Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
Trump, Allies Try To Blame Journalist For War Plans Blunder; Major Supreme Court Race Draws In Trump, Musk, Obama; Stunning Details On Pope's Health. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired March 25, 2025 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:23]
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, there's more to come. Those are the words from the reporter who scoop about a Trump group chat has rocked the administration and the world. A Republican senator who warned something this dumb can't happen again is OUTFRONT tonight.
Plus, what do Obama, Trump, and Musk all have in common? Well, plus, what do Obama, Trump and Musk all have in common? Well, they are playing a major role tonight in a crucial upcoming election for a judge that could tell us everything about where America is headed.
And new details tonight about how close to death the pope really was. His doctors faced a decision about whether to, quote, let him go. Incredible new reporting tonight.
Let's go OUTFRONT.
And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.
OUTFRONT tonight, we begin with the breaking news: There's more. "The Atlantic's" Jeffrey Goldberg says there are more personal messages and details from that encrypted group chat where Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth shared war plans, targets and weapons ahead of a missile strike.
Now that reporting could come at any moment, right? We know there's more and more messages, more details. But as we are waiting for that, Trump's national security team is scrambling to blame others for what happened. Trump himself is actually still blaming the reporter whom his team added to the group.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Happened to know, the guy is a total sleazebag. "The Atlantic" -- "The Atlantic" is a failed magazine, does very, very poorly. The person that was on just happens to be a sleazebag.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Well, the tone is set at the top.
Here's Trump's national security advisor, Mike Waltz. The person whose account invited Goldberg to the secure group chat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE WALTZ, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: There's a lot of journalists in this city who have made big names for themselves, making up lies about this president, whether it's the Russia hoax or making up lies about Gold Star families and this one in particular, I've never met, don't know, never communicated with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Of course, to add someone to a chat, they're either already in your contacts because you enter their name and it pops up, in which case it does imply you've communicated with them, or you enter their specific number, which means you have their number, which also obviously increases the odds that you may have communicated with them.
But frankly, for a former congressman to know the Washington correspondent for "The Atlantic" really wouldn't be all that odd if it is indeed the case. But what is odd is that the people who brought the reporter into this encrypted chat about a U.S. missile strike with war plans are blaming him. They're blaming the guy they brought in to their chat.
So, here's the person who sent those detailed strike plans, the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: This is the guy that peddles in garbage. This is what he does.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Of course, in this case, the garbage he's talking about are his own messages.
Look, this one is obviously not hard. It is not political. It's an unacceptable thing that happened. Thats a fact.
An undercover CIA spy was in that chat. Now, "The Atlantic" knows who that person is and who knows who else and Trump's Ukraine and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, he was in a meeting with Vladimir Putin in Moscow the day the chat group was created. And guess what? He was in the group chat.
So he's in a room with Putin, and meanwhile, wherever his phone is, it's lighting up with war plans and details about missile strikes with the entire United States national security team in a chat. Thats unacceptable.
It was also sloppy, lazy and arrogant. Time will tell what the best adjectives may be, and tonight, some in Trump's inner circle seem to know it, and they are blaming each other. Here's Trump's national director of intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, pointing the finger at Hegseth for sharing the classified information. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JACK REED (D-RI): The question has to be posed to Secretary Hegseth whether he declassified the information and at what point he did declassify? Do you agree?
TULSI GABBARD, DNI: Yes. I defer questions to the secretary of defense.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And Gabbard then tried to distance herself from the group chat altogether.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Director Gabbard, did you participate in the group chat with secretary of defense and other Trump senior officials discussing the Yemen war plans?
GABBARD: Senator, I don't want to get into the specifics and deep --
WARNER: Ma'am, did you -- were you on -- you're not going to be willing to address.
GABBARD: -- conversations --
WARNER: So, you're not -- are you denying that, were you answering my question, ma'am? You were not TG on this group chat.
GABBARD: I'm not going to get into the specifics.
WARNER: So, you --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: According to Goldberg, the account linked to TG, to Gabbard wrote, quote, great work and effects, after those strikes in Yemen.
Of course, Trump himself called the incident today a, quote glitch. In addition to repeatedly calling the reporter a sleazebag, proving that indeed, the tone is set at the top,
Jeff Zeleny is OUTFRONT live outside the White House, beginning our coverage tonight.
[19:05:00]
And, Jeff, as we're waiting what -- the more additional reporting that we know is coming from Jeffrey Goldberg, does the Trump administration believe that that this is over, that they've contained the fallout?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Erin, it's unclear if they believe it's over, but they do believe that they have circled the wagons, at least for allies of this administration. Republicans and, you know, on Capitol Hill. And that is what matters in their view.
But it was an extraordinary day here. What started with a fever pitch, conversations among advisers and aides uncertain about the fate of Mike Waltz, ended this afternoon with Mike Waltz sitting just a few feet away from the president, literally at his table in the cabinet room. The president was sending his, you know, undeniable message of support. And by that, by doing that, it was also sending a message to Republican allies on Capitol Hill and others that they should take the president's word.
