Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
CNN Presses Acting A.G. On Who Qualifies For $1.8 Billion Fund; Trump, Netanyahu Diverge On Iran War's Future In Tense Call; Keisha Lance Bottoms Wins Dem Nomination For Georgia Governor. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired May 20, 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]
DAVID FAHRENTHOLD, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: -- President Trump initially said that he knew that company because they had worked on his golf course in Northern Virginia. Now he says that's not true.
So, this company, it's a small company based in Virginia, and they -- what they do basically is spray coating inside of pipes, like highway culverts and other things. They don't advertise any expertise in pools, swimming pools, much -- much less large pools like this. So, it seems like they're doing a job that's really different than the work they normally do, and they were -- you know, nobody else was given a chance to do this job better or cheaper.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Yes.
David Fahrenthold, as always, fascinating reporting. Appreciate it.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. I'll see you tomorrow.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, CNN presses acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche on why the administration won't rule out taxpayer-funded payouts for those who assaulted cops on January 6th.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, the acting Attorney General is standing behind a major source of controversy for the administration, in an exclusive interview with CNN, defending that $1.8 billion and, as they describe it, Anti- Weaponization Fund that has been set up by the Justice Department to say what -- to do what they say is to compensate people who believe that the government did them wrong with investigations or prosecutions.
That includes the nearly 1,600 people who attacked the Capitol on January 6th, who already received pardons and now very well may get payouts. That includes those who were convicted of attacking police officers on that day and threatening to kill the Vice President Mike Pence.
My colleague, Paula Reid, asked the acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, about exactly that prospect and possibility tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Should individuals who are convicted of assaulting law enforcement on January 6th be able to get money from this fund?
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: So, as I said yesterday -- I don't know why this needs clarification. I said it multiple times yesterday. The commissioners will determine who receives money.
Now, the conditions -- the settlement's public. My order is public. There's nothing that's not transparent about this process. One of the factors the commissioners have to consider is what the claimant did, the claimant's conduct. OK?
So, in the hypothetical you just described, the claimant would have to say, I assaulted a cop and I want money. So, whether the commissioners will give that person money, that claimant? It's up to them. But that's one of the factors they have to consider, for the very reason that was raised yesterday, which should be -- which should be raised, which is that President Trump, this Department of Justice, does not stand for assaulting law enforcement.
And the kind of fake outrage at this because, there's a handful of folks who might apply -- by the way, nobody's received money, nobody's applied yet. We don't even have commissioners.
So, we're talking about a hypothetical scenario that hasn't even presented itself yet, except for the fact that the agreement makes plain that the commissioners have a bunch of factors they have to consider, expenses, how much money they want, what the claimant did, the claimant's conduct. And so, that's something that we will pick good commissioners, and that's something that they will take into account.
REID: You're the nation's top law enforcement official right now. Would you be OK with people who were convicted of hurting police getting taxpayer money?
BLANCHE: Just to be clear, people that hurt police get money all the time. OK? There's a process where -- where if you are -- if you are -- if you believe you have your rights violated, you can -- you can apply for funds, you can sue, you can file a claim, you can go to court. In some of those cases, the state, the government, the federal government, settles those cases.
It's abhorrent to ever, ever touch a law enforcement officer, which is why any time anybody does that, and it's a federal officer, we'll prosecute them. But that's a completely different question with whether an individual is allowed to apply for a claim. Whether they'll get a claim.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Todd Blanche there cited a few people being outraged. But one of the reasons the acting Attorney General keeps getting asked about this is because at least some of the people who were convicted of crimes on January 6th say that they now expect to see some of the massive fund of taxpayer money. And the President, the Vice President, and the acting Attorney General have all declined to rule out that they might actually get some.
We're also learning tonight that the companies include -- companies including One America News, that pro-Trump channel that promoted the false 2020 claims, they've confirmed to CNN that they are seriously considering also trying to get some of this new fund.
And MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell has already put a $400 million figure on what he thinks his company is owed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE LINDELL, CEO, MYPILLOW: I think it's great. You know, the -- as you know, MyPillow is the most attacked company in history. Lawfare hadn't been used in our country since the 1700s. So, MyPillow and myself have been a part of both lawfare and attack by our own government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: In the meantime, attorneys who also represented members of the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers say they're looking into whether their clients might apply as well.
You saw Donie O'Sullivan there, speaking to Mike Lindell. He also spoke with other rioters from that day who say that they are thankful for the creation of this Anti-Weaponization Fund.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRANDON CRAIG FELLOWS, PARDONED JANUARY 6TH RIOTER: Feel like he has kept us in his mind, despite all the other issues that he's got to deal with as leader of the world, basically.
