Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Again Slams Judge Boasberg After Calling For His Impeachment; Trump, Zelenskyy Speak One Day After Trump Spoke To Putin; Musk On Tesla Vandalism: Shocked By Hatred "From The Left". Aired 4-5p ET
Aired March 19, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: -- three seconds.
[16:00:02]
That is fast.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: It's fast. It's impressive. But honestly, I'm not that impressed.
The young person doing that, great. Give me the oldest person --
KEILAR: The old person way.
SANCHEZ: -- to ever run a sub-four-minute-mile.
I'm not even 40. And I feel every day like when I get out of bed, I'm Suni Williams getting out of the spacecraft. Just like having people help me because my bones are calcified.
KEILAR: That's exactly how I feel. I don't think you feel that way.
SANCHEZ: Oh, I do, I do.
KEILAR: I think you -- you probably run like a seven, six-minute mile.
SANCHEZ: You think I run anywhere?
KEILAR: All right.
SANCHEZ: I run to go watch THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT, which starts right now.
Thanks so much for joining us today.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's Trump versus the judiciary.
Let's head into THE ARENA.
A new delay and new defiance in the legal fight over the Trump administration's disputed deportation flights. I'll ask the House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan about the president's
escalating attacks on the judge in the case.
Plus, what President Trump discussed in a new phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after Vladimir Putin failed to give them what they asked for, honing the Russian art of the no deal?
And anger explodes at Elon Musk with a fiery new attack on Teslas. The attorney general calling it domestic terrorism, while Musk accuses liberals of wanting to kill him.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Wednesday.
Right now, the Trump Justice Department is staring down an extended deadline of noon tomorrow as they try to avoid providing more information about deportations carried out under the Alien Enemies Act. The case now flashpoint for President Trump's efforts to undermine and possibly ignore the courts.
It's all stoking fears that the president is leading the nation into a constitutional crisis. The question this hour, are we there yet?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The judge in this case is essentially trying to say that the president doesn't have the executive authority to deport foreign terrorists from our American soil. That is an egregious abuse of the bench. This judge cannot does not have that authority. It is the opinion of this -- of this White House and of this administration. And that's why we're fighting this in court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was the White House press secretary today, doubling down on the Trump administrations attacks on Judge James Boasberg, who is overseeing the deportation case and who just gave the Justice Department more time to respond to his questions. The DOJ leveling accusations of their own against Boasberg, arguing he is, quote, continuing to beat a dead horse, end quote, by demanding answers about why his order to stop the deportation flights wasn't followed.
This is, of course, the same judge who President Trump has attacked as a radical left lunatic. He has urged the judge's impeachment. But the president is also claiming that he has not and will not defy any judge's order.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I never did defy a court order.
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: And you wouldn't in the future. TRUMP: No, you can't do that. However, we have bad judges. We have
very bad judges. And these are judges that shouldn't be allowed. I think they -- I think at a certain point, you have to start looking at what do you do when you have a rogue judge?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The president pressing on with his attacks just hours after his call for Judge Boasberg impeachment, earned him a rare rebuke from the chief justice of the United States, John Roberts.
Former Justice Stephen Breyer telling CNN that Roberts's statement was appropriate. Breyer echoed Roberts' declaration there's only one remedy if you don't like a judges ruling.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN BREYER, RETIRED SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: Somebody's going to win and somebody is going to lose. What do you think the losing side thinks of the judge or the judge's decision? Naturally, they think it's wrong. Of course, that happens every day of the week across the entire country, and judges are wrong sometimes. So what does that person do? He appeals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So are we there yet? Is the threatened constitutional crisis upon us? It depends on who you ask.
According to "The New York Times", quote, legal scholars say that's no longer the right inquiry. Mr. Trump is already undercutting the separation of powers at the heart of the constitutional system, they say. And the right question now is how it will transform the nation.
And this was Justice Breyer earlier.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Are we nearing a constitutional crisis right now?
BREYER: No one really knows. No one really knows.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: No one really knows.
Our panel is here. "Axios" national political reporter Alex Thompson, Laura Coates, CNN anchor and chief legal analyst, Kate Bedingfield, former Biden White House communications director, and the Republican strategist Brad Todd.
Welcome to all of you.
What's the -- what's your shrug test, Laura Coates?
LAURA COATES, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: No one really knows what we're thinking these days. I mean --
HUNT: Are we in a constitutional crisis?
COATES: The question is what everyone is asking all the time.
[16:05:00]
But one reason we don't know the answer is because for a lot of this, we are in uncharted territory. The idea of break glass in case of emergency was 6 or 7 years ago, and there was nothing really behind there.
Now it's the idea of how far can you test the judiciary and separation of powers and checks and balances before an executive says, look, I have the power here.
There are certainly areas where the president of United States has authority and deference ought to be given. There are, however, certain protocols and a temporary injunction or a let me figure out the actual constitutionality. And while I figure it out, do nothing that should also be heated for judiciary sake.
ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Sometimes you are in a constitutional crisis and you don't know it, and then only -- only honestly, you only really sort of realize it like by the time historians look at it, or in retrospect.
And that could be it, and to your point about checks and balances, you know, Donald Trump has made it very clear over and over again he sees checks and balances as a hurdle to jump over one after the other. He is going to continue to push and push and push and try to get as much executive authority as he can.
HUNT: Brad Todd, are we in a constitutional crisis?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think we've been in a constitutional crisis since Democrats started talking about packing the Supreme Court. We spent the last three years Democrats attacking --
HUNT: They haven't done it. They've been talking about.
TODD: Candidates for president run say they do, as senators say they should do.
HUNT: Those candidates weren't successful.
TODD: Yeah, well, Joe Biden appointed a commission, though, to push the idea and further it.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But I think this is also -- this is where the big question becomes, what is the political response here? If the judiciary is going to be locked in this battle with the executive, you know, what is the -- what's the -- what's the political response? How do Democrats respond? Are there Republicans who say this is unacceptable? And I do think, look, I'm somebody who believes that there is going to
be an accruing. Negative political impact for Trump if he continues to have this feel like it is the centerpiece of everything he's doing as president of the United States, I think that people elected him because they had concerns about costs. They feel like he's focused on these retributive attacks on judges and not on bringing prices down.
I do think there's going to be some political consequence for him. But this is the -- this is a big question.
TODD: But to be clear, he's -- he's appealing, as Laura mentioned, what you do is you appeal the order and Judge Breyer mentioned you appeal the order if you don't like it. He's appealing decisions all over the country right now in several circuits. That is normal.
Joe Biden appealed the student loan decision.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: I don't think anyone's saying there's any problem with the appeal, right?
COATES: The problem is --
BEDINGFIELD: Saying the appeal is a problem.
COATES: -- and that was the issue that this one at least judge has, has been the idea of, I told you not to do something because I wanted you to put a pin in it until I had understanding what was going on and flights took off, were not returned. And then there were tweets that said, oops, too late. They were retweeted by the secretary of state.
And so the question and by the way, the idea of court packing, that would mean we've been in a crisis since, what, FDR proposed the idea as well about them.
But the question to your larger point, Kasie, is less to me about are we in a constitutional crisis before it was, is anyone above the law? Now it's who gets to ignore the law? And that's the question I think, that Trump is trying to answer.
And the American people are saying, well, I didn't think anyone could ignore the law. But wait, perhaps he can?
(CROSSTALK)
THOMPSON: To your point --
TODD: -- there's authority to do it.
THOMPSON: There's some word games going on here because he's saying I didn't defy the order. But as my colleague Marc Caputo reported over the weekend, they did intentionally ignore it because they didn't want to pick this fight in court, because they did want to get it all the way to Supreme Court to make a decision about this, you know, 18th century law. TODD: But that's tactical. And presidents have long done that. They've picked their venue, they picked their timing, like that's part of winning a court case. They knew they'd have one.
HUNT: All right. Let's bring in to this conversation, CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.
Paula, it's interesting kind of what Brad is outlining there, this idea that perhaps in the past, presidents have chosen a little bit of how they have gone about this. Obviously, we are in particularly remarkable territory right now with how President Trump handled this specific question. The judge now seems to have given them a little bit more time. Are they trying to take the temperature down a notch, or how do you read what's going on?
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Look, I get no indication they are trying to take the temperature down a notch. I've been reporting since December that the administration anticipated that all of Trump's policies, his uses of expansive executive power would be challenged in court, and they would likely lose at the district court level.
Here, the specific controversy is, of course, over whether the administration defied Judge Boasberg's order to halt some deportations over the weekend. They had a hearing, they got some homework, a few questions, which they answered yesterday, but then additional questions they were supposed to answer under seal today. And that's where the Justice Department pushed back, suggesting that the judge was, quote, beating a dead horse by asking for this information.
Now, Kasie, I will tell you, this is not the first time that government lawyers have bristled at the idea that they needed to share sensitive information with a court, but that is not the kind of language you use when talking about a judge, maybe your opponent. But the judge gave them another 24 hours.
The true escalation that I have seen that really surprised me is what we saw in the White House briefing room, with the press secretary calling out Judge Boasberg, referencing his wife. That is the kind of thing that is the kind of attack that can put a judge's life in danger. And it's confusing that she would escalate in that way, because in speaking with people close to this case, Trump's lawyers are confident that they will ultimately win on the merits.
But that escalation from the podium, that is what really stands out to me today.
HUNT: Yeah, that's really remarkable, Paula, I'm really glad you raised that, and thank you very much for that reporting.
And let's talk about that for a second, Laura, because this is something that we have seen kind of explode, these threats against judges' lives in -- in cases, swatting attacks in some cases that have happened against, you know, colleagues of Judge Boasberg, et cetera.
What -- what impact does that have, especially when it comes from the podium?
COATES: It's happened to the Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, remember, in front of his home, he had someone who had to be removed from this. You have the tragic event of a New Jersey judge who somebody tried to take her life and ended up killing her son.
