Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump: Judges Shouldn't Say "What You're Supposed To Be Doing"; Trump Pardons Former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich; Trump Doesn't See Vance As His Successor: "It's Too Early." Aired 9-10p ET
Aired February 10, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Denmark has quite a dark, colonial history there. So, folks do want to be independent.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Yes.
O'SULLIVAN: But they have realistic expectation, which would say--
COOPER: And the concerns about defense for them are very real.
O'SULLIVAN: Exactly. And Tom Dans, the American you saw on that piece, he would argue that in practice, really, America is already providing a lot of security for the island.
COOPER: All right. Donie O'Sullivan, thanks very much.
O'SULLIVAN: Yes.
COOPER: Did they understand you accent?
The Source with Kaitlan--
O'SULLIVAN: Low blow.
COOPER: No.
"THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. See you, tomorrow.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
A federal judge says the White House ignored his order, and there are accusations that Trump has just defied another ruling, warnings tonight of a constitutional crisis brewing, as Trump, Vance and Elon Musk are all openly questioning the power of the courts.
Plus, the President confirms he does want to eliminate the agency that protects Americans from being ripped off, on everything from mortgages to credit cards and student loans.
Also, another stunning move this evening, as the Department of Justice has just told prosecutors, Drop the corruption charges against the Democratic mayor of New York, Eric Adams. I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
We are three weeks into the second Trump presidency. Three weeks. And tonight, there are warnings that the U.S. is dangerously close to a constitutional crisis.
Now, the first shoe on this dropped when a federal judge today said the White House is defying his order to unfreeze billions of dollars in federal aid, marking the first time that we've had a judge expressly accuse the Trump administration of ignoring a court ruling.
And in a separate case today, federal employees, here in Washington, told a judge that the administration was defying another order by not reinstating workers who had been put on leave.
Now, this all has prominent Democrats, and many of the nation's top constitutional scholars, declaring that the U.S. is on the brink of a reckoning.
The Trump Justice Department says the President should have the authority to decide how to run the government, and that these judges are over-reaching.
And some of the President's allies say, the judges should not be judging any of the moves to shrink the federal government. That includes special government employee, Elon Musk, who this weekend accused a judge, who was blocking his DOGE team from accessing Treasury Department systems, of being corrupt. With Musk, calling for the judge to be impeached.
Vice President Vance is not going quite that far, but made clear where he sees the Judiciary's limits, writing, "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."
The question, tonight, of course, is, who determines what is legitimate power?
The President himself had this to say, tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, you've got some very bad rulings. And uh, it's a shame to see it, frankly. They want to sort of tell everybody how to run the country when they say that certain people in charge of massive agencies or people doing very, very -- important people, smart people -- doing investigations of fraud, and they don't talk about what you're looking at. All they just say is, oh, it's unconstitutional.
Judges should be ruling. They shouldn't be dictating what you're supposed to be doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, as far as the judiciary is concerned, when judges issue rulings, they are dictating what you're supposed to be doing, and not supposed to be doing, if they determine that you are breaking the law. Of course, that's how the legal system works, and the recourse is to appeal those rulings.
My lead source tonight is the Democratic senator of Connecticut, Chris Murphy.
And Senator Murphy, as we look at the developments that have happened, in the last 48 hours, what are your concerns about this moment that we're at with the courts, with the President, and with this suggestion from two of his top advisers that maybe they defy the court's rulings?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT): Yes, listen, I mean, this isn't hyperbole to say that we are staring the death of democracy in the eyes, right now.
The centerpiece of our democracy is that we observe court rulings. Criminal court rulings, civil court rulings and constitutional court rulings. No one is above the law. And whether we like it or not, the courts interpret the law.
So yes, throughout the history of the United States, the courts have made rulings on when the executive branch is exercising legal power, and when they are going beyond the power that they have, either constrained by statute, or by the Constitution, just as they regularly rule on whether or not individuals have complied with the law or violated the law, whether those be civil laws or criminal laws.
If the President of the United States says, You know what, I don't care what the courts say, I'm going to do whatever the hell I want? That's essentially the end of the rule of law. Because if the President isn't bound by our laws and the Constitution, then why would anybody else be bound by our laws and the Constitution? This is a really dire moment.
[21:05:00]
And no, so far, they've been talking tough, but I think largely have complied with these court orders. I think there's going to be a question as to how well they have complied with the orders. But if they were to outright ignore an order, as JD Vance and Elon Musk are suggesting, that is maybe the greatest challenge to our democracy in any of our lifetimes.
