Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Supreme Court Blocks Trump From Restarting Deportations Using The Alien Enemies Act; House Republicans Halt Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill"; Cassie Ventura Finishes Testimony In Sean "Diddy" Combs Trial. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired May 16, 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]
SUSAN HUTSON, ORLEANS PARISH JAIL SHERIFF: It was a fluid situation. We're still gathering information. We are investigating our own to find out (INAUDIBLE) where those lapses were.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: A really eye-opening update there from officials in Louisiana. These ten inmates escaping, apparently, the official there pointing to faulty locks that she had warned local authorities about repeatedly, something that she had asked for money to fix. And now these ten inmates are on the loose, some of them with an array of charges, including murder. The sheriff's office, of course, urging the public to be on high alert for those missing inmates.
Stay with CNN. We're going to keep tracking this story.
"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt.
It's wonderful to be with you on this Friday afternoon.
We do have breaking news from the Supreme Court as we come on the air. The justices weighing in on President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act.
Let's get straight to CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.
Paula, what are we learning?
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, Kasie, this is a loss for President Trump. But this is not the final word. We know that he wants to speed up deportations. And as part of that plan, he has invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which allows him to proceed with deportations with less review than he would otherwise. Of course, this has set off litigation across the country.
And here today, the Supreme Court has blocked the president from moving forward with deportations under this act, for a group of immigrants in northern Texas. So, he's siding with a group of Venezuelans in Texas who are worried that they were going to be imminently removed under this authority. So, he's taking this issue and he's sending it back down to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to decide certain questions. Important questions here, particularly about how much notice these individuals received in terms of the process that they are due. This is one of the issues that has come up in a lot of these cases.
Now, while this is, again a significant loss for the president, this is temporary. And this underlying legal fight continues to play out across the country.
HUNT: Paula Reid, thanks very much for that update. And please do stand by for us, if you don't mind.
I want to bring in now, CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.
Elie, thank you so much for jumping in front of a camera for us with this breaking news.
What do you make of it? I think worth noting, of course, that we did have two justices, conservative justices, making their dissent known.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, Kasie. So, this goes back to Trump's effort to deport alleged gang members of Tren de Aragua gang under the Alien Enemies Act.
Now, this is a 1798 act passed in the year 1798, to be clear, that says that the president can -- the administration can deport non- citizens if they are part of an invasion or an alien incursion in the United States. Now, the Trump administration is trying to apply that for the first time in history to a non-wartime scenario. All the prior times that was applied have been during the War of 1812, World War I and World War II.
Now a federal district court judge in Texas, a Trump appointee in fact, found that the presence of a gang or illegal aliens in the United States is not what that law means by an invasion. And at this point, with today's ruling, the Supreme Court has decided we're not going to overrule that. We're going to send it back down to continue through the appellate process, to decide, A, whether the Alien Enemies Act applies, and B, if it does, how much notice -- how much due process do people get to challenge it?
HUNT: All right. Elie, stand by for us.
Our panel is joining us now, Joanna Coles, Alyssa Farah Griffin, Jamal Simmons and Chapin Fay, Republican and Democrat -- Democrat and Republican, respectively. Excuse me.
Thank you all for being here.
Alyssa, I want to start with you on this because of course, this again, something that we have been talking about for most of Donald Trump's short time as a second term president. It has become a very significant lightning rod of an issue. We know that a lot of its being driven by Stephen Miller out of the
White House, because, of course, using this act in this manner, something that he has focused on and thought a lot about. And of course, you have spent some time working with him.
Can you help us understand how this is going to be received in the White House, what you think this means politically?
ALAYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So I can't imagine it will be received well. I would expect well have some troops incoming within the hours that the president doesn't think that this was the proper ruling, but I would actually say there's a world in which this is an opportunity for Donald Trump. So, on one side of the immigration debate, border security, Donald Trump deserves tremendous credit for effectively ending the border crisis in the first hundred days in office. That is something that's widely popular with the American public.
On the other side of immigration, for the first time since he walked down the escalator in 2015, he is underwater in terms of approval for how he's handling immigration, and it's directly tied to deportations without due process. Americans simply do not like that.
