Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Speaks With Zelenskyy; Trump Blasts Judge. Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired March 19, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:55]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: On the front lines of Trump's legal battles. President Trump renews attacks on a federal judge who ruled against him and the Justice Department fights to avoid giving that judge information about deportations. The latest on this escalating battle.

And face-to-face with voter fury. Lawmakers brave in-person town halls met with outrage over the Trump administration's sweeping policy moves and cuts, both parties feeling the heat from constituents. Now, what are they going to do about it?

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Plus, a family's grief caught up in an international mystery. The father of a college student gone missing in the Dominican Republic says he believes his daughter drowned, as a judge grants a request for freedom to the last known person to see her alive.

We're following these major developing stories and many more all coming in right here to CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

KEILAR: New developments now, as President Trump escalates his fight with the federal judge who blocked his efforts to use wartime powers to deport hundreds of migrants.

A short time ago, a judge extended the deadline for the Justice Department to turn over information about why the White House allowed those deportations to continue to El Salvador, despite the court order. The agency had pushed for a delay this morning. And as questions are mounting over the timeline of those flights, Trump unleashed a new attack against the judge who tried to stop them just hours after saying those who rule against him should be impeached.

Here's what he said on FOX News.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: 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.

LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: But, going forward, would you? Would you defy a court order?

TRUMP: I had judges that were so corrupt.

INGRAHAM: Because that -- we all know that. And that was outrageous.

TRUMP: No, I never -- I never did defy a court order.

INGRAHAM: And you wouldn't in the future?

TRUMP: No, you can't do that.

However, we have bad judges. We have very bad judges.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: CNN's chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, is with us now.

So, Paula, what did the DOJ argue as its rationale for why it wouldn't share information about these flights?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Brianna, I want to start by saying this is hardly the first time that the Justice Department has bristled at a judge's request for additional details that government lawyers view as sensitive.

But, of course, this is occurring in the context of this larger controversy over whether the administration defied this judge's order over the weekend to halt some deportations. Now, yesterday, the government did provide answers to some questions that the judge had posed following a hearing. But then he gave them another day to answer some other questions under seal.

And, in their response, they said -- quote -- "continuing to beat a dead horse solely for the sake of prying from the government legally immaterial facts and wholly within a sphere of core functions of the executive branch is both purposeless and frustrating to the consideration of the actual legal issues at stake in this case."

Now, the judge has given them an extra day to provide this information under seal. But I want to note that this response comes with the full weight of the Justice Department. All of these filings over the past few days have been signed by the attorney general and other top leaders at the Justice Department, something, Brianna, that is highly unusual.

But I'm told that it is meant as a show of force to support the line prosecutor who's arguing this in court and faces the possibility of sanctions or even contempt.

KEILAR: And, Paula, we're watching some other key court cases. Trump is vowing that his administration will appeal the judge's ruling that blocks the dismantling of USAID.

And then, today, there's also a hearing in the case challenging Trump's plans to slash DEI programs. What can you tell us about those?

REID: Yes. So, look, they have -- there are a series of legal challenges that have been going on. They faced a series of losses at the administration over the past few days.

But they have known all along that this is how this was going to play out. I was told by sources as far back as December that President Trump, once he was in office, he was going to implement a series of policies that were really designed with a very expansive view of executive power, particularly when it comes to immigration.

[13:05:12]

His lawyers said, look, we know these are going to be challenged in court. We're going to lose at the district court level because a lot of these challenges will be filed in districts that will be friendly to the challengers. We might even lose at the appellate level.

But they believe that, when a lot of these questions ultimately get before the Supreme Court, that conservative supermajority, that Trump will prevail. So, look, they're certainly not happy that they're losing. These decisions do have immediate impacts on the lives of tens of thousands of Americans who have been impacted by these policies, but they are playing a long game here.

So these losses, they are not deterring the Justice Department at all, Brianna.

KEILAR: All right, Paula Reid, thank you for that -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Let's get some perspective on all of this from retired New York state Supreme Court Judge Jill Konviser.

