Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
U.S. Court Blocks Trump From Imposing Bulk Of His Tariffs; Elon Musk Officially Departing Trump Administration; Trump Weighs Pardons Of People Who Plotted To Kidnap Whitmer. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired May 28, 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]
RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So now that the Chrisleys are out of prison, there are a lot of questions about what happens next.
Well, in terms of that, their daughter, Savannah, has said that she just wants to get them home, and wants to get them back to a normal life. Where that life will be is also a bit unclear. It does seem as though both of them, from what I'm told, are heading back to Nashville.
But Savannah has said that she's been caring for her two younger siblings, the whole time her parents have been in prison. She also said that she's spoken to her parents every single day while they have been behind bars. But what's interesting, Anderson, is, she says, that they have not spoken to each other, for the nearly three years behind bars, they have not heard each other's voice.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Yes.
KAYE: So certainly, a big family reunion to come.
COOPER: Yes. Randi Kaye, thanks very much.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. I'll see you, tomorrow.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Tonight, a court you've likely never heard of just brought President Trump's tariffs to a screeching halt.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, President Trump's trade war just hit a major roadblock as a panel of federal judges, including one who was actually appointed by President Trump himself, ruled together that the President overstepped and does not have the authority to impose the sweeping tariffs in the manner in which he did.
The U.S. Court of International Trade says that Trump's tariffs will be, quote, "Vacated and their operation permanently enjoined." That means the bulk of his tariffs, including the ones the President announced on what he called Liberation Day, have now been brought to a standstill. The President claimed he could impose the tariffs, without Congress, by declaring a national economic emergency. But the court found the law in question, quote, "Does not authorize any of the Worldwide, Retaliatory or Trafficking tariff orders." It also prevents the President from enforcing his tariffs that were placed earlier this year against China, Mexico and Canada.
Tonight, already, as this breaking news is just happening, stock futures are jumping on the news of the ruling, and the administration has already immediately appealed this decision, with the White House spokesperson saying, tonight, and I'm quoting them now, "These deficits have created a national emergency that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base - facts that the court did not dispute. It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency."
My first source tonight is the lead counsel for the plaintiffs in this case. Jeffrey Schwab is the Senior Counsel at the Liberty Justice Center, and he joins me now.
And it's great to have you here, Jeffrey, given this stunning ruling, coming from this federal panel of judges here, basically bringing Trump's tariffs to a halt, most of them.
What is your reaction to this ruling tonight?
JEFFREY SCHWAB, SENIOR COUNSEL & DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION, LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER, LEAD COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS IN V.O.S. SELECTIONS, INC. V. TRUMP: Well, thanks for having me, Kaitlan.
Of course, we're delighted. This is a huge problem for not only our five business clients, who were tremendously impacted by these tariffs, negatively, but also for businesses across the country, and I think, for consumers, American consumers, who will feel the effects of these tariffs, had they gone on longer.
COLLINS: And you're representing, just to be clear, here, a wine- seller, VOS Selections, four other small businesses as well, that claimed that they had been severely harmed by these tariffs. Have you been able to speak with them tonight? How are they reacting to this ruling?
SCHWAB: They're delighted, of course. And I think they're hopeful that these will be upheld by the appellate court, so that they can continue their businesses with the certainty of what's going to happen, rather than the uncertainty of not knowing what the tariff rate is, at any given time, and whether it will change, at any given time.
COLLINS: The White House responded to this, almost immediately. I was talking to White House officials, as they were drafting this statement. In part, they said, it's not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address, what they describe as, a national emergency.
What would you say to what you're hearing from the White House tonight? SCHWAB: Well, the court doesn't address that issue at all. What it does is interpret the law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and it says that that does not authorize the President to issue unlimited unilateral tariffs. And that's all it said.
COLLINS: You mentioned the appeal -- the appellate courts. Are you prepared to take this fight, potentially, all the way up to the Supreme Court?
SCHWAB: Yes. Obviously, this is a very -- a very important case, not only because of the tremendous economic impact that it has on everybody, but particularly businesses, and our businesses, but also because of the tremendous power grab that the administration is claiming here.
[21:05:00]
Obviously, the Constitution gives the power to tariff, to Congress, not to the President. So, that means there's got to be some limit, when Congress delegates that authority to the President. He can't just assert unlimited authority to tariff whenever he wants.
COLLINS: And are you confident that you'll ultimately prevail here?
SCHWAB: Yes, very confident. I think the law is very clear. And what the President asserts is extremely broad -- an extremely broad assertion of power. And I think the court was, at our oral argument -- in the oral argument, for the case with the 12 states, very skeptical of that assertion of power.
COLLINS: Jeffrey Schwab, thank you for joining us, especially so quickly on this breaking news tonight. Really appreciate your time.
