Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Walmart Warns It Will Raise Prices Because Of Trump Tariffs; Supreme Court Wrestles With Limiting Judges' Power To Block Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order; Trump: "I Don't Know Anything About" Family Crypto Deal. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired May 15, 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]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: --that's it.
EVA LONGORIA, AMERICAN ACTRESS AND FILM PRODUCER (on camera): OK. Don't get that wrong, guys.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Don't get that wrong.
LONGORIA (on camera): Don't get that wrong.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right.
LONGORIA (on camera): This is amazing. Muchas gracias.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you, Hastings (ph).
LONGORIA (voice-over): Here you have to do things in a certain style. And even a bar crawl is an expression of the Basque Way.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: "EVA LONGORIA: SEARCHING FOR SPAIN" airs Sunday, 09:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.
That's it for us. See you tomorrow. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, we are live from the final stop on President Trump's opulent Middle East journey, more pomp, more pageantry and more princes. Also a striking declaration on the way here about Vladimir Putin.
I'm Kaitlan Collins in Abu Dhabi. And this is THE SOURCE.
It's shortly before sunrise, here in Abu Dhabi, following another whirlwind day for President Trump. After stops in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the President arrived here, in the United Arab Emirates, for another elaborate reception.
On the way, the President made news on the stop that did not end up making his itinerary, Turkey, and a meeting with the Russian president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Nothing's going to happen until Putin and I get together, OK? And obviously he wasn't going to go -- he was going to go, but he thought I was going to go. He wasn't going if I wasn't there. And I don't believe anything is going to happen, whether you like it or not, until he and I get together. But we're going to have to get it solved, because too many people are dying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: With Putin ultimately being a no-show, a chaotic scene played out in Turkey instead.
Meanwhile, when it comes to the President's visit to the Middle East, we've just witnessed a pretty dramatic shift in tone when it comes to the isolationist aspect of his America First agenda.
He embraced the Emir of Qatar, after first blasting him, during his first term in office. Repeated today that he wanted to create a freedom zone by the U.S. in Gaza. And also touted his desire to play a role in mediating the conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbors of India and Pakistan.
In between those declarations, the President also spent the day being feted by another Gulf leader who very much speaks his language, when it comes to visuals, including a traditional hair-flip dance to welcome him to the presidential palace, drums and a military honor guard that were lined up for President Trump's inspection as well.
And the same president who issued a travel ban on those majority Muslim countries, in 2017, when he first took office, removed his shoes today, as is customary, as he toured the Grand Mosque here, in Abu Dhabi, his first known visit to one as President, which he described as a, quote, Great tribute.
The deal of the day was a partnership to build a massive 10-mile data center to advance artificial intelligence, a sweeping project, and also the largest outside the United States.
I'm joined tonight by Jeff Zeleny, who has been here on the ground with us.
Jeff, obviously, just on what he said about Putin today, that was notable, given, initially it had been Putin who suggested this, as Zelenskyy saying he would come if Putin was going. And now it seems like the White House is saying Trump and Putin are going to meet before this actually all gets settled.
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So the bottom line is no one knows, and what we do know is that neither side is closer to a peace.
What we didn't hear President Trump say today -- a couple weeks ago, remember when he said, Is Putin playing me here? We did not hear him repeat that. He basically said, No, I alone can fix this. That was the mindset.
But the White House is very sensitive to being played on this. Because the President said, I'm willing to go over there. Not knowing what Putin was going to do. That's very dangerous, of course.
But at the end of the day here, the White House really runs the risk of being embarrassed by this if Putin does not show up, which he's not, obviously. But if Russia does not take a step forward on this, and there's no progress at all. So what happened today in a Turkey word, no meetings. Will there be some tomorrow? We shall see. But it could be a very embarrassing moment for this President.
COLLINS: Yes, and we'll see what that means for that.
But you started the day as the President was making that news, on the way here to Abu Dhabi, at the major military base in Doha, where the President was speaking to troops earlier.
And you had this great reporting tonight on the trip overall, and also just how it underscores how the President has reimagined what America First means, and also just his view of the Middle East seems to have changed so much since he was last in office.
ZELENY: No doubt. I was really struck by that way. I have been all week long. But today, watching him deliver that speech before several thousand U.S. troops at the Al Udeid military base was striking. It's always so inspiring to see these young troops watching their Commander-in-Chief, on either party, and it was again today as well.
[21:05:00]
But struck by what the President was saying, he's more of a globalist now. When you stitch everything together, what he is doing is trying to build this Gulf alliance here, to help the U.S. in a very transactional way. There's no doubt about it. But also other places he's intervening in.
