Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Stocks Surge After Trump & China Temporarily Cut Tariffs; Now: Second Witness On Stand In Sean "Diddy" Combs Trial; White South Africans Granted Refugee Status Arrive in U.S.; Trump Defends Plan To Accept Jet From Qatar. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 12, 2025 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And you know, as we're going to be hearing eventually from Cassie Ventura, I wonder it could come as early as today, although it's getting late into the day. That's what we had initially thought, perhaps as early as today. So maybe that will be tomorrow.

What do you think she's going to be asked about as -- as this witness lays foundation here?

MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE & TRIAL ATTORNEY: He's absolutely the key witness. She's not only going to be asked about her own encounters with Diddy, but about others encounters as well.

She's with him 10 years, so that's what we're going to hear from her.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Misty Marris, it's great to get your perspective. Thanks so much for joining us this afternoon.

THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's the delay versus the deal.

Let's head into THE ARENA.

Right now, Wall Street surging on another tariff pause. Stocks closing significantly higher after the U.S. and China dramatically dial back this trade war for 90 days, anyway. What the White House is now saying about prospects for a permanent deal.

Also this hour, a new jumbo-sized controversy. President Trump getting hit from both sides over his plan to accept a free 747 and use it as Air Force One. The country that is giving it to him, not exactly an American ally.

Plus, the first witnesses take the stand in the trial of music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs. A live report on the testimony, and how the defense plans to try to chip away at the government's case.

Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA.

It's wonderful to have you with us on this Monday. Another day, another presidential pause. The world's two biggest

superpowers pulling back from all out economic war, at least for now. President Trump dialing back his trade war with China, giving more time to negotiators, which is, of course, adding to the uncertainty.

The temporary pause in the tariff back and forth, more than enough for Wall Street stocks closed just moments ago. All three indices saw massive gains. We're comparing it to liberation day, where it stood. You can see a little bit of that right there. This is what it looked like.

And, of course, that's the day that President Trump announced tariffs on both our friends and our foes. So, of course, everybody just wants to know what happens next and whether this pause can become permanent and yield a real agreement.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: Now that we have brought these very high tariffs down to 10 percent, I think the markets, businesspeople, live in the future, so I think we can go through at that 10 percent baseline, which is very easily easy to calibrate with.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Okay. So, we know Wall Street basically giddy over the pause. But there's this lingering question what happens if there isn't a bigger, longer term deal in the next three months?

President Trump signaling that no deal would mean redoing the tariffs of sorts against China?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They would go up substantially higher, you know, at 145, you're really decoupling because nobody's going to buy. But they can go. They got very high because of additional tariffs I applied during the course because of fentanyl and other things. But no, but they'd go substantially higher.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, as we're coming on the air this afternoon, we have new insight here at CNN into how we got to this announcement from this morning. A senior administration official tells us that the president had recently become sensitive to many of the things we've been talking about at this hour for the last few weeks, things like the potential for photos of empty store shelves and of course, the constant bad news from Wall Street.

White House officials, though, do privately and publicly insist that leveling historically high tariffs on China wasn't a misstep, but acknowledged that the president's trip to the Middle East today was a factor in speeding up some kind of announcement.

So, the question, has this all been worth it? Will it be worth it? Here's what "The Atlantic" wrote today. Quote, when President Donald

Trump launched his trade war on the world, he issued a stern warning, quote, do not retaliate and you will be rewarded. China ignored the warning. It was rewarded anyway.

This morning, Trump largely suspended his trade war in return for nothing but promises of ongoing discussions. And this is a tweet from the longtime director of financial planning at Morningstar who wrote this, quote: This has been the stupidest market cycle I have ever lived through. And concluded it -- she concluded it with a facepalm emoji.

All right, our panel is here, along with CNN chief domestic correspondent and anchor, Phil Mattingly.

Phil, would you describe this situation as a face palm emoji?

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I mean, the social media post kind of laying bare the stupidity of my workflow for the better part of the last couple of months, which cuts a little deep here, but I think underscores a point here that is important for everybody to keep in context.

[16:05:09]

One, is this the framing and the exact structure that the Trump administration laid out for their intent when they first launched, kind of the equivalent of a nuclear warhead in tariff terms over the course of the last couple of months? I don't think that would be the case. And anybody who tells you that this was a very clear, absolutely sticking to the plan that was laid out in the initial sense of things is not really telling the truth.