And the president said that no classified information was contained in that group conversation. When asked about that repeatedly by reporters today, he did not offer any specific evidence to back that up.
But now, as Democrats are calling for the defense secretary and others to resign, the White House believes if they can make this a political scandal as opposed to a national security scandal, that is a winning argument for them in this town. Don't forget, they do control most of the levers of government here.
But it is, of course, a far from over. But there is no doubt as we end this second day of the week here, Mike Waltz believes that he is on more solid ground, at least with the president for now. The White House says they are reviewing all of these procedures and won't likely use a Signal again.
So unclear if the fallout is totally over. But the White House believes, and Mike Waltz believes at least today, his job was saved -- Erin.
BURNETT: Jeff Zeleny, thank you very much.
I want to go OUTFRONT now to the Republican Senator Kevin Cramer, who sits on the Armed Services Committee.
Senator, I appreciate your time.
So, look, Trump is saying tonight that Goldberg is a sleazebag. And we are awaiting more reporting coming from "The Atlantic" and Mr. Goldberg. Hegseth has called him discredited and deceitful.
Are you okay with how all this is being handled?
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): Well, first of all, thanks for the opportunity to visit, Erin.
With regard to Jeffrey Goldberg, he may be all those things that the president and others are saying about him. He's certainly a liberal journalist, but that doesn't make what they've done okay. In fact, I would submit to you that in some respects, Jeffrey Goldberg holding back some information demonstrates a pretty good sense of how sensitive this material was.
On the other hand, if the president says it's not classified, it's not classified. Thats one of the first standards of whether something is classified or not. But I don't think there's any question that it was very sensitive
information that was discussed on a -- on a very public platform, not, you know, it's somewhat secure but not that secure. And it shouldn't have happened.
And my sense is it'll never happen again, which tells you that they know that they did something inappropriate.
BURNETT: All right. On this issue of classified. And, you know, and I don't want to get into a discussion about what the word is, is I know there was a back in the prior administration, Trump administration, you know, if I -- if I think that its declassified, becomes declassified.
In the group chat, Goldberg reports the messages included as you're well aware, of course, Senator, precise information about weapons packages, targets and timing.
Again, I don't want to get weighed down by the word, but the word is being used by the president to say, well, because it's not classified, don't worry about it. That's bogus, right? I mean, this is not okay.
CRAMER: It's not okay. And any member of Congress, particularly ones that are on important committees or sensitive committees like Armed Services or Intelligence or foreign relations, knows that it's not okay.
So, we know better than to do it. I communicate sensitive information on Signal. But I don't communicate super sensitive information or certainly classified information on Signal. There is a difference. It does matter. The platform actually does matter. The information matters.
And like I said, if they didn't do anything wrong, I can expect they'll do some more of it tomorrow. I suspect they will not do it ever again.
And I think for me, the best thing that they could say and that we could hear, would be -- we made a mistake. We're early in our in our new administration. It shouldn't have happened. Some of us knew better. We should have said something sooner and it'll never happen again.
And then I do think they regain the moral high ground and the -- and the issue goes away tomorrow.
BURNETT: Okay. Now there obviously are some on the Democratic side who are calling for the outright resignation or removal of Waltz and/or Hegseth. As for Trump, though, not only is he not doing that, and I understand you may not be calling for that. You're calling for an apology that they made a mistake.
So that's why I want to play for you, Senator, what the president just said about Waltz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: No, I don't think he should apologize. I think he's doing his best.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: So, Senator, what do you say to that? I mean, I assume you don't think anyone should lose their job.
[19:10:00]
But the president of United States is saying don't apologize, the very thing that you're saying they need to do to retain the moral high ground.
CRAMER: Well, whether you apologize or not, admitting that it was a mistake, I think is the -- is the minimum. And I don't think it's difficult. Quite honestly, I find it strange that that some people find it difficult. I know that we have a president who projects strength, thank goodness. In fact, this whole episode is about a projection of strength, one that we didn't have to previous to this president.
So, thank goodness he knows the Houthis are the bad guys and were attacking their installations. I even rather appreciate the transparency with which the vice president politely and respectfully disagreed with the decision, but also honored it.
So there's a lot of good in this that I think -- you know, that I prefer to focus on. But with regard to whether he apologizes, I do think you have to admit it shouldn't have happened. It was a mistake.
Somebody should have noticed on this group long before the end of the discussion, that this probably shouldn't be taking place on this platform, and I'm quite certain it won't happen again.
BURNETT: So, I just want to play for you. Mr. Waltz was just speaking in an interview just a couple of moments ago. As you and I are speaking, Senator Cramer, I just wanted to play for you something he said.
CRAMER: Okay.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: How did a Trump hating editor of "The Atlantic" end up on your Signal chat?
