Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Senate Poised To Vote On House Bill Soon To Avoid A Government Shutdown; Interview With Representative Bryan Steil (R-WI) About Bipartisan Short-Term Funding Bill; Interview With Rep. Bryan Steil (R-WI); Interview With Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND); Trump Mocks Attack On Pelosi's Husband. Aired 7-8p ET

Aired September 30, 2023 - 19:00   ET

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

[19:01:29]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN ANCHOR: You are live in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jim Acosta in Washington. Good evening. It is a busy evening here on CNN. It is 7:00 p.m. up on Capitol Hill.

And over the last several hours, lawmakers have dramatically backed away from the brink of a government shutdown. But we're not out of the woods yet. With surprising speed and bipartisanship this afternoon, the House passed a stop-gap spending measure that would fund the government for the next 45 days. The White House has signaled the president will sign it. But first it has to get through the Senate and that vote may have hit a delay.

CNN's Manu Raju is following all of this up on Capitol Hill.

Manu, I was hoping that it would not be sunset by the time you were able to go home this evening but it seems like that's not the case. You can't count on that up on Capitol Hill. And there may be a little bit of a wrinkle in the Senate in terms of getting to the finish line. What can you tell us?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. This is about the issue of Ukraine. This bill that is waiting for a final Senate approval that got approved in a last-ditch effort in the House to avoid a government shutdown does not include emergency aid for Ukraine. The Senate was trying to get that approved as part of the bill to keep the government open. They wanted $6.2 billion to help Ukraine.

But that ran into opposition from the speaker of the House himself, Kevin McCarthy. He had divisions within his own Republican conference about whether to include aid for Ukraine at all. McCarthy decided to drop that, not include it in the bill that was approved this afternoon on a bipartisan vote in the House to keep the government open for 45 days, provide money for natural disaster relief, but no money for Ukraine.

Now this at the moment is the issue in the Senate because Senator Michael Bennet of Colorado, a Democrat, has raised concerns about this, as other Democrats have as well. But he is objecting to having a final vote on this proposal. Now this is important because in the United States Senate, just one senator can object and delay consideration of a bill. If that person continues to object, then the Senate majority leader would have to take time-consuming procedural steps to overcome that objection.

If it went to that length, Jim, that would push this well into next week. So that is not what we expect here. We expect that they'll try to resolve these concerns that Michael Bennet is now raising as part of these negotiations. Now what Bennet wants I am told is some sort of statement put out to issue, to show bipartisan support and commitment for the cause of Ukraine, something that is critical as the world is watching the United States and these divisions on Capitol Hill about whether the funding will continue to come to help the war effort in Ukraine and fighting back against Russia.

Bennet wants to make that clear in a statement. So that's what they're haggling with behind the scenes. The expectation is that at some point that this will be resolved. But at the moment, no indication of when that will happen. Sometimes these things just happen very quickly. Sometimes they drag out. But senators are coming in and out hoping to get answers themselves, hoping to vote. It's only a matter of when, Jim, this will happen but it could be a little bit later.

ACOSTA: Yes, Manu, I mean, we were just talking to two senators, two of Bennet's colleagues on the Democratic side, Tim Kaine and Jack Reed, and they both seemed to indicate that, yes, they think this is going to get resolved tonight. They think there'll be a vote before midnight to avoid a government shutdown, and that they also think that there will be some kind of funding mechanism at some point, in the not-too-distant future to make sure that the flow of aid and assistance to Ukraine continues.

And I guess the question that I have for those two senators, and I'll put it to you is, there's no guarantee, though, correct, that Kevin McCarthy will put that on the floor of the House?

[19:05:07]

So the House may have gotten out of this jam that they're in over there and avoided being tagged with the blame for a government shutdown, but it might come at the expense of the Ukrainians if something can't get worked out in the not-too-distant future, I suppose.

RAJU: Yes. McCarthy was asked this directly at his press conference this afternoon. Would he guarantee a vote for Ukraine aid? He would not go that far. In fact he seemed to tie it to his desire for pushing for more funding and other provisions dealing with border security at the U.S.-Mexico border. So that could be tied all together. But he did profess his support for the Ukraine cause and for Ukraine's fight against Russia, but would not explicitly say that this money would definitely get approved, even in the next 45 days.

