Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Iran Says It'll Close Strait Of Hormuz Again If U.S. Naval Blockade Continues; Dems Hope To Gain 4 House Seats In VA Redistricting Effort; Supreme Court Justices Air Grievances In Public; Trump: Supreme Court Picks Lined Up Amid Retirement Speculation; TMZ Wraps First Week Chasing Lawmakers On Capitol Hill. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired April 17, 2026 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00]

RICHARD QUEST, CNN BUSINESS EDITOR-AT-LARGE: -- that's pretty good and that's certainly the best you might get. But then you've got the blockade at the southern end of the gulf and the U.S. is saying, you know, we're not going to let you out the other side, so that's another problem which could exacerbate.

I think in this -- the Red Sea is a good example, since we're geeking along, the Red Sea has not reopened because the Houthis are still a threat to the shipping going through up towards the Suez Canal. So in this scenario, the price has come down as knee-jerk reflex action it would, but unless we see ships moving and oil actually being delivered then it'll go back up again.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Can I ask you about the disconnect between what energy analysts that you and I both talk to, investors, folks with portfolios that are very significant in this space saying this is as bad in a potential catastrophe like we've never seen before given the supply just completely locked out at this point in time? And what you're looking at right now and obviously down 10 percent because of the headlines today, but in general staying roughly around 100 is not anything close to what it was in 2022, say.

QUEST: Because the market has fooled itself, that's why, the market believes I -- look, you could take your pick whether you want to go taco, whether you want to go common sense, whether you want to go something must be done, the market has believed that the worst will not happen. But for every maneuver towards the worst, every bit that doesn't go well, the price will go back up again.

So to your point, if it really became liable that the Strait was not going to open up and it would remain so for several more weeks, if not months, then you would see oil prices going towards 130, 140, 150. And I'm going to back this up with some evidence because although you've got the cash price, you've got the spot price, you've got the futures price, you actually have this -- the cash price. And the cash price if I want to go and buy oil at the moment is around $140, $150 a barrel.

MATTINGLY: It's such a great point. I feel like we're all making a mistake by focusing on month forward futures at this point in time or not focusing on refined products moving downstream.

Richard Quest, I have learned so much from your interviews with executives over the course of the last several months.

QUEST: Likewise from you, sir.

MATTINGLY: They have been excellent. Thank you, my friend. I appreciate it.

QUEST: Thank you, sir. Thank you.

MATTINGLY: What's one of the biggest and one of the final redistricting fights in the country? Will Virginia voters give Democrats the map they want?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:37:09]

MATTINGLY: Next week, voters in Virginia will determine if the GOP-led redistricting effort across the country paid off for Republicans. Now, Democrats are leading an effort to redraw Virginia's congressional map, raising big money and leaning on the party stars.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, 44TH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: By voting yes, you have a chance to do something important, not just for the commonwealth, but for our entire country. By voting yes, you can push back against the Republicans trying to give themselves an unfair advantage in the midterms. By voting yes, you can take a temporary step to level the playing field.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Now, polling has shown a close race, but early voter data analyzed by CNN is positive for Democrats. Now, if they are successful, it could give Democrats 10 out of the state's 11 House seats.

The push in Virginia, of course, comes after a nationwide push. Republicans started in Texas, then Democrats followed with in California. There's a lot of back and forth here. And I'm going to be candid with you, I don't necessarily keep track of it on a day-to-day basis because it has been so fluid.

So we're going to try and do this right now. I have my mini version of the wall that I usually stand in front of, so we'll see how this plays out. But I want to start with before all the redistricting push started, Democrats needed three seats, three Republican seats to flip, to take over the chamber, to take over the majority.

All right, so we have now seen at this point in time, with all the states that you see, as this battle has gone back and forth, yes, including California and Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Republicans, if this map is the endgame, would net three seats total, which would mean Democrats would have to win six seats to be able to retake the majority.