MIKE WALTZ, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: You know, Laura, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but of all the people out there, somehow this guy who has lied about the president, who has lied to Gold Star families, lied to their attorneys, and gone to Russia hoax, gone to just all kinds of lengths to lie and smear the president of the United States. And he's the one that somehow gets on somebody's contact and then gets sucked into this group.
(END VIDEO CLIP) BURNETT: Senator, the reason I want to play that for you is because, you know, you start to get into these things where words matter and smearing and disparaging people matters. Okay?
The account that added Jeffrey Goldberg to the group was Mike Waltz's account, right? I mean, this is -- I mean, it almost seems like we're adjudicating some sort of playground dispute, but we're not. We're talking about a missile strike, incredibly sensitive U.S. national security information. And that's the way he's talking.
CRAMER: Well, and, Erin, what we don't know yet. There hasn't been a full investigation, at least that I'm not aware of. And while it was obviously an account associated with the DNI that invited Jeffrey Goldberg onto the account, how that happened, we don't necessarily know. And that's why I'm going to -- I'm going to reserve my judgment for the, you know, the final blame, if you will, until a further investigation has happened.
In the meantime, I think the main thing to do is admit that it was a screw up on somebody's part along the way and that regardless of how he got on it, the issue of the day isn't so much that Jeffrey Goldberg was on the discussion as much as the substance of the discussion should never have happened on that platform, and I'm pretty confident it'll never happen again, which would be evidence that it shouldn't have been on that platform.
BURNETT: All right. Well, Senator, I appreciate your time and thank you. I'm glad to see you.
CRAMER: My pleasure. Thank you, Erin.
BURNETT: All right. And everyone's here with me now.
So, Ryan Goodman, you hear Senator Cramer responding and you know, and you've got -- you've got new analysis here as well about this. The precedent that shows the real legal issues that could be at stake here. I mean, this isn't just a matter of admitting you did something wrong, which they're not doing. But if they were to do what Senator Cramer is saying, admitting they made a mistake and never doing it again, that's not where -- that's not where it seems to be.
RYAN GOODMAN, JUST SECURITY CO-EDITOR-IN-CHIEF: Right. So, the ordinary way that the legal system would work would go further than that. And in fact, one of the reasons they might not want to admit it's a mistake is that if they have personal lawyers, the lawyer might actually say, I'm not sure you want to admit it's a mistake because you're -- you're in legal jeopardy.
There is one important case in American legal history where somebody as senior as these officials was, in fact, nearly charged. That was John Deutch, who was the head of the CIA. And he was charged -- he was about to be charged for gross negligence and mishandling of classified information. How was that? Because he conducted his business on a personal computer in his home, and there was a special prosecutor that was appointed because the Justice Department didn't want to go after one of their own until there was an outcry from Capitol Hill. And then they did. And he, the special prosecutor, in fact, supported that as the indictment.
He was actually -- he pled guilty, but he did it on a Friday night. The document didn't get to court. And the next morning, Bill Clinton pardoned him as his last -- one of his last pardons in office. So that's a story of a senior official being charged under the very statute that people are talking about today.
BURNETT: Talking about today.
I mean, Marc Caputo, a lot of questions about whether walls would still have his job by the end of the day. And you just saw him there literally at the same time that I was speaking to Senator Cramer. He was also doing an interview in which he was saying disparaging, demeaning things about Jeffrey Goldberg, which appears to be the message from the top. Thats what Trump is saying. Thats what Hegseth saying. Thats now what walls is saying.
[19:15:00]
They do they -- they believe this is this is enough, that this is the fertile ground to just, I mean, I don't know, they -- they would probably sue him if he spoke about them that way, but that that's the strategy?
MARC CAPUTO, SENIOR POLITICS REPORTER, AXIOS: Well, a few issues, Donald Trump doesn't like "The Atlantic", doesn't like Mr. Goldberg. By the way, I think he did a fantastic job and handled himself like a pro. Jeffrey Goldberg did. Just to be very clear.
BURNETT: Yeah.
CAPUTO: But obviously Donald Trump doesn't like him from what I'm told privately is what you saw publicly from Donald Trump. He thinks it's not that much of a big deal. He thinks it's overblown, and he spends most of his time just fuming about Goldberg.
And so, then that brings us to Mike Waltz. He asked me, how secure is this future? We wrote on "Axios" this morning that according to all the people we had spoken to, both in the White House and people who advised Donald Trump, Mike Waltz's job looked pretty secure. And that was as of this morning. And since then, the press secretary and Donald Trump twice have emphasized, repeatedly emphasized that that is the case. So, we're going to have to take that at face value.
But in order for Waltz to make sure he had his job, he had to run the playbook. That is when he was called upon at this cabinet meeting by a member of the press, or when the president referred to a member of the press to him, Mike Waltz attacked the media and then attacked Mr. Goldberg.
BURNETT: Jeffrey Goldberg.
CAPUTO: And that is what Donald Trump wants to hear. And that is what's working so far.
