution.
So, the judge makes a ruling. It could go to the appellate. It could go to the Supreme Court. And when that ruling comes down, people should follow the law, former presidents and current presidents. But it doesn't mean that the president gets to have an order by decree just because he was elected by a majority of Americans. He can govern. But we have three branches of government for a reason.
JENNINGS: He has an argument to make though, which is that these people are effectively transnational terrorists, and if they were Hamas or ISIS or anyone else --
ALLISON: And it's going through the courts.
JENNINGS: -- we wouldn't wait around four years for a hundred judges to weigh in.
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: I think the question is where is the right place to make that argument and of course Donald Trump would prefer to make that argument On Fox News and in the political arena and on X, where he has the advantage, and I think what John Roberts is saying is, no, that will actually be decided in the legal process, because that's the way our government is set up.
Now, is that going to be the way that it's ultimately decided? We don't know. That's the battle that's going on, because we're in an unprecedented situation where the president of the United States is at least threatening, if not outright defying court order.
JENNINGS: He said the opposite on Fox tonight. He said he would not defy a court order.
ROGIN: Yes, he says a lot of things.
JENNINGS: And he said he never would.
ROGIN: Yes, but the facts of whether or not he actually defied that court order are still being investigated and we just don't know yet.
SINGLETON: The plane was already in the air. Were they supposed to magically just turn around and bring these people back? And I have a very serious question here. Does the president not have any authority to protect American citizens?
TANDEN: Of course he does.
(CROSSTALKS)
BERMAN: Let me put up the timeline. Let me put up the timeline for one second here just so we can establish this. Look, it's a little bit unclear, as Josh was saying, what exactly happened here. The judge did sign an order here before the hearing even began and then he issued the oral order. And then there was the written order and then the final flight departed there. So, there was a flight that departed after, which now the Trump administration is saying did not have anyone on it, that was on it solely because of the Alien Enemies Act, but --
ROGIN: Right. So, we need to find out what the ground truth is, but on a broader scale, the president would love to bully everybody into doing what he wants. He can bully Congress pretty easily. He can bully business leaders, but there are two things he can't bully. He can't bully the markets. Markets are going to do what the markets are going to do. It's like shouting at the rain to stop. And he can't bully the judges, or at least we don't know if he can.
And those are the two things where actually we might have institutions that are going to say, wait a second, it doesn't matter what Donald Trump says on T.V. or on X or on Fox News. There's a ground truth here, it'll be litigated, and no amount of scare tactics and pressure tactics is going to change that. That's the line in the sand.
TANDEN: First of all, it's an extraordinary thing, it is an extraordinary thing that Chief Justice Roberts spoke out against Donald Trump. I've never in my lifetime seen a chief justice issue a statement in response to a president, in this situation, he's calling for the -- the president is calling to impeach a judge, just because he disagreed with the ruling.
[22:10:10]
And I think we should recognize that that is unprecedented. And I hope that --
(CROSSTALKS)
SINGLETON: This is not the first time that John Roberts has issued a statement about President Trump. And how many times have we had Democrats issue statement after statement when the Supreme Court rules in a way that they don't like?
ALLISON: But we're not talking about Democrats. We're talking about -- no. There's a difference. There's a difference.
SINGLETON: There's a difference, Ashley. I think it's hypocritical.
TANDEN: Because it's not at all.
ALLISON: There is one chief justice. And that is the one who spoke, not a Democrat, not a talking head. The chief justice spoke and said, we have a process.
Now, let's just be honest with the American people right now, and that Donald Trump is using these cases to invoke his base. They aren't stupid. They're selecting certain cases that have a political lens to it, and they're testing the bounds.
Republicans agree with me in terms of the 14th Amendment. How many times have you been on to say, I think this could go to the Supreme Court?
JENNINGS: Actually, these are terrorists, okay? They were designated, the organization to which they belong. But regardless --
ROGIN: We don't really know.
TANDEN: No. Actually, that's the truth. No, they don't. Actually, we don't know.
JENNINGS: They're in the country illegally.
TANDEN: We don't know.
ROGIN: Allegedly.
JENNINGS: These are not (INAUDIBLE) Sunday school teachers. These people are in the country --
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: They're not citizens of the United States.
ROGIN: We don't know because we don't have the information and we can't trust the Trump administration. SINGLETON: So, Josh, why do you think they were here? Vacationing for a couple of days in Florida?
