Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Polls on the Shutdown; Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) is Interviewed about the Shutdown; Christopher Marinello is Interviewed about the Louvre Theft; Trump Amps up Military and CIA Action; Military Builds Up in the Caribbean; Comey Expected to File Motions. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired October 20, 2025 - 08:30   ET

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

[08:30:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: On its north runway until the aircraft's removed from the sea and they have security checks they clearly need to do during their investigation. The other two runways are still operating. They say no disruptions are expected.

John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, new costs and new concerns as the government shutdown drags on. A big question for the American people is, when it will end? A big political question is, who is getting blamed?

CNN chief data analyst Harry Enten is here.

And we're talking about blame and President Trump. Different this time than when he was president the first time around with the shutdown.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: That's exactly right. Turns out, shutdowns are different the second time around when it comes to Donald Trump.

Take a look here. You know, we speak about Donald Trump, shutdowns, net approval rating. We're talking 20 days into it. In 2018-2019, Donald Trump's net approval rating was already falling. The shutdown was eating into his popular support. It was down three points already at this particular point and would fall considerably more. It was very much on the decline.

You come over to this side of the screen. This shutdown hasn't eaten into Donald Trump's support at all. His net approval rating is actually up a point in -- in terms of -- in terms of his popular support.

So, the bottom line is this. The first shutdown during Trump's first term, 2018-2019, was hurting Donald Trump. This one is not hurting him at all. There's no real reason Donald Trump might say, at least when it comes to popular support. I want to get out of this shutdown.

BERMAN: What about the question of blame? ENTEN: Yes, OK, what about the question of blame? OK, you see here,

you see Donald Trump's net approval rating was down 2018 to 2019. You talk about 2025. His net approval rating is up. It comes down to the blame game. A game I love to play when I was younger. Blame Trump for the shutdown a great deal. In 2018-2019, 61 percent. More than three in five Americans blame Trump a great deal for that particular shutdown. You come over to this side of the screen. Look at this, it's a different world. It's a different world. Forty-eight percent of Americans blame Trump a great deal for this particular shutdown. So, it's more than three in five back in 2018-2019. It's less than half a drop of 13 points. Again, it's no real wonder that Donald Trump, at this point looking at the shutdown, says, you know what, it's not actually harming me politically, in large part because he's getting less of the blame.

BERMAN: And he's doing things differently during this shutdown.

ENTEN: Yes. Exactly right. You know, we talk about Donald Trump and you say, OK, he wants to be a consequential, influential president. Well, if the legislative process is basically freezed up, you know, on Capitol Hill, you may say, well, then he can't actually get legislation through. But that's not how Trump is governing in this term. We've spoken about this over and over and over again. He's using his pen. He's using executive orders.

Trump executive orders at this point in a presidency, in 2017 it was just 50. Look at this. Already 210 executive orders signed by Donald Trump during this presidency. That is the most in a year. You have to go all the way back since Franklin Delano Roosevelt to find a president who signed more executive orders in a year than Donald Trump has already signed this time around.

And remember, John Berman, we still have two months to go in this year. So, it wouldn't be surprising to me if he signs even more.

BERMAN: Yes. He seems to be saying, Congress, you don't want to do something.

ENTEN: I'll do it.

BERMAN: I'll do it.

Harry Enten, thank you very much.

ENTEN: Thank you, my friend.

BERMAN: Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: All right, joining me now, Democratic Congressman Lloyd Doggett of Texas.

Thank you so much, sir, for being here.

I do want to talk about what the president said this weekend on Fox News. He said that Democrats made one big mistake. They didn't realize that shutting down the government gives him the right to cut programs that Republicans never wanted. You know, giveaways, welfare programs, et cetera, and we're cutting them permanently. Those are his words. Do you think that Democrats, you yourself, played into Donald Trump's hands by deciding not to vote for the Republican-backed short-gap funding bill?

REP. LLOYD DOGGETT (D-TX): Not really. He has no powers now that he didn't have before, and he abused those powers, acted unlawfully -- in an unlawful manner with Elon Musk in his slash and burn of everything from the National Nuclear Security Administration, that you just discussed, to public education. And so, what we're seeing is Donald Trump trying to intimidate people, just as he tried to intimidate all the millions who came out against him this weekend, trying to intimidate the Congress. It always works with the Republican members who can never say a negative word or differ with him, or offer any check and balance, but it's not going to stop us from defending health care.

