Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

Trump Seeks To Disqualify Judge From D.C. Election Case; Kim Jong Un Aboard Train Headed To Russia To Meet Putin; Sheriff Refuses To Enforce New Mexico Governor's Gun Ban. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired September 11, 2023 - 21:00   ET



ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: 40 were killed when the plane they were in crashed, in a field, in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

This morning, mourners gathered at Ground Zero, in New York, for several moments of silence, including one, for each plane, and the reading of the names of those killed.




COOPER: The bell rang at the exact moments when the planes hit.

Tonight, we remember what must never be forgotten.

That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.


Speaker McCarthy, on a, collision course, amid a looming revolt, within his own ranks, the pressure growing, from his right flank, to impeach President Biden, which could end up shutting down the government.

Plus, Donald Trump wants the judge, overseeing his federal election case, out, now calling on her, to recuse herself. But it is up to the judge to actually make that call. And we'll tell you how she just responded.

And tonight, two beams of light, remind us of what happened, 22 years ago, the deadliest attack on U.S. soil. But as the nation remembers 9/11, families of the victims are still asking why are they waiting for justice?

I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.

Tonight, House lawmakers are set to return to Capitol Hill. And it is time to prepare, for drama, potentially lots of it. There is a new feud that is brewing, within speaker Kevin McCarthy's Republican Party. His far-right flank is demanding an impeachment inquiry, into President Biden, or else he may not get their support, on a lot of really important deals, that could end up leaving the government shut down.

Eight months, after the hardliners relented, and struck a deal, to give him the Speaker's gavel, McCarthy is now facing his biggest test yet. And those members have the ability, to oust him, from leadership, with just one snap vote.

McCarthy is also facing pressure, from outside Capitol Hill, from former President Donald Trump, who is now openly previewing what a second Trump term could look like. And it includes enacting revenge, on his political opponents.


DONALD TRUMP, 45TH U.S. PRESIDENT: But remember, it's a -- it's a Democrat, charging his opponent. Nobody's ever seen anything like it. That means that if I win, and somebody wants to run against me, I call my Attorney General, I say, "Listen. Indict him."


TRUMP: "Well, he hasn't done anything wrong that we know of."

"I don't know. Indict him on income tax evasion. You'll figure it out."


COLLINS: Let's get straight to THE SOURCE, tonight, with South Carolina Republican congresswoman, and member of the House Oversight Committee, Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who's here with us, in-person.

Thank you so much.

Do you support launching an impeachment inquiry, into President Biden?

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Well, I mean, it's hard to say, at this point.

I think there's a difference between an impeachment vote and an inquiry. The inquiry would give us another tool, in the toolbox, specifically, to look at Joe Biden's bank records. Everyone's screaming about the evidence, "Where's the evidence?" The bank records hold all of the evidence.

And if the American people, Kaitlan, if you could see the Suspicious Activity Reports that I have seen, on the Biden family, you would too would probably support an impeachment inquiry, just as a tool, to get more information on, specifically the bank information, bank records, of Joe Biden, and his family members. That's an important tool, in our toolbox.

COLLINS: So, does that mean you do support an impeachment inquiry? MACE: I'll support an impeachment inquiry. Impeachment vote is totally separate. But an inquiry, I would support, at this juncture.

COLLINS: And why would you support that? Because there are -- you're on one of the committees that is investigating this. There's three committees investigating all of this.

MACE: Yes.

COLLINS: And there's a Special Counsel that is investigating Hunter Biden, has been investigating him, for five years now.

So, why does there need to be an impeachment inquiry, if there's already several --

MACE: My --

COLLINS: -- ongoing investigations?

MACE: Yes, great question. My understanding is it will give us access, to Joe Biden's bank records. And if we can connect the dots, and show the American people, where the bribery allegation stand, where the money laundering stands, showing through vis-a-vis the bank records, that is a way to do that.

If you could see what I have seen? And we can't share the SARs reports, because they're confidential, and that would be against the law. So, we have to prove it via other means, via the bank records, for example. If that gets us Joe Biden's bank records? Then, I'm going to support it.

Because, everyone should know what actually happened, what kind of businesses were involved, how Joe Biden was involved. The kind of money that was involved, in these schemes is astounding. You would be shocked. It would -- you would blush, Kaitlan, if you knew.

COLLINS: So, I know that --

MACE: If you've seen what I've seen.

COLLINS: -- you've said this before. And we spoke with you, after you went to the Treasury Department, and looked at those reports.

MACE: Yes.

COLLINS: But, I mean, you, as a member of Congress, do have access to those reports. You would have -- saw them yourself.

MACE: We do.

COLLINS: So, I think, a lot of people ask, you've been home, for six weeks. There's been no new evidence that's been uncovered, or brought forward. So, what is the basis now, for having the impeachment inquiry?

