Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

Peter Navarro Becomes Latest Trump Ally To Enter Prison; Supreme Court Lets Texas Enforce Its Own Immigration Laws; CNN Projects Bernie Moreno Will Win Ohio GOP Senate Primary. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired March 19, 2024 - 21:00   ET



DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST: That's a potential explanation for why it might have a negative effect.

I think the take-home message, from this trial, is what we've learned early on, from this strategy, is that if you -- if you fast, in any of these strategies, you'll lose some weight, on average between--


REINER: --3 and 7 percent. And if you lose weight, you'll lower your blood pressure, you'll lower your cholesterol, and you'll lower your weight. And we know, from decades of research, that those effects result in good outcomes.

The bottom line is this kind of study--

COOPER: More needs to be studied.

REINER: --needs to be repeated, but in a prospective, randomized trial.

COOPER: Dr. Jonathan Reiner, appreciate it. Thank you.

The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.


A top Trump White House aide learns the price of his defiance. Prison. Peter Navarro, the first senior member of Trump's inner circle, to now serve time, in connection to January 6th. The man who dropped him, off at prison today, is here with us tonight. Also, panic mode setting in for the former President, and his orbit,

after he's facing a Monday deadline, to put up nearly a half a billion dollar bond. My new reporting, tonight, from inside Trump world.

Also, Jared Kushner sharing his thoughts, about the potential for valuable waterfront property in war-torn Gaza.

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

Tonight, two men, who were once firmly ensconced, in Donald Trump's inner circle, inside the White House, have chosen two very different paths, at that fork in the road, that so many people in Trump's world have often found themselves at before, either being with him or against him.

One is the former Vice President Mike Pence, who may have chosen the equivalent of the political wilderness. And of course, that comes after he announced that he would not be endorsing his former boss, in the 2024 race, something that Trump responded to today.


DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I couldn't care less. I couldn't care less. We need patriots. We need strong people in our country.

Our country is going downhill very fast, very rapidly. Millions of people coming across the border, coming from jails, from prisons, coming from mental institutions and insane asylums, terrorists. We need strong people in this country. We don't need weak people.


COLLINS: Weak people.

The man that Trump himself picked to serve alongside him in the White House, the person, who had his life put at risk, on January 6th, is according to Donald Trump, in what he said today as he was going to vote in Florida, weak, all because Pence said this.


MIKE PENCE, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The issue of fealty to the Constitution is not a small matter.

I won't be endorsing Donald Trump this year.


COLLINS: Contrast that with Peter Navarro, who unlike Mike Pence did try to help Trump overturn the 2020 election, by his own admission, I should note. The former White House trade adviser checked into a federal prison, in Miami, today, to begin a four-month stint, for refusing to comply with the subpoena, from the January 6 congressional committee.

I should say that after -- before he checked in, he gave these rambling remarks, at a strip mall, near a pizza place that was down the street from his new prison cell, not far from the Miami Zoo.


PETER NAVARRO, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE ADVISER: Every person, who has taken me on this road to that prison, is a frigging Democrat, and a Trump-hater.

I will walk proudly in -- in there, and do my time. I am not nervous.

I'm pissed. That's what I'm feeling right now.

They come for me. They can come for you.

God bless you all. I'll see you on the other side.


COLLINS: As you heard from Peter Navarro there, he's really blaming everyone, except himself, when of course he could have just gone in, and testified, or done what others did, showed up and taken the Fifth.

And I should note he talked about Democrats there. It was Chief Justice John Roberts, who denied that emergency request, from Peter Navarro, which is why he did have to report to prison today.

It's not like Peter Navarro has not had much to say publicly, about what he was planning, and what he was urging House Republicans to do, to delay the certification of the votes.


NAVARRO: I produce what would be an exhaustive three-volume report.

The plan was simply this. We had over 100 congressmen and senators, on Capitol Hill, ready to implement the sweep.

We were going to challenge the results of the election, in the six battleground states.

Most or all of those states would decertify the election.



COLLINS: He chose to go out in public and say that in interviews. He wrote about it in his memoir. But he declined to go and even plead the Fifth, in front of the January 6 committee. That is why Peter Navarro reported to prison today.

The bottom line here and the takeaway is that Navarro is the first person, in Trump's orbit, to face prison, or serve any time, for anything related to January 6th. Of course, this is a Contempt of Congress case.

And of course, the big question also is what could happen to Steve Bannon. And if he loses his upcoming appeal, he could find himself in Navarro's shoes.

Bannon could potentially use our first guest tonight, Sam Mangel, as a prison consultant, whom Navarro brought on to help him prepare, for what life is like on the inside.

And Sam, it's great to have you here tonight.

I know you've already spoken to Mr. Navarro, since you dropped him off, this morning. How did he sound?

SAM MANGEL, PETER NAVARRO'S PRISON CONSULTANT: Well, Kaitlan, you have to understand that when anyone goes to prison, it's a scary nerve- wracking experience.