It does not sound like the President Trump, who was running for reelection on an American First agenda. He's not intervening in a George W. Bush way.
COLLINS: Yes.
ZELENY: He's not. But he's much more of a globalist perspective. For now, at least. We'll see if that changes when he returns to Washington.
COLLINS: But he also just seems kind of unrestrained by domestic politics, in a way that certainly President Biden was not, and maybe that he wasn't even in his first term, and kind of just doing what he wants, and not really caring how Republicans view it back in Washington, the kind of charting his own path and letting them answer for it.
ZELENY: And for Syria, for example, he was praised by some Democrats for that decision to meet with the new Syrian leader.
COLLINS: Which never happens.
ZELENY: I think it's the only time it's happened that I can recall in the beginning of his administration.
But look, I think we have to, sort of -- you don't know the success or failure of a foreign trip like this, I think, until several weeks after. We will see what comes from this. But for now, in the short- term, I think he has had a very successful debut back on the world stage. But all the challenges still loom very large, and he hasn't solved any of them, but certainly has built so many relationships along the way.
COLLINS: Yes. What else has stood out to you of being here, and after so many foreign trips that we've been on with the President?
ZELENY: I think just his comfort level, the fact that he is really focused on investments, and no apologies over the transactional nature of this. He's alone. Melania Trump is not with him like she was eight years ago. His family is not with him. But, boy, the Trump family looms very large in this city here--
COLLINS: Yes.
ZELENY: --and others. That was not the case, eight years ago.
So he's very much like many of the leaders he's meeting. The lines between a government and business are very blurred.
COLLINS: Yes.
ZELENY: And that is just fine with him.
So we will see, at the end, how much emphasis he keeps placing on all these. Or if he gets back to Washington, his attention span is not always that long, if he sticks with this or not. But the business deals he cut here, like that AI one you mentioned, is very critical.
COLLINS: Yes, and then also that $2 billion crypto deal backed by the government here.
Jeff Zeleny, thank you for that.
And we should note. When President Trump is going back to the United States, after his visit here finishes, he's going to be actually met with a warning coming from the world's largest retailer. Walmart's CEO told millions of American customers that they should be ready for prices to go up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOUG MCMILLON, CEO, WALMART: We will do our best to keep our prices as low as possible. But given the magnitude of the tariffs, even at the reduced levels announced this week, we aren't able to absorb all the pressure, given the reality of narrow retail margins.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: More than 150 million Walmart shoppers could soon see higher prices on everything from clothes to groceries.
Here in Abu Dhabi at a sit-down with the President of the United -- or with the UAE, President Trump was insisting that U.S. food prices are going to go down.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Costs are way down, groceries are way -- they have a term, Grocery. It's an old term, but it means basically what you're buying, food. It's pretty accurate term, but it's an old-fashioned sound. But groceries are down.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Yet Walmart's new warning contradicts what we heard from the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, when we were first talking about the tariffs the President was implementing, and what it would mean for retailers, and whether that would translate to higher prices for everyday Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: When you think about, especially for working Americans, could we get a price adjustment due to the tariff? Maybe. Maybe not. Walmart's CEO seems intent on making China, or his suppliers in China, eat all the tariffs. So Walmart, biggest retailer in America, 40 million people a week go in there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is the former CEO of Toys "R" Us. Gerry Storch joins me.
And it's great to have you here, sir.
Because you know very well, Walmart counts 90 percent of American households as its customers. I wonder how you think they're going to respond to this news, coming from the CEO today?
GERALD STORCH, FORMER CEO, TOYS "R" US, FORMER VICE CHAIRMAN, TARGET: Well, look, I think this is one of those cases where there's a little bit of truth in what everyone is saying.
So let's take Walmart. About two-thirds or three quarters of Walmart sales are groceries and consumer oil products that are primarily sourced, right here in the U.S. Some groceries come from outside the U.S., things like avocados or bananas or coffee, cut flowers. But most grocery products really do come right here from the U.S. that are unaffected by the tariffs.
Meanwhile, there are other categories, let's take toys, something I know a lot about, that are almost entirely sourced from overseas, and very heavily from China, which is the headquarters of the toy industry.
[21:10:00]
So you're going to see price increases for some products. Other products, the cost increase will be absorbed at the source. Others, the tariff is simply too high, and manufacturers are already raising prices. Toys being one, where Mattel said they're raising prices. I know that's happening, in many other categories, firsthand. So those prices will go up, and Walmart will pass some of that on to consumers.
