Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

DOJ Demands Responds to Judge's Questions in Deportation Case; Chief Justice Roberts Rebukes Trump Rhetoric on Federal Judge; Chief Justice Roberts Pushes Back on Trump Rhetoric in Rare Statement; Trump, Putin Holding High-Stakes Call on Future of Ukraine. Aired 12- 12:30p ET

Aired March 18, 2025 - 12:00   ET

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

[12:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DANA BASH, CNN HOST, INSIDE POLITICS: Today on "Inside Politics", a make-or-break phone call. The fate of Ukraine hangs in the balance, as Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin have a crucial conversation, which is happening at this very moment. President Trump is pushing for a ceasefire. But can he or will he lean toward the sovereign democracy or the country that invaded it?

We don't know, and we're going to wait to see what happens. As soon as we get a readout from that call. Plus, we don't care, we'll do what we want. That's how a federal judge is summing up the Trump Administration's defense of its weekend deportation flights after a court order that has turned the planes around. He ordered the DOJ to explain itself by noon. That is right now.

And a potential battle of the Governors. Democrats are in desperate need of a leader as a handful of Governors position themselves in very different ways to take the reins ahead of 2028. I'm Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines and "Inside Politics".

We do start with that breaking news. Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are on the phone. We do believe right now the White House says the call began about two hours ago. Topping the agenda, of course, is a proposal to pause the war in Ukraine.

President Trump teased that two leaders may have quote something to announce after this conversation. But what will it take for Vladimir Putin to agree to peace more than three years after he launched Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine? I want to go straight to CNN's Alex Marquardt. Alex, are we learning anything at all as this call goes on?

ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Not just yet. And President Trump certainly has raised expectations, saying that there is the potential for a deal. And I think anything short of that is essentially a failure Dana, because the U.S. proposed this ceasefire a week ago. I was there in Saudi Arabia when they made this announcement. The Ukrainians immediately signed on without conditions, and in this

past week, we have heard reservations and criticism and conditions from the Russians over and over and over again. Steve Witkoff, the President's Envoy, going to Moscow to meet directly with President Putin. Still, he was not able to get Putin to agree to a ceasefire.

He said that Putin has agreed philosophically to a ceasefire. I'm not sure what that is. So, the two presidents today will be talking not just about the conditions for this ceasefire, and the U.S. has said, first, you need a pause on the fighting before you talk about the longer-term peace deal.

So, they will be talking about the components, I believe, for both of that. President Trump has said that there have been conversations about dividing up assets, about territorial concessions, and the list goes on, nuclear power plants, and certainly President Putin is going to be pressing him on things like making sure that Ukraine doesn't join NATO.

Making sure, essentially, that Ukraine remains in a weakened state. But if President Putin does not agree to the ceasefire, the big question Dana is, will President Trump then take a tougher attack and put more sanctions in place and threaten to send even more weapons to Ukraine to eventually get to a peace deal, Dana?

BASH: And sort of on a related note, our colleagues spoke to a Russian scholar who was known as Putin's brain. Tell our viewers what he said.

MARQUARDT: Putin's brain, Putin's philosopher. He is this ultra nationalist Russian philosopher named Alexandr Dugin. His daughter was actually killed in a car bombing in Moscow that is believed to have been carried out by the Ukrainians. But he told our colleagues, Fred Pleitgen -- that he believes that Putin and Trump are essentially on the same wavelength, that they have a similar worldview, that they have a same vision of the world order.

He told our colleagues, and he said that it's obvious Trump and Putin are more ideologically aligned than Trump is with Western allies. Here's a little bit more of what he told CNN. Trump is much more conservative. He is in favor of traditional values. He is in favor of the patriotism of the nation, and I define that as the great power world order.

Putin and Trump coincide in accepting this model instead of liberal globalism. Now this is the long-standing hope by President Putin and by Russia to be seen on the same level as the United States. And that is one of the concessions so many have said that Trump has given Putin, bringing him back onto the world stage.

[12:05:00]

There is a lot of concern among the Ukrainians and the Europeans with how Trump, of course, is treating and talking about Putin as they try to find some kind of solution for this war in Ukraine, Dana.

