Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Protesters Tased at Marjorie Taylor Greene Town Hall; Trump Administration in Contempt of Court?; Interview With Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD). Aired 1-1:30p ET

Aired April 16, 2025 - 13:00   ET

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

[13:00:31]

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Breaking news: a judge ruling that probable cause exists to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt for violating his orders surrounding deportation flights.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: When he speaks, the markets listen, just minutes from now, Fed Chair Jerome Powell set to talk about what he sees coming for the U.S. economy, this as the president has been putting serious pressure on the Fed to cut rates. We're watching closely.

And tempers flare at town halls across America, lawmakers facing yet another round of frustrated voters and protesters in their home districts, one town hall actually leading to arrests and these stun guns.

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

SANCHEZ: We start this afternoon with breaking news, a federal judge now ruling that there is probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for violating his orders.

It's part of the fallout from the administration using the Alien Enemies Act to justify several deportation flights to El Salvador.

HILL: So we're following every angle of this.

I want to begin first with Paula Reid.

So, Paula, give us the latest on what we learned from this judge.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So this case has, of course, become a political flash point. President Trump has repeatedly attacked this judge. It's become really a very politically fraught issue.

Even the chief justice, John Roberts, weighed in here and said, look, Trump's calling for impeachment of Judge Boasberg. We don't do that. We appeal, which is what the administration has done. And I will note that they ultimately prevailed at the Supreme Court on this larger question. But what Boasberg was looking at here was not necessarily whether it's

constitutional to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport people, but if the administration defied his order when they started using the Alien Enemies Act, put Venezuelan migrants who they alleged were affiliated with the gang on planes and sent them to El Salvador.

He eventually ordered those planes to be turned around. Now, they were grounded in Honduras, and they eventually still went on to El Salvador. That, he's saying, was an intentional violation of his order.

He wrote -- quote -- "The court ultimately determines that the government's actions on that day demonstrate a willful disregard for its order sufficient for the court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the government in criminal contempt. The court does not reach this conclusion lightly or hastily. Indeed, it has given defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions."

Now, in speaking with sources at the Justice Department, they tell me that they continued on from Honduras because they believed that, once they were in international territory, that this district court judge no longer had jurisdiction over them.

And they said, look, any flights leaving the U.S., that that stopped, but they did not believe that this was a valid order, but, here, Boasberg ruling there's probable cause to find them in contempt. Now, the Justice Department does have an opportunity to respond. We haven't seen that response yet.

SANCHEZ: Taking a step back, Priscilla, walk us through who was on these deportation flights. Tell us more about that.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: So we're talking about flights that happened on March 15.

And they happened very quickly. In fact, only the day prior did the president sign, although that clear -- he has suggested that was an autopen signature -- the Alien Enemies Act proclamation. So in a very short time span did that go into effect and these migrants were put on the flights.

We're talking about 238 Venezuelans who the administration says is tied to the gang Tren de Aragua. There were some -- a little more than 20 that were Salvadoran nationals that they say were tied to MS-13. One of them is another case that we have been watching closely, which is that of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

He is a Salvadoran national who they said was an MS-13 member and he has been sent to El Salvador. And that is the subject of yet another case, but it all comes back down to these flights that happened on that Saturday in March.

Now, I have talked to other relatives of some of those who were sent. And these were essentially people who were detained and, just poof, disappeared, only to later be found in handout videos in El Salvador and later have slowly been confirmed by the Department of Homeland Security as having been sent there.

And it is in only one of those, in that of Abrego Garcia, that the administration has conceded error, saying that they accidentally sent him over when they were working through the flight manifests, because, of course, he wasn't supposed to be sent to El Salvador, given a 2019 immigration judge order.

But all of this to show that this one day in March, a day, by the way, that the administration in some ways had always planned for and during the campaign to use this sweeping wartime authority, is now the subject of multiple lawsuits and has raised a lot of concern about due process, and now concern as well over the stonewalling by the Justice Department when seeking answers to their questions, to the judges' questions.

[13:05:21]

HILL: And, also, you mentioned the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

The latest on that, we're actually hearing a little bit more from the attorney general, I mean, things really not looking great for him at this moment.

ALVAREZ: Look, the Oval Office meeting between President Trump and the Salvadoran president on Monday really said it all.

