Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Indiana Republicans Defy Trump, Reject Redistricting Push; Noem Testifies About Trump's Immigration Crackdown; Trump's DOJ Fails To Reindict Letitia James For Second Time. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 11, 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]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --well, thank you for that voicemail, which is one of many I get from podcast listeners.
I hope you join me. A lot of people say the news doesn't seem real. This is the most real show that there is. 15 minutes from now, "All There Is Live," it's called, at CNN.com/AllThereIs. That's our grief community page. I'll see you there.
The news continues with "THE SOURCE" and Kaitlan Collins.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, Indiana Republicans just handed President Trump one of his biggest defeats yet. Why they defied him, and how the President is responding tonight inside the Oval Office.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
As we come on the air tonight, there's really no other way to put it. President Trump's pressure campaign has failed.
In Indiana, a state that he won by nearly 20 points, last November, the President's party just rejected his call to create two more Republican-friendly seats, in the U.S. House of Representatives. Two seats that could have helped the Republicans hold on to the majority in next year's midterm elections.
But those hopes have been dashed, this evening. And when we look at the count here, it wasn't even really that close. More Republicans actually voted against this than they did vote for it.
It's just one of a slew of states that we've seen, across the country, where the President has tried to use his influence, which at times, as we know, can be vast, to protect the last two years of his presidency from a Democratic House. That means investigations, subpoenas, hearings, with his Cabinet up on Capitol Hill.
But despite his push for this to happen in Indiana tonight, this is what he said tonight in the Oval Office, in reaction to a rejection of what he had been urging Republicans there to do.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I wasn't working on it very hard. Would have been nice, I think we would have picked up two seats, if we did that. You had one gentleman, the head of the Senate, I guess, Bray, whatever his name is, I heard he was against it. He'll probably lose his next primary, whenever that is. I hope he does, because he's done a tremendous disservice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Rodric Bray, who the President was referencing there, he's the state's Senate Republican leader. But he's not up for reelection, actually, until 2028.
Now, while the President wasn't in Indianapolis, and as he downplayed his own efforts here, his presence and what he wanted the outcome of this to be, was certainly felt during the debate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE SEN. CHRIS GARTEN, (R) INDIANA: On July 4th of this year, President Trump signed the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act.
STATE SEN. MIKE GASKILL, (R) INDIANA: Our friends in Washington.
President Trump and his administration.
By the way, President Trump won that state by three points.
President Trump.
President Trump.
GARTEN: President Trump.
GASKILL: President Trump almost lost his life.
President Trump is not forcing this on us.
He is encouraging us to do the right thing. To stand up and fight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: On that floor, supporters of the President's plan to create two more Republican-friendly seats presented the stakes of this in pretty stark terms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GASKILL: Democrats have used political advantage in map-drawing. There's -- I think they've declared war on us.
GARTEN: By a federal bureaucracy that is at war with our values. That era is over, if we hold the line.
GASKILL: I'm going to submit to you that the second U.S. Civil War has already started. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Despite comments like that, 21 of 40 Senate Republicans in Indiana, a majority of that caucus, voted against redistricting. And some did so, despite receiving death threats to them and their families. That resistance is made even more remarkable, considering the direct pressure campaign that came out of the White House and powerful groups on the right here in Washington.
The Vice President went to Indiana, twice, in-person, to meet with Republican leaders in the State Senate.
And the President himself was posting things, like this, on Truth Social, all along, saying, Anybody that votes against Redistricting, and the SUCCESS of the Republican Party in D.C., will be, I am sure, met with a MAGA Primary in the Spring.
The conservative group, Heritage Action, wrote this, saying that, President Trump has made it clear to Indiana leaders: if the Indiana Senate fails to pass the map, all federal funding will be stripped from the state. Roads will not be paved. Guard bases will close. Major projects will stop. These are the stakes and every NO vote will be to blame.
At least one of the Republicans who voted against the President's wishes tonight, said that those efforts, the pressure campaign, the bullying tactics, as she put it, just don't work in the Hoosier State.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there for a moment, where you thought that the pressure was going to work and the intimidation was going to work in the Senate?
STATE SEN. JEAN LEISING, (R) INDIANA: No, not really. Not with Hoosier State. No. I mean, I -- you know, you wouldn't -- you wouldn't change minds by being mean. And the efforts were mean-spirited from the get- go.
You know, if you were wanting to change votes, you would probably try to explain why we should be doing this, in a positive way. That never happened. So, you know, I think they get what they get, I mean.
And I very frankly, you know, I wish that President Trump would change his tone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I should note that she said she voted for President Trump three times. And yet, tonight, she was a no on this.
My lead source is CNN's Chief Data Analyst, Harry Enten.
And Harry, I think a big question here in Washington, in terms of the stakes of what this could mean is, how big of a setback is this for the GOP?
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: Yes, I mean, look, Donald Trump, this entire year, has been trying to fight what we normally have in midterm elections, right? Which is essentially the opposition party gaining seats. That's what we've seen every single time, since the Civil War, except for twice, in 1998, and then in 2002, when there were all these efforts for redistricting.