There can be another piece of this, too. And not to sound like an economist who's always on the one hand. On the other hand, it's important to note that the structure in which these negotiations are going to be taking place between Chinese officials and U.S. officials likely wouldn't have been taking place in this way, with these particular point people running the negotiations on each side, were it not for the most maximalist approach that President Trump took.

Where does that actually take things in the end? Look, you laid it out quite well. It is a very, very open question in terms of how this all ends.

Here's something that's interesting, though, to keep in mind as we cover all of this. The Overton window on tariffs in general has shifted pretty dramatically. How many times have we seen this on any number of issues in President Trump's time in office, both the first time and the second time, as it currently stands? Yes. The China tariffs have been pulled off for at least 90 days at a pretty significant rate.

However, there are still 30 percent tariffs in place on pretty much every good that we import from China. Also, the effect of tariffs tariff rate as it currently stands right now its just about 17 percent or so. That's the highest in nearly 100 years. Now, that's lower than the 25-ish percent it was prior to the 90-day pause. Coming into this administration, Kasie, it was at 2.4 percent.

So, tariffs right now are in a very different place than they ever were before. And people are accepting them. And the market is reacting very positively to them just because they're not as bad as they could have been. But things have clearly shifted. Whether that actually leads to any long-term deals, fulsome deals. Well, we got about three months to figure that out.

HUNT: I feel like you obviously cross across both of these things. I'm not -- I don't share your business reporting background, but I do feel like having covered the expectations game that is politics. It really does apply to the stock market, which seems to basically react to what it thinks is going to happen and not to reality all the time.

Phil Mattingly, thank you very much for laying it out that way. I really appreciate it.

All right. Our panel is here now, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams, CNN political analyst and national political reporter for "Axios", Alex Thompson, also the coauthor of the forthcoming book "Original Sin" with our Jake Tapper. Looking forward to that.

We're also joined today by CNN political commentator Ashley Allison and former Republican speaker Pro Tem, Patrick McHenry.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you guys for being here.

And, Mr. Speaker, Congressman, I have to start with you on this because this does seem like a rather abrupt about-face. Did the president get anything out of this? Did America get anything out of this?

PATRICK MCHENRY, FORMER REPUBLICAN SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Oh, a lot. And so --

HUNT: I mean, about the whole like, we did this, then we take it back. I get the benefit of him taking it back.

MCHENRY: So I think Phil set this up very well and explained, without the president taking a maximalist approach, it would have brought the Chinese to the table. You had the highest interaction between our two countries of this administration just occurred in Switzerland.

Secretary Bessent, and the trade representative negotiated. That also signals a lot to the world about how these trade deals will, will go about and how they'll be negotiated. And at the end of the day, we have a much higher tariff rate between us and China and China and mutually. It's probably the better way to say it.

So, so that is also a clear sign for the world that you can actually have a normalized trading relationship. And then finally, what I think the big takeaway in the markets are saying this right now is this economy would be on an absolute tear with a little bit of certainty what's happening with tax policy, regulatory policy safety in the world.

This is a new ballgame, and with a little bit of, you know, safety and understanding about what's going to happen tomorrow on tariffs, everybody can start buying again. People can start living. Things start happening again. This economy would be on a tear absent this tariff back and forth.

ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: But what you're saying is speaks to the inherent tensions and contradictions in the messaging. There are some people in the Trump administration that are saying, we're actually going to use these tariffs and keep them in order to bring manufacturing back, bring factories back, and there are some people that are saying, we're actually just using this for leverage in order to get better trade deals, which is sort of what you're saying.

But it actually is not clear which -- which direction they actually are trying to go to.

HUNT: It does also strike me that you're basically saying that acknowledging that the Trump administration is creating incredible uncertainty.

MCHENRY: Oh, absolutely, for sure. The ultimate game in Washington is to light the fire and show up with a fire hose and put it out. It happens in the Senate on a weekly basis.

[16:10:01]

It happens in the House among the most outspoken people in the media. This is a Washington tradition. Light the fire and then arrive to set to put it out.

HUNT: But do we really buy the idea that that's what Trump is doing?

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No. No.

HUNT: Ashley, go ahead. Why not?