Entering a world, where you're not used to, and that you have no control over, it is very scary. You're told what time to get up. You're told what time to eat. You're told where to sleep. No matter who you are, that is certainly a very disconcerting feeling.

I'm sure that Peter's settled in. I've spoken to a number of clients that I have there. And from what I've been told, he's doing fine.

COLLINS: Did he seem nervous at all, given what you just laid out there?

MANGEL: Anybody reporting to prison is nervous. I think, this morning, he presented himself very well, very strong. But naturally, anyone going to federal prison is going to be nervous. You lose all control.

I don't care who you are. I don't care what your profile is. When you're in there, you're a number, you're an eight-digit number. At four o'clock in the afternoon, you stand for count. At 10 o'clock at night, you stand for count. When you want to use a phone, you only have 510 minutes a month. When you want to use email, it's going to be subject to being monitored. So regardless of who he is, he has to follow the same rules as everyone there.

COLLINS: Yes. I mean, it's a completely different life than what Peter Navarro has, or anyone has been used to. And, I mean, and he kind of seemed to think that maybe he would get this emergency request granted, by the appeals court, in Washington, that he maybe wouldn't have to go.

Did he seem surprised that this moment was kind of actually happening?

MANGEL: Since I wasn't part of his legal team, it's kind of hard for me to comment, on what he might have known, or how he might have acted.

I know that when I picked him up this morning, he was ready to go. I was with his attorney. And he was prepared to surrender. I'm sure that he was hoping for a different outcome, like anybody would have, as a way to avoid the inevitable. But he was certainly prepared and ready to surrender.

COLLINS: I should note that this, for people who don't know, this is the Federal Correctional Institution in Miami. It's a low-security prison.

You also previously were incarcerated there. You know what it's like, to be in Peter Navarro's shoes, and what he's going through. Can you just kind of walk us through? I mean, once you get inside, what happens next? What is the process on your first day there?

MANGEL: First, let me differentiate exactly where he is. Well, yes, it is the FCI Miami. There's a satellite camp to Miami. And it's adjacent to the actual facility, the low-security facility.

In a satellite camp, you're considered community custody. That means you're allowed out, from six in the morning, to roughly 9:30 at night. You're not in a cell. He's going to be in an open dorm with up to 80 other men. So, there is substantially more liberty and freedom, while at the camp. As long as you follow the rules, and you work when you have to work, you take classes when you take classes, he will be fine, and maintain that level of liberty.

COLLINS: Did he express interest in taking classes, and doing that kind of work that's available there?

MANGEL: Absolutely. I think he's eager to get in.

As an inmate, at a camp, you're able to both teach classes to other inmates, and if required, under the First Step Act, take classes. So, I think somebody like him or any client that has a wealth of knowledge that they can impart on other inmates, should take advantage of teaching inmates, what they know, ultimately, with the mindset of helping them, when they get out.

COLLINS: I just mentioned that when you look at where this satellite campus is, on a map, it's pretty close to the Miami Zoo. How close exactly is it? I mean, can you tell from being inside of there, how close you are?

MANGEL: So, when I was there, I was the first one up. I was up at 4 o'clock in the morning. They finished count at 5. At 5:30 in the morning, I was the first one up.

And they have a pavilion outside, where they have three spin bikes and a bank of televisions. I went outside in the morning to exercise. 5 o'clock in the morning or 5:30, you heard the lions. And every morning, you would hear the lions roar. So yes, you are adjacent to the zoo.

COLLINS: You can hear the lions roar?


MANGEL: You can absolutely hear the lions roar, every morning.

COLLINS: I mean, that's kind of remarkable that that's -- that's the location that someone, who was a senior White House adviser is going to be in, what he'll be experiencing.

I know it's also one of the oldest prison camps in the country. What are the facilities like? What does it look like on the inside of where he'll be?

MANGEL: So, there are four separate dorms. The dorms typically hold about 80 men in bunk beds. So, there's 40 beds on each side. They're open pod -- they're open dorms. So, there is no privacy within the institution, or within the dorm itself. You could literally look from one bed, on one end of the dorm, all the way down to the other, a good 75 feet down.

There is obviously privacy, within the bathroom and the showers. But in this dorm setting, you lack privacy. And that is typical of many of the older federal prisons.

COLLINS: Can I ask you, Sam as well? Because Peter Navarro, someone I knew when I was at the White House, covered when he was trade adviser, he's been very open about his struggle to pay his legal bills, because they have been quite high, as he's been fighting, what essentially culminated today.

For you specifically, did he have a backer who paid you? Did he pay you directly? How did that work?

MANGEL: I don't think it'd be appropriate to discuss how I was retained. But I was retained by Peter.

COLLINS: OK. Sam Mangel, thank you for coming on, to describe something that very few people could actually shed light on. We really appreciate your time.

MANGEL: Thank you, Kaitlan.