So, what everyone says is true, in a way here. There are increases, for sure, coming. How much? We have to see where the tariffs really shake out.
COLLINS: Well, in terms of what these tariffs look like, and how Americans start to feel this. I mean, they have not, to a degree, felt it in a way that we've seen so far. But what the CEO is essentially arguing today is, starting next month, they're going to feel this.
And I wonder how you think customers will respond to this, as someone who had to deal with consumers, in your time leading Toys "R" Us.
STORCH: Well, if Walmart has to raise prices, everyone's going to raise prices. So, they're going to see higher prices on those items that don't have domestic substitutes, or other products that can be substitutes.
Again, heavily, toys, consumer electronics, a lot of home goods, hardlines types of products, you'll see price increases. I just want to emphasize again, that's a percentage of the basket. Most of the food products won't have that, and that's why some of what President Trump was saying was correct in that regard. So some of this and some of that, there will be increases, decreases in other products.
Meanwhile, you take a look at today's retail sales report, and it was actually fine. Sales for the month of April were up 5 percent year- over-year versus April last year, exactly the same as they were in March. Up 5 percent. That's a very high number for retail sales, and it's actually the highest that it's been in years.
Consumers are spending. Some of it's probably in advance of tariffs, trying to get that automobile purchase in, before the prices come up.
COLLINS: Yes.
STORCH: But some of it just reflects a consumer that's spending the money they have in their pocket, whatever that is.
COLLINS: You mentioned the things that we just don't grow here in the United States that's not going to change, like coffee, avocados, mangoes, Chilean sea bass, things like this. I mean, should those things be tariffed, in your view, or should those things not be tariffed?
Because it's not like they can -- they can essentially get to the heart of why the President is implementing these tariffs, which is what, in part, he says, to boost manufacturing here in the United States.
STORCH: Well, I don't -- you know, that's totally a political decision. I don't think you can -- I guess you can have a fish farm or something, but I don't know how you manufacture Chilean sea bass in the U.S. And bananas, by and large, don't grow here, I'm sorry. Some parts of California, if you really try hard, you'd get a banana. But some things, you just can't shift, you know? So that's really not my bailiwick.
I think, just like Doug McMillon, you take the rules as are given. What you'd like to have from the government is consistent rules, and that's what we don't have right now. The biggest problem that I hear from executives is, The game keeps changing. Tell us what it's going to be.
For example, if they advance -- if they announced the tariffs a year in advance, and said, Starting January 1st, this is the way it's going to be? OK, fine. You would have given us a year to figure it all out, to do our negotiations, to get set what we're going to sell, what we're not going to sell, what the prices are going to be, it would have been very calm and smooth.
The way it was done is sheer pandemonium, and it feels like it changes every day, sometimes every week, for sure. It's a different set of rules that we need to play under.
Give me the rules. We'll optimize the results. It's up to the politicians to decide what they want to do, but just be clear about it. And that's what it hasn't been.
COLLINS: Well, and on that point. We were talking to the Trade Rep, the other night, about the tariffs being brought down on China for 90 days, while they're negotiating. And I said, If you don't come to an agreement, when these 90 days are up, could the tariffs go back in place? And he said, Yes.
And I thought that was striking. If you're a business trying to navigate this or see what's next, as Walmart and others are doing, you're kind of left in the dark.
STORCH: It's a total nightmare. Back in business school, we learned something on Managerial Economics, where you draw out decision trees, where you go, Well, this could happen, or that -- when you have an uncertain environment.
You have 10 branches with different probabilities, you're trying to figure out what to do. Should we buy the product with a higher tariff now? Should we hold off and wait until later, hoping to be less? Do we go ahead and put the products on those ships and put them in a bonded warehouse, and hope the tariff will go down before we have to pay it? What are we going to do? Do we buy something else altogether? What's the game that you want us to play? Again, that's what's unclear right now. We just don't know.
That's why shipping volumes out of China have taken a huge hit. A lot of products simply isn't on the ships. It's not coming here. So you see supply chains already getting imbalanced, where certain products will be unavailable altogether because they'll be out of stock.
Other products are going to go, Oh, we better order a lot of it from Vietnam right now, because the tariffs are low at Vietnam. If we get it right now before those might go up, we'll get a big supply. But what if we get a big supply of the wrong thing? Then you'll be over- inventory.
COLLINS: Yes.
STORCH: So everyone's playing this game, trying to guess what's going to happen. And if it's not clear by the end of that 90 days, then all bets are off for the fall season. For holiday, I think you'd just have a total mess of a supply chain.