The Salvadoran president has no desire to release him from that notorious mega-prison there and allow him to come back to the United States, and the attorney general essentially echoing that. But this is still something that is happening in court.

And what the federal judge made clear yesterday is that she wants there to be record, record in the court, for there to be that evidence. And she has ordered an intense discovery of two weeks for that to happen. So there is still movement in this case, but the fate of Abrego Garcia in some ways appears to be completely sealed, given what we have heard from two world leaders now on this matter, as well as senior Trump officials.

SANCHEZ: Yes, and they continue to defend their actions on this.

Let's take you now live to the White House with CNN's Alayna Treene, because, Alayna, President Trump, and Vice President J.D. Vance are defending their deportation policies online.

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN REPORTER: That's exactly right.

Actually, this morning, speaking more broadly, we heard President Donald Trump write on TRUTH Social. He said -- quote -- "Sorry, but it's my job to get these killers and thugs out of here. That's what I was elected to do. MAGA."

But, look, I can tell you too, Boris and Erica, that in my conversations with White House officials, they told me that they actually see this as a winning issue for them, including this case around Kilmar Abrego Garcia, that despite questions over whether or not they are defying the Supreme Court in this case, which said they must facilitate his return to the United States, they believe that this is something that President Donald Trump was elected on.

One White House official I was just speaking with said it was an 80-20 issue in their eyes, 80 percent, they believe, of people in favor of this. But one key thing that I think is also getting lost in some of this is the justification that this White House and this administration are using to kind of back up their claims.

They argue that Abrego Garcia is -- was an MS-13 gang member, that he's a terrorist. We heard White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt say that yesterday, but they so far have had a lot of trouble providing evidence to support those claims.

Now, a reporter today posed that question to Attorney General Pam Bondi. Listen to how she responded.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

QUESTION: The evidence? We're not going to see the evidence?

PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: We have the transcripts from the court hearings. I will be glad to give you the court hearings from 2019, what we have, sure, or the rulings from the judges, gladly.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: OK, so she said there that she'd be happy to provide the rulings from that 2019 court appearance, when they had said that perhaps Abrego Garcia should potentially be deported, he just can't be deported to El Salvador, all to say this is something we're continuing to see play out in the courts.

It's also something we're continuing to see a lot of people, particularly proponents of this, argue that the Trump administration is not doing enough to satisfy their questions and answers, specifically when it comes to this question about evidence.

Should also point out, of course, that Abrego Garcia's attorneys themselves dispute the fact that he had any association with MS-13 or any type of gang, so, again, something that's continuing to play out as we're continuing to see this broader court file kind of carry on, despite the Trump administration trying to move on from it.

HILL: Yes, absolutely. Alayna, thank you.

We also want to bring in now Dave Aronberg, who's a former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida.

Dave, good to have you here.

So, when we look at going back to what we just learned from Judge Boasberg, so this is right in relation to the initial use of the Alien Enemies Act, saying that he believes probable cause exists to hold the administration -- administration officials in criminal content and that the actions represented a -- quote -- "willful disregard for its order," practically speaking, holding some officials in criminal content, I mean, what do you see happening?

DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, STATE ATTORNEY: Entering a constitutional crisis, Erica, because the entity that enforces the court's ruling is the Marshals Service.

And the Marshals Service is under the executive branch. So, now there is an obscure part of rules that say that the court could appoint perhaps a local sheriff to round up the individuals responsible. I don't think we will ever get there. Right now, the court is giving the administration a chance to respond.

And then the court is going to appoint a prosecutor. If the Department of Justice won't prosecute its own people, then he will appoint someone else to do so. But this is going close to a constitutional crisis because you have an executive branch that does not want to comply with this court's order.

[13:10:03]

SANCHEZ: I wonder, David, what it means that the Supreme Court essentially sided with the administration on the broader issue, or at least temporarily did so.

Does it make this effort by Judge Boasberg a moot point to a degree?

ARONBERG: Judge Boasberg, Boris, addressed that in his ruling.

Supreme Court did sort of a technical change to Judge Boasberg's ruling, saying that you have to seek what's called habeas in court. You have got to go to a local federal court, and that's where you appeal to the judge, whereas Judge Boasberg said you can do it all as a class action in Washington, D.C., sort of a technical difference.