[21:05:00] MACE: Well I think, I mean, there are more people to subpoena, whether that's Hunter Biden, whether that's the bookkeeper, whether that's getting Shokin, into testify.

There are a lot of witnesses, out there, that saw things that were part of meetings that Joe Biden was a part of, that were part of the transactions that were potentially part of the bribery scheme. I mean, all that evidence, the American people should be able to have and see. The American people can't --

COLLINS: The evidence (ph) has risen to that?

MACE: Well the American people can't see the Suspicious Activity Reports. Those are confidential documents. So, any piece of evidence, right or wrong, I want the American people to see all of it. Whether it backs us up, or does not, the people deserve the truth, and nothing but the truth.

COLLINS: But isn't it supposed to be the evidence that leads you to pursue impeachment, an impeachment inquiry?

MACE: Well, that's what the inquiry is for.

COLLINS: But there's already three investigations.

MACE: It's to get the evidence.

COLLINS: I think --

MACE: Right.

COLLINS: -- that's where people are confused, because it's not like --

MACE: But we don't have Joe --

COLLINS: -- there's no investigation happening.

MACE: We don't have Joe Biden's bank records yet. And so, one way to do that, my understanding would be, through an impeachment inquiry. So, if that's what gets us those bank records? Then, I'm going to support it. I'm just saying, if you could see what I have seen? And I believe you should -- you deserve to see that.

COLLINS: But have you seen direct evidence, related to President Biden?

MACE: I have seen --

COLLINS: Because that's what we have not heard.

MACE: Well, we have to connect the dots. And that has to be through the bank records. If his bank records show nothing, the American people should know that too.

COLLINS: And you think it's worth launching that --

MACE: 100 percent.

COLLINS: -- to get to that?

MACE: I do. I do. If that's what gets us the bank records, that's what we should do.

COLLINS: I think the other point of confusion here is that all of this is being tied, to funding the government. And I don't --

MACE: Separate things.

COLLINS: Well, not for members of your own party.

MACE: Yes, yes.

COLLINS: Because Marjorie Taylor Greene says she won't vote to fund the government, unless that House impeachment inquiry is passed. There are a lot of Republicans.

You said you would support it, and you'd vote for it. That's news.

MACE: I'm not voting to --

COLLINS: But there's a lot, who would not.

MACE: I'm not voting, to fund the government, because Republicans and Democrats have spent too much, like I think holding hostage an impeachment inquiry, is wrong.

When you look at what we just did three months ago, on the debt ceiling, Republicans and Democrats alike just added $18.8 trillion, to the debt. That is the reason why all of us should be voting, against these massive spending measures.

COLLINS: But it's holding the government hostage, for the impeachment inquiry, right?

MACE: Yes, yes, no that -- in a sense, that would. But --

COLLINS: That's what she's saying she would do it.

MACE: Yes. I'm voting against the excess spending, because of the out- of-control spending. I'm not going to hold the impeachment inquiry hostage, is what I'm saying is my difference.

COLLINS: I mean, her comment on it was, "Our conference needs to stop capitulating to the left... members that are in blue districts. That's not what donors are donating money for. And we need to stop allowing Biden-district Republicans to hold up our agenda." But isn't the concern that --

MACE: By -- yes.

COLLINS: -- making moderates vote for this would put them at risk --

MACE: Oh, 100 percent. COLLINS: -- potentially?

MACE: It puts them at risk.

But also Biden-district Republicans are the reason that Republicans are in the majority, had the slim majority that we have today. And if we want to keep that majority, we have to keep those folks, in their seats.

And so, you don't do that by making Republicans, in moderate districts, walk the plank on abortion, walk the plank on women's issues, walk the plank on birth control, walk the plank on an impeachment vote, like those are all the reasons why we will lose, next year, if we continue down that path.

COLLINS: But then, why have the impeachment inquiry, if it's going to put your majority at risk?

MACE: An inquiry is an investigative tool. It's different from an impeachment.

On the impeachment side, the House would investigate. The Senate would essentially hold a trial. But no, I mean, the Senate's not going to hold a trial. There's not going to be 60 votes. It's not happening. It's window-dressing on impeachment. But an inquiry is an investigative tool. That's the difference between an impeachment vote and an inquiry.

COLLINS: But you are talking about the subpoena power. I mean, you have that now.

MACE: I don't think we've issued enough subpoenas.

COLLINS: But isn't that a leadership problem? Shouldn't you be talking to the Chair of your Committee about that?

MACE: I talk to our --

COLLINS: Or Speaker Kevin McCarthy?

MACE: I talk to our leadership, and our committee, all the time. And they're being judicious in how they do it. They're being deliberate. I want it now. But there's a deliberative process. I think that they are going about it at the right pace, at the right speed.

But it takes time. It takes money. You can't go and just ask a foreign country, for foreign bank records, and say they're going to show up overnight. That's not how it happens. It does take time. It does take money. It does take resources.