ALLISON: Okay. I'm on the phone when this is going down and people are like, oh, there's a deal with China. And everyone's like, what's happening?

And these are not political folks, right? These are people in the entertainment industry in the middle of America. And they're like, oh, Trump blinked, like he did all of this, and then he had to stop because everything was going to be too expensive. And to the point of your intro, there weren't going to be things on the shelves.

And so, you're right, people did start spending again and they're like, let me get all my products now in the next 90 days, because we don't know because guess what? This isn't the first 90-day pause or this isn't the first pause he did. He did a 30-day pause.

This just doesn't seem to have the strategy behind it that I understand you giving him the benefit of the doubt, but that is actually being played out in real life. ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It's -- I think the word of the

day is uncertainty. Look, the news out of the market is wonderful today. I don't know where we are at the moment. We're not running a ticker. But you know, the Dow was up 1,000 points a little bit earlier in the day. It's responding to --

HUNT: Actually here, let me jump in because we do have our sort of reportable lines on this. The Dow, Nasdaq and the S&P 500 posted the biggest single day gains since April 9th, which is the day that Trump paused reciprocal tariffs. As of today, the Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 have erased the losses since Liberation Day.

My 401(k), it's been liberating -- Liberation Day.

WILLIAMS: Do not check your 401(k).

HUNT: Well, no, it's going to be better. Today is a great day to do it.

WILLIAMS: It will be better today but this is the problem. If the president were to be consistent with the things he had with any of these actions, you know, perhaps we could have some measure of consistency.

The problem is that the markets and, God, what I wouldn't give to have a former chair of the House Financial Services Committee, oh, my goodness, Patrick McHenry sitting across from me as I speak, as I live and breathe.

But no, it's -- the markets have been responding not necessarily to each day's news, but the fact that we don't know what's coming tomorrow or the next day because the president and the White House cannot have a consistent narrative on any of this.

And tomorrow, I wouldn't be shocked if he said something totally different that caused the markets to tank again, because that's what we've got.

ALLISON: And the reporting was that it wasn't because he thought it was going to lower prices, it was because he didn't want the bad reporting. Like, we have to know the president that we're dealing with.

He is a good spinner. He can spin things. He is trying to tell a story. The story he's trying to say is now there was a deal. The reality is that the plan that they were rolling out, or the lack of plan that they were using caused a lot of uncertainty in this economy. And so, he just walked it back.

HUNT: Well, Alex, one of the other things that were also just reporting here in the last couple of minutes accounting for the data that we've gotten in today. So, after accounting for the U.S. China trade breakthrough, Trump's 2025 tariffs will still lift prices by almost 2 percent in the short run, costing the typical middle class household $2,337 per year. That's according to the Budget Lab at Yale. This is like, he promised on day one to do the opposite of this. Is

this -- what do you think that this this change is really a reflection of in terms of his political instincts, of which we have spent many years studying?

THOMPSON: Well, Trump does not have many core political policy beliefs except for tariffs.

HUNT: Yeah.

THOMPSON: And I think he feels unburdened by what has been, as some would say.

(LAUGHTER)

THOMPSON: And feels that. Like this is. Like this is his mission is to do it. And every economy, you can bring every economist to say that trade deficits like the way he thinks about them, is stupid.

Like there are plenty of economists think you're going to have one on soon. They'll say like, its stupid. He does not care. And he thinks that this is the goal in order to not just, like bring in revenue, but also to bring back American manufacturing. And that has led to a lot of the uncertainty in the market.

MCHENRY: We're 30 years in on China's trading relationship with the world. The United States paved the way for the China to be considered a third world nation, even though they're a first world nation. For all these trading relationships internationally, we have to have a reset.

And if we step away and don't personify this with Trump, I think we agree that this is a problem for the globe. This is what you hear from every country around the globe that has any hopes of manufacturing anything. We did a dumb thing by our treatment of China, of China.

How do we get there? You can always debate with the how the president approaches this stuff. President Trump approaches this stuff always, always, even as people do this, even he will debate with himself live on tv.

But the point is to get a new deal with China and a new trading relationship globally. It will include tariffs because that is a core principle, as Alex said of this president. That is the facts. We're indexing to the fact that we have some sort of level playing field for the next 90 days, for a little bit of planning for stuff that's sitting on boats --

[16:15:03]

WILLIAMS: I would say --

MCHENRY: -- get off boats.

