Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump: Iran & Ukraine Wars Could End On "Similar Timetable"; Trump On Comey Indictment: 86 Is "A Mob Term" For "Kill Him"; Trump Backs New Maps As Supreme Court Limits Voting Rights Act. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired April 29, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: --the importance of America -- of Europe to America, someone defending those post-war institutions, liberal democracy, if you like. An unlikely champion, really. He really came out swinging yesterday, and someone who, crucially, has the President's ear. So, I think we've got an interesting figure emerging on the global stage right now.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: A jolly good show.
Max. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
That's it for us. The news continues. I'll see you tomorrow. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. Have a good night.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: What President Trump had to say today about his lengthy phone call with Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and the second indictment of James Comey.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, sources say, President Trump is sticking with his blockade instead of more bombing, to bring Iran back to the negotiating table. That could mean at least several more weeks of rising gas prices, as the United States waits out Iran, hoping that its leaders and its economy will bend to their pressure.
The sources tell us that the President is privately pointing to the risks of a renewed bombing campaign. And publicly, he's praising the strategy that he said he came up with himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, the blockade is genius. OK? The blockade has been a 100 percent foolproof. It shows how good our Navy is, I can tell you that. Nobody is going to play games.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That comment there, about the blockade and how effective it is, isn't stopping the Speaker of Iran's parliament today from mocking the President, claiming that he is getting, quote, Junk advice from his advisers.
But tonight, CNN has learned that U.S. officials have intelligence that indicates Iran's economy could collapse within weeks. Here's why. Iran's economy runs on oil, but oil only makes money if it can be shipped out. The U.S. blockade turns that into a traffic jam, tankers can't get in or out, storage fills to capacity, and Iran is forced to slow production, cutting off its main source of cash.
That's the strategy of the President, who, I should note today, spent 90 minutes on the phone with Vladimir Putin, who is now more than four years into Russia's war in Ukraine.
Given the news of that call that we received shortly before, when we went into the Oval Office today, I asked the President about both wars.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: On your call with President Putin today, do you think the war in Iran ends first, or the war in Ukraine?
TRUMP: Well, we talked about more about the war in Ukraine, but he would like to be of help. I said, Before you help me, I want to end your war. So, we had a good talk. I've known him a long time. I think he was ready to make a deal a while ago. I think some people made it difficult for him to make a deal. But we talked more about Ukraine.
COLLINS: But which war do you think ends first?
TRUMP: That's an interesting question. You know, coming from you, that's very interesting. Which war would end first? I don't know. Maybe they're on a similar timetable. I think Ukraine, militarily, they're defeated. OK? You wouldn't know that by reading the fake news. But militarily, like their navy. So, they had a 159 ships. Every ship is right now underwater. Typically, that's pretty good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President, seemingly referring to Iran there, when he said Ukraine.
And of course, the Iran war is something that we had not really heard public estimates about how much it cost in the last several weeks. But actually today, we got the first assessment from a Pentagon official today, estimating that it has cost $25 billion so far.
Now, that's the first one that we have gotten in a few weeks. But it's not clear that it's actually fully accurate. That's because tonight, as we come on the air, there are three people familiar with the matter that tell CNN, the cost is actually much higher, with one person putting it closer to $40 billion or $50 billion when accounting for the cost of rebuilding U.S. military installations and replacing destroyed assets. The cost of the war was just one point of contention, on Capitol Hill today, as the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, was testifying before Congress.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Now you're saying that it was completely obliterated?
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: They had not given up their nuclear ambitions. And they had a conventional shield of thousands of missiles. They're at the weakest--
SMITH: So Operation Midnight Hammer accomplished nothing of substance.
HEGSETH: You're missing -- you're missing the point.
SMITH: It left us at exactly the same place we were before. So much so that we had to start a war.
HEGSETH: Their facilities are bombed and obliterated. Their ambitions continued.
REP. JOHN RAYMOND GARAMENDI (D-CA): The President has got himself and America stuck in the quagmire of another war in the Middle East.
HEGSETH: Congressman, you should know better. Shame on you. Calling this a quagmire, two months in.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Do you know how much it will cost Americans in terms of their increased cost in gas and food over the next year because of the Iran war?
[21:05:00]
HEGSETH: I would simply ask you what the cost is of an Iranian nuclear bomb.
KHANNA: I'm going to give you that. I'm going to--
HEGSETH: I would simply ask you what the--
KHANNA: I--
HEGSETH: You're playing gotcha questions about domestic things.
KHANNA: No, it's not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Then there was this exchange, between Secretary Hegseth, and a military veteran who was in the room, Congressman Seth Moulton.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. SETH MOULTON (D-MA): How is this war going? Do you think we're winning?
HEGSETH: Militarily, on the battlefield, it's been an astounding military success.
MOULTON: No, but are we winning the war?