We could be facing another shutdown possibility in 45 days, in mid- November. It's unclear that it would ride along with that or maybe get delayed even further. And that's what's causing just a lot of concern from some of the senators that I've been speaking with this afternoon, just saying this money, they say, is desperately needed. They say it should come very -- it should be approved immediately. Not just for the war effort but also to make sure the world knows that the United States continues to stand behind Ukraine.

But, Jim, you're right. No guarantee how the House Republicans will deal with it. In fact, a majority of House Republicans voted against continuing funding for Ukraine and a whole separate bill earlier this week, even though that bill gets passed with the support of Democrats and the number of Republicans. But those divisions within the House GOP is what's causing a lot of alarm for Ukraine's supporters on Capitol Hill.

ACOSTA: Yes. Absolutely. Manu Raju, you're absolutely right about that. And I guess, it might be tempting to minimize the significance of this here if the House Republicans have figured out a way to defund assistance and aid to Ukraine. That may sound farfetched at this point. Perhaps we're not at this point where that's going to take place. But if the House speaker is not giving any guarantees at this point, as Colonel Leighton was saying in the previous hour on this program, not continuing to fund the Ukrainians would send a bad signal of course to the Ukrainians but might send a green light to Vladimir Putin.

I have to think that there are lawmakers who are fiercely in favor of continuing to fund the fight in Ukraine. They're very mindful of that.

RAJU: Yes. And look, if you put this bill on the floor to fund Ukraine, it would pass overwhelmingly by bipartisan support in the Senate. Probably get maybe 70 votes in the United States Senate. Maybe 75, even up to 80 in the Senate. In the House it would pass on a bipartisan basis as well. Probably maybe up to 300 votes or so in the United States House. But as you know, Jim, to get the bill on the floor of the House, you need to have the leadership. They need to schedule a vote.

There are ways around the leadership trying to force a vote. They rarely succeed. But that's a possibility that could exist sometime down the line. And as we've talked all along all afternoon about the threats to the speakership, if McCarthy were to move forward with the Ukraine aid package, that's another thing that allow those hardliners to say they would use it against him as they try to push him out of the speakership.

So he's cognizant of that. He's cognizant of those outspoken voices in his own conference opposing more aid to Ukraine. So uncertain how the speaker plans to both show the United States' support for Ukraine and avoid those challenges from his right. Another thing he'll have to navigate in the weeks ahead.

ACOSTA: And not to mention the possibility that Kevin McCarthy might not be in the job of House speaker at that point when that vote comes to pass.

RAJU: Yes. ACOSTA: It could be somebody who's much more of a hardliner in that

position at that point.

Manu, I know it's been a long day. I'll let you go and do some more reporting. But we appreciate all of your tremendous efforts today.

Manu Raju, up on Capitol Hill for us. Thank you very much.

Right after today's vote, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the continuing resolution is a win for Democrats. Let's take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): We went from devastating cuts that would have impacted the health, the safety and economic well-being of the American people in 24 hours to a spending agreement that meets the needs of the American people across the board. Entirely consistent with what Democrats have said from the very beginning is the only path forward. A bipartisan spending agreement that keeps government open, avoids a catastrophic government shutdown, and meets the needs of the American people in every possible way.

We've said from the beginning that we were going to protect Social Security, protect Medicare, protect Medicaid, protect public education, protect public safety, protect those individuals who secure us all across the land.

[19:10:11]

Protect veterans. Protect our ability to continue to combat the climate crisis. Protect the economy and protect the ability of our government to provide for the health, the safety, and the economic well-being of the American people. And that is what the spending agreement that Democrats overwhelmingly supported on the floor of the House of Representatives accomplished today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: All right. And that was the House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries. We are watching the situation in the Senate right now very closely. That is where there could be a vote very soon to prevent a government shutdown. Of course, it is not done until it's done. And right now, it's not done. So stay with us. We'll be right back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:15:09]

ACOSTA: Welcome back. The nation's capital is in a bit of a holding pattern right now. Lawmakers up on Capitol Hill have backed away for the moment from the brink of a government shutdown. The House passed a stop-gap measure that would fund the government for another 45 days. The White House has signaled the president will sign it but first it has to get through the Senate. And that has not happened just yet.