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Are you thankful to the President?
RACHEL POWELL, PARDONED JANUARY 6TH RIOTER: Of course, I'm thankful. If it wasn't for the President, I'd still be sitting in that prison. And so, I'm just -- I'm incredibly great -- grateful. Even if I never got a dime of compensation, I would still just -- I can't explain how thankful I am to our President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: They may be grateful. But certainly not the police officers who protected the Capitol on that day, and several of them are now suing the administration, hoping to block the creation of this fund.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL FANONE, AMERICAN LAW ENFORCER AND ANALYST: This is Donald Trump paying violent criminals for committing violent crimes on his behalf.
DANIEL HODGES, AMERICAN POLICE OFFICER: Trump has made it clear for years that he's tied to these people, that he appreciates what they've done. He wants to support them.
HARRY DUNN, FORMER CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER: This is something that Donald Trump campaigned on. This was a campaign promise of Donald Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And on Capitol Hill today, legislation has been introduced to try to stop the creation of it as well, with even some Republican members of Congress promising to put a stop to it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN CURTIS (R-UT): I will tell you, my first reaction was, This doesn't pass the smell test.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): It sends a signal. Hey, go breach the Capitol, destroy the building, assault police officers. You may even get compensated for, some day. That's absurd.
REP. BRIAN FITZPATRICK (R-PA): We got to unpack exactly what it is, what the source of the funding is, in order to stop it, and/or reverse it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: We're going to speak to the last Republican you saw there, Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, in just a moment.
But even though there is that feeling on Capitol Hill. Today, at the White House, we heard President Trump standing behind the fund, and not only standing behind it, but arguing that he believes it's essential.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: They went -- you know, it was the most violent thing I've ever seen in politics, what they did. And yet if I say, Oh, let's look at this one or that one. They say, Weaponization, Weaponization.
What they did in terms of weaponization will never be allowed to happen in this country again. So, we think that those people, we think that anybody involved in that process should partake. And you're talking about peanuts compared to the value.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That's the President's take, as his acting Attorney General has been defiant in the face of the criticism.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: People can keep on complaining, but it's not going to stop us from -- from doing what we know is the right thing to do for the American people,
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And joining me tonight are my legal sources, including:
Paula Reid, our Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent, who conducted that excellent interview with the acting Attorney General.
Tom Dupree, who is the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
And Elie Honig, of course, the former federal prosecutor.
And it's great to have all of you here.
I mean, Paula, just listening to that back and forth with the acting Attorney General. I mean, there have been major questions about this fund. What stood out the most to you from what he said?
REID: So, look, they've put forth a lot of money, right, $1.8 billion, but not a lot of information, not a lot of details, about exactly how they will prevent this from basically becoming a slush fund for the President's allies.
So, this was a great opportunity to sit down with the acting Attorney General and try to get more information about exactly how this will work. Now, he has 30 more days to name the members of this group, lay out ground rules. But what came across to me in this interview is that he doubled down defending this, and didn't seem to think that the criticism, which is now bipartisan criticism, is valid, and he didn't seem terribly concerned about the backlash.
I've covered this Department of Justice, since Trump took office again, and this, along with the Epstein files, and this is one of the biggest controversies they have faced. But he owns this, right? Because, he signed the settlement. So, it was good to sit down with him and sort of get where his head is at. But he doesn't seem to be registering what a bipartisan storm this is.
COLLINS: Well, and you also asked him about that addendum that came after he announced this, about the IRS.
REID: That's exactly right.
COLLINS: What did he say about that?
REID: And it's important because this came in two parts, right?
The first part was, We have a settlement, Trump's going to get an apology, but no money, and there's going to be this fund. But then the next day -- and they are allowed to do this, they are allowed to amend this agreement. They announced that the President, his family, and his businesses would be protected from audits, sort of looking backwards. So, this isn't a forever thing, but audits of taxes that had already been filed. But this raises a lot of questions, right? Why did it come the second day? Why is -- why does he need this protection?
[21:10:00]
So, I gave Blanche an opportunity to just sort of explain what's going on here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: This isn't unusual in any way, shape, or form. It's unusual because it involves President Trump, and it involves the Department of Justice. But beyond that, the fact that the IRS is settling a case and not moving forward with an audit is not unusual.
REID: Now, the President is not getting any money from this settlement, right?
BLANCHE: Right.
