Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Trump Threatens Lawyers Who File Cases against Administration; Rallies with Sanders and AOC Draw Tens of Thousands; Democrats Search for New Strategy to Combat Trump; Greenland's Prime Minister Slams Upcoming Visit from U.S. Officials. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired March 24, 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)

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Today and inside politics a battle of the branches. 90 minutes from now, Trump Administration lawyers will be in a Washington courtroom to defend the President's deportation powers. Will three appeals court judges hit the brakes on the president's relentless push to redefine the limits of executive power.

Plus, a Badger state brawl, the biggest election since November, is just days away. Wisconsin voters will elect a new judge for the Supreme Court. We'll tell you why Elon Musk is spending millions to push the Republican candidate over the line. And Mirror, mirror on the wall. What happened to Snow White's box off this hall?

Not even that first kiss of love could lift the spell of political controversy that's cursed Disney's new film. I'm Manu Raju in for Dana Bash. Let's go behind the headlines and inside politics. We start with a crucial hearing that could have major implications on President Trump's second term.

The next hour, an appeals court will hold an emergency hearing on the president's use of an obscure 18th century law to deport migrants. The Trump Administration is fighting to overturn a restraining order blocking the use of the alien enemies act to deport planes full of people without due process.

They've already used the law to send scores of people to a notorious prison in El Salvador. CNN's Katelyn Polantz is outside the courthouse right now. So, Katelyn, what can we expect today?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Manu, it's about this law, but it's really about the power of the presidency and the power of the courts to put checks on the president's decision. So, at this hearing, it's going to be starting in about an hour and a half.

This is a hearing where the Justice Department is arguing that a judge should not have been able to tell anyone that people can't be removed when the president sees them as national security risk, immigrants to the United States that he wants to take out of the country, put on planes and send to a Salvadoran prison.

That is what happened in this case. So, this is an argument about the authority of the president. And one of the things that we expect the Justice Department to be putting pointing out because they've written it so far to this court. They're saying that if judges were able to come in and stop people from being removed from the country, even briefly, could they not do that if there are drone strikes, if there are sensitive intelligence developments needed to be decided by the President of the United States.\

Do we want courts involved in that? That's what the federal appeals court is going to be hearing about today. Those judges are split in a way that we just don't know how they're going to side for Donald Trump at this time, there's a judge that was appointed to him by him to this bench that's Justin Walker.

There's another judge, Patricia Millett, she's an Obama appointee. And then the third judge on this panel, Karen Henderson, she's been on this court for a very long time, has had to think a lot about power of the executive branch in the cases she's handled. We don't know how she's going to be feeling about this.

On the other side, Manu, make no mistake that this is a case that is about bigger issues, about the constitutional protections of people, the lawyers for the Venezuelan migrants, they are writing in their court briefs, they're probably going to be arguing too about due process that they believe is needed for these people detained in the immigration system.

They write, if the president can designate any group as enemy aliens under the act, and that designation is unreviewable by the courts say, then there is no limit on who can be sent to a Salvadoran prison, or any limit on how long they will remain here. We'll be hearing more about this and the slippery slope that those lawyers believe happens if the courts don't step in, at this point, Manu.

RAJU: Yeah -- so interesting and revealing what those three judges, two Republican appointees, one Democratic appointee, say in that hearing in just about 90 minutes. Katelyn Polantz outside the courthouse here in Washington, thank you. And here in the room, I'm joined by a terrific group of CNN reporters, Lauren Fox, Stephen Collinson and Alayna Treene. Good to see you guys.

I want to talk about, you know, the big picture. We're going to get to the big picture a couple minutes, just about the expansion of executive power, which is really revealed in this case, and how they're going after the judges and the like trying to get her some of the guardrails, like a targeting the lawyers and the people who are trying to seek law -- file lawsuits against this administration.

But this case, the deportation case, has gotten so much attention, just about the way it was carried out these migrants, roughly 137 of people the administration claims they had ties to a Venezuelan gang. They were sent to this prison in El Salvador using this obscure law that's only been used three times, all in a time of law.

[12:05:00]

But what about the due process for these individuals that were sent to the El Salvadoran prison? That was a question that was put to top administration officials who were on airwaves just yesterday.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So -- the question of --

MICHAEL WALTZ, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: I can't speak to those individual details, if you want to --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- that you get the list right.

WALTZ: But right --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- that you can verify that these people are gang members.