But the bottom line is, it has turned into a nothing burger, when you look at the states. What are we talking about? Well, Indiana obviously is not going to be redistricting unless, of course, they somehow hold some other vote at some point. But that doesn't look likely.
But take a look here. Likely redistricting gains for 2026. We're talking about maybe, maybe a gain for Republicans of just one seat overall, because yes, they're probably going to gain four seats in Texas, a seat in Missouri, a seat in North Carolina, and then a seat in Ohio.
But of course, Democrats can play the game too, right? Gavin Newsom staked his governorship, staked the idea of to be a frontrunner in 2028, on redistricting in California, and that was successful. So, it looks like Democrats are going to gain five there. And then in Utah, a court has essentially said there has to be redistricting there. That's one seat.
So, you get Democrats gaining six likely. You see Republicans gaining seven seats. So, it turns out this is going to basically be awash. This entire effort for Donald Trump to have redistricting mid-cycle, it did not work, Kaitlan Collins.
COLLINS: So basically, there was no point in the redistricting war that has been--
ENTEN: Correct.
COLLINS: --playing out the last three months?
ENTEN: Exactly right. There was no point to it when it comes at least to the fight for 2026. Just a lot of bodies on the redistricting battlefield.
COLLINS: Harry, when it comes to the loyalty test to the President, how are you reading into the data of that tonight?
ENTEN: OK. How am I reading into it? Well, pretty simple here. I mean, just take a look here. Strongly approve of Donald Trump. 2024 Trump voters. Back in March, it was 66 percent. Look at where we are now. It's just 50 percent, according to the most recent Fox News poll. That is a drop of 16 points.
What happened in Indiana, in my mind, is representative of what we are seeing nationwide, among 2020 -- 2024 Trump voters. That is, they may still like him, but they don't love him in the same fashion that they once did. And they're more than willing to go against him, when they feel like it's the right thing to do, which clearly a lot of those folks in the Indiana Senate felt it was.
COLLINS: Harry Enten, thank you for breaking down the numbers for us.
ENTEN: Thank you.
COLLINS: I'm also joined tonight by an Indiana Republican who voted no, on this. Indiana State Senator, Mike Bohacek, is here with me.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
Just from your view, you're there on the ground, why do you think the pressure campaign didn't work?
STATE SEN. MIKE BOHACEK, (R) INDIANA: Well, Indiana Republicans are a little bit different. We're a little more traditional. There were folks on both sides of this issue.
There was 19 of my colleagues that voted in favor of this, and they felt very, very strongly about it.
And the 21 in the other side, we felt a little bit more traditionally, that perhaps, you know, that we should look at this redistricting as not quite as transactional, that this is something that happens every 10 years, and we feel it should continue that way. We don't want to be redistricting every two years at the whim of a President's request.
COLLINS: So you were worried, basically, of the ramifications of pushing something like this through?
BOHACEK: It's bad policy, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others. It makes the legislative process just too transactional. At least in my opinion, this is not a two-year presidency. This isn't a two-year Senate legacy. This is going to go on well after I'm gone, and beyond. So, let's treat it like that.
COLLINS: Did you ever think that the pressure campaign might work?
[21:10:00]
BOHACEK: I was a little concerned. Obviously, the threats of removing resources from your state are always a concern. But we have to also look that many of the funding sources that come from the Feds are statutory. Medicaid, SNAP, those are entitlement programs, those are going to continue to flow. Road funding will continue to flow.
Maybe some discretionary grant funding might become a jeopardy. But then we're going to have to lean on our congressional delegation to make sure that they're doing their jobs to do the best for our citizens of the State of Indiana.
COLLINS: Yes. And I should be clear, when I say pressure campaign, I'm not just talking about the President's threat to primary people who voted no, which he did threaten. And I believe you're not up until 2028, right?
BOHACEK: That's correct. COLLINS: But it goes beyond just the politics. I mean, there were bomb threats at your home. Do you believe that was because of--
BOHACEK: Yes, unfortunately--
COLLINS: --because of this?
BOHACEK: Yes, unfortunately it was. It was right after -- right after Thanksgiving. I had released a post about my displeasure over some slur that the President used. So, we received a bomb threat, that night, at about 1 o'clock in the morning. Of course, I had to wake up my family. We had to have bomb dogs search property around my house.
Since then, my family's been staying with friends. I'm down at the Statehouse now, until the end of the week. And they're still not staying at home. So, it's very disruptive. I do have small children as well. So, it's a -- it's been a -- it's been a tough couple of weeks.
COLLINS: Yes, well, I'm really sorry to hear that. And I know, when you talk about your family, you referenced what the President had said -- had said on Truth Social recently. Was that a factor in your decision here? Or what was your response to what the President had--
BOHACEK: That was one of--
COLLINS: --to say.