ROGIN: Tell me the names of the people and their status.
SINGLETON: I'm just curious.
ROGIN: You don't know who they are and I don't know who they are because they didn't tell us because they shipped them in to some El Salvadorian super max prison without any due process whatsoever.
SINGLETON: And El Salvador said, come on home, join the prison where you belong, where you belong.
BERMAN: One second, one second, two points, two points. One, El Salvador doesn't have to follow the U.S. Constitution.
SINGLETON: That's fair, John.
BERMAN: The El Salvador president, you know, has his own interests. And the second thing is here, whether or not you agree with the administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act, I think we all have to agree it's a novel interpretation of it. It is something that has never -- it has never been used this way before. It just hasn't.
JENNINGS: I agree with you, it is novel, and that's why, ultimately, the Supreme Court is going to have to get involved in this.
BERMAN: I didn't say good or bad, I said novel, like you just acknowledged there. So, the point is --
JENNINGS: But that doesn't make Trump wrong, and I think a lot of people --
BERMAN: What it does mean, Scott, is the judiciary, the judicial branch needs to work its way through it to understand --
JENNINGS: And in the meantime, what, these people get to run while the United States while we wait?
TANDEN: No, that's not what's happening.
ROGIN: there's a middle ground where we give humans, human rights. And as a country, we give people, even people who are in this country, without paperwork, basic human rights. And if you think that's coddling --
(CROSSTALKS)
TANDEN: The reason why we have a Constitution actually, is to protect everyone who I've heard all these lectures from Republicans protect about the Constitution protecting people from this overarching government.
JENNINGS: What people?
TANDEN: Just any people, all people. No, any person.
SINGLETON: I'll just quickly say this.
TANDEN: I just love the hypocrisy when we don't care about the Constitution now.
SINGLETON: There is not a single American in this country who is comfortable with people who are here illegally.
TANDEN: I'm not either, and this is not what this is about at all.
SINGLETON: Killing people, raping people. We want those people out of our country. The president has an obligation -- the president has an obligation to protect Americans. He has an obligation to do that.
TANDEN: Yes, we do, every single person --
BERMAN: Given that we solved everything on this subject --
TANDEN: We all agree that killers and rapists should be deported immediately.
BERMAN: Given that we all solved everything on this subject, we're going to move on. I just want to say, deep tease, tune in tomorrow to my morning show. Harry Enten is going to come on and give you some polling on the judiciary, because while more Americans, it may be an 80-20 issue, agree to deport criminal gang members, they also agree that judges should have the right to rule relatively unpeded. Judges do have wide popular support when it comes to exercising their power. Tune in tomorrow to find out more.
Next, more breaking news, President Trump touts his call with Vladimir Putin even though the Russian leader offered few compromises. We'll discuss.
Plus, a judge -- I hesitate to use that word right now -- a judge orders Elon Musk to immediately stop dismantling USAID and Elon Musk is responding tonight. He just did. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
BERMAN: So, if football is a battle of inches, diplomacy is about setting expectations. So, if you listen to the White House press secretary, the president entered the week kind of in the red zone with Russia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: We are on the tenth yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment, and the president, as you know, is determined to get one done.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BERMAN: But after a two-hour phone call with Vladimir Putin, it sounds like President Trump got stuffed at the line of scrimmage. Maybe he picked up half a yard. A touchdown would have been an unconditional 30-day ceasefire. What President Trump got was a temporary pause on Russian strikes against Ukraine's energy infrastructure. So, Ukraine might have power as Moscow continues to bomb its people.
President Trump, in words, said out loud for months and months, promised much more than that, though now he claims there was no meaning in those words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, shortly after I win the presidency because of you, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine settle. I'll get it done in 24 hours. I know them both very well.
If I'm president, I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours. They both have weaknesses and they both have strengths.
[22:20:02]
And within 24 hours, that war will be settled. It'll be over.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a candidate, you said you would have this war settled in 24 hours.
TRUMP: Well, I was being a little bit sarcastic when I said that. I wouldn't -- what I really mean is I'd like to get it settled. And I think I'll be successful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: In fact, it was not 24 hours and it was not settled, still has not been.
Josh Rogin, our Nick Paton Walsh, who's been all over Ukraine the last few years, writes tonight. He says that the administration, the White House, Donald Trump, has been hopelessly bluffed and he called this the Russian art of the no deal. What do you think about that?