Let's talk about this more with David Gergen, presidential adviser to Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Clinton.

David, it's not supposed to work like this. And, you know, it's just -- it is kind of outrageous that here we are again on the brink of yet another government shutdown. And they just can't get their act together. And I know a lot of this is driven of course over in the House with the Republicans in that conference who are just not willing to compromise, although there was some compromise today. But if you -- I mean, if you can reflect at all on just how ridiculous things have gotten here in Washington, where it just seems like we're always on the brink of shutdown. We always have to put another quarter on the toll booth to keep the government running. It's just not a great way to run a railroad.

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, you've said it very well, Jim. This is a -- for a long, long time in our republic, it was regarded as unacceptable to shut down the government. That's changed here in recent years. At least four occasions we have now had shutdowns. Fortunately they have ended but they haven't ended well. And this is just another example. This is no reason for a celebration tonight.

What we did, it was not hard. We averted the catastrophe. And that's a good thing. Let's not pat ourselves on the back for something that never should have happened to start with. You know, so there's a new book coming out, Jim, that I recommend called "The Tyranny of the Minority." And it's by two fellows, Ziblatt and Levitsky, who argued that too often today, small groups of people, small numbers representing just a disproportionately small percentage of the population, they can rest control from the rest. Just what was about to happen here with these -- the hard right. You know, a dozen hard- right people could basically almost shut down the government.

ACOSTA: Yes. Well, and I think, first of all, I should say we're having one of those authors on tomorrow and we've had both of them on previously because we have talked about this issues. I guess it leads to my next question, which is this constant cycle of brinksmanship that D.C. is in right now. Hasn't it kind of practiced and trained some of the most bad faith actors in the dark arts of shutting down the government, grinding things to a halt, making things a mess up on Capitol Hill?

So you can't govern. So the frequency of these acts of brinksmanship is making the people who are more prone to going about and doing it more skilled and practiced in this. It's a mess.

GERGEN: I'm afraid that's the case. Yes, it is a mess. And it's particularly true with social media that you can use it now to flog your favorite villain, and set them up, and tell all sorts of tales which aren't true but get people to believe it. It's really, really interesting how much our politics have been wrenched out of the traditions that we had in the past that served this country so well when we were considered a city on a Hill, as Reagan and all the way back to the founding fathers, the pilgrims, also believed.

And now, you know, in so many instances, the rest of the world is looking at us and saying, this is why we understand have happened toward the country in decline. This is what happens when people lose their anchoring, their (INAUDIBLE), their sense of values, their sense of being a part of a community, being proud of a community. A beloved community as Martin Luther King, Jr. used to say.

And now instead we have the poison community. And it's just simply not working. One of my concerns, Jim, I've been, you know, in a university environment here for the last couple of decades, there are a growing number of young people who are really, really talented who are beginning to day, you know, I'm not sure I want to go into public service. I'm not sure especially they don't want to be in politics.

ACOSTA: Yes. I mean, a lot of those talented folks would perhaps much rather work in Silicon Valley or up in New York, finance, that sort of thing rather than get into this mess. And you're right. We have gotten away from being that city on the hill. We're more like a city that's just held hostage, moving, you know, careening from one act of brinksmanship to the next.

And, you know, speaking of which, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, he sort of called the bluff of these hard-right lawmakers during all of this. And when he I guess realized that they weren't going to go along with him, decided to work with Democrats and now that has raised the prospect of whether Kevin McCarthy is going to hang on to that job.

[19:20:10]

But it's very interesting, David Gergen. Earlier this afternoon I spoke to one of those House members, Tim Burchett, and I asked him, is Kevin McCarthy in trouble, do you want him to leave, and he says this is why I wanted him to leave. And then Manu Raju was talking to a number of House Republicans who were sounding like they wanted to toss McCarthy out and they didn't sound like they were ready to do such a thing.

So I wonder if calling out some of these members on their bluster and their bluffs is the way to go about doing things now? Why buckle to these members all the time?