HEGSETH: Absolutely.
MOULTON: OK. So do you call Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz winning?
HEGSETH: Well, I would say the blockade that we hold that doesn't allow anything to come in or out of Iranian ports, will always in our portfolio we can use--
MOULTON: OK. So we -- so, we've blockaded their blockade. So, they blockaded us, and then we blockaded their blockade. That's like saying Tag, you're it. Or, you know, if President Madison has said, Well, the British just burned down Washington, but don't worry, we're going to burn it down as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now perhaps the most striking moment, though, happened when Secretary Hegseth was suggesting that the biggest opposition isn't actually overseas. It's here at home.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans. Two months in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My congressional source took part in today's questioning. Democratic congressman of Colorado, and military veteran himself, Jason Crow.
Thank you for being here.
Just as someone who did serve multiple tours, was an Army Ranger. What did you make of Secretary Hegseth saying that the biggest adversary is here at home?
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Well, it's shocking. It should shock every American. The sitting Secretary of Defense started his remarks, before any member of Congress was able to ask a question, started his remarks by attacking Democrats, a member of the opposing party, right? The fact that we have civilian control of the military, a non-partisan military, or we should, and that is a sacred, sacred thing in America.
COLLINS: But, I mean, he's saying that Democrats are worse than the Iranians.
CROW: Yes, exactly, that's the point, is that is a -- that's an astonishing thing for anybody to say, let alone a Secretary of Defense, going into testimony in front of Congress.
COLLINS: With the President today, when we -- I asked him about his conversations with Putin, and whether or not he thinks the war in Ukraine is going to end before the war in Iran, he said that they could be on a similar timetable.
How do you interpret that comment?
CROW: Well, the President has repeatedly turned his back on Ukraine. I mean, Ukraine is actually winning. They are fighting back and winning against Russia, because they are a sovereign, independent country that has developed the industrial base, that is showing tremendous courage, no thanks to this President, who has repeatedly maligned and turned his back on Ukraine.
And at the same time, he's started a new war that Americans don't even want, right? Americans overwhelmingly are not interested in Iran, because they can't pay their groceries, they can't pay their rent, they can't pay their mortgages, and we are spending tens of billions of dollars on this war of choice.
COLLINS: Was it clear to you, from the testimony today, when the war in Iran could end?
CROW: No, not at all.
COLLINS: Or how?
CROW: They've given no endgame. There's no endgame, there's no off- ramp, which is exactly why we don't start unnecessary wars in the Middle East.
We spent $5 trillion to $8 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan over 20 years. In Afghanistan, we spent trillions of dollars, over 20 years, to replace the Taliban with the Taliban, right? And we replaced Saddam Hussein with ISIS in Iraq.
Americans are fed up with an endless cycle of conflict in the Middle East. And they know that we can win every single battle, that we can destroy tanks, we can destroy planes, we can win every engagement. But we still don't win wars in the Middle East, because our adversaries try to slow-bleed us out, right?
There is a saying, actually, this is a very telling saying in Afghanistan. When I was fighting in Afghanistan, the Afghans would always say, The Americans have all the clocks, but we have all the time, right?
We just go from tactic to tactic, to blockade, to battle, to engagement, and our adversaries just wait us out. Why do we do this? Why are we spending American blood and treasure to do this? And at the end of the day, we rarely win these engagements.
COLLINS: On the blockade. Do you think it's effective?
CROW: Well, as my colleague Seth Moulton showed, we're blockading their blockade. Iran is actually the one who shut off access to the Strait. And what President Trump and Pete Hegseth want us to believe is like, Oh, we're going to put a blockade in, and do what Iran has already done. And somehow, that's our grand strategy?
They've mined the Strait of Hormuz, Iran has, and then they put a blockade in place. So, they are the ones that are actually choking off access to the Strait.
COLLINS: Yes, I just asked because -- I mean, obviously they did close it. And Hegseth was also questioned today, If you were prepared for Iran to put mines in the Strait of Hormuz, why were the minesweepers not in the area when the war started?
But the Commander of CENTCOM said today that the blockade is, quote, Highly effective.
I mean, do you agree with him on that?
[21:10:00]
CROW: Well, if I had a $1, Kaitlan, for every time I heard a general or an admiral say that the next strategy was working, one more troop surge was going to work in Iraq and Afghanistan, one new type of strategy, one new cross-functional team, as they sometimes called it? That is why generals and admirals don't make the decisions to go to war for our country.
That is why elected officials, members of Congress, who are accountable to the people, we are supposed to make the decision about whether or not to go to war. Because generals and admirals always say, something is working or is effective. That's what you're trained to do in the military, accomplish the mission, right?
We have a different responsibility, to look at the broader picture. Is this worth doing? Is this in Americans' best interest? Is there a strategy that's going to serve Americans and the working-class? That is not the responsibility of generals and admirals. That's not how they're trained. That's not what they focus on.