SANCHEZ: Yes.

ARONBERG: And that's why Judge Boasberg is saying that you have to comply with his order, that what the Supreme Court did does not eliminate the need for the administration to comply with the federal court's order, and the administration blatantly disobeyed the order.

In fact, they were bragging online. He pointed to Marco Rubio retweeting President Bukele's comment that, oopsie, too late. So he said this is a willful violation of the court's order. And even if you disagree with the court's order, the answer is to appeal it, not to disobey it, and this administration disobeyed it.

But you can bet, Boris, that this case, this contempt matter, is going to go back up to the Supreme Court. So there's still a while of more proceedings ahead.

HILL: What would you anticipate? I mean, knowing what we know about this court, what do you anticipate from the Supreme Court and how they will find if it gets kicked all the way back up?

ARONBERG: I think the Supreme Court is going to give a lot of deference to the federal judge here and, if the federal judge holds the administration in contempt, that they will allow it to continue.

But the question is then, who enforces the order? The courts can't enforce their own orders. They don't have their own police force. They depend on the Marshals Service, which is under the executive branch. That's the constitutional crisis.

So I think this thing is going to go around and around. Perhaps Judge Boasberg appoints a local sheriff to do it. But then, is that really going to happen? That hardly ever happens in history. So this is, like, uncharted territory here. I think there will be a lot of stonewalling. And then, eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court is going to step in and just clarify its order on the broader issue of facilitating the return of these individuals.

I think the Supreme Court is going to get tougher and say, administration, President Trump, you have to get these people back. And then I think Trump will comply, because Trump wants to get on the good side of Chief John Roberts. And also he wins by losing. He can blame the courts. He can blame the press and get away with it with his base.

His base hates the judiciary.

SANCHEZ: Do you think that that applies to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia? Because we're seeing the administration and his attorneys and the judge in that case taking the Supreme Court decision and interpreting it essentially in ways that benefit them.

ARONBERG: It is interesting that they have twisted it.

Especially Stephen Miller, who's not a lawyer, said it was a 9-0 ruling that ruled for us. No, it's the opposite. The one thing I would say, though, is that the Supreme Court used very loose language. Instead of the language that the lower court used to effectuate the return of this individual, they said facilitate it.

Facilitate is a softer word than effectuate. And, as such, that gave the administration the ability to say, hey, we're trying to facilitate it. We're going to send a plane, but it's up to El Salvador to kick them out of the country, and they won't do it. Our hands are tied.

HILL: Well...

ARONBERG: But, Boris, you know that, if the administration wanted this person back, that person would be on the next flight first class home to the United States.

HILL: We will say yes. They're also saying they can't do anything now, their hands are tied. President Bukele said, I'm not sending him back.

Would be interesting to see if things change if we were talking about hundreds of people as opposed to one.

Dave, always appreciate it. Thank you. Coming up here: town hall brawl. Law enforcement stun guns protesters

at an event for Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. What we know about those clashes and the key issues voters were pressing her and other lawmakers on at these face-to-face meetings.

SANCHEZ: And the man accused of setting the Pennsylvania governor's mansion fire allegedly told 911 operators why he did it.

Hear his motive when we come back on CNN NEWS CENTRAL.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:18:49]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(CHEERING)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): This is a peaceful town hall.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: So that was the scene at a town hall in Georgia just a little bit north of Atlanta yesterday, last night, Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene calling it, as you heard, a peaceful event, that as officers -- the noise you were hearing there, those were stun guns being used, a protester arrested.

The anger erupting at town halls across the country is bipartisan, it's important to note.

I want to begin with CNN's Ryan Young.

He's live in Atlanta.

So, Ryan, you were at that explosive town hall last night with Marjorie Taylor Greene. How did she respond? How did all of that unfold?

RYAN YOUNG, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Whew, a lot there.

About 30 miles north of Atlanta, that's where we were. The room was surrounded by police officers. And one by one, protesters started standing up to make their voices heard. And you can see very quickly how things sort of devolved with the Tasers. At one point, there were people in the crowd basically chanting, "Tase him, Tase him, Tase him." And that absolutely did happen.