BOHACEK: That was one of many of -- many reasons. This is an issue that's going to -- there's going to be a lot of decision points. But that -- I don't want to call it a vulgarity, but it seems vulgar to me, to just to -- to use those kind of words, where we know that's not appropriate -- the appropriate way to describe somebody, appropriate way to reference somebody. And words have consequences. And for me, it was just added to a litany of reasons of why this was just bad policy and not good timing, and wasn't deserving of my support.
COLLINS: Are you worried about being on the President's bad side after voting no, on this?
BOHACEK: Well, I think I already am. But, like I said, I'm not up for reelection for a couple of years.
And like everybody else in the Senate, this is not -- being a senator doesn't define me. This is a part-time legislature. We all go back to our day jobs when we're not here. Once you're not here, once the senator retires, or if you're beaten, or, as we like to call, involuntarily retired? The chamber continues to move, and things continue to happen.
So, am I worried about getting beat? Well, if that happens, that happens. If it doesn't, it doesn't. And if I continue to do a good job, and I bring forth good policy, then maybe that won't happen.
COLLINS: State Senator, Mike Bohacek, thank you for joining us tonight.
BOHACEK: Thank you.
COLLINS: Really appreciate your time.
My political sources are also here.
Ameshia Cross is a Democratic strategist.
Scott Jennings served as a senior adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell.
And Scott, I just got to ask you. Because being here in Washington, everyone knows The Heritage Foundation. It's tied to Heritage Action. When they tweet that roads aren't going to get paved, and that bases aren't going to be guarded? That threat that you saw there, Guard bases will close, and major projects will stop? That doesn't seem very conservative to me.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO MITCH MCCONNELL, HOST, "THE SCOTT JENNINGS RADIO SHOW" ON SRN: Yes, that was stupid.
Also, I never heard the President say that. I mean, Indiana is a place that Donald Trump is very popular, and he won. And I've never heard him make any threats against Indiana like that. He may have political disagreements with some of the people there.
But I think that went too far. I think the bullying and that kind of threatening social media posts did not help the effort.
I think there was a good argument to do this, frankly. I would have voted for it. But look, state senators, I've been around them a long time in my career, they often don't feel as connected to Washington as, say, a member of Congress or a U.S. senator. And as the person you just had on said, these are part-time legislators, this is not their career. And so, these kinds of threats, this sort of bullying, it doesn't often work.
COLLINS: Yes.
And Ameshia, when you look at this. Obviously, this redistricting battle that Harry just noted, that has basically not worked, because of how this has all played out, in terms of what the numbers and the margins actually going to be.
I think one question is that neighboring Illinois was watching what was going to happen here. Do you think Governor Pritzker should stand down on his efforts, given these Republicans stood up to Trump?
AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Absolutely not. Texas didn't stand down in theirs, and courts allowed their new redrawn maps to go through.
[21:15:00]
Governor Pritzker is in a different situation. Because, at the end of the day, we've seen the aggression of Texas. We've seen the aggression of certain other states who have tried it. So, at this point, there were only a handful, actually, like maybe two and a half, of Democrat states that actually had the capacity to redistrict, Illinois being one of them. And absolutely, you have to fight with the game you've been entered into, not the one that you want.
As somebody who has always stood for independent maps, no matter what side of the aisle you're on, what I have seen over the past few years is more and more Republicans decide that they are going to rig the game, decide that they are going to create policies that eradicate younger people from access to voting, that eradicate black people from access to voting. And at some point, there has to be a leveling of this playing field. The erosion of the Civil Rights Act, for instance, is also something that we should be paying attention to.
But in absolutely no uncertain terms, Governor Pritzker is doing the right thing.
COLLINS: Yes, well, and both sides are obviously guilty of redistricting at certain times. This is what's happening in a mid- decade redistricting. Texas kickstarted it, as you know, Scott.
But I want you to listen, Scott, to what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had to say about this effort in red states, and whether or not she thinks it's going to actually hurt Republicans when it comes to the midterms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): We're looking that there could be a cycle where R-plus-10 seats flip to Democrats. And so if Republicans want to draw a map that makes them more vulnerable to that, that's their decision to do that.
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: You think there will be a wave, a blue wave?
OCASIO-CORTEZ: I think so.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Is that something you're worried about, Scott, or that you hear from other Republicans that they're concerned about this backfiring on them?
JENNINGS: No, not really.
And I just have to respond to what was said a moment ago. No one has eradicated anyone's right to vote. In fact, it's never been easier in America to vote than it is right now. And many states, red and blue, have made it easier to vote than ever.
And to hear us discussing this Indiana situation, and to see a Democratic debating partner tonight, cheer on Governor Pritzker and his continued redistricting, gerrymandering efforts, just goes to show you that Republicans are rookies when it comes to redistricting. We are nowhere near as practiced or ruthless when it comes to redistricting as these Democrats. You get state after state after state, where Republicans have virtually no representation in Congress at all. Illinois is already one of the most, if not the most, gerrymandered state in the nation. So look, if this winds up being awash, we'll have to play the hands we're dealt here.