SIDNER: You spoke at the "No Kings" rally that you just brought up in Austin. President Trump had a message for those who participated in it. Let's show that A.I. video that he posted of him in a fighter jet dumping feces on the crowds below. This is the -- this is that video. And you see it there. And you see the -- what appears to be feces dropping on the heads of the people below.

DOGGETT: Right.

SIDNER: He's calling the rallies a joke and said that people at these rallies are not representative of this country.

[08:35:01]

What do you think of his comments?

DOGGETT: Well, Sara, the estimates are seven, maybe more than 8 million Americans came out at over 2,500 locations. He's pouring excrement on those people. All walks of life. All backgrounds. All ages. Many grandparents there with their grandchildren and -- in Austin. And to say to these people that they are worthless, that they don't deserve respect, when they are expressing their concern, not only about health care, but whether we, at 250 years, will still have a democracy given his steady move to authoritarianism, it -- it -- it is -- always amazes me that whenever you think he cannot debase our political dialog more, he finds a way to go even lower.

But what's more important to me than this disgusting video that he put up is the disgusting effect of them sitting there for three weeks now and doing nothing about health care. Why is it that Americans health care, that the stories that I'm hearing from my constituents, 78 percent increase in premiums for someone with diabetes, a family that is seeing their premiums go up from $76 a month to over $2,500 a month, a small business that cannot provide insurance for its few employees because of this increase. That's what's really concerning me, along with the refusal of our Republican colleagues, even if Trump is dumping excrement on protesters in this video, and in fact with his conduct pouring excrement and policies on us day after day, they are silent and they refuse to meet with us to work out this problem about health care.

SIDNER: I want to talk to you about a big issue when it comes to redistricting, which a lot of people yawn at, but then you look at what is happening. You decided not to run after Texas Republicans redrew the congressional district you serve in. Now, the Supreme Court is taking up a case where they could further gut the Voting Rights Act, which could mean that Republican-controlled states could redraw at least 19 more voting districts in the House in their favor.

When you look at this, wouldn't this just devastate Democrats chance of ever controlling the House again?

DOGGETT: Well, what it will devastate is the ability of people from all communities to be heard at every level of government. I think the ramifications will be far more severe for a local school board, a city council, a county government. But, yes, it could have an impact on Democrats in Congress as well. That's why it's so important that the California referendum that's coming up in a couple weeks be approved, and that everyone continue to resist the Trump efforts to do elsewhere what he did in Texas. I hope that a court will invalidate those maps, and I'll be able to continue to serve. But the most important thing is that our democracy continue to serve all communities. And this court decision could really be a setback.

SIDNER: You don't see that as two wrongs making a right with what California's trying to do, which is also redistricting areas that were heavily Republican?

DOGGETT: You know, I would like to see every state in the country, and I've supported this with legislation, have nonpartisan redistricting. But it can't be that the nonpartisan fair redistricting only occurs in Democratic states and is ignored with extreme gerrymandering, as happened here in Texas. When Trump said he wanted five more Republicans, the Texas Republicans said, how quickly can we get them to you? I still think we can win some of those seats that they drew narrowly, but we've got to put a maximum effort out.

And as I told people at our "No Kings" rally here in Austin, it's not enough to just come and vent your concerns. It's a matter of everyone getting involved in the electoral process, because unless we can have a change in the Congress and a true check on Trump, he will do -- be doing more than dropping excrement in fake videos. He will be doing it policy wise on one issue after another, just like this health care crisis that Republicans have created and now refuse to resolve.

SIDNER: Congressman Doggett, I do thank you for taking time this morning to talk it out with me. Appreciate it.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Also this morning, a massive hunt is now underway in Europe. Authorities are searching for the thieves behind a brazen movie-style heist at the Louvre that took place Sunday morning. It also took just seven minutes. And these thieves made off with priceless crown jewels from the world's most visited museum. Investigators say that the robbers pulled it off using a truck-mounted

ladder to get inside. And then French officials say that the thieves used an angle grinder to break open the window. They then broke -- obviously, got into the Apollo Gallery, one of the most ornate rooms -- we're showing you images of it -- where they took eight pieces from the Louvre. Necklaces, earrings, tiara, all worn by French royalty.

[08:40:07]

During their escape, the thieves seem to drop and damage one crown made of more than 1,300 diamonds. 50 plus emeralds. Dropped one, but took off with eight more.

So, what do they do now as this hunt is underway?

Joining us right now is Christopher Marinello. He is the CEO and founder of the -- of Art Recovery International.

Thank you so much for being here.

They are clearly racing now to find these thieves as fast as possible, no matter where they are.