BASH: Yeah. I mean, just to sort of reiterate what this man, again, who is known as Putin brain, Putin's brain said, Putin and Trump coincide in accepting the model instead of liberal globalism. I just want that to kind of sink in as we wait for this call to end. Thank you so much, Alex.

And now we have more breaking news. Big news out of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the United States of America just issued a rare statement on President Trump's call to impeach the judge in his Alien Enemies Act case. I want to go straight to Paula Reid. Paula, wow this is a very big deal.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: This is a huge deal. Here you have Chief Justice John Roberts appearing to push back on statements President Trump made earlier today, suggesting that a Judge James Boasberg, who of course, temporarily blocked deportations by the Trump Administration, or at least tried to should be impeached.

And here the Chief Justice writes, for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision, the normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

Now this is, of course, a very short statement, but it says so much Dana, because earlier today, in a Truth Social post President Trump sort of went on a tangent about how angry he was at this judge, and saying this judge, like many of the crooked judges I am forced to appear before, should be impeached.

And this comes just several days after Boasberg tried to temporarily block some deportations by the Trump Administration. And the Trump Administration did not abide by his order to turn around two planes that had already taken off, and in a pretty heated hearing yesterday, the Justice Department insisted that they did not need to abide by the judge's oral order from the bench, something the judge took issue with.

And then, even when the judge had issued a written order, they still did not comply. And in court yesterday, they were arguing that the reason they did not need to comply with that written order is because they said that President Trump has a broad executive authority when it comes to foreign affairs.

And the reason that this whole case is significant Dana, is because this is not just another test of Trump's expansive use of executive power. It is also a test of the extent to which he and his lawyers believe he can be checked by the court. So here judge Boasberg getting some support from really the most senior justice in the land.

BASH: And before I let you go Paula, do we know if DOJ responded to the questions that the judge asked at that hearing? The deadline, of course, was almost eight minutes ago.

REID: So, they just responded. The paper is still warm Dana, we just printed these out. They were given a little homework after the hearing yesterday because they could not answer some specific factual questions that the judge had about these flights, about who was on them, when they took off? When they took off, relative to his oral order and then his written order. If you look at the timeline, the first flights took off at 05:26, then another one at 05:45 the judge had a verbal order to halt those flights at 06:45, then at 07:26, the judge posted his written order. Now there's a third flight that the Justice Department says is not relevant in this case.

But the judge was pressing for specific details about these flights, the Justice Department refused to give those details in the hearing yesterday, so they're given a series of questions. It appears Dana that they have answered some of those questions. Haven't had a chance to read this because, again, they just filed it.

But they also ended this filing, notably by saying, if the -- if the government needs to provide more details, they want to do that through a behind closed doors are protected proceeding. And one thing that I'll also note that's so interesting about this, this is signed by almost every top leader at the Justice Department.

Highly unusual. It appears to be a show of force by Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and other top leaders at the Justice Department that they are all behind this effort that many people have suggested is not legal and shows sort of no deference to the courts.

BASH: All right, so Paula, here's the deal. I have some terrific reporters here. I'm going to go to. You read that, since it's quite literally hot off the presses, and then raise your hand when you want to give us some information about what you're reading.

REID: Thank you.

BASH: Thanks, Paula. Speaking of those talented reporters that I have here, they are, CNN's David Chalian, Akayla Gardner of Bloomberg News, CNN's Phil Mattingly and Franklin Foer of "The Atlantic". Let's go back to John Roberts, which just happened, yeah, your eyes are going wide David Chalian.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICS PRODUCER: It's astonishing, and I don't want to diminish the importance of the specific case that...

BASH: The case is about that.

CHALIAN: It is, obviously, but it's so much bigger than that, too.

BASH: Yeah.

[12:10:00]

CHALIAN: This is -- I just want to step back here, because there are so many people, I think that said in the last couple days of well, are we in a constitutional crisis or not, and if they're really defying an order, or let's parse whether it was a written order or verbal order. It's too early. It's too soon to get worked up about this or concerned about this.

BASH: But is this...