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: So, if you're drawing a tree for this right now, how many branches would you say are on that, in terms of options at this moment?
STORCH: At least five, you know? And I think any good tree, you've got to have at least five. But at least five.
COLLINS: OK.
STORCH: And the issue is what probability you put on each one. I don't know what's going to happen. 90 days is what? It's in July, or something? What's going to happen in July, you know? We don't know what's going to happen. And that's the biggest problem.
A tariff at 10, 15, even 20 percent, that's what President Trump put on, on a lot of goods from China, in his first term. Those were totally manageable. And actually, the data show a lot of those eventually were negotiated with suppliers, and not passed on to consumers.
But when you start getting up to 30 percent, and that's what Doug McMillon was saying today, or beyond 30 percent, you can't do that. The supplier doesn't have the room to absorb that, so you're going to have to pay for some of that, and then you're going to have to raise prices.
So that's what he's saying, is those products now are coming due, the bill is coming due, for the tariffs already there. It's too late for some of the products to change it. At least that 30 percent is going to have to be paid. And how much more, if any, remains to be seen.
COLLINS: Yes, it does remain to be seen.
Gerry Storch, it's great to have you. Thank you for walking us a bit through business school here tonight. Appreciate it. One of the first executive orders that the President signed, after he took office, restricting birthright citizenship, has just made its way to the Supreme Court. It's got much bigger implications than just that though. What did we hear from the justices today? We'll tell you next.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: The sun is just about to rise here, in Abu Dhabi, where I've been traveling with President Trump, on his four-day three-country swing through the Middle East.
But back in Washington today, we were also keeping our eye on the Supreme Court, as it was wrestling with a major challenge, over the President's attempt to restrict what's known as birthright citizenship.
Multiple federal courts have blocked the President from implementing a new order that would deny birthright citizenship to children whose parents were in the United States illegally.
And while that issue is at the heart of this case, it wasn't really what the justices were even hearing arguments on today. Instead, that mainly focused on whether or not a judge can singlehandedly block the President's executive order with what's known as a nationwide injunction.
The conservative justices actually signaled that they were open to limiting that power. But several raised questions about what would happen if the President's order can stand as the courts are working out a case.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH: This is just a very practical question of how this is going to work. What do hospitals do with a newborn? What do states do with a newborn?
JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN: Let's just assume you're dead wrong. How do we get to that result? Does every single person that is affected by this E.O. have to bring their own suit?
JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR: So, when a new president orders that, because there's so much gun violence going on in the country, and he comes in and he says, I have the right to take away the guns from everyone. Then people -- and he sends out the military to seize everyone's guns. We and the courts have to sit back and wait until every named plaintiff gets or every plaintiff whose gun is taken comes into court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My legal source tonight is CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
And Elie, I wonder, just given what we heard from the justices, and their clear concern about chaos reigning throughout the United States, what were your biggest takeaways from today?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Well, Kaitlan, both sides of this argument have a major problem.
On the one hand, people who are in favor, the challengers here, the people who are in favor of nationwide injunctions, it's obviously an example of judicial overreach.
District court judges, there are 700 of them or so, in this country, spread across 94 federal districts. They are supposed to decide the case before them, as to the parties before them, and it really does offend Title 3 sensibilities for judges, individual judges, to be making decisions that apply to the entire country.
On the other hand, if we got rid of these nationwide injunctions, as you just heard in those snippets, you played, chaos would follow. How would we possibly take birthright citizenship? Why should a baby born in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia have one status, but a baby born in New Jersey have another status? Who's going to track it?
So both sides have really deeply entrenched problems with their positions here.
COLLINS: Well, and it was interesting to hear from John Sauer, who's arguing on behalf of the government. He's the Solicitor General, basically number three at the DOJ. And he said to Justice Brett Kavanaugh that it's not clear how the President would enforce this executive order.
I want people to just listen to what the Solicitor General had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN JOHN SAUER, SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES: The states can continue to, the federal officials will have to figure that out.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: How?
SAUER: So you could imagine a number of ways that the federal officials could.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: Such as?
SAUER: Such as they could require a showing of, you know, documentation showing legal presence in the country for a temporary visitor, for example.
JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: For all the newborns, is that how it's going to work?
SAUER: Again, we don't know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, Kavanaugh sounded pretty skeptical there.
HONIG: Yes, that's the sound of a Justice, unconvinced. That's a bad moment for John Sauer.
[21:25:00]
And let me tell you why that's especially important. If you're trying to sort of game out, how might this decision come down? First of all, I think Trump's going to lose ultimately on birthright citizenship. I think his position departs too far from the way we've looked at that for a 157 years. Every judge who's considered this, lower court judge, regardless of ideology, has rejected that position.