ROGIN: Right, that's one way to look at it. I have a little bit of a different view. I think that President Trump is honestly trying to pursue the path to peace. I just think he's bungling it by taking Putin's side and pushing Putin's talking points and agenda items and punishing the Ukrainians. And I think that's just a bad negotiating strategy.
Now, what happened today was that Putin said, okay, well, if you want a ceasefire, I'll do one where I can still attack all the civilians of Ukraine and the Ukrainians can't attack the thing that they're attacking, which is the oil depots. So, it's really a ceasefire for the Ukrainians and not the Russians, which doesn't really make any sense when you think about it for two seconds. But this is what amounts for a win right now in the slow and steady progress. So, I'm rooting for President Trump to get to a negotiation. I hope that both sides can reach a just peace. But right now, they're bungling it. And we just have to be honest with that, about that. Because if you have a peace based on the fact that the Russians can do whatever they want, the Ukrainians can't do whatever they want, and then you have a piece that doesn't include the Ukrainians having independence, having security, getting 20,000 stolen children back, and having some assurance that they won't get attacked again in a year's time, well, then it's not going to work and the Ukrainians are not going to accept it.
So, that's a little bit different than the, oh, everything's horrible. I don't think everything's horrible about what Trump's doing. I just think that if he did it smarter, he would have a better chance of achieving his own goal. And the way he's doing it, by taking Putin's side against Ukraine, is actually undermining his own goal for peace, which is going to make peace a lot harder. And he's finding that out the hard way, including by what Putin did today.
BERMAN: Neera?
TANDEN: Look, it's easy to actually end the war if you just surrender, if you just force the Ukrainians to surrender. In fact, Putin is just basically, even though we're forcing the Ukrainians to the table, Putin's actually not even sort of accepting a ceasefire right now.
So, I mean, I think what is fascinating about all of this discussion is behind all the bluster, we are demonstrating -- this administration is demonstrating incredible weakness against the Russians who are 1/14 of our economy. We are a much stronger country, and Donald Trump waited for an hour today for Putin, for this call. He came late after meeting with a bunch of oligarchs. He laughed about holding the president up. That's not a demonstration of American strength. That is incredible weakness that he's tolerating this behavior by Russia.
BERMAN: Did Trump get (INAUDIBLE)?
SINGLETON: Look, I think the president's moving in the right direction here. I think you have to bring in Zelensky and the Ukrainians to talk about this. I like the idea of the United States having some type of partnership, longstanding with the Ukrainians for rare earth minerals. China is ahead of us by quite a couple of years, I think maybe six or seven, depending on which expert you want to believe. That's important for our energy and defense sectors.
If you have American businesses in the eastern parts of Ukraine, I can't imagine the Russians would actually attempt to continue to invade or attack Ukrainians because they obviously wouldn't want to kill Americans.
And so I do believe there's a strategic position here that is in the interest of the United States, but we cannot cede any ground to Vladimir Putin at all, whatsoever.
BERMAN: So, Russian businessmen and miners in Ukraine are going to stop -- sorry, American. SINGLETON: Americans.
BERMAN: American businessmen and miners in Ukraine are going to stop them, but no U.S. military, no U.S. intelligence, which Putin apparently today put as a red line.
JENNINGS: Well, look, realistically, we're never going to have American troops.
BERMAN: Well, we're talking about aid.
JENNINGS: And we're never going to get anything approaching that. And, look, the conversations are ongoing. I'm sure, you know, we know some things publicly, there's some conversations going on privately that we don't know about. I share Josh's optimism that Trump is earnestly trying to get to a peace deal.
These conversations are necessary. Dealing with Putin is difficult. It's vexed a number of administrations over the years and presidents of both parties. But what's the end goal? You know, we have to get these people to stop killing each other. Ukraine has to be sovereign and hopefully prosperous. And we have to move the European theater on from war and back towards prosperity and for the rest of Europe to begin to provide for its own national security at some point. That is what he is trying to do.
I do not believe it is going to be a straight path from here to there. There'll be a winding road.
[22:25:00]
It's going to be very difficult, but I think he has to be given some room to operate and operating in this case means talking to someone that none of us like, but has to be spoken to, and that's Putin.