SCHWAB: Thank you so much, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Also joining us on this breaking news.
New York Times White House correspondent, Zolan Kanno-Youngs.
And the former deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tom Dupree.
And Zolan, obviously, this has kind of gone off like a bomb inside the White House, in terms of they had an idea this might happen, but they were pretty confident, as they'd been arguing this out in the courts, until now.
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Absolutely. This is the policy tariffs that is really at the center of, of the administration's agenda and foreign policy, and also the President's identity here. How often have we heard the President talk about the need to sort of address, what he says is, an unfair alignment, when it comes to global trade, and get the country on equal footing.
We just -- it was just a couple days ago that you had them talking about potentially starting talks again with the EU, while hanging the threat of tariffs over the European Union. Now, you have this blocked here. It really does bring the entirety, really, of the Trump administration's agenda, in a way, at least their economic agenda, a centerpiece of it, to a standstill.
COLLINS: Yes, and their attorneys, Tom, have been arguing in court over this, saying that they have the right to make the decision of how to respond here. They were saying that, essentially, this is a political question, and the courts do not have a role here.
What do you make of what you're seeing in this ruling tonight?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: I think this was a thoughtful, comprehensive and correct ruling. It was a 50-page ruling, issued by the Court of International Trade, which obviously specializes in these issues. Two of the three judges were conservatives. You had, as you reported, a Reagan appointee, and a Trump appointee, on the panel.
What they said is, I think, a commonsense point that the United States Supreme Court has said again and again, is that when the Constitution gives Congress the power, and Congress authorizes the Executive that delegates some of that power to the President, the President has to follow the rules Congress sets.
If Congress says you can only do just tariffs or impose tariffs in an emergency, there has to be an emergency. If Congress says, you can only modify tariffs in a certain way, the President has to follow that process that Congress specified.
I think it's a fundamentally sound ruling, and I anticipate it will be upheld on appeal.
COLLINS: I mean, this is a court that a lot of people watching, probably, Zolan, have never even heard of.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Yes.
COLLINS: And I think it's remarkable tonight, as we're going through this and looking at this, that this might be one of the biggest decisions that a court has made, when it comes to Trump's agenda since he took office.
KANNO-YOUNGS: That's right. That's right. And I think what was interesting is that the administration's lawyers, when they were arguing this in court, tried to argue that, essentially, this Court had no authority to even be reviewing the President's ability to issue these tariffs, which is something that we've seen in other court cases as well. And doesn't take these different courts happy as well. It tends to frustrate them.
I also think what you were just describing also undermines a central strategy, too, of the -- and this decision undermines a strategy of the administration, which is, declare whatever, any issue they want an emergency, right? To sidestep Congress. We need money for the border wall. It's a national emergency. We're going to get funding for it. We want to issue these sprawling tariffs. Well, it's a national emergency, we're going to pursue it there.
Often when it comes to issues the President's trying to prioritize, he makes that argument of an emergency. This decision cuts through that.
COLLINS: And you think if they do go to the Supreme Court, that the court -- that this ruling will ultimately stand?
DUPREE: I do. I think it is a sound ruling, and they are applying principles that the United States Supreme Court has stressed time and again, that the President does have discretion, in a genuine emergency, to enforce foreign policy, to do things, but the President has to act within the boundaries that Congress has set.
That's the fundamental point here, and that's why I think at the end of the day, the challengers will prevail. I think it's a win for American businesses. I think it's a win for American consumers.
COLLINS: And today, the President was in the Oval Office. He got asked about this comment that viewers might have heard here, on the show, last night. Ambassador John Bolton actually first brought it up.
They were essentially saying that Wall Street is using this term about Trump, saying it is -- it is TACO, essentially. Trump Always Chickens Out, is the term. The President himself was asked about this term today, and his thought on it, and he reacted quite angrily.
[21:10:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Wall Street analysts have coined a new term called the "TACO trade." They're saying "Trump always chickens out" on your tariff threats and that's why markets are higher this week. What's your response to that?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I kick out?
REPORTER: Chicken out.
TRUMP: Oh, isn't that -- I chicken out? I've never heard that.
We have the hottest country in the world right now. Six months ago, this country was stone-cold dead. We had a dead country. We had a country people didn't think it was going to survive. And you ask a nasty question like that. It's called negotiation.
Don't ever say what you said. That's a nasty question.
Go ahead.
REPORTER: President Zelenskyy -- President Zelenskyy--
TRUMP: To me, that's the nastiest question.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: It wasn't the reporter who came up with that term. But instead, it was the Financial Times commentator, who joins me now, Robert Armstrong, who came up with this term, TACO trade.
And it's great to have you here. I mean, when you -- what did you make of the President's response, to your term?