I mean, the idea of homeland security even addressing that, you know, people's political division and viewpoints are having as much fuel to the fire as anything else right now. Really horrible.
You think about the timing of it, though. Even if the president of the United States were to prevail on something like this, following the procedural respect that says, your honor, you can decide the issue is what we have these checks and balances for. And what's really disheartening, I think, for the judges, let alone those who are in it, is this idea of the attempt to forum shop.
You mentioned this idea of saying, well, you want to find it. He knows full well that Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas have already taken issue with the idea of one judge being able to have a nationwide injunction against the president's actions. That's part of their plan.
THOMPSON: Well, and the rhetoric is getting hotter, not colder. You saw Matt Gaetz and even the president of El Salvador say that this is a judicial coup in the country, and that that's going to just get angrier.
HUNT: Yeah.
THOMPSON: Go ahead.
HUNT: Go ahead.
BEDINGFIELD: I was just saying he's fundamentally treating the judge as his political opponent, right? I mean, he's taking a page out of his campaign playbook. He always wants a foil. He feels like he's strongest when he has a foil. And so he's taking a judge who's handed him a ruling that he disagrees with and treating him as a -- as a political opponent.
And that's I would say unprecedented in terms of -- of presidential behavior, but also contributes to this heightened environment where these judges can see threats to their safety.
TODD: I think Sam Alito would disagree that it's unprecedented. And I think Mrs. Alito would, too. Judge Boasberg's wife should not be criticized, nor should Sam Alito's or Justice Clarence Thomas' wife. They've been criticized a lot in the last three years by the left. They should be off limits.
But --
HUNT: Well --
BEDINGFIELD: Not the president -- but not by the president of the United States. TODD: Pretty high up. Pretty high placed Democrats, though. It's been
pretty in fashion --
(CROSSTALK)
BEDINGFIELD: -- saying be impeached.
TODD: It's been pretty in fashion for Democrats to -- okay, NBC News ran a poll this month that said which branch of government has too much power? Democrats are more likely to say the judicial branch has too much power than Republicans. We spent three years of Democrats.
HUNT: That explains your -- your pack the court, quote/unquote.
TODD: Yes. They've been trying to --
HUNT: Expand the court.
TODD: -- discredit the Supreme Court for the last three years. The chickens are home to roost.
HUNT: Brad, kind of big picture here. I mean, one of the things about Chief Justice John Roberts is and I was speaking to somebody who's been, you know, around him in social settings is that he seems to be someone who is extraordinarily old school. Right, and who truly believes that the judiciary is outside of politics. And like beyond, perhaps should be outside of politics.
I mean, have we reached a point in our American political life where there is nothing that is above politics? I mean, is there any world where we can agree that any single person is capable of making a neutral decision?
TODD: I think the federal judiciary is a product of politics. And so it's -- it's -- voters expect that that those judges will have a perspective. That's -- in fact, on the Republican side, Republicans have been voting on the issue of the Supreme Court control for as long as I've been alive.
Republicans vote for Republican senators so that they can get conservative judges. So I think it is -- that's -- that's just a reality of this. I think Judge Roberts, it's his job to defend the judiciary as a whole, all of them. It's also expected that the president is going to try to work the refs. And that's what he's doing here.
Like a basketball coach chirping at the officials on the sidelines. That's what president Trump is doing here. He knows the case is coming. He's working the refs.
THOMPSON: One thing I can also tell you that will sharpen these disagreements and these arguments even more, is that there's a lot of chatter about the potential of one of the conservative justices retiring this summer after this next Supreme Court term. And if that happens, you're just going to see this, you know, basically put on fire. COATES: You know, two quick points. One, it's not totally
unprecedented at all for a president to disagree with an opinion of a judge. I mean, we saw that with Andrew Jackson, who didn't like the ruling about the Cherokee Nation, when he ignored the ruling and said something like, you know what, so here's your order. Now you come and enforce it.
We had the Trail of Tears. We have a history of what happens when you totally ignore a judicial hearing. The other aspect of it, though, is there is a mechanism. It's called impeachment. If there is a judge who truly is wrong, who's committed a high crime or misdemeanor or bribery or treason, you can follow the same protocol that were very familiar with now.
But it's not because you hate the ruling. It's because of what their conduct actually is.
HUNT: Right? The conduct is really what's at issue.
And actually, that brings us exactly to our question for everyone. We want to know, what are you hearing? To my sources and friends, you know who you are.
[16:15:00]
Check your inboxes.
Here is the question for today. Is it politically smart or is it stupid for House Republicans to try to impeach judges that President Trump attacks?
You have to the bottom of the hour. Send us your thoughts, tips, exclusives. If it's the wrong question entirely, tell us what the right one is and viewers will let you know. Let you in on the conversation later on in the hour.
Coming up next here, new reporting on the call today between President's Trump and Zelenskyy and why the White House is still optimistic about a deal to end the war.
