Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Rep. Jamies Raskin (D-MD) Discusses White House Saying Trump "Looking Into" Legality Of Deporting "Homegrown" Criminals To El Salvador; Fed Chair Speaks As Trump Tariffs Heighten Uncertainty; Warrant: Suspect Attacked Gov. Mansion Over Shapiro's Views On Gaza; 3 Top Pentagon Officials Placed On Leave Amid Leak Investigation. Aired 1:30-2p ET

Aired April 16, 2025 - 13:30   ET

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

6

[13:30:00]

REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): -- for M.S.-13, or if you've got charges against him for Tren de Aragua, you've got charges against him for he maybe he was the person really behind the attack on the capitol on January 6th, 2021, he was responsible for attacking 140 police officers and all those people going to jail who Trump pardoned.

Whatever he's responsible for, charge him with it here, according to our constitutional system, in a court of law, according him due process.

The same due process rights, by the way, that Donald Trump got as a criminal defendant and Donald Trump could not be airlifted to another country and just deported from the United States because he's a criminal convict.

And this guy was never convicted of anything, has no criminal record at all.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: I do also want to ask, because you said that the administration isn't following the Supreme Court's decision on this. Are you frustrated that the Supreme Court's decision didn't have the word "effectuate" in it, that they sort of softened it and only said "facilitate?"

Because now, as you heard during our reporting, the administration is basically interpreting this to be a win for -- for them on their arguments.

RASKIN: You know, I mean, I don't know that we've ever had any doctrinal parsing of the difference between effectuating someone's return to the country and facilitating someone's return to the country.

In common-sense parlance, we would all, I think, concur that it's the same thing. Perhaps they were trying to create the unanimous majority on the court.

And look, the idea that the United States government suddenly is powerless in this situation and can't do anything about getting Abrego Garcia back to the country is just preposterous.

El Salvador is our junior partner in this arrangement. We're paying them $6 million to hold people that we send over there. Apparently, now we haven't been able to get the document yet. And we want to see exactly what the agreement says between us and El Salvador.

But the bottom line is they are our legal agent. So of course, we could compel them to get back.

I mean, if you know, the secretary of Homeland Security goes down there for photo-ops and they decide to hold her, you don't think we could get her back just by telling El Salvador to release her? I mean, come on.

SANCHEZ: I have a number of questions about the politics of this. And the administration is leaning very far into believing that this is a winning issue for them.

But I have to put that on hold, Congressman, because we do have some breaking news into CNN.

The DOJ and the White House counsel are now reviewing the viability of sending U.S. criminals, deporting U.S. criminals to that El Salvadoran prison, something that President Trump floated during the visit by President Bukele on Monday, I believe it was.

What's your reaction to -- to hearing that? Is that an effective way to pursue law and order in the United States, as the president has said he wants to do?

RASKIN: In 1952, in the steel seizure case, the United States Supreme Court said the president gets his powers from only two places, either from the Constitution, and there's nothing in the Constitution that gives the president the power to do that.

Or from Congress. And Congress has never had a debate, much less an act of Congress that went to the president to be signed into law, stating that we are going to set up prisons in other people's countries or start exporting prisoners or deporting prisoners to other people's lands.

Where does the president think he gets that powers -- you know, gets that power? It doesn't make any sense. It would almost certainly violate the ban on cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment if Congress wanted to do it. And we're the only ones who have the power to do it.

If we said we're going to now start sending all of our prisoners over to Russia, there's a new friendly government for the Trump administration. Could we really do that and remove them from the possibility of their families seeing them, and from being in touch with their lawyers and getting to see their counsel?

I mean, it implicates due process, the right to counsel, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. But I think all of that is a distraction from Judge Boasberg's decision today, holding them in contempt.

They should come into line with the law right now and say they're going to comply with the decision. He's giving them the chance to purge their contempt.

They're going to listen to the Supreme Court. And they're going to facilitate the return of people who never should have been sent over there in the first place.

SANCHEZ: Congressman, tying this all together, we've seen repeated efforts with all of these cases by Donald Trump and the executive branch to exert it's power as a stronger or perhaps more influential branch of the three co-equal branches of government.

Is the only thing protecting that balance now a Supreme Court that leans conservative, that's proven in the past that it is willing to do away with precedent?

RASKIN: Well, I hope that we will have enough Republican friends in Congress to act with us to reassert congressional primacy over lawmaking. The president does not make laws. There seems to be some confusion about that.

They understood it when Biden was president, when they went to court repeatedly to try to get the court to strike down, for example, his college loan forgiveness plans.

[13:35:04]

They believed in judicial review then. Suddenly, they don't believe in judicial review anymore.