COLLINS: But you're saying we're not there yet, basically?
MURPHY: Well, listen, on this specific question of whether or not they are prepared to openly violate a court order? We are not there. They are not complying with the existing court orders, but they are in partial compliance.
But if they were to openly declare that because they disagree with, for instance, a court's order to reopen USAID, or to get Elon Musk out of the Treasury Department, simply because on the merits, they disagree with the court's ruling, then you are clearly in the most serious constitutional crisis, I mean, arguably, of the last 100 years. COLLINS: And so what happens? I just want to game this out. If that happens, and you're saying that you don't think it has yet, then what's next, if that -- if they do defy a court order. And it's not just a tweet or a Truth Social post. It's them telling a judge, We think you're wrong, we're not going to comply with this. Then what happens?
MURPHY: Well, I mean, listen, I am not an active-practice lawyer. But the first thing you do would be to go back to the court, and hold the administration or the individuals, who are not complying, in contempt. And there are a series of remedies that the court can order if someone is in contempt, including jailing them. So, there is a series of escalatory steps that--
COLLINS: But who would be responsible for enforcing that?
MURPHY: Well, I mean, ultimately, that's law enforcement. So, there's where you get in trouble.
This is why somebody like JD Vance has suggested that there may be no remedy, ultimately, for a violation of a court order, because it would be law enforcement in control of the executive branch that may ultimately have to enforce the order. So, therein lies the crisis that ultimately becomes a civil and political crisis for the country. Listen, let's hope we don't get there. Let's hope that this is bluster.
I argue that we're already in a -- in a version of a constitutional crisis, because you have the widespread endorsement of violence in this country, you have the President trying to openly violate the law, only being constrained by the courts. I think this is a crisis already. It gets even deeper, if they decide that they are going to openly and transparently not cooperate and not follow a court order.
COLLINS: What do you say to the two arguments that have been made to me, today, as I've been talking to people on this?
Is, one, Trump supporters, Americans elected Trump, that he had promised this on the campaign trail, that they were going to do this, with Elon Musk, and go into the federal government, and essentially carry out this efficiency mandate that he's been arguing they have.
And two, the other part that I've heard is, well President Biden pushed student loans, and tried at the Supreme Court, and criticized them, and still tried to go around that, and eliminate as much student debt as he could.
What would you say to those two responses that I've heard from Trump's allies?
MURPHY: Well, first, I don't think the American people voted to have Elon Musk get access to all of their tax data, Social Security, Medicare data, in order to enrich himself. I'm not sure that the American people voted for that.
But it is just not true that President Biden did not comply with court orders. There were several things that President Biden did that the courts ruled were either illegal or unconstitutional. He suspended those operations. There were things that President Obama did that the courts ruled were unconstitutional. He suspended those actions and operations.
Up until now, whether presidents agreed with the court rulings, presidents have observed the court rulings. And every single president, Republican and Democrat, has had a court weigh in and say that something that they were trying to do was beyond the authorization they are granted by statute or the Constitution.
This would be the first time, the first time, again, certainly in our lifetime, that a president has just decided to ignore the courts.
Every president has a battle with the courts. Every president criticizes the courts. But they comply with the court orders.
COLLINS: And how will you know when we're there, if the U.S. gets to that point? People are going to be asking themselves that question, tonight.
MURPHY: Well, I mean, right now, you have arguably, a president who is not in compliance with these orders.
[21:10:00]
For instance, the court said that he can't cut off funds to agencies and states, where Congress directed money to flow. He has turned back on some of those streams of funding, but not all. And so, today, a court in Rhode Island said, Listen, Mr. President, we mean it when you say that you can't unilaterally withhold these funds.
Again, if he were to continue to ignore even this latest ruling today, it's possible that he or some of his staff will be held in contempt. And if then they refuse to enforce those contempt orders? We are in the middle of a very dire constitutional crisis.
And again, I think the place we're in now is pretty dire. The fact that the administration has decided to weaponize political violence, has hinted and signaled that it's going to pardon anybody who's been accused of serious crimes, just because they're politically-friendly to the president. That's a crisis in and of itself. This would be a bigger one if they openly violate court orders.
COLLINS: Senator Chris Murphy, thank you for your time tonight.
MURPHY: Thank you.
COLLINS: And my political sources here are Karen Finney and Ramesh Ponnuru.
And Ramesh, what is your response to what you heard from Senator Murphy there, about the moment that he sees the U.S. is in, right now?