Plus, a recent string of attacks on Teslas has the DOJ's attention.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:20:02]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: I would just like to emphasize, we have never been this close to peace, and it's only because of President Trump that we are here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Close to peace. There is no solid evidence that the U.S. is close to securing a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. A day after Vladimir Putin failed to agree to many of President Trump's terms.
Today, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy about where the negotiations stand. Trump now says talks surrounding a proposed ceasefire are, quote, on track. And he posted on social media that his conversation with Zelenskyy was, quote, very good. It's a stark contrast from the last time they spoke 19 days ago.
That's when we saw this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(CROSSTALK)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Your country is in big trouble. Wait a minute. No, no, you've done a lot of talking. Your country is in big trouble.
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: I know.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. CNN's Jeff Zeleny joins us live from the White House.
Jeff, wonderful to see you.
This call came about 24 hours after that lengthy call between Trump and Putin. And there doesn't seem to be a lot of clarity. I mean, we can even put up some headlines about, you know, what apparently was agreed to. Is it energy infrastructure? Is it all energy and infrastructure? It is energy and other civilian infrastructure?
It's really kind of all over the place. Where does this actually stand right now?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: That is a great question. It is all over the place, but clearly there are conversations. So that is one positive development from this. You played that exchange there in the Oval Office.
You're right, 19 days ago. But, boy, it seems like just yesterday when the American president and the Ukrainian president were essentially yelling, or at least Trump was yelling and Zelenskyy was listening.
So they did have a productive, positive phone call. I think the White House reading out the fact that it was a positive phone call is a big development that negotiations, at least conversations, are back on track.
However, what does that mean? It's clear that yesterday's call Putin did not come anywhere near agreeing to a broad ceasefire, as the U.S. and Ukraine had hoped. But we try to get to the bottom of this, differences in readout between what the Kremlin said and what the U.S. said.
The Kremlin readout yesterday said energy infrastructure. The U.S. readout said energy and infrastructure, which would be off limits in this. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENSKYY: A couple different readouts from the Kremlin and the U.S. on a couple of different points. One was energy and infrastructure. The U.S. statement said energy and infrastructure. The Kremlin said energy infrastructure.
What is your understanding of what the actual substance of that disagreement was? And then one other question on that.
LEAVITT: I would refer you to the readout that was provided by the White House. That's our understanding and that's the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENSKYY: So that's our understanding and that's the truth.
However, what you're seeing on the ground, and certainly we will see what happens in the overnight hours in Ukraine if there are more infrastructure targets that are hit, that will raise questions about all of this. But the difference, of course, is infrastructure would cover a variety of things like buildings and roads and things would be off limits. Energy would be much more narrow.
But look, Kasie, the bottom line to this, there is much, much work that needs to be done in terms of reaching an even shorter term ceasefire, never mind the broader term ceasefire. But U.S. and Ukrainian officials will be in the Middle East and Saudi Arabia next week at a lower level to discuss some technical parts of this, the discussions and negotiations, Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Jeff Zeleny, lovely to see some of your questioning of the press secretary on the show. Really appreciate you being here. Thank you very much for that.
Brad Todd, I think my question here is, did Donald Trump make kind of a grave error in how he is navigating this, this deal? I mean, it seems like yesterday they basically had to try to put out a statement that suggests that Trump had actually gotten something out of it, when in fact, Putin basically refused to agree to any of the things that they were really looking for and reportedly kept the president waiting for a while.
TODD: Well, trying to do a deal with Putin and Zelenskyy is like trying to snuggle with two porcupines and it's going to be difficult to pull off.
I think you have to give Donald Trump credit for effort here, and the fact that he -- he is taking the risk of doing this in public. I think he thinks that by doing it in public, he puts pressure on both of them simultaneously. That's his negotiating style. And I think it's going to take a little longer to play out than, than perhaps, he thought at the front. But he's -- he doesn't -- I don't see any sign of him backing off.
HUNT: It's not day one.
THOMPSON: I mean -- well, it's a high risk, high reward strategy. I mean, its part of the reason why Joe Biden and the Biden administration, you know, there was a little bit of an inertia to their strategy, but in part, it's because they didn't trust Putin. And the thing is that even if they get a ceasefire, there's no guarantee that the fighting won't start back up again, even if they get a deal beyond a ceasefire, there's no guarantee that Putin might not try to re-invade Ukraine when the next administration comes in.
So, you know, but to your point, he has put a lot of political capital very early, as this is one of the biggest things he wants to do.
[16:25:01]
BEDINGFIELD: I think the other thing that is problematic about the way Trump is approaching this is, you know, as he's trying to negotiate the specific terms of a ceasefire, which to Alex's point, you know, they seem to be putting a lot of faith in -- in Putin to be a good actor here, which I think history would suggest is not wise. But -- but on top of that, Putin has effectively driven a pretty big wedge between the United States and our European allies over the last couple of months of this process.
And I think even as the focus is rightly and understandably, on trying to bring the war to a close, I think Putin has really managed to leverage Trump here really effectively to -- to create some -- some distance that is, I would argue, is going to be problematic for the United States moving forward. And that concerns me about the way that he's approached, the way that Trump has approached this back and forth.