BURNETT: So, Katie, just to be clear, you know, Jeffrey Goldberg was, he said, invited into the chat by the account -- Mike Waltz's accounts. Okay? So that -- that's what he said happening.
You have a lot of reporting though at "Wired" about Signal, and they are now raising the question team Trump as to how Jeffrey Goldberg got -- got into the conversation. Trump said something about, quote/unquote, how people can break into conversations, somehow suggesting that even though he was brought into the chat by the Waltz account, that he somehow snuck into the chat, that he got into the chat. Can that happen?
KATIE DRUMMOND, GLOBAL EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, WIRED: Well, the short answer, Erin, is no. So -- and especially not in sort of a coordinated and specific way, like what is being suggested here. You know, Signal has a fantastic track record. It is best in class, like any piece of software, it does sometimes -- it has historically had vulnerabilities that are identified and fixed.
Before they are identified and fixed, they can be exploited. But again, that is exceedingly, exceedingly rare. Signal has a great track record, and so even the notion that this was some sort of intrusion or hack is a fantastical leap of imagination. I mean, it's simply --
BURNETT: Yeah.
DRUMMOND: -- did not happen.
BURNETT: Yeah. Fantastical leap of imagination.
One thing that isn't a fantastical leap of imagination, Ryan, is that Steve Witkoff is in the group, and that Steve Witkoff was in the group when the group is talking about these things, when he is in Moscow meeting with Vladimir Putin.
Now, we don't know if he was actually in the room with Putin at the time. We don't know if he had his phone with him at the time. We don't know where his phone was. We know that he was in Russia meeting with Vladimir Putin, and he's in this group chat. That in and of itself is stunning.
GOODMAN: It is. And there's a timeline exactly of when he's added to the group and he's added to the group at around midnight local time in Moscow. Right after that point, John Ratcliffe, the head of our CIA, shares the name of a CIA intelligence officer on the chat, according to Goldberg's reporting. And then two hours later, Mr. Wittkof leaves the country.
So he's added to the chat. While this kind of information is being shared, obviously, if his device is in Moscow at the time, it's extraordinarily vulnerable because Moscow owns the airwaves. We can only hope he only he carries some kind of a burner device.
BURNETT: Right. That he may not have had it. We don't know the answer to that. That would be crucial. But if he had it, that in and of itself, I mean, anything that's on that phone would be --
GOODMAN: Compromised.
BURNETT: Compromised.
GOODMAN: Absolutely.
BURNETT: And as you point out, and there is an undercover CIA agent that would have been in was, we know, according to Jeffrey Goldberg in this group.
Mike Waltz just said something else about what happened here. Katie, let me play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTZ: My job is to make sure everything's coordinated.
INGRAHAM: But how did the number --
WALTZ: They execute --
INGRAHAM: I mean, I don't mean to be pedantic here, but how did the number --
WALTZ: Have you ever had a -- have you ever had somebody's contact that shows their name? And then you have and then you have somebody else's number there --
INGRAHAM: Oh, I never make those mistakes.
WALTZ: Right. You've got somebody else's number on someone else's contact. So, of course, I didn't see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else.
Now, whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical mean is something we're trying to figure out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Okay, my head is spinning a little bit there, Katie. Again, he was invited to the chat by the -- by Mike Waltz. It sounds like actually what he's saying there is that that he did have Jeffrey Goldberg in his contacts. That actually seems to be that that's what he's saying?
DRUMMOND: Which if -- if it was what he was saying, that would make sense. Jeffrey Goldberg is the editor in chief of "The Atlantic", a publication based in D.C. He has a long and stellar track record of political journalism.
It would make sense if they have been in touch on Signal. I think that the, the sort of the sneaker allegation here, that there was some sort of intrusion or some sort of like covert operation on Goldberg's behalf makes drastically less sense than the possibility that he just got the initials wrong and added the wrong person to the Signal chat.
[19:20:15]
BURNETT: Right. It sounds like he's saying, I don't know, Marc, that maybe Jeffrey Goldberg's name was associated with a different phone number. I don't -- I mean, it -- it's a little odd.
CAPUTO: Yeah, it doesn't add up. I mean, it just sounds like a mistake. I think Donald Trump yesterday said this was a mistake. Mistakes happen.
But the Donald Trump playbook for a long time has been to deny, counter, accuse and declare victory. And you've seen that portrayed throughout the day by the president and by Mike Waltz. They keep coming back to the idea that this military operation was a success.
They're obviously also is a contradiction between their use of signal and then their explanation that it was sort of hacked, or, you know, magically manipulated.
BURNETT: Well, it's a really good point.
CAPUTO: Because on one hand, they're saying, hey, look, we used -- what they're saying. We used signal because it's really super, duper encrypted and you can't really hack it. And then they're like, oh, my God.
BURNETT: Jeffrey Goldberg hacked it. God, didn't know he was such a -- yes. I know, it's not funny. It's not funny, but it's a good point you just made.