RAMESH PONNURU, EDITOR, NATIONAL REVIEW: Well, I think that he's right to say that there is a potential constitutional crisis here, and right to say also that we're not quite there yet.
Look, there's a long history of Republicans championing a strong executive, and saying the courts are going too far and trying to micromanage things that they shouldn't be in charge of. What is different now is the level of aggressiveness from Trump, and the level of recklessness. They are spoiling for this fight. They are pushing the limits, in order to see how far they can go.
COLLINS: And so, what -- the question is what this looks like. Because Amy Klobuchar was on with Anderson, tonight. And the Senator was saying -- she agreed with Senator Murphy there, that it's not at that point yet, because she was saying it's bluster, she believes, and that when Trump got court orders that didn't go with his agenda, in the first term, that they eventually complied with them.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISER, HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN: Yes.
COLLINS: And so, I think the question is where that line is.
FINNEY: I also think that they're trying to be careful, as we talk about this, because we don't want to -- it's very serious, don't get me wrong. But I think most of the American people are not quite clear on what's going on. And so, I think it's important that they're putting a face on what are we really talking about.
We're talking about funds that go to, and Senator Klobuchar, I thought, did this well, community health centers, or to help veterans or children. And so, I think, explaining that to the American people, as we -- we may be marching in this path.
But I think we have to be -- Democrats need to be very clear in explaining what's happening, why it's happening, why it should matter to you, particularly in a moment where one of the things we saw in the CBS poll, Americans are frustrated that what -- they like a lot of what Trump is doing. But they're disappointed he hasn't lowered costs. And certainly, we've seen the price of eggs actually go up, something we talked about a lot during the election.
So again, I think we have to make it very clear to Americans why it should matter to them. Because when you -- I think -- you know, we talk about constitutional crisis. But I think for people at home, it's--
COLLINS: What does that mean? Right.
FINNEY: Right. It feels--
COLLINS: They're looking at that and they're seeing Elon Musk who is running, obviously, a lot of this, to cut federal spending, and to increase government efficiency. I think there's questions about what fraud they've actually found here. I mean, there's certainly things they don't like, but that doesn't mean it's fraudulent.
But when you're looking at that, a lot of the criticism here has been against Elon Musk who is unelected, a senior adviser to Trump, and a special government employee, which means he can only serve for a certain period, getting access to this.
And he's the one who had the strongest response, saying that the judge who disagreed -- not talking about seeking legal recourse, which they did -- but was saying, He should be impeached.
PONNURU: Yes. Musk has picked up from Trump, and I guess from the internet, including the parts of it that he controls, the bad habit of imputing bad motives to anybody who disagrees with him, anybody who offers a criticism of him, which is itself bad for democratic debate.
Musk -- the problem with Musk, in this case, is that, which for the Democrats, is that this idea of hyperactivity from the Republicans against fraud, which is what I think the casual observer of the news is saying, That sounds good. That's something that people are going to actually like. Democrats have the job, and Republicans who disagreed, of pushing through that message.
FINNEY: But I think it's also important to remind people that Musk is doing this, but he has direct personal business ties, to meant -- like he had a million-dollar contract with Starlink, with USAID. Happened that the IG of USAID--
COLLINS: Billions of dollars of the Pentagon--
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: --which is his next target.
FINNEY: Exactly.
COLLINS: Going to the--
(CROSSTALK)
FINNEY: And so, in almost every agency, he has some, NASA and others, touchpoints.
So it's not just that he's an unelected billionaire. He's an unelected billionaire, who is getting access to very sensitive information, very sensitive financial data, where he has a direct business interest. And I think that -- and the potential for corruption is, I mean, talking about constitutional crisis. I mean, the potential for corruption, I think, is the other big story here, you know.
[21:15:00]
PONNURU: And -- but the other thing, of course, is that Musk is the weak point, politically, right now--
FINNEY: Yes.
PONNURU: --of this administration. That's why we're hearing so much about him from the press. COLLINS: Yes, we're seeing in the polls, a lot of broad support for Trump in his first three weeks, but split on Elon Musk. We'll see where this goes.
Ramesh Ponnuru. Karen Finney. Great to have you both.
I do want to bring us to some breaking news, this evening, as there is a midsize jet that has crashed into another plane in Arizona. We're just getting details. But what we do know so far, at least one person has been killed. We're going to bring you what else we know, right after this quick break.