COLLINS: The Pentagon says the war is costing $25 billion so far.
Three sources told my colleagues tonight, it's costing actually closer to $40 billion to $50 billion, when taking into account the cost of repairing the extensive damage that was done to U.S. bases in the region.
Which number do you believe?
CROW: There is no way this has just been $25 billion. Well, first of all, $25 billion is a hell of a lot of money for Americans, and think about what we could do with just $25 billion. That is a low-ball number. It's probably two or three times that, guaranteed, right? There are--
COLLINS: You think it's two or three times $25 billion? CROW: I do, yes, I do. The amount of infrastructure and capability that's been destroyed in the Middle East, and the amount of munitions that we have spent, years' worth of munition stockpiles of some of the most sophisticated, advanced weaponry that we have, has been spent over the last 60 days, right? There is no way this is a $25 billion number. It is multiples of that. We will find out. We will push and find out which multiple of that.
But the American people are paying for that, at the same time as we can't, supposedly, according to this President, afford to pay for health care, afford to -- afford higher education, or K-12 education for Americans.
They are choosing to spend this money on their war that's not going to make life better, and at the same time, adding $500 billion, half a trillion dollars, to the defense budget.
COLLINS: Congressman Jason Crow, thank you for joining us tonight. Appreciate your time.
CROW: Thank you.
COLLINS: And when it comes to the state of these negotiations with Iran, the President made clear today, he does not like sending his team on those long flights to Pakistan, which has been serving as the key intermediary here, for more talks in the immediate future.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: You think another wave of strikes will be necessary?
TRUMP: I don't know, it depends. We have talks. We're having talks with them now.
And we're not flying anymore with 18-hour flights, every time we want to see a piece of paper. We're doing it telephonically. And it's very nice, I make a call, or I have my people make a call, and you know the answer.
I always like face-to-face, you know, I consider it better. But when you have to fly 18 hours every time you want to have a meeting, and you know what the meeting is all about, and you know they're going to give you a piece of paper that you don't like before you even leave. It's ridiculous. They've come a long way. The question is whether or not they're going to go far enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And joining me tonight on that front, our CNN National Security Analyst, and the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Beth Sanner is here.
Beth, what did you make of what you heard from the President today? First off, in terms of negotiations, he says, We're just going to be doing them over the phone, because it's too far of a flight to send people back and forth to Pakistan. BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Yes, I mean, I think that's actually reasonable. I don't have any problem with that. Because, I don't think the Iranians are showing that they're ready to negotiate.
The text by Ghalibaf, the Speaker, today, of Parliament, was basically trolling the President, and saying, like, Go ahead. We're ready for this blockade, we can outlast you.
There are questions about that, I think, that are reasonable questions.
But, look, this blockade being genius? Yes, it's not a bad idea. But why did we give them 44 days to continue exporting, from the beginning of the war until we put the blockade on? And we gave them sanctions relief during that period. They earned billions of dollars. They cleared out their storage, so that they were ready for this.
So it's like, where is the strategy here? Yes, the blockade is a great idea, but why at the end of the war.
COLLINS: That's a really good point in terms of, you know, we had the Treasury Secretary and other officials defending lifting the sanctions on that oil that was at sea, they said, to drive prices down.
Now the blockade is in effect. But you're saying they should have put the blockade in way sooner.
SANNER: Yes. Yes. So, I mean, basically what you get from this -- and of course, this is the Department of War/Defense, talking here, so you expect this to be a military-focused thing.
[21:15:00]
But my big beef with this is actually, unlike Venezuela, we only used one instrument of power in this war. We only used -- you know, we have a big hammer, everything is a nail, and we think that we can just solve everything by this blunt military force. That assumption.
In Venezuela, we actually negotiated, we actually used economic pressure from the beginning, all of that.
Here, we're kind of doing these things, because the assumption was overwhelming military force would blow these guys out of the water, and it would be solved overnight, and there would be no strategic implications, because it would be so quick.
COLLINS: Yes, and in terms of that, I mean, the -- what this looks like. Ghalibaf, I think, today was saying, Wait till Brent crude is at $140 a barrel.
It's over $116, I believe today.
SANNER: Yes.
COLLINS: Obviously, gas prices have been going up here in the U.S. SANNER: Yes.
COLLINS: Secretary Hegseth was getting asked about that today, and was saying, I don't want to talk about domestic issues.
SANNER: Right.
COLLINS: But obviously that is something. I mean, how close do the Iranians pay attention to what the coverage is in the U.S., and what that looks like?
SANNER: Oh my gosh.
COLLINS: How do they determine?
SANNER: They are on us and understanding us so well. I mean, the troll machine, the Lego videos, everything, they are getting us, and we are not getting them. I mean, those trolling and all those videos that they've put out, 900 million views in the first 50 days of the war. Think about that. They're winning the war, the information war.