But make no mistake. Gerrymandering is a Democratic skillset. Republicans are still pikers when it comes to this. But I got to tell you, what you heard tonight is what they're going to do. They're ruthless. Democrats have shut down the government. They've told the military to stop following orders. They're trying to redraw maps. This is the future with Democrats, a ruthless kind of politics, and Republicans better wake up to it.
COLLINS: Well, they said, stop follow -- Don't follow illegal orders.
But Ameshia, do you want to respond to Scott there?
CROSS: Absolutely. I was born black. I'll be black all my life. I don't want to hear anybody say that the Republican Party has not gone out of its way to keep people who look like me away from the ballot box, because it's painfully untrue. It is something that's been charged in the courts time after time, decade after decade--
JENNINGS: Where? How? Where and how?
CROSS: --particularly across the south. Across the south where the largest concentration of black people live.
JENNINGS: Where? How? I think they were going to (ph) Democratic Party--
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: So, we've seen those in Georgia. We've seen it in Texas. We've seen it--
JENNINGS: I think the Democratic Party--
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: Well, those states are not led by Democrats. First and foremost.
I let you talk. Would you please let me finish? Thank you very much.
Beyond that, we have to be very serious about the concentration and the erosion of--
JENNINGS: I think the Democrats--
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: --civil rights across this country. And yes, that also proceeds with voting rights. The erosion of the Voting Rights Act has been done holistically by the Republican Party. What we see from Donald Trump is someone who wants to and continues to try to expand his power by the most illegal means. So yes, those orders were challenged. And those orders were challenged in Venezuela because, quite frankly, there was no impetus to go there to begin with. What we do know is that more than likely, this was illegal, first and foremost, that's why he's trying to hide the videos.
JENNINGS: OK. So, a couple things.
Number one, has anyone ever personally tried to stop you from voting? Answer, no. Number two, there are no illegal voters. Number three -- number three--
CROSS: I voted in Illinois (ph). I don't vote in the South.
JENNINGS: Number three, in this country -- number three, in this country, I hate to -- I hate to remind you of our history, but it was the Democratic Party that tried and tried and tried to suppress black votes in this country, not the Republican Party.
CROSS: And I would love to remind you that--
JENNINGS: We're for voting, and you know--
CROSS: --when the Jim Crow laws were eroded, they were eroded by the Democratic Party, not by Republicans who tried to hoist them up and try to continually reentry -- reenter Jim Crow--
JENNINGS: I mean, I think you -- I think you need to reread your--
CROSS: --in the modern era.
JENNINGS: I think you need to reread your civil rights history. The Democratic Party doesn't have a clean record on this.
But the bottom line is, Democrats are going to continue to be ruthless. They're going to continue to try to gerrymander. They're going to continue to try to say the President's delivering illegal orders to mess up our military. Who knows what they'll do in Washington from here on out.
But the bottom line is, Republicans tonight didn't do this redistricting. Democrats are going to keep doing it. And if you're looking for who the most ruthless partisan players are? It's the Democratic Party.
CROSS: Republicans are treating Trump exactly as what he is, a lame- duck. And I'm glad that Indiana showcased that they do have some backbone, they can stand up, and I hope other Republicans do across this country.
[21:20:00]
COLLINS: Ameshia Cross. And Scott Jennings. We'll have to leave it there. Thank you both for joining tonight. Up next here. Something to fill you in on that we reported last week. A grand jury refused to reindict Letitia James again. Why? And it was a different grand jury, I should note today.
And also, the President has just pardoned his only ally still behind bars for attempting to overturn the election. But she's not getting out of jail. There's a twist to this.
And also, the White House is escalating its defense of the President's economic policies, as a new poll shows that Americans are not feeling so good about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: --decline as well.
COLLINS: It wasn't high under Biden. They're just saying it's not virtually--
LEAVITT: Well nobody reported on it being high under Biden.
COLLINS: It's not virtually--
LEAVITT: My predecessor was standing at this podium. But now you want to ask me a lot of questions about it, which I'm happy to answer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We had the greatest economy in history in my first term. I think we're blowing it away right now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was President Trump tonight, in the Oval Office, touting the state of the U.S. economy, as his standing with voters on what is historically a strong issue for him has sharply declined recently.
Earlier, in a post on Truth Social, the President again falsely claimed that there is currently no inflation. That has been true. But it comes, after his White House press secretary grew defensive over the administration's statements about the economy, during today's press briefing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Inflation is about what it was a year ago, as you know, and grocery prices have been up. So, we've covered the economy, but there's mixed signals in terms of what that looks like. But on--
LEAVITT: Inflation is down from where it was. As measured by the overall CPI, it has slowed to an average 2.5 percent pace. This is down from what the President inherited--
COLLINS: It's down from where it was at highs at 9 percent, but it's at about 3 percent.
LEAVITT: The President inherited 2.9 percent in January. Today, it's at about 2.5 percent. So we're trending in the right direction with more to come.