ROBERT ARMSTRONG, US FINANCIAL COMMENTATOR, FINANCIAL TIMES: Well, first, I was sort of knocked over that something that I had said in my newsletter, at the Financial Times, to kind of just capture a little aspect of this moment, made its way to the White House.
But I think his -- the President's response was very telling. The phrase hit a nerve with him, because, of course, the facts support the TACO thesis.
Whether it's been on electronics early on, or the high tariffs on China, or the Liberation Day reciprocal tariffs, or, most recently, the high tariffs on Europe, Trump talks big, blows his trumpet, makes a huge fuss, and before negotiations even begin, before he's even made contact with reality, he backs off.
And correspondingly, the markets panic at first, then he backs off, and markets bounce right up again. And it's just undeniable that this is part of the pattern of markets and this administration.
COLLINS: So, when he says it's just a negotiating tactic, you disagree?
ARMSTRONG: I mean, of course. There's no evidence that starting with these outrageous expectations has bought him anything. And the way you can see that is that he's come down before the other side has he -- it's like he sees the response of the bond market or the stock market, or he sees his popularity ratings, and that's what makes him back off. It's not the Chinese, or the Europeans, that are -- that he's won some concessions from. That simply isn't happening.
COLLINS: What's your reaction to this ruling, from this court, tonight, essentially bringing most of his tariffs, and the most impactful ones that they have counted on, to virtually a halt?
ARMSTRONG: Well, it's a halt, but this fight will go on. I think that what has been asserted by the court here is simply that the President is only one branch of government. But I wouldn't be sure at all that the -- that message gets through in the White House. So, we're going to have more noise, more posturing, more threats, more recriminations. And so, this story isn't dead. We've just arrived at a new phase of it.
COLLINS: Yes.
I think Robert makes a good point, in terms of what this is going to look like, going forward.
And I mean, we've been keeping our eyes on Truth Social, tonight, because it's a question of how the President himself, what he is going to say, in response to this ruling. We've heard from his spokespeople. We've heard from his officials. We have not heard from him directly yet on this.
KANNO-YOUNGS: And it seems like you probably would, knowing a decision like this that really does get out of policy that he has embraced so much. I would expect that you would see at least a statement, if not tonight, then probably soon tomorrow.
And you got to mention people that those in the White House, right now, are frustrated and furious about this. Again, this has been a centerpiece of their strategy, from economic policy--
COLLINS: It is the centerpiece.
KANNO-YOUNGS: --to foreign policy. It's the centerpiece. You hear the President talking about it all the time. It dominates discussions, whether it's diplomatic negotiations, or when it comes to the economy here as well.
COLLINS: Is it clear what this even means in terms of -- I mean, these tariffs also, not just the national emergency. You're talking about it being basically a mechanism that they're using.
All we have heard from Republicans, who have been on this show, and talked about passing the President's agenda on Capitol Hill, is how the tariffs are going to make up for a lot of the deficit that they just added to, essentially with what the House has passed. We'll see what ultimately passes. But they have said the tariff revenue is going to help.
There is no tariff revenue, if this is -- if this stays in place here, in the way that the President has been essentially touting it.
DUPREE: Well, that may be true. But I would also say that if there are no tariffs, I think you'll see a lot more economic activity that ultimately does result in greater tax revenue, results in more jobs in the United States and the like.
I think one consequence of this is it may, I'm not so certain how likely this is, but it may cause the President to say, We need to work with Congress. We need to engage with Congress on this.
[21:15:00]
I think one of the takeaways from the court's decision is that the President can't go about this unilaterally. That he's exercising delegated power from Congress, he needs to loop in the Republicans on the Hill, work to pass his agenda, make tariff reform that way, in the constitutionally, lawfully correct way, rather than try to invoke his emergency powers, which the court says he can't do.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll see.
KANNO-YOUNGS: I mean, we have seen Republicans capitulate to the President on many issues. So if he does need to rely on them, it'll be interesting if they-- (CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: But how hard would it be for a lot of them to vote though--
KANNO-YOUNGS: Yes.
COLLINS: --and say, Yes, we're doing the tariffs. Because so far, they've said, Well, this is what the President believes is going to happen. They've deferred to him.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right.
COLLINS: They'd be actually putting their name on these tariffs.
KANNO-YOUNGS: And then, you got to answer to your base too, at these different town halls on that as well.
COLLINS: Yes.
Zolan Kanno-Youngs. Tom Dupree.
Robert Armstrong, great to have you as well. Caused quite a kerfuffle in the Oval Office today.
Also, breaking news tonight, as Elon Musk says he is leaving the federal government. What that means? What's next for him? His full goodbye. Kara Swisher is my source, next.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: It's now official. Elon Musk is leaving his role, as a Special Government Employee, in the Trump administration, with a White House official confirming to me tonight that he's going to start the offboarding process, this evening, which essentially includes paperwork. It's not totally clear what else.