GERGEN: I totally agree with that. It's a very good point. I mean -- what do we have? About a dozen people who really cause problems and throw monkey wrenches into this situation. We ought to have their faces plastered all over the place. These are the guys that almost took us over the brink. You know, if we had gone over the brink and we still might, I think it's very unlikely now. But if we had gone over the brink, we probably would have had a recession in this country unless we can stop it pretty damn soon.

ACOSTA: Yes.

GERGEN: And some of these characters seem to take a certain amount of delight in screwing up everybody else's lives. That they sort of think that's what they deserve. They all like them, they hate them, you know, whatever the latest, but it is a strange world. It's one in which I think we don't have a whole lot of time to get things right.

ACOSTA: Yes. GERGEN: You know, you can reach a certain stage in decline when it's

really, really hard to make a comeback. We've been a resilient people for so long. We forgot what it's like when you really go in the hole but it can be very, very rough.

ACOSTA: Yes. And the state of our democratic republic is not a guarantee. It doesn't have to stay as smooth and steady as it has been over the last 50 years. There's just no question about that.

David Gergen, always great to talk to you. Thank you so much for your time.

GERGEN: Thank you, Jim. It's good to talk to you.

ACOSTA: I knew we could count on you for your wisdom. All right, thanks so much.

GERGEN: OK. Thank you.

ACOSTA: All right. And all eyes are on the Senate tonight. But over in the House, New York Democrat Jamaal Bowman is under fire for pulling a fire alarm. Speaking of some of the antics up on Capitol Hill. He says it was an accident. Do Republicans accept that? There's going to be an investigation now on top of everything else that's taking place up on Capitol Hill. We'll talk about that next.

You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:26:36]

ACOSTA: A government shutdown is not the only issue on lawmakers' minds tonight. Just before the House passed the stop-gap spending bill this afternoon, Democratic Congressman Jamaal Bowman pulled a fire alarm inside the Capitol. The New York Democrat says it was an accident but he's already facing backlash from his Republican colleagues, including a possible investigation by lawmakers on a House committee that oversees the Capitol Police.

Here to discuss is the chairman of that committee, Republican Congressman Brian Steil.

Congressman, I guess let's talk about this first. What do we know about what took place? And does it -- is it of a serious nature to the extent that you have to have an investigation in your view?

REP. BRYAN STEIL (R-WI): Well, we know Jamaal Bowman pulled the fire alarm. Why he did that is pretty unclear. His initial explanation that it was an accident doesn't seem to really pass muster. The United States Capitol Police is currently conducting an investigation into exactly what happened. But I think he needs to be far more forthcoming as to what did occur. If in the event that he engaged in an illegal behavior like pulling a fire alarm to try to interfere with House proceedings, that is a serious violation of the law and no one should be treated above the law. ACOSTA: And have you talked to Congressman Bowman about this?

STEIL: I have not spoken to him directly. I have reviewed his public statements. He is currently under investigation by the United States Capitol Police. And I suspect that that investigation will wrap up in the not-too-distant future. I would hope that he is far more forthcoming as to exactly what he was doing when he pulled the fire alarm.

ACOSTA: OK. And in the meantime, what -- if you can shed some light into what took place earlier today in the House, the speaker, Kevin McCarthy, decided ultimately at the end of the day, he wanted to work with House Democrats to get this continuing resolution out of House over to the Senate. Now we're waiting to see what the Senate does with this.

I guess, if you can walk us through, Congressman, how you voted on this. Why you decided to vote the way you did, and why did it take to -- you know, why did it take until the 11th hour almost for this to get resolved?

STEIL: The spending process in Washington is completely broken. If this was a business, it would be bankrupt a long time ago. I think I'm as frustrated as everyone. At the end of the day, though, not shutting down the federal government is a small victory. But at the end of the day, we're going to have to still address the reckless spending in Washington that's driving inflation further and we have to secure the U.S.-Mexican border.

Yesterday, Republicans, we had an opportunity to move forward with a conservative stop-gap measure that would have done both of those things. Unfortunately, we came up short. Today our options were less available and therefore moving to CR as we did was the best move in the situation we find ourselves in.

ACOSTA: And so I guess what happens with your speaker, Kevin McCarthy? I suppose you're not one of those lawmakers clamoring for him to vacate his post. You're defending the speaker, you'd like to see him remain in that post?