And I would remind you, when President Trump left office in his first term, inflation was 1.7 percent. And the previous administration jacked it up to a record high 9 percent. So again, in 10 months, the President has clawed us out of this hole. He's kept it low at 2.5 percent, and we believe that number is going to continue to decline, especially as energy and oil prices continue to decline as well.
COLLINS: Yes. No one is arguing it wasn't high under Biden, they're just saying it's not virtually--
LEAVITT: Well nobody reported on it being high under Biden.
COLLINS: It's not virtually--
LEAVITT: My predecessor was standing at this podium. But now you want to ask me a lot of questions about it, which I'm happy to answer. But I will just add, there's a lot more scrutiny on this issue from this press corps than there was--
COLLINS: Because the President has said it's virtually non-existent.
LEAVITT: Well -- and the previous administration said that too.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, despite what Karoline Leavitt argued, we did cover inflation during the Biden administration, whether that was questioning his press secretary or the President himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And what's the White House's expectation for the inflation report that is expected to come out this week?
JEN PSAKI, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I don't have a prediction. I know I sometimes do, but I don't have a prediction on it at this moment from here.
COLLINS: President Biden, inflation has just hit nearly a 40-year- high. Do you think this is the peak of those prices?
JOE BIDEN, 46TH U.S. PRESIDENT: Every other aspect of the economy is racing ahead. It's doing incredibly well.
COLLINS: One thing that they do address in here is inflation.
Prices are still incredibly high, across the United States.
Prices are still incredibly high, as they had skyrocketed over the last year.
Higher prices are plaguing President Biden.
President Biden came out and said that fighting inflation is going to be his number one priority.
President Biden acknowledging the pain of higher prices.
President Biden staring down a massive political liability.
A massive headache for the White House.
At least one top White House official is admitting they were wrong, when they said that inflation only posed a small risk, if any risk at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So the bottom line is, we did cover it, and we did certainly ask about it. Of course we did. We covered the news here.
But when it comes to the numbers themselves, as CNN's Daniel Dale highlights tonight, of where we stand right now, the year-over-year inflation rate in January, when President Trump returned to Office, was 3 percent.
In September, the most recent month for which the Consumer Price Index figures were released, the rate was also 3 percent. It's a fact my colleague from CBS News, Nancy Cordes, highlighted moments later in the briefing today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NANCY CORDES, CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CBS NEWS: First, very quickly clarifying Kaitlan's question, you acknowledged that CPI in January, when you took office, was 3 percent. And in September, the last month for which we have data, it was also 3 percent. So inflation--
LEAVITT: No. It's 2.5 percent.
CORDES: Not in September. It was 3 percent.
LEAVITT: It's 2.5 percent, the average CPI, right now. I have it in front of me. In President Trump's first eight months in office, inflation, as measured by the overall Consumer Price Index, has slowed to a 2.5 average pace. This is down from the 2.9 percent inherited in January.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And speaking of Daniel Dale. CNN's fact-checker is here with me.
And Daniel, I think the question is, what the latest inflation rate looks like? How you compare it? And is what we were hearing from the White House today, an apples-to-apple comparison to the numbers that typically we look at here.
DANIEL DALE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, it's very much apples to oranges, Kaitlan.
So, as you said, the most recent inflation rate for September is 3 percent. That is the exact same rate President Trump inherited, when he returned to office in January. So, when the press secretary told us today that we're very much headed in the right direction, we're not. In fact, September was the fifth consecutive month in which the year- over-year inflation rate had increased. It's gone up since May.
So, what is this 2.5 percent number that the press secretary is citing, when she's told about the 3 percent year-over-year rate, that is the actual rate we're dealing with? The White House explained, this is what's called an annualized number. And I'll let people look up annualized numbers if they want to. But the key is, that number is a kind of average that incorporates eight months of data going back to February.
[21:30:00]
So they're being asked about the latest one-month rate, and they're grabbing this early year data. Why are they doing that? Well, because inflation was lower than -- it was lower before President Trump's so- called Liberation Day, when he announced sweeping global tariffs that then made their way through the economy.
So by using this eight month kind of average, this annualized rate, they are making inflation sound rosier than it would, if they use the one month, most recent data that everyone else is talking about.
So no, this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. And they're entitled to use whatever kind of math they want. The annualized rate is a real thing. But they're not clearly explaining that they're doing so, and I think that's where they're misleading the public.
COLLINS: Yes. And to be clear, Daniel, obviously inflation was high under President Biden. I mean, as we just showed--
DALE: Yes.
COLLINS: --if you're President Biden, or Jen Psaki, or anyone who worked for him, they faced a ton of questions on this, rightfully so, because it bothered voters.
I think the question here is, what the numbers actually look like when the President says it's virtually non-existent, or tonight, he said, No inflation. I mean, that just is not -- that's not true, based on what we know right now. The new numbers come out, next week. We'll see if they say zero, but it doesn't seem likely.
DALE: No. He said over and over again, there's no inflation. Sometimes he says essentially no inflation. He said he's crushed inflation. Inflation is gone, he said the other day.
