Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
Turmoil In DOJ, 6 Resignations Over Order To Drop NYC Mayor's Case; Musk Meets Modi; McConnell Versus Trump. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired February 13, 2025 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:42]
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:
Breaking news, the Justice Department in turmoil tonight. Now, six resignations of top prosecutors, including the top prosecutor in New York, resigning over the DOJ decision to drop the case against the New York City Mayor Eric Adams. We're going to read this scathing letter. It's really incredible. Hear the stunning allegations that are being made tonight.
Plus, Musk meets Modi, the richest man in the world, taking a sledgehammer to the federal government. Was their meeting with the leader of India about his businesses?
And Mitch McConnell votes against RFK, Jr. for HHS secretary. That is his third vote against a Trump nominee. Trump is furious tonight and on the attack.
Let's go OUTFRONT.
And OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news upheaval in the Justice Department. At this hour, there are six resignations that we are aware of, of top prosecutors over Trump ally and Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove's order to drop the federal corruption case against the New York City Mayor Eric Adams.
This includes the acting U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Danielle Sassoon, just -- just sworn in, refused to drop the case, saying in her scathing eight-page resignation letter, and it is scathing. But let me just quote these -- these operative lines. I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations. I remain baffled by the rushed and superficial process by which this decision was reached in seeming collaboration with Adams's counsel, and without my direct input.
This is a prosecutor who had clerked for Antonin Scalia, a number of conservative judicial societies. This is the letter, and there are five other prosecutors that have also resigned from the DOJ because of this order to dismiss the Adams case.
Sassoon, in her letter, accuses the Trump Justice Department and Mayor Adams' legal team of taking part in a quid pro quo. And here's what she says happened. She says: I attended a meeting on January 31st, 2025 with Mr. Bove,
Adams's counsel, and members of my office. Adams's attorneys repeatedly urged what amounted to a quid pro quo, indicating that Adams would be in a position to assist with the department's enforcement priorities only if the indictment were dismissed. Mr. Bove admonished a member of my team who took notes during the meeting and directed the collection of the notes at the meetings conclusion.
I mean, that's pretty right there. I mean, you're telling lawyers they can't take notes. That's what they do. And then taking them, seizing them.
Well, Sassoon doesn't stop there, when she's telling what happened, she reveals a stunning new allegation against Mayor Adams, writing, quote, we have a proposed superseding indictment, meaning one that's even bigger with more charges than the one already out there. That would add an obstruction conspiracy count based on evidence that Adams destroyed and instructed others to destroy evidence and provide false information to the FBI, and that would add further factual allegations regarding his participation in a fraudulent straw donor scheme.
So then the acting attorney general, Emil Bove, responded to Sassoon with sharp words of his own. I mean, and this is this is nasty. First, your resignation is accepted. You lost sight of the oath that you took when you started the Department of Justice.
And goes on from Emil Bove, it's incredibly aggressive response there as well from him in this letter, his letter coming out at about eight pages as well.
And then continuing as this goes back and forth, I want to emphasize that Sassoon is a conservative prosecutor. She is known as that. She was named by President Trump to be the acting head of the SDNY last month, right? She was just sworn in, named by Trump.
She is a member of the conservative Federalist Society. She once clerked for the Supreme Court justice, as I mentioned, Antonin Scalia.
This is not some diehard liberal trying to masquerade as an activist, as some in the Trump administration may like to say.
Evan Perez is OUTFRONT.
So, Evan, you know, this is a stunning letter and a stunning response by the DOJ to see things like this and these allegations that are laid out. What exactly stands out most here in this back and forth?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, this is an extraordinary set of letters. And really, it's a spiraling crisis, as you pointed out, Erin.
We've now know of at least six people who have resigned their positions, and we're told of additional pending resignations that are possible because Emil Bove now wants to find someone, someone to put their name on a document to dismiss this case before a judge.
[19:05:06]
And then that's, of course, assuming that a judge will even accept this motion at this point, given the fact of what has now transpired. One of the things that does stand out to me in all of this is that the argument from Emil Bove is -- centers around a couple of things, right?
One of them is that Eric Adams is busy. He's the mayor of New York City. And so, how dare you bring a prosecution against the mayor of New York City? Because, you know, he's a busy guy.
And that's really extraordinary because we've never heard that before. This is an argument, of course, Bove made as part of the Trump legal team because president of the United States is a busy person, right? He's a person who runs the country. And so there is some constitutional protection, but we've never heard it applied by the Justice Department with regard to a mayor of New York City.