REID: Now, The New York Times has reported that he could have potentially owed up to maybe even a $100 million because of those ongoing audits. So, are you saying this was not an effort to help him avoid financial liability?
BLANCHE: I mean, I've seen that. The New York Times is self-reporting. They're saying, Oh, we said in some report that he might -- he might have to owe a $100 million. There's no -- that's not true. That's not -- that's the definition of completely made-up fake news, and then it becomes real news because they repeat it.
So, every single article that cites this supposed hypothetical $100 million payment that The Trump Organization was going to have to make to the IRS relies on some New York Times article that isn't true, and that relies on sources that are not verified.
And so, listen, this is -- the President is not getting any money, he's not getting any money. And the unsurprising fact that an existing President of the United States does not have to go through more and more audits, which has been happening for years and years and years, in exchange for settling, shouldn't surprise the American people, it shouldn't surprise Congress.
And it's something that was -- look, my job is to do the right thing. It's to do the right thing, no matter who is on the other side. And the fact that it was President Trump and his sons and his company, played no role in my decision, except to do the right thing.
REID: Whose idea was this audit addendum?
BLANCHE: What do you mean, whose idea was it? REID: Who came up with this? Did they ask for it?
BLANCHE: I mean, there is, look, the--
REID: Did you -- did you -- did you think of it?
(CROSSTALK)
BLANCHE: The President has -- has outside counsel, and there are counsel at the Department of Justice, not me. And there was negotiations, and this was what was -- part of those negotiations included a discussion around the, you know, any pending audits.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Well, Todd signed off on it, even if it wasn't his idea.
And again, Kaitlan, the big concern is, is Todd Blanche, or the administration lawyers, are they putting the interests of the President above those of taxpayers? Now, in this interview, he doubled down. He insisted that this program will save taxpayers, money. We have a full write on that up on our website.
COLLINS: I mean, Tom, what did you make of everything you just heard from Todd Blanche?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Oh, where to begin?
So, my first point is that on the question you asked him about will people convicted of assaulting police officers on January 6th be eligible for the payment funds. He gave a long answer. The right answer was a one-word answer: no, those people are not eligible, they shouldn't be eligible.
And I think the attorney general could give a lot of conservatives, myself included, comfort, if he would put some guardrails in the system rather than say, The commissioners will decide it all in due time. Take a clear position, clear answer: if you assault a cop, no money from the fund. That's number one.
On the point about the settlement. What makes this whole thing so unusual, besides the fact that it's the President, it's that the President is on both sides of this dispute. The President is both the plaintiff and the defendant. So, he's suing himself, he's negotiating with himself, and he's settling with himself.
I think what would give a lot of people comfort is if you had some independent entity, like say a federal judge, look at the terms of the settlement and say, This is fair, this is a reasonable outcome.
That's what's missing from this equation, is that normally when the Justice Department settles a case, there's typically some involvement of the court system to look at it and make sure that it's not an unfair sweetheart deal. That's what's missing from this. COLLINS: I mean, Elie, when you listen to all of that, and he's saying it's not unusual in any way, shape or form, what did you make of what you heard from Todd Blanche?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: So, the fundamental flaw in all of this, Kaitlan, is yes, it is not unusual for people to put in claims. They do put in claims. But the thing is, they have to prove they were wronged. And what this slush fund does is essentially say, We're going to essentially assume that you, January 6 defendants and others, were wronged and are entitled to money.
Todd Blanche also said to Paula, Well, it's all transparent.
No, it is not. To the contrary, if you look at the rules of this commission, what it says is that the commission has to tell Todd Blanche about who they're giving money to and how much. But that's it. There's no public disclosure to this at all.
And finally, Kaitlan, to the President's claim that this is peanuts, or to Todd Blanche's claim that We're not talking about that much money, or this is more efficient. I did a little math here. If you take $1.776 billion, and you say there's going to be roughly there were 1,600 January 6th defendants, add up -- maybe let's round up to say 2,000? That comes out to an average claim of $888,000 per person. So, that's how much money we're talking about here, for people, most of whom have been convicted of crimes, many of whom who have been convicted of violent crimes.
COLLINS: Well, when we've got a former federal prosecutor doing math for us, that's when we know this is a tricky situation.
I mean, Paula, it's just -- it is a remarkable dynamic that's shaping out here.
[21:15:00]
REID: It is. I do want to weigh in, and I think Elie is absolutely right. In the settlement, there's no transparency requirement. But Todd did testify yesterday, before lawmakers, and he said that he would be as transparent as possible. He specifically said that he would try to release names when possible and amounts. Now, again, that's not a requirement, but it is what he testified under oath, although he is constrained by some privacy laws.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, but he also was saying, Well, everyone's outraged, but we don't even know who's on this commission yet.