Inflation is the rate he inherited. Now, he sometimes says that he inherited the worst inflation in U.S. history, citing the 9.1 percent rate under Biden. That occurred in June 2022. That was about a 40-year high, not an all-time high. It was very high. But the thing is, it occurred more than two years before President Trump returned to Office.
So, when it is suggested by the President or the White House that they inherited 9 percent inflation? No, that certainly occurred under Biden. We covered it at length, as you showed. But it was not the rate that President Trump got when he returned to the Oval Office in January.
COLLINS: Daniel Dale, as always, thank you for crunching the numbers for us.
DALE: Thank you.
COLLINS: And joining me tonight is Democratic congressman of New York, Dan Goldman.
And thank you for being here.
Do you think the White House should learn from the mistakes that the Biden administration made, which was telling voters how to feel about the economy, without actually registering how they feel about the economy?
REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): Well, it's even way, way worse than any of the concerns you could raise about President Biden. Because Donald Trump is just literally lying to people about their own wallets. That is baffling to me.
People have to pay their grocery bills every week, they have to pay health care, they have to pay rent, they have to pay things out of their -- they have to buy Christmas presents, which are up 26 percent this year. So, the notion that Donald Trump is going to gaslight people into telling them they're paying less than what they are, is absurd.
COLLINS: Yes, well, and I think the question that had come about this -- because, I mean, when we talk about inflation, there were a lot of Democrats who were saying inflation is not that bad, it's not that high, when President Biden was in office. It just didn't go over well with voters, because, to your point, they knew what they were feeling.
But the point of that, my question actually, was not on inflation. It was about the President's comment in Pennsylvania that parents should buy fewer dolls for their children, was the argument that he was making, despite how robust they say the U.S. economy is right now.
GOLDMAN: The President is so out of touch with everyday Americans that the idea that he would talk down to people and just say, Oh, everything is fine, Just buy fewer presents, is absurd. And it is not taking responsibility for his own economy and what he should be doing.
And the idea of rather than rolling back the tariffs, which are jacking up prices, or increasing renewable energy, which can reduce energy prices, he's doing the exact opposite. He's not doing anything that will actually help inflation.
And remember, Kaitlan, somehow, someway, they don't have the numbers anymore from the shutdown. I call BS on that. I bet they have the numbers, and they do not want to share though.
COLLINS: Because we didn't get the October numbers. That's why Nancy cited the September numbers today. We'll get the November numbers next week.
But I want to ask you about the Cabinet Secretary who appeared before one of your committees today. DHS Secretary, Kristi Noem, who came before them. Her team apparently has not turned over information about something that happened in an incident that happened in New York. What are you doing to get the data that you're seeking from them?
GOLDMAN: Well, I confronted her today about an investigation into an agent who was removed, after absolutely assaulting a woman who was upset that her husband had been detained and taken away into detention, even though he had an ongoing asylum application. Which Secretary Noem admitted today, violates the law, and he was then put on suspension.
Three days later, he was reinstated, even though ICE had said that his conduct was beneath the men and women of ICE.
And I asked her, Why did you reinstate him? And she said, Oh, well, I'll get you the investigation we did.
[21:35:00]
And I had written a letter, several weeks ago, asking for the results. She doesn't respond when she doesn't want to. And that's why it's so important to have these Cabinet Secretaries and these Trump administration officials in front of Congress, because when confronted, they can't escape and ignore.
COLLINS: But is there anything you can do to actually force them to give you any more information? Or do you think--
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDMAN: I'll take her word for it. She said she would send it to me today. I expect to get that.
COLLINS: Can I also ask, because you just got a primary opponent in Brad Lander, someone who, actually, his name might be more familiar to our audience than normal, because he was just involved when it came to the New York City mayoral race.
He is someone who, in this, had been -- you had not endorsed Mamdani, basically, for Mayor, Zohran Mamdani. He is now being backed by Mamdani, in his race against you, for your seat. Do you think this is going to be a test of the progressive movement and its momentum in your district?
GOLDMAN: I think that's for you and other political pundits to figure out.
Right now, I am really focused on what we're doing here, trying to extend the ACA tax credits, so that millions of more Americans don't lose health care, trying to fight back against this absolute disgusting ICE immigration dragnet, introducing a bill that would tax the wealthy. I'm focused on the work here in Washington, and in my district, and I'll deal with the politics later.
COLLINS: Do you worry that if he has Mamdani's endorsement, though, that it'll be pretty powerful?
GOLDMAN: As I said, I'm going to worry about the politics in the next year. Right now, I'm really focused on my job. I'm proud of my record, I'm proud to put it on the line, and I'm sure it will all come out.
COLLINS: Congressman Dan Goldman, thank you for joining us tonight.
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
COLLINS: And up next here for us. The Justice Department just tried and failed, for a second time, to bring a new indictment against the New York Attorney General, Letitia James. Yes, we talked about this last week. The question is, will they try for a third time? My legal source is here, next.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump's retribution campaign against his political enemies has hit another roadblock.