Again, we didn't use all of our instruments of power. And we're putting out these videos that basically make the world not like us. I mean, I hate to -- I hate to like the Iranian, crappy, horrible, terrible regime's videos more than I like ours.
COLLINS: What did you make of the President's comment to me today, that the Ukraine war and the Iran war ending could be the same timeline?
SANNER: Oh my gosh.
COLLINS: I mean, you could hear that two different ways, I guess.
SANNER: Right. So, I'm not a big on this quagmire comparison thing. I don't think -- I think it's like, kind of not where we're at, right? So, I get the pushback on that.
But oh my gosh. That is what the Ukraine-Russia war is. It is a stalemate. Russia is not winning, but neither, you know, neither is Ukraine. They're holding their own. They're doing a great job.
But if we are, at this point, where it's going to end, when that war ends? That means that we're in this at least through the end of the year, if not longer.
COLLINS: Yes.
Beth Sanner, thanks for joining us here tonight. As always, it's great to have your expertise at the table.
Up next. Maggie Haberman is going to join me. What her sources are telling her about the President's view and comments on Iran.
Also, today's landmark Supreme Court decision that the President found out about, while we were in the Oval Office. Also, the former FBI Director James Comey surrendered in court today, that indictment, over a social media post that I asked President Trump about, inside the Oval Office.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you really think that he was endangering your life or threatening your life with that post?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOEY GARRISON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, USA TODAY: Mr. President, in light of today's Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act, do you want Republican states in the South to look at redrawing congressional districts before the midterms?
TRUMP: I don't know, you'll have to tell me, when did the ruling come out?
GARRISON: Just today.
TRUMP: I've been with the astronauts. I've been with contractors, because we're trying to get the ballroom built--
GARRISON: Yes.
TRUMP: --ahead of schedule. It's right on schedule. It's ahead of schedule now, I want to keep it that way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was President Trump today, learning about the Supreme Court decision in real-time, when we were in the Oval Office, after a morning, as you heard there, of his meetings. He later hailed the ruling on Truth Social, as an all-caps BIG WIN.
And we're going to speak to our reporter who was inside the Supreme Court, as that decision came down, shortly, about what it was like inside the room.
I should note, as we were going into the Oval Office, one of those contractors that the President mentioned was standing in the hallway with what appeared to be some of the plans for the ballroom.
For months, the President has said repeatedly that that project will be privately-funded -- paid for with private donations by donors. But now there are dueling plans among some Republicans on Capitol Hill over whether or not taxpayers should foot the bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): I am conservative, so this is my favorite kind of bill. It has no appropriations, no taxpayer expenditure. President said he can fund it privately. They've already started raising money for it.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): We're going to introduce legislation that would authorize $400 million to be spent to secure the -- to build the Presidential ballroom.
Private donations can be used, but I think they should be used for buying China and stuff like that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is Maggie Haberman, who is the White House correspondent for The New York Times, and the Author of the upcoming book, "Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump."
Maggie, first off, on this new effort where, you know, we did here for months, It's private donations that are paying for this, not taxpayer dollars. What do you make of this split between Republicans now, in terms of who should pay for the ballroom at the White House.
MAGGIE HABERMAN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, AUTHOR, "REGIME CHANGE," AUTHOR, "CONFIDENCE MAN": Look, putting aside, Kaitlan, the fact that what happened on Saturday night at the White House Correspondents' Dinner was terrible, and it was very fortuitous that nobody was hurt. There was obviously quick effort by the Secret Service to get the alleged gunman into custody.
[21:25:00]
Putting that aside, that was a media-hosted event. It has been a media-hosted event for 50-plus years. It's not clear to me, why a ballroom is now imperative in terms of the White House Correspondents' Dinner. Because I'd be very surprised if the White House Correspondents' Association decided now this is going to be a presidential event. It kind of defeats the whole purpose. Number one. But number -- although I can't profess to speak for the Association.
But number two, yes, I don't know how we get to why taxpayers should pay for it. It is -- there have been all kinds of competing ways that Republicans on the Hill have been looking to try to impress President Trump and try to make him happy. And everyone knows how focused he is on the ballroom. He doesn't make much of a secret of it. He talks about it very openly, as you noted.
But yes, the whole point was always this was going to be privately funded. And even with that, it was hard to imagine that, in terms of building a new bunker, and again, things that he's talked about publicly that I always thought were supposed to be pretty sensitive, there's no way that that was being funded only privately, but that is what it is. That's fine. That's security.
What happens to the private money, if it's supposedly hundreds of millions of dollars? But again -- that's one question. It's -- this has all become very hard to understand other than the fact that it's -- it will -- it will please the President to have more focus on the ballroom, and maybe private money freed up for other things.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, it was kind of remarkable to see the contractors who were working on it.