But we did see Musk post this on his own website, saying, As my scheduled time as a Special Government Employee comes to an end, I would like to thank President Trump for the opportunity to reduce wasteful spending. The DOGE mission will only strengthen over time as it becomes a way of life throughout the government.
This is all coming, as Musk has recently tried to distance himself from the administration, to a degree, including when he criticized the President's big, beautiful bill. Something the President was asked about today, and essentially shrugged off.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, reaction's a lot of things. Number one, we have to get a lot of votes. We can't be cutting -- you know, we need -- we need to get a lot of support, and we have a lot of support.
We will be negotiating that bill, and I'm not happy about certain aspects of it, but I'm thrilled by other aspects of it. That's the way they go. It's very big. It's the big, beautiful bill. But the beautiful is because of all of the things we have.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Here's what Elon Musk had to say about that bill, which the Congressional Budget Office has estimated would add more than $3 trillion to the federal deficit.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, TRUMP ADVISER: I was like disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decrease it, and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.
I think a bill can be -- can be -- can be big or it can be beautiful. But I don't know if it could be both. My personal opinion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source on all of this tonight is the veteran tech journalist, Kara Swisher.
And Kara, it's great to have you here.
KARA SWISHER, PODCAST HOST, "ON WITH KARA SWISHER" & "PIVOT", CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you.
COLLINS: What do you make of Elon Musk officially leaving his role that he is tonight?
SWISHER: Well, it's a long goodbye, isn't it? I mean, he seems to be leaving and going out. He needs to work on his company.
This was inevitable that he was not going to stay there very long, and it was pushed along by the fact that his businesses are a bit in distress, and so he needs to pay attention and do his actual job.
COLLINS: Do you think he's actually leaving?
SWISHER: I think he's probably frustrated by the pace of government. And that when he goes back to his companies, he says, Jump, and they say, How high. At the government, they don't do that.
And I think he found a lot more difficulty in finding real cuts and everything else. And I think they're only sending $9 billion in DOGE cuts to -- which is nothing. It's a drop in the bucket, which means pretty much his effort was a failure.
COLLINS: Yes, that's what they're planning to send up to the Hill, based on what we know so far. But, I mean, $9 million -- billion dollars might sound like a ton of money to someone who's watching.
SWISHER: Yes.
COLLINS: But when you think about his stated goal of a trillion dollars to cut--
SWISHER: Yes.
COLLINS: --coming in?
SWISHER: $2 trillion at first.
COLLINS: $2 trillion, initially.
SWISHER: Yes.
COLLINS: Then that was halved to be more realistic.
SWISHER: Yes.
COLLINS: I think that puts it more in perspective of how much there was this high bar that they did not reach.
SWISHER: No, it's what they spent on paper clips. I mean, it's really not a lot. And he didn't find it. He was able to do it, because he made cuts in particular areas, some of which were regulating him, like foreign -- you know, foreign budgets, maybe attack NPR, attack things like that. But it wasn't significant cutting that they were talking about, which is reforming government extensively.
And as he correctly pointed out, you can't have a bill that's big and beautiful. You can -- you have one or the other. And Musk can do math, I think, and he understands the deficit, this rate -- this $2.3 billion or more, raising the deficit is very dangerous for this country, which was something I think he genuinely wanted to help fix.
COLLINS: Did the President's response, when he was asked about Elon Musk, saying, It can be big or it can be beautiful, it can't be both--
SWISHER: Yes.
COLLINS: --which he said with a laugh there. But I do think is a point that he actually probably believes.
Were you surprised that Trump didn't have a stronger response to that?
SWISHER: No, because he was just saying, Yes, that's the way it goes here, up in the -- like, I think he was acknowledging that this is how it happens, this is how the sausage is made.
And I think Elon thought, because the way he runs his own companies, that he could just come in and trample everybody, and I think that was one of the problems. I think he bullied Cabinet members. I think he ran over things. He took a lot of -- lion's share of the attention, the whole chainsaw thing, which is, thank God, a distant memory. And I think he didn't -- he did a lot more showmanship than he did actual work.
COLLINS: I thought what he said to The Washington Post in an interview is interesting. He said, DOGE has just become the whipping boy for everything. Something would go bad -- something bad would happen anywhere, and we would get blamed for it, even though we had nothing to do with it.
SWISHER: Oh, woe is me. So that's what, you know, when you're on the big leagues, that's what happens. You have to take blame.
[21:25:00]
And he attracted attention to himself. So, he has no one to blame but himself in that regard. I mean, he wanted the attention, he wanted the power. He showed up in Cabinet meetings, and then he was mad that people didn't agree with him, and then started to complain about them, either on the record or off the record.
So, he's whiny like that, in lots of ways, Everyone's out to get him, whether it's Sam Altman, or people who don't like Teslas, or Elizabeth Warren. It doesn't matter. He's always got some victimization thing going on.