WILLIAMS: The one thing I would say in response to that, and I think you're spot on, but I think we have strong leadership now, but not steady leadership. And it is just the confusion that the president is injecting on a constant basis that is going to continue, I think, to lead to these spikes in ebbs and flows.

HUNT: Yeah. Congressman, can I ask you what role the sort of threat or possibility that the Chinese could start dumping U.S. debt, selling U.S. treasuries? Is that -- how does that factor into what's going on?

MCHENRY: It's less of a factor than it was 20 years ago. Still -- still an issue. It's a non-zero chance that that they start dumping debt. But there are enormous number of additional players. Theres already been a substantial amount of work on de-risking that.

And frankly, in China doing it, it's like putting a gun to their own head because it is a part of their nation's wealth that they're accruing, that they hold in treasuries. And it's a matter of a trading relationship with us. They need to possess treasuries in order to get global capital. So, it's a complex thing for them to do, but a non- zero chance that they could -- they could take action to harm us in the short run.

HUNT: It really does seem like that sort of underlying bond market concern is the thing that has been -- if there's anything that's been extraordinarily damaging or at least scary, it's that piece of this puzzle.

MCHENRY: Well, we saw this with the with the U.K. U.K. government, we can't have a slip up like that. It would be very bad for global financial stability.

HUNT: All right. We're going to talk more about the tariff pause up next with former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.

Also this hour, we'll have a live report on the first day of witness testimony in the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. It's quite something.

Plus, why there's controversy over who the Trump administration is bringing into the U.S. as part of their relocation program.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:21:11]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I said, come on. We're going to do a lot of trade with you guys. Let's stop it. Let's stop it. If you stop it, we're doing trade. If you don't stop it, we're not going to do any trade. People have never really used trade the way I used it, that I can tell you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. We're turning back to that story that sent stocks surging today. President Trump's announced a deal with China to slash tariffs, at least temporarily, to let the two s negotiate over the next 90 days. Joining me now to discuss all of it, former Clinton treasury

secretary, Larry Summers. Also, of course, former director, economic counsel in the Obama administration.

Secretary Summers, always grateful to have you here on the program.

So, what actually happened here, as you see it?

LARRY SUMMERS, FORMER CLINTON TREASURY SECRETARY: The market got a signal, probably a valid signal that the Trump administration was backing off its extremely punitive to the United States economy tariff regime against China.

And we've seen a pretty clear pattern since Liberation Day, whenever the commitment to the Liberation Day policies increases, markets go down. Whenever there's signs of backing off that commitment, markets go up. Today was a day of backing off. And so, markets went up.

HUNT: Yeah. No, I think I should probably put a little bit of -- of a finer point on it. Is it Donald Trump who blinked here or China?

SUMMERS: I think it's very clear that it's President Trump who blinked up. We had said that we were determined to impose these policies for an indefinite period. China didn't make any consequential or significant change in its policies.

Now, look, sometimes it's good to blink when you make a mistake, it's usually best to correct it and retreat, even if it's a little bit embarrassing. So, I applaud the actions that were taken over the weekend. I credit Secretary Bessent for his leadership, which he showed over the weekend, and he's shown before in generating back offs, from the more extreme of policies.

But there's no question. I mean, just look at which stocks went up and which stocks went down. The stocks that were -- the companies that were most burdened by the prohibitive tariffs on China were the ones that most benefited. It had to do with the removal of our restrictions, not any change in their policies with respect to importing of goods from us. And that's been the pattern on each one of these things.

So I don't think there can be any serious question that this is about markets celebrating retreats, not celebrating some kind of victory and accomplishment from these policies.

HUNT: Got it. So, one of the things that we keep talking about when you're here is the risk of a recession in the U.S., and I'm interested to know what is your assessment today? How likely is it that we are going to see a significant recession that Americans are going to feel, understand and live?

SUMMERS: I'm encouraged relative to when I was here last, because I think the administration is showing itself to be less committed to disastrous policies than I had feared they would be.

[16:25:02] They are reading the response in economic forecasts. They are reading the response in markets, and they are adjusting by retreating. So, I think the chances are still of a close to 50 over 50 of a recession, but perhaps a little bit on the south side of 50/50. Whereas before they I thought they were north of 50/50. Again, that is largely a reflection of the fact that the administration appears to be turning the wheel rather than driving the vehicle over a cliff.