COLLINS: But if you pursue the impeachment inquiry, do you really think that House Republicans would not pursue full impeachment, an impeachment vote?

MACE: It should depend on the evidence. As you just mentioned earlier, it should depend on the evidence. The evidence should guide us. The facts should guide us, on whether or not we have an impeachment vote.

COLLINS: Could you actually get an impeachment inquiry vote passed? Is there enough Republican support?

MACE: I don't -- I haven't whipped the vote. I don't know. We'll know more. We're back in session, this week. And we'll know more, when we're on the ground.

COLLINS: A lot of this has been tied to Speaker Kevin McCarthy. There are increasing demands, on him, to pursue this. He has not said yet whether or not yes, he will, or whether he won't. If his leadership is called into question, potentially as soon as this week, do you still support him, as the leader?

MACE: I do support him, as a leader. I don't know who would be waiting in the wings for that job.


We have a very diverse party. Whether you are a MAGA, whether you are a libertarian, whether you are a moderate or a centrist, like myself, we have a diversity of opinions. He's been able to bring those blocks together. We call them the Five Families. He's been able to bring those families together.

I typically, am an island of one. I don't mind operating that way. But I also get a chance, to have a meeting, and speak to him, and speak to Leadership, and tell them where I stand as well.

And so, I appreciate the opportunity, to be able to have those conversations, to be able to negotiate votes, to be able to negotiate legislation, with him. He's been very open, to all the voices. And I hope that that will continue.

COLLINS: You've had a very storied history, with the former President Donald Trump.

MACE: Yes.

COLLINS: He said something, on Friday night, at a rally that I want you to listen to.


TRUMP: If I win, and somebody wants to run against me, I call my Attorney General, I say, "Listen. Indict him."


TRUMP: "Well, he hasn't done anything wrong that we know of."

"I don't know. Indict him on income tax evasion. You'll figure it out."

(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: That's what he was saying he would do, if he wins a second term. I mean, but isn't that the definition of weaponization of federal government?

MACE: I can't tell by the tone if he's joking, or if he's serious.

COLLINS: But isn't that the whole Trump?

MACE: I don't -- I don't --

COLLINS: I mean that's what everyone said about Trump, every year he's been on this.

MACE: I don't know, so. But I will say that setting the precedent, of arresting your number one political enemy, is a poor precedent to set.

We don't want any president, current or future, to say, "Well, someone did it to me. They arrested me, when I was running for President. I'm going to do the same to them." We don't want the tit for tat. All evidence, all due process should follow the facts, rather than guide, an indictment, or an arrest, prematurely.

I wish that they had waited. I think several of the indictments aren't really worth the paper that they're printed on. And I wish that they had waited until after the presidential primary, because we don't want to set that kind of precedent, in the future, now or in the future, at all, to give --

COLLINS: But what if he is convicted on these?

MACE: -- somebody else the power to do that.

COLLINS: I mean, there -- you can't just get a subpoena, and have this indictment.

MACE: You can still run for president.

COLLINS: It's not like it's President Biden doing it, I mean.

MACE: But that's --

COLLINS: There's evidence that these prosecutors have used, to get subpoenas, to have these indictments that --

MACE: Yes.

COLLINS: I mean, obviously, it'll be decided in a court of law. But it's not like there's no basis. He's saying he could just manufacture whatever against someone who's running against him and have his Attorney General pursue it.

MACE: It will -- it will be --

COLLINS: Is that appropriate?

MACE: It'll be decided in a court of law. But also decided -- COLLINS: But is it appropriate, for the Republican front-runner, the Party of Law and Order, to say, "Hey, I'm going to make up these charges about someone who's running against me, if I am a President, again?"

MACE: It'll also be decided in the court of public opinion. It'll be decided at the ballot, in the Republican primary. Whether or not people think you should run for president, for example, all of that the public gets to decide, when they go into the ballot box, and they press a lever, to vote for president.

COLLINS: But what's your opinion on his comment there?

MACE: I can't tell if he's joking or if he's serious, like sometimes it's a joke. Sometimes, he's serious. I don't know. I haven't spoken to him about it directly. So, I don't know the tone with which he was going forth with it. I don't know.

But I do know that arresting your political opponents, during your presidential primary, is not the precedent that either party should want to set, now, or in the future. And I think that should be bipartisan. I think everyone should be able to agree on that.

COLLINS: Yes, it's certainly not the first time he's made those comments.

Congresswoman Nancy Mace, you've got a busy week ahead of you.

MACE: Thank you.

COLLINS: Thank you for joining us here, tonight.

MACE: Thank you.

COLLINS: Up next, speaking of Donald Trump, he has just taken a legal risky move, following the -- or asking to formally move to oust the judge that is overseeing his federal election case, in Washington. She has just responded, tonight.