But, yes, it is emphatically the province and the duty of the court to say what the law is. That's Marbury versus Madison in 1803.

The idea that our colleagues are now talking about impeaching judges because they're impeding the Trump agenda is appalling. And there are more than 65 temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions that have been entered against this lawlessness.

And Congress has got to stand up for the independence of the judiciary and for what the courts are doing, which is enforcing the Constitution, which is what protects the civil liberties and civil rights of all the people.

SANCHEZ: Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, very much appreciate you joining us in person. Thank you so much.

RASKIN: You bet. Thanks for having me.

SANCHEZ: Of course.

Still plenty more news to come on NEWS CENTRAL. At any minute, we're going to hear directly from Fed Chair Jerome Powell. These are his first public comments since President Trump slapped China with 145 percent tariffs. Hear what he has to say and look at how markets are responding.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:40:24]

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Happening now, Fed Chair Jerome Powell giving his starkest warnings yet when it comes to the economic impact of President Trump's tariffs.

We are listening in on that. We're going to bring you some more of those key details. Fair to say though, Wall Street understandably keeping a very close eye on this.

Joining me now, business journalist and the host of public radio's "Full Disclosure," Roben Farzad.

Roben, good to have you here.

So just a little bit of what we have heard so far from Chair Powell talking about the level of tariff increases, he said, is significantly larger than what's anticipated, and the economic effects will be, too. He says that includes higher inflation and slower growth.

These are stark comments. Their very direct comments, especially coming from Jerome Powell.

ROBEN FARZAD, BUSINESS JOURNALIST & HOST OF PUBLIC RADIO'S "FULL DISCLOSURE." Yes, and it throws a monkey wrench kind of into his dual mandate of keep inflation under control and keep unemployment low.

So what do you do if it's an exogenous shock? I mean the playbook says you could go back to 1930 and look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff. And that was only 17 years after the Federal Reserve was founded.

So you only have so much of a precedent to go on. Do you hike? Do you keep rates where they are right now? Do you give in to the White House and slash rates? It is a multi-, multi-trillion dollar question.

HILL: Multi-trillion dollar question. I mean, what are you -- what more do you need to hear from him? What more do you think Wall Street and investors are listening for? Because those comments off the top are a lot.

FARZAD: Right. So if Wall Street -- at this point, are you rooting for bad news or good news? We're still creating a good amount of jobs, you know, five years after the onset of this pandemic and this financial crisis. Remember, unemployment shot up to the teens.

So prices are still a concern. There are still inflationary pressures across the economy. And if suddenly, this gives cloud cover to a lot of companies preemptively, car makers, apparel makers, Walmart, Target, to go out and hike prices just purely in anticipation of inflation. And also the crackdown on immigration is on the margin inflationary. It's not going to free his hand to cut rates the way many people in MAGA and the White House and traders on Wall Street are romancing.

HILL: Right. And there's also -- so, you know, leading into these comments, you have the World Trade Organization now forecasting that the tariffs from President Trump and that resulting fallout are going to sharply reduce not only global but U.S. economic growth.

And they've said to expect the expectations for global trade this year have, quote, "deteriorated sharply."

Put that in perspective. The fact that it's deteriorated sharply, I mean, how quickly do we really start to feel this?

FARZAD: You'll feel it. I mean, the perception and the shock just from a couple of weeks ago, where he came out with that poster.

But what's interesting to me is when you see this, it's not like Trump in the oval office is going to call in his treasury secretary, he's like, wait, did you just see what the World Trade Organization said?

No, we can't possibly crash the global economy. He's happy to play with fire, as your prior correspondent was saying, with the rule of law and the judicial system and the kind of the low key constitutional crisis we have here.

So that has to worry bankers. Whether you're talking about the WTO, the IMF, the Federal Reserve, that you have a person here who believes these things work, believes in his methodology going back to the 80s, that tariffs are good and we need to protect ourselves and cover our bases.

And there's no evidence to prove that it actually works in real multi- trillion dollar reality.

HILL: And who and who often puts pressure right, at least through social media on the Federal Reserve, telling the Federal Reserve, interestingly, to stop playing politics and basically do what President Trump wants.

It'll be interesting to see what the reaction is to these comments once Jerome Powell finishes speaking.

Roben, we have to leave it there but great to talk to you. Thank you.

FARZAD: Likewise. Thanks, Erica.

[13:43:04]

HILL: Just ahead here, what a warrant says about a possible motive for the arson attack on the Pennsylvania governor's residence.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:48:30] SANCHEZ: A newly released search warrant is shedding light on the motive for the arson attack on the Pennsylvania governor's mansion this weekend. It says the alleged arsonist was upset about Governor Josh Shapiro's views on the war in Gaza.