And that's a good thing. And again, I give Secretary Bessent a great deal of credit for reading the signals from the markets and for prevailing in some of the internal political struggles.

HUNT: Let me ask you about another piece of this kind of overall economic picture Trump administration is trying to paint, and that is this massive tax bill working its way through Congress right now. The House side unveiled their sort of general blueprint.

Do you think that that package will accomplish all of the things that Republicans claim that it is going to accomplish, that is going to supercharge the economy? Because whenever I ask anyone a question about, hey, how are you going to fix this damage being done by the tariff policy? The answer is always this tax bill, is that right or wrong, in your view?

SUMMERS: I think it's more wrong than, right? First of all, the largest part of it is simply carrying on policies that are already in place. Second of all, when you borrow huge amounts of money and then you borrow to pay interest on the huge amounts of money that you have borrowed, it feels good for a while until it doesn't.

And we don't know at what point the days going to come, when people become much more reluctant to roll over U.S. debt and as a consequence, interest rates spike, doing lots of damage to our economy. That moment crept up on Britain. Britain was a stable borrower, and then they made some misguided announcements, and, all of a sudden, they were in crisis.

We are raising the risk of that every day in the United States, when we don't address the problem of the budget deficit, and when we take measures like this tax bill that are going to greatly worsen the budget situation, we are very substantially increasing their -- our risk of financial stability. We act like we have all the leverage in the world.

The truth is, we've issued so much debt that others have leverage over us as well. And prudence requires recognizing that.

HUNT: A little bit of a in that. But I absolutely take your point.

Sir, before I let you go, I want to ask you about Harvard University. Of course, you are an esteemed member of the Harvard community in so many ways. They recently sent a letter to the education secretary giving her an ultimatum or responding to her ultimatum on federal grants.

And they wrote: We share a common ground on a number of critical issues, including the importance of ending antisemitism and other bigotry on campus. Harvard's efforts to achieve these goals are undermined and threatened by the federal government's overreach into the constitutional freedoms of private universities. Harvard will not surrender its core, legally protected principles out of fear of unfounded retaliation by the federal government.

My sort of big picture question to you, is Harvard university handling this conflict with the Trump administration correctly?

SUMMERS: I think broadly it is. I would have preferred that Harvard act much more strongly than it did before October 7th. I thought the university's responses after October 7th were shamelessly complacent about everything being okay at Harvard. So I've been sharply critical of many things that have happened at the university.

But gosh, I think that Harvard's institutional citizen of the United States. It's got First Amendment rights. If Harvard allowed itself to be bullied out of its First Amendment rights to if it capitulated to federal power, if Harvard had to capitulate and just capitulate with all its $50 billion endowment, with all its prestige, with the tremendous network of its alumni, I think that would have been catastrophic for democracy in America.

[16:30:05]

And I have to say that as someone who has worked very hard and I think with some real effect within the Harvard community to bring about change, it's gotten much more difficult since there was this totalitarian overreach of the Trump administration, because there are a large number of people who don't want to listen to the arguments for change. Once they know that they're being imposed by the federal government in violation of all of the process protections that are contained in law.

So, I think President Garber, since the threat letters came, has been doing just the right thing standing up for the university, but more importantly, standing up for constitutional values in the United States in just the right way.

HUNT: All right. Secretary Larry Summers, so grateful to have you on the show, sir. I'm looking forward to seeing you again soon. Thank you.

All right. Coming up next here, the shocking and graphic allegations laid out in day one of testimony in Sean "Diddy" Combs sex trafficking trial. We are live outside the federal courthouse.

Plus, Qatar wants to give President Trump a plane that is dubbed a palace in the sky. Big question is it really a question, though? Can the president accept it?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:35:55]

HUNT: All right. We are taking a live look here in New York where right now, behind those doors, inside that courthouse, we are following the first day of witness testimony in the federal sex trafficking trial against music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs. Today, both prosecutors and the defense gave opening statements. And so far, the jury has heard from two witnesses. And seen this graphic surveillance video, which was exclusively obtained by CNN.

You've probably seen it before. It shows Combs kicking and grabbing his then girlfriend Cassie Ventura, in a hotel hallway. It was played in court.