Judge, thank you so much for being with us. I want to get your reaction to some of what we have heard from the White House, specifically adviser Stephen Miller. He's accusing district court judges of overstepping their roles, of violating Article II of the Constitution.

Help us understand the role of district court judges. Do you think that Judge Boasberg has overstepped his role?

JILL KONVISER, FORMER NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT JUDGE: Judge Boasberg has not overstepped his role. He is performing his role and he's doing it scrupulously.

The central role of the federal courts, which obviously include the district court system, the district courts, the court of appeals, and the Supreme Court, their central role is to ensure the executive branch follows the -- and implements the rules and the laws passed down by Congress.

So you have an executive branch here seeking to push the boundaries of their own power. It's up to the judiciary to rebalance or recalibrate the three branches of government, which even a second grader in the United States knows are three co-equal branches.

An independent judiciary is inextricably interwoven in a functioning democracy. And, therefore, following the mandates of a court judge or any judge, for that matter, is of absolute paramount importance to not only our Constitution, but to our republic.

SANCHEZ: So I do want to ask about that third branch of government. What's your reaction to Republicans on Capitol Hill calling for the judge's impeachment?

KONVISER: Well, there's a lot of rhetoric from this administration the first time that they were around, as there is now.

I sat on a Supreme Court bench in New York City for almost 18 years. We issue decisions daily, sometimes dozens, and certainly hundreds and a week and thousands or tens of thousands over the years. And someone wins and someone loses. Someone walks out of the courtroom unhappy with a decision.

But there is a system in place to deal with a loss, which is an appellate process. You don't impeach a judge because you don't like their ruling. Look, there are many people who didn't like the results and the rulings of Aileen Cannon in Florida when she was handling the documents case of which Trump was involved with. She dismissed that case. People didn't like it.

You didn't hear howls from the from members of Congress saying impeach her. You follow the appellate process from the district court to the Court of Appeals and then eventually it may get to the Supreme Court of the United States, which is the ultimate and final arbiter of these types of disputes.

SANCHEZ: I also want to ask you about where the case stands right now.

Judge Boasberg gave DOJ until noon today and then extended it to answer questions about the timing of two of those deportation flights. The attorney general, though, Pam Bondi, argued that there was no justification for additional information. They referred to these requests as beating a dead horse.

What do you think Boasberg is looking for and can he compel DOJ to hand over information?

KONVISER: I believe he can compel DOJ to hand over information. There are certain privilege that the executive may exercise, but the general answer to that question is, yes, he can compel that.

Failure to comply with those rules can result in a contempt citing. I think that's why you see Bove and some of the others signing these documents, so they don't leave their singular -- the singular lawyer in court arguing hanging on the line there and perhaps being the one who's held in contempt. They're saying, we mean it. We stand behind him. But, certainly, if you fail to follow a court order, state court, federal court, district court, court of appeals, there are certainly consequences. And there should be.

SANCHEZ: Is your view generally, Judge, that, on a lot of these cases, not just the one on deportation flights, but across the board, whether it's DOGE and other related matters, the dismantling of federal agencies, et cetera, is your general view that this being a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, one that historically has been shown to buck precedent, that they would side with the executive on perhaps not all, but many of these cases that test the extent of the president's power?

[13:10:32]

KONVISER: I think that's a really good question. And the answer -- there really isn't an answer.

I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude that that's precisely what the executive is thinking at the moment, and that is why fiddling around with a lowly, if you would -- and forgive me, because I don't believe that that's how they're looking at a federal judge here -- and saying, we don't really care what a federal district judge does or a court of appeals judge does. We only care what the Supreme Court does, because they believe they're going to win there.

They may be right. I don't know that. But at the end of the day, you see why the importance of Roberts' comments yesterday, which, yes, Trump wasn't named, but we all know who he was talking about, he said, I'm going to protect my flank, I'm going to protect my rank and file, and I'm going to make it clear that district court -- a district court voice matters.

