Return to Transcripts main page
State of the Union
Interview With U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro; Interview With Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC); Interview With Fmr. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). Aired 9-10a ET
Aired May 03, 2026 - 09:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[09:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:00:30]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST (voice-over): Law and order. President Trump shakes off last week's press dinner shooting.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Now, I shouldn't be here. It was just an attempt in my life.
TAPPER: As investigators release new video of the attack. What else was happening just out of frame? U.S. attorney Jeanine Pirro's first CNN interview next.
Plus: political earthquake. After shaking up the midterms, the Supreme Court may now rule on abortion rights, as the midterm stakes rise. Why don't voters trust either party to fix it? Republican Senator Thom Tillis joins me ahead.
And looking back. A progressive firebrand takes stock of his life in politics.
FMR. REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA): I've been trying to decide whether it's better to be an icon or an emoji.
TAPPER: His message for his party when former Democratic Congressman Barney Frank joins me from hospice care ahead.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: Hello. I'm Jake Tapper in Washington, where the state of our union is nine weeks into a six-week war and six months out from the midterm elections.
President Trump back on the campaign trail this weekend, holding his first public event at The Villages in Florida, his first since being the target of yet another failed assassination attempt, this time at the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner last Saturday. The president has since joked about refusing to wear a bulletproof
vest because it would add 20 pounds. He has vowed to quickly reschedule the dinner. But with the suspected gunman behind bars, questions remain about the Secret Service Security posture around the event.
And as authorities released new videos of the attacker appearing to case the hotel and then dashing through the security magnetometer, we still don't have a clear view of everything that happened as the gunman got closer to that stairway leading to the hotel ballroom.
Joining us now is the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia who's handling this case, Jeanine Pirro.
Do I have this right? This is your very first interview on CNN ever?
JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Not ever, but in...
TAPPER: Not ever, but in quite some time.
PIRRO: In quite -- probably a decade.
TAPPER: In probably a decade. Well, welcome to CNN. Welcome to...
PIRRO: Thank you.
TAPPER: Let's begin with this Secret Service officer or agent who was shot at the dinner.
On Thursday, you said the suspect in the shooting, Cole Allen -- quote -- fired off that 12-gauge shock on one time" and -- quote -- "he fired that gun in the direction of the Secret Service Officer."
Have you been able to determine yet which gun actually hit the Secret Service agent and will you present that evidence to the public?
PIRRO: Well, we have been able to determine which gun it was. First of all, there is video of the defendant shooting at the Secret Service agent. There is also the agent who will tell you himself that he was shot at and then he returned the fire.
But, more importantly, Jake, is the fact that we now can establish that a pellet that came from the buckshot from the defendant's Mossberg pump-action shotgun was intertwined with the fiber of the vest of the Secret Service Officer.
TAPPER: So it's definitively his bullet?
PIRRO: It is definitively his bullet. He hit at that Secret Service agent.
He was -- had every intention to kill him and anyone who got on his way to killing the president of the United States. This was a premeditated, violent act calculated to take down the president and anyone who was in the line of fire. And you and I were both in that combat zone.
TAPPER: Yes.
PIRRO: And we know what it was like. It was a very dangerous situation. And but for law enforcement and their quick reaction, this thing could have been much worse.
TAPPER: The surveillance video we have seen shows one vantage point that, the one that you just alluded to with his gun going off.
The suspect and several officers then run out of frame. Is there additional surveillance video of what happens down the hall and is that going to be released too?
PIRRO: Well, as we go forward, there will be more that will be released.
But, at this point, we've released everything we needed for the detention. We will be going into the grand jury. May 8, there's a preliminary hearing scheduled. But as things become more public, we are more than happy to be transparent with the public.
TAPPER: Is there more video?
PIRRO: There will be more video, yes.
TAPPER: OK, but from after they ran out of frame?
PIRRO: Yes.
TAPPER: OK.
In the surveillance video that you posted on social media, we see this officer with a canine, with a dog, stop in a doorway that the suspect had just walked through. The police dog seemed to have an idea that something was on the other end of that door. The officer tugs him back. I'm not finding fault with the officer.
But then seconds later, they walk away. The suspect runs out, charging through the dinner with a rifle in his hand. What exactly happened there and what's on the other side of those doors?