COLLINS: Also, here tonight, former Deputy Assistant to President Biden, Jamal Simmons; and CNN Political Commentator, S.E. Cupp.

I mean, S.E., I still -- it's pretty remarkable to hear Sam talk about what Peter Navarro is going to be living through that he's going to be waking up in this prison, where he can hear the lions, from the Miami Zoo roar, in the mornings.

S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, I think it also, I don't want to make light of this, it doesn't sound that bad compared to, I think a lot of the conditions that a lot of other not special, not wealthy, not white-collar criminals, have to endure in prison.

No offense, but like, it sounds pretty great to have all that freedom, and have a job and take some classes. So, it's real hard for me to sit here and say, wow, he's going to have a really tough time in there. I don't think it's going to be that tough. And for a guy who willingly put himself here--

COLLINS: Well and I think also--

CUPP: --this is what he -- this is the consequence.

COLLINS: The other thing to think about is he's also in his 70s. That is obviously a factor here.

CUPP: Yes.

COLLINS: You heard Sam mentioned that.

But it is important to remember why he's here.

CUPP: Yes.

COLLINS: Because he was someone who openly talked about a plan, to delay the certification of the votes, on Capitol Hill.

CUPP: Right.

COLLINS: I mean, it's written in his memoir.

CUPP: And then -- right. And then refused to go and basically incriminate Trump.

Because what you have to do, is you have to lie for Trump, to support Trump. That's true of people, who worked for him. Ask Michael Cohen, who lied for Trump, and then went to jail for it.

It's true of Republicans in Congress. Ask Ken Buck who said, I'm retiring because I no longer want to have to lie for Donald Trump.

It's true of his preferred media outlets. They have to lie about the facts.

And worse, it's true of his voters, who will spread his lies because they're loyal to him. Hundreds of them now are in jail because of a lie, he told on January 6th.

COLLINS: Jamal, what did you make of the remarks that he gave, before going in, where he was basically blaming everyone, the judges, here, Democrats, President Biden even, for what is very clearly the result of his own action, by defying a congressional subpoena?

JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It was bananas. I mean, really, I mean, only the best people, right?

Listen, I had been through a security clearance check, getting a job at the White House. I have had to talk to White House lawyers, about various actions, before we took them, and make sure things get cleared.

And you get an exit interview, when you leave. I mean, you sit down with people, and they talk you through, like what your responsibilities are, and if you've had any access to information, and what you can divulge and how much -- you go through a lot of legal exercise.

This man did not have to be in this position, right? He didn't have to be here. He's here because he chose to take a series of actions, including trying to stop a federal election.

But even after all of that, the only reason he's in jail is because he did not appear in front of Congress, when they called him. All he had to do was show up and say, I don't want to answer that question, and take the Fifth or whatever. He didn't do it. This is another example that Trump people believe, they don't have to

play by the rules as everyone else, because Donald Trump doesn't play by the rules. And that has filtered all the way through his crowd.

COLLINS: When he claimed he had executive privilege, but Trump's legal team never came out to say oh, that's true. Here's all this evidence to back that up.


CUPP: Well, Trump only cares about defending Trump. I mean, Trump will throw anyone, any body, any warm body in front of a bus, to avoid his own being held accountable. So, that's not surprising either.

COLLINS: S.E. Cupp, Jamal Simmons, great to have you both on.

SIMMONS: Thank you.

COLLINS: To talk about that.

Up next, new reporting, tonight, on the panic in Trump world, over that half a billion dollar bond coming due, in just a matter of days.

Also tonight, we're digging into a major new ruling, from the Supreme Court, on immigration, some justices arguing it will only invite chaos and crisis.



COLLINS: New reporting, tonight, on what's going on inside of Donald Trump's world, as a deadline to put up half a billion dollars is fast approaching. Panic mode, I'm told, is setting in.

Trump now has less than a week to secure that bond. And he had been counting on the insurance company that helped put up the $91 million, to cover the E. Jean Carroll judgment, that bond, to come in. But the insurance giant there informed his attorneys, in the last several days that that option was not going to be on the table.

His team has been weighing other options here, like seeking out wealthy supporters, or weighing which of his assets could be sold and fast.

I'm told that Trump himself has become increasingly concerned, about the optics that that March 25th deadline could bring, given he is someone, who has long tied his identity to his wealth, and he could find himself confronting a real financial crisis, in just a matter of days.

Trump posted eight times, within two hours this morning, on Truth Social, arguing that he shouldn't have to put up that money, and saying, quote, that he "would be forced to mortgage or sell Great Assets, perhaps at Fire Sale prices, and if and when I win the Appeal, they would be gone." Trump has continued to privately lash out at the Attorney General, here in New York, Letitia James, who brought this case, and the judge, Arthur Engoron.

Here tonight is CNN Senior Legal Analyst, and former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.

