Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Interview With Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN); Chief Justice Rebukes Trump; Volodymyr Zelenskyy Speaks to President Trump. Aired 11-11:30a ET

Aired March 19, 2025 - 11:00   ET

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

[11:01:22]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: I'm Pamela Brown.

Happening now, breaking news: tense negotiations. President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy are speaking right now just one day after Trump spoke to Russia's Vladimir Putin. Could a cease-fire deal come out of all of this?

WOLF BLITZER, CNN HOST: We want to welcome our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer. You're in THE SITUATION ROOM.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BLITZER: And we begin with the breaking news, President Trump on a crucial phone call in the Oval Office with the Ukrainian president, Zelenskyy.

BROWN: Let's get right to White House reporter Alayna Treene.

What do we know about this call? Is it still ongoing?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes.

As far as we know, Pamela and Wolf, it kicked off roughly 30 minutes ago, confirmed by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Dan Scavino, who said the president was on the line with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office.

And, look, it's very clear how close the White House feels like they are to a broader cease-fire agreement. We know that Zelenskyy, one, wants to use this call to get up to speed with the president from what he discussed with Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday.

But I'd note the timing of all of this. This is actually the first time that we know of that both Trump and Zelenskyy have spoken since that Oval Office kind of snafu about 19 days ago, when the president essentially kicked Zelenskyy out of the Oval Office. We are clearly in a much different place now.

But, really, the key question is, how do they get to an agreement on a broader cease-fire deal? We know that, according to the White House and the Kremlin, that the U.S. and Russia agreed to a temporary pause on attacks on energy and infrastructure. It's something we know that Zelenskyy actually said he is open to, but also expressed skepticism that Russia is actually committed to it, given the overnight drone attacks on different energy and infrastructure spots in Ukraine.

But, look, we also have heard from National Security Adviser Michael Waltz this morning. He said he spoke with his Russian counterpart just moments ago and that the two teams agreed to meet in Riyadh to kind of continue these peace talks and figure out how they can get to a broader 30-day cease-fire agreement, what we know Zelenskyy had already agreed to, Pamela and Wolf.

BROWN: All right, Alayna Treene, thank you so much.

And new this morning, both Russia and Ukraine confirmed that they have carried out a prisoner exchange, 175 troops on both sides.

BLITZER: President Zelenskyy is calling it one of the largest exchanges so far, and he thanked the United Arab Emirates for helping make it possible.

I want to bring in CNN senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen. He's joining us with the latest from Moscow right now.

Fred, Putin and Trump also had their own call, as we all know. What can you tell us?

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, one of the things that we're hearing from the Russian side is, they say that it was a very good phone call. At least as far as Russia is concerned, it went very well.

And if you sort of look, Wolf, at Russian state media, what we have been seeing since that call took place, they're basically praising Vladimir Putin for standing up for Russia's national interests, as many of the commentators here in Russia are putting it.

Now, of course, the centerpiece of what actually appears to have been achieved in the short term is that possible cessation of strikes against energy infrastructure, but, of course, even there, the wording very different between what the White House believes all this means, and then what the Russians seem to believe that all this means.

Both sides say that it's for 30 days. The White House, however, saying they believe that it's energy and infrastructure that is not to be hit, whereas the Russians are saying energy infrastructure, meaning only things like power plants and transformer stations.

In any case, both sides are already accusing each other, the Ukrainians and the Russians, of breaching that agreement, saying that -- the Russians saying that the Ukrainians struck energy infrastructure overnight. Of course, we already heard from Alayna there the Ukrainians saying that the Russians also launched drones towards Ukrainian territory as well, Wolf.

[11:05:15]

BLITZER: All right, Fred Pleitgen in Moscow for us. Fred, thank you very, very much.

Last hour right here in THE SITUATION ROOM, I spoke with the retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer about a wide range of issues, including that rare rebuke from the chief justice, John Roberts, to President Trump. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So you think it was appropriate?

STEPHEN BREYER, FORMER U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: I do, because they don't know.

I mean, when you have a district court judge or you have a court of appeals judge, somebody's going to win and somebody's going to lose. What do you think the losing side thinks of the judge or the judge's decision? Naturally, they think it's wrong. Of course that happens every day of the week across the entire country.