I mean, but he is picking who's on the commission. It's not like it's this independent board that's selecting the commission.
DUPREE: I am confident that the commission will make what the President views as the correct decisions in pretty much every case. I don't see a lot of rogue commissioners denying claims that the White House--
REID: Decider (ph) though, correct.
DUPREE: --and the Attorney General think should be granted. Because, if they do that, they will not be commissioners for very long.
COLLINS: Yes.
Tom Dupree. Elie Honig.
Paula, excellent interview. Thank you for bringing us that tonight and getting it in. You've had a busy day.
Paula also asked the acting Attorney General about taxpayer funds and how he thinks taxpayers feel about all of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REID: But wouldn't the average taxpayer respond and say, OK, but why is that now my problem? Why do my tax dollars now need to go to people who are upset about their involvement in investigations?
BLANCHE: Well, if you're just upset, you're not getting it done.
On the other hand, I think if you said to the American taxpayer, that there is a horrible wrong committed by your government, and now you can apply, and you can have your lawyers' fees back, you can -- you can be compensated for what you lost financially. What American would say, Oh my gosh, that's terrible.
I mean, I don't know -- I very much disagree with the idea that the American taxpayer is indignant about the fact that a victim of weaponization, OK, a victim who suffered, whether it was legal fees, lost a job, had their life turned upside down in a way that was not appropriate. If it was appropriate, there should be no compensation, and that's why we have five commissioners who will take a look at it.
But I do not think the American people have issues with that. To the contrary, I think they do want their tax dollars spent on things like that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My next source tonight is Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, a Republican who has been outspoken about opposing this new fund.
And Congressman, do you agree with the acting Attorney General there, that this is how Americans want their taxpayer dollars to be spent?
FITZPATRICK: I do not, Kaitlan. Every dime that we spend ought to be going to, and especially with people in mind, over half of Americans that are living paycheck to paycheck, that's got to be at the forefront of every single House and Senate member's mind with every dime that we appropriate. So, for that and many other reasons, I am completely objecting to this, and I'm going to do everything I can to fight it.
COLLINS: Did anything that Todd Blanche said about this fund in that interview with Paula reassure you?
FITZPATRICK: No. No.
So, first and foremost, Kaitlan, the executive branch does not have any money in its own right. Every dime they have is appropriated by Congress. So, I sent a letter to Mr. Blanche today, posing some very basic questions. He's got a June 1st deadline to get me the answers of where this money is coming from. Obviously, it was appropriated to DOJ as part of an appropriations bill. We want to know what account that money currently resides in, where is he pulling it from, what authority they have to do this. We'll give him a chance to answer.
But this is a debate that needs to be had, and will be had, Kaitlan, on the floor of the House, and it will be voted on. This is not a unilateral executive decision. If you're dealing with appropriated money, that's got to come through us.
COLLINS: What happens if the deputy -- or if the acting Attorney General doesn't respond to your letter?
FITZPATRICK: Well, there's going to be consequences. We need to unpack -- the reason why we asked him questions is we need to unpack what the genesis of this funding is, so that we know how to go about resolving this. Right? I mean, depending on what that answer is, is going to depend on what we can do. Because we're trying to figure out what our jurisdictional ability is under Article I authority, and where Article I authority ends and Article II authority begins.
But we need the answers to some basic questions, which is kind of the point of the problem here, is that we don't even know the answers to those questions. So, we're going to get them. And if we don't, you know, we'll deal with it either in this year's appropriations or in remedial legislation, which my team is working on right now.
COLLINS: He says that they are being transparent, that this is fake outrage because, nothing has happened yet, and the commissioners have not been named.
Do you think that's why people are outraged about this fund?
FITZPATRICK: Well, listen, any time you come up with an idea, you got to socialize it with people that are decision-makers, particularly in the legislative branch.
[21:20:00]
And I think part of the problem is, we see these stories generally breaking out of the news media, without any kind of detail. Constituents get rightly concerned, and then we respond to our constituents' concern. That's our job, is to represent the people back home.
I can tell you, the people that I represent, very independent-minded people in Bucks and Montgomery counties in Pennsylvania, you know, they want me to look into this, and I'm going to, and we're going to -- we're going to fight hard against it. And I'm very confident, Kaitlan, we have the wherewithal on our team to break this down to get to the root of, and the genesis of, where this funding is coming from, and we'll come up with a game plan.