[13:20:03]

We will show you this video. And as we show you the video, you see the first man who's being detained was right in front of our camera position as he was being brought our direction. This is the second man who was being chased. He gave a little more resistance to police. Three people arrested in total. I can tell you there were at least 40 officers surrounding this area

and there were more protesters outside. And I can really kind of describe the fact that this was heavy security. They did not even talk about the location for this event until about 24 hours before because they were concerned about the security for the event.

Now, outside, more than 100 protesters showed up. They could be heard chanting and screaming, some people honking horns. You could hear them on the inside. But the congresswoman, she wasn't deterred by this at all. She even told us so. And, in fact, when all this was going on, she never moved from her stance. And she even had sort of a back-and- forth with herself as she read one of the sarcastic questions that was given to her.

Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GREENE: "DOGE gutting our government with a chain saw approach in the utter destruction and ignoring of our Constitution and rule of law. He is not well physically or mentally."

Poor Christina. Poor, poor Christina. Well, I'm sure, Christina, you think that you're pretty smart. But the reality is, you are being completely brainwashed by whatever source of news you listen to.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

YOUNG: Yes, she made it clear that some of the thoughts that people had that were against sort of the positions she had was because the media was brainwashing them.

On top of that, she took all our questions afterwards and she really pointed at the fact that she was going to get tough and help the president get tough on China. She was going to make sure the border was shut down and she was going to stop the illegal flow of drugs into the country. Those are things that, in terms of the people who were in the crowd, that's what they wanted to hear.

A lot of people were cheering, but I can tell you emotions were high. There were people shaking in the crowd, especially after the outburst and the arrests.

HILL: Yes, really something.

Ryan, appreciate it. Thank you.

YOUNG: Thank you.

HILL: Democrats also facing some criticism.

CNN's Brian Todd joining me now in the studio with more on that.

So you witnessed some moments as well at a town hall last night.

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right. We saw Ryan talking about the tension at a Republican town hall with

Marjorie Taylor Greene, Erica. We have seen tension at Democratic town halls as well. And last night was a great example of it. This was a town hall hosted by a Congresswoman Sarah Elfreth, 36 years old, one of the youngest members of Congress. She's only 102 days into her first term, and now 103.

But she says she's held 11 of these town halls either virtually or in person. Well, I was there last night with our team, and it was going pretty well with -- for her for a little over an hour, when then a woman stood up and leveled a criticism at the congresswoman that is all too familiar with Democrats at these events. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I want to know what you're going to do to meet the moment, because, tonight, I learned you're not. Being milquetoast and -- milquetoast and not inspiring people to believe that you can change something for them won't inspire them to vote.

REP. SARAH ELFRETH (D-MD): If you have a chance to get to know me, that's not how I fight for you, in milquetoast fashion. I meant that I'm using every tool that I have available to me.

And, again, I apologize if those tools aren't going to result in the things that this group wants.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: So, very brutally honest from that attendee, saying, you're milquetoast, you're not meeting the moment.

Again, it's a familiar refrain. Just this week. Democratic Congresswoman Laura Friedman from California, she heard in a town hall from an attendee there -- quote -- "I don't believe you have pushed hard enough. I don't believe that you have fought large enough."

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree, another Democrat from Maine, again this week in a town hall heard -- quote -- "I'm not seeing any Democratic planning for the future. What is the vision? What is the mission?"

So, Erica, I have covered about three or four of these town halls, mostly from Democrats. We covered one from Congressman Glenn Ivey last month. He heard the same thing. The refrain with Democratic voters is almost always the same, and it hits on three points. You're not fighting hard enough, you don't have a plan and your messaging stinks.

That's what we heard again last night. It is a familiar refrain in these Democratic town halls.

HILL: It is something to watch. That's for sure, and as you can see the reaction at both.

Brian, appreciate it -- Boris.

SANCHEZ: Joining us now in the studio to discuss this and more Democratic, Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland.

Congressman, thank you so much for being with us, especially here in the studio in person.

You just heard that voter describe Democrats as milquetoast. What concerns do you have about whether your party in the eyes of these voters is meeting the moment?