COATES: Not to mention no administration wants to be in a position where reporters or anyone's asking, who should we believe the Kremlin's version or your version of it? That's never a good position to be in. And of course, they've addressed it. They tried to do so, but there's that lingering -- remember what happened in Helsinki? Moment of a lot of things, people in back of their minds.
I think at the end of the day, having the nuance, understanding that each and every word matters and not having Zelenskyy at the table to be the be the third person to say, well, here's what the actual readout or actually what our tangible comes out of it is really problematic.
THOMPSON: But I would also just add, if we're expecting Donald Trump to change his negotiating style to quiet diplomacy, I think we're all going to be very disappointed. And it is going to be bluster.
It's going to be hitting potentially like seeing as allies in the face, then walking back and being nice. This is just how he operates.
HUNT: And one of the things that I that Trump often says, Brad, is, he said in the Oval Office, is that they didn't respect Biden, they didn't respect Obama, they respect me, meaning the Russians. TODD: Well, Trump, two weeks ago, stopped the payments from European
banks to Russia for petrochemical products and fuel. I mean, that's an action Joe Biden didn't take from 2022 onward. So he's not just talking, he is doing and he's trying to put pressure on both sides. And he promised the voters that he'd be vigorous and he'd be active and he'd be bold. And I think he's keeping that promise.
HUNT: All right, well, well see.
Coming up next, President Trump wants to impeach the judge at the center of that deportation case. Congressman Jim Jordan, who is, of course, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is standing by. He'll join us live in THE ARENA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:31:47]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA.
President Trump and the White House toeing the line, stressing that they won't defy a court order while continuing to attack the judge overseeing the dispute over deportation flights with, of course, President Trump calling for his impeachment.
I'm joined now by the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Republican Jim Jordan.
Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for being here.
REP. JIM JORDAN (R-OH): Good to be with you, Kasie.
HUNT: So I just want to start with a simple question. Do you believe, as President Trump does --
JORDAN: Yeah.
HUNT: -- that Judge Boasberg should be impeached?
JORDAN: Well, normally, as -- as Chief Justice Roberts has pointed out, the remedy for bad decisions is the appellate court. But it seems to me you may have something a little different here. This judge's decision was so ridiculous. It seems to be political.
And then when you add to it the history of Judge Boasberg, his -- his work with the FISA court back in the whole Trump-Russia baloney, that whole, you know, fake collusion thing that they talked about, the Democrats talked about forever.
And then, of course, his sentencing of Kevin Clinesmith, the guy who lied to the FISA court, altered a document back during that same time frame. I think you might have here a judge who's acting in a political fashion. That is a different question.
And so for us Republicans and I think folks on the Judiciary Committee, all options are still on the table. We're going to do some research. We're going to dig into this, and we're going to find out.
And then I think when you really step back, Kasie, and look at how stupid the decision was by this judge, I mean, he basically said -- wait, not basically, he did say turn the plane around, bring back gang members, hardened criminals who've done all kinds of bad things, who were here illegally, turn the plane around and bring those bad guys back to the country. I think just on its face, this is ridiculous.
And so it sure looks like the judge is acting in a political fashion.
HUNT: OK. Yeah, I completely understand the argument that people are making about whether the planes should -- whether these people should have been deported or not.
I want to get a little bit more clarity on what you're saying. What specifically has Judge Boasberg done that you believe is an impeachable offense under the constitutional description of high crimes and misdemeanors?
JORDAN: All I'm saying is, if you're acting in a political fashion and not just, you know, following the law ruling on the on the law, and I would argue that, frankly, just his ruling in and of itself. Remember, the Constitution is pretty clear. Article Two, Section One, the very first sentence says power in the executive branch shall be vested in a president of the United States. The president has the authority here.
Second, he followed --
HUNT: Isn't there a major body of law that shows that he would probably likely to win?
(CROSSTALK)
JORDAN: -- predatory incursion, and that's -- that's -- that he followed the statute.
And then third, the president told the country he was going to do this. It's not like its a surprise to anyone, let alone this judge. He campaigned on it.
HUNT: Sure.
JORDAN: And said he was going to do it.
So I think when you put all that together, that's what makes this decision look so political, on the part of Judge Boasberg.
HUNT: But, Mr. Chairman, and we actually showed how many times the president said exactly that he would use this law when he was on the campaign trail. We showed our viewers some of that yesterday. So I do take that point.
But given all these arguments, if you think that this is and there is an enormous body of law out there, some of it built during the Bush administration, which I know, you know, you -- you were here in Washington during a lot of this that suggests that the president actually might win this case on the merits in the longer term under the normal process.
[16:35:05]
So if you're the White House, why not put that appeal through? Why not use the process that's available to you right then?
JORDAN: Well, there in fact may be an appeal process. I know we got all kinds of cases. I think 15 different cases now where there have been some federal district judge who's done some kind of injunction ruled against President Trump in just eight weeks of him being in office. So those are all going to get challenged. You go through the appellate process that may in fact happen in this particular case, too.