The suspect, Cody Balmer, allegedly told 911 operators that Governor Shapiro needed to know that he, quote, "will not take part in his plans for what he wants to do to the Palestinian people," end quote.

To be clear, investigators have not established whether Balmer was allegedly motivated by hate or anti-Semitism.

Let's get the latest from CNN's Danny Freeman, who is live for us in Harrisburg.

Danny, Governor Shapiro spoke with reporters just a few moments ago. You were there for that question and answer. What did he say?

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Boris, Governor Shapiro was directly asked if he believed that this arson attack was based in hate, and he basically deferred the concept of motive to investigators and to prosecutors.

But let me just say this, Boris. It's been quite a busy day so far, because those search warrants that you referenced and that I have right here and obtained earlier today, they really do paint a troubling picture that could point to that motive that we've all been searching for.

The warrants were filed by Pennsylvania State Police earlier in the week. They basically say, as you noted, that Balmer actually himself called 911 less than an hour after the fire was set at the governor's mansion behind me.

He said that he confessed and also said that quote that you just referenced, saying that Balmer, quote, "will not take part in Shapiro's plans for what he wants to do with the Palestinian people."

[13:50:01]

Balmer also reportedly told 911 operators that Shapiro needed to, quote, "Stop having my friends killed." And that, quote, "Our people have been put through too much by that monster."

And the warrant also asserts that this demonstrates Balmer's political motivation for the conduct.

Now, just to reset here for a minute, though, all that being said, I actually spoke to the Dauphin County District Attorney Fran Chardo, earlier today.

And while he told me that he does believe that Josh Shapiro's faith and his perceived views on the conflict in the Middle East might have been part of the motivation that brought Balmer to this governor's residence behind me back over the weekend. He did not think that he was in a place to say that it was the sole or even primary reason that drove Balmer to carry out the actions that he did.

Shapiro, like I said, for his part today, he said he'd leave it up to prosecutors to determine the exact motivation.

But I want you to take a listen to his response to my question about if he believes Balmer should face hate crime charges.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FREEMAN: Governor, do you hope that hate crime charges are filed if investigators determine this was an attack?

GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO, (D-PA): That's not my call. That's the decision for District Attorney Chardo and the Department of Justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FREEMAN: Now, remember, Boris, Balmer is facing charges of attempted homicide, terrorism attempt -- aggravated arson and aggravated assault.

But today, the chief public defender, who will be representing Balmer, said that, "The allegations, if true, demonstrate the devastating consequence of severe mental illness."

And the chief public defender also noted that Mr. Balmer's preliminary hearing -- hearing expected for next week, that's going to be continued for the purpose of, quote, "determining his competency to stand trial" -- Boris?

SANCHEZ: Danny Freeman, live for us in Harrisburg. Thank you so much, Danny.

Plenty more news to come on CNN NEWS CENTRAL. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:56:23]

HILL: More breaking news just into CNN. We are learning a third Pentagon appointee has now been placed on leave amid an ongoing investigation. The Defense Department launching the investigation, polygraphs and all, after the "New York Times" got wind of a planned classified briefing for Elon Musk.

CNN's Natasha Bertrand is at the Pentagon with more now on this breaking news.

So what more do we know about these officials who are now on leave? I mean, is it that they are suspected of leaking? Is that why?

NATASHA BERTRAND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, according to officials, all of these senior political appointees here at the Pentagon have been placed on leave pending investigations.

And we only know in the case of one of these officials exactly what that investigation is over, which in the case of Dan Caldwell, who is a very senior advisor to Secretary Hegseth, has to do with the disclosure of information, the unauthorized disclosure of information.

When it comes to the other two political appointees, Darren Zelnick, who was the Pentagons deputy chief of staff, and now Colin Carroll, who is the chief of staff to the deputy secretary of defense, it is less clear what exactly they are being investigated over.

But it is worth noting that all of these administrative leaves have taken place within the context of a broader leak investigation that the Pentagon announced last month following the disclosure of a meeting in the "New York Times" that Elon Musk was going to be coming here to the Pentagon to receive a highly classified briefing about China.

Following that report, the Pentagon's chief of staff, Joe Kasper, he issued a memo saying that the Defense Department was going to be conducting a wide-ranging leak investigation, including the use of polygraph tests, to determine whether anyone was leaking information to the media.

And so now we see that three of these top officials have now been escorted out of the Pentagon and are on leave pending the results of these investigations.

HILL: Wow. Quite a development.

Natasha, I really appreciate it. Thank you.

We'll, of course, continue to stay on that.

We are also staying on the breaking news out of the White House as a federal judge says probable cause exists to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)