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: It's obviously certainly getting a lot of attention inside the Oval.
But on the Supreme Court Voting Rights Act, that the ruling that came down today. The President, obviously, as you heard there, learned about it in real-time. I think a question now is, is he going to say Louisiana and these other Republican -- these other states should change their maps to favor Republicans before the midterms? I mean, it's obviously April 29th.
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: They're cutting it pretty close for a lot of these deadlines.
HABERMAN: Yes, it's interesting, Kaitlan. I mean, look, there had been an expectation that the Supreme Court was going to rule in the way that they did.
There had also been a pretty clear expectation among most people that I was talking to, among Republicans, Democrats, and court watchers, that the Supreme Court was taking a while to come out with this ruling. It actually came a little earlier than I expected, or than some of them expected.
Because, as you say, it is going to be hard to redraw these maps in time for a lot of these primaries. That doesn't mean the President won't say that. And you have this redistricting arms race that is now very much in place. That's all a separate issue. That's the immediate issue in terms of these midterm elections.
There's the broader question about what this means in terms of participation in the system going forward for people for whom this Act was originally conceived of, but that's a separate topic.
COLLINS: When the President was talking about -- the other thing he got asked about in the Oval Office today. We hadn't heard him weigh in on, on James Comey being indicted for a second time today. What is your -- what are you hearing from sources? What's your reporting on that second indictment, and whether or not they actually think it will make it to trial or be successful?
HABERMAN: It's a great question, Kaitlan, and I don't think we're going to know for a while.
I think that, you know, predictions tend to be somewhat useless. Although obviously saying that this was an immediate threat or an urgent threat, or whatever words have been described. I don't know what they presented to the grand jury. But this took place a 11 months ago. So it's not -- it doesn't seem as if this was something that was at the front burner.
It is the second indictment that they have brought against him, and one was, as statute of limitations were about to expire, so I suspect that that will get raised by Comey's lawyers.
And then there's the point of intent. And Comey took the post down. He apologized. Whether people think it was wise for him to post that or not, is an entirely different point. 86 is -- yes, President Trump is right, that it sometimes can be used by mobsters.
It originally was a restaurant term, as I understand it, and certainly when I was working at a restaurant, and we were saying we were 86-ing Steak au Poivre, it was because we were out of Steak au Poivre. It wasn't because somebody wanted to hurt the Steak au Poivre.
So, I think there's going to be -- I think this is an uphill battle for them. I'm not a lawyer. But I think that Comey is almost certain to file a vindictive prosecution memo. And the judge is a George W. Bush appointee. So, we'll see.
COLLINS: Yes, Maggie Haberman as a waitress, I have questions about that. But I want to ask you about--
HABERMAN: Many people did, Kaitlan. Particularly the customers, yes.
(LAUGHTER)
COLLINS: We'll talk about that offline.
Jay Powell, the Fed chair, who is leaving, had his last press conference today as the Fed chair. He's going to stay on though, the Board of the Federal Reserve governors.
But there's a moment from his press conference that stood out to me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOWARD SCHNEIDER (ph), FEDERAL RESERVE REPORTER, THOMSON REUTERS: You mentioned that staying on as a governor you intend to keep a low profile. I'm just wondering if you could give us a little more detail on what that looks like and how you can--
(LAUGHTER)
SCHNEIDER (ph): Touche.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, he literally lowered himself from the lectern.
The President responded to the fact that he's staying on and said, he wants to stay -- he called him Too Late Powell -- because he can't get a job anywhere else.
I don't know that Jay Powell is looking for another job, given his age. HABERMAN: No.
[21:30:00]
COLLINS: But when you hear this. I'm not sure there's any profile that could be low enough, to please the President, for Jay Powell.
HABERMAN: No, what's actually surprising, Kaitlan, there -- and just also, as a side note, not only do I think he's not looking for another job, I think he's pretty independently wealthy, so I don't think that's going to be much of an issue for him, as I understand it.
But it was a pretty muted response from President Trump, right? I mean, he's obviously not happy about it. You had him making whatever complaint that was, about Powell, but it was not quite the excoriation that we're used to, or the level of threats.
And I think that he's recognizing there's a limit to what he can do here. You have -- you know, the Treasury Secretary was reduced to saying, this is very unusual in a defiance of norms. I don't normally hear this administration talk about how not adhering to norms is -- should be condemned. So, I don't think there's much they can do there.
And I think you are correct that Jay Powell also can't really take himself off the stage that easily.
COLLINS: Certainly not.
Maggie Haberman, great to have you tonight, as always.
HABERMAN: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Her upcoming book, as I noted, "Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump," you should pre-order it now.