COLLINS: Did it stand out to you that he wasn't wearing the typical hat that he's been wearing, donning in a lot of the Cabinet meetings, the MAGA hat, or anything about Trump?
SWISHER: No.
COLLINS: And instead, he's wearing this shirt--
SWISHER: Occupy Mars. He wears that a lot.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: --that says Occupy Mars.
SWISHER: That's actually something he wears a lot.
No, I think he'll still be around. I think they'll still want him for the money. There's very few people who can write a check that big for particular things. There's a lot of rich people. Possibly a lot of easier to deal with rich people, I guess. But there's no one who could -- who really would bet that much -- make that much of a bet like Elon does, and that's he -- that is one attribute he has, his ability to take risks is higher than most people.
COLLINS: Yes. And it's not like he's totally gone from Trump's orbit.
SWISHER: No.
COLLINS: I mean, he was just in the Oval Office when the South African leader was there.
SWISHER: Yes. Sure was.
COLLINS: And obviously had a huge influence on how that went down.
SWISHER: Clearly, clearly, absolutely. I think he'll always -- he'll be able to call Trump. But I suspect they got a little -- they found him a bit of a nuisance. That's what I understand from people there. COLLINS: You mentioned his other companies. And today, we saw a group of Tesla investors send a letter to him, urging him to commit to at least 40 hours a week running the company, saying, his outside endeavors appear to have diverted his time and attention from actively managing Tesla's operation, as any other Chief Executive Officer or publicly traded company would be expected to do.
SWISHER: Correct. I know. That's the thing is, Can we have, please, have 40 hours of your week? Which is kind of ridiculous.
And Tesla's really got some real challenges, going forward, including finding a car that people want to buy. And the original car is amazing. But you don't rely on a single car. You have to -- you have to continue to innovate. And he's dropped the ball there, and others have taken it up, and now he's in a real jam, actually.
COLLINS: Yes, he seemed to acknowledge that himself, that--
SWISHER: Well, sure.
COLLINS: --that he spent maybe too much time on politics recently, saying -- he did blame the media a bit, said the media is going to overrepresent any political stuff.
SWISHER: Oh.
COLLINS: He said, It's not like I left the companies.
SWISHER: What?
COLLINS: It was just relative time allocation that probably was a little too high on the government side.
SWISHER: Oh my God. He was tweeting every five minutes all about politics. Come on. This is -- he always blames other people. Look at his Twitter storm that he used to have all the time. Now he's -- you know, now he's writing -- he's tweeting about his businesses mostly.
But he spent all his time in a look-at-me situation. Here I am in the front row of the inauguration. Here I am jumping up and down on a stage. Here I am in the Cabinet meeting. He has no one to blame but himself on the problems at Tesla, and the fact that competition exists, and that's what's happened here.
COLLINS: Well, and on the -- I think some people may hear this, and say, Well, he was trying to do good. He was trying to find fraud in the federal government.
SWISHER: Sure.
COLLINS: But I was listening to Steve Bannon, last week, and he was essentially saying, Republicans are trying to cut whatever they can from Medicaid for this bill. They're getting blamed by Democrats. He's like, Where is DOGE? They were supposed to--
SWISHER: That's right. COLLINS: --to go after that, or go after the Pentagon budget. Instead, they went after smaller projects that didn't net the huge fraud people were expecting.
SWISHER: I think he's right. It was a lot of jazz hands, a lot of jazz hands, and exhausting jazz hands, and he sucked up all the attention. And so, if he was going to act like a heat shield, don't be surprised that you get burned. That's my feeling.
And one of the things -- he's still going to be a successful businessperson. One of his companies, Neuralink, just got a big funding. People, you know -- I don't -- I wouldn't bet him out in the car business, although he has a much tougher road there. Obviously, Starlink has challenges, but it's doing really well. The space stuff is really interesting. I mean, if he devotes himself to that, he would be great.
But this is sort of -- this is going to be probably years from now, seen as an alleyway he went down that just didn't work out quite as well for him.
COLLINS: Does it surprise you at all that this did not end in a massive blowup between Elon Musk and Trump that some people predicted might happen?
SWISHER: I don't know. TK, right? He starts by little criticisms.
And I think, I do tend to agree with him on the tariffs and free trade. Again, he can do math. Deficits are a real problem for this country. And here we have this big, beautiful bill that's going to raise them rather substantially, which is mortgaging the future of our children. It just is. That's the way it is. And I think he believes that. And the tariffs don't help the situation, including for his own businesses.
COLLINS: Kara Swisher, great to have you on set.
SWISHER: Thank you. Thanks.
COLLINS: Thanks for joining us.