ALLISON: I think the -- well, I find -- I don't really take much that the president said with like truth and honesty. I like to scrutinize. You should do that to Democrats and Republicans. I should have Democrat Republicans. I think the interview when he was like, oh, I was jokingly -- we're talking about war here. Like you don't make a joking promise about ending war and bringing peace just because like a phone call went poorly.
I want the president to be successful in this because I want the war to end also. But it's the approach, it's the relationship that Donald Trump has with Vladimir Putin, which makes it feel so compromising. It's not that -- he might want peace, but to what end? And everything they just outlined, Scott, I'm in agreement with of like where we want Ukraine to be sovereign, but is that possible if you are very vulnerable to Putin, and I would argue, probably not.
BERMAN: And, Josh, you know, you cover this every day.
ROGIN: Sure.
BERMAN: Did what happened today get things anywhere closer to peace? A peace that Ukraine would have --
ROGIN: No, it didn't get closer to peace, but it got closer to clarity, John, which is really the more important thing. Because what it showed us is that, well, what a lot of people already assume, which is that Putin doesn't want peace, okay? There's no signs that he wants peace. He agreed to the energy ceasefire, and then hours later bombed an entire city, causing a blackout in an entire city. So, grand opening, grand closing, the whole ceasefire that Trump just secured as his ten-yard play or whatever, fumbled, over, you know, turnover, it didn't work, okay? It only took three hours.
So, this whole process, and this is what people don't really talk about on T.V., but we should just be honest about it, is about making sure that when this whole thing fails, because they're going to keep fighting, that Trump believes it's Putin who's to blame and not Zelenskyy. And that was the mistake that Zelenskyy made in the Oval Office. He got on the wrong side of Trump, and then he fixed it. He said, okay, Trump, you want a ceasefire, whatever you want, that's great. And now it's on Putin. And then Putin said, okay, Trump, well, I'm going to give you something, then now you can blame Zelenskyy again. And that's how, regretfully and crazily, these foreign relations are done these days. It's by convincing Trump that you're not the one that's causing the problem, and that's the battle that's going on.
So, I don't think Putin wants to stop fighting. I think he's going to figure out a way to try to pin it on Zelenskyy, and Zelenskyy's going to try to figure out a way to pin it on Putin. The problem that we're all dealing with is that the people in the Trump administration, including Trump, Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Don Jr., Tucker Carlson, and the rest of them, believe Putin, and don't believe the U.S. intelligence community, and don't believe, you know, the Ukrainians and don't believe the reality. And that's an unsolvable problem, because how do you have a diplomatic negotiation where the mass murdering dictator who abducted 20,000 children has more credibility with the U. S. president than the victim and the president of the country that got attacked? That's just crazy. And I don't really -- I never figured out how to wrap my mind around solving that.
TANDEN: I mean, I think the other problem here is Vladimir Putin knows all that too. And if you look at the last couple of weeks, essentially, Donald Trump says, let's do this. And Vladimir Putin says, I don't really want to. Then Donald Trump says, let's do this. And then Vladimir Putin says, I don't really want to. And then he says, let's do this. And he says, I don't really want to do that either.
And it's issue after issue, where on this issue with Russia, he does not care that Vladimir Putin ignores everything he's saying, which I have to say, just, if that happened to a Democratic president, my two colleagues here would be calling them weak, weak for letting America's credibility crumble in the face of a dictator.
JENNINGS: Well, Joe Biden did call what Putin was going to do a minor incursion when it started.
TANDEN: Before it happened, and not after, and it's never justified.
ROGIN: Every president wants to reset. It's not about Ukraine. Every president wants to do this grand reset with Russia. They're going to be our friend. We're going to do a reverse Nixon and we're going to encircle China, and it never works. Clinton tried it. Obama tried it, George W. Bush tried it, Biden tried it, Trump tried it. Trump's trying it again.
TANDEN: But it's not the same.
ROGIN: Fool me once, shame on me.
ALLISON: What does Trump do, you know, to your point, Neera, that he's made offerings to Putin? How does Trump show up as the strong leader that you all believe him to be in this moment to push back on Russia?
SINGLETON: I mean, again, I personally --
ROGIN: Raise the sanctions, help the Ukrainians, pressure the Russians.
TANDEN: Sure, I agree. That would be smart.
SINGLETON: I mean, helping Ukrainians, in my opinion, appears to be in the strategic interest of the U.S. Josh, again, you've covered this a lot. My question is, if you're Putin, I would imagine after losing almost a million troops, at some point you're looking for an out here.