But the real ballgame here is those nationwide injunctions. It's clear, the three liberal justices are going to be against Trump on them. It's clear Alito and Thomas are going to be for him. So the ballgame is, can you, if you're on the liberal side, get two out of Gorsuch, Roberts, Barrett, and Kavanaugh?
And I think Kavanaugh sees a real problem with the practicalities here. And I think Amy Coney Barrett also voiced some real questions that I think would be of concern to the Trump administration.
COLLINS: OK. We'll see what happens.
Separately, Elie, I've got to get your take on something that is happening tonight. If people aren't on Twitter, I mean, this is kind of blowing up around the MAGA world, and the President's aides have been posting about this non-stop, even though they're here on the trip.
That former FBI Director, James Comey, who Trump fired, posted this, and wrote, Cool shell formation on my beach walk. When you look at it, it says 864 -- 8647. He took it down, and said he didn't realize that some people associate those numbers, 86 with violence. Obviously, 47 is a reference to Trump.
But listen to what the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, just to give you a sense of what administration officials are saying, what she just said tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE WATTERS, FOX NEWS HOST: Do you believe Comey should be in jail?
TULSI GABBARD, UNITED STATES DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: I do. Any other person with the position of influence that he has, people who take very seriously what a that -- what a guy of his stature, his experience, and what the propaganda media has built him up to be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, she says he should be behind bars. Kristi Noem, Kash Patel, others are saying that there should be investigations over this.
Your legal take, Elie?
HONIG: That's ridiculous.
I mean, look, I am no fan of Jim Comey's. I've been very critical of a lot of the things he's done. I think posting this was extremely reckless, to use the phrase that he once used, and stupid. He has acknowledged that. He took it down. He said, I should not have posted this.
This is not criminal. This is not a criminally chargeable threat against the President. It's political speech. It's way too broad. It's stupid. It's reckless. It's not criminal. That's just hyperbole that you're hearing from the Cabinet members there.
COLLINS: Elie Honig, as always, thank you.
HONIG: Thank you.
COLLINS: In the meantime, tonight, speaking of the Justice Department, the President's Justice Department is facing a new lawsuit from a former employee.
Back in March, you heard from Liz Oyer, here on THE SOURCE, after she says she was fired from her job, as the pardon attorney at the Justice Department, because she says that she refused to restore Mel Gibson's gun rights.
Just today, she's now filed a suit against the Department for records related to her termination.
And Liz Oyer is back with me now.
And it's great to have you here, Liz.
Because obviously there have been -- I've been asking, how are you going to handle this on the legal front? What are you trying to get from the Justice Department? And do you think they're going to give it to you?
LIZ OYER, FIRED DOJ PARDON ATTORNEY: Thanks for having me, Kaitlan.
So I don't think that they're going to give me the documents I'm seeking, because they've had plenty of time to give them to me. I requested them through a process called FOIA. All I'm actually seeking is documents that explain the reasons for my termination from the Department.
The Department of Justice is systematically firing career attorneys in ways that violate civil service protections, and they're providing no explanation. In my case, I was fired very abruptly, with no reason given.
I spoke out about my firing, and the circumstances leading up to it. And the Deputy Attorney General, who fired me, made a statement, to your show, to the media, saying that I was lying, and saying that I was not fired in the way that I claim, but he won't provide any explanation for why I was fired.
So really, all I'm seeking is the documents to which I'm legally entitled that explain the basis for my termination.
COLLINS: Have they responded to you at all, whatsoever?
OYER: Well, interestingly, I did get some documents in response to my FOIA request from the Office of the Pardon Attorney, where I previously worked. But the leadership offices, Blanche's office and the Attorney General's office, they are stonewalling and refusing to provide any documents in response to my request.
COLLINS: OK. We'll see what they have to say about this. Obviously, they have argued that that wasn't why you were fired, to your point there.
But can I ask you about that job?
OYER: Yes.
COLLINS: Because you walked us through, why it's an important role, how you go through -- you know, whether or not people are eligible for pardons, if they deserve them, and what they've done.
The person who has that job now is Ed Martin, who Trump had tried to make the top prosecutor in Washington, but had to drop his nomination after enough Republicans on Capitol Hill would not even support him. We found out today he's actually under investigation in an ethics probe.
I just wonder what you make of the person who has now taken over your position.
[21:30:00]
OYER: Well, my old position, pardon attorney, is one that historically has always been filled by a career non-political appointee. It is really stunning to see someone with the political credentials of Ed Martin filling this role.