And Elie, I should note that Trump's team, when we asked about the concern that he has, over making this half a billion dollar bond, called it pure BS and noted that he has filed this motion to stay (ph) what they're calling an unjust and unconstitutional judgment.

What they're asking for is either don't make us pay this, while we're appealing, or let this bond be a lot smaller than this, nearly half a billion dollars.

What do you make of this new reporting, though?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, they should be panicked. I mean, this is real. Like, it may not have set in yet for Donald Trump. But this deadline of Monday is real. This judgment is $400 million- plus.

And what's going to happen on Monday, if Trump cannot post the bond is Letitia James has made very clear, she will start the process, of seizing his assets, of freezing, putting liens on his bank accounts, his real estate holdings. And that's going to be devastating for him. And there's no sort of shortcut here. That's what's going to happen, if he doesn't come up with a bond.

COLLINS: So, our reporting, and what I was hearing from people, is that he was basically counting on Chubb, which put up the bond for the E. Jean Carroll case, to help here.

But the problem is, is that he doesn't have as much to leverage, when it comes to a second bond that is one, much bigger, and two, obviously, the second one that he's now doing in just a matter of weeks.


COLLINS: Realistically, what options does his legal team have here?

HONIG: Yes, $90 million is one-fifth of $400 million or so. So, he's in a tough spot.

There are two things that can bail Trump out of this.

One is, remember, he has moved to the Court of Appeals in New York, the Appellate Division, asking them to reduce the amount of the bond. That happens sometimes. It's hard to say how often because there's no sort of overarching data on it. But there are examples of the appeals court coming in and reducing a bond by 80, 90 percent. So, perhaps he'll get bailed out by the court.

And the other option is he comes up with the money, whether he has some sort of angel investor, or some sort of generous donor, or perhaps some company like Chubb that's willing to take a risk.

But the status quo now is he has scoured the earth, and been able -- unable to come up with that.

COLLINS: How likely is he to get this appeals court to come to his saving here?

HONIG: It's hard to say. Because the judgment amount here is mammoth.

And there are examples. There's an example, where one Court of Appeals took a $38 million judgment, and knocked it down to $10,000. That's a huge reduction.

So, he's got a shot. I mean, I think if he's just waiting and hoping on that, he could be setting himself up for real disappointment. I think the better course of action is to get the money together, if I was advising him. So, I would say he's got a shot. But I wouldn't bank on it.

COLLINS: I mean, when it comes to this, though, if he's not banking on that, he's got days left here.

HONIG: Yes. It's, what is it, Tuesday?


HONIG: So, he's got six days. I mean, Letitia James is going to be ready to roll out and start seizing these properties. That's real. And she's made clear she is giving him no leeway whatsoever.

COLLINS: Yes. And of course, we know in the E. Jean Carroll case, that was kind of the 11th hour--


COLLINS: --when he came in with that agreement there, from the insurance giant. We'll see if it happens there.

But the other thing that's going on is, I mean, he's facing other legal expenses, still as well. He's got these criminal cases that are approaching. His legal team, today, just filed their other brief, in the immunity argument to the Supreme Court.


COLLINS: And in it, they're basically kind of suggesting this off-ramp of if the court doesn't agree, sending it back down to a lower court, which would essentially help with their strategy of delaying all of this.

HONIG: That would be Donald Trump's team's dream come true, to get it sent back down.

I want to make clear. I just read through this brief, recently. It just came in a couple hours ago, very recently.

COLLINS: As in tonight.

HONIG: Yes, as in a few hours ago.

The term, absolute immunity, gets a bad rap. It's a little misleading.


Donald Trump is not arguing, I am automatically covered by everything that happened from the moment I took the oath, till the moment I left. What he's arguing is that I'm covered for my official acts, within the scope of the presidency. And that's what could lead to the outcome that you discussed just now.

If the Supreme Court says, OK, you can be covered for something within the presidency. Now the district court, a trial court, you have to do fact-finding, as to whether the charges here, relate to something inside the presidency, or outside the presidency. That will be a win for Donald Trump.

COLLINS: So, I read through this also. And the brief includes statements -- it's not surprising what their argument is, because we've been hearing this official acts argument.


COLLINS: But they also include statements like this, saying that he communicated with the Vice President, the Vice President's official staff, members of Congress--


COLLINS: --"to urge them to exercise their official duties in the election certification process in accordance with the position, based on voluminous information available to President Trump in his official capacity, that the election was tainted by extensive fraud and irregularities."


COLLINS: That's not true.

HONIG: That's some spin, right? I mean?

COLLINS: How does the Supreme Court read something like that?

HONIG: That's the problem. The argument that he -- if he was within his scope, he's covered? That's potentially legitimate.

But the twisting of logic and reality that Trump has to do to get there, to get what he did within the scope of the presidency, is facially ridiculous, right? He says, well, I was just calling the Vice President and asking him to do his job. I was just calling the Georgia Secretary of State, and asking him to do his job.