ROGIN: Well, here's the thing about Putin, he doesn't care about human life.
TANDEN: Yes, he doesn't.
ROGIN: What you have to understand about Putin is that he's a mass murdering psychopath who doesn't care about human life, who is willing to sacrifice as much as he wants to make a point, because he's crazy, okay?
[22:30:03]
TANDEN: And maybe that's why we shouldn't agree with him.
ROGIN: He's a mass murdering dictator, psychopath, who is willing to kill as many Ukrainians and Russians as it has, just to make a point. Well, then you could factor that that that point, well, then you could factor that that that should answer your question.
SINGLETON: Oh, sure, sure. But --
ROGIN: We really can't be friends with him and we really can't depend on him and we really can't have a strategic alliance with him because he's a mass murdering psychopathic dictator, who means us harm, by the way, who is against us, who is against all the things that we believe in or at least the things that we as a country believe.
SINGLETON: But we need those rare earth minerals from Ukraine. That's a fact.
ROGIN: -- for the last two hundred years, I don't think we do. But anyway, that's -- that's the answer to your -- that's why Putin doesn't want peace, because he doesn't care about human suffering. Do we? I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
TANDEN: I do.
SINGLETON: I think we do.
TANDEN: I care about human suffering.
ROGIN: I hope so.
TANDEN: I think we human suffering.
BERMAN: It's -- it's an important prism. I wish to look at what's happening right now. And one wonders where it goes from here and what President Trump could do tomorrow when he speaks publicly for the speaks publicly for the first time on this to try to make it better or push it forward. We'll have to listen closely to what he says.
Next, as Elon Musk gets news of more vandalism against Tesla vehicles, a judge just ordered him to stop dismantling certain parts of the government. Plus, just in tonight, the JFK files finally being released. So, what are we learning -- what are we learning new that we didn't know about the assassination? That's ahead.
[22:35:59]
BERMAN: So, tonight, Elon Musk is living through his version of Groundhog Day, a judge unwinding something his group did with no sign of spring on the horizon. This time, it's how fast and how much Musk's operators broke at USAID.
This is the relevant ruling. Quote, " -- the court finds the defendant's actions taken to shut down USAID on an accelerated basis, including its apparent decision to permanently close USAID headquarters without the approval of a duly appointed USAID officer likely violated the United States constitution in multiple ways." So, people at USAID start going back to work. Things start opening up again, but what? I mean, can you put the toothpaste back in the bottle here?
SINGLETON: I mean, this is why I think it was so important. I've been saying this for several weeks now. We were talking about this on the break. You have to get Congress involved in this process. I think we have a blueprint for this. You go back to the '90s.
One of your former bosses, Bill Clinton, worked with Republicans in the House to figure out a way to shrink the size of government. They let go almost 400,000 people over a duration of time via buyouts. There's a process that we can do this well. I think it will be a net positive to the President and a net positive to the Republican Party writ large by getting members of Congress involved and engaged in this process. BERMAN: I do -- this list -- what -- they can and cannot do with USAID
now. They cannot fire or put more employees on leave. They cannot terminate more contracts or grants. They can access but cannot share personal data kept by USAID, and the firings are not reversed in the agency future is still very unlikely.
SINGLETON: Congress involved to my point, Congress can authorize these things. They can authorize those firearms via buyouts. That's my point.
ROGIN: I think you make a good point about the way that they did it affecting the survivability of the thing that they did, but I'd like to make a separate point --
SINGLETON: Yeah.
ROGIN: -- is that the way that they did it resulted in real people losing their lives unnecessarily all over the world. And you know, when Elon Musk was asked about, you know, how people suffered or died due to your, slash and burn style of cutting U.S. government, he said, no, nobody has died. And that turns out not to be true.
There's a ton of reporting. I encourage everyone to read Nicholas Kristoff's latest column in "The New York Times" where he went to Africa and interviewed people who saw people die because all of a sudden they were getting vital medicine and food and then one day they weren't because, you know, some DOGE employees cut off the funding to deliver the food from Point A to Point B.
And we're not just talking about the odd people. We're talking about tens of thousands, soon to be hundreds of thousands, potentially millions of people who are going to die. And, you know, for just a second, we should put aside the politics and understand the -- the humanity of that and the cruelty of that and the damage that that does to America's reputation and to the effort of humanitarian and -- and and medical work all over the world.