Also, following this other breaking news tonight, that case against New York City mayor, Eric Adams, the Trump Justice Department has just called for those charges to be dropped.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:20:00]
COLLINS: Some breaking news this hour, as you are looking at a runway in Scottsdale, Arizona, here. We have learned at least one person has been killed, several more are injured, after a midsize jet crashed into another plane when it was landing at the city's airport there, this afternoon.
We have obtained this video of the crash. It's disturbing, I should note. You see the small plane skid off the runway, and slide into that parked plane there.
We're learning that the smaller jet that you're looking at is owned by the Motley Crue lead singer, Vince Neil. His rep tells us he was not on board the plane at the time.
We're trying to ascertain more details, as of this hour. We'll keep you updated on what we learn.
Meanwhile, here in Washington, to what we were just noting there, with Senator Chris Murphy, warning that the United States is on the brink of a constitutional crisis.
We heard from a Republican, in the Senate, not just any Republican, the top Republican, John Thune, who was defending the role of the courts today, while at the same time not saying directly if President Trump should absolutely comply with their rulings.
Republican senator, John Cornyn, also weighed in, saying he doesn't think there's a risk of this administration ignoring court rulings that are not in their favor.
And as the Speaker of the House, who I should note, was a constitutional lawyer before he got into politics, this is what Mike Johnson had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Should the White House comply if the federal court orders them to do something, such as destroying the records that they downloaded from the Treasury Department?
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Well, look, there are appellate processes and all of that. I haven't followed the latest on the litigation. But obviously, we have systems that have to work.
We're fully supportive of what the DOGE effort is doing, and what the President is doing. It's a very aggressive agenda that was promised to the voters. Remember, he's delivering on campaign promises, right now. We are going to be codifying a lot of these changes. And what they've uncovered is, frankly, shocking.
This is a good development. I wish the courts would allow the executive and the -- and the legislative branches to work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My legal source is Harvard constitutional law professor, Laurence Tribe.
And it's great to have you here.
When you hear Mike Johnson there, saying that the courts should allow the executive and the legislative branches to work. What's your initial reaction to that?
LAURENCE TRIBE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: My reaction is that he's not obeying the Constitution.
I mean, the Constitution sets up a clear system. Congress has the power of the purse. When Congress votes that certain funds are to be expended in a particular way, if Johnson or anybody else thinks that's a bad idea? You go back to Congress, you change the law. Or if you think that the court is making a mistake, you file an appeal.
But for the first time in our history, a federal court has said today, not just that the White House is threatening to disobey an order. It said that the White House is, right now, in direct defiance of a judicial order.
The language, by the Chief Judge of the District Court from the District of Rhode Island, was that he had ordered, and here's his language, he had ordered the administration not to pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel or terminate money that had already been allocated by Congress to the states to pay for Medicaid, school lunches, low-income housing subsidies and other essential services. That was the order.
He hasn't yet gone so far as to say that by defying that order, any particular person has been in contempt, he could put people in jail.
But as you pointed out, when interviewing Senator Murphy, the great dilemma is that the jailer is hired by the President. The President of the United States has control over the Department of Justice.
If he decides that the U.S. Marshals are not going to enforce the court order, when it holds a hearing a couple of days from now, to decide whether someone is in contempt, if he basically is told, We're not going to enforce your judgment because it conflicts with our priorities, and the American people have spoken? Then what is already a crisis becomes a catastrophe. Then the system is broken. It's all hell, broken loose. Chaos.
We can only have an orderly system of Republic, if you can keep it, if we keep it. If we decide that whenever we think--
COLLINS: Yes, I mean--
[21:25:00]
TRIBE: --We being with the executive, that the courts are wrong, we can simply disregard them? Then we are really in a terrible mess.
COLLINS: But what you're describing there, if it got to that point, is nothing short of extraordinary. The idea that we would be in a position, to see if Marshals are actually able to carry this out, and enforce it. And if not, what that means.
I think what looms over all of this, as Senator Murphy was saying that we are not at that position yet, though, is the Supreme Court ruling on immunity, and seeing how these decisions are made in light of something like that, and how expansive the power of the executive was clearly defined in that. I mean, I remember Bill Barr telling me, he was worried that ruling would limit executive power. And instead, we saw just how much it expanded it.
So, what does that look like, if we get to that point, where the president, who was cloaked in that immunity, says, Yes, we're not going to listen to that order.
TRIBE: Well, the Supreme Court has already gone extremely far, in the direction of saying that the President is above the law to the extent of being immune from criminal punishment in almost all cases. But that's not the issue here.