PIRRO: Well, apparently, the defendant -- and we know that he had been casing the hotel while he was in the hotel. We have video and you will see that because we've been very transparent with the evidence.
[09:05:07]
But he goes into that room to take off a long coat that he has on.
TAPPER: So that's a room on the other side?
PIRRO: That's a room. And he discards the coat. He's wearing a long, dark coat because he has to hide the Mossberg pump-action shotgun.
TAPPER: Right.
PIRRO: And he takes the coat off. As soon as he does, he comes out like a bat out of hell to start to approach, what's going on there.
TAPPER: Yes.
PIRRO: You talk about the dog. I'm not an expert with dogs, but my understanding is that dog...
TAPPER: You have four dogs, though.
PIRRO: I do. And so you have many yourself.
(LAUGHTER)
PIRRO: We were talking about that.
TAPPER: Yes.
PIRRO: This dog, as I understand it, is a bomb dog.
TAPPER: Oh.
PIRRO: It's a bomb detection dog. But as we get more information, we will be clear.
Again, it's a fluid situation. More will come out.
TAPPER: Yes.
I want to ask you this, with all due respect. You were a guest at the dinner...
PIRRO: Yes.
TAPPER: ... and potentially, God forbid, a target, right? You're in the administration.
PIRRO: Right.
TAPPER: Has it been suggested to you at any point by anyone that maybe you need to recuse yourself because you were both a witness and a potential target?
PIRRO: Absolutely not. I mean, there is no way. I mean, that would be like telling witnesses that you can't testify at the trial because you were there.
The truth is that there were 2,500 of us who were there. And my ability to prosecute this case has nothing to do with my being there.
TAPPER: OK. Let's talk about it, because you said that the president was the target.
PIRRO: Yes.
TAPPER: And let me just state, before I ask these two questions, I am not questioning that President Trump was the target, but...
PIRRO: Yes. I hope not, because he clearly was.
TAPPER: I'm not. I'm not.
But, as an evidentiary matter...
PIRRO: Yes.
TAPPER: ... it seems like the defense is going to challenge that.
PIRRO: Of course they will.
TAPPER: So I want to ask you about that.
The defense says that the manifesto was vague about who specifically the target was. Cole Allen is being charged with attempting to assassinate the president. What is the case that you're going to build, other than the obvious facts that he's there with a gun and the president is there, which is not nothing? Don't get me wrong.
PIRRO: No, it's a pretty solid case.
TAPPER: But what's the evidentiary -- because they're going to say he doesn't say in the manifesto that Trump is the target by name.
PIRRO: I think, if you read the manifesto, Jake, and I know that you have...
TAPPER: Yes.
PIRRO: ... it is very clear who the intended target is. It is very clear, based upon the fact that as soon as this president said that he was going to be at the Hilton for the White House Correspondents' Dinner on March 2, he then made the decision to hatch the plan.
We have a lot of evidence that indicates his intent and the fact that everything that he did thereafter, whether it was following what the president was doing, where he was going to the day of the event at the hotel, tracking on his phone, is the president in the ballroom yet, has the president sat down yet, what time will dinner be served, this is clearly the president is a target.
And make no mistake, it is not just the manifesto. It is his actions. It is the fact this man was -- I mean, this guy thought he was Rambo. I mean, he was armed to the teeth.
TAPPER: Took selfies.
PIRRO: He took selfies. He's got the Mossberg. He's got all kinds of ammunition with it. He's got the .38. He's got knives, daggers, sheets, holsters, wire cutters, needle-nose pliers.
And he takes a picture of himself.
TAPPER: Yes. PIRRO: He is smug. He is proud. And he is focused on what he's doing.
And, by the way, I know you want to get through your questions. I want to make one...
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: You have done this before.
PIRRO: Yes.
TAPPER: On both sides, yes.
PIRRO: This guy, what is his defense? Because that's what you're getting at. Did he really want to kill the president?
I can tell you we will be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. The one issue that people might think about, is he insane, he is far from insane. He is brilliant. He has a master's degree. He worked at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
This is a guy who had no psychotic break. He documented his trip from the West Coast all the way to Chicago, all the way to Washington.
TAPPER: Yes.
PIRRO: And he talks about the beautiful country and the Southwest desert and the woods in Pennsylvania. And he is very, very lucid and clear.