And it's also really notable that he has another role at the Department, which is Director of the Weaponization Working Group, which is a group that apparently intends to target the President's political enemies.
So it's sort of two sides of one coin. Martin is going to be leading the effort to target the enemies, and also to grant pardons as political favors to allies of Trump, which is something that Trump has already done, on quite a few occasions, in just the three or four months that he's been President.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll see what that looks like.
Liz Oyer, thanks for coming on. And let us know if you get any answers from the DOJ, please. OYER: Up next. A veteran FAA air traffic controller says that he personally helped divert a midair collision. He's talking about the dangers and stress of the job. He's someone you don't often hear from. That's ahead.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Some breaking news tonight, as a new video shows a radar blackout inside a Newark air traffic control facility.
(VIDEO - CBS OBTAINS VIDEO INSIDE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL DURING OUTAGE)
COLLINS: CBS News obtained this video that you see here, reportedly from inside the facility that handles those flights for Newark Airport, showing the moment that blank screens started coming back online after a 90-second outage on Friday.
CNN has not been able to independently verify the authenticity of this video.
But this does come, as we're hearing from a veteran air traffic controller, who works at the facility, that's speaking out.
Jonathan Stewart, who has more than two decades of air traffic control experience, reveals in an interview, that he did with The Wall Street Journal, as he's taking trauma leave himself, that after watching two planes speed towards each other on his radar screen, last week, he helped avoid a midair collision.
He shared what went down as these planes were seconds away from colliding.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN STEWART, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER: And in my situation, I was getting tired. I was having to utilize a combination of radar and non- radar rules that I basically just made up on the fly, to separate aircraft in such a way that I could be prepared for losing radar. That increased my workload, which led to me having a close call. So, a nose-to-nose situation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And that air tower controllers have had to take time off because the stress that they faced in the control towers, like what Stewart was talking about there, he defended that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEWART: There's not a single controller in Newark Area C, to the best of my knowledge, that does not love their job. All right? We would like to have more resources to effectively do our job. Yes, that is the case. But to say that someone would basically game the system and take trauma leave, when they were not traumatized, is insulting at best and just, quite frankly, misinformed. No way, shape or form was that what happened. Nobody walked off the job of their own free will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My sources tonight are:
CNN Aviation Analyst, Mary Schiavo.
And former Air Traffic Controller, Vincent Sugent.
And it's great to have both of you here, just given your expertise.
And Mary, when you hear from Stewart there, talking about what he has been through. How striking is it to you to hear an air traffic controller speaking out? I mean, how bad does that say things have gotten?
MARY SCHIAVO, CNN AVIATION ANALYST, FORMER INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION: Well, it's very important that he speaks out.
And you're absolutely right, we rarely hear from them, because the government in lots of departments, but especially in the Federal Aviation Administration, does not like employees speaking out. They have a public affairs office. They like to script everything, et cetera.
But I think it's very important that he spoke out, because he corrected some misconceptions, one -- and Secretary Duffy corrected this too -- that no one walked off the job. In fact, Duffy had just met with the airlines and explained what was going on.
And they're entitled to this. And the reason they have this stress relief time-off, is because it's a very stressful job, and the government does not want controllers who are overstressed because, as he correctly said, he has people's lives in his hands.
And also it's important for him to speak out about the equipment. It's one thing to hear it from the government. It's another to hear it from people who are hands-on and have to separate traffic. I think it's important that he spoke out.
COLLINS: Well and Vincent, I mean, given your experience, to hear him say that he had to use a combination of radar and non-radar rules that he made up on the fly, just so he could be prepared if they lost radar. I mean, is that in any way something that air traffic controllers should be regularly dealing with or prepared for?
VINCENT SUGENT, FORMER AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLER: Absolutely not. It's actually extremely unsettling.
That happened to me two or three times over my 37-year career, and I didn't know when my equipment was going to come back. And the difference being, the controls in Newark don't know when it's going to fail, or when it's going to come back. And again, that's -- Stewart was spot-on with the gentleman taking time off and all that.
But it's just extremely unsettling that that stuff's even happening.
COLLINS: Yes.
[21:40:00]
And Mary, you are a former Inspector General for the Transportation Department. What did you make in this video of the outage inside the Philadelphia facility? It's the one that Stewart works at during that midnight (ph) outage. When you look at this and you see black screens, what goes through your mind?
SCHIAVO: Well, first and foremost, it's some of the screens that we put in place, not me personally, but they were put in place when I was Inspector General, some of those controls, some of those screens, some of those that equipment is 20- or 30-years-old.