Also, New Mexico's governor, suspending the right to publicly carry firearms, in her State's largest city. Critics say it is unconstitutional, including a Sheriff, who has vowed to defy that order, and will join us, tonight.



COLLINS: In one of his most dramatic legal moves yet, tonight, Donald Trump is pushing to remove federal judge, Tanya Chutkan, from presiding over his election subversion case, in Washington.

Days after the Special Counsel, Jack Smith, filed a motion, saying that Trump's continued, everyday essentially, statements, could potentially taint the jury pool there, Trump is now attempting to use a similar argument, about the veteran judge's statements of her own. The problem is many legal experts say that getting her, to recuse herself, is a long shot at best. The threshold for recusal is not only very high. Her statements have actually been very similar, to the ones that other federal judges, who have also sentenced January 6 defendants, have made. Many of them, who have blamed Trump himself, for their actions, that day.

Tonight, well, now let's bring in retired California Superior Court Judge, LaDoris Hazzard Cordell.

Judge, thank you so much, for being here.


COLLINS: Obviously, Judge Chutkan decides if Judge Chutkan will recuse herself here. What do you think is the likelihood of that happening?

HAZZARD CORDELL: Well, Kaitlan, when you don't have the law, you argue the facts. And when you don't have the facts, you argue the law. And if you have neither the facts nor the law on your side, you pound the table, and yell like hell. And that's what has happened here.

This is yelling like hell, to get Judge Chutkan, off of this case. And they claim it's because she's not impartial. Of course, what they're relying on is the word she has used in sentencing, those who have been convicted, by juries, in involvement in the insurrection.

So, what they're really afraid of, and what this recusal motion, or disqualification motion, is all about, they don't want Judge Chutkan, on this case, not because they believe that she won't be fair. The trial judge just makes rulings on motions. It is the jury that will decide whether or not Donald Trump should be convicted.

What they're worried about is if he's convicted, that she will be the sentencing judge. And they've seen how she has responded, to those, who have been convicted, of their involvement.

So, in this instance, this disqualification recusal is discretionary. So, it's up to her, to think about it, to look at the reasons, they're raising, and then to decide, can she be fair, in making her rulings? Can she be objective?

And my view, given her history, already in this case, and other cases, she can absolutely be fair, in this case. So, they're really grasping for straws.

They have a nine-page Memorandum of cases they've cited, to try to get rid of her. Not one of those cases involves one, where a judge, in different cases, sentence people and explained why she sentenced them that way, and then use the language used, in that case, in a completely different one, in this case, with Trump to show that she was -- she is not impartial.


There's no case like that. And that would just chill, judges' speech, when they are required by law. It's part of their job, to state on the record, their reasons, for the sentences that they impose.

They want her off because he's really worried if he's convicted by a jury that she is going to be the one to sentence him.

COLLINS: Yes. So, I mean, they're looking at her comments. And one of the -- one of her quotes that they cite, and the reason for this that John Lauro cites, is a statement, she made, in a 2022 sentencing. It was a January 6 defendant.

She said, quote, "The people who mobbed that Capitol," that day "were there in fealty, in loyalty, to one man -- not to the Constitution, of which most of the people who come before me seem woefully ignorant; not to the ideals of this country, and not to the principles of democracy. It's a blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day."

Do you see anything that is out of bounds, in that statement that would make the argument that she is impartial?

HAZZARD CORDELL: So, she made the statement, at the sentencing hearing. And what she said was based on facts that came out of the hearing that, came out of the trial, that they had allegiance, to this one person. We now know, it's Donald Trump.

And so, she is saying, "These are the facts that came out during this trial." She had then, in response to that is saying, "This is why I'm imposing this sentence. And yes, this person and its facts has not been charged."

So, there is nothing out of the ordinary. Judges do this all the time, in terms of explaining, and you're required to explaining on the record, why you're imposing a sentence, particularly if the imposition of a sentence, is harsher than one perhaps given to others. Judges are required to explain it. That's what she did.

And she will be fair in making rulings in the trial of Donald Trump. The issue will become, of course, if he's convicted, what sentence she will impose. So, it is my belief that she will turn down this request. It's up to her. It is discretionary. And if she believes she can be impartial, then she will continue to preside over this case.

COLLINS: Yes. And she has given harsher sentences than even what prosecutors recommended, for a lot of the January 6 defendants.

Former judge, LaDoris Cordell, thank you, for your time, tonight.


COLLINS: It has been 22 years. And America, tonight, is marking 9/11 with a tribute and light, beaming through the sky.

For 22 years, 9/11 families are still without so many answers. My next guest lost her sister, in the North Tower, that day. She is still fighting for that justice. And she'll speak to us, coming up.


COLLINS: Tonight, two powerful beams are lighting up the New York City skyline, as the nation is marking 22 years, since the terror attacks, of September 11th, 2001.