And so one of the things in her response, Sassoon says, Adams has argued in substance. And Mr. Beauvais appears to concede that Adams should receive leniency for the federal crimes solely because he occupies an important public position. It essentially means that you cannot pursue public corruption against a mayor or anybody else because they have an important job.
That's an incredible thing to have the Justice Department decide. And, you know, in addition to the Sassoon resignation, we also know that Bove went to the Justice Department headquarters at the public integrity division and wanted them to sign it, and they refused.
So, Kevin Driscoll, who is the top career lawyer in the criminal division overseeing this issue, he resigned. And then John Keller also tendered his resignation because he runs the public integrity section. So, Erin, at this hour, we don't know who is going to end up signing this letter.
By the way, one of the interesting things about this is that Bove, from our understanding, is perfectly capable to sign this dismissal himself and submit it to the court. And, you know, then we'll see where it goes from there.
BURNETT: Wow. All right, Evan, thank you very much.
And everyone's here with me now. People who work in the southern district of New York know this.
Ryan, can we just take a step back? And, I mean, have you ever seen anything like this? These dueling letters, this, you know, excruciating detail from -- from Danielle Sassoon with incredible, you know, a conservative resume saying, no way. I'm not doing it.
RYAN GOODMAN, JUST SECURITY CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Nothing like it except for the midnight massacre with Nixon, in which he had to go through multiple people to try to fire the special counsel. So there's some echoes of the worst chapter in American history -- in recent American history with respect to the justice department. And it's incredible. It's here in writing, and I'm sure that federal judges across the country are reading these letters and are deeply disturbed about what's happening at the highest levels of the justice department, because it seems so corrupt.
BURNETT: I mean, it seems that way. Harry, I want to get into the details of what is being said here, right. So you're -- basically, she's saying I have a black and white case. I stand by it. Yeah. You Emil Bove and the DOJ have not told me that there's anything wrong with my case. You're not disputing any of the facts.
HARRY SANDICK, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Yeah.
BURNETT: You're saying you want me to get rid of it? I'm not going to do that because it's the wrong thing to do. And that I mean that -- and saying the notes getting taken away.
SANDICK: Yeah. It's a -- it's a -- it's an amazing letter and it's a letter that actually, in my mind summons back to the first part of being an assistant U.S. attorney is interviewing for the job. And in that interview process, you are asked specific ethical, hypothetical questions about something that the U.S. attorney talked about -- the duty of candor, being honest with the court. And she said, I can't go into the court and tell Judge Ho, excuse me, tell Judge Ho the things that you would like me to tell him.
That would be unethical. It would be inconsistent with my obligations as a prosecutor. And so, that is your first test. Even before you start work, to pass that test of being an ethical prosecutor who will not lie to the court, and she's going back and invoking that obligation in this letter.
It's -- I think, her -- the U.S. attorneys office staff, although they must be in a state of shock. I think they all applaud the integrity and courage that she showed to stand behind this case and not fall for what was being pushed on her.
BURNETT: Lulu, this is not how Emil Bove, DOJ, Trump, anyone expected this to go, right? They expected that this would be dismissed. Maybe -- maybe there would be a little bit of kerfuffle, but it would be dismissed. And then, you know, I mean, Brad Homan, who is running border, obviously met with Eric Adams today and said, I want more enforcement.
All those other parts of it were playing out today, and now this whole thing has it is unexpected for them.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: It's unexpected. I mean, obviously, they had put her in that position and she is a conservative, as you mentioned, a staunch conservative. And so they thought they had someone who was going to fulfill what they wanted.
But the wider context here is why is this happening? What is the purpose of this?
[19:10:00] And what we have seen is a Department of Justice that is being weaponized to reward people that will do what Donald Trump wants, in this case, enforcement in New York City, and to punish people that don't do what Donald Trump wants.
And that is incredibly dangerous, because, of course, that is not the way the system has worked in this country. The way the system works in this country is that if you commit a crime, there is a legal process or you are suspected of committing a crime, there is a legal process that unfolds. And so what these what is being stood for here is really the rule of law in the United States.
BURNETT: So, Ryan, what happens here? And it's important, as Harry was saying, you know, as Evan was reporting. I'm sorry. Bove could sign the letter himself and give it to the judge, and maybe he'll do that.
I mean, how does this play out? Do you think somebody is going to actually sign this at this point that that will, you know, be the person in the Nixon who signs it? Or does Bove do it himself? And then does the judge take it? I mean, could this escalate?
GOODMAN: I think it can easily escalate. And the person who walks in signing it maybe risks their bar license because it's that unethical, what's happening here. And so in her letter, in fact forecasts what's going to happen next. She says there are instances in which courts have rejected the dismissal of the case.