Up next here tonight. When it comes to loyalty to the President, it can get you a lot these days. Out of prison seems to primarily be the focus, this week. The President has been dishing out a lot of get-out- of-jail-free cards to people who pledged loyalty to him, or campaigned for him. More on who he just pardoned, ahead.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump is leaning in on one of the most sweeping powers that his office holds. The pardon.
Fellow former reality TV stars, Todd and Julie Chrisley, were released from federal prison today. The President's new pardon attorney, Ed Martin, declared it Pardon Day. And among those receiving pardons or commutations by the President includes the co-founder of Chicago's Gangster Disciples gang, a former Connecticut governor convicted twice in separate federal cases, and a rapper who was convicted of gun crimes.
It's also notable how many of these people who were pardoned, had been convicted of financial crimes.
A former New York congressman who went to prison for tax evasion.
A former union leader who pleaded guilty to failing to report $315,000 in gifts.
[21:35:00]
The Chrisleys, of course, had been convicted of defrauding banks of more than $36 million, and also evading taxes.
And Paul Walczak, who we told you about here last night, was convicted of tax fraud for siphoning more than $10 million from the paychecks of nurses and doctors that he used on gifts for himself.
And the President indicated today he may not yet be done with the pardons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Will you pardon the people who are accused of conspiring to kidnap Michigan governor, Gretchen Whitmer?
TRUMP: I'm going to look at it. I will take a look at it. It's been brought to my attention.
I did watch the trial. It looked to me like somewhat of a railroad job. I'll be honest with you, it looked to me like some people said some stupid things, you know? They were drinking, and I think they said stupid things.
But I'll take a look at that. And a lot of people are asking me that question, from both sides, actually. A lot of people think they got railroaded. A lot of people think they got railroaded.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The jury who convicted them certainly did not seem to think that they had been railroaded. Prosecutors had accused them of being outside the governor's house in the middle of the night with night vision goggles, guns, and a plan to kidnap her.
Joining me tonight is CNN Senior Political and Global Affairs Commentator, Rahm Emanuel, who was the U.S. Ambassador to Japan under President Biden, and also the Chief of Staff to President Obama.
And it's great to have you here, Mr. Ambassador. RAHM EMANUEL, FORMER AMB. TO JAPAN UNDER PRES. BIDEN, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO PRES. OBAMA, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Thank you.
COLLINS: I wonder what you make of the essential pardon spree that we're seeing here, and how it compares to the way other presidents have used this same power.
EMANUEL: Well, you got to fit this in a pattern that, I think, reflects the administration. So, if you're wealthy or well-connected, you get a pardon. If you were obviously very wealthy at his inaugural, you get a tax cut. If you're on Medicaid, you get also a health care cut. And if you're an investor in his bitcoin, you get a White House dinner. And if you're a mom-and-pop investor, you lose your shirt.
And so, there's a pattern here, Kaitlan, and I think it fits in that pattern. So, it's not like on a standoff or off to the side. It's an overall pattern. And it establishes that if you're wealthy and well- connected, you're above the law, when we're actually a system, that where justice is blind and nobody's above the law.
And I used to think attorneys worked on patents. In this economy, they work on pardons. That's how they make their money.
COLLINS: I mean, some--
EMANUEL: And I think it's an injustice.
COLLINS: Some people might see that and say, Well, President Biden pardoned, had some controversial ones as well, for his son, for family members, some -- preemptive.
EMANUEL: Yes.
COLLINS: Do you think the American people see it the way you do, given what President Biden did on his way out of office?
EMANUEL: Yes, I don't think the American people take one thing out and isolate it the way you and I are dissecting it. I actually think it fits within a narrative and overall structure. There is a pattern, as I just noted, three different examples, where the well-connected and wealthy get fed here, and everybody else gets slaughtered.
Now, I'm not going to defend what President Biden did with his son, in that effort, or other presidents have used the pardon, and say that they've always been above or beyond political reproach. That's just not true. They have been politically enforced.
But this is of a different ilk, but it also fits as a puzzle piece within the overall puzzle of the Trump administration, and there's a theory to the case, which is about wealth and well -- and being well- connected.
COLLINS: Yes. I wonder what you make of what he said there, at the end, when he was asked today in the Oval Office, if he's considering pardoning the guys, the defendants, who were convicted in the domestic terrorism case that involved Governor Whitmer.
What does that say about what people can do, be found guilty of, and potentially get a pardon for?
EMANUEL: Well, there's another piece of this, which is, if you're on his side, you get a pardon, or you get something special. If you're quote-unquote, seen as opposed, you get the retribution that he brings, and the vengeance that he brings, or the entire structure of the criminal justice system.
I think your answer to the case itself was in your response, which is, the jury did not find this as a railroad or a political conviction. They found them guilty for what they were trying to do, and harm Governor Whitmer, and her family. That says it all.