TAPPER: So you alluded to the target being clear by the manifesto. The only name in the manifesto is Kash Patel. He cites Kash Patel.
PIRRO: He leaves him out.
TAPPER: Which he says he's not -- Kash Patel's not a target.
PIRRO: Right.
TAPPER: He does say -- and I want to apologize for using this language, but he does say -- quote -- "I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile rapist and traitor, to coat my hands with his crimes" -- unquote.
PIRRO: First of all, that's outrageous. I mean, there's a lot of other things you could have referred to. This guy is a hater. He hates Trump so much he wants to kill him.
TAPPER: But is he talking about Trump in that?
PIRRO: You're going to have to ask him that.
TAPPER: OK.
PIRRO: I don't really care. TAPPER: So let me ask you a question. Trump, President Trump, has
now, awfully, horribly, been the target of three assassination attempts that we know of.
PIRRO: Right, that we know of, exactly.
TAPPER: There's obviously a lot of incendiary language out there, horrific language out there. I just quoted from some of it from the alleged shooter, who didn't get that from nowhere. That's a lot of crazy people saying a lot of horrific things.
[09:10:02]
I want to play Tucker Carlson, your former colleague at FOX, last month talking about the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR: Here's a leader who's mocking the gods of his ancestors, mocking the God of gods, and exalting himself above them. Could this be the Antichrist? Who knows?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: That seems incendiary too, no?
PIRRO: Look, the -- whatever Tucker Carlson says is not relevant to me right now. I really don't care about what he says.
All I care about are the facts, the evidence, and what I can prove. All of this other stuff is noise. What we have got is a president of the United States. He is literally being targeted. He is being hunted. And our job and the job of everyone in law enforcement is to protect that president.
I don't care what people on the outside say. I disagree with them entirely. But what we cannot do, Jake, we cannot blame the victim. We cannot start saying...
TAPPER: Oh, I'm not blaming the victim.
PIRRO: Right.
And I don't want other people to blame the victim either. And that's what this is about. This is about people who are so above and beyond their skis that they think that they can discuss all kinds of issues that have nothing to do with them and that are creating problems for people like the president.
TAPPER: What is your response when you see these deranged conspiracy theories on the left and the right saying that this was staged? And, again, let me say...
PIRRO: Yes, I saw that.
TAPPER: ... I was in the room. It was not staged. This was legit. I'm not trying to give credence to it.
PIRRO: Thank you.
TAPPER: But there's a lot out there about that. What do you think when you see it?
PIRRO: Well, what I think is that people don't know what they're talking about. And that's why it's so important for this administration and for me, for the Department of Justice, Todd Blanche, we got these videos out, Jake, as soon as we could.
We went into that detention hearing and we put evidence on the record after the detention hearing, so that we could be transparent, so that you could see the videos, you could see the evidence, you could see what we knew we already had. That's what we're about. We're about proving the case.
All of this other stuff is nonsense. Sometimes, I think people just waste their time. Follow the evidence, follow the facts, and that's where we are.
TAPPER: But is what Tucker said -- another former colleague of yours, Jonah Goldberg, says that, to him, and I'm paraphrasing here, what Tucker said about the Antichrist is more incendiary than what James Comey posted on Instagram.
While not defending what James Comey posted on Instagram, do you see Jonah's point?
PIRRO: You know, I'm really not here as a political pundit anymore. I'm here as a prosecutor. My job is to decide whether or not I have evidence and whether -- I have got 30 years in this, a prosecutor, a DA, a judge, and now the United States attorney.
My job is to not talk about talking heads and what they say. My job is to come here and offer to you, CNN, any evidence that we have that will answer the questions you have.
TAPPER: Let's talk about one more case before you go.
PIRRO: Of course.
TAPPER: The criminal investigation into the outgoing Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, that you suspended.
PIRRO: Yes. Yes.
TAPPER: I know you have spoken with my next guest, Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina.
PIRRO: I have not spoken to him about this case ever.
TAPPER: No? OK.
So he has concerns about the investigation, obviously.
PIRRO: Yes.
TAPPER: If the inspector general ultimately does not find any criminal wrongdoing, any evidence of criminal wrongdoing by Jerome Powell, will you commit that you will not restart the investigation?
PIRRO: Here's the bottom line.