All right. Well, I appreciate all of you very much. And I will just say at the very end of that, if you heard in the soundbite, Mike Waltz referring to Jeffrey Goldberg as a loser, it's a sad commentary of what you know has become normal and discourse that it's okay to talk about people like that.
Next, our KFILE uncovering even more audio tonight from the men involved in the intelligence failure and what they've said in the past about other people who are careless with confidential information.
Plus, Obama, Trump and Musk, their names are not on the ballot, but they are all people are talking about in what is an absolutely crucial race that could have a major effect on Congress and America?
An incredible new reporting tonight about just how close Pope Francis was to dying when he was hospitalized, as he is now out of the hospital.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:26:27]
BURNETT: And breaking news, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz just moments ago, saying he does not want the full trove of signal app messages released.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: Would you care if the rest of this information came out?
WALTZ: Look, I mean, I would prefer certainly, as the president was saying today, if we could all sit in a steel line, you know, steel lined lead room and have all of these conversations, I certainly want our deliberations to stay confidential.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BUIRNETT: Unless they were confidential.
Okay. Waltz, along with others in the chat group, were the first ones to demand harsh consequences, though for anyone who leaks that sort of information. So, last night, we had shared a few examples with you of the blatant hypocrisy from people involved in the chat.
But KFILE file tonight is revealing even more instances and KFILE's Andrew Kaczynski joins me now.
So, Andrew, let's start with Mike Waltz since he is talking right now and he is the one whose account brought in Jeffrey Goldberg into the conversation. National security advisor, he's got some very tough words for people who are not careful with confidential information, doesn't he?
ANDREW KACZYNSKI, CNN KFILE SENIOR EDITOR: That's right. And many of these I mean, it's a striking hypocrisy. Many of these same officials who were on that signal chat where they potentially they deny it but have potentially mishandled classified information, were some of the loudest critics of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden for doing just that.
Let's take Mike Waltz, for instance. He singled out Biden pretty harshly just fairly recently, actually. Take a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WALTZ: All of those things are a crime, and he should be convicted. But it's Garland that's standing, or he should be charged. At least I've seen those classified documents that were sitting in Biden's garage in his basement, highly classified, highly relevant to what's going on in the world today with very, very sensitive sources.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: And sensitive sources, perhaps including an undercover CIA agent, as this chat did. And in fact, you were able to find even more examples of people who happen to have been in that chat, along with Mr. Waltz, saying -- saying very different things.
KACZYNSKI: Yeah. Thats right. This was not a one-off Biden's garage, Hillary Clintons emails. Officials in that chat, we found suggested jail time. They said there should be charges. They said no one is above the law. And that includes probably the two most prominent members of that chat, the secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, and Marco Rubio, who made some of these comments back when he was the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, so he would know about the handling of classified information.
Listen to what both of them said here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: People have gone to jail for 1/100 of what, even 1/1000 of what Hillary Clinton did.
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: You most certainly know you shouldn't be talking about it or passing it on in an email, particularly to a private server like the one she had. What they did is reckless. It's complete recklessness and incompetence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Recklessness and incompetence. Those are two other words that could be used now.
So today, Trump said, Andrew, that no one's going to get fired over this. And you did, though, find a very specific example of how Trump has promised to deal with this type of breach because he has talked about it and he has made a promise. What was it?
KACZYNSKI: So -- and he -- it actually is not just one example. There were so many examples because that whole 2016 campaign, he was -- they were saying, lock her up. Everything with Clinton's emails and remember he said at one in debate that -- he said at one debate to Clinton, famously, that she was going to be in jail if he was president for mishandling classified information.
[19:30:09]
Listen to some comments that he made in August 2016.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: On political corruption, we are going to restore honor to our government. In my administration, I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KACZYNSKI: So that was then, Erin. This is now. And it's really going to be interesting to see how all of this plays out.
BURNETT: Yeah. It certainly is.
All right. Andrew Kaczynski, always finding things with KFILE.
And next, tens of millions of dollars are now pouring into a state supreme court race that is about to reveal how voters in America actually feel about Trump's term so far, not a poll. Actual results at the polls. And Musk, Obama and Trump are all in this game.
Plus, a Chinese automaker is turning heads tonight, blowing past Tesla. Could this actually be the car company that topples Elon Musk's global Tesla dominance?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [19:35:23]
BURNETT: Tonight, Barack Obama, Donald Trump and Elon Musk all in a crucial election, one that the entire country is watching very closely. It's next week's state supreme court race and is in the state of Wisconsin.
The people running, liberal candidate Susan Crawford and conservative Brad Schimel. It is smashing fundraising records just off the charts in a judicial election. Tens of millions of dollars from both parties, including more than $20 million alone from Elon Musk or groups tied to him, 20 million on a judge's race in Wisconsin.
And Arlette Saenz is OUTFRONT from this crucial race in Milwaukee.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The battle for a single seat on Wisconsin's supreme court is boiling down to two names not on the ballot.
BRAD SCHIMEL (R), WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE: We've got to get conservative voters out, and nobody's ever done that better than president Trump.