And that's what Roberts did. Now, Roberts also came out on a certain end of the immunity decision that may embolden the executive and they think they're going to win at that point. They may be right, but at the end of the day, there's a process. There's a process in a democratic form of government, which is to go through the system, through the appellate system, and someone wins or loses at the Supreme Court.

What they decide to do ultimately is anyone's guess.

SANCHEZ: Judge Jill Konviser, appreciate you sharing your analysis. Thanks so much.

KONVISER: Thank you.

SANCHEZ: Still to come this afternoon, we're keeping a close eye on the White House, as we wait for new details on today's call between President Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, what the two leaders discussed, as peace for Ukraine hangs in the balance.

Plus: mad as hell and demanding answers, town halls turning rowdy, as voters show up to confront lawmakers. The issues raising alarm across the country. And post-mission recovery. How Suni Williams and Butch Wilmore are

adjusting back to life here on planet Earth just hours after splashing down from an unexpected extended stay in space.

Stay with CNN NEWS CENTRAL. We're back in just a few minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:17:03]

KEILAR: Right now, we are waiting to hear more details from the White House press briefing on this phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump describing it as a -- quote -- "very good call."

This is coming a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke with Trump and agreed to a limited cease-fire.

Let's go now to CNN's Alayna Treene, who's live outside the White House.

Alayna, what more are we learning about this phone call?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Brianna, it's quite a few -- quite a change really that 19 days makes.

I'd note that the last time we know the president and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke was when they had that blowup in the Oval Office, when the president essentially kicked Zelenskyy out of the White House. Now he's saying, though, that they had a very good phone call this morning.

We're told it lasted about an hour. And then he said this on TRUTH Social following their discussion. He said -- quote -- "Much of the discussion was based on the call made yesterday with President Putin in order to align both Russia and Ukraine in terms of their requests and needs. We are very much on track."

Now, we had heard earlier as well that Zelenskyy was really interested in figuring out, of course, what the details of that call yesterday between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, what those details were, but also to get kind of a better sense of what does this look like going forward.

I'd remind you that Zelenskyy last week, while his delegation was meeting with a U.S. delegation in Saudi Arabia, he agreed to a 30-day cease-fire. Now Putin did not go so far, but he did agree to a pause on energy and infrastructure attacks. Now, we also heard Zelenskyy publicly expressed skepticism over that. He said he supports that pause, but also, given the Russian drone attacks last night -- or overnight, I should say, still questions of whether or not Russia will keep up their end of the bargain.

All to say, though, they are expecting more talks this weekend. We also caught up with Mike Waltz this morning. He said he expects the technical teams for the U.S. and Russia to meet in Saudi Arabia to continue hashing out a longer-term deal.

KEILAR: All right, Alayna Treene live for us from the White House, thank you -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: As we await the start of the press briefing, let's discuss the implications of this call with CNN chief national security correspondent Alex Marquardt.

Alex, so Trump has now spoken to Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Is the next step in this the actual conversation between negotiators in Riyadh on Sunday?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes, and on several different levels, but they're still looking at this as kind of two tracks.

We have got lots more talks to go, Boris. And I think this really derives some of the fact that you can't solve this war in 24 hours, as Trump has previously claimed. We now have this agreement by both countries, apparently, for this very narrow cease-fire just on energy infrastructure, not on the Black Sea, not all along the front line.

Of course, that's before we even start talking about a longer-term peace deal. So what we know from the White House -- and the details are still kind of vague. But Mike Waltz, as Alayna was just saying, has talked about technical teams, so lower-level teams, going to Riyadh in the coming days.

[13:20:02]

Steve Witkoff, who has also been at the negotiating table, he has mentioned that Rubio and Waltz, so very senior U.S. officials, could be going to Jeddah, the other Saudi Arabian city, on Sunday for further talks, but it's not clear who from the Ukrainian and Russian sides would be going.

So this is a reminder of how much still needs to come and the fact that the U.S. did not get the broad, full immediate cease-fire that they wanted.

SANCHEZ: And they also had sort of a disagreement, or let's say a discrepancy in the two readouts between energy infrastructure and energy and infrastructure, as it read in the U.S. readout of that call. Walk us through the distinction.