STEIL: I think Speaker McCarthy has done a pretty darn good job at wrangling the cats in the Republican conference. Again yesterday we had a great opportunity to move forward with a conservative CR. I was actually hopeful we could have done that a week before to truly address the reckless spending in Washington and the fact that the border of the U.S. and Mexico is unsecure.

Unfortunately, a small number of members in our conference disagreed with that approach, but that was the reason we were brought to the situation we were here today.

[19:30:00]

Again, I think he's done overall a pretty darn good job of wrangling the cats in the Republican conference. ACOSTA: Are you worried about your party's ability to govern? I mean,

you were saying that yesterday you preferred this other continuing resolution because it had these other items, but it's unlikely that would have gotten through the Senate.

And so it isn't a true that your party was really driving the country, driving this government to the brink of the shutdown?

STEIL: I would say the whole spending system in Washington is completely broken. The Senate is further behind than us on moving forward appropriations bills. They also did not have a stopgap measure passed in the United States Senate.

Far too often, Congress operates like a college student working on a term paper doing it at the final hour, rather than working in the best interest of the American people.

I would love to see us completely rewrite the spending process in the United States, so we don't find ourselves in this position again. That said, we're here. Passing the stopgap measure was the best path in front of us to give us an opportunity to truly move through spending bills that address the reckless spending in Washington, and most importantly, from a policy perspective, work to secure the US-Mexico border.

ACOSTA: And what about aid to Ukraine? Were you comfortable with that? That assistance being stripped out of the legislation? Would you like to see that put back in at some point, not in this legislation, but for the aid to the Ukrainians to get voted on and the future so that fight can continue on that front?

STEIL: I think the American people deserve to have a full-fledged debate regarding us support to Ukraine, to make sure that we're providing Ukraine, the weapons to be able to win the war, but not sending simply money in an unchecked manner.

We deserve to have a broader and more substantive debate to make sure that we're holding Russia accountable for their illegal invasion. Putting that simply into a continuing resolution, a stopgap measure, I think undermines the seriousness of the situation in Ukraine.

ACOSTA: You're not ruling it out? You would be in favor of helping the Ukrainians out somewhere down the road after that conversation. It sounds like that's what you're saying?

STEIL: Yes. I'd like to see any final legislation. I think that there are important pieces that should be in there. I think we want to make sure that there are appropriate checks and balances and I think the American people deserve to understand the strategy.

And I feel President Biden has done a terrible job explaining to the American people what the American interest is in helping the Ukrainian people defend themselves from an unjust invasion from Russia.

ACOSTA: Right, but it's been the president who has been leading on this front, has he not? You think the president has some credit for that, if it were his predecessor, this would not be the case.

STEIL: Well, ultimately, what I believe is we have seen a failure of leadership from President Biden explaining the US national interest in Ukraine, in sending the weapons as we have.

Previously, the president has called for significant spending in Ukraine. It's important to make sure we're assisting those Ukrainians who are defending themselves, defending their territory, but what we don't want to have is a blank check.

I do feel that this administration has done a poor job explaining to the American people why the US has a national security interest in preventing Russia from being able to take Ukraine.

Today, it is Ukraine. The biggest concern is that Russian troops would enter a NATO state country triggering Article 5 and putting at risk US troops.

ACOSTA: The president has said that.

STEIL: What we don't is US troops engaged.

ACOSTA: But the president has said that.

STEIL: Well, I would argue he's done a poor job explaining that to the American people.

ACOSTA: You think he should say more. All right. All right, Congressman Steil, thank you very much for your time. We appreciate it. Appreciate your time.

STEIL: Thank you.

ACOSTA: In the meantime, we're watching all of this up on Capitol Hill right now. As you can see, that member of Congress was still there. Others are still there up on Capitol Hill because we're still not clear yet at this point whether or not the government will run out of money tonight.

It is up to the Senate where a vote to avert a shutdown could happen at any moment. We will stay on top of that.

Stay with us. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:37:54]

ACOSTA: All right, we are following the latest stuff on Capitol Hill as senators now have the ball in their court as to whether or not a government shutdown is going to be prevented.

Joining me now is Republican Congressman Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota.

Congressman, thanks very much for joining us. If you can help us out. We were just talking to one of your colleagues just a few moments ago about how this unfolded in the House earlier today.