But I do think, again, the President is motivated by something political, retribution for those that oppose him, the grace of his own opinion, where he puts himself and them above the law.
And I do think, the idea of nobody being above the law goes all the way back to Magna Carta. And I'm not a lawyer. But there seems to be a new MAGA Carta, which is, if you're wealthy and well-connected, you are actually above the law. And that's going to be a bad precedent for both legal, political and social reasons. Because already, the American people think the system is rigged against them. And when you look at this, that's exactly the conclusion you get.
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: When he commutes the sentences for someone like Larry Hoover, who was a notorious gang co-founder in Chicago.
EMANUEL: Gang--
COLLINS: What are your thoughts on that, and whether or not what that means for his state crimes, as well. He's got a lot of years left.
EMANUEL: Yes, again, I'm not a lawyer. There's a lot of years he was sent -- if I read it correctly, and the case that I followed years ago, that it was many, many life sentences.
And this was a person that was committed -- convicted on one aspect, right -- the amount of violence that he perpetrated on the streets of the City of Chicago, let alone the financial kind of pieces of it. This is a notorious gang leader, who had many, many people killed on his direction. And this will have severe consequences.
Especially, I thought -- I always thought, when I was growing up in politics, the Republican Party was supposed to be the party of law and order. This will be an incredible twist about law and order, letting a gang leader like from the Disciples out of jail.
COLLINS: Yes, I do think -- I think that's a great point there, in terms of how they argue this, or what they argue, in defense of this, given that is something President Trump has said about himself. EMANUEL: Yes, look, well, here's the case. You have somebody, a gang leader, that was sentenced, not for one life sentence, multiple life sentence, because of the violence he perpetrated and directed at his whim.
If he gets out, what does it say to all those, if you're supposed to be a party about law and order, respect for the dignity of life, where you're letting a gang leader, a notorious gang leader, that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Crimes, all went and pursued him and put him behind bars, not for 100 years, not for 200, multiple life sentences? You're going to let him out.
This is a horrible message, it sends, as those -- as we have police officers on the street, prosecutors, judges, trying to actually make the streets safer, use the criminal justice system, to do that. If you're a gang leader, you killed many, many people, and had others killed at your direction?
COLLINS: Yes.
EMANUEL: You're let free.
COLLINS: Yes, well, we'll see what happens with his state crimes as well. We haven't heard from the Governor's office on that.
EMANUEL: Yes.
COLLINS: Rahm Emanuel, great to have you. Thank you very much.
EMANUEL: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. Another comment that the President made in the Oval Office today, when it comes to the timeline for Vladimir Putin. It sounds a bit familiar. My source tonight is a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and he'll join me, ahead.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump says he is giving Vladimir Putin two weeks' notice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you still believe that Putin actually wants to end the war?
TRUMP: I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks. Within two weeks. We're going to find out very soon. We're going to find out whether or not he's tapping us along or not. And if he is, we'll respond a little bit differently.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But maybe don't mark your calendars just yet, because often lately, when the President has been asked this question, in particular, he says to check back in two weeks. Since at least the end of April, the President has used that exact timeframe to signal that his next move on Russia and Ukraine may be coming.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: If you and the United States decides to pull out of negotiating for peace, trying to broker peace, does that also mean a 'no' on Patriot missiles, a 'no' on sharing intelligence with Ukraine?
TRUMP: Let's see what happens. I think we're going to make a deal. And if we make a deal, that will be wonderful. We won't have to worry about your question. You can ask that question in two weeks.
REPORTER: Do you trust President Putin?
TRUMP: I'll let you know in about two weeks.
COLLINS: How are you feeling about how Putin is handling this? I know you had said a few weeks ago you thought maybe--
TRUMP: About who?
COLLINS: How Putin is handling this? You said a few weeks ago you thought maybe--
TRUMP: I don't know. I'll let you know in a week. I'll let you know in a few days.
REPORTER: In your mind, is Ukraine doing enough to get this, to get this?
TRUMP: I'd rather tell you in about two weeks from now.
I think he wants to stop. But I could answer that question better in two weeks or four weeks from now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That answer comes, as the President is facing a decision about whether or not to apply new sanctions on Russia, as he's threatened to also walk away from attempts to broker peace, if they don't make enough progress.
He's expressed frustration with President Putin lately, saying today even that he is, quote, Very disappointed with him. That disappointment, a direct result of scenes like the one that you're seeing here.
Firefighters racing to save what they can in Kyiv in flames, courtesy of Putin's army, attacking with hundreds of drones and missiles, even as the President has pushed him to the table for a peace deal. Those are homes and cars destroyed, despite the Kremlin claiming it is striking exclusively at military infrastructure, or, quote, The military industrial complex.
Joining me now is Democratic senator of Delaware, Chris Coons.
And thank you so much, Senator, for being here.