What are they doing with these world-famous jewels, do you think?

CHRISTOPHER MARINELLO, CEO AND FOUNDER, ART RECOVERY INTERNATIONAL: Well, the criminals are trying to hide the fact that they've stolen some important pieces. They know they can't sell them on the open marketplace. They can't give them to an auction house. So the only thing they can do is break them up, and that's what they're doing.

They are melting down any settings, any precious metals. They are taking out the stones. They most likely have their eyes on going to Israel or to Antwerp, or India where they may have a dodgy jeweler that's willing to recut these diamonds -- recut these precious stones so they can be untraceable.

BOLDUAN: And that was what I was going to ask you. Even if broken down are there characteristics? Is there any, I don't know, lasering security measures that are put on these crown jewels? Any way to identify after the facts the diamonds, the emeralds, the sapphires later on if they -- you know, that they came from these priceless items?

MARINELLO: Most likely not in stones of this age. In modern times, yes. Modern stones -- it's possible to put these laser things in there, but not on the French crown jewels.

BOLDUAN: Christopher, your organization specializes in locating and recovering stolen and looted works of art. I mean, you've had -- you've had great success in your work.

What do you see here is working in the favor of authorities and what's working against them?

MARINELLO: Well, time is working against them -- that's easy. In fact, I know the authorities in Paris have reached out to an Israeli investigative firm -- I think it was called CGI -- that helped with the arrests at the Dresden museum -- the Green Vault theft in 2019 -- a similar case to this where the criminals were found but the jewels were never found.

And unfortunately, that's what we're facing here. The -- I think that the prosecutors should come out and publicly say to -- that the criminals could see that if they are caught that they will be charged in excess of -- you know, double or triple the jail time if these pieces are broken up.

I also think somebody should call for a reward to be offered. That might lead them to the recovery of these items. You never know when someone is willing to rat out another thief.

But these are the steps that I believe should be taken immediately.

BOLDUAN: That's a good point.

In and out in seven minutes. They used an external freight elevator that are kind of ubiquitous around Paris that is positioned on a truck. You have a close-up now that we're actually showing our viewers of a blow torch and the angle grinder they used in the robbery.

This feels both very expert and also very crude and rudimentary. And add in the fact that it took place in broad daylight while the museum was open.

What do you see in this, and why do you think they targeted these pieces versus so many other priceless pieces of art and works of art in the Louvre?

MARINELLO: Well this was a very well-planned smash-and-grab. Essentially, that's what it was. I mean, there was no finesse to it, but these people planned it very well. They found a gallery near a window. They managed to get the materials that they needed to get these things out.

They obviously inspected the museum in advance, so they were in the museum at one point earlier in the week or weeks ahead. And they chose a time when the museum was under construction so people would not think that maybe a ladder or a truck outside the Louvre was anything unusual. Although it was a Sunday and somebody should have figured out that not much goes on in Paris on a -- on a Sunday morning at 9:00 a.m.

BOLDUAN: As anyone who has been in Paris knows, that's -- the only good thing to be doing right then is to got sit down at a cafe.

It's good to see -- it's good --

MARINELLO: Absolutely.

BOLDUAN: It's good to see you, Christopher. Thank you so much. The work you do is fascinating. I really appreciate your time today.

Sara.

SIDNER: With the croissant, I would just like to ad.

BOLDUAN: Obviously. Of course. Obviously.

SIDNER: All right, thank you, Kate.

All right, happening today, President Trump says his administration plans to hit Colombia with new tariffs after he announced the U.S. will also end all payments to that country, claiming its president, quote, "does nothing to stop the production of drugs."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They are a drug manufacturing machine, Colombia, and we're not going to be part of it.

[08:45:04]

So, we're going to drop all money that we're giving to them. They have -- it has nothing to do with them stopping drug production.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: And yesterday we learned about another U.S. strike Friday on an alleged drug boat in the Caribbean. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said the boat was affiliated with what he said was a Colombian terrorist organization, and that three men on board were killed.

Now, this comes as tensions are on the rise between the U.S. and another Latin American country, as you well know, Venezuela, over the same thing, the drug trade.

CNN's Stefano Pozzebon is in the capital, Caracas, for us.

Stefano, President Trump is weighing military action inside of Venezuela, already spilling out that there's CIA covert actions that he's approved inside there. What is the latest? Are people seeing this as an act of war there?

STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, the people here are definitely showing concerns. Let's put into context. That over the last two months, Sara, the United States have conducted an impressive military build-up across the region. Over the course of the weekend, we were able to track the movements of troops and assets that the United States Navy and Marine Corps are bringing down in the southern Caribbean. We're talking here about more than 4,000 Marines, three destroyers, a spy operation ship, ten F-35 fighter jets, Reaper drones and reconnaissance flights and planes.

Think, Sara, that a U.S. naval base in the island of Puerto Rico that has been shut down since 2004 has been reopened after more than two decades to accommodate for this escalation. And while this is certainly not enough to conduct an invasion against Venezuela and to take control of the country, definitely it is more than a deployment of forces, more than what you need to hunt down a few drug trafficking speedboats.

And that's why I think here there is generally the considerable concern of what could come next. The president of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, has, at the same time, plead for dialog with the United States. There was a story on local press last week saying that he had made an offer to get out of the way himself and allow a successor to take over, to allow his government to remain in power without himself. The government has, of course, denied that story. But it's interesting that that story was out there.

But at the same time, Maduro is also preparing his forces for what could be potentially counterattacking a U.S. intervention. He was on Friday in the western states of Venezuela, on the border with Colombia, announcing a new military build-up and the activation of militias and reserves.

Sara.

SIDNER: Yes. And we should mention that no -- not yet have we seen evidence that any of these boats were actually drug traffickers. That's something that a lot of folks talking about there in the region as well.

POZZEBON: No.

SIDNER: Stefano Pozzebon, thank you so much for your reporting there, live from Caracas, Venezuela, for us.

John.

BERMAN: All right, with us now, CNN military analyst, retired Colonel Cedric Leighton.

Cedric, great to see you this morning.

Forty-five hundred sailors and marines in the Caribbean right now. That seems like a lot for a drug operation.

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: It really is, John. And, you know, as Stefano was mentioning in his reporting, it is enough to show a presence. It's too much for a drug operation. And it's not enough to invade a country. So, we're kind of in this weird mix where it's almost like a major exercise, a major military exercise, without really being the type of force that you would need to conduct either operation at either end of that spectrum of conflict.

BERMAN: How much overkill is it if its -- if it's an anti-drug operation?

LEIGHTON: If it's an anti-drug operation, normally anti-drug operations are done with discrete forces. Sometimes they'll be operations using special forces that will join elements of the DEA, the Drug Enforcement Administration. Sometimes they'll join with local forces, so they'll be a combination of U.S. forces, but very discrete, maybe in the hundreds at most -- BERMAN: Yes.

LEIGHTON: At most for a major operation, say, in a place like Colombia or even Bolivia. But those are the kinds of things that are very different with this. It' -- it's not quite well organized is the way it looks like to me.

BERMAN: Yes, it's dozens or hundreds of people in an anti-drug operation. We're talking 4,500, but not enough if the goal is regime change. If you actively want to topple with forces the Venezuelan regime, not enough.

So, what does this look like? Or what does this have the whiff of if you look back in history?

LEIGHTON: So, when you look at -- let's take a look at Panama, for example, what happened in 1989 with the invasion of Panama under Operation Just Cause. This is kind of the closest thing to that where we did use forces, but they were all either related to the 18th Airborne Corps or some element of special operations. In fact, the general that commanded that operation, General Stiner, became the commander of U.S. special operations command a little bit later in his career.

So, it was -- it is one of those things where you have very discrete forces, specialized forces that do this.

[08:50:02]

These are conventional forces that are doing this. It's more of a public relations campaign than an actual military campaign at the moment.

BERMAN: And then there's the whole legal question, which is separate in theory from -- from your area of expertise here. But -- but there are questions about the -- and the legal American justification for this operation. Either way, as an anti-drug mission with the military, or regime change. I've been speaking to Republican members of Congress who say, look, if you're going to invade or attack the nation of Venezuela, you need congressional approval.

LEIGHTON: Absolutely. You need -- you know, the War Powers Act would be one element that would have to come into play here. And when you look at just cause, the invasion of Panama, there was that congressional approval to do that. Plus, there had been things like the killing of a Marine lieutenant, Lieutenant Paz, who was killed in the run-up to that invasion. And as tensions rose with Panama, the escalatory elements increased. In this case, we don't see that kind of escalation at the moment. It could happen, but we're not there yet.

BERMAN: OK, a lot of troops in the area. We'll have to watch it very closely.

Colonel Cedric Leighton, thank you very much.

LEIGHTON: You betcha. BERMAN: Kate.