CNN's Leigh Waldman is live outside the federal courthouse in New York City, and we're also joined by CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson and Elliott Williams.

Leigh, let me start with you. Can you walk us through what we learned on day one of this trial?

LEIGH WALDMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Kasie, good to be with you. There was very explicit details shared in court all throughout the day today. Prosecutor Emily Johnson describing decades worth of alleged abuse, including savage beatings of Sean "Diddy" Combs' ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura.

The video that you mentioned of that 2016 assault in that hotel in Los Angeles, we heard directly from one of the security guards who responded to that assault, Officer Israel Flores (ph). Flores said he filed a report with the hotel itself but not with law enforcement at the time. And he testified today that Combs had, quote, a devilish stare after this assault happened and that combs handed him a wad of cash and what he interpreted as a bribe.

But things took a more explicit turn when we heard from a man, Daniel Phillips, who testified that he was paid to have sex with Ventura on multiple occasions over multiple years, and that Combs was in the room and present and even directing some of these incidents that took place. It was at that point when Combs' daughters, who were inside the court, got up and had to leave because of some of these explicit details being shared.

Now the defense is saying that there was mutual violence on each side, and that Combs had a, quote, interesting sex life that doesn't necessarily make it illegal, because all of these parties were consenting adults. In all of these interactions, they reminded the jury that Combs is not on trial today for -- for domestic violence, and that domestic violence itself does not qualify as sex trafficking.

HUNT: Well, and, Joey Jackson, let me put that to you. I mean, you are a criminal defense attorney. That's -- it's quite an argument. Domestic violence is not sex trafficking. Is it going to work?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So that's the open question, Kasie. I think that prosecutors, what they wanted to do was to get this videotape out in front of the jury. Not even to show this isolated instance but to establish, right, that this is who he was. This is who he is, this is what he did. And so they wanted that right away so that everything else is colored, every other piece of evidence with respect to what Mr. Combs was doing and orchestrating, according to the prosecution, played out just like that, right? Only it wasn't on tape.

And so I think what the defense has to do is what they did do or what they will do. In fact, just in opening now, they'll have an opportunity, right, to cross-examine everyone here. But the nature of it is, does that make him. A using of his organization for criminal purposes? Was he engaged in this 20 year of establishing this musical business of genius just to, for his own sexual gratification? Really?

And not only that, but does that make him a sex trafficker? Because you have the issue of domestic abuse and certainly doesn't make him engaging in levels of prostitution if there's mere consent. So, yeah, there's a hard argument to be made, Kasie, but they're making and will make the argument they need to make to say, hey, he may do this and live an unsavory lifestyle, but there's a distinction between immorality and criminality. The defense will argue.

HUNT: So, Elliot Williams, I mean, which pieces which facts that we've seen play out today are the ones that you think we're still going to be talking about in a few days, weeks, months, maybe.

WILLIAMS: It's really interesting. The video is probably the one that we'll be talking about, and the video is actually tangentially, or at least not very related to the to the charges here.

[16:40:07]

He is charged with a racketeering conspiracy, in effect running a criminal enterprise involving witness tampering, obstruction of justice human sexual trafficking, and so on. Now the video helps establish a very small part of that, which is the use of force by the defendant. Obviously, he's using force in the video, but prosecutors aren't stupid. They know what they're doing and showing a video of the defendant savagely beating a former ex-girlfriend is going to get in juror's minds.

Kasie, when they were picking the jury for this trial, virtually, if not all, the jurors, a lot of them had seen this video and it colored their opinion of the defendant. Prosecutors are aware of that, and it's very valuable evidence, even if not for the thing that is being introduced for.

HUNT: Yeah, interesting. Leigh, as we wrap up here, we do know that Cassie Ventura is expected to testify. When do we expect to hear from her? And do we have any insight into what she may say?

WALDMAN: Well, Kasie, initially we were expecting to hear from her today. Prosecutors indicated that it could come as soon as today, but they're planning on calling those first two witnesses before Cassie Ventura was set to testify. We just saw the cross-examination of Daniel Phillips begin now by the defense. So, it's hard to imagine well actually hear from her today as court is set to wrap up around 5:00 today.

But in her testimony, were expecting to hear more from her about these alleged freak incidents and how she was allegedly drugged for days on end, forced to have sex with Combs and other male escorts, and also beaten and tracked down by Combs and members of his inner circle.