And judges are wrong sometimes. So what does that person do? He appeals. He asks for a special writ in some cases, but he gets others to review the decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: All right, let's get a reaction from our chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig, and our chief Supreme Court analyst, Joan Biskupic.

Paula, let me start with you.

What do you make of Justice Breyer defending the chief justice, John Roberts, in this clash with Trump?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, that's not surprising at all that he would endorse the chief justice making a statement like this.

I think what was also interesting is that he told you he believes the statement is helpful because it educates the public about the role of impeachment, because, Wolf, no one is suggesting that a statement like this is going to deter President Trump from making these kinds of statements and these kinds of attacks against the judiciary.

Chief John Roberts pushed back on Trump back in 2018, when Trump was suggesting someone was an Obama judge and they had blocked his policy. That did not deter Trump from attacking the judiciary. And four criminal cases, multiple civil judgments later, this statement yesterday is not going to change Trump.

I have also spoken with some folks working on these cases related to defending Trump's policies. They're not going to change their approach either. They still believe that, when these cases get to the Supreme Court, if they get there on the merits, that they will win. So really it appears that the audience for this statement are lower

court judges who, when they have to weigh in on these cases, find themselves in these firestorms. And even folks close to the president agree, like, that's a nice thing to do. They're doing the same thing. So the prosecutors who are making some of these arguments.

You see a lot of the filings in the past 48 hours are signed by the attorney general and the deputy attorney general. And I'm told that's because they're showing support for their rank and file, just like the chief justices here.

BLITZER: Interesting.

BROWN: I'm wondering, Elie, to bring you in on this, what you think about the statement from Chief John Roberts? We heard from retired Justice Breyer that, look, the purpose of this was to educate the American public. Not everyone's a lawyer and understands how the process works.

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right.

BROWN: Do you think that the chief justice should have gone further or do you agree with how he handled it?

HONIG: Well, it's always notable when the chief justice speaks outside of the Supreme Court house or in the opinions. He's done it now three times in 20 years.

Obviously, I think, of course, chief -- Justice Breyer was correct to say that there was an educational component there. We all learned a little bit about when we do and do not impeach judges and justices. That said, there was also clearly a symbolic element to what the chief justice chose to say.

This wasn't just, let me explain to you how this one process works. If that was the case, he'd be issuing statements every day. Let me explain to you how this process works, that process works. I think what the chief justice understood here is, this is a moment. And this is a moment when he needed to come out and make a statement of principle.

And I think Justice Breyer echoed this, that judges and justices do their jobs. If you have a problem with how it comes out, we have processes for that, not impeachment, but appeal. And I think what he was doing here, what the chief justice was doing was trying to reassure judges throughout this country, citizens throughout this country we are a country of law and order. We have our ways of doing things.

And what the president's doing -- even though he didn't know we didn't say Trump's name, but obviously he was talking about Donald Trump -- what the president's doing is not normal and not acceptable. I think it was a powerful message by both the chief justice and Justice Breyer.

BLITZER: Follow the law. That's always a powerful message. Joan, it's interesting. I'm anxious to get your thoughts. I know you

had a chance to speak with Justice Breyer recently as well.

JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN SUPREME COURT ANALYST: Right.

And he wanted the chief to issue this kind of statement, as did lower court judges, who are on the front line of this Trump litigation. They're the ones who are mostly under pressure, and they had been clamoring for some sort of response just to acknowledge what's happening to them.

And remember the kinds of people who become judges. They aren't politicians usually. They aren't people who are used to being buffeted in these political winds. And they're a little bit shell-shocked right now. They're trying to send signals that they're going slowly through cases, and they're under threat.

They're being accused of degrees of corruption or something that would require impeachment, which, of course, is a very rare, rarely invoked process here in America. Just a handful of judges have even ever been impeached.

[11:10:08]

So they needed some shoring up. But I thought what Justice Breyer showed today, and with you, Wolf and Pam, and also what I have seen of him most recently in his chambers, is here's someone who's going to be optimistic in this moment, who when he was on the court actually worked much more for compromise than we have seen more recently, who's someone who has said, look, we can ride out these storms.

Now, we are at the beginning of these four years, and there's so much more litigation that's marching up toward the Supreme Court that I think not only was the statement important for lower court judges, but also to sort of, -- for the chief justice of the United States, only the 17th chief justice in history, compared to 47th presidents, to be able to make that statement, because sooner or later all of these cases are going to get to the court, and people want to have confidence in the court.