The reason that I made the decision to allow the inspector general to go forward with an investigation is because a federal judge, Judge Boasberg, made a decision that a perfectly legitimate subpoena should be quashed and that I as a prosecutor cannot go into my own grand jury and present evidence, when the United States Supreme Court has said I can present evidence based upon -- or open an investigation, suspicion, and rumors.
I can start an investigation based on that. A judge has stopped me from doing that. And, therefore, the only way to get evidence, the only way to find out what happened is through the inspector general. And I spoke to Michael Horowitz, and I said, I would like this in short order. You have the ability to talk to witnesses. I have been foreclosed from doing that.
And we continue to litigate the issue. And we will litigate the issue. We're going to make a motion to vacate the order of Judge Boasberg, because we think it's extremely important for us as prosecutors, the precedent that it sets to prevent us from going into a grand jury.
TAPPER: So it does not sound like you're committing to, if the inspector general finds nothing, you won't move forward? It sounds like you're going to keep trying to find out more.
PIRRO: No, it depends on what he finds.
TAPPER: It depends on what he finds. But if he finds nothing?
PIRRO: Let me tell you something.
When I was a DA, Child Protective Services would come in and say we found nothing. It's often that I could go in and say you found nothing, but I found a crime. So I want to see those statements. I want to see what's there. If there's something there, great. And if there isn't, I will go home.
TAPPER: OK.
U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it. Hope you will come back.
[09:15:04]
PIRRO: Thank you, Jake. Thank you.
TAPPER: Good to see you.
PIRRO: All right, very good to see you.
TAPPER: He took on the White House and won.
Next up, I'm going to ask Republican Senator Thom Tillis, and whether he might do that again, and his response to what he just heard from the U.S. attorney. Republican Senator Thom Tillis joins us next.
Plus, a liberal icon who now says the progressive left has gone too far, that's ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: So, welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION.
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Sometimes, the immovable object wins, in this case, Republican Senator Thom Tillis, who stood up to the Trump administration and got his way. At least that's how it appears.
Joining us now, Republican Senator Thom Tillis in North Carolina.
So this is about the investigation into Jerome Powell, which you said you were not going to go forward with any other nominees until that investigation was dropped. It was suspended.
But you just heard the U.S. attorney, Jeanine Pirro. She didn't rule out reopening the investigation into him. What's your reaction?
[09:20:01]
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Well, what she said that's very important is that she would not unless the inspector general found something.
That's the way this process is supposed to work. You don't create an investigation out of two minutes of testimony that seven Republicans on the committee said there was no criminal activity or intent.
So, look, I could see -- I hope inspectors general across the whole of government really drill down on projects and whether or not there was any mismanagement or criminal activity. There's probably a lot more where you may find some. I just don't think they're going to find them here. And I'm looking forward to Horowitz's report, so we can move on.
TAPPER: She didn't sound like she was moving on though. She sounded like she was going to appeal the decision by Judge Boasberg to stop her grand jury proceedings and she wanted to look. She compared it to when she was a DA in Westchester County and somebody would say there was no evidence of abuse of a kid and then she would look into it and find evidence.
I mean, that's what she said.
TILLIS: Well, she's combining two very, very different scenarios here.
Jake, when we have criminal -- this was -- again, this investigation, we got to go back and make sure that the prosecutor understands what was happening here. This was two minutes of testimony that arguably may have been a perjury trap, and they couldn't even pin the chair down on perjury.
This is very different. This is -- I think that Ms. Pirro said something about the facts and evidence and proving the case. Well, the facts are that seven Republican members, including the chair of Banking Committee, said no criminal activity occurred.
The evidence was two minutes of testimony that all of those Republicans attested to. The reason they could -- they did not succeed on defeating the motion to quash is because they had virtually no information to serve as a basis for having the subpoenas to begin with.
TAPPER: Right.
TILLIS: So, if they get criminal activity, then we will talk about it. But I think this is a nice way of just ramping it down. At the end of the day, there was no crime committed. And prosecutors that I have spoken with all agree.
TAPPER: So, I mean, I guess the idea is, the president's critics say that this investigation only happened because he disagrees with Chairman Powell, Chairman Powell resisting pressure to lower interest rates, and that's why it happened.
Just moving on to the issue of interest rates, because of the war in Iran, we are now seeing three Federal Reserve Bank presidents start to contemplate rate hikes. Do you think the president will lean on his new Fed chair to stop that? And do you have confidence that he will resist that pressure if so?