No, he wasn't. I mean, we've seen the calls. We've heard the testimony. He's asking them to violate their oaths of office. That's where I think he's going to run into trouble.

And there's one more thing that I have to -- that I noted about the brief. Donald Trump's lawyers make the mistake of saddling a good, a decent argument, about whether he's in the scope or not, with a ridiculous argument, which is this impeachment argument, that he can only be indicted, if he's been impeached and then convicted by the Senate.

I don't know why they include that. They don't need that. And to me, that sinks the argument. So, if I'm advising Trump's legal team, which I'm not, but if I'm advising any normal person, I would say, leave out the lousy argument, just bank on the good one here.

COLLINS: And that is included in here, that we'll see how the Supreme Court responds to it.

HONIG: It's going to be very interesting.

COLLINS: Elie Honig, thanks for responding to that new reporting, in that brief.

HONIG: Thanks, Kaitlan.

COLLINS: The Supreme Court has been making a lot of decisions, for Americans, including on immigration, today. That's a big one. For now, they are letting a Texas law stand, saying that state police can arrest migrants, suspected of crossing the border, illegally. This is raising huge concerns, to now about potential racial profiling.

We'll speak to the head of the Border Patrol union, right after this.



COLLINS: The State of Texas, for now, emphasis on for now, can make its own rules to deal with illegal immigration. That is the U.S. Supreme Court's decision, as they just cleared the way, for that controversial new law, that would let any Texas law enforcement officer, including local police, to arrest anyone that they suspect of entering the country illegally.

The Department of Homeland Security has just weighed in, tonight, saying that this decision, quote, makes it harder for the DHS workforce to do its job.

This is not the final decision, I should note. The law could still, still be struck down, as it is making its way through the courts.

But tonight, in the State of Texas, there is a situation, where two of the court's more liberal justices called an invitation, for further chaos and crisis.

The Governor there, of course, praised this decision, by the Supreme Court. Here to weigh in, on all of this, tonight, is Brandon Judd, the President of the National Border Patrol Council, who supports the law that is known commonly as S.B. 4.

And it's great to have you back on the show, Brandon.

But we're hearing from the Mexican government, tonight, who said it will not accept anyone, who is sent back by the State of Texas.


COLLINS: So, how is this going to work?

JUDD: First off, I don't think that that's going to be an issue. When you look at people crossing the border, illegally, what they're going to try to avoid is they're going to try to avoid a conviction, a criminal conviction, on their record.

Because the vast majority of these people that come to the United States, illegally, they are going to hope that sometime down the line, they are going to be able to apply for either citizenship, or permanent resident status, in the United States. And when you have a criminal conviction, on your record? That becomes nearly impossible. So, they're going to avoid that, like the plague.

So, what I -- what I foresee happening, is that once the word gets out, that Texas is going to arrest you, for criminal trespass? This is not an immigration law. This is -- this is trespassing in the State of Texas. When you're going to be arrested for that, I suspect that the traffic is going to move to New Mexico, Arizona and California, because people are going to avoid that criminal conviction, on their record.

This is going to be a huge win for the State of Texas, not necessarily for border security across the board. But for Texas, it's going to be a huge win.

COLLINS: Well, we know, obviously, Tucson has already been dealing with the height of this crisis.

But if it's -- if it's just temporary, which was something that was stressed by the court today, as it's still making its way through other legal challenges, is it really going to be that much of a deterrent, do you think?

JUDD: It is, in the immediacy.

So, what happens? What we see with illegal immigration, all the time, is it takes a little bit of time, for the word to spread, what is taking place. When you hold people in custody? That people stopped coming. When you actually apply a consequence? People stopped coming.

But it takes a little bit of time, for that word to spread it. But it doesn't take a whole -- a whole lot of days. So, I do expect to see a drop, in illegal immigration, in the State of Texas, very quickly. And again, it's just going to move. Now, if we saw other governors do the exact same thing, then we would

see a drop in illegal immigration, across the entire Southwest border. But unfortunate -- unfortunately for us, that's not going to happen.


COLLINS: But -- OK. So, you're saying that you think that this will be helpful in Texas. I hear your concerns about it spreading to other states that do not have a similar law.

But I think the question is how they enforce this. Because we're hearing from a lot of law enforcement, in the State of Texas, tonight, who say, they don't have the manpower, to carry something like this out. They don't have the bed spaces, in jails, for some -- for these kinds of arrests that they now have the authority to make.

So, how difficult is this for local law enforcement to actually even do?

JUDD: Yes. So, I'm in contact with local law enforcement in Texas, quite often. I'm also in contact with the governor's office. And they're not concerned about this, because they know that it's going to be a short-term rush. They know that, in the immediacy, you're going to have to arrest an awful lot of people.

But that's going to alleviate, as time goes by, as people -- as the word gets out, and you're going to have less people crossing. So, you're not going to be putting a lot of resources towards this, as time goes on.

Again, you pay upfront for the long-term benefit. And that's what Texas is doing here.