How did we get to a place where House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, essentially was working with Democrats, relying on Democrats to get this continuing resolution out of the House? And what was your vote on it? And why did you decide to vote the way you did?

REP. KELLY ARMSTRONG (R-ND): Well, I think the vast majority of our conference's position has always been let's pass the most conservative CR that can get 218 votes and avoid a shutdown. That's why we worked really hard a couple of weeks ago to negotiate on the most fiscally conservative spending package that's come off the floor in probably 30 years, with HR 2 border security.

Obviously, we didn't have enough votes on the Republican side to pass that. The Democrats were never going to support that. So when we lost 21 votes yesterday, we went to conference and a couple ideas were floated, one was to make the timeline shorter, that didn't have enough votes, and so, the only other option was to put this forward, otherwise, the reality is, is we were going to take whatever Chuck Schumer sent us and whether it was seven days, 14 days or 30 days that was going to end up being the CR.

So Kevin never wanted -- or Speaker McCarthy never wanted to shutdown. The vast majority of us didn't. And this was the best approach given the hand we were dealt.

ACOSTA: And why take things to the brink? I mean, here we are four hours and 21 minutes from a government shutdown. It sounds as though the Senate is going to pass this and get it over to the president's desk. But why can't this get worked out much sooner than this where you don't have members of the military and air traffic controllers and Border Patrol agents and everybody under the sun who works with the federal government worried about whether they're going to get paid? Just, why take it to the brink?

ARMSTRONG: Well, I think at an alternative timeline, we passed the one we had, but obviously, we had 21 people vote no yesterday and this really becomes about, you know border security and Ukraine funding and instead I think everybody at the last minute -- because those are two issues that are important to a lot of people.

Border security is the number one issue going on in this country right now.

[19:40:10]

We had an opportunity to do that. We couldn't get it done. So now we're at where we're at, and we live to fight another day.

ACOSTA: Well, I guess that raises the question is, is this an effective way to run a railroad? If you take things to the brink in the hopes of getting more funding for the border and border security, you didn't accomplish that in the end, so why not go through regular order and the regular appropriations process to get this kind of funding, the way that you want it?

You took it to the brink and it didn't work. So I guess the question is, why did you do it?

ARMSTRONG: Well, I think it does -- I think it did work because we were working to try -- again, trying to get the most -- I think it's an unfortunate position that the most conservative CR we can get off the floor of the House is going to require Democratic votes, but it came together today, we've got 45 days. We come back Monday, we need to continue to push forward.

We've still held DHS -- the DHS approp bill without HR 2. We have to push that issue. I think it's one of those rare issues in Congress, where Republicans can win both politically and on the policy front, and it is up to us. We've got to continue to pass our appropriations bills.

I think the entire calendar scenario on how we do. Our government funding is broken, I think we really need to reevaluate it, but this was always going to end in a CR and the question was going to be is whether we could have some control over the process or if we were going to get rolled by Chuck Schumer in the Senate.

ACOSTA: Do you want to see Kevin McCarthy's survive as the speaker? And do you think it's possible that we could see a move early next week to remove him as speaker?

ARMSTRONG; Well, I think we put up a large bit of number today. Somebody had to be the adult in the room. We tried every way in which to get a conservative package across the finish line, and we have a choice. We can come back Monday morning. We can start working on more appropriations bills. They're going to be tough. They're going to be messy.

We do regular order. We have open amendment process, or we can start a circus, and that's not going to be good for the conference. It is not going to be good for the country.

ACOSTA: Yes, because I wonder and, Congressman, when you mentioned the word circus, I wonder if you're concerned that the American people are going to look at what's taking place in the House of Representatives and saying, well, maybe the Republicans shouldn't be running the House of Representatives, because of the way they're handling things. It takes take some 15 votes or so to settle on a speaker. They run up until the deadline in passing government funding and so on. It doesn't look good, doesn't it?

ARMSTRONG: No. I mean, we got to continue to do our work. But I think nobody's going to care about how we started, it is how we finished. We've got to pass our appropriations bills. We've got to deal with the border. We've got to deal with out-of-control spending in Washington, and we've got to continue to move forward.