TILLIS: Yes, I think so, because the bottom line is that the reason I decided to stand in the way of this bogus prosecution of Chairman Powell is not for the one position, but how they could systematically use that if they succeeded with the chair to take out enough Fed voting members of the Federal Oversight Committee on Market, FOMC, to where they could actually control the board outcome.
Kevin is a great -- he's going to be a great chair, but at the end of the day, Kevin has to convince a majority of 12 people to vote on either a rate hike or a rate reduction. So the vote you saw, the FOMC, when they met this week, Miran voted because he thought that we should have reduced interest rates.
I like Miran. He's a good guy, but he was one out of 12. Three others who are presidents of banks, Fed banks across the country, were more concerned that we were leaning in that direction, OK? That gives you -- that gives you the best case example of how this is a consensus- based organization.
What I was trying to prevent is a series of prosecutions or moves to displace enough members to where you would have a de facto majority from any administration. And I'm less worried about a majority from the Trump administration than I am a Mamdani administration or a Warren administration and a Fed that's no longer independent.
That's what I was fighting against, not any one prosecution, but a process that would undermine the independence of the Fed and I think do disastrous harm to our financial systems.
TAPPER: Speaking of prosecutions, the Justice Department indicted former FBI Director James Comey again, this time for posting a photograph on Instagram of seashells spelling out 8647; 47, obviously, Donald Trump is the 47th presidency.
Here's what President Trump had to say about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, if anybody knows anything about crime, they know 86 -- you know what 86 -- it's a mob term for kill him. Do you ever see the movies? Eighty-six him.
The mobster says to one of his wonderful associates, 86 him. That means kill him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[09:25:03]
TAPPER: Do you think posting 8647 is a crime?
TILLIS: No, again, if this prosecution, which is coming from the Eastern District of North Carolina, if this whole case is based on a picture in the sand of a North Carolina beach, it, again, makes no sense to me.
Number one, 86 -- I used to work in the restaurant industry and I think 86 actually has its roots as a cook.
TAPPER: That's my understanding too.
TILLIS: It has its roots at 86'ing the menu or 86'ing the product.
I can't find any evidence, except some that's come up after the president made the comment about the movies. I know the penal code in North Carolina, 187 means murder, but I can't find any evidence where 86 is used as a call for violence.
And, again, if it's more than just the picture, it reminds me of the two minutes of testimony against Powell. It better be more than just the picture. There have to be facts and circumstances beyond that to convince me.
Look, and Comey is the biggest disappointment of my Senate career. I actually stood up for this man in my first term in the Senate because I thought he was being attacked unfairly. I found out later that he was a political hack and he was motivated by political agenda.
That alone, though, would not allow me to support what I think on its face is some sort of a vindictive prosecution. Republicans are better than that. Let's leave it to the Democrats. And I could point to a litany of what I consider to be vindictive prosecutions and operations against conservatives.
But let's not sink to their level. Let's be better.
TAPPER: I want to ask you about acting Attorney General Todd Blanche. You said that any nominee for that job who -- quote -- "said anything the least bit excusing of the behavior of January 6 is dead on arrival" -- unquote.
But, under Todd Blanche, the Justice Department asked an appeals court to dismiss the seditious conspiracy convictions for Proud Boys and Oath Keepers involved in the January 6 attack on the Capitol. If the president nominates Blanche as attorney general, as far as you're concerned, would his nomination be dead on arrival?
TILLIS: Well, I have not looked into the details of Mr. Blanche.
On the whole, I have had good reaction or interactions with him, but I'm not going to have situational principles. If I go back and I examine any nominee's record, Mr. Blanche just being one of them, then I'm going to make the same decision that I made with Ed Martin and with Joe Kent.
I'm not going to support their confirmation going through Judiciary Committee. I have allowed some U.S. attorneys out in other states that my members have asked me to clear. I would never allow them in the D.C. jurisdiction or in big DOJ.
Look, the -- I was there. It's very personal to me. For people who sat in their -- in the comfort of their living room and watched the events of January the 6th, they weren't there. They weren't in the chamber. They didn't see the police officers that were injured. They didn't see the damage to the building.