I also have to look at what DHS just put out. And they said that it's going to cause chaos. And I disagree with that 100 percent. They said the exact same thing, when Texas came in and seized Shelby Park. And we didn't see any chaos. In fact, what we saw is we saw Border Patrol agents were able to be freed up, to go to more troubled spots, to go after the criminal activity. There was zero chaos. There's not going to be any chaos in this, either.

COLLINS: I mean, that's a bold proclamation.

And you said that you've heard from law enforcement that you think that this won't be an issue. I will say the Maverick County Sheriff said that they're not going to accept migrants, suspected migrants being arrested, because he said he just doesn't have the room for that.

But the other concern here that we've heard from people tonight, and I wonder what your thoughts on this are, is about racial profiling. The Dallas Police Chief mentioned this, in their statement, tonight, saying that there are real concerns that this could contribute to that, even far away from the southern border.

Are you worried that this is something that could be a likelihood, for people, in the State of Texas, who now feel like they have to carry around different kinds of identification, because of this law?

JUDD: So, what I have to look at is I have to look at the history. Look at Texas DPS' history. And they do not have a history of racial profiling. They have a history of very good training.

COLLINS: But this law wasn't in place before.

JUDD: They have a history of law enforcement -- no, no. OK. But there's several other laws that lots of people have said could cause racial profiling, OK? We have to wait and see.

But we do know that Texas DPS does not have a history of racial profiling. We know that Border Patrol agents do not have a history of racial profiling. There's a lot of law enforcement organizations, out there, that do not have that history.

And when you put in place proper training, we see that law enforcement officers act within the scope of law. That's what they want to do. The vast majority of law enforcement officers, put on a uniform, so that they can go out and protect the American people, and also properly enforce the law. The bad apples? You need to weed them out. But there are very few bad apples, and that has been proven time and time again.

And go back to the resource issue of the Sheriff. The Sheriff doesn't have to enforce this law. A sheriff of a county, they have prosecutorial discretion. They don't have to do it.

What we do know is going to happen is that state police officers, state DPS, they will enforce the law. And they do have the resources to do it. And they do not have a history of racial profiling.

COLLINS: OK. Well, I mean, those are two major bets. We'll see what it looks like, now that it is in place, at least for now.

Brandon Judd, thank you, for coming on, and sharing your insight.

JUDD: Thank you, Kaitlan. Appreciate it.

COLLINS: Also tonight, former President Donald Trump once said that his son-in-law would create peace in the Middle East. But tonight, Jared Kushner suggesting Palestinians could be moved out of areas. Maybe they could be built up, the former areas where they used to live, because they could have valuable property potential.

We'll play the remarks and let you hear for yourself, right after this.



COLLINS: Part of his profile, inside the White House, was to create peace, in the Middle East. Jared Kushner also acted, as a foreign policy adviser, to his father-in-law, Donald Trump.

And tonight, he is getting a lot of attention, for what he said, during a talk at Harvard, about what's happening, and what could happen, inside of Gaza.


JARED KUSHNER, DONALD TRUMP'S SON-IN-LAW: Both sides are spending a fortune on military. I think neither side really wants to have, you know, a terrorist organization enclave right between them.

And Gaza's waterfront property, it could be very valuable to, if people would focus on kind of building up, you know, livelihoods.

You think about all the money that's gone into this tunnel network, and all the munitions, if that would have gone into education or innovation, what could have been done?

And so, I think that it's a little bit of an unfortunate situation there. But I think, from Israel's perspective, I would do my best to move the people out and then clean it up.


COLLINS: Here to weigh in Josh Rogin, Columnist for the Washington Post.

Josh, I just have to get your initial reaction, to those remarks by Jared Kushner.

JOSH ROGIN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. Well, my initial reaction is sort of shock.

I know we shouldn't be shocked, at this point, by the sheer sort of callousness and insensitivity, of calling it a little unfortunate, when 30,000 people have been killed. There's a terrorist attack that killed hundreds of Israelis. The entire region is in flames. And Jared Kushner's reaction is oh, well, it's a real shame we couldn't put some condos here. You know, if you -- that's my initial reaction.

But if you put that aside, I think what the -- the takeaway here is that, what we see is a preview into what a Trump administration Israel policy would really look like. And Jared Kushner said the quiet part out loud that he thinks we should move the people out and clean it up. OK?


And if that's not exactly a call for force displacement, of 2 million Palestinians, and ethnic cleansing in Gaza? I mean, it's pretty close. It's kind of getting there. And that is a really troubling prospect, for an American administration. But it also could be sort of a dog whistle, to some parts of the Israeli establishment that actually favor that plan.

COLLINS: Yes, that is the part that stood out to me as well, where he talked about moving the people out, as were his exact words there.

And I think what's the important context here is, Donald Trump is someone, who often speaks his mind. One thing we have not heard a lot from him about, in recent months, since October 7th, is how he'd be handling what is happening inside Gaza, right now, if he were in the Oval Office.