So, this is actually a moment where his White House could take a beat. They could pause on using this as a means of enforcement and think about something like getting Congress to give them funding for more immigration judges find out ways that they can speed up the process in a legal manner, rather than denying people due process and doing it the way it's supposed to be done.
HUNT: Yeah.
Chapin Fay, I mean, you've done a lot of work to try to elect Republican candidates. And I mean, Alyssa is right in that the president has had the high ground with American voters on immigration. This is one of the issues that they said they supported him on in the presidential election. But do you think that it's right that this is what's going too far?
CHAPIN FAY, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, yeah. There's no question he was elected to tackle this problem. Right. And, you know, you got to love checks and balances, right? I think she was absolutely right in this is an opportunity for him to get some of the people he's lost on swinging too far in one direction, right? That's what the Supreme Courts job is to be. A check on the executive branch. And it's going to continue to wind its way through the -- through the -- through the legal avenues in the court system.
But there's no question this is what a huge mandate for Donald Trump. The American people are behind him, and now he's got to figure out how to do it legally in a different manner.
HUNT: Jamal, how do you -- how do you look at this?
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It seems like the administration is out of control. And I think there are a lot of people in this country who just wonder whether or not the administration understands how to govern, how to govern with the Supreme Court oversight, how to get the things done they want, and to have it pass muster.
Over and over, whether it's the problem with using commercial apps to discuss battle plans, or it's whether or not you get your immigrants, you get to just mass deport people who maybe aren't even members of the gang that you say they are -- they're members of, and they get put away without due process. I think the American people want to know the president can do the job, and I usually argue against process when I'm talking to candidates or people who are like arguing process -- nobody cares about process.
But there becomes a point where it all seems to be too far, too fast, too dumb. And that's where I think where we are.
JOANNA COLES, CHIEF CONTENT OFFICER, THE DAILY BEAST: I think -- I think. People do care about process, actually, and I think what the American people -- to echo you for a second, unlikely echo, don't want people coming into the country illegally, but they don't want people being deported illegally either. Which is what's happened. But what's so fascinating is thinking about this from the presidents point of view, that this takes the edge off his shiny new toy, the plane from Qatar, right? The $400 million plane that he has greedily accepted.
And I think he was expecting to come back and take a victory lap. And in fact, what he's got is a MAGA meltdown over both this and, of course, his big shiny bill, which has also get kicked back today.
HUNT: Which is, of course, what we were initially planning on leading the show with the conversation, but it's all part of the same thing, isn't it? Which is they overreach and then the courts kick back. Or in fact, as it turns out, this time his own party has kicked back.
SIMMONS: And it's the -- it's the gang that can't shoot straight. It's the Keystone Cops. I think ultimately for a lot of people in the country, candidates -- candidates next year, Democratic candidates will be arguing process matters. Doing this in an orderly way matters. We need a government that is under some level of control by people who know what they're doing.
HUNT: Elie Honig, the big picture question, I think, or one of them that we have been asking about Donald Trump since he took office this second time, is whether he was going to try to push back or just simply not follow a court order. Now, I think it's important to underscore the White House does seem to say out loud, to underscore that they are not disobeying a court order.
But, of course, it's this case, this issue of this plane that disappeared in the middle of the night with Judge Boasberg who said, basically turn that plane around. And the administration said, well, you didn't write that down in time for us to turn that plane around.
Now, it seems like the Supreme Court has said, obviously, not the final word on this, because it's going to go back down. But to continue to do this would be to defy a Supreme Court order. What do you think is the risk that that might happen?
HONIG: Right. So, the administration has not quite stepped over that line of defiance, but boy, they've put four toes right on that line, both in this case and separately in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. They have certainly violated the spirit of what the courts have intended, if not quite the letter.
And what we see really in this case, and an earlier ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, is a fundamental lack of trust from the Supreme Court towards the administration. You may remember, three or four weeks ago, the Supreme Court issued a ruling at 12:55 a.m. after midnight on a Friday into a Saturday, where they said, essentially, hang on, don't send anyone out under the Alien Enemies Act because it looked like the administration was starting to gas up the planes again to try to do the same thing they did back in March. As you just mentioned, Kasie, where there was an ongoing hearing.