Up next here. The President today defended that second indictment of James Comey. I'll let you listen to what he said about that mob term that Maggie just referenced there.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: In the Oval Office today, President Trump responded, for the first time, to the Justice Department, his Justice Department indicting former FBI Director, James Comey, for a second time.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: James Comey was in court. He self-surrendered. He's now been charged a second time, this time over a social media post with seashells that said, 86 47. Do you really think that he was endangering your life or threatening your life with that post?
TRUMP: Well, if anybody knows anything about crime, they know 86 -- you know what 86 -- it's a mob term for kill him. You know? You ever see the movies? 86 him, the mobster says to one of his wonderful associates, 86 him. That means, Kill him.
It's -- I think of it as a mob term. I don't know -- people think of it as something having to do with disappearing. But the mob uses that term to say, when they want to kill somebody, they say, 86 the son of a gun. I'm trying to keep the language nice and clear. They don't use that term, Son of a gun. They use another term, but that's a mob term for, Kill him. Yes.
COLLINS: But do you really think your life was in danger? Because that's the argument.
TRUMP: Probably, I don't know. You know, based on -- based on what I'm seeing out there, yes, it's the--
COLLINS: I mean, it's seashells.
TRUMP: People like Comey have created tremendous danger, I think, for politicians and others. He -- you know, Comey is a dirty cop. He's a very dirty cop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My political sources are here tonight.
Former New York City Mayor, Bill de Blasio.
Former Trump campaign adviser, David Urban.
And speaking of people who know crime, CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, and former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.
Elie, you're someone who's prosecuted over, what, a 100 mob family members?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Yes.
COLLINS: Does 86 mean murder in mob parlance? Tell us.
HONIG: Well, Kaitlan, there was a point in my life where I spent the better part of my waking hours, either talking face-to-face with real- world mobsters, or listening to them talk to each other over wire taps or body wires or bugs.
I dealt with all Five Families, Gambino, Genovese, Bonanno, Lucchese, Colombo. I dealt with bosses, under bosses, consiglieres, capos, soldiers, associates, all the way down the line. Never, ever, not once, did I hear any real-world gangster use the term, 86, to refer to a murder or anything. And God knows, these guys had colorful lingo, but never that phrase, 86.
I don't know where the President is getting this from. He said, from some movie. They don't use that term in "Godfather" or "Sopranos" or "Goodfellas." Maybe some way old timey movie, but that's not reality.
The other piece of the interview you did, Kaitlan, with the President in the Oval Office that I found really interesting, when you asked that follow-up, Did you truly believe your life was in danger? The first thing he said was, Probably, I don't know. And then he sort of eventually said, Well, I guess so, yes.
Probably, I don't know, right there? That's an acquittal, because prosecutors have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the victim believed that his life was in jeopardy. And if the jury comes back at Probably, I don't know? That's a not guilty, right there. I thought that was a really important moment.
COLLINS: So, you think that could be used if this makes it to trial?
HONIG: You know, it would be an interesting tack, right? If you're the -- if you're the defense, would you try to call Donald Trump to the stand?
The thing is, it doesn't actually, legally, depend on what the victim's state of mind was. It's more about what would a reasonable person believe. But hey, I'd argue, Look, the guy who was targeted told you, Probably, I don't know. So, I don't think it will ever get to a trial. I think it will be tossed out before that, on other grounds. But I'd be fascinated to see how that played out.
COLLINS: We heard from the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, about the Comey indictment today. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Is the Justice Department's position that anybody who posts the numbers 8-6-4-7, is subject to potential investigation and potential criminal charges?
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Look, every case is different. Every threats case is different.
[21:40:00]
You know that every time that's posted, that number is posted, you know that every time there is a threat against the President. It doesn't necessarily lead to an indictment. It depends. It depends on the investigation. It depends on all kinds of factors. And so, it's not -- people should be very wary of threatening the life of President Trump, because that is a crime. Full stop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I think obviously that statement there, based on what happened Saturday night, people can understand, the concern about the President's life.
But in terms of this, specifically, Elie, what was your thought on that, in regards to James Comey?
HONIG: What Todd Blanche is doing there is anticipating what these defense motions will be.
Jim Comey is going to argue selective prosecution, meaning, I'm being treated differently from other people who said the same thing.
And Todd Blanche there is saying what they'll argue in court, which is, No, each case is different.
Comey is going to have a separate argument. They're similar, people lump them together, but it's separate, of vindictive prosecution, meaning, This is based on bad blood between someone in the government and me. I mean, look at Donald Trump's social media posts, saying, I want him indicted. Look at the fact that they tried once, and Comey beat him on that case.
So, to me, it's a textbook case of vindictive prosecution. May be selective as well.
COLLINS: David Urban, I don't know how many mobsters you know. But I know you know Republicans. And I want you to listen to what Thom Tillis had to say about the Comey indictment today on Capitol Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I searched to the end of the internet last night. I can't find one example where the number, 8-6, had anything to do with any violent threat.