COLLINS: Senator Bill Cassidy, over in the Senate, came out against this tonight, also criticizing it for similar reasons that you criticized it for, talking about, people can't afford gas right now, struggling to make ends meet, and this is what the DOJ is spending money on.
FITZPATRICK: Yes.
COLLINS: You're the first Republican that I've seen that formerly went to the DOJ, with your letter, demanding answers from Todd Blanche. But are there other Republican lawmakers who, that you've spoken with, who agree with you?
FITZPATRICK: Well, I'm a lifelong FBI agent, a federal prosecutor, and I'm going to take the lead on this, and I'm recruiting other colleagues of mine. I've spoken to several of them on the House floor. They want to see what we're putting together, legislatively. And yes, there is a lot -- quite a bit of interest, on both sides of the aisle, quite frankly. They approached me on the House floor today.
COLLINS: If you could get something passed on this in the House and in the Senate? And that's an if. The President would have to sign it. And so, what would you do then?
FITZPATRICK: Well, the backstop, that's a great question, the backstop is always appropriations, which have our -- we're in appropriations season now. We're going to have to pass a DOJ appropriations bill in short order. So, we're going to factor that into how we approach that. Right?
I mean, these are -- you know, the brilliance of our Founders is they set up a system of government, where all three branches are independent constitutional checks on the other, and each have authorities that the other doesn't. We're going to use our Article I authority to make sure that we are providing a check that the American people want us to do on things like this.
COLLINS: Yes.
FITZPATRICK: These are taxpayer dollars. We have half of Americans living paycheck to paycheck. Every dime we spend out of the federal Treasury ought to be very mindful with those people in mind, right? And we have to have priorities. Budgets are a set of priorities of what's important. A lot of times, you have a lot of important things. You have to make tough choices.
COLLINS: Yes.
FITZPATRICK: But that all factors into the analysis here.
COLLINS: One thing that -- I mean, even just as a member of Congress, as a Republican, as a person, that the administration won't rule out is just saying that people who beat up cops that day, of which there are videos.
FITZPATRICK: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, the Vice President, yesterday, was saying, well, maybe they didn't get a fair hearing or a fair court case.
I mean, there's videos of the people who beat up the cops that you can watch that was used to convict them by a jury of their peers. Does it make sense to you why they won't just rule it out for the people who were literally beating up law enforcement?
FITZPATRICK: No, should be an easy question to answer. I don't know why they're having such difficulty answering it. I can answer it. Not a dime should go to them, not a single dime.
COLLINS: Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, thank you for joining us tonight.
FITZPATRICK: You bet. Thanks.
COLLINS: You just heard from a Republican.
Up next. We're going to speak to a Democrat in the House who also has a new bill trying to stop this fund from being used for those exact reasons. Jamie Raskin will join me right after the break.
Also, there's new reporting tonight on what was apparently a very tense phone call between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Why it was so tense?
[21:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Back to our breaking news tonight. As the acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, is defending the Justice Department's $1.8 billion fund, to my colleague, Paula Reid.
My next congressional source tonight has introduced legislation to block the use of taxpayer money for that compensation fund. A constitutional scholar, a Democrat from Maryland, Congressman Jamie Raskin is here on THE SOURCE.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
What did you make of what the Attorney General -- the acting Attorney General told CNN tonight?
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, it's astounding. I mean, just like Donald Trump said last week, that he doesn't care about the financial condition of the American people. Now we've got the acting Attorney General of the United States saying that the American people want to be giving away $1.8 billion, totally outside of the legal system, to people that Donald Trump thinks worthy of it because, they have been loyal political foot soldiers and lieutenants to him. Congress never passed that as a law, and we control the power of the purse. We never would pass that as a law. And if we did, it would be struck down immediately because, it's totally unconstitutional because, the 14th Amendment says that the United States shall not assume or pay debts and obligations created by virtue of insurrection. It's right there in the Constitution. So, the whole thing turns our legal system on its head.
Luckily, I think there will be outrage against what the Attorney General -- the acting Attorney General just said, the way there was outrage about Donald Trump saying that he didn't care one bit about the financial condition of Americans.
I mean, people are suffering out there because of his illegal unconstitutional war. The gasoline prices have gone up $1.50. Groceries are through the roof. He said he was going to bring down inflation on the first day. He's done nothing for that. Except, now he just wants to continue to use the budget of the United States, illegally, as a political slush fund for his foot soldiers, past and present.
COLLINS: Your legislation would block the use of the taxpayer money for this. Can you lay out how that would work, and how you plan to try to build support for it? I mean, we heard Brian Fitzpatrick there, a Republican. But obviously you need to build a lot more support on Capitol Hill.