There is no excuse for that. If you happen to be an unwitting tourist, so-called tourist, as Tucker Carson called them, who walked into the chamber or walked into the building after it was damaged, maybe I will give you a break after you have paid a fine and served some time.
But these thugs that injured police officers and anybody who condone their behavior will not get my vote.
TAPPER: Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of the great state of North Carolina, thank you so much for being here. We really appreciate it.
TILLIS: Thank you, Jake.
TAPPER: When we come back, former Democratic Congressman Barney Frank is here. He says President Trump is imploding. His only regret, he probably won't be here to see it.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:32:52]
TAPPER: Welcome back to STATE OF THE UNION. You will remember my next guest as a trailblazer for many things,
including gay rights. He is the co-author of one of the most significant financial reforms since the New Deal.
But now, at age 86, 16-term former Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, a Democrat who is battling congestive heart failure, just entered hospice care. And as he prepares for his goodbyes, he's directing his famously sharp wit not only at President Trump, but at his own party.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: And joining me now is former Democratic Congressman Barney Frank.
Congressman, how are you feeling today?
FMR. REP. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA): OK. I have felt better. On the other hand, I anticipate feeling worse.
I'm in no great pain, but my energy level is low. Essentially, after 86 years, my heart's just wearing out.
TAPPER: Let's talk about your book. It's going to be -- come out later this year. It's called "The Hard Path to Unity: Why We Must Reform the Left to Rescue Democracy."
You are a progressive icon, but now you are expressing some reservations about where the progressive movement has gone. Tell us more.
FRANK: Yes, I know.
I have been trying to decide, by the way, personally, whether it's better to be an icon or an emoji.
(LAUGHTER)
FRANK: I haven't decided that yet.
But as far as these concerns, it's precisely because I have been on the left that I have undertaken this. I think we're in a situation where the mainstream, to my disappointment, for many years ignored inequality.
And many of us fought to get inequality on the Democratic agenda. But the problem was, as we succeeded in bringing the mainstream of the left into a concern with inequality, we also enabled people who wanted to use that as a platform for a wide range of social and cultural changes, some of which the public isn't ready for.
[09:35:08]
Even when I agree with them on the end, I think they make a mistake by taking the most controversial parts of the agenda and turning them into litmus tests. MY example is same-sex marriage. Obviously, I have been working for
gay rights starting in 1972, when I filed the bill. And we in the movement to establish fairness for gay and lesbian and bisexual people, we picked to work on those issues which were more acceptable.
We didn't get to marriage until after these other things had been resolved. And that's what I'm suggesting that we do today. The analog is males and female transsexuals playing sports that are for women.
I understand there's a lot of anger about that. And I think, in the interest of the transgender community, as well as others, it would be better to go at that in a more granular way, and not simply announce that, if you don't support it, you're a homophobe.
TAPPER: You live in Maine, where the establishment Democratic Senate candidate that you endorsed, the governor, Janet Mills, just dropped out to make way for her progressive challenger, Graham Platner.
Do you see that as a rejection of the Democratic establishment by voters? Why did that happen, do you think?
FRANK: Look, Donald Trump, we originally thought was a joke. And then he turned out to be very good at one thing, exploiting voters' discontent.
And so he won an election based on that and, since then, has gone back to being a joke. The man is imploding. He has no program that he's seeking to adopt. I think Platner actually shares with Trump this capacity toward making the most out of the anger that people feel.
What I'm afraid of is that he won't be able to translate that into enough votes. But I am concerned that, among some in my party, there's a kind of -- or there has been a flavor of the month tendency, so that someone who is knew and hasn't been able to do much is somehow preferred over people who understand the importance of hard work to get controversial things adopted.
TAPPER: You said you think President Trump is imploding. And you told Politico that you regret that you're not going to see the continued implosion of President Trump because of your current health situation.
FRANK: Right.
TAPPER: What makes you confident that he's imploding? And do you think he has permanently changed politics in America?
FRANK: Yes. No, I think he has temporarily changed it.
I was afraid beforehand. But there was a period, as I said, when we thought he was a joke. And then people were shocked when the joke won the election. And it turned out that he was able to exploit anger. And people assumed that that one talent he had showed that he was a brilliant strategist across the board.
No, it turned out to show that he is an idiot savant. He was good at one thing and terrible at everything else. So that gives me some hope, because he is going to show up with bad results. I say in the book early on that the fate of liberal democracy versus authoritarian populism will depend in part on how Donald Trump does, and if he does badly, that discredits the whole operation.