MARQUARDT: So, after the Putin call, the White House put out a four- paragraph statement. The Kremlin put out a one-and-a-half-page statement, and the details were different.

The Kremlin said, we have agreed to an energy infrastructure cease- fire. The U.S. side said it's energy and infrastructure. And the reason that...

SANCHEZ: I hate to cut you off, but Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary, is answering questions about the call with Vladimir Putin. Let's listen in. (JOINED IN PROGRESS)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: As President Trump has said repeatedly, the precious lives and money that both Ukraine and Russia have been spending in this war would be better spent on the needs of their people.

This terrible conflict would have never started with President Trump in charge, but he's determined to end it once and for all. President Trump also promised maximum transparency and a commitment to rebuild the trust of the American people in our intelligence community.

Part of that promise was to fully release previously classified records related to the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy. And he made that happen yesterday. This historic release consisted of approximately 80,000 pages of previously classified records that are now published.

The records are available to access either online at Archives.gov.

SANCHEZ: So, nothing new yet from the White House. We heard the press secretary there reiterate the same rhetoric we have heard from Trump before, that this war would never have happened if he had been in office.

Take us back to this discrepancy between energy infrastructure and energy and infrastructure, because it is significant.

MARQUARDT: Well, hopefully, Leavitt will talk -- expand on that now.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

MARQUARDT: The American understanding is that it's energy and infrastructure, which is far more encompassing. And it means that essentially targets that are civilian, that are health care, that are education, that are railways, on and on and on, would be off the table.

Now, we haven't gotten that agreement from the Russian side. And, in fact, overnight, we did see this barrage of attacks by the Russians against Ukraine involving 145 drones, two ballistic missiles, and four anti-aircraft missiles, which hit a hospital in the eastern part of the country, which hit a railway system in the middle part of the country.

There was another ballistic missile attack against the Ukrainian railway earlier today. And that really drives home the point of how important it is to specify what exactly is off the table.

There were other discrepancies as well, President Putin saying, if we want to get to a cease-fire, if we want to get to a peace deal, then Ukraine needs to stop re-arming. They need to stop mobilizing troops. Foreign countries like the U.S. need to stop giving military assistance and intelligence support.

And that was not mentioned by the White House. Obviously, those are key things that Ukraine wants. Meanwhile, of course, Russia wants to keep Ukraine as weak as possible.

SANCHEZ: All right, you got to read very much into the details with these readouts.

MARQUARDT: Very much between the lines.

SANCHEZ: Alex Marquardt, thank you so much for that.

We're going to keep monitoring that White House press briefing. We will bring you the latest as we get it. Soon, she will be answering reporters' questions. We will bring that to you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:28:10]

KEILAR: As President Trump has called for a federal judge to be impeached and as the White House's attacks on the judiciary in general are continuing, so they do just moments ago with White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Here's what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: That the judges in this country are acting erroneously. We have judges who are acting as partisan activists from the bench. They are trying to dictate policy from the president of the United States.

They are trying to clearly slow-walk this administration's agenda and it's unacceptable. As the president said last night, we will continue to comply with these court orders. We will continue to fight these battles in courts. But it's incredibly apparent that there is a concerted effort by the far left to judge-shop, to pick judges who are clearly acting as partisan activists from the bench in an attempt to derail this president's agenda.

We will not allow that to happen. And not only are they usurping the will of the president and the chief executive of our country, but they are undermining the will of the American public, tens of millions of Americans who duly elected this president to implement the policies that are coming out of this White House.

QUESTION: And then one more question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: All right, you hear Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary there, politicizing the judiciary.

We should note that the judge that President Trump has called on to be impeached was initially appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush, appointed to the federal bench by President Obama -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Tensions have been running high and patience has been running out. Republican and Democratic lawmakers are increasingly feeling the heat

at town halls across the country. At Republican forums, they're fielding tough questions over President Trump's slash-and-burn second term, especially when it comes to massive cuts to the federal government.

Watch this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is where we're at? When are you going to stand up?

(END VIDEO CLIP)