And then we can come back to whether or not, well, you know, is this going to survive the judicial challenge or not? Because the damage is done and the way that they did it is to break it in a way that it can't be replaced even if the courts come in and save them.
And there was a different way to go about it where, okay, we --we cut the -- the condoms to Gaza, but we keep the HIV funding. Okay? And they didn't do that. And so, the -- this is -- this is a real world example of real people suffering because of the ignorance and cruelty of the way that the DOGE team has gone about. It's inexcusable. And so, I -- I just think that we should keep that in mind.
TANDEN: Yeah.
BERMAN: It's also an example of how if you act fast enough, you know, you can beat the judges here, and they accomplished what they wanted to accomplish.
TANDEN: Right, they just did. Connect this. I mean, I think we all agree that if, you know, the actual way to do this isn't a bipartisan effort or even just a congressional effort. The -- that's the whole issue here, which is they just took Congress' role and threw it out the window by saying we're going to close down as an agency that Congress passed.
Congress made the USAID. There's all this discussion, but it's effectively been legislated. And so, I think this is the whole harm when you have one random billionaire making decisions who has no experience with government, a lot of people are going to get harmed. And there are people -- there are people in Africa getting harmed.
[22:40:00]
But we know there are veterans in America also getting harmed, losing their jobs and also services for veterans are getting cut. And that's why I think you see a lot of protests and in discussions, not just by Democrats and Independents, but also Republicans at Republican town halls.
BERMAN: There's also (inaudible) of Elon Musk, there's been all kinds of vandalism against Teslas and Tesla dealerships all over the country. You know, Las Vegas, Kansas City, Antonea, Buffalo Grove, Littleton, Mass. I grew up right next to Littleton, Mass. Loveland, Colorado, Tiger in Oregon, all over the place. Musk was asked about all of this on television tonight. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY: I always thought the left of the, you know, Democrats was supposed to be the party of -- of empathy, the party of caring, and yet they're burning down cars, they're firebombing dealerships, they're firing bullets into dealerships.
I think we just have, a deranged -- it's there's -- there's some kind of mental illness thing going on here. I think there are larger forces at work, as well. I mean, I don't know who's -- who's funding it and who's coordinating it because this is -- this is crazy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Actually, I'm sure he's gotten lots of evidence for that.
ALLISON: Look, I will be consistent on this. I don't think vandalism, I don't think violence is what you do to make your point. I've said that around January 6th, I've said it around protest, and I'll say it here.
Do I agree what Elon Musk is doing with DOGE? No. But what I would encourage people -- and I don't even know if the folks who are doing the vandalism are actual Democrats or Republicans, but they're people who want to destroy our democracy, as well. This is what I will tell folks.
In moments like this, if you are so enraged that you want to act on something, you have a representative, you have a senator in Congress that doesn't have to be there any longer. You should go tell them that you are disgusted to Shermichael's point, that you don't like that they are not taking their congressional responsibility to -- to heart and challenging the President and say, let us pass this law. Let us repeal back this funding.
But in -- but taking it with vandalism, don't agree with it. Don't associate it with it. It's not a -- it shouldn't be a part of the Democratic brand. It shouldn't be part of Republican brand. It's not an American brand.
JENNINGS: So, doubtful it's Republicans attacking Tesla dealerships around the country. It's pretty wild actually. The other night, Donald Trump said these are domestic terrorists. Everybody laughed about it and scoffed at it. That video looks like terrorism to me.
I mean, it's obviously an organized, coordinated effort. However people are -- are communicating with each other, to do this to people around the country who chose to buy a Tesla at some point in the past, many of whom, I'm sure, are Democrats who bought them, in the first place all because their entire political worldview is ruled by their emotions.
And that's the American left right now. It is one angry mob after another willing to take things into their own hands up to and including keying, firebombing and otherwise vandalizing cars and car dealerships and charging stations. It's outrageous. It is terrorism. People ought to be put in jail and left there for a very long time and be taught a lesson.
TANDEN: So, when they do it to a Tesla dealership, it's really bad. But when they do it to the halls of Congress, we should pardon them. Is that your position?
JENNINGS: No. I've never -- I don't support --
TANDEN: Are you okay with January 6th pardons?
JENNINGS: I know you haven't been around for a while, so let me educate you about my position about January 6th.