And the chief, at least, wants to -- is so institutional-minded, and so aware of what his own image and legacy will be. I think he felt like it was time. And nobody has mentioned -- as Donald Trump said, he didn't mention his name, but also in these statements, the chief did not mention the name of James Boasberg, who is embroiled in this deportation case, or any other judge.

They're trying to keep the temperature low on individual cases.

BLITZER: He's the federal judge that was involved.

BISKUPIC: Yes.

BLITZER: And a chief justice serves for life, as opposed to a president, who serves for four or eight years.

BISKUPIC: Well, that's right. That's why we have only had 17, and John Roberts is only -- in his 20th year.

And I do have to say, Wolf, that for the first 12 years of John Roberts' life until 2017, when Donald Trump first took office, it was a much different landscape for him. He's had a rockier road since Donald Trump took the White House.

BLITZER: Certainly has.

BROWN: Yes, to say the least.

And it really did strike me. When President Trump was asked about the statement during the interview last night, he said -- he was pretty restrained, I thought. He's saying, well, he didn't mention me by name. Well, clearly, the statement is at the very least in response to all of this.

And it does raise the question whether this will cause Trump to change his approach at all.

REID: No, I don't think so.

Look, he takes a lot of pride in the Supreme Court. That's a huge part of his legacy from his first term, is creating that conservative supermajority. So it doesn't surprise me that he tried to brush off the statement. This is not going to deter him. And it's also not going to deter him and his lawyers from pursuing this legal strategy to try to get the Supreme Court to affirm this expansive use of executive power.

Before he even took the oath of office, they were telling me, look, we're going to try some new things. Most of our policies will be challenged. We will lose at the district court level, as they did here. We will likely lose at the appellate level. But if we can get this before that conservative supermajority, we will win on behalf of President Trump.

So his lawyers understand this is all part of the game. But we know President Trump believes that he is a victim of the judiciary and the judicial system.

BLITZER: Paula Reid, thank you. Joan Biskupic, thanks to you as well. Elie Honig, always good to have you here in THE SITUATION ROOM.

And we will have much more news right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:17:48]

BROWN: Breaking news: President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy are speaking right now, just one day after Trump spoke with Russian President Putin.

There were different readouts of that call. The White House says the Kremlin agreed to pause attacks and attacks on energy and infrastructure, but Russia says it's on just energy infrastructure. And the difference in those descriptions could be significant.

And just hours after that call, both Ukraine and Russia say they experienced attacks on energy infrastructure, despite what came out of the call.

Joining us now is Republican Congressman Tom Emmer from Minnesota. He is the majority whip and sits on the Financial Services Committee.

Whip Emmer, thank you for coming on.

You are a big supporter of Ukraine. What do you hope will come out of this call with Zelenskyy this morning, a day after President Trump talked to Putin?

REP. TOM EMMER (R-MN): Well, I mean, the thing -- Pamela, thanks for having me.

The thing that you left out in that was that literally within the last hour or two there was a prisoner exchange going on...

BROWN: Yes.

EMMER: ... between the Russians and the Ukrainians.

This is the first movement towards peace, I would argue, that we have seen since this war broke out. And, hopefully, what's going to happen here is exactly what President Trump said he was going to do, is get them both to the table and help them reach an agreement that can bring peace back to the region.

BROWN: And you're absolutely right. We should have mentioned that; 175 prisoners, I believe, were exchanged on both sides.

So, that aside, the readout from both sides was that there would be a cease-fire on attacks on energy infrastructure, but both sides, Ukraine and Russia, are saying that there were attacks, regardless of the call. Putin has continued to make maximalist demands to control parts of Ukraine.

President Trump says land concessions are on the table. Zelenskyy says Ukraine will not recognize the occupied territories as Russian, calling it a red line. So where do negotiations go from here?

EMMER: Well, I think you have got a master negotiator as a world leader who's actually trying to facilitate this mediated discussion. Where that leads, Pamela, we will have to see. You at least have two willing participants to have the discussion.

[11:20:05]

But do not expect them to start out by saying, I'm giving up this, I'm getting that, or it's not going to work. They're going to represent their people. We should expect that, and we should honor that. I'm no fan of Putin, but I think, at the end of the day, getting him to the table and having this discussion, again, it's the first step towards peace that we have seen in this conflict since it started. And I'm very hopeful that there's a path that they're going to be able

to get it done, so the Ukrainian people can get back to living, as opposed to fighting.