And you can tell that it's a, you know, a bona fide video, because you can see the old strip trays, where you actually still have to resort to pieces of paper and hand them off from time to time.
But the screen is there front and center for a reason. That is what allows controllers to know the proximity of the aircraft, to know the rates of closure. Just as the air traffic controller explained, they're hurtling towards each other at 500 miles an hour, they have to know where they are, and that allows them to act in mitigation.
What do they have to do to separate that air traffic when their screen goes dark? They have none of those three measures.
COLLINS: Vincent, does it feel like the FAA is listening, when people like Mr. Stewart speak out?
SUGENT: To me, it does not. I was a whistleblower against the FAA for a number of years, 18 or 20 years. And no, I just had the feeling that they just don't either know how to properly address it or correct it. But I really don't think that they have listened to the controllers, over the last 25 years, over staffing, over equipment--
COLLINS: Wow.
SUGENT: --time on position, stuff like that. That's very bothersome to me.
COLLINS: That's so concerning, I think, to everyone listening.
And I'm glad he is speaking out, so people can know what it's like, and what these air traffic controllers are going through.
SUGENT: Yes. Absolutely correct.
COLLINS: Vincent Sugent. Mary Schiavo. It's great to have both of you. Thank you both for coming on. Up next for us tonight. In New York, there was new evidence that was revealed today in that criminal trial of Sean Diddy Combs. The key witness here, his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, was cross-examined by his attorneys. How did they take this approach? We'll tell you what they said, next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Today, in court, jurors were shown text messages between Sean Diddy Combs and his then-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, who faced cross- examination in the federal sex trafficking trial of Diddy today.
In one of those messages from January 2008, she texted Diddy, quote, "I'm a very lucky woman. I miss you so much. I'd fly wherever you needed me, whenever. I love you."
Others were explicit in reference to Diddy's so-called freak offs, the drug-fueled sexual performances that he orchestrated. In another message in August, 2009, Cassie texted, quote, I'm always ready to Freak Off.
My legal sources tonight are:
Criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson.
And attorney, Areva Martin.
It's great to have both of you here.
Because Areva, I think it's pretty clear what the defense is trying to prove with these texts. I'm curious, do you think it's going to work?
AREVA MARTIN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Well, as you said, Kaitlan, the defense was clearly trying to establish that, contrary to what the prosecution's case has been about, for the last couple of days, which was that Cassie Ventura was coerced into these sexual encounters, these freak offs with escorts that were paid by Sean Diddy Combs?
Today, the defense was trying to tear that theory apart by establishing that not only did Cassie Ventura loved Sean Diddy Combs, but they had a very complicated relationship, and that she had agency, and that she enthusiastically participated in the freak offs. So far from being coerced, that she arranged them and that she gladly participated in them.
But one of the issues that the defense is going to have is this whole concept of consent, and what consensual sexual encounters really means. Because clearly, Cassie Ventura, in her direct examination, provided ample testimony that she felt coerced, that she felt that she would face physical violence if she didn't participate in the freak offs, and that she could be blackmailed, that the videotapes of the freak offs would be exposed to the public.
So there's going to be this issue of, were there times which perhaps she did willingly participate, enthusiastically even, and other times when she was being coerced?
COLLINS: Yes.
Joey, what stood out to you from the time in court today?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, I think a few things did.
Kaitlan, good to be with you and Areva.
I think that the defense had to do a few things. Number one, remember that they have to humanize their client, right? Because he's been deemed as a monster, especially with this video, happening over and over and over again.
And if you listen to some of her testimony, at least from what the defense tried to elicit, was that he was certainly engaging. He was charming. They went in love with each other. There were redeeming qualities about him. That's important, because a jury has to see him as a person.
[21:50:00]
Pivoting from that, the issue, as Areva aptly states, and I agree, relates to the issue of coercion. And when you have this issue of text message exchanges, and email exchanges, when she's not only participating, but she's orchestrating, she's helped organizing, she's looking forward to it, she's enthusiastic about it? It defeats the issue of coercion, and get you to the issue of consent.
Well, why is that important? Well, if you're charged with running a criminal enterprise, you're doing criminal things. And if the jury thinks this is coerced, guess what? That's criminal. And if the jury thinks it's coerced? It's also sex trafficking. And I think that that was very important to it.
And then when you look at all of it in whole, in terms of her standing on her own two feet, and her ability as a superstar, an up-and-coming rising star, did you really need Diddy for a 11 years to get to where you wanted to go? You were an actress, you were a model, you were a talented singer. If you wanted to break away from the relationship, you could be successful without him. And so, I think those are the things that stood out.