The issue here is not whether Donald Trump is going to go to jail, whether anybody else is going to go to jail. The issue is will the courts simply be advisory bodies, expressing opinions with no force?
It's one thing to say that the President has great latitude, that he doesn't risk imprisonment when he's acting within the sphere of his powers.
It's another thing to say that when the courts determine that the President, or some guy named Elon Musk, who's never been elected to anything, but who's very rich, when the courts say that those people are free to do whatever they want? That's not what the courts are saying.
But when the courts tell them, Here's the red line that you cannot cross? And they say, Nice to hear that, but we're going to cross it anyway? At that point, if the courts are powerless to enforce their edicts, because they don't have any enforcement authority of their own, they depend on the executive branch and the Marshals Service to enforce it? Then, we have a free-for-all. Then, it's whoever happens to hold the guns, at any given point. And that means we no longer have a system of government--
COLLINS: Yes.
TRIBE: --a system of laws. That's not just a crisis. It's a complete breakdown of our entire system.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll see what the White House's response to this, of course, is. A lot of questions for the White House on this.
Laurence Tribe, thank you for your time tonight.
TRIBE: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: And meanwhile, the Justice Department, run, of course, by Attorney General Pam Bondi, now is telling federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against the New York City mayor, Eric Adams. Our latest reporting, that's next.
Plus, President Trump has just pardoned former Illinois governor, Rod Blagojevich, who also happened to be a contestant on "The Celebrity Apprentice" in 2010.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You just don't give up. But Rod, you're fired.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Breaking news that we are following this hour, as the Trump Justice Department has just told federal prosecutors to drop criminal charges against the New York City mayor, Eric Adams.
The Democrat was set to go on trial, this spring, on five federal corruption charges related to bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy, and soliciting campaign contributions from foreign nationals.
His attorney is weighing in, with Alex Spiro, telling CNN, quote, "[Mayor Adams] would have been acquitted in 45 minutes." That is, of course, if the Mayor went to trial, which now we do not believe is going to happen.
My source tonight is the former federal prosecutor, Elliot Williams.
Elliot, what does this mean for Mr. Adams?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think Mr. Adams is a free man now.
When the White House is telling a local prosecutor's office to drop a case, one of two things are going to happen. Either they're going to drop it, or they're going to try to keep proceeding with it, and end up in a showdown with the White House, and end up getting fired. So, I think, in all likelihood, this case is not going anywhere from here.
COLLINS: And this came as in a directive from Emil Bove--
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COLLINS: --who is Trump's personal attorney before. He's now a top official at the Justice Department. And he's been running things as all the confirmation hearings have been going on. He's also a former SDNY prosecutor, I should note.
But in this he wrote, quote, the memo, "The Justice Department has reached this conclusion without assessing the strength of the evidence or the legal theories on which the case is based."
Can you explain that, and what that reasoning?
WILLIAMS: Kaitlan, so remarkable that language there.
And let me just -- let me just back up for a second. I was at the Justice Department for about six-and-a-half years, both as a career prosecutor, and a pretty senior political appointee. Never once did I see the headquarters in Washington write a memorandum, to a local prosecutor's office, telling them to drop a case.
Now, you might call people up to Washington, and go back and forth as to the merits of moving forward. But that kind of heavy hand, not weighing in on the merits of the case, and just telling folks out on the field, particularly New York City, the most independent office in the country, telling them to drop a case? It just doesn't happen. This is a truly remarkable step.
COLLINS: Well, it seemed like they were trying to not criticize the work of these prosecutors.
WILLIAMS: Sure.
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: But then they were also writing that these actions in the underlying case, they say, improperly interfered with Mayor Adams' campaign in the 2025 mayoral race.
WILLIAMS: Yes. But they also went further and said that not just the mayoral race. And immigration enforcement. That they -- they tie this, specifically to because of the fact that the Mayor had weighed in on immigration and taken sort of a line that was counter to the Democrats before, that he was being persecuted here. Again, never before -- that's a political statement.
And never before have we seen prosecutors, from Washington, sort of wagging their finger, based on the political decisions being made by a local elected official. It's really strange.
COLLINS: But also, maybe not that strange, because if you look at the relationship between Eric Adams and Trump, over the last year or so, since this case came about. I mean, I was just thinking of.
This is Trump, about a month before the election, what he said, kind of comparing himself to Eric Adams.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Mayor Adams, good luck with everything. They went after you.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: They went after you, Mayor.
I just want to be nice, because I know what it's like to be persecuted by the DOJ for speaking out against open borders.