So, Republican advantage of three seats there. Now, let's factor in Virginia. If Democrats win this, win their -- the ballot effort that's currently in place up for a vote, Democrats would net, in the overall battle that's been going on, the one that President Trump started and the Democrats freaked out about initially and then have just dropped millions and millions of dollars on, Democrats would actually end up netting one seat. Democrats would then need two seats to be able to retain the majority.

Now, of course, there's also the under-discussion of Florida, which could net Republicans two seats in total if that goes through and you take everything together. Democrats would then need five Republican seats to flip to retake the majority. And I think the point, guys, that I'm trying to get at here is, OK, Republicans, maybe if Virginia happens for Democrats and Florida happens for Republicans, Republicans net two seats total throughout this process.

And I want to go back to the very beginning if I can. We'll see if I can actually figure out how to do this. I'll take that off, too.

Hell, yes. Democrats needed three seats. If everything goes through, it's like a one, two, three seat difference from what it was. And why -- what the hell were we doing here?

[12:40:09]

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: It's -- so this was something that was completely started by Trump's political moments in the White House.

MATTINGLY: Yes.

TREENE: I mean, this was the kind of strategy we saw them deploy on the campaign trail, obviously very successfully trying to, you know, get any sort of advantage they could across the country. And then this was a big push when he came into office.

You know, a lot of the same political aides he has, many of them now on the outside operating but still advising the President, thought that this redistricting push would really help them to have this new midterm advantage. Recognizing as well, I'd remind people part of the reason this is so important to Trump is because, you know, this is supposed to be his last term as a president.

And if he doesn't have majorities in Congress, he's pretty screwed for the remainder of his term. And so that was the big focus here. The problem is, you know, now you're seeing Democrats who were really aghast at what Republicans were trying to do in Texas and these other states, like, well, you know, voters, we don't like this.

But if Republicans are going to play this game, we have to play this game too. And that's really the messaging you've been hearing in a lot of these different states, Virginia included, really trying to push home that, like, part of the reason we're doing this is because Republicans are trying to take this advantage in so many other states across the country.

MATTINGLY: Yes, no, we're not going to unilaterally disarm. I understand the argument they've made. What I don't understand is, can we pull up how much money has been spent in Virginia -- sorry, how much money has gone into this effort in Virginia up to this point?

I think yes was $64 million as of today, so that's for the Democratic side of things. No, $19 million. I want to ask both of you about this, because California also has an astronomical, I think it's $142 million for the effort that Newsom led that ended up being victorious. Is this worth -- was this worth it?

MARIO PARKER, NATIONAL POLITICS TEAM LEADER, BLOOMBERG: I don't think so. I think to Alayna's point, a lot of this started with Texas and the President trying to figure out a way to get some type of advantage, as he publicly and privately mused about the fact that presidents usually lose the midterm elections, and that's, I think, what's been hanging over all of this.

We've heard him say time and time again, I don't know, he would say something like it's psychological, he doesn't know the reason, but for whatever reason, no matter how good the record is, the President, whoever's in power, the opposite party --

MATTINGLY: Yes.

PARKER: -- gets the majority in the midterms, and we saw what happened the last go-round, and he's loathe to go through some of that again with the investigations, impeachment investigations, all those things as well. Whether or not, to your question, Phil, we're upwards of $90 million or some such --

MATTINGLY: Yes, just in Virginia.

PARKER: -- just being spent, whether or not that's well played. It just seems to be a wash at this point, right?

MATTINGLY: Which maybe is the win. And just, Alex, real quick, because we got to go, like your sense right now, what does the White House think about how this has gone?

ALEX GANGITANO, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, POLITICO: I think they're disappointed. They were looking at this as the backstop of if affordability doesn't bring us the election, at least we were able to pick up some seats. Texas then didn't work out for them because California came back and was able to retaliate.