HUNT: All right. Leigh Waldman, thank you very much.

Joey Jackson, always grateful to have you on the show.

Elliot, of course, will stick around on the panel.

Coming up here next, white South Africans who were granted refugee status by the Trump administration just landed in the U.S. We're going to talk about the controversy surrounding this move.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:46:31]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's a genocide that's taking place. Farmers are being killed. They happen to be white. But whether they're white or black makes no difference to me. We've essentially extended citizenship to those people. And to escape from that violence and come here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. President Trump earlier today talking about white South Africans who have now been granted refugee status by the administration. You are looking at new video of them arriving in the U.S. today. South African government and refugee advocates are rejecting their need for refugee status and rebuking President Trump's claims.

Here's what the South African president said earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CYRIL RAMAPHOSA, SOUTH AFRICAN PRESIDENT: Those people who have fled are not being persecuted. They are not being, you know, hounded. They are not being treated badly. And they are leaving, ostensibly because they don't want to embrace the changes that are taking place in our country in accordance with our Constitution.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, this started back in January. South Africa enacted the expropriation act, which sought to undo the legacy of apartheid by redistributing land in South Africa. Today, three decades after racial segregation officially ended in that country, black south Africans, who comprise more than 80 percent of the population, own about 4 percent of privately held land.

Our panel is back.

Ashley Allison, let me go to you on this one. This is what the Trump executive order on realigning the United States refugee admissions program said on January 20th. This is one of the first things that the president signed when he got into office. The United States lacks the ability to absorb large numbers of migrants, and in particular, refugees, into its communities, in a manner that does not compromise the availability of resources for Americans, that protects their safety and security, and that ensures the appropriate assimilation of refugees.

So what's the difference between the refugees that they're talking about here and those refugees?

ALLISON: I could guess. I mean, I think everyone --

THOMPSON: They're white.

ALLISON: They're white. Thank you. They are white. And I think, look, if that is how you feel, fine, then hold the line.

But there are people all over the world, even people in this country right now who are seeking asylum, who have sought asylum, who are going through the process of asylum seeking and have been detained by ICE and are being deported.

There is also a genocide happening in the Congo right now that I don't see any Congolese being -- getting relief to come to this country.

So they're -- they're afghanis that helped us in Afghanistan that we have left behind. Even the last administration didn't do right by them. This administration can do right by them, but they are not because it doesn't fit the narrative of the type of immigrants that we want in our country.

WILLIAMS: And even saying, you know, there is also a genocide happening in Congo. You know, we got to be careful about acknowledging --

ALLISON: Acknowledging that there's a genocide.

WILLIAMS: -- that there's a genocide in South Africa.

ALLISON: That's right. There is no genocide.

WILLIAMS: No, of course, we're in agreement there. I mean, certainly there are white people in South Africa who have been victims of crimes. That happens all over the world. That certainly does not entitle someone to the level of persecution to be entitled to asylum in the United States when we as a nation are turning away people -- forget the woke stuff. I mean, literally people who assisted the United States military in Afghanistan are not being admitted to this country now in favor of white South Africans under some genocide narrative. That is just nonsense.

THOMPSON: Well, this is part of a larger mission within the Trump administration, which is a lot of the people, especially the senior people, especially people like Stephen Miller, see anti-white discrimination as a big part of American society.

[16:50:05] Donald Trump said that during the election campaign, and they also see it clearly as an international issue as well. But that's why they're getting rid of DEI pro -- DEI programs, not just in the government, but also threatening private companies with continuing them.

HUNT: All right. I want to switch gears and talk about this. We're going to give a Congressman McHenry one of these two top today. The second one is President Trump is currently en route to the Middle East. He has stops planned in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE.

But the main focus, of course, will be in Qatar, where Trump may be accepting a $400 million super luxury, 747, gifted from the Qatari emir. It will be retrofitted to be used as Air Force One. It would be one of the largest gifts ever.

Is it ethical or legal?

Trump says the plane will be donated to his presidential library when he's out of office, and has no concerns about using a foreign plane, as the presidents flying command center.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We're talking about we have 40-year-old aircraft. The money we spend, the maintenance we spend on those planes to keep them tippy top is astronomical. You wouldn't even believe it.