Do you expect more answers on Russia, from the President, in two weeks?
SEN. CHRIS COONS (D-DE): No, I don't. Frankly, President Trump has been playing this game for two weeks, and two weeks, and two weeks, and expressing surprise and disappointment that Putin has not yet come forward to seriously negotiate peace.
[21:50:00]
We have all known this, since the beginning of the war, when Putin, Russian tanks and troops, and helicopters, and jet fighters, invaded Ukraine. The Ukrainians have been fighting bravely and dying and suffering from Russian aggression now, since February of 2022. The only way this ends well, for the United States, for the West, and for Ukraine, is for President Trump to show up, to show some strength, and to actually stand behind Ukraine.
Putin is playing him, and we all know it. And two more weeks won't make any difference, unless President Trump shows that he understands that peace through strength requires strength, tougher sanctions, more support for Ukraine, locking arms with our European allies, and forcing Putin to the table. Otherwise, he's just going to keep playing for time.
COLLINS: You're a co-sponsor of a bill, alongside Senator Lindsey Graham, that so far has more than 80 of your other colleagues on it. It would impose primary and secondary sanctions against Russia, and those who are supporting Russia's war in Ukraine.
To get 80 senators to agree on anything is notable, in and of itself. Do you expect Senate Republicans to act here, if the President does not?
COONS: They should. Frankly, there's a long history of the Senate stepping forward, and acting on important foreign policy matters when the President isn't.
And that we've got 80 senators, Republicans and Democrats, ready and willing to impose much tougher sanctions on Russia, and on the countries that are supporting the Russian war effort, tells you that we can all see clearly what President Trump seems to be having trouble, appreciating or understanding. Putin is the aggressor. We have to impose higher costs, or Putin will just keep playing us.
COLLINS: The President has a reasoning, he says, for why he has not imposed new sanctions on Russia yet. And this is what he told reporters, earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What's stopped you from imposing new sanctions on Russia? TRUMP: Only the fact that if I think I'm close to getting a deal, I don't want to screw it up by doing that. Let me tell you, I'm a lot tougher than the people you're talking about. But you have to know when to use that. If I think it's going to hurt a deal. This isn't my war. This is Biden's war, Zelenskyy's war, and Putin's war. This isn't Trump's war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you think he has any point there, Senator, when he says that he's worried if he does put sanctions in place, it could prolong this process as he is trying to get to an agreement with the Russian leader?
COONS: No. Putin is a thug and an aggressor. He only understands force. And the only way to get Putin to stop playing us, and to come to the table, to negotiate a just peace, is to actually meaningfully threaten tougher sanctions, stronger support for Ukraine. That's the only way this moves forward.
And I'll remind you. President Trump promised over and over, in the campaign, that he would resolve this war on day one. It's five months later, after his inauguration, and we're all waiting to see him take some stronger, decisive action to bring peace to Europe. He has the opportunity. He has the capability. We'd love for him to show leadership here. And I think all of the world would celebrate an actual just peace in Ukraine, but it's going to require some strength and engagement from President Trump.
COLLINS: If there is more to sanction of Russia, why hasn't the Senate done it before now?
COONS: Frankly, finding bipartisan agreement has been hard, when President Trump has been on again, off again, signaling support for Russia, signaling support for Ukraine.
I respect that Senator Lindsey Graham and Senator Dick Blumenthal have moved ahead with a very tough sanctions package. And it's my hope that we won't wait, for Trump to make up his mind about whether or not Putin is the aggressor. We all know the reality. It's time for us to act.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll see if those sanctions happen, and if they will make a noticeable impact on this war.
Senator Chris Coons, thank you for your time tonight.
COONS: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next here for us. One of Fox's most visible hosts has a new job in Washington. It was made official inside the Oval Office today.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Before we go, three notable things that you might have missed today that happened.
First, the President nominated Emil Bove, his former personal attorney, turned top Justice Department official, to be a federal appeals court judge. He's not the first personal attorney to snag a job in the administration. And in the announcement today, the President said that Bove would, quote, "End the Weaponization of Justice, restore the Rule of Law, and do anything else that is necessary to Make America Great Again."
Speaking of the rule of law. Trump also swore in the former Fox News host, Judge Jeanine Pirro as the interim U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. She pledged, quote, that there would be no more mercy for criminals.
[22:00:00]
And as America prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, today, we were reminded that we're still a pretty young country. That's because today we learned of the death of Harrison Ruffin Tyler. He was the grandson of John Tyler, the 10th President of the United States who left office a 180 years ago.
President Tyler was born in 1790, the time of Washington and Jefferson. He had the most children of any president, 15, one of whom became a father at age 75. And that helps explain how it was that until this week, we had a living link to an 18th century presidency.
Harrison Ruffin Tyler was 96-years-old, and may he rest in peace.
Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