[21:30:00]
RASKIN: Yes, and I was very happy to hear Congressman Fitzpatrick say that. We don't need that much more support. We basically need another three Republican members of Congress to join us.
And today, Congressman Kevin Kiley, who used to be a Republican, now he's an Independent, he voted with the Democrats, when I introduced a measure to subpoena Todd Blanche and other officials involved in this outrageous decision to come before us.
We only lost by one vote, and a couple of our members were missing. So, we're already getting close. But I think that we will be able to find those Republicans by next week, as public understanding and outrage grows over this. I think it's going to happen.
But basically, what the bill says, Kaitlan, is you can't do this. We're going to shut down right now this so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund. We're not appropriating money for that, you can't spend one cent on it. And if you try to get around it by ripping off the Judgment Fund in other ways, we are going to specifically prohibit any money from -- going from the Judgment Fund directly to the President, the Vice President, other members of the Cabinet, other political officials, and their families. You just can't do that.
And also, banning the use of money from the Judgment Fund to go to the January 6ers, people who participated in what the House of Representatives determined was an insurrection against the United States. So, you can't do that. There are some other parts in there, including that the Attorney General in the future will have the power to bring actions to reclaim any money that goes out now on a completely unlawful basis.
COLLINS: When you look at this. House Speaker Mike Johnson was also asked about this today.
The Republican leader in the Senate, John Thune, actually said he didn't understand it or what the purpose of it would be yesterday, when he was asked.
I want you to listen to what the Republican leader in the House had to say about this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): He said they are setting up a fund to compensate all Americans who have been the subject, the target of lawfare or weaponization of the federal government. Again, that's not a partisan proposition either. Everybody should support that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What's your response to that argument?
RASKIN: OK. Well, let's start with this.
Does that mean then that the law firms that Donald Trump illegally imposed executive orders against, and tried to ban them from federal employment and federal contracts and security clearance, and so on, they can come before there and they can ask for money because, the government was weaponized against them? All of the colleges and universities that he's been weaponizing the government against, they can go? Well, they should be demanding the money.
But we know what's going to happen because, this isn't a real court. And that's the point I want people to see, Kaitlan.
First, this is an attack on Congress. By usurping, stealing away our power to appropriate money, he's just creating a program without Congress and putting money in it without Congress, when it's up to us.
And then he's usurping and stealing away the powers of the courts. The courts look at situations just like this. The judicial power is vested solely in Article III, in the Supreme Court, in inferior courts created by Congress.
We didn't set up this anti-weaponization court. It's an illegal or unconstitutional court. If what he's saying is, You can bring your claim before it? All that's really happening is Donald Trump is turning the entire government budget into slush funds for him. And this is the slush fund to get to his private militia that was with him on January 6th, 2021 and that he wants to be with him in future engagements.
But there are lots of these slush funds proliferating, including the Board of Peace. They took $1.5 billion out of the State Department, which was for disaster relief. They took it from there, they gave it to the Board of Peace. Nobody can tell us, is it public, is it private, is it in America, is it international? But we know one thing about it. Donald Trump is chairman for life. And they got another billion from Qatar and another billion from the Saudis, and so on.
But this is what they are doing throughout the government. They're trying to strip away all the money from the actual legitimate constitutional order, and put it directly under Donald Trump and his lieutenants.
COLLINS: Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you for joining us tonight.
RASKIN: You bet.
COLLINS: Up next for us here on THE SOURCE. We have new details that we're getting in tonight about that tense phone call that apparently happened between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu on Iran. What our sources are saying tonight.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, we're getting new details about a tense phone call that happened last night, between President Trump, and the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, about the war in Iran. Sources say that during this hour-long call, that Netanyahu told Trump he believed delaying U.S. strikes that were planned for yesterday was a mistake and pushed the President to resume military action.
Today, the President was asked about that phone call and downplayed any divergence between the two on Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What have you said to Prime Minister Netanyahu about Iran and how long to hold off on strikes?
TRUMP: He's fine, he'll do whatever I want him to do. He's very -- very good man. He'll do whatever I want him to do.
Hopefully, those people will make a deal that's going to be great for everybody. But I don't know. I don't know.
If I can save war, by waiting a couple of days, or I can save people being killed, by waiting a couple of days, I think it's a great thing to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: My sources tonight are CNN's Political and Global Affairs Analyst, Barak Ravid; and our Global Affairs Analyst, Karim Sadjadpour. And it's great to have the two of you here.