TANDEN: I'm so -- I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry. You don't need to patronize me.
JENNINGS: Let me educate you about my position about January the 6th.
TANDEN: I'm so sorry. You don't need to patronize me.
JENNINGS: Let me educate you. No. No.
TANDEN: No need to patronize me. I'm just saying --
JENNINGS: You don't -- and you don' need to be condescending to me.
TANDEN: I'm not condescending to you.
JENNINGS: So, let me educate you about my position. You want to attack me? Let me finish it. Let me finish it.
BERMAN: Guys.
JENNINGS: Let me finish.
BERMAN: Let's do this January 6th --
TANDEN: I'm just asking you a question. I'm just asking you a question. I'm sorry you're getting emotional
JENNINGS: Yeah, I'm sorry you're a condescending person who hasn't been paying attention to what I do.
UNKNOWN: Okay, okay.
BERMAN: Stop, guys.
JENNINGS: So here's -- so here's the issue. I didn't support what happened on January the 6th. I was one of the first Republicans who called it out. I don't support the pardons. I have repeatedly, just like my friend Ashley here, said that no violence in our political system is acceptable.
But this right here, what's going on with a guy who helps our country, who runs successful companies, who doesn't have to be doing this, and now one of his companies is under systematic terroristic threat and violence all over the country and people seem to be laughing about it or fine with it, it's outrageous.
I've sat at this table and had people say, we should cut Elon Musk from the government totally. He rescued our astronauts today. Is that what we want? The treatment of this guy is outrageous. These people who are doing this need to be found, put in jail, and made an example of. That's my point.
TANDEN: Anyone who commits violence against Tesla or Congress or anyone else should be put in jail a thousand percent. But that does not stifle dissent or opposition --
JENNINGS: Of course.
TANDEN: From Elon Musk --
JENNINGS: Give it a little lip service. Give it a little both sides. Go ahead.
TANDEN: No, no. So, just general both sides here. I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry to say that people are legitimately upset. They're legitimately upset, and Elon Musk -- and they're doing it on their own, but there is no reason to have violence in the country. But I just wish all of us would support criticism of -- or would support punishing people who are violent wherever they are.
[22:45:05]
ROGIN: From what I understand, the Teslas will fall apart if you just leave them alone anyway.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
ROGIN: There's nothing really anybody really needs to do about it. Just drive them enough. Eventually, the things will start just like -- aside from what I've read--
ALLISON: I do think, one thing would, and I don't actually think anybody was both siding this, is I think one of the ways to actually move past this is not to be, I don't know who these people are. I don't associate with them as Democrats. They're wrong. I don't know who the January 6th people were. I don't -- I'm -- you don't associate with them as Republicans. They're wrong. And that is the fact. That is it.
We don't -- right is right as wrong is wrong. And I think when we try to over politicize things, that's when tensions get high, and that's where we are as this in this country.
JENNINGS: Have you seen that?
ALLISON: Both sides feel unseen, unheard, and they're taking violence to express themselves, and that -- that's not what we should be about.
BERMAN: All right. We're going to end this segment on that. We're going to talk about Chuck Schumer who's been getting an earful from people on "The View", how he is responding to calls for him to step down after he voted with Republicans.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:51]
BERMAN: All right. Right now, there's something of a referendum on Chuck Schumer's leadership and if he is fighting smart or not really fighting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUNNY HOSTIN, "THE VIEW" CO-HOST: I think you caved. I think you and nine other Democrats caved. I don't think you showed the fight that this party needs right now because you're playing with a by a rule book where the other party has thrown that rule book away.
SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): True.
HOSTIN: Why did you lead Democratic senators to play by that book that the Republicans are not playing by?
SCHUMER: Listen, okay. First, I'd say, Sunny, no one wants to fight more than me, and no one fights more than me. We got to fight smart.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Ashley, if you've watched "The View", I mean, what does that say? ALLISON: I agree with Sunny. I was disappointed. And I know most of
the folks around are disappointed in Chuck Schumer. And I -- I heard the analysis over the weekend about what happened and they said it's a generational thing. It's not a generational thing. We're in a different era.
And what I understood was that Republicans had a mandate to govern. So, govern. You don't need us because you had a mandate, right? And what Chuck Schumer did was validate a mandate that he no -- did not need to do.