BOLDUAN: So, a global outage causing an internet blackout that impacted everything from air travel, to gaming platforms. and a whole lot of things in between that. Amazon now saying they found a fix. But what caused it?

And a major woops during a celebration of the U.S. Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton in California. An artillery shell detonating prematurely over an interstate. Shrapnel, as you saw there, landing on a highway patrol car. While it now has the governor of California and the vice president trading barbs.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:55:31]

BOLDUAN: So, in California, there is new video in showing an artillery shell exploding early over a freeway during a Marine Corps celebration. It happened Saturday at Camp Pendleton during a live fire demonstration. It was to mark the Marine Corp's 250th anniversary. The shell went off prematurely and it hit a highway patrol car with shrapnel. No one was injured, but the Marines did stop all of the live fire. The blast also sparked back and forth between Vice President J.D. Vance, who was there to celebrate, and Governor Gavin Newsom of California, who had spoken out against the demonstration beforehand calling the drill over a freeway "unsafe." Newsom had ordered the freeway closed ahead of time.

And in Tel Aviv, more than a dozen people were hurt after smoke grenades and fireworks were thrown onto a soccer field, you can very clearly see it there, ahead of a match between two rival teams. This happened Sunday. In video released by police, you can see the red and white plumes of smoke before fireworks land near a crowd of officers. At least nine people have been arrested connected to this. The match ultimately canceled.

John.

BERMAN: All right, happening today, former FBI Director James Comey, his legal team is expected to file motions to have his case dismissed. One of the filings they'll make is to challenge the lawfulness of the recent appointment of U.S. Attorney Lindsay Halligan. Halligan is President Trump's former personal attorney. She also secured Comey's indictment. Comey is accused of making false statements to Congress and obstruction of congressional proceeding. He pleaded not guilty.

With now -- with us now, CNN's senior legal analyst, Elie Honig.

Elie, rapid fire, because we have a lot of ground to cover.

First, challenging Halligan's appointment. What does that mean? Likelihood of success?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: This has nothing to do with Lindsey Halligan, the individual. This is an issue under the Appointments Act. Basically, if you have a situation, like we have here, where the president has not nominated anybody who's then been Senate confirmed for the U.S. attorney, there are specific limitations on who can serve and for how long. You can have a temporary person acting for 120 days. We already had that with Eric Siebert, the guy who was pushed out to make room for Lindsey Halligan. The claim here is you can't keep doing that if you're the president, serially, time after time after time. We're now on the second one of those people. And so the argument's going to be, this appointment was illegal.

BERMAN: Any chance of success?

HONIG: Very, very low. I mean, it could well be that Lindsey Halligan was illegally appointed, but I don't know that that results in the dismissal of the indictment because the response is going to be whether she was there legally or not, the authority ultimately flows through the attorney general of the United States. So, I don't think they're going to get it thrown out on that basis, even if they're technically correct.

BERMAN: All right, what about other filings on selective and/or vindictive prosecution? First of all, are those the same thing? Second of all, likelihood of success there?

HONIG: They're not quite the same thing, but they're similar. And there's a lot of overlap. So, vindictive prosecution, as the name suggests, mean that there's some personal animus, some personal dislike from the prosecution or perhaps in this case from the president that's motivating and causing this prosecution.

Relatedly, but a little bit differently, there's this thing called selective prosecution where Jim Comey will have to show, I was chosen from among similarly situated people, other people in the same situation or similar situation as me, and I was chosen for inappropriate reasons. It could be race or religion. That won't be this case. In this case I think the argument will be, I was selected for my political views and my political beliefs.

So, look for both of those to be made. Usually, they're very difficult motions to succeed on. But here we have quite a record, starting with the president's own social media post where he said, essentially, I want Jim Comey prosecuted. So, I give them a fairly high chance of success here.

BERMAN: And if the judge entertains it at all, there could be discovery here, which would mean what potentially for the Justice Department?

HONIG: Right. So, if Jim Comey's team can show that there's some merit to their allegations, then they're going to get to dig in a little bit. They're going to get to go behind the scenes. What was being said, perhaps, within DOJ, within the Eastern District of Virginia, perhaps where there are communications with the White House, because what you are trying to do, if you're Jim Comey here, is show that there was some bad motive.

Now, again, we have the social media post, but they're going to ask the judge for permission to dig deeper.

BERMAN: And very quickly. "Politico" had a report overnight, which is the flip side of this, which is that the federal prosecutors appear to be asking for Comey's attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, himself, at one point, a sort of special counsel on a different case, for him to be tossed.

[09:00:06]

What's going on there?