Because Barak, you first reported on this phone call. What did you hear about what happened?
BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS: Well, I'll start from the bottom line. One of the sources that told me about this tense call, said that after the call, Bibi's hair was on fire, which I think says a lot about how the call -- the call went.
The call was so tense and difficult that the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, had to call U.S. lawmakers, that he thought would be supportive, to tell them about the call, and basically hint that they should approach the White House about this.
And during the call, President Trump told Netanyahu that the U.S. and Iran are in talks through mediators, through Pakistan, through Qatar, through Saudi Arabia, through other countries, about drafting some sort of what the President called a letter of intent, some sort of a statement that will lay out principles for 30-day negotiations about the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S. concerns about the Iranian nuclear program.
Netanyahu, to say the least, was very skeptical about it, and he told the President that he thinks it would be -- it would be better off to hit Iran first and then go to negotiations with a better hand, with a stronger hand. Trump, for now, is unconvinced.
Some sources I talked to, both in the region and in the Trump administration, claim that there's some progress in those talks between the U.S. and Iran. But we've been there many times, that there have been some optimism that the deal might be closed, and this optimism hit the wall with the Iranians eventually saying, no. So, I think it is too soon to know whether there is a deal or not.
But in any case, Netanyahu, after his call with Trump, was highly concerned, and as far as I understand, he is still very much concerned.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, hair on fire is quite the description.
RAVID: Yes.
COLLINS: And Karim, I mean, on this idea of a letter of intent. On what we're learning about The New York Times reporting that this former Iranian President Ahmadinejad was in this plan to make him the new leader of Iran. They bombed his house, where he was being kept captive by IRGC guards. I don't even really understand how that plan was supposed to work. But then he was -- he survived it, but he became disillusioned with the regime change plan after it.
I mean, just big picture, what do you make of all of this?
KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, IRAN EXPERT: Well, that's a crazy story, Kaitlan.
Because, I was based in Tehran when Ahmadinejad was first elected in 2005. And his eight-year presidency was known for three things: denying the Holocaust, calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, and advancing Iran's nuclear program. Prime Minister Netanyahu, a decade and a half ago, called Ahmadinejad, the Iranian Hitler. So, the idea that 10, 15, years later, Israel and the United States wanted to install him as Iran's next president, it really defies belief.
Now, it's true that Ahmadinejad, over the last several years, had become more of kind of an internal critic. But he had no institutional power. There was no chance that he could be Iran's Delcy Rodriguez.
COLLINS: Do you sense any progress? I mean, we keep hearing this, and it feels like Lucy and the Football, that they tell us we're getting close, and then it's actually not that close.
SADJADPOUR: I don't think we're close. Barak wrote this, and I think it's spot on, which is that the President lacks patience. He wants this war to be done, he wants a deal to be done. But the blockade, it takes time for the economic impact on Iran.
And to Barak -- what Barak said about Israel. There's really a divergence here, Kaitlan, between America's two big partners in the Middle East, which is Israel and our Gulf allies. Prime Minister Netanyahu wants perhaps President Trump to resume bombing. Our Gulf partners are really worried about that because, they know that if we start bombing them -- start bombing Iran again, Iran will retaliate by going after oil installations in the Gulf, maybe data centers, airports. And so, there's a real divergence there between our partners in the region.
COLLINS: Karim Sadjadpour, thank you for that.
Barak Ravid, thanks for joining us. On your reporting, as always, we'll be following it very closely as this continues.
Also here tonight, joining us is a Democratic source who defeated a crowded field to win her party's nomination in Georgia. If she wins, she could become the first black woman elected governor, actually in U.S. history. And she'll join me right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: The race for the Republican nomination for the next governor of Georgia is not over after last night's primary. That's because none of the GOP candidates cleared the 50 percent threshold to win outright.
Now, the top two candidates are going to face off in a June 16th runoff, and both of them are people who have either denied or at least questioned what happened in the 2020 presidential election.
The Lieutenant Governor Burt Jones, who right now is backed by President Trump, actually served as a fake elector in a plan to subvert the Electoral College. His opponent in the race, billionaire businessman Rick Jackson, said the outcome was quote, Ridiculous, when he was asked at a campaign event if he thought the 2020 election was stolen.
[21:50:00]
The winner of that runoff is going to go up against the Democrat in the race. That's Keisha Lance Bottoms, the former Mayor of Atlanta, who is now aiming to become the first black woman elected governor in U.S. history. And she is my source tonight.
And thank you for being here.
I guess I would ask, is there a Republican candidate that you would rather go up against in this race?