(CHEERS)
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: We were persecuted, Eric. I was persecuted, and so are you, Eric.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I should note--
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COLLINS: --Mayor Adams sat -- saw Trump in a UFC fight. He went to Mar-a-Lago. He's praised Elon Musk. He's met with Trump's border czar, Tom Homan. I mean, certainly, he has at least tried to ingratiate himself with the incoming administration.
WILLIAMS: Yes. Silly me. Strange probably isn't the right word to use, because this is all completely rational, when you look at the relationship between these two people, over time, and the way that the Mayor has attempted to sort of ingratiate himself, one, starting to talk about immigration, as we were talking about a moment ago, but also flying down to Mar-a-Lago, and convening with President Trump.
And so, under normal circumstances, you would not expect to see this behavior from a prosecution. But here we are.
COLLINS: What did you make of that today, paired with Trump pardoning Rod Blagojevich? He had already commuted his sentence when he was in office the last time.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
COLLINS: But now he's offering the former Governor basically a clean slate here, with this. WILLIAMS: Right. What's remarkable here in both of these cases, they're public corruption cases. They are cases, where there was strong evidence of someone, who was elected, a democratic elected official, but who had used his power for ill. Rod Blagojevich--
COLLINS: Selling a Senate seat.
WILLIAMS: --sold a Senate seat. And he's on tape.
It's not -- you can even make an argument that Eric Adams' case is a little bit more touchy-feely, and a closer call, because of some of the wink-nod behavior.
Rod Blagojevich is on tape, selling a Senate seat, taking money to give someone the Senate seat. It's pretty remarkable, and turning a blind eye to public corruption, which is the kind of thing that we should, as a civil society, be able to crack down on.
COLLINS: Well, and now he might be Ambassador to Serbia. That Trump -- Trump said today he was not considering it, but then he said he would consider it amid reports that he was, in fact, considering that.
WILLIAMS: It's good work, if you can find it. It's just, it's unfortunate that this is the type of crime. You can make an argument that there's other types of crime you can turn a blind eye to. But when public officials are really abusing their office, it's really something.
COLLINS: We're going to dig into what you can turn a blind eye to, next time you're here.
Elliot Williams, thank you for that.
Up next. There were protests, here in Washington today, after Trump confirmed what Elon Musk tweeted, RIP to the CFPB, shuttering this agency that is tasked with taking on big banks. What does that mean for everyday Americans? We're going to tell you, after this break.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is vowing to eliminate a critical consumer watchdog.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: That was set up to destroy some very good people.
REPORTER: It's -- your goal is to have it totally eliminated, the agency?
TRUMP: I would say yes, because we're trying to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Trump is talking about the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency designed to fight financial abuse by providing oversight of big banks, lenders and other financial institutions. It regulates all sorts of activities, like credit card fees and debt collection.
And the CFPB was created to protect Americans, and their wallets, after the 2008 financial crisis. But the Trump administration has now shut down the agency's headquarters, and ordered employees to stop working.
My source tonight is the former Democratic congresswoman, and consumer advocate, Katie Porter.
And it's so great to have you here, because this has really been your entire background, is consumer protection.
And so, this is an agency known by its acronym, for most Americans, who maybe they don't recognize it, right off the bat. How will gutting the CFPB impact people?
KATIE PORTER, (D) FORMER CALIFORNIA CONGRESSWOMAN: Yes, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, was a creation following the mortgage foreclosure crisis. It was -- it was designed to respond to the fact that we had a patchwork of different federal regulators, none of whom took real responsibility for making sure that the financial markets, things like car loans and student loans, worked well for consumers.
And who is hurt by taking down and shutting down the CFPB? It's not just consumers. It's also every business that plays by the rules. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is there to make sure that the markets stay strong, that consumers aren't getting cheated, and that businesses are following the law. That's something everybody should be able to agree on.
[21:45:00]
COLLINS: And so, when you look at this. The White House obviously has a different perspective of it, you know? And I don't think it's a surprise that they're doing this, because they had essentially signaled this on the campaign trail. And they called the CFPB, Another woke, weaponized arm of the bureaucracy that leverages its power against certain industries and individuals disfavored by the so-called 'elites.'
PORTER: What a bunch--
COLLINS: What's your reaction to that?
PORTER: What a bunch of BS. What a bunch of nonsense.