CHALIAN: And John Roberts, who does not choose to jump into the political fray at all, if he doesn't have to, says, no, no, no, it's not too soon. I am the guy that sits atop one of the three co-equal branches as designed by the constitution. And it's not too soon for me to say, back off, Mr. President.

You should not be talking about impeaching a district judge, a district level judge, because you don't like the ruling. That's not the way the last two centuries has worked. And so, I think, you know, A, he doesn't get involved very often, the fact that he's chosen to step in here, you see, he's responding to what Trump put in that Truth Social this morning.

BASH: Right, which all, which I'll get to in a second.

CHALIAN: But also, just the aggressiveness to push back on Trump this way, choosing to speak, and speaking the way he did in this statement. We should all take note of this.

BASH: OK, I'm not sure if we have it yet, because we just got it to put up on the screen. But I'm just going to read it one more time, and the it being John Roberts statement, which we just got a few moments ago. For more than two centuries, it's, it has been established that the impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.

OK. Now let me catch up our viewers, and you saw it a little bit on the screen, but I just want to point specifically to what this is in response to Donald Trump's post. Here's what Donald Trump said, this radical left lunatic of a judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama was not elected president.

He went on to say, I'm just doing what the voters wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the crooked judges I am forced to appear before, should be impeached. Now, before we continue our conversation, I just want to add another layer to this, which is, remember what Donald Trump said just on Friday, which was, I don't know what four days ago, when he was at the Justice Department, about a different judge.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We had an amazing judge in Florida, and her name is Aileen Cannon, and I didn't know her. I still don't know her. I don't believe I ever spoke to her, even during the trial, but I did appoint her federal judge. And these fake lawyers, these horrible human beings were hitting her so hard, public relations wise, they were playing the ref. I don't think it's legal. I don't think it's legal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: The judges that side with him he's cool with. The judges that don't he's calling for an impeachment. That's what John Roberts was trying to get at.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Hypocrisy, I think is what you're going for on some level here. Look, I think what's fascinating about this moment is one to David's point. I think everybody's been kind of waiting for to the extent there are still guard rails that exist in this moment in time, because they certainly don't in the legislative branch, with Republicans in control of both chambers, when were they going to run up against it in the legal system?

And what I've been struck by over the course of the last probably six or seven weeks, there have been dozens upon dozens upon dozens of lawsuits filed related to what Elon Musk and the Department of government efficiency are doing. And pretty much, and I've read way more paper than I want to about those lawsuits.

And the Justice Department, the Civil Division, the Justice Department, the Acting Assistant Attorney General, have complied with what the courts have asked for over and over and over again, even if they disagree with the assessment. This was the first time on a very specific issue that the president likes politically, it's deep to the core of his campaign and his presidency.

They decided this was the moment to have the fight, apparently, based on what we've seen over the course of the last several days. The kind of hole in the strategy that has kind of always been hanging out there is great. Politically, we know they want this fight. They are happy to have this fight. They win this fight based on every poll that you're looking at over the course of the last 8 to 10 months.

Legally, the question becomes, there are the appellate process, and as you start to move up the ranks, how do judges feel about this? They have a more friendly court, particularly on the court that John Roberts sits on, than any president has had in a very long time.

BASH: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: And they knew that this -- they were going to have to appeal and appeal and eventually get it up the Supreme Court. They did it with several other immigration actions. Why would you do this now on the district court level, when you know you have an appeal --?

BASH: To do this meaning called for an...

MATTINGLY: Have this fight ...

BASH: Yeah.

MATTINGLY: -- go as aggressive as they have, not just with all the top officials signing off on what they've done, which is really salient point for Paul to point out.

[12:15:00]

But the fact that they've tried to remove the judge when they go over to the circuit court. They are just going nuclear at the lowest level of a multi-step process that they know was going to play out over multiple steps. Why are they doing it now?

BASH: Frank, weigh in on this Robert's statement.

FRANKLIN FOER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Well, I think why are they doing this now? Well, the early stages of the administration have been an enormous power grab, and they're testing institutions to see what they can get away with. In the Congress, they've seen all the ways in which Senate Republicans have been able to have been willing to cede all of this institutional prerogative to the administration.