And while that hearing was going, the planes took off. And then the judge said, you need to turn them around. And then the administration said, well, they're already over international waters. And you see that again, in this ruling, the Supreme Court is really saying in this ruling, the fundamental holding here today is, hold on, everybody. We need to go through the court processes.
[16:10:01]
Nobody should be getting shipped out while this is happening. And we need to make sure the lower courts figure out how much notice these deportees are entitled to. They shouldn't just be whisked away and what type of due process they're entitled to.
HUNT: All right. Elie Honig, thank you very much for that.
Our panel is going to stand by for a second.
We do want to turn now to this story. As President Trump is on the way back from his first major international trip, and basically, for him, it's not a moment too soon because his big, beautiful bill, quote/unquote, is becoming a big, painful headache.
Just hours ago, the Republican-led House Budget Committee voted down, voted against advancing their own party's tax and spending bill. This was a small group of Republican hardliners who dealt the president an embarrassing, if likely, temporary, setback.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOSH BRECHEEN (R-OK): I think some of us are having real consternation this morning.
REP. ANDREW CLYDE (R-GA): Unfortunately, the current version falls short of these goals and fails to deliver the transformative change that Americans were promised.
REP. RALPH NORMAN (R-SC): Sadly, I'm a -- I'm a hard no until we get this ironed out. REP. CHIP ROY (R-TX): This bill falls profoundly short. It does not do
what we say it does with respect to deficits. I am a "no" on this bill unless serious reforms are made today, tomorrow, Sunday.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, this bill has always been important for the president. But it's even more critical now after his sweeping tariffs have sent shockwaves through the global economy and threatened to throw the U.S. into a recession. This is he's returning to some additional tough economic news.
A new survey out today finding Americans are deeply worried about where the economy is headed. Consumer sentiment slid to the second lowest level on record. That brings us back to the so-called "big, beautiful bill," which again, is currently the Republican answer to everything.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: If you're a small business owner, this is a very challenging time because you don't know what to expect. The markets don't know what to expect. The bond market doesn't know what to expect.
So putting that clarity in as early as possible is critical for everybody who is in a position like you are. And so, the way to do that is with one big, beautiful bill, okay. Like that's the president's phrase, and I've adopted it. In fact, I have it tattooed on my chest here. I can show you. It's that important, right?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's so important that we pass the big, beautiful bill. Got to get there. Close your eyes and get there. It's a phenomenal bill.
Stop grandstanding. Just stop grandstanding. Boy oh, boy, oh, boy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining us now to discuss is White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett.
Sir, always good to see you. Thanks for being Hin THE ARENA.
What are these Republicans on the budget committee doing? Are they grandstanding, as the president seemed to suggest there?
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: Well, well, it's actually interesting to go back to studying the way the process works. So, the Budget Committee writes the rules, and, then all the other committees obey those rules and send the bill back to the Budget Committee to sew them all together and then get it to the floor.
HUNT: Sure. HASSETT: And so, all the bills that went to the Budget Committee
followed the Budget Committee's rules in the first place. And so now after that, apparently, some members of the Budget Committee think that it's appropriate to change the rules that they themselves wrote.
I think when President Trump lands later this evening, I'm sure he's going to be making some phone calls. I've heard that there's another meeting coming up on Sunday. And that my guess is that by Sunday, this is fixed. This is the kind of thing that happens in legislation, and I don't think anyone should think the big, beautiful bill isn't going to pass. It's going to pass.
HUNT: You're laughing. Is that because -- I get the sense you may be imagining what those conversations between the president when he lands and these members of congress may be like? Yeah, can you -- what might that be like?
HASSETT: When you're trying to -- well, I guess just the point is that when you're taking a position that's the opposite of your own position and then just sort of putting gum in the works, then, you know, that's a conversation that's difficult to have with anyone. It will certainly be difficult for them to have it with the president if they don't change their mind by like around 9:00 tonight.
HUNT: Okay. Straightforward. What do you think the consequences would be if they -- if they didn't change their mind by like 9:00 tonight?
HASSETT: Well, they'll just have to listen to the president and hell listen to what their concerns are. And then perhaps they'll adjust to the bill. But I'm not so sure that that's what the president is going to be in the mood to do.