HUNT: Sure.
JORDAN: All I'm saying is this judge looks different than some of the other things we have seen and the pace that we're 15. I think in the Biden administration, it was like 13 in the entire four years, there have been 15 of these in eight weeks. So again, that's a concern. Its why two weeks ago, the judiciary committee, we passed legislation which said when a federal district judge in Timbuktu, California, issues an injunction, it should only apply to the parties of the case in that respective jurisdiction not apply nationwide. In some of these other cases that were dealing with.
HUNT: Yeah.
JORDAN: We think that's -- that's -- that's good. We passed it through the committee. Well try to look to pass it on the House floor and move it through the process.
HUNT: Sir, let me ask you about something you said partway through your first answer, which is this question. You are in charge of the House Judiciary Committee. Do you plan to hold hearings that may look at the impeachment of Judge Boasberg or other federal judges?
JORDAN: We're going to -- we're going to hold hearings on this entire issue. The 15 injunctions that have been done in an eight-week time frame, Judge Boasberg decision. We plan on holding hearings and hearing from experts talking about this whole -- this whole kind of body of law, this whole situation.
HUNT: Would you hold impeachment hearings?
JORDAN: Again, everything is on the table. We're considering all options. That's why we passed legislation.
There may be a legislative -- another legislative remedy we want to look at. But we do think it's important for us to gather information, get input on this issue. We're looking just --
HUNT: So you're not ruling impeachment?
JORDAN: -- out next week, having a hearing in one of our subcommittees. We're not ruling out anything. I never do that.
HUNT: Do you think it would be politically risky to hold impeachment hearings for judges, considering the incredibly narrow House majority?
JORDAN: Look, I'm not saying were going to go there. All I'm saying is, I think this is a concern. Judge Boasberg has raised concerns with us Republicans on the judiciary committee, Republicans in general, over the years.
When you go back and look at the whole FISA situation, remember what happened there, where the Comey FBI that took a dossier that was paid for by the Clinton campaign, hiring the law firm Perkins Coie, who hired Fusion GPS, who hired a foreigner, Christopher Steele, who wrote this bogus document, full of all kinds of falsehoods. The Comey FBI took that document to the FISA court, and they got warrants to go spy on the other party's presidential campaign, and Judge Boasberg was a part of letting that happen.
And then one of the guys who lied to the court, Kevin Clinesmith, got a slap on the wrist for actually altering a document in front of that secret court. And now he comes out with this decision, and we're not supposed to look at that? Of course, we're going to look at that. You'd be crazy not to.
So we're going to look at that. And -- but all options are on the table, legislative and anything else. And that is the approach were taking as we begin to hear from experts in hearings, we plan to have over the next several weeks.
HUNT: Have you spoken with President Trump about this?
JORDAN: I have not. I mean, I talked to him on a fairly regular basis, but I've not spoken to him about this particular issue.
HUNT: Do you think --
JORDAN: I'm going to see him later -- later this week?
HUNT: Okay. Good to know.
Do you think that part of why he called for the impeachment of this particular judge is personal, is to do with what you just outlined?
JORDAN: I don't know. I think it's probably because President Trump is doing exactly what he told the voters he was going to do, and you got a judge who says, turn the plane around, bring the bad guys back to America. Maybe the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
And frankly, when the American people hear this, they're like, what is this judge doing? The president runs the executive branch. He's the one who put his name on a ballot, got elected. He's entitled to make these kind of decisions and not have some judge jump into the executive branch function and say that he can't do it.
And particularly when the people were talking about are really bad guys who did really bad things and aren't citizens of this country, that's the bottom line.
So when you got a judge who does this, it makes you wonder, is this judge operating in a political fashion? And then when you look at the history of this guy, you say, sure looks like he is.
HUNT: All right. Congressman, I want to -- Mr. Chairman, I want to ask you about something else a little bit closer to home for you, because there is a Republican primary in the gubernatorial race in your home state of Ohio.
President Trump endorsed Vivek Ramaswamy.
JORDAN: Yeah.
HUNT: Do you support Vivek Ramaswamy for this post?
JORDAN: Yeah, I like Vivek. I think hell be a great governor of our state. There's some other good guys who are talking about running, but Vivek's the guy, I think, who's going to win this thing, and I really like his energy. I like his conservative -- his conservative philosophy.
[16:40:01]
I like the fact he's talking about getting rid of the income tax in our state.
So I think Vivek is a great candidate and will be a great governor when he wins, when he wins the election here in our great state.
HUNT: So we should consider that a formal endorsement.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: All right. Congressman --
JORDAN: I like Vivek, I really do.
HUNT: Okay. Congressman Jim Jordan, Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for being with us today. I hope you'll come back.
JORDAN: You bet. You bet. Thanks, Kasie. Be well. Take care.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, the Justice Department says the recent vandalism against a Tesla dealership is domestic terrorism. Hear what Elon Musk is saying.