WALTZ: -- every one of them were here illegally. I mean, do they have any due process at all.

TOM HOMAN, WHITE HOUSE BORDER CZAR: Due process -- What -- due process.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Alayna, you cover the White House, when you talking to administration officials, are they feeling more pressure at all to reveal anything about the identities of these individuals?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes and no. I mean, the thing you keep hearing over and over again this has continued in my conversations with White House officials, is they really believe that this is going to set a precedent. And you've heard from all top officials, people like Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff.

You've heard from the Justice Department attorneys who are working on some of this. They're arguing that this judge is overstepping judicial authority, and of course, we'll see what happens today that's going to be decided. This case is, I think, really going to set a precedent.

But this judge, Judge James Boasberg, at the center of all of this, has really become emblematic of the scores of judges so far that we've seen try to, you know, be part of, represent their own branch, the judicial branch, and uphold laws that they believe that the Trump Administration is violating.

Now I do think behind closed doors, there is an expectation and acknowledgement that more is going to have to be brought forward, particularly when it comes to the question that the judge posed on Friday's hearing, which was, why was the seemingly signed in the dark of night? Why were these migrants hurried onto planes?

Answers that they haven't really been very forthcoming with and I think the media as well has been putting a lot of pressure on them, so we'll see what they bring today. But by and far, their main argument is that they believe that they do have the legal authority to use this and they're trying to really do what we've seen Trump do in the past with judges, which is to chastise them, to criticize them and argue that they are overstepping their authority.

RAJU: Yeah, in meantime, there have been some reports about the identities of some of these individuals. There're the family members are speaking out of these individuals, and seen some of the headlines here, "The Washington Post". Just on Saturday, they were arrested during routine ice check ins and they disappeared.

Others say that their only crime was having a tattoo. What is your take? I mean, who knows? Maybe they're what they're saying is the truth they have, but they have the -- they should under the constitutional system at the opportunity to argue that in court. But what is your takeaway, Stephen, about what we're seeing in this case and the implications of today's hearing and ultimate ruling?

STEPHEN COLLINSON, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: I think it's interesting how the administration's arguments have evolved here. To begin with, this was talking about gang members who should be deported, and it's a very strong political argument. I think the administration believes that it has here.

Now they're talking about these people in terms of terrorists, and the reason for that, is because the president has wider executive authority and perhaps more protection from the courts in the case of a terrorist case, when it gets to the Commander in Chief's powers in what he says is a time of war, even though the United States is clearly not at war, but that he needs that to get the Alien Enemies Act here.

So that's what's happening. But if you look back at the war on terror, there were plenty of district judges that intervened in the war and terror policies that caused years of litigation that went all the way up through the courts to the Supreme Court. So, the argument that simply classifying something as a terrorism case means that no judge can question the president's powers is just not true.

RAJU: Meantime, there was some news that happened just this morning at the White House, president announced that he's appointing his attorney, his personal attorney's representative in several cases, Alina Habba to serve as the interim U.S. attorney in New Jersey, a prosecutor U.S., a federal prosecutor in this pace, at a case in this jurisdiction, on an interim basis. She was just at the White House and speaking about this appointment.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALINA HABBA, COUNSELOR TO THE PRESIDENT: There is corruption, there is injustice, and there is a heavy amount of crime right in Cory Booker's backyard and right under Governor Murphy. And that will stop. I look forward to working with Pam Bondi with the Department of Justice.

And making sure that we further the president's agenda of putting America First, cleaning up mess and going after the people that we should be going after, not the people that are falsely accused.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: What's been consistent in some of these appointments to have Justice Department prosecutors is what she said there we further -- we've got to make sure that we further the president's agenda of putting America First, which is not really the job of a prosecutor. But we've heard that said time and again, including say Ed Martin was the interim pick to be the U.S. Attorney here in the District of Columbia.

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, the job of a U.S. attorney is really to go after crimes in these jurisdictions, right? It is not to go after a political agenda or to defend a political agenda.

[12:10:00]

I thought it was really remarkable that she said that also just the optics of having a press availability after this position is named where she's standing at the White House, because she was the president's lawyer, right? I think that that is such a really stark contrast from what we've seen in the past.

And you know these lines that existed between the executive branch and the courts, whether it's an immigration case, whether it's this position, they're being blurred, if they exist at all.