That's because a grand jury today, once again, declined to bring an indictment against the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, just one week after a different grand jury also rejected the Justice Department's attempts to charge her. So yes, if you're keeping score at home, that is two grand juries that have now said, No. Something that is quite rare.
And of course, as you'll recall, Letitia James previously pleaded not guilty in October to those mortgage fraud charges. But a federal judge had dismissed that case against her, and another one against the former FBI Director James Comey, because they said that the President's handpicked prosecutor on those cases was serving in her role unlawfully.
My legal source tonight is former Special Counsel in the DOJ's Antitrust Division, Brendan Ballou.
And it's great to have you back here.
Because I think the fact that it's now two in a row saying, No. And the phrase is, it's so easy that you can indict a ham sandwich. What does this say to you about what's happening in these grand juries?
BRENDAN BALLOU, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL, DOJ ANTITRUST DIVISION: I think it says two things.
The first is the odds of not being able to secure an indictment, it's something like 0.004 percent. The chance that this would happen twice in a row, and the fact that this was, as you said, presented to two separate grand juries, one in Alexandria, one in Norfolk, by an experienced prosecutor, so not Lindsey Halligan, the purported U.S. attorney who didn't have any prosecutorial experience? The fact that they failed twice with experienced prosecutors, I think, tells you something about the weakness of this case. Now, that's the first thing.
The second is the decision to continue prosecuting this, after career prosecutors refused to participate, the fact that the original U.S. Attorney was fired over this, the fact that they have brought this after the case has been dismissed, and then the first failed indictment? I think, tells you that lawyers really aren't in charge of the Department of Justice, at least when it comes to these kinds of cases. It's the White House that's running the show.
COLLINS: Well, and Abbe Lowell is a powerhouse attorney here in Washington. He's represented everyone from Jared Kushner to Hunter Biden. And he's representing Letitia James in this case.
We spoke to him, last week, about if he thought they were going to try again, after the Norfolk grand jury said, no. This is what he told us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The more times they try to indict her, do you think that helps the argument about a selective prosecution that y'all have been trying to make?
ABBE LOWELL, ATTORNEY FOR LETITIA JAMES: I think you mean vindictive prosecution, and the answer is very much so.
COLLINS: Vindictive prosecution.
LOWELL: I mean this concept of the law, which is very hard to prove, basically, with all they've done? I think we filed a motion that probably had seven single-space pages of statements President Trump has made to go after her. And then the unprecedented nature of bringing such a case with no basis, given that career prosecutors have said there's no case? And now, if they reindict, or if they try to up it again, and they keep trying it again? All they're doing is making our motion stronger and stronger.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Last week, after they got a No, I was told by someone familiar with how the DOJ is handling this, who said, Don't have any premature celebrations for James' team, meaning, We're going to try again.
They have noticeably not said that again tonight.
BALLOU: Yes. So, I mean, if I were them, I would have given up two times ago, you know? So, it's hard to say what this administration is going to do.
But to Abbe Lowell's point, the fact that they're continuing to try. If they ever actually do succeed in indicting Tish James, it's going to be such an easier case for vindictive prosecution, because they failed all these initial times.
But it's more than just her case. It's all the other cases brought against Donald Trump's political enemies. The fact that they are trying so hard with her makes it easier for them to make the vindictive prosecution claim, too.
[21:45:00]
COLLINS: But also with this, had it just not been Lindsey Halligan who presented this and had her name on it the first time, I mean, the judge wouldn't have thrown this out. It actually would still be an ongoing case as of this moment.
BALLOU: Yes, absolute -- perhaps. But also recall, there's a separate court order in D.C., at least preliminarily, barring them from using some of the key evidence in this case. So, and some of this has become a Comedy of Errors. There are at least a 11 different reasons why this case could get dismissed at this point.
COLLINS: Brendan Ballou, we will see if it happens a third time. Thank you for joining us tonight.
And up next here for us. A story that we were talking about here last night. There has been quite a stunning turn when it comes to the firing of the University of Michigan's now-former head football coach. Sherrone Moore is behind bars tonight, as a police investigation is now underway.
My inside source in Michigan will join me, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, the University of Michigan is in the midst of one of the most shocking 24 hours in the history of its storied football program.
As we reported here last night, what began as the abrupt firing of the head coach, Sherrone Moore, after the school said he was engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a staff member, has now turned and taken a turn, I should note, after Moore was arrested as part of an active police investigation.
A county prosecutor tells CNN that Moore is still behind bars tonight at a local jail. And when reached by CNN, the county records system didn't have any information on what charges he may be facing. But it comes, as ESPN is reporting that the fired coach was a suspect in an alleged assault, shortly after his firing, in a town just 30 minutes south of the University of Michigan Campus.
Police say that Sherrone Moore is expected to be arraigned on possible charges as soon as tomorrow.
The frantic pace of this story comes as what was once Moore's Wolverines are still scheduled to face the University of Texas in the Citrus Bowl in just a few weeks, on New Year's Eve.