So, hopefully there's more to it than just the picture in the sand. Otherwise, I just think it's another example of where we're going to regret this, because we're setting a fairly low bar. And political physics, like I've said around here for years, is what it is. For every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you think they'll regret it, David?
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes, look, as much as I hate to say this, I agree with Senator Tillis.
I find Jim Comey despicable. I think what Donald Trump said at the end of that clip, your first clip you ran there, Kaitlan, he's a bad man. He's a dirty cop. He leaked classified information at the end of the Russia, Russia, Russiagate investigations. He's a bad individual with bad intent. But that doesn't make this criminal, what he did. It's stupid, it's vulgar, it's dumb, but it's not going to be past the threshold of criminal.
There was a 1969 Watts versus the U.S. I'm sure Elie knows this case. There was a Vietnam protestor who said, If I get a gun, the first person I want in my sights is LBJ. That went to the Supreme Court. He was convicted in the lower court. Went to the Supreme Court. They said, Not good enough. Crude, but not actionable.
There's a difference between saying the President should be shot, and I'm going to shoot the President, and one is protected by the First Amendment, and one is not, and I think that's what we're up against in this case. It's crude. It's despicable. It incites people. It makes crazy people think it's OK to do things. But it's probably not going to pass the threshold here in this case. And Jim Comey will be able to walk away and kind of flaunt and say all those things that -- you know that Trump doesn't -- hated. We railed upon--
COLLINS: Yes.
URBAN: --like when in Tish James and Alvin Bragg in Russia, Russia, Russiagate--
COLLINS: Yes.
URBAN: --and the entire lawfare of the Biden administration, I was here saying, It's bad. And in this case, I'm saying, It's bad, as well.
COLLINS: Mayor de Blasio. I mean, as you watch all those play out, from the President getting asked about it in the Oval Office, Thom Tillis getting asked about it on Capitol Hill, Republican senators. What's your view on this?
BILL DE BLASIO, (D) FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Three quick thoughts, Kaitlan.
First of all, as Mayor of New York City, I received many death threats. That's the reality. And the NYPD investigated when it was serious. If the NYPD was presented with seashells on a beach, with the number, 86, they would have laughed at it. They would have said, This is not a serious threat. 86 is like a diner term. It's not a mobster threat. So, that doesn't pass muster on its face.
The second point is, this is going to be looked at by a judge, in this case, a judge appointed by George W. Bush. And the amazing thing is, all the other Republican appointees, Bush 1, Bush 2, Reagan, none of them believe that Donald Trump abides by the law, and they've found against him repeatedly. So, I think this will get thrown out.
And the last point (inaudible) this is not what they want to talk about. They want to talk about affordability. They want to talk about how tough their lives are. They want to see a president who is actually doing something to help them pay their bills and get by.
Instead, what they see is a Justice Department prosecuting the President's enemies, and the President talking about wanting to build a ballroom and everything but the needs of the American people. I actually think it will backfire. It looks obsessive. It looks self- focused. It doesn't look like a president who is actually doing his job.
COLLINS: Elie Honig, thank you for joining us with your expertise on this.
Bill de Blasio. David Urban. Please stick around. I want to talk to you more about this, a landmark Supreme Court ruling that could have a huge impact on elections around the country. Our reporter was inside the Supreme Court.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, a landmark Supreme Court decision has put the 1965 Voting Rights Act on thin ice. The six-three conservative majority ruled that this 2024 Louisiana congressional map, which created a second black majority Democratic district in the state, amounted to an unconstitutional redistricting on the basis of race.
More on how the court got to that decision in a moment.
But I should note, that in the Oval today, we were there, when the President heard this news firsthand, and said this to Republicans on their redistricting efforts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: I want to go back to the Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act. I know you said you haven't seen it--
TRUMP: When did it come out? Just now?
REPORTER: No, it came out this morning. But basically very much narrows the Voting Rights Act--
TRUMP: Was it considered a win for who?
REPORTER: A win for Republicans.
TRUMP: I love it.
REPORTER: Should they redraw the map in the next couple of weeks?
[21:50:00]
TRUMP: I would. I mean, it depends. I mean, some states don't need to redraw. And some do. I mean, I know what the concept of the ruling. I just haven't seen the result. Yes, I would say, generally, I would think that they would want to do it. Some -- some are greatly helped, and some, you know, it didn't make much difference. Yes, I would say they would do that. They have time to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight was inside the Supreme Court, as that opinion was read. CNN's Chief Supreme Court Analyst, Joan Biskupic.
We know there's big news in the Supreme Court, if you're joining us here on THE SOURCE. What was it like in the court today?
JOAN BISKUPIC, CNN CHIEF SUPREME COURT ANALYST: You could really feel the gravity of the moment.