RAJU: Yeah, and between the Justice Department and the White House, yes, it's part of the administration, but typically, there's some sort of line that just doesn't seem to exist, certainly anymore. But meantime, and another example of that was just over the weekend, when the White House urged the Justice Department to move ahead with essentially targeting lawyers and law firms that have been they view need to have potential sanctions over their actions.

Perhaps a threat of sorts for some people who are seeking litigation against some of the administration's actions. This is part of that memo that came out said, I hereby direct the Attorney General to seek sanctions against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable and vexatious litigation against the United States or in matters before executive departments and agencies of the United States.

What is your takeaway from that move, which is pretty remarkable.

TREENE: It is very remarkable, and it's also very remarkable when you look at some of the actions that they've taken against law firms already, including Covington and Burling. That is one where lawyers who work there were working with Former Special Counsel Jack Smith.

The other one that they were initially trying to suspend security clearances for was Paul Weiss. That's one where one of the partners was Mark Pomeranz, the man who worked then as a Manhattan District Attorney --

RAJU: They ultimately capitulated to the --

TREENE: -- making a deal with the president. Actually, the firm's chairman met with the president on Friday and struck a deal with him, which led to a lot of consternation. I should say, across the country, there's a lot of people kind of concerned that these, you know, top legal weights that really were serving as a check and bringing these cases against the Trump Administration are now kind of caving in.

And it is remarkable to see, but again, to see that it's happening with clear what, you know, I think the Trump Administration and Trump officials are arguing political enemies. I mean, it's these are law firms that they've clashed with in the past, and that's the thing that I think is really the most concerning thing to most people.

RAJU: Yeah, and we'll see if they decide, ultimately, some of these firms to back down in the face of this pressure from the administration. All right, we have a lot more to discuss, including Democrats who are returning to Washington after a week of listening to their voters demanding they fight harder. So, what does that exactly mean? We'll discuss next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:15:00]

RAJU: Two of the biggest names the progressive movement, Senator Bernie Sanders and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are on a multi-state tour to rally demoralized Democrats.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (R-VT): We got 20,000 people here in Tucson, and we got hundreds of millions of people all across this country.

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY 14TH DISTRICT): Are we ready to fight? Are we ready to win and we will never, ever, ever give up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: Now, if AOC's message sounds familiar, perhaps it reminds you of this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, ATTORNEY AND FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Do we believe in the promise of America? And are we ready to fight for it, and when we fight, we win.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: All right, my panel is back. Look, there's no doubt they were drawing massive crowds this weekend. According to Bernie Sanders office, they estimated, they said that some of those tens of thousands of people were coming out to these rallies. They said that the Denver rally in particular, there are 34,000 people. They said that was Bernie Sanders' biggest rally ever. So, if you're the Democratic Party, how do you turn this into action right now? Because obviously there's a lot of angst.

FOX: Right.

RAJU: There's a lot of people concerned on the left, but there's also a lot of frustration and fury, not just Republicans, but at Democrats and how they're fighting their back against Trump?

FOX: Right. I think the challenge for congressional Democrats, and I think Chuck Schumer is finding himself smack dab in the middle of that, is, what do you really do when you have no power in Congress and you have extremely limited power in the United States Senate, where essentially, you can stop things that have a 60-vote threshold but nothing else.

I mean, Chuck Schumer did save the party from dealing with a shutdown, they would still likely --

RAJU: -- be in right now, right --

FOX: Exactly, and there would be no clear way out of it. And that was his argument over and over again. The question becomes, you have thousands of people showing up to rallies. How do you get those people both satisfied, continue to motivate them so they show up in an election in two years and also be honest and level set with them that there just aren't that many opportunities to fight.

RAJU: Yeah, in the promises are things that the Democrats may not that AOC and Bernie Sanders are giving to their voters, or things that perhaps Democrats won't be able to enact, particularly this year. Listen to what AOC said in her rally that was in Tucson over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

OCASIO-CORTEZ: We need to be taxing the rich on the floor of the United States Congress. We need to be establishing guaranteed health care on the floor of the United States Congress.

[12:20:00]

Not erasing Americans history on the floor of the United States Congress, we need to be passing a living wage on the floor of the United States Congress. It's not just about Republicans. We need a Democratic Party that fights harder for us too.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: What's your take away?

COLLINSON: What's interesting is that, that message Bernie Sanders' message is the same message as he carried in his 2016 campaign, his 2020 campaign, the millionaires and the billionaires and the oligarchs. What's happened is the scene has shifted now, and Bernie Sanders looks like he was right all along to many of these Democratic voters.