And I wonder what those comments, by Jared Kushner, someone who did play a key role inside the White House, what that says to you about what it could look like if Trump was in office, amid something like this?

ROGIN: Right. Now, Jared Kushner has said that he doesn't plan to join a second Trump administration, if that's a thing. Nevertheless, it's pretty clear that Donald Trump listens to him on these issues.

And, I'm old enough to remember the last administration when he did lead these issues. And his plan then was pretty much the same. Well, we'll make a deal. We'll do some real estate deals. And the Palestinians will be happy. And we'll normalize relations, everything would be hunky-dory.

But it didn't work out, because the Palestinians are not just interested in real estate. They're interested in dignity, and sovereignty, and autonomy, and all of the things that most humans want, out of these types of situations.

So, I think what it says is that the Trump administration, if it follows this pattern, would be one that aligns with the very far-right react -- parts of the Netanyahu coalition, who are now not so quietly calling for exactly what Jared just called for, which is the resettlement of Gaza.

What Jared said, if you listen to more of that speech, which I unfortunately, had to do, to prepare for this interview, is that, while wars happen, and borders change, and Gaza is not a real thing, and the bearers (ph) will have to take the Palestinians in, tough luck to the Palestinians, that was his -- I'm boiling it down, to be sure, but that was the gist of it. And you could imagine the Trump administration taking exactly that tack.

And there are a lot of criticisms to be had, of the Biden administration's approach to Israel. But I think most fair-minded people in America would say that aligning the U.S. policy with the farthest, rightist parts of the Netanyahu coalition would be a disaster.

COLLINS: Yes. It also just, even pulling it back, some from the Middle East, reminded me of when, Trump was talking to Kim Jong Un, about the idea of waterfront property, in North Korea, and what that could look like.

He actually mentioned it at a summit in 2018, after he had met with the dictator. Just a reminder of what Trump said there.


TRUMP: They have great beaches. You see that whenever they're exploding their cannons into the ocean, right? So, I said, boy, look at that view. Wouldn't that make a great condo? And I explained it. I said, instead of doing that, you could have the best hotels in the world right there.

Think of it from a real estate perspective. You have South Korea, you have China and they own the land in the middle. How bad is that?


COLLINS: It's like this idea of like foreign policy through the lens of a real estate deal.

ROGIN: Right. The Trump brand is that all the D.C. foreign policy establishment doesn't know what it's talking about, and everything can be done as a real estate deal. Well, it didn't work in Hanoi with Trump and Kim Jong Un. And it's not going to work with the Palestinians.

In the end, not everything can be bought off, and not everything is for sale. And I think that's what Trump realized. And that's what Jared would realize if he were ever given the power to be in charge of this issue.

COLLINS: Josh Rogin, thank you.

ROGIN: Anytime.

COLLINS: Up next, a projection that CNN can now make, in the high- stakes Senate race, this primary night in America, right after a quick break.



COLLINS: It is primary night in America. And we now have a CNN projection.

CNN can now project that Bernie Moreno, the Trump-endorsed businessman will win the Ohio Republican Senate primary. With this win, he has now defeated Ohio Secretary of State, Frank LaRose, and State Senator, Matt Dolan.

Here tonight, covering all of this is Jeff Zeleny, CNN's Chief National Affairs Correspondent, who's live in Columbus, tonight.

Jeff, obviously this was looked at, as a test of Trump's political power here, and what that could mean going forward, as we look to a lot of races, in November. What does this Bernie Moreno win signify?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Kaitlan, it certainly was viewed as one of the last gasps of the Never-Trump movement, if you will, trying to push back against the MAGA movement.

You have the Establishment wing of the Republican Party, here in Ohio, Governor Mike DeWine, former Senator Rob Portman, backing Matt Dolan, a State Senator whose family owns the Cleveland Guardians. And they were really pushing for his candidacy.

But it was the Trump-backed Bernie Moreno, who won tonight.

And the sense of this, I mean, there's no doubt that Trump controls the Republican Party. But there still is a sense of some outliers out there.

And from a policy matter, Governor DeWine was talking specifically, imploring Republicans to consider foreign policy, consider funding for Ukraine. Those arguments simply did not win the day.

So, just a short time ago, in Cleveland, Bernie Moreno, who was a former car dealer, a Colombian immigrant, he had this to say about his win, and who he thanked.



BERNIE MORENO, (R) U.S. SENATE OHIO CANDIDATE: I also want to thank President Trump. I just got off the phone with President Trump.


MORENO: And, you know, the reality is we have an opportunity now.



MORENO: We have an opportunity now, to retire the old commie, and send them -- and send them to retirement home--


MORENO: --and then save this country.


ZELENY: So presumably, Bernie Moreno was talking about Senator Brown there, who of course is seeking his fourth term, here in Ohio.