Memorials in New York City, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon, all paid tribute to the nearly 3,000 people that have been killed.

President Biden commemorated the anniversary, with servicemembers and first responders, in Alaska, as he made his way back, from the G20 Summit.

But tonight, Terry Kay Rockefeller, who lost her sister Laura, in the North Tower that day, writes that quote, "For 9/11 families, it's been 22 years without answers, justice or accountability."

And Terry joins me now.

Terry, thank you so much, for being here, on a night like this, on a day like this, where obviously there's always a lot of reflection.

There has been still no trial, for the five defendants, who are being held, at Guantanamo on charges of aiding the hijackers. I wonder, tonight when you're thinking on this, what would justice look like for you?

TERRY KAY ROCKEFELLER, SISTER DIED IN NORTH TOWER ON 9/11: Kaitlan, first of all, thank you, for having me, on the show.

And I just want to say, my heart goes out, to all the other families, who are in the same position I am.

Your question is a really important one. Because the fact is 9/11 family members have been failed, by four successive administrations, from Bush, to Obama, to Trump, to Biden. We have not been able to carry out a trial.

And I personally have invested a lot of energy, in watching, not what people may imagine is a trial. But watching the military commissions, at Guantanamo, after more than 11 years of pre-trial hearings, with no date, for a trial, to actually begin, anywhere in sight.

I believe we have to call an end to it, and take guilty pleas, from the defendants, and learn what we can, from them, in stipulations of fact, about what they did. It's less than I ever would have expected, from my country. But it's all I think we can get at this moment.

COLLINS: I mean, I can tell, it's a hard position for you. I mean, this is something that a lot of the families, some want to see it go to trial, they want to see death penalties, potentially.


COLLINS: But some, like you, feel that a plea would be -- maybe would be, I mean, essentially more something that is actually tangible. And, I mean, as you know, but --

KAY ROCKEFELLER: It's more realistic, Kaitlan. It's more realistic.

COLLINS: Tell me why.

KAY ROCKEFELLER: Because the fact that the five defendants were tortured by the CIA has totally stalled proceedings at Guantanamo. There are endless debates, over what evidence can be introduced. And very, very slowly, over years and years, the prosecution is losing the evidence, they need, to try this case.


It's important, for family members, and for the entire American public, to know that it was the prosecution that sought plea agreements, because they believed, it could deliver us judicial finality, and security that the verdicts would not be appealed. And we can get information.

COLLINS: Terry, as you're just thinking about this, I mean, it's such a complicated thing. And I know, I mean, every day, it's something you think about. I mean, it's been 22 years, to the day since you lost your sister. How are you doing?

KAY ROCKEFELLER: I am extraordinarily sad, today. The weeks around the anniversary are always very difficult.

But I have really been gratified, over the years, to become engaged, with activists, other family members, and also legal experts, and human rights activists, who look at Guantanamo, and realize what an incredible betrayal of family members, it was, that the men were sent to be tried, in a military commission, rather than use the best courts, we had available to us, our federal court system.

COLLINS: I know it's been such a struggle for you.

And Terry Kay Rockefeller, I just I'm grateful that you joined us, tonight, and on this day, especially. And of course, we're thinking of you. We're thinking of your family. We're thinking of all the families, not just on this night, but every night.

KAY ROCKEFELLER: Thank you so much.

And there will be justice, and there will be judicial finality, eventually. At least I will keep working for that.

COLLINS: We know you will. Thank you, Terry.

Meanwhile, tonight, also we are tracking this international story, one of the world's most dangerous dictators, is on the move.

Kim Jong Un, chugging along, making his way, to see global outcast, another one, fellow, Vladimir Putin, on that non-express train, we are told. What is expected to happen when Kim Jong Un gets off that train? Next.



COLLINS: Tonight, as we speak, North Korean dictator, Kim Jong Un is on a heavily fortified train, making a very slow trek, toward Russia, and a summit of global pariahs, with President Vladimir Putin.

It is Kim's first time, actually leaving the country, since the pandemic. Or if you're him, or Putin, it is a meeting, for a good reason, they believe.

Russia desperately needs to replenish its war arsenal, after a year and a half of bombing Ukraine. In return, North Korea desperately needs food and energy supplies, and also advanced weapons technology.

Putin plans to roll out the red carpet, for this visit, as both strongmen are trying to project a sign of strength, as global critics say, it's really an act of desperation. Either way, for much of the world, it is a nightmare alliance, in the making.

Here with us to discuss that and their bipartisan efforts, to combat China, are Democratic Congressman, Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, and Republican Congressman, Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, who is also the Ranking Member and Chairman, respectively, of the House Committee, on the Chinese Communist Party.

A lot to discuss on China. But first, let's talk about the summit that is happening. I mean, is there anything that the United States can do, besides the White House issuing these warnings, to stop what appears to be this arms deal, in the making?