And she gives examples of bribery as one of the examples. She's kind of saying this is bribery. She also says it's a quid pro quo. It's a definite quid pro quo between, as far as she's saying it, between Adams and Bove, that he, Adams, will go in the direction they want him to go in immigration in order to drop the case. That's the quid pro quo.
The judge knows that. Now, the judge will know that from Sassoon letter and the rest of it, and even Bove's own letter first said it, and then the judge will have a hearing in all likelihood. So there's going to be a hearing.
There's also this other mechanism that a judge could do besides sanctioning people, which is actually a point that were in prosecutors. It's gone to the Supreme Court before the Supreme Court didn't take the case, and there were two judges that dissented. But that's a possibility as well, where the judge says, Judge Ho says, I'm going to actually appoint different prosecutors to continue the case because I can't trust this.
BURNETT: I mean, Harry, the one thing about this, whatever, you know, again, sometimes I take a step back, obviously not being a lawyer, it is pretty clear that if a DOJ of a president comes in and says, dismiss all this stuff against Adams. And by the way, there's all these things we need, you need done, were not putting them in the same sentence, but and then meets with them.
I mean, it's pretty obvious what this is to anybody if you presented it and took all the names out, everybody would say you took this case away. So this person would do what you wanted them to do. Is that meet a legal standard of that?
SANDICK: It does. It absolutely does. And I think the back and forth on the subject of the oath is really telling, because, of course, you do take an oath as an assistant U.S. attorney, but the oath is not to the president or to the attorney.
BURNETT: And Bove saying that she's violating her oath.
SANDICK: Yeah. The oath is to the Constitution and to the ethical rules of practice and to the rules of the Department of Justice, which very clearly say you may not consider political things when deciding whether to charge a case. You look at the evidence, you look at the equities. You might consider fairness.
But you certainly would not say, well, this person might do something that's helpful to the executive branch. Let's not charge them. And there's also this interesting back and forth about the release of a Russian arms dealer and made it be time to go into it, but the U.S. attorney totally wins that debate.
What happened there was a quid pro quo, and Bove, of course, denies that its a quid pro quo. But the release of a Russian arms dealer provides no support for what the executive branch is trying to do to the U.S. attorney's office.
BURNETT: So -- so, Lulu, "The New York Times" is reporting now that Adams and the Trump administration border czar, as I mentioned, Tom Homan, they're going to hold a joint interview on Friday on "Fox and Friends" and -- joint, right? I mean, that is that is obviously a statement in and of itself, right, that Homan and Adams are going to be together when it comes to obviously, immigration enforcement in the biggest city in America, which has been the heart of all of this.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, we should first say that Mayor Adams was a pretty vocal critic of former President Biden's immigration policies. Immigration was something that really hurt the city of New York. There was a massive influx.
So that is also a context within which this sits, which is this doesn't come out of nowhere. But ultimately, you know, this is the mayor of the biggest city in the United States who is under indictment. And somehow what we are seeing here is that these the suggestion is that these that the case should be dismissed against him. And suddenly he's on "Fox & Friends" talking about immigration enforcement.
I mean, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to put two and two together. And so, I think at this point, its incredibly suspect. And it really just calls into question what this DOJ is going to be doing going forward. And also what position this leaves Mayor Adams in, because frankly, there's a lot of questions right now about his political viability, if indeed this goes through.
BURNETT: Yeah, I mean, this is going to be an absolutely incredible thing to see. And with everything else going on in the daily swarm of this administration, as you know, to cover it, this is -- this is something that makes you pause.
Thank you all three very much. I appreciate it.
And OUTFRONT next, Elon Musk's high profile meeting today, sitting down with India's prime minister, Trump says he's not really sure what they talked about.
Plus, breaking news, 14 states filing a new lawsuit against Musk and DOGE, one of the attorneys general leading that suit, will be here to tell us about it. Explain why, she says, and believe she can make the case that Elon Musk's actions are illegal.
Also, breaking Trump, taking Putin's side, blaming the war in Ukraine on Biden.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I believe that's the reason the war started, because Biden went out and said that they could join NATO.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:20:24]
BURNETT: All right. The breaking news, Musk meets Modi. Today, for Musk, it was a family affair. The billionaire brought along three of his kids this time, along with the tech executive, who is the mother of two of them. The reason is a meeting at the White House with India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Elon Musk met with Prime Minister Modi earlier today. Did he do so as an American CEO, or did he do so as a representative of the U.S. government?
TRUMP: Are you talking about me?
REPORTER: No. Elon Musk?