I have high confidence -- I've spoken with the speaker of the house, and I've spoken with Jason Smith. I've looked at, you know, Chairman Guthrie's incredible work with Energy and Commerce, and everybody wants this bill to pass the House leadership. And there's a few people that are holding out. And that's normal, how politics works in the legislative branch. People are trying to get that last little bit of thing they want in there into the bill before they say yes.
HUNT: One of the things that is the biggest sticking point are questions about the cost of the bill. And one of the answers that the budget committee is looking for is to accelerate the timing on changing work requirements for Medicaid, applying those requirements earlier.
[16:15:07]
Is the president supportive of that?
HASSETT: The president supports prudent reforms that end waste, fraud and abuse, but he absolutely is waiting to see what they -- what language they have and will judge it when we see it. The thing, though, is that if you're thinking about the budget hawks, the people who are worried about the budget or deficit hawks and holding up the bill, it's just such an implausible position for them to have right now because for one thing, the growth assumption that they're going against is about 1.8 percent in the long run GDP growth.
And I think a more reasonable guess would be three. If you have 3 percent growth instead of 1.8, then that gives you 4 trillion more in revenue, which is about the size of the bill. In addition, we just -- we're seeing now that tariff revenues coming in at about 6 billion a week, 6 billion a week. And so, you're looking at a couple to 300 billion in tariff revenue that again is --
HUNT: But those tariffs are also jeopardizing that GDP growth number that you just threw out there. I mean, our GDP was negative in the first quarter.
HASSETT: Core GDP was three. The jobs numbers have been really, really strong. Inflation numbers are back to the Fed's target. And so, I think I disagreed with you that we're close to recession.
The hard numbers are really, really good. In fact, if you look at first quarter capital spending, it was up 20 percent. That's like the building boom that all of this is meant to create.
HUNT: Are you confident that these tariffs -- there were -- we also heard from the president. There are a series of letters that are planned to be sent out to countries that have yet to make trade deals by the 90-day deadline.
Do you feel like businesses can operate in a space of certainty in terms of these tariffs continuing to remain at the levels they are today, and not the threatened levels over the summer?
HASSETT: Well, you saw that we've got a great deal with China, with the U.K., I expect that were going to be announcing 20 to 25 more deals in the next week or two, and they're all going to have at some point. They're going to have a characteristic that's visible to everybody about where they need to go in order to finish up.
And so, I think uncertainty about tariff policy is very close to resolved because of the deals that we've shown there.
HUNT: What is that common factor?
HASSETT: Really, a nice -- they're a nice template for everybody to see, okay, this is what -- this is what we need to do. And again, one of the main things that we've been getting out of these negotiations is that foreign countries are opening up their markets to U.S. producers, to U.S. goods in a way that's never been seen before. And that's really, really great for American businesses and workers, for wages and everything else.
HUNT: All right. Kevin Hassett, you promised 20 to 25 trade deals in the next week or two. So come back, report back.
HASSETT: I'm hopeful, but yes.
HUNT: Let us know. Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.
All right. We're going to have much more on where Republicans go from here with Republican senator John Kennedy. He will be live here this hour. He always has something fun to say about everything.
Also coming up, why the Trump administration says they are investigating former FBI Director James Comey.
But first, days of dramatic testimony by Cassie Ventura in the criminal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs comes to an end. We're going to have a live report from court and what her lawyer is now saying.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:02]
HUNT: All right. A live look at the federal courthouse in New York City, where Sean "Diddy" Combs ex-girlfriend and accuser, Cassie Ventura, has just stepped off the stand. Over the past four days, she testified for nearly 20 hours in this high-profile sex trafficking trial.
CNN's Kara Scannell is live for us outside federal court. And we're also joined by CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson and Elie Honig.
Kara, you have been in court all week. You have watched all of Cassie's testimony. Tell us what happened in this final day.
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. Kasie, as you said, this is the fourth day on the witness stand for Ventura, where she endured questions from prosecutors and cross-examination, reliving the experiences, the freak offs and what she said was the coercion that she felt she had to engage in and act as a sex slave for Combs.
Now, on cross-examination, Combs's lawyers today were focusing on her potential financial incentives because when she filed the lawsuit in 2023, Combs settled it the next day. We learned through her testimony that she received $20 million. Combs lawyers asked her about that and if she had canceled a planned tour because she now had this windfall.