I am convinced that he does not have an appeal...
TAPPER: Yes.
FRANK: ... beside exploiting anger.
But he's so angry and his politics are so determined by this anger that he doesn't see that. And so that's why I think he's imploding.
TAPPER: What do you want people to remember about Congressman Barney Frank?
FRANK: Oh, that I was smart enough and learned enough about the reaction not to answer that question.
TAPPER: Let me just say, on behalf of myself, who's enjoyed covering you for decades and admired your passion and your brain and your quick wit, that I will miss you.
FRANK: Thank you.
TAPPER: It's great to see you again, sir. Thank you so much.
[09:40:02]
FRANK: You're welcome.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: You can watch the whole interview with Congressman Frank online at CNN.com/SOTU, STATE OF THE UNION.
Coming up: A bombshell Supreme Court ruling shakes up the midterms yet again.
My panel joins me next to discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: A very consequential week in midterm politics. My panel joins me now to discuss.
And we have a new panelist here, former Democratic Congressman from the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Conor Lamb.
FMR. REP. CONOR LAMB (D-PA): Right.
TAPPER: Thank you so much for joining.
LAMB: Thanks for having me.
TAPPER: So let us run -- do we have this mash-up of President Trump speaking? Let us run that if we have it. We don't have it.
[09:45:07]
OK, never mind. I'm sorry. So let us begin.
Several states are talking about redistricting now. And it's a race ever since the Supreme Court raced to change the Voting Rights Act, gut it, if you will. How does this affect your party's ability to win back Congress in November, given that we're -- it looks like there's going to be a seat taken from Democrats in Louisiana, maybe one in Tennessee, maybe one in Alabama?
LAMB: Several in Florida.
TAPPER: Several in Florida.
Where does this leave your party?
LAMB: It's a huge challenge. I mean, I think you have to step back and remember, what are they doing here? They are trying to keep a majority of congressional seats with a minority of public support. They're not going to get the most votes in November, and they're trying to control Congress anyway.
So it's not how democracy is supposed to work. That's why this is such a big challenge. Obviously, it's heartbreaking to see the Voting Rights Act basically go away, one of the most important laws in American history. And so it means, in places like Pennsylvania, where I'm from, where there are four potential congressional pickups, maybe even five, we really have to do our job.
We have to do our work. And that's kind of what I see is, people realize it's now a national challenge for us what used to be local races.
TAPPER: Congresswoman, this -- redistricting and gerrymandering is not new in our politics. Gerrymandering is actually named after one of the founding fathers.
But doing it in the middle of a decade, instead of at the end of the decade, when they do the census, that's what's new.
FMR. REP. JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER (R-WA): Yes. Yes.
TAPPER: President Trump clearly kicked this off when he pushed Texas to do it.
BEUTLER: Yes. Yes.
TAPPER: It's set off this redistricting war. What do you think of it all? Was it a mistake for President Trump to do that?
BEUTLER: I mean, I feel like we are all now playing the world's worst game of, would you rather? Would you rather have this or would you rather have that? When my son puts it up, it's terrible options. And I feel like that's what all this gerrymandering is going to give us. At the end of the day, it has to be about substance, not structure.
And I have seen some different estimates that Republicans might net one overall when this is all said and done. And, to me, if you're putting forth substance, you don't have to be worried about, have you gerrymandered your district?
And we both came from districts that were more moderate or at least more split. So you had to be about the issues of the district, not about the issues de jure from the leader of your party. And I think this isn't going to bode well for people feeling represented.
TAPPER: What -- do you -- was this a mistake by President Trump to kick off this? I mean, I will say, just as somebody -- not allegiance to either party, it's just gross to watch, honestly.
And it's weird to watch people decry gerrymandering in one state and then turn around and support it in another state. I mean, it's just -- it feeds into the deepest cynicism people already feel about politics.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, both sides are already in at this point, Jake.
And I understand the guttural instinct of most politicians to want to win. I'm a conservative. I want to see Republicans do well, but I think the question of how you win perhaps matters more than anything else. And you think about factionalism. You think about the divides in the country. You think about a lack of trust in our overall institutions.