TRUMP: Elon -- I don't know. He -- they met and I assume he wants to do business in India. I would imagine he met, possibly because, you know, he's running a company.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Okay, here's the thing about what Trump just said. He said -- he said it. He said I assume he wants to do business in India. He is a CEO of a company. That's it. He said it.
This is a country, of course, where Musk has reportedly been debating a $2 billion to $3 billion Tesla factory. He's been frustrated with some Starlink issues there. He's been trying to get Modi to move on that. He's been trying to get them to get rid of tariffs on Teslas so that you can import EVs, too.
There's growing speculation about SpaceX joining forces with the Indian space research organization. It's a huge market for Musk, and there have been challenges there.
So, you know, to get the one on one with Modi because you're the right hand man to the president of the United States, it matters. And it doesn't end there.
Last night, Musk was the main event during a world government summit in Dubai. Musk appearing on the big screen to announce a new underground tunnel system there. Who is building that tunnel system? Musk. Musk is building it. His boring company is winning that contract.
And Musk is both building his business empire and using this unprecedented power at the top of the American government to weigh in on government and foreign policy around the world.
I mean, here's just a brief example of what he said about the war in Ukraine.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, TECH BILLIONAIRE: There is no way in hell that Putin is going to lose. If he were to back off, he would be assassinated.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BURNETT: There's a lot more where that came from on his post and other conversations. And this weighing in on foreign policy is something that world leaders are noticing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OLAF SCHOLZ, GERMAN CHANCELLOR: What is new is that he is intervening in favor of right wing politicians all over Europe. And this is really disgusting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: That's chancellor of Germany.
Everyone is here with me now.
So, Paul, let me just start with you, Paul Begala. So, today, you have that image of Musk meeting with Indian Prime Minister Modi. And obviously, you know, you've got -- his parts of his family there. So there's that sort of incongruous thing in a meeting like this.
Do you take issue, Paul, with Musk having a meeting like this with Modi and other world leaders as he is doing his DOGE business, and obviously all of his other businesses? PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Oh, it's open conflict of
interest. President Trump, God bless him. Sometimes he says the quiet part out loud.
Musk is not merely a CEO. He is also an SGE, a special government employee. That means even though he's not paid by the government, he is obligated to abide by the ethics laws of the government. It means he works for you and me and for my mama.
And so he's prohibited from using that governmental power to advance his business interests. We don't know if he's doing it, though, because he won't release his financial disclosure, which should be made public if you ask me.
BURNETT: Right.
BEGALA: He's certainly not going to release a transcript of the meeting that he had there. So this is just rife with -- this is government of the billionaires, by the billionaires and for the billionaires, Mr. Musk gets richer. And by the way, he's trying to cut farmers and teachers and special needs kids.
So this is, I guess, apparently, what President Trump wants. He seemed very satisfied with it, even though he admitted.
BURNETT: He did. He did. He did say the quiet part out loud. I mean, there wasn't any confusion there by Trump.
Shermichael, can I just ask you, though, because here's the thing. It's not that Musk needs to say a single thing to Modi about I want this or do that. He's in the White House. He's in the Oval Office. He is the right hand of the president of the United States. He doesn't need to say a single thing to get benefits for his business.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, look, it makes perfect sense. Musk has argued for quite some time now that he wants to break entry into India with Starlink, and India is also interested in partnering with Musk because of the Falcon 9 rocket technology, as they're interested in expanding their own space exploration program.
So look, it makes perfect sense in the world. The guy happens to be one of the most innovative thinkers, I would argue, of our century.
[19:25:01]
And he's an American. So why not have an American CEO and business leader going around the world having partnerships with various sectors in other countries that we do consider to be adversaries and helping them build up various programs that could be beneficial to the U.S. long term? I think it's a good thing.
BURNETT: Paul, I mean, is it a good thing? I mean, you know, there is, of course, the fact that he was chosen -- I mean, there's nothing obviously, Democratic about his election, but Shermichael is correct. He is there. He is an innovative person who is incredibly successful. BEGALA: You can't wear two hats at once. I mean, you know, why don't
we make Nick Sirianni, the coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, also the referee of the Super Bowl, because that would be a conflict of interest, because you can't be a good coach for the Eagles and a fair referee.
Mr. Musk is a special government employee.
By the way, we have laws on this. We've had them for decades. He's not allowed to do that. Who is supposed to blow the whistle? This office called the Office of Government Ethics, which is the ethics czar, the ethics cop in the White House.
Mr. Trump fired that ethics cop. We don't know why, by the way. He also fired inspectors general from the Pentagon, the State Department, HUD, all of the government.
BURNETT: Sixteen of them.
BEGALA: Every ethics cop that you can find, in fact, you've already covered the U.S. -- acting U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. Every ethics cop you can find.