Plus, new details on a private conversation between Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer. What we're learning is one House Democrat says its time for his Senate counterparts to pick a new leader.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:06]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ELON MUSK, PRESIDENT TRUMP ADVISER: I always thought that the left -- the Democrats were supposed to be the party of empathy. There's some kind of mental illness thing going on here. I think there are larger forces at work as well.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Elon Musk pointing fingers at the left over that spate of attacks against Tesla vehicles and dealerships across the country. Several Teslas were sprayed by bullets and set on fire in Las Vegas yesterday in an apparent protest of the billionaire's federal cost cutting efforts, with Musk assuming a prominent and controversial role inside the White House. The president and his administration have all gathered behind him.
Attorney General Pam Bondi announcing in a statement that vandalism on Tesla property will be considered an act of domestic terrorism and promising to impose severe consequences on those involved.
The president, who of course, very publicly purchased a Tesla on the White House lawn not long ago, reiterating what Bondi said there. This domestic terrorism label.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Do you consider this an act of domestic terrorism?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Sure, sure. I think -- I think so. I think that you will find out that they're paid by people that are very highly political on the left.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. My panel is back.
I mean, look, I think we need to be very straight. Like this kind of violence. And, you know, attacks, vandalism not acceptable under any definition.
Laura, legally, do you think it meets the definition of domestic terrorism?
COATES: I mean, that definition is an ideological act that is intended to try to persuade or change public perception or attack a government official, or attack a government policy, or to change it in some way.
And so if the intent here is to destroy property or commits acts of violence in order to do that, then it's under that very umbrella. Now there are many things to think and think and consider this aspect of it in terms of how they actually investigate and identify those responsible and what could happen next. But we have to undoubtedly just condemn the violence.
But the larger issue is that this is the new mechanism people are using in terms of a form of resistance. Whether it's even effective is a very different ball.
HUNT: Yeah. Brad Todd -- I mean, this has become very much in sort of the cultural and political zeitgeist, honestly. And I'm talking more broadly, not just about physical attacks and fires and bullets, but the way that people are talking about whether or not they will buy a Tesla.
I mean, here was Mark Kelly, the senator from Arizona, who apparently was a Tesla owner, but isn't anymore.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Elon Musk kind of turned out to be an (EXPLETIVE DELETED). And I don't want to be driving the car built and designed by an (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
So, looking forward to my new ride.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I'm not sure if he's told us what his new ride is.
Sheryl Crow, the singer, also posted this online watch.
(VIDEO CLIP PLAYS)
HUNT: Brad?
TODD: You know, I find it kind of funny. I mean, the electrification of our automobile fleet in this country has been one of the most abiding liberal passions. And before the Tesla Model S came out, about 11,000 people in a country of 300 million were doing it every year. Once Elon Musk releases the Tesla Model S, sales go through the roof, and now he accounts for over half the electric cars in America.
This is what liberals wanted. You wanted someone to make electric cars cool. And he did it. Take yes for an answer.
HUNT: When he was a Democrat at the time. Or at least it seemed that way. But he's changed since, Kate.
BEDINGFIELD: I understand people's desire to do this. I understand their frustration, of course, with what Musk is doing. I think there's legitimate -- there are legitimate avenues. People are trying to express their frustration. I personally am somebody who thinks this is not particularly effective. I think it's sort of performative.
Certainly, the violence -- the violence piece is totally unacceptable. But even the kind of performative im getting rid of my Tesla, I don't know, at the end of the day that that is doing a whole lot to persuade the average American that they should be voting for Democrats or the Democrats have an alternative vision. So I don't know. Call me unpersuaded by --
TODD: I'm going to drive a Ford F-150 no matter what Ford does on politics. (LAUGHTER)
THOMPSON: But it's interesting because like the inverse is right now, true of what you're saying is that Republicans now are like buying or, you know, performatively buying Teslas. You know, and as you remember, during the campaign, Donald Trump was mocking electric vehicles right and left the entire time until Elon Musk wrote a $300 million check.
COATES: I mean, there are other reasons why people nonpolitically who've decided to buy other cars, who still want to be under the umbrella of electric -- electric vehicles, because at the time, he was in a sort of heyday, there were very limited options. Now there are other ones you can use as well.
But the idea here, again, going back to domestic terrorism, I mean, if you're going to act in a way that is going to invite the scrutiny of law enforcement and potentially have federal -- these are federal offenses. These aren't like light misdemeanors in your local courthouses, then one would expect, if your intention is for the very reasons to commit terrorism, you should expect Pam Bondi to knock on your door.
HUNT: Well, I mean, our John Miller was, you know, law enforcement analyst was saying something similar, formerly of the NYPD, that, you know, were he still with the NYPD.
[16:50:07]
They would be looking into this and possibly working with federal partners.
You know, your point is, is -- I take your point, Kate, I am curious if this has kind of gone past what we often are talking about here, which is like we're having a conversation about what people in Washington are saying, how they're thinking -- what they're doing. I put, you know, when we ask our sources and friends, we ask today about the judiciary.