For Trump to say -- President Trump to say that he's getting rid of the CFPB, because they engage in fraud, when the entire mission of the CFPB is to fight fraud? It's just an upside-down world that we're living in. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau deals with dollars and cents. It deals with making sure consumers, who lose their money, wrongfully. A bank account gets frozen when it shouldn't. Consumer doesn't get a refund when they pay off a loan early. It has nothing to do with any kind of identity politics or DEI.
This is literally a financial agency, and you can tell that right from its name, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
COLLINS: So, what happens now? I mean, what -- how quickly do you think people, who maybe don't realize how critical the CFPB could be to people -- to just regular people, who don't have a ton of agency maybe, to fight something like this, like a big institution, a big financial institution, what does that look like in the weeks and months to come?
PORTER: Well, over its past decade or more, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has returned nearly $20 billion in cash to consumers.
Before that, before its creation, if you had a problem with a bank or a lender? You could call their customer service department, you could press six and two and pound, and enter your birthday, and you were never going to get anywhere. You could write a letter. You could call your police department. There was no real recourse.
With the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on the beat, when consumers run into a problem with the institution, they contact the CFPB. And the CFPB then gives the bank or the lender an opportunity to make it right. And guess what? Most businesses want to do that, and they do make it right.
So, I think what consumers are going to find is we're going to return to a situation, where bad actors, bad guys, can cheat consumers and get away with it.
COLLINS: Can I get your take, just as someone who knows Washington, and is watching what's been playing out over the last three weeks. And you're famous for your whiteboard that you would bring, to hold powerful executives accountable when you were questioning them on Capitol Hill.
What's your view of Elon Musk and his role that he's playing?
PORTER: Elon Musk is not the President of the United States, and you can't just purchase that role by funding someone's campaign.
The responsibility for all of these actions, whether they're taken by Elon Musk or taken by somebody else, lie at the feet of the President, of Donald Trump.
The very fact, actually, that he's using Elon Musk to try to take down the CFPB? As you mentioned, he put up a tweet saying, RF -- CFPB RIP. It's precisely because nobody in Congress, Republican or Democrat, wants to take the vote, to eliminate an agency that only helps consumers and businesses that follow the law. In other words, the only people who benefit from attacking the CFPB are bad actors.
And so, I think what Trump's doing, with a lot of these actions, is trying to shift it onto Elon Musk. Elon Musk, when there's blowback, shifts it back onto Donald Trump.
But the American people shouldn't be fooled. Who's going to be hurt here is all of us.
COLLINS: Katie Porter, thank you for your time tonight.
PORTER: Thank you.
COLLINS: We heard from the President, in the Oval Office, tonight. One of the quotes was, Let hell break out. The President telling Israelis, the ceasefire deal as it is, should not stand, and should be essentially over, if every hostage is not freed by this Saturday. That new timeline and more.
Also, Trump's answer to this question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: Do you view Vice President JD Vance as your successor, the Republican nominee in 2028?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump with a warning and a new deadline for Hamas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Should the ceasefire then be off?
TRUMP: Well, I would say this -- and I'm going to let that, because that's Israel's decision. But as far as I'm concerned, if all of the hostages aren't returned by Saturday, at 12 o'clock, I think it's an appropriate time, I would say, cancel it, and all bets are off, and let hell break out.
Saturday, at 12 o'clock, and after that, I would say all hell is going to break out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That statement from the President coming, after Hamas threatened to postpone the release of more hostages, accusing Israel of breaching the terms of the ceasefire deal by delaying aid. It has been a very delicate agreement, one that we know took months to broker. And Trump's stunning foreign policy position putting it on even thinner ice tonight.
[21:55:00]
Whether this was planned or off the cuff remains to be seen, given Trump made that comment, as he was in the executive -- in the Oval Office, signing executive orders, one of them directing the federal government to use plastic straws again. Another, easing enforcement on a law that bans U.S. companies from bribing foreign officials.
My deeply-sourced White House insiders are here tonight.
Meridith McGraw is a White House Reporter for The Wall Street Journal.
And Jeff Mason is a White House Correspondent for Reuters.
And Meridith, obviously, listening to the President with that timeline there, of, this has to be done by Saturday. He emphasized that he was speaking for himself, not for Israel. But it's still a really remarkable statement coming from him.
MERIDITH MCGRAW, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, AUTHOR, "TRUMP IN EXILE": It's a remarkable statement.
He was asked there, in the Oval Office, if he had spoken with Netanyahu about this. And he said that, like you said, this was his idea, this was coming from him, this is how he wants to deal with it.