REP. MIKE GALLAGHER (R-WI): Well, I think the first thing is just recognize the basic geopolitical reality, which is that increasingly, we have an axis of authoritarian countries, arrayed against our interests, not just the United States, but all of our allies, and partners.

Obviously, China is the dominant partner. Vladimir Putin is a junior partner. But it includes North Korea. It includes Iran. It includes countries, like Venezuela. And so, we don't have the luxury of sort of ignoring certain parts of the world.

We need to have a global strategy, and we need to be engaged. We need to be in the business of recruiting our own allies and partners, because we actually have the luxury of having capable, competent allies and partners, and network of alliances that we've built, painstakingly, over the last few decades. That's really a unique source of strength, we have, relative to China.

COLLINS: Yes. But we see how they are obviously being pushed closer and closer together, growing closer. I mean, how worried are you, about the Putin and Kim alliance that we're seeing?


But, at the same time, as you mentioned before, I think it is a sign of desperation, on the part of Putin. He knows that things aren't going as well as he'd like, in Ukraine. And we've seen some recent momentum, maybe some breakthroughs, through the defensive lines, of the Russians.

And, at the same time, the Koreans -- North Koreans are very desperate. They need food. They need energy. But what they're going to supply aren't necessarily the best artillery shells in the world. Published reports show that a lot of this stuff doesn't even reach its intended targets, which tells me that both sides are desperate.

And so, although we want to treat this appropriately, and he is breaking sanctions, by potentially selling arms, to Russia, I think that we don't want to overreact either.

COLLINS: But will there be consequences, for breaking those sanctions, I mean, or just seeing that this is this desperate act?

GALLAGHER: I think there should be, certainly. We can do a better job of enforcing our existing sanctions regime, potentially expanding it, where necessary.

One thing we've contemplated for years, what should be on the table, and we're talking about North Korea, Russia, but traditionally, North Korea gets an economic lifeline, from China. And secondary sanctions on Chinese banks, and businesses that abet the North Koreans' regime's destabilizing behavior, I think should be on the table, going forward.

COLLINS: Obviously, China borders both Russia and North Korea that he's also -- President Xi has also been forging ties, with both of these countries. He has not yet, based on what we know, and tell me if that's different, supplied arms, to Russia, to use, in Ukraine.

What do you think he makes, of what is -- what we're watching play out, with this slow train moving there?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: I think he probably has some concerns as well. He wants to know probably what is being given, in return, for the arms that are being supplied, to Russia.

Because remember, the North Koreans want certain nuclear technology, as well as satellite technology, which the Chinese have been very reluctant, to provide to them. And I presume that they wouldn't want the Russians, to provide that either, to the North Koreans. So, I think he'll be watching that carefully.


So far, the Chinese themselves have not supplied lethal aid, to the conflict. But we want to watch that very, very carefully as well.

COLLINS: Yes. And I should note, the reason that the both of you are here, is you are here, in New York, meeting with financial leaders, kind of working through these so-called war games, on the risks of what, China invading Taiwan, what that could look like. I mean, what are you -- what's your message to them? What are you saying to them? GALLAGHER: Well, to connect it to our previous topic, Korea, obviously in China, there's a cult of the Korean War that's popped up recently. The highest grossing Chinese movie of all time is a movie about the Korean War. And I think it's part of a preparation, by Xi Jinping, to prepare his country for conflict, with the West.

So, what we need to be signaling, in no uncertain terms is that an attempted PLA invasion, of Taiwan, A, would fail, and B, would be met with a united response, from the West. The consequences of taking such a destabilizing action, the consequences of undermining peace and stability, across the Taiwan Strait, would be catastrophic, for Xi Jinping.

And that's another lesson of Ukraine, right? Obviously, deterrence initially failed in Ukraine. The cost has been enormous. We need to ensure that Taiwan's future doesn't become Ukraine's present, by doing things like arming Taiwan with Harpoon missiles, replenishing our stockpiles of long-range, precision fires, and doing what we tried to interrogate, earlier today, which is, what are the financial and economic levers, we can pull now, in order to put ourselves in a more advantageous position? Again, with the overall focus of deterring a war with China, which would be catastrophic.

COLLINS: China has been having a ton of economic issues, back at home.

And President Biden, when he was just wrapping up his trip, in Vietnam, he was asked if he thought that that would deter them, from -- or make it more likely that they would move, on Taiwan. He said, no.

Is that something you -- is that an assessment you agree with? Or do you think it could make someone, who is very risk-averse, less risk- averse?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Potentially. I mean, if Xi Jinping thought his economic back was against the wall, and he didn't think that he could repair, what's happening in China, which is a dismal economic situation? It's quite possible he could resort to the nationalism card.

And that would be very dangerous, as you know. It would be a horrible day, for the world, were an open conflict, to happen, over Taiwan. And so Mike is right, that we have to do everything, we can, to deter that from happening.