BROWN: You call President Trump a master negotiator. I know other Republicans have been saying that.

Critics have argued that Putin is playing Trump, that we know from history this is right out of his playbook, that sometimes he uses negotiations as a stall tactic, and that so far he hasn't really given up anything.

And he said after the discussion with Trump that he will agree to the cease-fire if the U.S. stops all foreign military aid and intelligence to Ukraine. Would you ever support that?

(LAUGHTER)

EMMER: Again, I do say Donald Trump is a master negotiator. I mean, there is no other leader on the world stage that has his experience and has shown what he has shown in his first term, what he's willing to do and what he can get accomplished.

If anybody can help these people get together and bring peace back to the region, it's Donald J. Trump.

BROWN: And you talk about Russia -- bringing Russia to the table, but, as you all know, Russia wants to be -- wants the legitimacy. Russia wants to be recognized by the United States. Russia wants to normalize relations with the United States.

And there are arguments from those who have studied Russia that the U.S., in order to really get Putin to come to the table in a substantive way, that the U.S. needs to be rough -- tougher on Putin. Would you like to see the U.S. be tougher on Russia or even use frozen Russian assets, for example? Would that be a good idea?

EMMER: Well, I'm going to tell you, I think the time for that toughness that you're talking about was when Joe Biden was coming into office.

The problem is, Joe Biden and his administration allowed this to happen. And I agree with our president. This conflict never would have broken out had he been the one in the White House. And now he's inherited what was created under the Biden administration. And he's trying to get these two very different parties, they don't like each other, to the table to have a discussion to see if there's a path for peace in the region, which I don't think is of primary interest to Americans.

It's of primary interest to Americans and everyone around the globe. We would love to see these conflicts resolved and get back to the business of building relationships and doing business.

BROWN: Yes. And I know a lot of Republicans have said that they believe this would have never happened under Trump's watch. Of course, there is no way to definitively prove that. And we will see what happens with these negotiations.

I want to pivot to Supreme Court Chief John Roberts' rebuke after President Trump said a federal judge should be impeached over a decision he disagreed with.

Listen to what retired Justice Stephen Breyer just told my colleague Wolf Blitzer this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN BREYER, FORMER U.S. SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE: I mean, when you have a district court judge or you have a court of appeals judge, somebody's going to win and somebody's going to lose.

What do you think the losing side thinks of the judge or the judge's decision? Naturally, they think it's wrong. Of course that happens every day of the week across the entire country.

And judges are wrong sometimes. So what does that person do? He appeals. He asks for a special writ in some cases, but he gets others to review the decision.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Do you agree with the rhetoric coming from the president about judges, in particular, this latest judge, Boasberg, calling him a radical left lunatic, calling for his impeachment, calling him a troublemaker, an agitator?

Can you hear me, Whip Emmer?

EMMER: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was going on. I was listening to Justice Breyer.

BROWN: Oh, that's OK. That's OK.

EMMER: I'm going to tell you, I think, when it comes to the impeachment issue, you already know you need 67 senators. And after Chuck Schumer's humiliation last week, I don't think he's going to go down that road any time soon.

When it comes to this issue, the big issue is that 77 million people voted for Donald Trump, and they voted for him to get these criminals out of our country to make sure that we're safe and secure in our communities. He's trying to honor that.

And as far as working with the legal system, I think Justice Breyer said it best. When you have a disagreement, you will resolve it through the courts.

BROWN: Right. And there's no doubt that President Trump was put into office by millions.

That's not the question and whether he's trying to carry out his policies. The question is about the separation of powers and whether the president of the United States should be calling for the impeachment of a judge, which, as I know you know, there are in the Constitution specific requirements, treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors.

[11:25:14]

But just overall big picture, I know that you're a big supporter of President Trump, of course, but he has tested the boundaries of presidential power, and now seeming to want to do away with checks and balances.

He says he will follow the judge's orders, but he clearly has taken steps, not just attacking judges, but he has gotten rid of inspectors general without notifying Congress under the law, freezing funds appropriated by Congress, trying to get rid of birthright citizenship in the Constitution, firing these federal trade commissioners, when there is Supreme Court precedent saying a president can't do it.