KEISHA LANCE BOTTOMS, (D) NOMINEE FOR GEORGIA GOVERNOR, (D) FORMER MAYOR OF ATLANTA: I think that they are equally awful MAGA. They are both trying to compete for Donald Trump's affection. As you mentioned, Kaitlan, Trump has already endorsed Burt Jones in this race. And every commercial that you see on television shows Rick Jackson saying what an ally he'll be of Donald Trump. So, it's the competition of the worst of the worst, in my opinion.
COLLINS: So, obviously, we'll wait to see which Republican you are going up against.
As far as Democrats. I want to ask you about some reporting from last week in Politico, that Georgia Democrats were worried about you being Mayor of Atlanta and your tenure, and that being a drag on your campaign.
Obviously, you led the city during a very turbulent time. There was so much going on, the pandemic, social unrest after police killings, the spike in violent crime.
There was one Democratic strategist, they're not named, but they're not affiliated with anyone in the primary, Politico said, that said, quote, "Republicans will eat her for lunch. The Republicans are begging us to nominate her," and that if you're at the top of the ticket, the whole ticket loses.
What's your response to that sentiment from that person?
LANCE BOTTOMS: You know, we were in a very crowded primary. So, many of the people who were referenced in that article have already called and left messages for me today, saying that they are supportive of me as the nominee. It goes with the territory.
I left as Mayor of Atlanta with a 68 approval -- 68 percent approval rating, which is pretty unheard of for most elected officials in the country. And then, even in the head-to-head matchup with Rick Jones -- Burt Jones, and Rick Jackson, I'd beat them both in a general election. So, I'm looking forward to making my case to the people of this state, just as I did in this primary season, telling them why I should be elected governor of this state, hoping to earn their support.
And the political pundits can have their opinions. But at the end of the day, the people will have their say. There were people who did not believe it was even possible for us to win this primary outright. And not only did we win, we won by just over 56 percent. So, the people have spoken.
COLLINS: You were the Vice Chair for the Democratic National Committee during the last presidential election. There's been some frustration over whether or not Democrats should release the autopsy, the report, of what went wrong in the 2024 election, why obviously Donald Trump is in the White House, and not Kamala Harris. She says she actually supports the release of it.
What do you think should happen in that? Could it be a learning lesson for Democrats?
LANCE BOTTOMS: I think it absolutely can be a learning lesson. I mean, the election is over, but the opportunity for us to do better in future elections will mean that we'll have to take a look at what we did right, improve upon that, and those things that we could have done better, and making sure we don't make those same mistakes again.
So, I don't see any problem with releasing that information. I think it can be instructive for all of us who are running for office, but also just an opportunity for us to focus on the future and determine how we need to move forward as a party.
COLLINS: Is there anything that you believe Democrats should learn from 2024 to do better going forward?
LANCE BOTTOMS: Well, I think what we've heard repeatedly is that we've got to focus on the issues that matter most to people. That's what I'm hearing, as I'm traveling around the state, and I know that's the reason we were successful.
We get data, when we run for office. We poll, and then we put into place our policies and focus on those things that we care about. But then when you go around, into communities, talking to people on the ground, you determine if what you think is a priority is really their priority.
[21:55:00]
For us, it has confirmed what we already knew. People are concerned about the cost of living. In Georgia, they are concerned about their lack of access to health care because, we've not expanded Medicaid. They are concerned that we are number one in business, but still in the bottom half in literacy. They are concerned that we aren't standing in the gap for our veterans, whose benefits are being cut by the federal government.
COLLINS: Yes, we will see, obviously, what that looks like going forward.
Gubernatorial candidate, Keisha Lance Bottoms, thank you for joining us here on THE SOURCE tonight.
LANCE BOTTOMS: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next. We heard from Jeff Bezos today about whether or not the bottom half of earners should have to pay any income tax. Also, what he said about his own taxes in response to New York City Mayor Mamdani.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, Jeff Bezos, who is the fourth richest person in the world, says that he believes the bottom half of earners should not have to pay income taxes.
Bezos, in this new interview with CNBC, later said that he pays billions of dollars in taxes, and while disputing claims by Democrats that actually taxing the wealthy would help the middle-class.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF BEZOS, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN, AMAZON: You could double the taxes I pay, and it's not going to help that teacher in Queens, I promise you. This is -- so you can't connect those two things, not logically.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: New York City Mayor, Zohran Mamdani, responded to that, and said, quote, "I know a few teachers in Queens who would beg to differ."
Thanks so much for joining us here on THE SOURCE tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts now.