And what you're seeing, it's unusual, because Democrats are usually all about aspiration. There's only been a few times in my time covering Washington, perhaps the second term of Bush, when there was real anger among Democrats. And what I'm interested to see is there are many people in the party, in the center of the party, who believe that the return of the left would be very bad electorally, in a general election.

Do you see some of those centrist figures? Perhaps some people want to run for president in 2028, they need to try and get out ahead of this energy and anger before it reshapes the party underneath them.

RAJU: Yeah, no question about it. And look, there is obviously we're seeing poll after poll showing how voters disapprove of the actions of Democrats, disapprove the direction that Democrats are going into. We're going to talk about that with a guest later in the show.

But Axios has put together, actually, a pretty handy list of the challenges ahead for Democrats that they're facing right now, lowest favorability ever, nope. National Party, popular National Party leader, insufficient numbers to stop most legislation, Supreme Court in the minority. Young voters growing more conservative, bad 2026 map for Senate races, democratic retirements.

There are three right now and then, only three House Republicans in districts. Harris won in 2024. It's the lowest point of Democrats that you've seen?

TREENE: That we've seen in some time at least. I mean --

RAJU: How do they get at it?

TREENE: That's the thing that's been so clear to me ever since this election, is that there is no unified message. I think the point of there being no real national leader, popular national leader that people are looking to is definitely a huge issue. And it's something that I've heard in some conversations and others reporting on this as well, that part of this is they are trying to really land on a great message ahead of the midterms, and they don't want to get out ahead of it too quickly.

I think that's a cop out. I think that it's clear that there is so much frustration right now in the country, and a lot of Americans want Democrats to be doing more, and they have yet to agree on what that more looks like, and it's going to be a huge issue. I think the question is, when will they solve it, and what will the issue be that really drives it?

Because what Trump's been doing so far in his term has been so many issues that we know are very igniting, energizing issues, typically for Democrats in the past. So, the fact that they haven't been able to rally around any of them, I think, is a major problem.

RAJU: Yeah, and they're coming back to Washington, Democrats are this week after being back home. Yeah, there were town halls that were angry at Republicans. We saw a lot of that. There were a lot of town halls that were angry about Democrats. Voters saying, you got to fight more. You got to do more.

And one of the person people will be dealing with this is the Democratic Leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, we reported over the weekend my colleague Sarah Ferris about how Jeffries is under pressure from Democrats in the House to try to articulate a vision, a more badly needed vision for this party right now.

This is what Nancy Pelosi told him. We learned in a closed-door meeting earlier this month. She told him to, quote, use your power, and that this is essentially because Chuck Schumer has been really driving a lot of the strategies. To some extent, maybe Jeffries should not be as deferential Chuck Schumer, and as one member told us on background, he said he's going to have to lead or Chuck leads.

This is his moment to step up House Democrats, who said he has always bowed to Schumer. And I think that's going to end. Do you think it's going to end?

FOX: I think he's going to have to try. Think back to Nancy Pelosi's strategy with Donald Trump. They were so evenly matched sometimes just because of their generational, their communication skills. I thought that it was such an interesting dynamic, because Nancy Pelosi really was a foil to Donald Trump in a way that Jeffries and Schumer had not become.

And I think that Jeffries is really cautious in his style, generally. He's so thoughtful about what he's going to say he speaks at talking points, he's going to have to shed some of that if he's going to be able to spontaneously respond in a way that a Trump Administration requires you to do so as a Democrats.

RAJU: Yeah, it's interesting because, yeah, Pelosi also drove so much of the strategy in the first Trump term, and Schumer oftentimes aligned with her in that. But now it's Schumer-Jeffries dynamic, how they fight back, and you're seeing the challenges to say the least, at least the last couple of weeks.

All right, coming up, the second lady the United States will be in Greenland this week, and the government there is not happy about it.

[12:25:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

RAJU: A quote highly aggressive visit. That's how the Prime Minister of Greenland is describing the upcoming visit of Second Lady Usha Vance and National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, as President Trump amps up talk of annexing the territory. The White House says Vance and Waltz will be there to watch the nation's national dog sweat race and celebrate, quote, Greenlandic culture and unity.

In response, Greenland's newly elected prime minister said, quote, what is the National Security Advisor doing in Greenland?

[12:30:00]