So I think it's a great gesture from Qatar. I appreciate it very much. I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer. I mean, I could be a stupid person saying, no, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Okay. Congressman McHenry, maybe I've seen the movie Air Force One, too many times. And the American TV show too many times. But how on earth is this a good idea to let a foreign government build a plane? I thought it was, like, possible to get rid of, like a single bug that the Russians had hidden under the carpet in your house or something.

MCHENRY: So, like most things in the Trump era, two things can be true, right, at once. One is that we're using Air Force One long after its expected life. It is still a fabulous airframe. The airframe that is closest to it in the world, that is existent in the world is owned by Qatar.

HUNT: So, there it is. So, we're looking.

MCHENRY: So, here's the complicated thing, which is to fly the president around. Any president around is a complicated thing. You need a complicated airframe for that, that flying White House, right? It is the only available thing that is equivalent to Air Force One in the world.

So that can be true. It could also be true that taking a gift of this size from a foreign government, any foreign government, much less one that is, tries to be a pivot player, tries to be our friend, sort of in Qatar.

HUNT: The place where that talks with Hamas are hosted with the enemies, et cetera.

MCHENRY: It's a complicated place, it just in all admit. Right? But to accept a gift like that is, problematic. So you can say these two things at once. It is an important airframe, but let's get back to this. Why are we in this situation as a great nation with Boeing headquartered here, where we can't put the -- that is a stink in airplane.

ALLISON: That is true. Talk about manufacturing.

HUNT: Yeah. Well, and so here and, Elliot, you can have this because to say this is not so like a lot of the presidents fans aren't happy about this. So, Laura Loomer, who's of course, been up in the National Security Council in getting the president to fire people, says this, I love President Trump. I would take a bullet for him, but I have to call a spade a spade. We cannot accept a $400 million gift from jihadists in suits.

I think that's perhaps you were trying to say something a little bit more delicately --

MCHENRY: I wouldn't say it that way, but --

HUNT: You would not have said it that way. But this is how Laura Loomer is saying it. The Qataris fund the same Iranian proxies and Hamas and Hezbollah who have murdered U.S. service members, the same proxies who have worked with Mexican cartels. This is really going to be such a stain on the administration as this. If this is true, and I say this as someone who would take a bullet for Trump, I'm so disappointed.

WILLIAMS: She was literally quoting Alexander Hamilton from the Federalist Papers, but just using sharper language about why the Constitution has an emoluments clause because of the --

HUNT: We have that too. We can put that up on the screen, the Emoluments Clause.

WILLIAMS: From Article One of the Constitution, that executive branch of government, people are prohibited from taking gifts from foreign governments to avoid the kind of --

HUNT: There it is.

WILLIAMS: -- to avoid the kinds of conflicts that Laura Loomer was talking about here. This is literally baked into American law.

What I was going to and she sort of touching on what I was going to ask you about Patrick. And it's -- what would -- I'm genuinely curious about this. You know, you've been a member of Congress. What would your constituents, Republican constituents, say about something like this?

MCHENRY: It depends what they think about Trump. It all -- it's in the Trump era. It's all about Trump. This whole discussion, we have 49 South Africans come to the United States as refugees, 49 and we're doing a whole block about it, right?

So, this is -- this is all about Trump. It is all about Trump.

HUNT: As it all seems to be.

MCHENRY: Always is.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next, something totally different.

[16:55:00]

A sandwich fit for the pope.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Nothing says your holiness, like Italian beef doused in gravy on a sandwich. I'm sorry. What?

Chicago based restaurant Portillos has renamed one of its sandwiches after the new American pope, and it is called The Leo. I mean, honestly, it looks like it's sent by God. The restaurant describes it as Italian beef, quote, baptized in gravy and finished with the holy trinity of peppers. It really looks delicious. But you know restaurant describes it as Italian beef, quote, baptized in gravy and finished with the holy trinity of peppers. It really looks delicious.

But you know what, Jake Tapper, can I just tell you? Like nothing beats a Tony Luke's whiz without. So maybe they should rename it for the pope.

TAPPER: I do provolone other than wiz, but I hear you 100 percent. And because of his Villanova roots, 100 percent. That should happen.

HUNT: Exactly.

TAPPER: Thank you, Kasie. We'll see you back in THE ARENA tomorrow.

HUNT: Have a great show.