SUSAN CRAWFORD (D), WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT CANDIDATE: Elon Musk is here for a reason.
SAENZ: Liberal Judge Susan Crawford and conservative Judge Brad Schimel, a former state attorney general, may not be household names for Wisconsin voters, but their campaigns are betting president Donald Trump and Elon Musk will mobilize voters in different ways.
SCHIMEL: We have to find as many of our voters for November 5th as we can.
SAENZ: On the campaign trail. Schimel talks up the president's endorsement in a battleground state he narrowly won less than five months ago.
SCHIMELK : Call comes, I answer. Hello, Brad. It's your favorite president.
SAENZ: Trump's close ally and financial backer, Musk, has gone all in on Schimel's campaign, even hosting the conservative candidate on his social media site X.
ELON MUSK, TESLA OWNER: Democrats will attempt to redraw the districts and cause Wisconsin to lose two Republican seats. In my opinion, that's the most important thing.
SAENZ: The tech billionaire and groups aligned with him have poured more than $20 million into the state, funding field operations and TV ads slamming Crawford.
AD ANNOUNCER: She's just wrong for Wisconsin. SAENZ: Democratic megadonors like George Soros and Illinois Governor
J.B. Pritzker have written checks for the states party, in a race that's become the most expensive judicial contest in U.S. history.
CRAWFORD: That sign says a lot right there.
SAENZ: Crawford and her Democratic allies have made Musk central to their arguments against Schimel.
AD ANNOUNCER: He knows corrupt politician Brad Schimel is for sale.
SAENZ: It's a message Crawford hopes will resonate with voters.
CRAWFORD: I think all voters in Wisconsin should be concerned about this, about somebody coming in and trying to buy a seat on the Wisconsin supreme court.
SAENZ: While Schimel has decried big money from Democrats.
SCHIMEL: I hope that they also think that George Soros and J.B. Pritzker and others stay up.
SAENZ: The first major election of Trump's second term. It poses a key test of enthusiasm for both parties and will also determine the ideological balance of the court in a key swing state where issues like abortion rights and redistricting have emerged as campaign flashpoints.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good luck and good bowling.
SAENZ: At River's Edge Bowl in Janesville, politics usually is not the focus at this weekly bowling league for seniors, but one voter told us Musk should stay in his lane.
MARVIN WHITSON, WISCONSIN VOTER: People interfering where they shouldn't interfere.
SAENZ: Schimel and Crawford supporters say they hope their votes will send a clear message in Wisconsin and beyond.
SANDRA HURTT, REPUBLICAN WISCONSIN VOTER: We need a conservative on the supreme court to rein in a lot of the destructive policies that are coming down from the Democrats.
KATY GROGAN, DEMOCRATIC WISCONSIN VOTER: I think what happens here will tell us a lot about how close we are to losing our democracy.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SAENZ (voice-over): Now, this election is officially nonpartisan, but that's really in name only, as we have seen more and more national political figures getting involved.
Tonight, former President Barack Obama, who remains a popular figure in the Democratic Party, took to social media to urge Wisconsin voters to support Crawford, saying that judges are critical in upholding Americans rights. It really highlights the national spotlight that's been turned on this race, as early voting is already underway here in Wisconsin -- Erin.
BURNETT: All right. Arlette, thank you very much, from Wisconsin.
And OUTFRONT now, the Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee.
So, Congressman, I mean, here we are. I mean, this is an incredible situation where -- you're seeing this amount of money spent on a state supreme court race. I mean, it's unprecedented. Just -- just when we go past go, and you've got Trump and Musk involved behind Brad Schimel. And Trump obviously has attacked judges who don't agree with him.
So, what happens if Brad Schimel wins? Do you think he could be an independent judge?
[19:40:00]
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Oh, no, not -- not at all. I mean, the whole reason that Trump and Musk are throwing all of this money at it is they know he won't be an independent judge. So, this is part of the mega attack on the independent judiciary. And, of course, it's shattering all kinds of records at the same time that they're talking about impeaching a federal district judges in lots of states because they have dared to stand up for the rule of law against Donald Trump and strike down his efforts to usurp congress's role in spending or to usurp congress's role in lawmaking or, you know, things like declaring that the birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment section is just null and void.
And so, they're trying to impeach all these judges at the same time. They're trying to install judges in Wisconsin. And that's why all eyes are in Wisconsin at this point.
The other thing is that Elon Musk has litigation against the state of Wisconsin through Tesla. Tesla is suing Wisconsin because, you know, they've got some other stuff that they want to get out of the state. So, Musk is a deeply interested actor in this whole thing, but I think it is causing a big popular backlash.
BURNETT: And, okay, but he has spent $20 million on this race alone, just he himself. "The New York Times" is reporting, Congressman, I don't know if you saw this, but they're reporting that Musk is giving the maximum amount of money that he can donate to Republican lawmakers who support he and Trump's calls to impeach judges who rule against Trump, right? So he's the max to those lawmakers that he's going to do in primaries and $20 million on this race alone.