Well, those things are only going to progress as a result of this. And so perhaps you win now. Like, maybe we gain a seat or two. But, for me, I think the larger question is, what happens over the next 10, 20 years? What happens to the institutions that we have inherited that conservatives purport to want to conserve?
So I get wanting to win, but we win on the ideas of capitalism, free market economies, taking care of the families, making sure that there are good schools for our children, safe communities for our kids to play.
That's the message that I think conservatives should continue to argue, the messages that we have made in 2024 that ultimately gave us the majority, that gave us the White House. You deliver on those promises, we easily win the House or maintain our majority.
TAPPER: The message of the Democrats right now is, Trump is a disaster, Trump is awful. Is there a positive message that Democrats are offering?
LAMB: I think there is.
I mean, what we're picking up out on the ground is, people are frustrated and want accountability. So that's why I think you're hearing some of that. But they do want to turn the page. And so, first, we have to undo the damage of health care prices that have gone up by literally hundreds of dollars a month for people. In my state, we have had 130,000 people lose their health care just
since last fall. And so it's not necessarily positive-sounding to say, we're going to undo the damage that he did, but it meets a real need in people's life. So I think that's kind of where we're trying to put our focus on, actually taking some of these prices that everybody wants reduced, health care, gas, which is being caused by this ridiculous war, and saying we're going to undo that first.
BEUTLER: And I agree that's what needs to happen. I agree with that.
But that's why I keep saying this is, would you rather? I mean, Democrats' solution on gas prices is not a good one. If you remember, in my state, in Washington, we had the highest gas price because of a carbon law, right? We are saying no more electric -- we're going to mandate electrification, and we're going to tell you, you can't build new construction with natural gas.
[09:50:02]
So we artificially made gas prices worse before this. So now all consumers, all Americans are feeling this burn. And so, to me, you have to be saying, what are we for that's better? I believe in free markets.
SINGLETON: Yes.
BEUTLER: I believe in personal responsibility. I believe in making sure that we set the playing field. And, right now, I don't feel like either party's offering that vision.
TAPPER: Are you ever going to run for office again?
BEUTLER: I don't know. I'd be surprised if I didn't.
TAPPER: Yes.
BEUTLER: But I see zero path or reason at this point.
TAPPER: For a reasonable Republican?
BEUTLER: Well, I...
TAPPER: Am I insulting you by calling you that?
BEUTLER: I hope -- no, absolutely.
I love the fact that...
TAPPER: Yes.
BEUTLER: ... we had to cut our teeth in districts where you had to earn the vote of independents and Democrats or soft Republicans.
TAPPER: Before you go, you lost a primary for Senate to John Fetterman, who is a Democrat right now. There's talk that he might change parties. He's certainly not popular with Democrats in Pennsylvania.
Might you run against him?
LAMB: I will probably give it some thought.
But I think the most important thing this year is, there's these people who've stepped up to run for office in, like, red -- red congressional district, red state legislative districts all around the country. And I and many others have been trying to help them, because they get trash thrown in their yards.
People sneer at them in the middle of their small town because they're a Democrat. And it's time for us to kind of have some backbone and stand up and say, we're turning the page and all the stuff you hate about us.
You're right. Like, we have issues as a party, for sure. And many people call attention to that, like your previous guest. But I think what we're trying to do, especially the younger people now, is say, it's a new day. We're going to get rid of the corruption. We're going to put some actual power into your hands, not just give federal agencies more money, but, like, do things that will help people in a place like Pennsylvania.
TAPPER: It's great to have you all here. Thank you so much.
Conor Lamb, very nice to finally meet you and finally talk to you for the very first time in my entire life...
LAMB: Yes.
(LAUGHTER)
TAPPER: ... despite what some people in Pennsylvania...
LAMB: I have been waiting many years.
TAPPER: ... may have read.
Coming up: Could Democrats get boxed out of California's governor's race? It's not as far as far-fetched as it sounds. More on that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[09:56:35]
TAPPER: With just one month left, in California's free-for-all gubernatorial primary, Democrats face a potential nightmare scenario. Could the reliably blue state go red?
Well, Tuesday night, Democratic and Republican candidates are going to face off in CNN's California governor primary debate moderated by Kaitlan Collins and Elex Michaelson. It's live from L.A. Tuesday 9:00 p.m. Eastern only on CNN.
Thanks for spending your Sunday morning with us. "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" starts next.