It's like -- and by the way, Mr. Trump himself is a convicted felon convicted of fraud. So it's like, what if he made a bank robber president and then he fired all the bank guards? Maybe they wouldn't rob the bank, but golly, I'd be really, really worried.
SINGLETON: But, Erin, Erin, I remember once upon a time, you know, Paul, my Democratic friends would always say when we would have these discussions on air -- well, we can chew gum and walk at the same time. I remember that quite frequently. Elon Musk and Modi just announced today that India is interested in having some partnerships with the U.S. in terms of artificial intelligence. Elon Musk, again, another innovator in that sector.
Why not have one of the most successful individuals in the world who happens to be an American, are part of those discussions? Paul, I think it just makes sense in terms of U.S. interest.
BURNETT: So, I want, I want, I want to ask Katie something specific about this, but I would just say there is a model out there just to put it out there, right? The treasury secretary is worth a quarter billion dollars, and he filed 21 pages of, of documents, and he went through a confirmation process, and then he divested from all sorts of things, right?
You can't be a CEO and be the treasury secretary. There are questions here. And, Katie, it does beg the question with all the reporting that you've been doing at wired, how blurred is the line right now between Musk -- you know, Tesla CEO, SpaceX founder, Boring Company and Musk sleeping on the floor in Washington running DOGE?
KATIE DRUMMOND, GLOBAL EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, WIRED: I can't find the line. I mean, there is no line at this point. I mean, I think the president himself just made that crystal clear to everybody. I -- I don't know in what capacity Elon Musk met with India's prime minister today. Neither does the president of the United States.
BURNETT: He said, literally, I don't know what they talked about. I presume he wants to do business in India.
DRUMMOND: No, I mean, I think what we are seeing is, is the beginning of a series of extremely high profile global conflicts of interest playing out for as long as Elon Musk is in the White House.
BURNETT: And in terms of, you know, we hear he's only allowed to work as a special government employee. And SGE is -- Paul, I like how you put it. He's only allowed to work 130 days.
DRUMMOND: Well --
BURNETT: I mean --
DRUMMOND: What's allowed anymore?
BURNETT: It's going to count. It's going to count.
DRUMMOND: It's very difficult to tell sort of where the accountability lies, even with regards to that. I don't think that we can sort of assume that that is in fact what will happen.
BURNETT: So, Paul, you know, Trump has asked specifically then -- so he said the quiet part out loud about India, right? We all know what the reality is. But he actually said it. Then he was asked if Musk is going to get new government contracts because he already has tens of billions of government contracts while he's working at DOGE. And Trump said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If there's no conflict, I guess, what difference does it make? But we won't let him do any of anything having to do with the conflict.
REPORTER: Are you personally checking to make sure there's no conflicts of interest?
TRUMP: Yeah, I am. I am.
REPORTER: That's -- he answers to you?
TRUMP: Sure, he does. First of all, he wouldn't do it. And second of all, we're not going to let him do anything when there's a conflict of interest.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Paul, even though, you know, I'm not trying to lay it on too thick. I'm just saying, you know, he didn't know what happened. He said in the meeting with Modi today. So it's not as if he's necessarily I'm not saying they did a deal that that -- that would be ridiculous. But you get my point, right? You don't know if there's a conflict of interest unless you're looking for one. Is what he said good for you?
BEGALA: No, no, we had past tense in ethics cop who's supposed to be checking. It's really not President Trump's job --
BURNETT: No.
BEGALA: -- to check even the most important special government employee. Honestly, I'm not a big Trump fan. It's not his job --
BURNETT: No.
BEGALA: -- to comb through Mr. Musk's financial disclosures and find the conflicts. And that's why we have an Office of Government Ethics. Why did Mr. Trump fire that guy?
And by the way, according to reporting, I saw the chief of staff was then supposed to step up and take it. And Mr. Trump said no. The interim ethics czar is Doug Collins, a former Georgia congressman who's now our V.A. secretary.
[19:30:03]
Well, Secretary Collins has 16.2 million veterans he's supposed to be cared for. He's got 450,000 employees, a multi-billion dollar budget. He doesn't have the bandwidth or the expertise or the time to police the ethics either.
So it's -- there's no good answer as to why this President Trump would fire the top ethics cops and then let Mr. Musk, who's replete with potential conflicts of interest, run wild.
BURNETT: And with I.G.s gone, ethics gone, I mean, Katie, the people looking at this are people like you, right? So you're looking at how is all this operating? You've looked at the new DOGE website.
DRUMMOND: We have, yes.
BURNETT: And that -- that is really fast. This is a website. They say go to our website, it's all there.