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, the whole country right now is freaked out about the lawlessness and the chaos unleashed upon us by Donald Trump and his administration, and they want us to be fighting every day as hard as we can in every way, in the courts, in the House, in the Senate, in the statehouses, in the streets.

And so I relate to people's frustration here, because we're in a very dangerous moment. But I think that you guys are kind of reporting yesterday's story. I believe if you look at, like, what happened last Saturday with the protests across America organized by Indivisible with more than three million people marching, Democratic elected officials at every level, federal, state, and local, are integrated with this movement to oppose authoritarianism in America.

[13:25:25]

SANCHEZ: To be fair, that town hall took place last night. So it is quite literally yesterday's story.

RASKIN: Yes. Oh, no, no.

SANCHEZ: We're reporting the news today. Nevertheless, Congressman, I do...

RASKIN: The way it's being reported, though -- the woman said, I feel like you're not fighting hard enough.

SANCHEZ: Sure.

RASKIN: And none of us is fighting hard enough. And I'm working seven days a week and I'm trying to push myself even harder. So I would just say to everybody out there, we all need to be fighting harder.

SANCHEZ: I can confirm that you are working around the clock, because literally before we went on you were reading this decision by Judge Boasberg.

He finds that the Trump administration may be held in contempt for their deportation flights, ignoring his order to turn those deportation flights to El Salvador around. Do you think this ruling, however, might be a moot point, given the Supreme Court's decision on this case?

RASKIN: No, it is not moot.

And Judge Boasberg goes to great pains to restate the precedent going back to 1967, Walker v. Birmingham, holding that you have got to comply with a court order, even if they were in the wrong court, even if for some reason there's a change.

But, look, Judge Boasberg, who was a President Bush appointee when he originally went on the bench, and he was Justice Kavanaugh's roommate at Yale, will go down in history as a great judicial hero for what he's doing here, because he is trying to put up a huge stop sign against the lawlessness.

He said, I issued an injunction for you to not let those planes go, or, if they were in the air, to turn them around. They hadn't left yet. But you willfully, deliberately defied a court order. You can't do that. Even the president of the United States can't do that. The executive branch can't do it. The legislative branch can't do it. No citizen can do it. You cannot defy the order of a court.

And he's saying, I'm going to give you one last chance, essentially, to purge of the contempt, to bring the Trump administration in line with the law. So he's given them one last chance before he makes a final ruling on criminal contempt. And if I were them, I would get those people back immediately who were covered by his original injunction.

This is a line-by-line, minute-by-minute recitation of the defiance and contempt of the administration.

SANCHEZ: There have also been calls to bring back to the United States Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who the administration has put out there that they mistakenly deported. He had a protection order preventing him from being sent back to El Salvador, and yet he was.

I wonder what you make of the administration's argument that, at this point, a court cannot determine U.S. foreign policy and they can't tell the administration of a foreign government, in this case, the president of El Salvador, what to do with an El Salvadoran citizen who's in his custody?

RASKIN: Well, look, the court ruled that this was a blatant, naked violation of due process. You can't sweep people up off the streets, whether it's a citizen or a noncitizen, put them on an airplane, and send them back to whatever country, including a prison in El Salvador.

There was a specific order from 2019 saying he could not be sent back to El Salvador because he was afraid of gang terror and violence against him. But, in any event, the Supreme Court, 9-0, says, no, we don't ship people out of the country just on some executive decision. There's got to be due process for that.

So that is the bottom-line reality of the situation. Everybody's got to come into compliance with the Constitution. The president, just like Congress, just like the courts themselves, operates within the constitutional structure.

SANCHEZ: I have to ask, because we heard sound bite earlier this hour from Attorney General Pam Bondi citing evidence that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13. There was this dispute back and forth in court back in 2019. The Trump administration has not provided explicit evidence that he

was a member of that gang, though she continues to say that there is intelligence. Tom Homan has said the same thing: There is intelligence.

They're pointing to the Salvadoran government, saying that they have intelligence. As the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, what can you do to compel the administration to provide that evidence to the American people?

RASKIN: Well, they should bring it to court. If they want to prosecute him, first, comply with all the federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court saying, bring him back, facilitate his return to the country.

If you got charges against him for MS-13, or you got charges against him for Tren de Aragua, you got charges against him for he -- maybe he was the person really behind the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021.