And to your question to Areva, and my view of it is, Hey, will it land? Will it work? It's always a jury question, and it's really focused on what the jurors are perceiving, thinking, and how they actually absorb the information. So the answer to your question is, it's an open question, they will, that is, jurors have to process that and make a decision.
COLLINS: Yes. And a lot of notes that are being passed back and forth between Diddy, and his defense team, during this.
Joey Jackson. Areva Martin. We'll see what happens tomorrow in court. Thank you both tonight. Up next here. Back on the ground in Abu Dhabi, President Trump's glitzy Gulf tour is going into its final day. Yes, there has been a lot of pomp and circumstance, and Arabian horses, but also big policy changes as well.
CNN's Jeff Zeleny is back with me, in a moment.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As a new day is getting started here in Abu Dhabi, the President has been focused on dealmaking for the United States, and for his family, has come under scrutiny, during this trip.
He's coming home to some questions about his own personal deal-making, including when he was asked about the UAE investing $2 billion in the Trump family cryptocurrency venture, on Air Force One.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: An Emirati government backed firm did a 2-billion-dollar deal using the Trump digital coins. How did that deal come about?
TRUMP: I don't know anything about it. I really don't know anything about it. But, I'm a big crypto fan, I will tell you. I've been that from the beginning. Right from the campaign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Jeff Zeleny is back here with me.
Jeff, I was standing there when Trump answered that. I mean, I was a little skeptical that he knows nothing about a $2 billion sovereign wealth fund, backed by the UAE government, investing in his crypto fund.
ZELENY: It's hard to believe. I do believe he probably may not understand the ins and outs of stablecoin, and crypto, that world. But one thing he does know is $2 billion. That's something that is very familiar to Donald Trump. And it's the family business. So, that is what is so extraordinary about all of this.
And I think it's also so striking. Clearly, there must have been a decision made to not have any family members here, because they knew attention would be drawn to it. But that is a major part of what the family business has done, since he's been in office. So it's a little hard to believe that he was unaware of that.
COLLINS: One thing that has stood out is -- you know, as we've talked about, how closely this trip aligns and tracks with his family's expanding business portfolio, including in the Middle East and every single country that he's gone to. Is in every stop he's made almost, we'll see if he does it today, there have been these meet and greets with the President. I mean, they did it at the Saudi Investment Forum lunch, the other day, where hundreds of business leaders were coming up, and shaking the President's hand, and getting a moment to interact with him.
ZELENY: That was the biggest one in Riyadh, a slightly smaller one in Doha. There's another lunch here today, actually, a business leaders lunch.
Kaitlan, there are so many Americans business leaders here, so many hedge funds investors, because this is a hot place to invest. There's no doubt. And because the President is here, there's essentially an all-call that was made, and this is where it's a supreme lobbying opportunity, all week long. I'm really struck by the number of American investors who are here.
And David Sacks, someone as well, the White House adviser on artificial intelligence, AI, he's probably been -- I've not seen him around much.
COLLINS: I saw him at the--
ZELENY: You did? OK.
COLLINS: --administrative offices in Doha, yesterday.
ZELENY: But he is doing some of the most important work, probably signing these AI deals. And that, I think, is one lasting take away from this.
The next time you and I come back to the Middle East, it's likely to be a different place, in terms of AI growth and development, and that is a really fascinating movement in terms of outsourcing jobs and other things.
COLLINS: Yes, you've already seen how much that's changed, since Biden was here five years ago, whenever that was, since Trump was here, eight years ago, and to see how that footprint has expanded and changed.
And with this new AI investment that they're doing here, this new campus that is going to be built here. I mean, that is something that is getting the head of NVIDIA behind it, OpenAI's Sam Altman as well, that they've been in discussion with him about it, because they want the chips and the semiconductor chips from the United States. They need more of those here in the UAE.
ZELENY: They absolutely do. And the question is, 10 years from now, will this be the center of AI? So, this is going to be one of those sort of lingering controversies and questions. Is the President -- is this whole effort sort of outsourcing jobs? We shall see. But it's an emerging market, no doubt about it.
COLLINS: Yes.
Jeff Zeleny, thank you for that great reporting.
ZELENY: You bet.
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: And thank you all so much for joining us.
The President has one more day, here in the Middle East. We'll be following all of those developments closely, and covering it, and also hosting THE SOURCE, live here from Abu Dhabi, again tomorrow night. Be sure to join us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