At the same time, we need to work with our partners, and friends, and allies, in the region, to weave an economic partnership, as well, that makes it more likely that China will actually play by the rules of the road, economically, and not just militarily. Because, as we -- as you know, they engage in dumping, cyber theft, intellectual property theft, and other types of moves, that really hurt our economy.

The last point is, unfortunately, a lot of American dollars, through investments, in Chinese companies, actually fuel crackdown, on human rights, in China, as well as a buildup of the PLA. The Federal Thrift Savings Plan, which Mike and I are a member of, actually has index funds in it, that are invested in companies, that provide surveillance equipment, for the Uyghur genocide, also, aircraft engines and parts for the --

COLLINS: And when you bring that up with those industry leaders, what do they say?

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, basically, they say, first of all, it's in our fiduciary duty, to actually be investing, in these things, which is completely ridiculous. I don't think it's in the best interest, of federal employees, to be investing, in these types of companies.

And then, secondly, it's up to us, in Congress, also, to legislate, to make sure this doesn't happen. So, this is one of the reasons why we're here, to talk about this, to explore what needs to be done, and to prevent us, from fueling or funding, the very things that we don't want to have happen in China.

COLLINS: Is that message breaking through?

GALLAGHER: I think --

COLLINS: What's the response been?

GALLAGHER: I think so. I think even the asset managers, or bankers, on Wall Street, who have a more dovish position, on China, than I do, or we do, recognize, they could live with a more aggressive set of restrictions, so long as there was predictability, so long as we legislated a solution that transcended this administration, or the next.

So, we're not ping-ponging back and forth between different executive orders, or different regulation. And then, if there was an appropriate transition period, a glide path, to the new rules, I think, even people who don't have the view of the CCP threat, that we do, could live with that reality, which is why it's up to us, to step up and legislative a solution.

And the final thing I'd say is the reasonable people can disagree, about where to draw the line, for economic engagement, with China. I don't think anyone can defend the idea that we should be allowing American retirees, to invest in Chinese military companies, that are building things, designed to kill Americans, in a future conflict.

COLLINS: Congressman, it's an important bipartisan issue, clearly, to both of you. So, thank you both, for joining me, on set, tonight.

GALLAGHER: Thank you.

KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you, Kaitlan.

COLLINS: Up next, a Second Amendment showdown is happening, in New Mexico, tonight. There is major backlash, after the Governor there suspended both open and concealed carry, in response to gun violence, for the next 30 days. [21:45:00]

Many, as you can see here, openly defying that order, including our next guest, a Sheriff, who says he will not enforce this new executive order. That's ahead.


COLLINS: The images that you're seeing here are of armed protesters, in the streets of Albuquerque, this weekend. Noteworthy for what you don't see, anyone being arrested here, because technically, they are in violation of a new executive order.

The Governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, has declared a public health emergency, and banned open and concealed firearms, in public spaces, which of course, this certainly, is in parks and whatnot, throughout the State's most populous county, for the next 30 days. Then, after that, she says she will reevaluate.

A pair of gun rights groups are, suing in response, to that executive order, because they argued that it violates the Second Amendment.

I'm joined now by our Bernalillo County Sheriff, John Allen.

Sheriff, thank you so much, for being here.

You say that you are not going to enforce this ban, on concealed carry and open carry. Why not?

SHERIFF JOHN ALLEN, BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO: It's unconstitutional. It's infringing on people's Second Amendment rights.


COLLINS: And have you heard from the Governor? I mean, you came out, and issued this statement, essentially saying you still wanted to work with her. But have you heard from her --


COLLINS: -- since you said that you were not going to enforce this new Executive Order?

ALLEN: No. I have not.

But before this announcement was even made, we found out minutes to about massive 30 minutes, before she made the announcement. And she knew that it was probably going to be on her, because none of the law enforcement leaders agreed with her. We knew there was a bunch of issues.

And for me, as a Bernalillo County Sheriff, very concerned about just not civil liability, for our deputies, but so many other things, to focus on, and a little frustrated that it's overshadowed all the great conversations that we had. COLLINS: Are you frustrated? I mean, is your sense of why -- you say it's unconstitutional. I mean, what is the direction to the deputies? Is it that they would not be able to enforce, that you think? Or what is the argument there?

ALLEN: Right there, they won't enforce it. It's unconstitutional. It's not even really an argument, in terms of where we would be at, in civil court.

We have so much violent crime, here in Bernalillo County, that my deputies would be stuck in civil litigation, if not myself. And I have a bunch of other issues of violent crime. I have gun violence here. We have homicides, so many other issues, to just deal with a health order.

COLLINS: There were immediately court challenges, to this, including from the National Association for Gun Rights, Gun Owners for Americans.

Why not wait and let the courts weigh in before deciding whether or not you can enforce it?

ALLEN: Because everybody sees what goes on immediately.