When it comes to the courts, the courts have slowed them down somewhat. I mean, in the bigger scheme of things, all of these judicial orders haven't actually slowed them down meaningfully, because they've been able to destroy the democracy regardless of all of these orders that have, that have intervened.

But there is within MAGA, within -- you know, we've been hearing this from Steve Bannon. We've been hearing it from Elon Musk for weeks that they have they want -- they're going for as much as they can now, because the conditions for them to achieve their goals are essentially optimal, and the basis is aching for it, so they're going to keep pushing and pushing until they get reprimanded.

And even if they are reprimanded, it's not entirely clear what effect that would have on their process. Will they ignore these orders even when they come down from the Supreme Court of the United States?

BASH: And on that note, you mentioned what we're hearing from MAGA, let's listen to what MAGA World has been saying about this, starting with the aforementioned Steve Bannon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE BANNON, POLITICAL STRATEGIST: We're supposed to have the power of the U.S. government. And you see that these judges are kind of act like their own DOJ.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS HOST: As per usual, a far-left judge tried to intervene, but it was too little too late, the illegals were already out of the country on flights to El Salvador.

BLAKE NEFF, "CHARLIE KIRK SHOW", PRODUCER: If a district judge has the power to do a nationwide injunction, and you have these judges who have been appointed by Obama, appointed by Biden, they've been radicalized to hate Trump for a decade, they're going to come up with a justification for a nationwide injunction on anything.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Akayla?

AKAYLA GARDNER, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG NEWS: Yeah, what strikes me the most about the statement from Chief Justice John Roberts is the fact that MAGA World and administration has really tried to discredit any cases, any decisions that come out of courts lower than the Supreme Court. So even federal district courts, they're discrediting it. And this is

straight from the Supreme Court, a court that they respect, signaling that they are taking these threats very seriously. They're also taking this threat from Trump on Truth Social about impeaching the judge, very seriously.

So, I'm very interested to see how allies of the president respond to this? But it's -- the truth is they really see the president as having these really broad executive powers. And I think nobody more than Stephen Miller, who is really an architect of the president's domestic policy, believes this, and these are really laws that they have been looking at and planning on for years before Trump.

BASH: Yeah.

CHALIAN: The other thing that this statement reminds me of is that moment after the Joint Address, when the president was exiting and he shook hands with Chief Justice Roberts and said, thank you. Thank you. We'll never forget. We're not quite sure what he was saying for I'm not sure I'm not sure it would have such a chummy moment from Donald Trump after this rebuke from the Chief Justice.

BASH: We got to sneak in a quick break. But as you are all talking, it maybe should go noted that even though the president is talking about impeachment, I don't even see any chance that it would actually pass, or that maybe, maybe a judge could be impeached with the very narrow votes in the House, but would not be convicted with the way that the votes are in the United States Senate.

So, just leave that there. Coming up next, we're waiting for key details on that pivotal call between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:20:00]

BASH: That much anticipated phone call between Presidents Trump and Putin began now about 2 hours and 23 minutes ago. We believe it is still going on. Of course, we're waiting to hear details from our reporters at the White House. I have some terrific reporters here, including a White House Correspondent for Bloomberg. Before we start the conversation, I just want to play what the President's National Security Adviser seemed to lay the groundwork for over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE WALTZ, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: We have to ask ourselves, is it in our national interest? Is it realistic? We've talked to the Europeans about this and the Ukrainians. Are we going to drive every Russian off of every inch of Ukrainian soil, including Crimea? We can talk about what's right and wrong, and we also have to talk about the reality of the situation on the ground, and that's what we are doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: Akayla?

GARDNER: Yeah, here's something that my colleagues out of Europe and Moscow are reporting right now. They're saying that President Putin plans to ask President Trump to pause shipments of all U.S. weapons and military aid during this 30 day pause.

But as we just saw in that clip with Mike waltz, President Trump has been laying the groundwork for negotiations on land. And other assets, potentially nuclear-powered plants, in a situation that sits in Ukraine's territory right now.