What do you think about all of that taken as a whole?

EMMER: Well, again, I think this is a narrative that the media is trying to create. In fact, there was no...

BROWN: No, just to respectful, Whip Emmer, it's not a narrative. I just pointed out specific examples.

EMMER: Pamela, I'm going to be respectful too.

But when you don't talk about the Dobbs decision, that Joe Biden viciously attacked our Supreme Court because he disagreed with it, and you make this look like something it's not, Donald Trump's not happy, I'm sure.

But when it comes to what he's trying to do, there are 77 million Americans who elected him to do exactly what he's doing. And you know what? There's a lot of Americans who are very frustrated with judges who appear to be legislating from the bench, instead of applying the law to the facts that are presented.

BROWN: Right. First of all, Biden did not call for the judge to be impeached.

But, as you well know, there is a separation of powers. There's Article III.

EMMER: So he didn't use the word impeachment.

BROWN: Which -- OK, but -- and, listen, that's in the past. This isn't about whataboutism.

And I didn't just focus on the judge. I also focused on everything as a whole. But, also, look, this is the way that our democracy works, whether you like it or not. And there is a judicial process under Article III that goes up to the Supreme Court. That is what is happening here. This law was challenged. It went to a judge. The judge made the ruling. There's appeals and it goes up through the process. Do you have a

problem with the way that our system of government under the Constitution is made up?

EMMER: Not at all, if that's what you're asking me, Pamela.

I would actually interpret some of the things you just said differently.

BROWN: How so?

EMMER: But you and I have a different perspective on this.

I think -- I think that the administration is doing exactly what they were elected to do. I think the judicial branch is going to do what it has been doing. And guess what? You will resolve it in court in the long run. That's why Justice Breyer, it was a very balanced statement when he talks about that's what you do. You will appeal it. You will take it from there.

BROWN: Yes, I don't think we have different perspectives, then, because we're just laying out the facts under the Constitution and how the -- our system of democracy works.

I want to go to something else happening on Capitol Hill. After passing the government funding bill, Republicans are pivoting to reconciliation in order to make President Trump's tax cuts permanent. As you know, the Congressional Budget Office says cuts to Medicaid would need to be included to meet the goals outlined in the GOP budget.

Millions of Americans rely on Medicaid. What do you say to Americans that are concerned right now that they could lose their health care?

EMMER: Well, the statement that it requires a huge cuts to Medicaid benefits is simply not true.

I mean, the GAO, Pamela, says that there's $50 billion a year annually in fraud waste and abuse in Medicaid. You can get $500 billion over the 10-year window just by cleaning up the waste, fraud and abuse. So, first, I disagree with the way that that's teed up.

And, second, when you talk about tax cuts, I think that's a misnomer. Taxes are where they are and where they have been since 2017. We're talking about, do we allow the American public to experience the greatest tax increase ever, $4.5 trillion to $5 trillion, or do we continue with the tax policy that we have right now?

We agree with the president, who told Americans that we would make it permanent.

BROWN: OK.

And just to follow up, you said you disagree with the way it's teed up. I'm just telling you what Americans are concerned about. We're hearing that in town halls as well across the country. And it is a fact that that is what the CBO said, that there would have to be substantial cuts to Medicaid to reach that $880 billion in cuts that Republicans would need.

President Trump, we should emphasize, says Medicare will not be touched. But he has endorsed, as you're also seeming to endorse, the so-called waste, fraud and abuse -- waste, fraud and abuse.

What do you say to critics who claim that's just cover to make substantial cuts to Medicare, and you're saying that because how you know bad it would be politically to say, we're going to make cuts to Medicare?

EMMER: Donald Trump's already said that we're not, and that -- there's no way -- there's no movement. This is...

BROWN: But you're going to make cuts based on waste, fraud, and abuse, right?

EMMER: This isn't -- Pamela, you're doing it again. You're trying to put words out there that don't exist.

BROWN: I'm asking you. You brought it up.

EMMER: What this is, is literally find -- and, by the way, waste, fraud, and abuse? You're not in favor of getting rid of waste, fraud and abuse?

BROWN: I'm not saying that. I'm asking you.

EMMER: And you rely on the -- you rely on the CBO. You rely on the CBO that has absolutely been unreliable in the last seven, eight years or more.