I'm just curious, Congressman, whether you think that that amount of money can be stopped, or is that amount of money really essentially buying unlimited power?
RASKIN: Well, we're going to see. I mean, we're in the fight of our lives over just this point. I mean, even Chief Justice Roberts, who obviously I've had my differences with over the years, is saying that the proper response to disagreement with a substantive decision of a federal district court judge is not to call for the impeachment of the judge, much less to issue threats against the judge. The proper response is to appeal their decision. Thats how we work it out. Under a system of the rule of law.
But right now, we have judges who are being threatened, who are being intimidated, are being doxed in different ways. Family members have been endangered. They're also calling for the impeachment of judges just because they don't like their opinions.
And we've never had impeachments for mere doctrinal differences in our history. There have just been 15 judges impeached, and it's always for stuff like bribery, corruption, and habitual drunkenness on the bench. Professional misconduct not because you disagree with their interpretation of this or that provision in the Constitution.
BURNETT: I want to ask you if I can, Congressman, about obviously, the breaking news. Jeffrey Goldberg says that there's more coming in terms of -- what he's -- the details he's going to share from this chat group. The -- Mike Waltz so just explained how Goldberg was added into the Signal group chat about those military strikes in Yemen.
So, he just gave this explanation a few moments ago. I don't know if you had a chance to hear it, because it just happened about ten minutes ago. So let me play it for you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INGRAHAM: But how do the numbers -- I mean, I don't mean to be pedantic here, but how did the number --
WALTZ: Have you ever had a -- have you ever had somebody contact that shows their name and then you have and then you have somebody else's number?
INGRAHAM: Oh, I never make those mistakes.
WALTZ: Right. You've got somebody else's number on someone else's contact. So, of course, I didn't see this loser in the group. It looked like someone else.
Now, whether he did it deliberately or it happened in some other technical mean is something were trying to figure out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: So he's saying either he had Jeffrey Goldbergs name or he had he had he had Jeffrey Goldbergs number, but someone else's name, I think is maybe what he's saying is I try to listen to this now for the second time. He then goes on, of course, to call him a loser.
What do you think of that excuse?
RASKIN: Well, I -- for the life of me, I don't understand the ad hominem character assassination against the journalist who got called by them. But in any event, it seems to me that, you know, with these people in charge, World War III could start with a pocket call.
He says, oh, this just happens to everybody. We mix up numbers and somebody's name appears. We add them to the call.
I mean, were talking about matters of life and death and national security, the security of our troops and war plans. And there's not a single adult in the crowd who will actually take responsibility for what happened and say it will never happen again, despite the fact that they vilified Hillary Clinton and dined off of that story for a decade, attacking Hillary about what she did with the private server in ways that didn't remotely compromise the national security in the ways that they just did.
And yet you can't get anybody to take any responsibility for it. It's amazing.
[19:45:00]
That interview with the secretary of defense was incredible, where he immediately unleashed an attack on the journalists who they called up.
BURNETT: Yeah, he did. That was interesting. Senator Cramer, earlier this hour, did say that that its clear what happened was wrong. They got to admit they made a mistake and never do it again.
So, there are there are some who are making that point, but none of them appear to have been on that chat.
(CROSSTALK)
RASKIN: -- absolutely. Yeah.
BURNETT: Yeah. All right. Thank you so much, Congressman Raskin. It's good to see you.
RASKIN: You bet.
BURNETT: Next, Tesla's shares are cratering in a very key market. So next, longtime Tesla investor who's called for Musk to step aside in light of the crisis. So what's he hearing from other investors? Thats who has the power here.
Plus, frightening details tonight about just how close Pope Francis came to dying while in the hospital.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BURNETT: Tonight, a huge blow to Elon Musk. Tesla's top rival, which is the Chinese electric car maker BYD, reported $107 billion in revenue last year.
[19:50:06]
That is more than Tesla. And it comes as Tesla reports European sales fell more than 40 percent last month, 40 percent and sales of Chinese brands, including BYD, went up more than 80 percent. Well, that is horrible for Tesla.
OUTFRONT now, Ross Gerber, the president and CEO of Gerber Kawasaki, long time Tesla investor who is now calling on Musk to either leave Tesla or leave his job in the Trump White House.
And I know you've been a longtime supporter of his. So, Ross, when you said that, you didn't come to it lightly, can I just ask you though, these numbers and we've been seeing bad numbers in the U.S. The European numbers, though, are off the charts. Terrible 40 percent drop in sales. And that's the second month that we've been seeing horrible numbers like that.
But then the flip side of that, that the Chinese carmaker BYD are surging, Chinese car makers up 80 percent. I mean, how big of a deal is that?