I also ask kind of offhand, you know, have you changed your mind about owning a Tesla or not? And like, the number of stories we got was kind of wild, including one Republican who says that a friend of mine was a Republican most of his life, had a Tesla yesterday posted on Facebook a picture waving goodbye to it, and then someone else got a bumper sticker that says, I bought it before Elon went nuts.
Two of my family members owned Teslas. I will not, under any circumstances, purchase one.
I mean, I asked about this honestly because its on my neighborhood listserv. People -- honestly, many liberal people who -- who live, you know, in D.C., Washington, D.C. somewhere said that their cars are being vandalized.
TODD: You know, I think it's funny is that politics is really the only consumer behavior that we put a sign in our yard for. You know, a lot of people have preferences about brands, but they don't put a sign in their yard. And I think this uproar over Tesla, these people love their cars. They've been loving their Tesla for a long time.
But voting in politics is a social behavior, and it's subject to social pressure. And it's not that they don't like their car, it's that they think their neighbors might think less of them if they're -- if they're on the left.
And that's really what this boils down to. And that goes back to all the same problems we have with social media. Here we are again.
HUNT: Let me just say that my view on it is entirely apolitical. Okay. I have never wanted to buy a Tesla because I prefer to buy cars made by car companies, not computer companies, and I have held that view since long before Elon Musk was anywhere near the White House.
I do want to switch gears a little bit and talk a little bit, Alex, about what the Democratic Party has been facing, because, I mean, honestly, these conversations are related, right? The anger people are showing towards Teslas. Its the same kind of anger that's being that's showing up at some of these town halls, and its driving some of the anger at Chuck Schumer.
And Nancy Pelosi held a press conference yesterday, and I was I was pretty taken aback by considering the relationship she's had with Schumer, how she framed this. Let's watch what Pelosi said on Tuesday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): I myself don't give away anything for nothing. And I -- I think that's what happened the other day. We could have, in my view, perhaps gotten them to agree to a third way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I myself don't give away anything for nothing, she said, basically saying Schumer gave away something for nothing.
THOMPSON: And really, the person who's considered the best negotiator on Capitol Hill calling out the other leader for bad negotiating. And, you know, even Democrats who believe that there really wasn't a way out for the shutdown and that this ultimately was the right decision, are incredibly critical of how Schumer went about this, because he basically played up and chose the direction and said, we are going -- we are -- we are ready to shut this down. And at the last second, he reversed course.
And to Nancy Pelosi's point, they got zero concessions from it. And that's fueling this outrage.
HUNT: Yeah, it's pretty remarkable.
All right. So earlier in addition to Teslas, we asked our sources and friends if its politically smart or stupid for house Republicans to try to impeach judges who President Trump attacks. Here's some of what we learned.
It's stupid, performative nonsense. There is absolutely zero chance of success in removing them from the bench, one Republican operative writes in. He knows a thing or two, I will say.
Then there's this: For folks who fear a GOP primary where they worry Trump could endorse an outsider MAGA rival, it could be politically smart to engage in this game. A Democratic house aide says this impeachment of a judge is going to happen. Jordan, who was just on our program, can't help himself. Conviction won't happen with a two thirds requirement in the Senate, but it will be a waste of the Senate's time, which might be a good thing right now.
All right. We shall see. I unfortunately don't have time to ask you about this, Brad, but I'm going to ask you in the break. All right?
Coming up next, here's something you probably didn't know about one U.S. senator, but it will be great for your next trivia night.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:58:51]
HUNT: All right. To close today Thom Tillis times three? I'm sorry. What?
Stay with us here. We are not exactly sure why the Internet has suddenly discovered this, but it has. Last night, a reporter tweeted his discovery that Senator Thom Tillis has a brother named Thomas. Then Kate Nocera, a reporter, retweeted that there's actually a third Tillis brother, also named Thomas.
So yes, the senior senator from North Carolina, he's one of five children, all three sons are named Thomas Tillis. Of course, their father is also named Thomas Tillis. This may explain it.
Senator Tillis is the only one who actually goes by Thom. One brother goes by Rick, the other goes by Ron. Rick, by the way, a former Tennessee state lawmaker.
It isn't totally unheard of for this to happen. You might remember heavyweight champ George Foreman famously named all five of his sons, George, saying he wanted them to have something in common.
I'm going to struggle not to make a joke about the male ego, but -- how many -- four of us have kids? Would any of you name your kids the same thing?
BEDINGFIELD: I would not.
TODD: No.
HUNT: Alex, any plans?
THOMPSON: No.
HUNT: Jake Tapper, what about you?
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, THE LEAD: I have a Jack. My son is Jack Tapper. But it's different. HUNT: Passing your name down to one of your children is a totally,
you know, hallowed tradition here in the United States. But then having them share the same name with, with two, in this case, additional people.
TAPPER: I don't know. I hadn't even thought about it. We have four pets. Maybe I should have named them all Jack -- Jake.
HUNT: Four dogs named Jake Tapper. That would be confusing or something.