People want Democrats to stand up. I sat on this -- at this table over and over again and said that what the Republicans were trying to do with cutting aid and cutting Social Security and cutting Medicaid, this is just the step after step after step, to cut many of those programs was problematic, and I still believe that. And I think what Chuck Schumer did, enabled them.
BERMAN: Oh, you say some people think it's generational. Maybe not because Nancy Pelosi kind of --
ALLISON: I know. Exactly.
BERMAN: -- Nancy Pelosi kind of weighed in on this today.
ALLISON: I agree.
BERMAN: Let's listen to what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI, SPEAKER EMERITA: I myself don't do give away anything for nothing. And I think that's what happened the other day. We could have, in my view, perhaps gotten it to agree to a third wave, which was bipartisan C.R. for two week -- two -- four weeks. And they may not have agreed to it, but at least the public would have seen they're not agreeing to it. And that then they would have been shutting government down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: So, so, Neera, what she said there on top was I myself never give, you know, anything for nothing, which is what happened last week.
TANDEN: Yeah, I mean, look. I think a lot of Democrats are disappointed that, in the one the first moment of leverage, the senate didn't use the leverage. I think there's a lot of anger and disappointment of that.
And I think the question really now going forward is have lessons been learned about the anger that people have? Do people really -- does the leader recognize that the party wants him to fight harder? Does he have a strategy going forward of how he's going to make Republicans actually come to the table to get Democratic votes? And I think my hope is, you know, that he will. I've seen Chuck
Schumer in fights before where he is willing to bring the whole senate along with him, and I hope he does that going forward.
ALLISON: Can I just say one thing? I actually think it's important, too. We --we are definitely a party that feels like we are looking for who is our next leader. I think it was important that Hakeem Jeffries did what he also did, too.
TANDEN: Yes, absolutely.
ALLISON: He does not have to fall in line behind Chuck Schumer if he does not think that's the way the Democratic Party can go. And so I want to commend him. I'm sure that's not easy to do. That was one of his first big tests coming into this new administration where Republicans are -- are governing. And I thought it -- it took guts, and I was glad to see he did it.
SINGLETON: But I think the problem is no one knows what the Democratic Party stands for. No one knows what their policy positions are. I think that's a part of the reason why many Democrats are angry.
You look at the recent data that just came out -- most younger men, Republicans, people of color starting to teeter more Republicans, younger voters writ large starting to teeter more Republicans because they look at the Democratic Party for answers and solutions for a litany of problems that they have experienced over the last eight years, and the Democratic Party has made a lot of promises.
But they haven't delivered much on many of those promises, John. So, this is an opportunity for the Republican Party, I would argue, to actually offer solutions to the problems that Americans do.
ROGIN: Super quick, Josh. Very quick. I just think as an independent, someone who's not a Democrat or Republican, I just have to say it what late -- was laid bare very clearly is that the -- the Democrats have no strategy. The head of the Democrats in the House and the Senate totally disagreed, and they had to open fight about it.
[22:55:01]
So, it's been five months since President Trump won. Five months.
TANDEN: I agree.
ROGIN: That should be enough time to, you know, wipe off the tears and --
ALLISON: Get it together.
ROGIN: Get back up and get back into the fight. And then think about what the fight is. Fight is not a strategy. Fight is -- is the -- is what you do when you have a strategy. And if you don't have a strategy, you're not going to make good decisions.
ALLISON: I agree. ROGIN: Everything comes from not having a strategy. And if I were a
Democrat and a part of the Democrat party, I would say, just pick one. And then at least when --
ALLISON: I am.
ROGIN: When people do the wrong thing --
JENNINGS: I second to that. I -- I thought I was proud of Schumer. He didn't give in.
ALLISON: I'm sure you were.
JENNINGS: Well, he didn't give in --
TANDEN: He has Scott Jennings' endorsement. That's a win.
JENNINGS: He didn't give in to the hypocrisy of the rest of the Democratic Party that had fought so hard against government shutdowns and the filibuster. He refused to give in to any of that, which was just a few months ago. He didn't give in to that. He did the responsible thing. I'm glad he and President Trump put together to keep the government open.
ALLISON: He just wanted you -- he just wanted you guys to be ruled by mandate.
TANDEN: Wow. Great.
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: All right. Everyone, thank you all very much for bearing with me as I sat in tonight. The Trump administration has just released thousands of records related to the JFK assassination, so far. Is there anything new? That's ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