ROSS GERBER, TESLA INVESTOR CALLING ON MUSK TO STEP DOWN: I mean, it's a really big deal because BYD has emerged as a formidable competitor to Tesla, and they're making low cost vehicles that are selling like hotcakes in the emerging markets and in other markets. And they're also developing full self-driving capabilities that they're going to give away, which pretty much negates Tesla's ability to profit off of full self-driving in China, because, you know, Chinese people are going to choose the best value and quality, and its proving to be Chinese brands now more so than Tesla.
And that -- that's an amazing, you know, growth rate for the Chinese competitors to Tesla.
BURNETT: Can I just ask? You just said something really important there. You said it's not just about that it's less expensive, that there's also now quality. There's quality coming from BYD.
GERBER: Yeah, yeah. Like Xiaomi, you know, the -- you know, China has learned a lot. You know, they -- they bought like a company like Volvo in Europe and moved operations Co china. And they still have the operations in Europe, too.
But they learned so much about building quality from European car makers. And then they learn from Tesla about how to build batteries and other technologies and EVs. And so, they've taken what they've learned in the last five years, and they've applied it into their own brands with government support, and they're coming out with really good cars.
And it's something that I think most people don't equate China, you know, and better quality vehicles and better technology. But that's what's happening now.
BURNETT: No they definitely don't equate that. And that's a huge shift. In the meantime, you've got Elon Musk. You know, he has become so synonymous with Tesla that people's perception of him is what's happening to whether they want to buy the cars, the value in the secondary market, the stock price, which has plummeted, right, all of those things are tied together. You also have those attacks that have been happening on Tesla
dealerships. I mean, there's -- there's protests, which is one thing. Then there's been the attacks, incendiary devices at a Tesla dealership in Aaustin that police are looking into is one of the very latest.
What I'm curious to ask you about, Ross, is what Trump is doing about it. He has stepped into this. He has said that there should be very grave consequences. His exact words for anyone who vandalizes a Tesla, that he's put an FBI task force to crack down on the attacks.
Look, vandalism is a horrible thing. I wonder, though, what you think about Trump getting involved -- the federal government getting involved in this?
GERBER: Well, I think that certainly Trump's trying to help Elon, and I don't think it actually helps Tesla to have the government make such a big deal about it, because it just makes it seem like it's an even bigger problem, right? That we have to have like an FBI task force on this?
So, it's bad enough that people are vandalizing, you know, basically innocent consumers for choosing a vehicle that is great for the environment because the CEO is so divisive. It's really a shame. And I've never seen this in business history where the CEO doesn't accept the damage he's doing to his own company and his own customers, who once again are innocent victims of these attacks, you know, and he just doesn't seem to take any responsibility that his actions have anything to do with it or making any, you know, concessions to try to mitigate the attacks. And instead, in a lot of ways, I think provoking it.
BUJRNETT: All right. Ross, I appreciate you. Thanks.
GERBER: Yeah, thanks for having me.
BURNETT: All right.
And next, we have brand new reporting tonight. The Pope Francis was so close to death that doctors actually considered stopping his treatment, and in their words, letting him go.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:57:48]
BURNETT: Tonight, we're learning the pope was so sick while fighting double pneumonia that he did indeed almost die in the hospital. His medical team revealing tonight they seriously considered stopping treatment to let him die one night. He was in the hospital for more than a month, but we are just now learning about this as he continues his recovery back home at the Vatican.
Christopher Lamb is OUTFRONT.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CHRISTOPHER LAMB, CNN VATICAN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over0: Five weeks after Pope Francis entered the hospital and was treated for double pneumonia, we are learning new details about how close the leader of the Catholic Church came to dying.
According to his doctor, Sergio Alfieri, the situation became so dire at one point, a tough decision had to be taken whether to stop treatment and, quote, let him go or force it and try with all the drugs and therapies possible.
Dr. Alfieri telling Italian newspaper "Corriere Della Sera", the pope's health deteriorated after a serious breathing crisis, and the pontiff inhaled his own vomit. But Alfieri says it was Francis's personal nurse to whom the pope delegated medical decisions, who insisted they not give up and to continue trying all the drugs and therapies -- a decision that saved the 88-year-old pontiffs life but risked damaging his other organs in the process.
Alfieri said the pontiff, alert throughout, knew he was facing the end, at one point holding on to the doctor's hand for comfort. The doctor said the pope's inner strength helped him get through. With daily updates of Francis's time in the hospital, it was an anxious period for the Vatican as they only released this one photo of him during his 38 days of treatment. The absence of a hands on pontiff keenly felt across the church.
Francis is a pope who regularly grabs the world's attention after appearing publicly for the first time on Sunday, the pope looked frail and is back at his residence in the Vatican.
Doctors have ordered him to take two months of recovery. He must avoid meeting big groups for risk of further infection. It's unclear whether he will lead or be present at Holy Week and easter celebrations, the high point of the Christian year.
But given what he's been through, the pope is lucky to be alive.
Christopher Lamb, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BURNETT: Truly a miracle.
And thank you all so much for being with us.
"AC360" with Anderson begins right now.