[12:25:00]

So, this is situation that European allies are very concerned about. They do not want Ukraine to come out weaker in these discussions, especially because Ukraine has agreed to the ceasefire without any conditions. So, there's real concerns here that in that period that Russia could re-arm and become stronger to the point when Ukraine comes out of that and if this fighting continues after that ceasefire, they're no longer going to be in a strong position to defend themselves.

BASH: And Frank, I want to read to our viewers something that you wrote. You wrote in the global turn against democracy he has played, at times, the role that we're talking about Vladimir Putin, the role of figurehead, impish provocateur and Field Marshal. We are living in the age of Vladimir Putin. Trump's slavish devotion to the Russian Leader, his willingness to help Putin achieve his maximalist goals is merely the capstone of an era.

FOER: Just stepping back a little bit even beyond the second Trump Administration, going back to Brexit, going back to everything that's unfolded in the years since then. Putin has gotten to so many of the things that he aspires to. Among them is that he wants to discredit democracy as competing ideological rival to the system that he's building up.

He wants there to be leaders within the West who seek to dismantle the post war infrastructure of Trans-Atlanticism. All these things are transpiring, and that really, to me, is the key context for what's happening in this phone call. Because he knows that he's sitting in a very, very strong position.

He knows that he's already seen this evidence that the administration is willing to abandon Ukraine at a key moment by cutting off intelligence sharing, cutting off military aid, and he's winning. He's been able to take back all the territory in the Kursk Region of Russia that the Ukrainians had conquered. And so, he's sitting pretty. He can dictate terms right now.

MATTINGLY: I can't stop thinking about the most head spinning week that I think, from a foreign policy perspective, we'd seen in a very long time, which was over the course of five days between Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer and then Voldemort Zelenskyy you saw like complete inversion of where Trump -- the Trump Administration, where they might go, where they could be, where this may all end? And Keir Starmer, in particular, his comments in the Joint Press Conference with President Trump seem to run counter to what we heard from Mike Waltz in the sound that you were just playing, about the importance of the invader not being the one who comes out on top, about the importance of Europe taking a strong stand for history's sake and for the future of Europe with Ukraine in this moment.

And I think, to Akayla's great point. Going into this, European officials I was talking to diplomats over the course the last several days, really have no idea where this is going and where this might land. What may be agreed to on this phone call, and what happens if there are agreements on this phone call?

I think the other side of this too, which I think is fascinating, is, what if Putin doesn't come to an agreement? What if Putin doesn't get to a place with President Trump, that President Trump is satisfied with, then what? What is the stick to the carrots that have been offered up to this point? And I don't think anybody has an answer that either.

BASH: And David, so, we have this phone call going on. We don't know what's going to happen with a potential ceasefire with Russia and Ukraine. We do know that the ceasefire in the Middle East is now null and void, at least for now, because Israel has launched strikes in Gaza again after Hamas didn't give hostages back, or at least said that they wouldn't.

Which begs the question about one of the many promises, campaign promises that Donald Trump made, which is that there are going to be ceasefires all over the place within 24 hours. He was asked about that this past weekend. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a candidate, you said you would have this war settled in 24 hours.

TRUMP: Well, I was being a little bit sarcastic when I said that I would. What I really mean is I'd like to get it settled and I'll think -- I think I'll be successful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: David?

CHALIAN: We didn't know that he was being a little bit sarcastic when he said it on the trail. He didn't give that indication. Listen, I don't think anybody rightly expected that this would be resolved in 24 hours of him taking the oath of office.

I do think you're -- you make an interesting comparison between the two world hot spots right now that were left by the Biden Administration to the Trump Administration. And it seems that in this phone call with Russia, I mean everything that the way that Trump is going to sell this to American public, by the way, in American public that has majority disapproval of how he's handling the situation with Russia and Ukraine, according to our most recent polling, is peace at any cost basically.

Peace at any cost is sort of what he's pushing. That's not the case in the Israel-Gaza situation, right? That he is not peace at any cost there whatsoever. He is hostages out or held to pay. That's the frame that he is putting on that conflict. So, it's an -- it's a different approach to these two very different countries.

BASH: Yeah, maybe, as you're talking, I'm thinking he -- it may be the common thread is he is more, maybe not more aligned.