We don't know when a decision is coming. They don't tell us when it's coming. And in fact, we wondered if maybe this one might not come until June, because the justices might not want to affect the midterm cycle in the upcoming primaries. But no, they did it.
There weren't that many reporters in the room at that second.
First, Sam Alito reads his opinion from the bench and talks about how, you know, he picks up a lot of the thoughts from where the court was in 2013 in the Shelby County ruling, that times has changed. The Voting Rights Act might not be as needed in the same way as it was back in 1965. He talked about the new standards of what kind of evidence the challengers would have to come forward with, if they want to prove a vote dilution claim in redistricting. But he was doing it in kind of a dry, technical way.
And then Elena Kagan, who spoke for dissenters, that's when the passion really came out.
COLLINS: And that doesn't always happen.
BISKUPIC: No. They have to for--
COLLINS: Right?
BISKUPIC: Usually, the dissenters don't read from the bench. But when there's something really important, they want to, like, point up how crucial it might be to the country.
And in this case, she said, For decades, this Supreme Court has been trying to eviscerate the Voting Rights Act. And essentially, she starts by saying, The project is complete. And she said, invoking Selma and Bloody Sunday in 1965, when the marchers were attacked as they were crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge, she said, People paid for this with their literal blood in those Civil Rights marchers and Union soldiers.
COLLINS: So, the fact that she actually read that obviously shows how passionately--
BISKUPIC: Right.
COLLINS: --she felt about this defense.
BISKUPIC: Right.
COLLINS: What does this tell us? You're someone who studies the court. What does it tell us about the Roberts' Court? What's your interpretation?
BISKUPIC: It tells us a lot. In fact, I was saying today that I think this decision is not only going to be the most important one for this current term. It may be one of the most defining decisions of the Roberts' Court tenure. This, with the 2013 Shelby County versus Holder case, that also really worked to dismantle the Voting Rights Act as we understand it.
It's because the Roberts' Court has been working, over a series of years, to try to end any race-based measures. You know, in the Harvard case, they struck down affirmative action in admissions. They've struck down even in public high schools, placement based on race, just to have diversity across districts. They just believe that the time has come to end all that. So, I think that's one of the central things that has happened here.
And this will be really long-lasting, not just for the midterms, but for election law going forward, Kaitlan, because it will make it harder for Latinos and Blacks, to elect the candidates of their choice, and that means that in government, we will have fewer Black and Latino representation.
COLLINS: I was thinking this morning, when this came down -- and you're right, we're so lucky you were there, because a lot of people weren't there, and not expecting it to be -- to come down today. A lot of those justices, the ones that were appointed by Republicans, were actually at the state dinner at the White House last night.
BISKUPIC: The six conservative justices who delivered this ruling, who've delivered many of the rulings that favored Donald Trump, were at that dinner, being wined and dined, night before, not only this ruling, but there was -- there was a huge immigration case argued today, we're not going to see that ruling until June, and it was an immigration case that's important to Donald Trump.
So, none of the liberals were there, the three liberals who dissented.
And it's just the -- the sort of the message it conveys is a message that John Roberts doesn't want conveyed, that they are somehow aligned with Donald Trump. But they probably had a very good time with their spouses, last night.
COLLINS: And John Roberts was there last night, the Chief Justice.
BISKUPIC: With his wife, yes.
COLLINS: Joan Biskupic, always great to have your reporting.
BISKUPIC: Thanks.
COLLINS: Thank you for joining us. Thank you for being inside the court today.
Up next. We have an update for you on the Saudi-backed LIV Golf. It could soon be on its final stroke.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: It has not even been four years since LIV Golf first teed off and upended the golf world by doing so. But tonight, the upstart league is now finding itself in an existential crisis.
The Wall Street Journal reports that LIV Golf's Saudi backers are now expected to pull their funding from the League as soon as tomorrow, and that it will no longer bankroll the multi-billion dollar circuit after this season. Why now? One reason could be the economic fallout of the Iran war that's been hitting Saudi Arabia's oil markets very hard. The sovereign wealth fund that backs LIV has reportedly been assessing its own investments.
And obviously, this is unwelcome news for the notable LIV golfers who have staked their careers on breaking ties with the PGA Tour, including two-time major champion, Bryson DeChambeau, who has defended the LIV Golf League as it was facing criticism here in the U.S.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRYSON DECHAMBEAU, PROFESSIONAL GOLFER: I think that this is the best thing that could ever happen for the game of golf.
I truly believe, in the end, the game of golf wins in this scenario.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: Now tonight, LIV Golf's CEO is pushing back against the rumors of the League's potential demise, saying, We are heading into the heart of our 2026 schedule with the full energy of an organization that is bigger, louder, and more influential than ever before.
The next event on the schedule is set for May 7th, at the Trump National Golf Club, actually here in Washington.
We'll keep you updated on that story.
Thanks so much for joining us here on THE SOURCE tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