I don't think anybody around DC had any -- I mean, everybody was convinced we were heading into a shutdown. We're going to keep ourselves out of our shutdown, and we're going to continue to do our appropriations work.

ACOSTA: All right, Congressman Kelly Armstrong, thank you very much for your time this evening. We appreciate it.

ARMSTRONG: Thanks for having me.

ACOSTA: All right. Thank you. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:47:24]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi who ruined San Francisco.

[BOOING]

TRUMP: How's her husband doing by the way? Anybody know?

[LAUGHTER]

TRUMP: What they've done is they've gone after opponents so that if you become president or some other job, but if you become president and you don't like somebody or if somebody is beating you by 10, 15, or 20 points like we're doing with Crooked Joe Biden, let's indict the [bleep]. Let's indict them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ACOSTA: Former President Donald Trump addressing his recent legal troubles in his speech to California Republicans last night. Let's discuss.

Former federal prosecutor, Kristy Greenberg is with us and defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, Shan Wu, is with us as well.

Shan, let me start with you first. You're here in the studio with me. Kristy, I'll talk to you in just a second. But you know, one of the things that you know, special counsel Jack Smith has been saying in the last couple of days in terms of wanting this judge, Tanya Chutkan to put a gag order on the former president is that Trump is again engaging in this incendiary rhetoric. The other day, talking about the outgoing Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, how he should be executed.

I believe Smith also referred to Trump almost purchasing a gun, which he's not supposed to do earlier this week and then in that clip we just played a few moments ago, he is minimizing what took place with Paul Pelosi.

And we should remind our viewers, the reason why Paul Pelosi was attacked is because the intruder was trying to go after the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at that time, who is by the way, one of the former president's political enemies.

Is this more evidence for Jack Smith to take to the judge and say, we need a gag order on the former president here.

SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think he could add that in, you know, it just happened recently. He hasn't put it in his pleadings yet. But I think it fosters this notion that Trump enjoys the idea of violence happening in favor of him or against his enemies.

And I think that's the picture that Smith's trying to paint for the judge, which is this isn't just First Amendment political speech. He's really fostering this culture of violence and that's what you have to stop him from doing because unlike most defendants, he really has some sway with people when he says that. We've seen what happens.

ACOSTA: And Christi, I mean, it's going to be difficult as to whether or not the judge is ultimately going to put some kind of gag order on the former president. It's almost as if Trump wants one so he has more red meat to throw out to the base and more things to talk about in speeches like he had last night.

But to pick up on Shan's point. I mean, at some point is there a line that he crosses where the judge has to do something and what could she do?

[19:50:08]

KRISTY GREENBERG, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I certainly think she is going to be very attuned to any intimidation, any incendiary statements with respect to prospective witnesses, and potential jurors in the jury pool.

So those two categories of individuals, I think she's going to be very, very concerned to make sure that there are not statements that could affect the integrity of a trial. She is also going to be looking at the kinds of statements.

So among the kinds of things the prosecutors are looking at are not just intimidating statements, and in statements to incite violence, but also disparaging statements, and I think she may try to draw the line there.

I think you can make some disparaging statements about the prosecutor and the judge within your First Amendment rights without necessarily tainting a jury pool.

It's when you start making intimidating statements, when you start making threats, when you start making statements that could lend itself to violence, that's when I think the judge is really going to look and say, this is unacceptable, and the consequences here are too grave.

There's already been a death threat on Judge Chutkan. There's already been a charge of somebody making that death threat. There has to be a line here where we think things could just get too far, because ultimately, you know that the safety of everybody involved in this process depends on it.

ACOSTA: Yes. And Shan, we already know that the president's rhetoric leads to violence. It took place on January 6th.

WU: Right.

ACOSTA: So this is not a theoretical argument here.

WU: Yes. No, not at all. And I think that's the problem here and that line about the First Amendment is harder to discern with him, because when he says things like the prosecutor is deranged or the judge is that -- that makes his supporters very angry at those people.

Why is deranged bad person going after the former president? That's where the danger is. And that's where really because of who he is, and his history, that line is much harder to figure out than the normal case.

ACOSTA: And Kristy, there's also the part of what Trump says in that comment where he talks about indicting the mother-effer. This is the line that he sends out to his base that the reason why he's been indicted four times, is because he's somehow, you know, beating Biden in the polls, which, you know, most of the polls that we show, show that the race is about dead, even at this point, so that argument goes out the window.