DRUMMOND: So while we're talking about conflicts of interest. Exactly.
So we took a good look at DOGE.gov, which is the new website for Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency. The website itself is essentially a long feed of posts from the DOGE X account. X, of course, being owned by Elon Musk.
BURNETT: Right.
DRUMMOND: Not only that, we looked at the source code for the page, and we found that it actually directs search engines to prioritize X, meaning if someone searches for something about DOGE, the search engine is being told to prioritize linking that person to X as opposed to DOGE.gov. Essentially, they are doing everything they can to push users to Elon
Musk's platform, which is a for profit business, advertising based in terms of revenue, they are directing users there as opposed to directing them to the government's own website.
BURNETT: Which, by the way, I'm just looking at the mobile site. It says official website, the United States government. And then right below it, the big white bar is a follow on X.
Just -- just to give you a chance here to say one more thing, though. This is also when you go to X, X obviously does have many political points of view.
DRUMMOND: Sure.
BURNETT: It does, but it has a very strong MAGA faction there as well.
DRUMMOND: Absolutely.
BURNETT: And if they're directing people in there into the DOGE world. They would ostensibly be the possibility that you're going to hear more of that echo chamber --
DRUMMOND: Funneling them into that ecosystem, exactly.
BURNETT: -- than just what a government website would have.
DRUMMOND: And an ecosystem where Elon Musk's posts are boosted, which we know is something that he has done on the platform as well.
BURNETT: Yes, absolutely.
All right. Well, thank you all very much. I appreciate it.
And next, breaking news, 14 states tonight suing Musk and DOGE calling what they're doing to the federal government unconstitutional. One of the A.G.s leading this suit is my guest.
And a showdown tonight between McConnell and Trump. The senator, the lone Republican vote against RFK, Jr. Tonight, Trump hitting back in a personal way.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:37:03]
BURNETT: Breaking news. A group of 14 states tonight just filing a new lawsuit against DOGE, arguing that Elon Musk's ascent to power in the Trump White House is unconstitutional. And there are lawsuits, says crucial line here, Musk's seemingly limitless and unchecked power to strip the government of its workforce and eliminate entire departments with the stroke of a pen or click of a mouse, would have been shocking to those who won this country's independence.
OUTFRONT now, the Michigan attorney general, Dana Nessel, one of the Democratic leaders bringing this lawsuit against Musk.
And I really appreciate it, Attorney General.
So can you explain just simply why you think Musk's role is illegal?
DANA NESSEL (D), MICHIGAN ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, it's a clear violation of the appointments clause, right? You know, the United States Constitution, it grants the president of the United States the ability, with advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint cabinet secretaries and directors over particular agencies.
But Elon Musk, in DOGE, which falls within the branch of the Office of Management and Budget, he doesn't have the power to be marauding through all of these various different departments and agencies of government. He was never, you know, confirmed by the Senate. He's got no security clearance.
He didn't do a financial disclosure report. They haven't vetted him for conflicts of interest. All the things that would be traditionally done, they haven't done. He doesn't have the power to do this. And even one department, let alone the 18 or 19 or 20 departments that he's now visited, mined all the data, gotten everybody's personal information, state secrets, and God knows what he's doing with it all.
It's illegal. It's unconstitutional. And we're asking the court of law for it to end immediately.
BURNETT: So the White House has said, as you know, they've classified him as a special government employee. So, as you know, attorney general, that means he doesn't get paid. He's only allowed to work 130 days or fewer in a year. Although obviously, you know, he's been posting pictures of himself sleeping on the floor and he would exceed that count the way he's going pretty quickly.
But the reality of it is when it comes to that designation, a special government employee. All presidents have had them, Democrat and Republican. It's a bipartisan thing. Do you -- do you think that legally this is different?
NESSEL: It's very different. We've never had a special employee of the president behave as basically a super cabinet secretary who has authority over every single agency in federal government. We've never seen that before. And it's not illegal.
And again, even if he did this in one department without the advice and consent of the Senate, it would be illegal. But he's doing it in all of the departments.
BURNETT: So speaking of all the departments, he says he wants to get a lot more than he already has, right? Many, many, okay?
[19:40:01]
So we've got USAID. And you know, technically, I know going through a 90-day review. But that's gone. And there's going to be more.
Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUSK: If you don't remove the roots of the weed, then it's easy for the weed to grow back. But if you remove the roots of the weed, it doesn't stop weeds from ever growing back. But it makes it harder.
So, so we have to really delete entire agencies, many of them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Delete entire agencies and, Attorney General, the reason that I mentioned USAID is, you know, speaking to someone today who's involved with that, you know, the feeling is that 90-day reprieve. It doesn't mean anything. It's going to be gone anyway.