We'll see if Virginia comes back, but I think they were really hoping that this could, you know, be something that makes them feel really comfortable going into November. Now they're not comfortable, they don't have this thing, it's all now coming down to Republicans messaging on the trail --

MATTINGLY: Yes.

GANGITANO: -- and no longer have this safety net. MATTINGLY: No, that's a great point. It's been fascinating to watch it all play out for a wash on some level. We'll see with Virginia next week.

Well, up next, high court higher tensions. This week, Supreme Court justices, they're taking their grievances public.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:48:01]

MATTINGLY: The Supreme Court is known for operating with discretion, but this week, justices, they're kind of airing their dirty laundry, maybe see dirty robes on some level. Here's Clarence Thomas slamming the left as a threat to America.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS, SUPREME COURT: Progressivism seeks to replace the basic premises of the Declaration of Independence, and hence, our form of government. It holds that our rights and our dignities come not from God, but from government.

It requires of the people a subservience and weakness incompatible with a constitution premised on the transcendent origin of our rights. Progressivism, in other words, is retrogressive.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Now, those remarks were just two days after Ketanji Brown Jackson railed against conservative justices' handling of the court's emergency docket, which has delivered a series of wins for President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUSTICE KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, SUPREME COURT: Thus, there is a serious concern that the Supreme Court's modern stay practices are having an enormously disruptive and potentially corrosive effect on the functioning of the federal judiciary's usual decision-making process. The court's stay decisions can, at times, come across utterly irrational.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: And of course, Sonia Sotomayor issued a very rare public apology for what she called hurtful comments about fellow Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

CNN's Joan Biskupic joins the panel now. Joan, feels different, seems different. You're the expert. What's going on?

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: It is different. You know, I just came from the courtroom about an hour ago, and they all came out on the bench, minus Justice Gorsuch, who wasn't sitting today. And, you know, they all looked out like, this is business as usual. We're all fine.

They're not fine. They're not fine. This is different. This is different. It's ratcheted up much more than it usually is. And let me start with why. First of all, I think the stakes are really high right now.

[12:50:03]

The court is looking at a lot of the Trump policies. It's got a major voting rights case coming down the pike. I mean, you all just discussed what's going on with the redistricting. And if the justices suddenly roll back key protections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which they probably will, it will add to more disarray in terms of redistricting and what's going to happen in the 2026 midterms.

So lots at stake here. And what's happening is that individual justices are feeling like they're not being heard enough at court that they're going out beyond. Now, we can understand why the liberals would do that. They're losing. It's a 6-3 conservative liberal court.

And so the liberals, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Jackson, tend to be out on the road much more. But I think for Justice Thomas, to me, it's reminiscent a little bit of Justice Scalia, who was in the majority when he served from 1986 to 2016 when he passed away.

But he didn't feel like he was being heard enough with his colleagues. So he would go out and give speeches and explain more his philosophy, his ideology, just what you heard right now with Clarence Thomas.

Now, there's a risk in going out on the stump and not just letting your writing speak for yourself or your oral arguments speak for yourself, is that sometimes you say things that might be a little bit extreme or severe, which is exactly what happened with Justice Sotomayor when she criticized Justice Kavanaugh, not just for how he ruled, but for his background, saying, you know, this is a man whose both parents were professionals.

He probably has never known anyone who worked by the hour. And she realized, rightly, that she had crossed a line in terms of Supreme Court decorum. And that's why she came back this week and said, I regret what I said. I've apologized to my colleague. And I want you all to know that, too.

MATTINGLY: It's just -- it's been fascinating to watch it play out. And it somewhat aligned, same institution, a little bit of a pivot, because I think this has been playing out at the same time in parallel, which is, Alayna, President Trump seems to be weighing in on the possibility of a sitting justice leaving and trying to fill that position, which is always something behind the scenes that, like, presidents are aware of, their teams are very aware of.