But it does have some salience with his supporters, this notion that he is being persecuted, because he is -- you know, as he sees it, he's the best shot that Republicans have in unseating President Biden.

GREENBERG: Right and again, this goes towards really trying to corrupt the jury pool to think that this is somehow a political persecution and not a prosecution of a criminal case, and that he is a victim here.

And so really, these kinds of comments need to be carefully scrutinized by the judge and it is hard to draw those lines, particularly where this is an individual who has such a platform, unlike any other criminal defendant to really reach a base that he has shown, as you said, on January 6th that he can inflame and incite to violence.

So the judge is going to have to really take a look at this, and I suspect there will be some gag order, maybe not everything the prosecutors are asking for, but some limited gag order to show that there are consequences to actions.

There are going to be penalties, whether it's starting out with fines, leading to criminal contempt, and if it continues, and if it gets more and more brazen, potentially prison.

ACOSTA: And Shan, how do you navigate having a defendant like this? I mean, I can't imagine what the Special Counsel is going to do when this finally goes to trial. Trump comes out of the courtroom every day, goes out of the courthouse and gives a press conference and calls Jack Smith deranged or talks about what a certain juror was wearing or I mean, the sky's the limit with this guy.

WU: Absolutely. And I think what the special counsel is doing right now is very wise, which is very early, they're trying to set the stage. It's like raising the red flag early and often with the judge to not only put Trump on notice, but to get the judge where and in incremental steps.

For example, the mentioning of the financial sanctions moving more towards a very harsher type of sanction here, that's what they're really doing is setting the stage for that to happen, and that's what the problem is that the large platform that he has, even these things, there is a line that you could draw, which will be pretty simple, which is, you can profess your innocence as much as you want, and you can't mention anybody in particular.

Don't talk about the judge. Don't talk about the case. And he could be out there when opponents are questioning him about you know, you're being charged with these things. He could say I'm completely innocent. Trust in the system. They'll take care of it. I'm not going to talk about that right now.

There is was a way that he could draw that line very easily, but for him for a long time, his defense and his campaign are completely the same at this point.

[19:55:07]

ACOSTA: Yes, and Kristy, I mean, conventional wisdom is that you, if you go out -- if the judge goes after Trump, it's going to play right into his hands. But as Shan was saying, if the prosecutors are trying to go line by line, every time this happens, we throw the penalty flag and put the judge on notice and so on.

Doesn't that put -- doesn't that potentially create a situation where Trump could be put in a box once the trial gets started? Because if the judge says, okay, listen, we put up with these shenanigans up until this point, but now the trial is starting and if you say anything about me, the prosecutor, or any of these other folks, you're going to be -- you're going to be detained during the process of this trial.

I mean, does he eventually run out of runway here?

GREENBERG: Well, the trial is currently set for March, so we have months to go.

ACOSTA: That's true.

GREENBERG: I expect that in October, when they have this hearing, there will be some lines drawn. She is going to have very strict language. And again, I do think there will be an order from the bench and maybe not everything the prosecutors are asking for, but some limited gag order put in place. And then again, see over the next few months how he behaves.

Does he adhere to the order? Or does he continue to violate it? And if he continues to violate it? Look, I think it's going to be very difficult for this judge to put a former president who is now running a campaign to be president in prison. So she is not going to take to that action lightly, so it is going to

have to be very brazen violations of her orders, probably repeated violations of court orders for her to take that step. But she and the special counsel are looking to get this established now, set that record now so that if that's what needs to happen, she has a very clear case to make as to why it's justified.

ACOSTA: All right, Kristy Greenberg, Shan Wu, thank you both very much. We appreciate it.

Back to the breaking news, the possibility of avoiding a government shutdown rests with the Senate. You know, a couple of hours ago, it was reported that maybe it was going to be over by now, but guess what? This is Washington. It is never that easy.

So here it is, it is coming up on eight o'clock Eastern here in the nation's capital and we're going to keep our eyes on the Senate, the fate of the shutdown is in their hands. You're live in the CNN NEWSROOM.

Be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[20:00:00]