The names been ripped off the wall. People have been sent home. And it just begs the question of whether you think that what's already in motion here can be stopped.
NESSEL: Well, a court can stop it, and a court can stop it right away. I mean, first of all, no, no cabinet secretary or director has the ability to just wholesale eliminate a congressionally created agency. It was created through an act of Congress. It can only be eliminated through an act of Congress.
And he has never been elected to Congress, let alone anything at all, right? He is an unelected billionaire, who is acting really like a king. So what I would say is, you know, were hopeful that a -- that a court in the District of Columbia will recognize, you know, the grave threat that he poses to our government.
And we're -- we're asking the court to immediately, you know, restrain Elon Musk from these activities and to make sure that he discontinues ordering employees to do all of the many things that we know he's been doing, right, firing workers, canceling government contracts, selling government property, and again, eliminating wholesale, you know, departments of government, to tell us -- to tell the court exactly what actions he's taken and to make sure that he is returning or deleting all of the sensitive data that he has now collected, which, you know, again, could put us in incredible jeopardy globally.
You know, we heard that he's been meeting routinely with Vladimir Putin, and he's going into the Department of Defense, and he's mining data there. I mean, this is an incredibly serious moment in American history.
BURNETT: All right. Well, Attorney General Dana Nessel, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
NESSEL: Thanks for having me.
BURNETT: All right. And next, the breaking news, Trump backs Putin. The president blaming the U.S. for the war in Ukraine and refusing to say if Russia will have to give back the land it seized from Ukraine. Plus, Mitch McConnell breaking with Trump and very consistently now
voting no on RFK Jr., the only Republican to do so. And Trump is hitting back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Votes against almost everything now. He's a, you know, very bitter guy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:47:25]
BURNETT: Breaking news, President Trump just moments ago sounding a lot like Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Now. Russia has taken over a pretty big chunk of territory, and they also have said from day one, long before President Putin, they've said they cannot have Ukraine be in NATO. They said that very strongly. I actually think that that was the thing that caused the start of the war. And Biden said it and Zelenskyy said it. And I think that was one of the reasons, one of the starts of the war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Of course, the war started because Putin invaded Ukraine. And, you know, you may remember the documents he handed out to all of his troops talking about how Ukraine is part of Russia. All of that was Putin and his decision to start this war.
I want to go straight to Jeff Zeleny at the White House.
Jeff, these comments that Trump is making are the exact arguments that Putin and his, you know, Kremlin consistently makes.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Erin, there's no doubt about it. I mean, as we stand here tonight with that news conference in the East Room of the White House just a short time ago, it was clear that the president, President Trump once again did not say the simple fact that Russia started the war. Yet he does say there are going to be negotiations to end the war.
So that begs the question, how do those negotiations proceed if there is no agreement, at least from the U.S. and Russia's point of view, who started the war? But in any case, there are going to be conversations tomorrow in Munich.
But central to all of this is how the U.S. government, the Trump administration, is now viewing Vladimir Putin and the president was asked directly tonight what concessions would Russia have to make to go forward here to end the war? And President Trump did not have anything specifically to say on this. He launched into how the Bush administration, the Obama administration, the Biden administration all presided over wars and Ukraine losing territory, but never once saying that Putin caused this war, Erin.
So as these conversations go on, the relationship is reset. It's clear, at least at this point, which side the Trump administration and indeed the president seems to favor.
BURNETT: Yes, certainly very clear at this point.
Jeff Zeleny, thank you so much.
It does come as the Russians are celebrating what President Trump is saying.
Fred Pleitgen is OUTFRONT with this report from Moscow.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): The Kremlin controlled TV, jovial, even the anchor surprised by the concessions President Donald Trump offered Russian President Vladimir Putin in their 90-minute phone conversation.
[19:50:l0]
An extensive talk about ending the war in Ukraine, while seemingly sidelining Ukraine's leader.
Not a word about Zelenskyy, the host says. Or rather, if there were words, they were only negative ones. Ukraine will not get back its territories. Ukraine will not join NATO.
TRUMP: And I think they have to make peace. That's what I think.
PLEITGEN: Moscow more than willing to take up President Trump's offer for immediate peace talks to end the three-year war.
Russia saying it's already starting preparations for possible direct meetings between the U.S. president and the Russian leader, the first time in four years, the leaders of the U.S. and Russia would meet face to face.
The current administration, as far as we understand, holds the view that everything must be done to stop the war and for peace to prevail, the Kremlin's press secretary says. We are much more impressed by the position of the current administration, and we're open to dialogue.