But here, in a couple of months, or a year, down the road, we're the ones stuck in court, and we're the ones getting sued, over all of these infringement of rights, and all these other court battles, when I could be focusing so much more on crime.

COLLINS: You just referenced what's happening, in your city. And that was also obviously what the Governor referenced as well. She said, she was signing this because of several recent shootings of kids, including an 11-year-old boy, who was shot, outside of a minor league baseball stadium.

If this is unconstitutional, or difficult to carry out, which is your argument, what do you think is the solution, here, for gun violence, for public safety? What will stop this from happening?

ALLEN: The solution is a collaboration with just the City of Albuquerque, and New Mexico State police, federal entities, also like the FBI, and the U.S. Attorney's Office. And I just called every town today. They always support me.

And like I said, the gun violence that we're dealing with, the initiatives we're doing already, at the Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office, are changing some of the culture that wasn't here previous, before I took the seat, such as ERPO. That's one way that we can battle gun violence. And also, all the juvenile crime that we're seeing with firearms, a 11 to 18.

And as soon as I had the press conference, today, to announce to our deputies, and the public, what we would be doing, what we would not be doing, we had very robust conversations, on how to intervene, in gun violence, specifically, our teens, because that's a huge rise that we see here, in Bernalillo County. COLLINS: Some people listening, and watching, tonight who maybe live there, or live in another city, that has been wracked with gun violence, they may hear that and say, "Well, collaboration doesn't sound like that is going to be what stops our children from getting shot." What would you say to them?

ALLEN: What stops the children's -- I understand the sentiment.

And a lot of people don't understand what we see, as law enforcement, and seeing that our children are being hurt, and adults, just our community. I had a friend that called me. And his daughter wanted a bulletproof backpack and a taser. Everyone's worried.

I'm trying to look at solutions to address the gun violence directly, and not be overshadowed by a court order that is not going to be enforceable. I'm telling you that right now. It's going to waste our time.

I want to make sure that we have real solutions, to battle the gun violence. Everybody talks about battling gun violence. But they actually don't do anything, or even look at violent intervention programs, from youth to adults. And that's something that I am very dedicated on focusing on.

COLLINS: It sounds like you think the Governor should rescind her order? Is that right?

ALLEN: That's up to her. Everyone keeps asking me these questions. I'm not going to answer the questions, for the Governor. Her and I have conversations. We disagreed, on this particular order.

She made it very clear, during her press conference, that she knows that law enforcement leaders would not support her, in this area. And this decision was solely on her.

I wanted to inform, and make sure that my constituents, just not in Bernalillo County, but the State of New Mexico that we're trying, as hard as we can, to make a dent in gun violence.

We're already behind the power curve. Our laws are already behind. We don't have strict enough penalties, for juveniles with firearms, or even intervention programs. We're behind. So, that's something that I want to focus on.

COLLINS: Sheriff John Allen, thank you, for your time, tonight.

ALLEN: Thank you so much.

COLLINS: And just in, tonight, a story that we are tracking, the star quarterback, Aaron Rodgers, has been injured, during his debut game, with the New York Jets. What happened? Why is he off the field, so quickly? That's next.


[21:59:03] COLLINS: Just in, tonight, during Aaron Rodgers' debut, as a New York Jet, the star quarterback was injured, minutes after taking the field, against the Buffalo Bills, and has left the game, with an ankle injury, on just his fourth play, of the night, after he was sacked by Bill's edge rusher, Leonard Floyd.

We have now just learned that Rodgers is out, for the remainder of the game, with this injury.

The future Hall of Famer had jogged into MetLife Stadium, on this 9/11 anniversary, to thunderous applause, as he carried an American flag, in his hand.

Of course, he was traded to the Jets, after spending 18 seasons, with the Green Bay Packers. And we are wishing him all the best tonight.

Another story that we have also been tracking all day. It has been 12 days. And police, tonight, are still looking, for the convicted murderer, who broke out of a Pennsylvania prison.

And now, Danelo Cavalcante looks a lot different than he did, initially, adding another wrinkle to the challenging search efforts that were already underway. That photo, on the right, was shot, on Saturday night. And it shows, he has shaved his beard, and obviously looks quite different, than in his mug shot.


Police also say that Cavalcante has stolen a van. He was spotted more than 20 miles, from the initial search area. Tonight, Police say that Cavalcante, who crab-walked, out of prison, is considered extremely dangerous, as he's still missing. While they don't have a defined search area, authorities say they are confident that he is still in Pennsylvania.

Thank you so much, for joining us. We'll keep you updated, on that important story, tonight.

"CNN PRIMETIME" with Abby Phillip, starts, right now.

Hi, Abby.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST, CNN PRIMETIME: Hey, Kaitlan. Thank you so much. Have a good night.

COLLINS: Happy Monday.

PHILLIP: You too.

And good evening everyone.