They always have lists of potential nominees. You never know what could happen, as we saw with Antonin Scalia back in 2016. But listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Look, you know, there's a theory. You reach a certain age and you give up your seat to a -- if you have the president. You know, the average is like 40 years. It's a long time. So that your ideology, your policies, your everything would be of the kind that we like.

But it's probably not easy to give up for people, you know? They reach a certain age. Ginsburg could not do it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: There's a lot of talk right now. What do you think -- like, how real is this behind the scenes of the White House that they're trying to think through this?

TREENE: Well, he also then later came out and specifically, I think it was in a Truth Social post, brought up justice -- excuse me, who am I thinking of? I was about to say Scalia but it's --

BISKUPIC: Justice Alito?

TREENE: Yes, Justice Alito, I'm sorry.

MATTINGLY: Yes, yes. Well, you know --

TREENE: You know, he's talking about. And essentially saying, like, you know, what about him? And throwing that out. Sorry, you got me caught up before I was thinking about him.

BISKUPIC: You got it.

TREENE: Anyway, I thought that was remarkable to see him even just put that into words online, especially because, one, he has been one of the most conservative people sticking, you know, you've seen some of the other people that the President has really even called out publicly as well.

The people he put on the bench between Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch, going after them if they ever, you know, kind of make a ruling in a way that he doesn't necessarily like. I mean, you've also heard him recently say the liberal justices on the court, those who were selected by Democrats, they stick together. Republicans don't stick together.

So it's something that's really getting under his skin. But I think him publicly floating this idea of perhaps, you know, wanting the chance to get another bite at that apple, to have one of the more senior justices, someone like Alito, being able to push them out and to have someone come in, it's fascinating. I think those conversations are happening behind the scenes.

MATTINGLY: Yes.

TREENE: I'm not sure how serious.

BISKUPIC: He's only 76. And if he were to go, it would be like 10 years earlier. Justice -- than they normally go.

MATTINGLY: Yes, yes.

BISKUPIC: Justice Ginsburg, when she passed away, she was 83. So --

MATTINGLY: We talk about, is it different? Yes, a lot of things are different right now. Joan Biskupic, you're the best, my friend. Thank you very much.

Well, up next, D.C. has one of its most salacious weeks, which is perfectly timed because TMZ was in town. We look at how lawmakers are responding to the tabloid treatment and what happens when it's back to bills and appropriations.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:58:56]

MATTINGLY: We made it to Friday, and that includes a new Capitol Hill team, TMZ, who embarked on a new beat this week, the intersection of pop culture and politics. And, well, here's a short sampling of their chase this week.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Secretary, what did you do with the raccoons, dead penis? Where is it now?

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: No, thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Amen. I'm from TMZ.

KENNEDY: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Could I just ask you about the bubble one, sir?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Mario, we've already talked. I'm very pro this. I'm all about it. What do you think?

PARKER: The more that we're here? Hey, I saw Ted Cruz walking down the hallways as well. They were asking him, trying to get him to weigh in on the Pope versus President Trump. He wouldn't budge at all. Hey, the more the merrier in the hallways.

MATTINGLY: Alex?

GANGITANO: I think the stress level on Capitol Hill has gone up a little bit, and that's good. Why not? Like, get some more people in there to ask questions? I think TMZ has a different pulse on what people are interested in versus other reporters who have been doing this in D.C. and our bubble here for maybe longer. So ask some questions that maybe we're not asking. Why not? The more the merrier for reporters. MATTINGLY: I couldn't agree more. I'm all for it. I think also them

showing how we do our jobs better than we probably do will be really valuable for a lot of people. But, hey, there's no group of 435 people in America that deserve the TMZ treatment more than lawmakers.

Pass some stuff, and maybe I'll change my mind. That's just my -- sorry. It's Friday. I can have an opinion, right? That's how it's supposed to work.

Great panel. Thank you guys very much. And thank you for joining Inside Politics. CNN News Central starts right now.