No dialogue, apparently, without Kyiv at the table. Ukraine's president, growing increasingly frustrated and concerned.
It's important that everything does not go according to Putin's plan, Zelenskyy says. He wants to do everything to make his negotiations bilateral.
But many Ukrainians fear that's exactly what's happening, feeling President Trump is selling them out. TRUMP: President Putin wants to have peace now, and that's good. And
he didn't want to have peace with Biden.
REPORTER: Was that conversation with --
TRUMP: And you tell me why that is, okay?
PLEITGEN: Trump's plan is to rob Ukraine as much as possible, this woman in Kyiv says, not to make peace here.
It looks like Ukraine is being betrayed, this woman says. In what is being said now, I do not see anything good for Ukraine. It's very sad.
Ukraine's army is steadily losing ground to the Russians, mostly due to manpower and weapons shortages. Russian forces already occupy more than 20 percent of the country territory. The new U.S. defense secretary bluntly says Kyiv most probably won't get back, much to the dismay of Americas close NATO partners and the Ukrainians.
PETE HEGSETH, U.S. SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: There is no betrayal there. There is a recognition that the whole world and the United States is invested and interested in peace.
PLEITGEN: America's allies in shock, Moscow pleased. Russia's foreign minister praising President Trump when I asked him at a press conference.
Are you more hopeful now that there can be real and fundamental change and improvement in U.S.-Russian relations?
This is how you should communicate with Russia, he says. Perhaps that is why many in the West, including the leaders of the European Union, were shocked when a simple, normal conversation took place between two polite, educated individuals.
Fred Pleitgen, CNN, Moscow.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BURNETT: Next, Mitch McConnell versus Donald Trump. The former leader alone, no Republican vote against RFK, Jr.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:57:31]
BURNETT: Tonight, Trump takes on Mitch McConnell after McConnell voted against RFK Jr. to be the nation's health chief. McConnell is a polio survivor, and he objected to Kennedy in large part because of his well-documented vaccine -- vaccine skepticism. And Trump is now hitting back. And it's personal, raising questions about whether McConnell had polio.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: He's not voting against Bobby. He's voting against me. But that's all right.
He votes against almost everything now. He's a, you know, very bitter guy.
I don't know anything about he had polio. He had polio. Yeah.
REPORTER: Are you doubting that he had polio?
TRUMP: I have no idea if he had polio.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Of course, he would have been aware of that.
Harry Enten here to tell us something we don't know.
So, Harry, McConnell's vote against Kennedy is the third one.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Yeah.
BURNETT: Third one against a nominee in this term. Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard are the other two. This is a dramatic shift for McConnell.
ENTEN: Yeah. I'll tell you something you don't know, which is in the first time around, you know how many nominees for cabinet Trump voted against? Zero. He voted against zero nominees.
BURNETT: McConnell.
ENTEN: McConnell, exactly right. Zero nominees versus the three this time around. And of course, I think a lot of Democrats are wondering that second number in your screen impeachment convictions. McConnell had a chance to get rid of Donald Trump. He didn't do it when he was the Senate majority leader. Now that there, he doesn't really have much power beyond just the single vote, he is now all of a sudden turned against Donald Trump. I think a lot of Democrats are saying a little too much, a little too late.
BURNETT: So -- so, McConnell railed against Trump in the aftermath of January 6th, right, which is why that vote, you know, he could have gone the other way on that impeachment vote, would have changed the course of history.
ENTEN: Yes.
BURNETT: Would have changed the course of history that vote. And here's what he said after Trump was acquitted in the second impeachment trial, he after he voted to acquit, said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Well, maybe now he's trying to make up for the fact that he didn't vote that way. He did not vote his conscience. But the 17 Republicans who did what happened to them?
ENTEN: Twelve went, adios, amigos, sayonara. The majority of them, there are just five remaining still in Congress. I think Mitch McConnell, you might make the argument, well, he wanted to stay in power.
But you know what the bottom line is? He's going to be retiring anyway. And he last ran for reelection back in 2020. So he really had nothing to lose.
BURNETT: So how will history remember him?
ENTEN: I mean, look, we don't know how history will necessarily remember him, but his popularity right now. Take a look at the net approval ratings. Look at this, minus 39 points. I lined up a slew of different politicians nationwide. Mitch McConnell is by far the least popular. And look at Donald Trump all the way on the other side of that ledger at plus three. Donald Trump, a lot more liked by the American public than Mitch McConnell is.
BURNETT: All right. Harry Enten, thank you very much.
ENTEN: Thank you.
BURNETT: And thanks, as always to all of you.
"AC360" with Anderson starts now.