But you also have to think of this as coming on the backdrop of everything going on this week too. Tomorrow, he's welcoming King Abdullah of Jordan to the White House for an official visit, where you know that Jordanian aid is -- aid to Jordan is going to come up, and Trump's call for Jordan to take these Palestinians into the country, which Jordan has already said that that would cross a redline for them.
COLLINS: And Jeff, you've covered Trump for a long time. And this is his kind of style. You're brought in to talk about one thing that he's signing executive orders on. He's taking questions, and everything comes up, essentially.
But on this, I mean, this is a real question, because it's families whose lives are hanging in the balance here.
And I should note, Rachel and Jon Goldberg-Polin, whose son, Hersh, was murdered by Hamas, other families of hostages, called on Trump to do this exact thing, bring all the hostages home at once.
But their question is, is there a strategy here?
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Yes.
COLLINS: Is there a plan behind what he was arguing?
MASON: And I think that's an open question.
He mentioned this first on Air Force One, on Sunday night, when we were on the way to New Orleans, said that might be losing patience with this, basically with the hostage deal. Gave a little bit more meat to that today, in the Oval Office, by giving this deadline. But that's been 24 hours of kind of ruminating about it. But that doesn't mean there's a plan.
And that -- that is the question. Does what -- what does it mean when he says, all hell will break loose? Does that mean that the U.S. is going to contribute somehow to that? Does that mean he's giving Israel permission, again, to just go into Gaza, and restart the combat and the war that was happening before? And if so, does that actually lead to those hostages getting out, or does it do the opposite?
MCGRAW: Yes, a lot of questions about the implications here.
And also today, the President was in New Orleans for the Super Bowl. He did a Super Bowl interview beforehand with Bret Baier of Fox News, on just a whole plethora of issues.
But at one point, he was asked this question that I think everyone has kind of talked about since he picked JD Vance to be his running mate over the summer, which is, Is he the heir apparent to this movement you have created?
And Trump had a very quick one-word answer to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: Do you view Vice President JD Vance as your successor, the Republican nominee in 2028?
TRUMP: No. But he is very capable. I mean, I don't think that it -- you know, I think you have a lot of very capable people. So far, I think he is doing a fantastic job. It's too early.
BAIER: Right.
TRUMP: We're just starting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Maybe not the answer that Vance, I don't know, maybe he doesn't care, but maybe not the answer he wanted to hear here?
MCGRAW: I mean, it certainly shows that the President is watching him closely, to see how he performs. He's been given specific things to work on, and the portfolio, he's working on TikTok. He is at the Munich Security Conference, where he's going to be working with world leaders.
But you think that you would say, maybe yes, that your own vice president would be considered the next step, but maybe not.
COLLINS: And he is technically the successor, in this moment, because he's the Vice President.
But Jeff, what does it say, maybe? Is Trump trying to leverage his kind of influence and his power? He doesn't want to say who he's behind yet, because that will be what he utilizes in, in 2028. I mean, what does that look like, do you think?
MASON: I think he's just not ready to say that it's time to talk about a successor.
MCGRAW: Yes.
MASON: And in fairness, it is early, you know?
COLLINS: It's three weeks in.
MASON: It's super, super early to talk about, Who's going to replace you? But that's just also not where he's at. He wants the focus to be on him, to be on the work that he's doing.
At some point, he will, no doubt, think about whether he wants to wield that huge amount of political capital that he has, to endorse somebody else. But he may not. And that was a message both, to his sitting Vice President, and to others in the Republican Party, who may be thinking, we want to come next.
COLLINS: Yes.
MCGRAW: And they have a good relationship too. Especially during all these confirmation hearings, he really leaned on the Vice President to be his messenger up on the Hill.
MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: Yes, JD Vance has played a huge role in helping with skeptical senators. I mean, we're seeing how that's playing out tonight. Right now, it looks like everyone is on track to get confirmed, even the most controversial nominees that Trump picked that were really facing uphill battles.
MASON: Tulsi Gabbard, RFK Jr., both of them faced some opposition from Republicans. And now, it looks like they're both going to sail through.
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: Yes, and I guess this is coming, as Trump feels incredibly emboldened by the poll numbers that are showing a 53 percent approval rating, right now, among adults.
MCGRAW: I mean, I was talking to a couple of Trump's former senior advisers today. And they really think that Republicans, people who voted for him, are happy with what they're seeing. Even if it's causing others to look at the big picture, and say, This is, might be causing some chaos too.
COLLINS: Yes.
Meridith McGraw. Jeff Mason. Great to have you both.
Thank you all so much for joining me.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