Joining me tonight is Tony Paul, who is an Enterprise Sports Reporter for The Detroit News.
And it's great to have you here, Tony.
Because I mean, just even in the 24 hours since we were first talking about this on air, last night, this story has only gotten crazier and raised even more questions. What are you hearing tonight?
TONY PAUL, ENTERPRISE SPORTS REPORTER, THE DETROIT NEWS: Yes, you're absolutely right. I mean, yesterday was really crazy, just to get the announcement that Sherrone Moore had been fired as the head football coach at Michigan, and that happened around 04:40.
And then, we come to find out about an hour later that he was under arrest, he was detained. He actually was detained on this alleged assault, or -- yes, the alleged assault, he was detained actually around 04:10 p.m., on Wednesday, before the university actually announced his firing. Was detained by police near Ann Arbor, and was booked in the county jail at 08:30 where, as you mentioned, he remains tonight.
COLLINS: OK. So, he actually was taken into custody before it was even public that he was out as the head coach?
PAUL: Yes, he showed up yesterday to work, probably planning to coach the Citrus Bowl on New Year's Eve, and was fired by the university before -- well before the announcement came publicly at 04:40, because the arrest, because I have it in my email, we got the email at 04:43, the arrest came, according to police, of the detainment at 04:10, yesterday. So as this -- as the team and the other coaches were finding out about this, he was already being detained by police.
COLLINS: I imagine, you're probably hearing a lot of things from other coaches on the team and teammate -- team players, and, you know. I can't even imagine what they make of what's happened in the last 24 hours.
PAUL: Yes, I mean, it's a shocking thing.
Anytime you lose a football coach at this point in the season, you're preparing for a bowl game, and all of a sudden you get this word that your coach is out. But not just that your coach is out, but the circumstances by which he's been fired, and then everything that unraveled afterward? It's been a major blow and a major shock to one of the biggest brands, if not the biggest brand, in college sports.
COLLINS: Yes. And, I mean, as we were thinking about this yesterday. First, I was thinking about it in terms of, how are they going to find another coach? We just went through this whole process with all the schools hiring their coaches, taking their picks. But now, when it became so much more than that, after his arrest, there's also questions about, what happens to that massive contract he had? Because obviously, I believe the school is saying, he was fired for cause, if it was a relationship, an inappropriate relationship with a staffer.
What's your sense of how that battle is going to play out?
PAUL: Yes, time will tell on that. I'm sure there will be more on that. But he did have three years left on his contract that he signed, when he became head coach, in late January 2024. He was making more than $6 million a year, so more than $18 million left on that deal, three years.
And I would assume, depending on how things play out in the court system, we'll see. But a lot of these -- a lot of times, when coaches get fired for cause, they end up in the courts, as we've seen all over the country, including currently at Michigan State, with their former football coach. So that could be something that plays out for a long time.
COLLINS: How long had he been with Michigan? Did I read it was -- it was eight years? Or is that, in addition to the two years that he was the head coach?
PAUL: Yes, he joined Michigan staff in 2018, under then-head coach Jim Harbaugh. He was a tight ends coach. Then he was promoted to offensive coordinator.
And then in 2023, during games that Jim Harbaugh was suspended early in the season and late in the season, Sherrone Moore was the acting head coach. They won the national championship, of course, under the dark cloud of the sign-stealing scandal that was a huge saga not that long ago.
And then Jim Harbaugh left for the NFL's Chargers, in January -- early January 2024 after the national championship, and Sherrone Moore was promoted as the head coach.
COLLINS: All right.
Tony Paul, we'll see what happens with this arraignment, if it happens tomorrow. It's great to have your reporting on this. So, thank you for joining us, here tonight.
PAUL: Thank you.
COLLINS: And we'll continue to follow that story and bring you all the updates.
And also, you got to check out this one tonight. The President has pardoned an ally of his, who's still behind bars, for trying to overturn the 2020 election. But it's not going to get the former Colorado clerk out of jail. And we'll tell you why, right after this.
[21:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump says he has issued a pardon for Tina Peters, his only ally who is still serving time for trying to overturn the 2020 election. But it's a pardon that won't get her freed anytime soon.
That's because Tina Peters, who is that former Republican clerk of Colorado, is serving nine years in prison on state charges. She was convicted, last year, for participating in a scheme that tried to prove the President's false claims of mass voter fraud. But his pardon doesn't have any legal impact on a state conviction. That is something that would have to be up to the state's Democratic governor, Jared Polis.
[22:00:00]
And the President's announcement tonight comes just days after Tina Peters' attorney, says that she was attacked while she was in that state prison. And the President criticized the Governor, online, as a quote, in all-caps, "SLEAZEBAG" for not freeing the elderly woman out of jail.
The President has also previously threatened harsh measures against the State of Colorado, if Peters is not freed.
The Governor has said, however, he will not pardon her, as part of any quid pro quo deal.
We'll continue to follow that and bring you any updates.
Thanks so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