Now, Senator Brown has always run better than Democrats have. His brand has been stronger than Democrats. But Kaitlan, that will be tested anew, over the next eight months, leading into November.

There is no doubt Ohio has increasingly become a red state. The last time he was on the ballot, Senator Brown, it was a more of a blue wave, in 2018. So, this will be one of the marquee Senate races. The reason is because only two seats could tip control of the Senate, come November.

COLLINS: Yes, Jeff, it's -- if people are at home wondering, why do I care who won the Republican primary in Ohio in the Senate race.


COLLINS: I mean, it really does matter, and could come to -- could all come down to who -- which party does control the U.S. Senate, come November, whether it's Biden in the White House or Donald Trump?

ZELENY: Without question. And there are only two Democratic U.S. Senators, Sherrod Brown here in Ohio, and Jon Tester in Montana, who are up for reelection, in red states, in Trump-won states.

So, that is why control of the Senate is so important, of course, to everything, regardless of who wins the White House. It could be split. I mean, if President Biden wins reelection, he could have a Republican Senate. If Donald Trump wins, he could have a Democratic-controlled Senate. So that indeed is why it matters.

And Ohio has long been a battleground state, for the White House. That has sort of changed over recent years. But it is absolutely ground zero for the Senate control.

And Kaitlan, an interesting point is we will see if this was a wise decision, by November. But Democrats, Chuck Schumer's linked Super PAC invested some $3 million, to try and boost Bernie Moreno, in the final days of the race. They think he is the weaker candidate, to take on Sherrod Brown. We will see about that.

We've seen Democrats sort of meddling in these Republican primaries before. They did it tonight, here in Ohio. But now, the race is on, no doubt the toughest race of Sherrod Brown's long career.

COLLINS: That's really interesting. So, Democrats were spending money, you're saying, in the days before this race, to boost this candidate out of the other--

ZELENY: Right.

COLLINS: --out of all three of the Republicans who are running because basically, I mean, that does signify, even if they don't outright say it that they think he'd be easier to win come November -- to beat come November?

ZELENY: Without a doubt, I mean. And Senator Schumer is as astute as a politician as there is. And he did not control this. But his closely- linked Super PAC, people from his orbit, who run the spending, decided to boost Moreno through ads, saying that he was the most conservative in the race. They tied him to Trump. So, it really elevated his stature, in the final days here.

And again, we've seen some of this meddling by both sides in primaries. But it's an open question, in a race now where Donald Trump will be on the ballot here in November. He was projected the winner, tonight, in Ohio as well, as well Sherrod Brown. And the only way for Sherrod Brown to win is by winning some Trump voters.

And I talked to Senator Brown, yesterday. He said he acknowledges he knows this is the toughest race he's ever had. But he also says that he runs better than his party, better than the presidents in his party. He certainly will have to, to be reelected.


ZELENY: Kaitlan.

COLLINS: It's going to be a very interesting race, in an increasingly red Ohio.

Jeff Zeleny, on the ground, in Columbus, thank you for that.

And speaking of this 2024 stage, of course, we know we've got a presidential election rematch set between Biden and Trump, right now, as they are both presumptive nominees. But there is still one question, tonight, about who else could be on the ticket, maybe not in all states, but in certain states.

That group, No Labels, has been running out of options, lately, for their long-shot third-party bid. So far, they have not found anyone willing to run on the ticket, at least not publicly that we have learned about, as we've been reporting on this behind-the-scenes.

My next guest just withdrew his name from consideration. That is former Lieutenant Governor of Georgia, Geoff Duncan, who obviously was previously a Political Commentator, here at CNN.

And Geoff, it's great to have you on.

You talked about why you withdrew, your family. But, on the political aspect of this, what made -- what swayed you against getting on the No Labels ticket?

GEOFF DUNCAN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, first and foremost, our family passes along our heartfelt gratitude for just a very professional process by No Labels, donors, advisers, folks in the organization. It was a first-class operation.

For me, just the political math of being somebody that's just coming onto the scene, not having a ton of name ID, and a short runway, to get to November, just didn't make the math possible for me.

But I certainly hope they're able to put a strong candidate forward, so I've got somebody to vote for, unlike tens of millions of other Americans.


COLLINS: Yes. Do you think that they'll be able to though? Because it seems like every candidate that they've approached that we know about, has said no -- thanks but no thanks.

DUNCAN: Well, I certainly hope so.

I mean, in the few weeks I was around the hoop, with these guys, I just was continued to be refreshed by the conversations, meeting after meeting after meeting, talking about real solutions, instead of just talking about problems, whether it be donors, supporters, advisers, everybody was circling around. That's how America's supposed to be solving these problems.

And I certainly hope they're able to-- COLLINS: Geoff Duncan.

DUNCAN: --to put out a strong ticket.

COLLINS: Unfortunately, we're running out, because it's the end of the hour. Thank you, for coming on, to give us that insight.

Thank you all so much, for joining us.