We also learned that just in the past few weeks, Ventura settled in the process of finalizing a settlement with the Intercontinental Hotel, where that assault caught on camera, took place for $10 million.
So, when she was asked about that by the cross, it was then turned for the prosecution to question her on that. And when they asked her if she would have given the $20 million back if she never had to engage in any of these freak offs, Ventura became emotional.
And here's what she said. She said: I give that money back if I never had to have freak offs, if I never had to have freak offs, I would have had agency and autonomy. And at this point she really broke down into sobs. She then said, and I wouldn't have had to work so hard to get it back, referring to her agency and autonomy after court, her lawyer walked outside, spoke to the media and issued a statement. Here's some of what he said on behalf of Ms. Ventura.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DOUGLAS WIGDOR, CASSIE VENTURA'S ATTORNEY: This week has been extremely challenging, but also remarkably empowering and healing for me. I hope that my testimony has given strength and a voice to other survivors, and can help others who have suffered to speak up and also heal from abuse and fear.
For me, the more I heal, the more I can remember.
[16:25:00]
And the more I can remember, the more I will never forget.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCANNELL: Now, Ventura is not the only accuser who is expected to testify in this trial, but she is certainly the star of -- for the government's case because so much of this case was based on her allegations -- Kasie.
HUNT: Joey Jackson, let me go to you. The defense read some text messages that Diddy sent to Cassie years after they broke up. So, in March of 2020, Diddy writes this to Cassie, quote, my heart is filled with joy to know you don't hate me. I hope you can forgive me. And quote, we went hard.
Joey, what was the point of the defense pushing and pulling these messages out in particular?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, I think you want to look at this in context, Kasie, right. and I think the overall arching theme of the defense, a couple of things. Number one, they needed to humanize their client to demonstrate that he was loving. He was charming. He was engaging things that Cassie said that he was. But in addition to that, there's this fight about coercion.
Now, why is this coercion fight so important as to whether or not, look, we had a freaky relationship. It wasn't illegal, right? Maybe other people don't necessarily think that this was appropriate, but does it make it illegal? But the coercion fight gets you sex trafficking, and that's why there was so much time spent upon whether or not she orchestrated this, much less participated in it, whether she looked forward to it, whether she was enthusiastic about it, or whether this was just his abuse, his control, his coercion.
So, the overall theme and the fight with the jury is going to be, hey, did she know what she was doing? And did she do it willingly, or was she coerced? Was she abused? And did she have to do it for fear of what Diddy would do to her? And that's the whole essence of all the text messages that we saw and the email exchanges.
HUNT: So, Elie Honig, how do you think it played? I mean, how did her testimony play?
HONIG: Well, I think both sides here have something that they can look to and believe that they benefited from, in Cassie Ventura's testimony, from the prosecutions perspective, everything I've been able to read and gather from talking to our reporters in the courtroom is that she was very effective, that she came across as credible, that she came across as not straining to harm Sean Combs with every answer and as sympathetic and likable, according to the people in the courtroom.
So, I think as a prosecutor, you're happy with that, she told a compelling, dramatic story about what she had went through. But I think the defense lawyers also scored some substantial points. They didn't have to tear her down. They didn't try to tear her down. They didn't try to suggest to the jury that she was a liar. They didn't try to suggest that she was a horrible person. Instead, what they argued is, as joe just said, this was a very tumultuous, abusive relationship.
Sean Combs absolutely physically assaulted her. But the argument and I think they laid some foundation for this through Cassie Ventura is this was, first of all, not coercive. This was consensual. And second of all, this doesn't satisfy the technical legal requirements for operating a racketeering enterprise that Sean Combs is charged with.
So, I think both sides have something they can build on here. Cassie Ventura is going to be the most important witness in this case, but she's not going to be decisive one way or another. This is not over.
HUNT: Joanna Coles, let me let me bring you in on this because of course, this is playing out very publicly. Cassie Ventura seems to be from the public perspective, an extraordinarily sympathetic figure in all of this. But, of course, the people that matter, the jury.
COLES: Well, a couple of things. First of all, I think if a man had been sufficiently pregnant that he was due to give birth at any moment, he would have demanded a stay and would have got a stay. So props to Cassie for actually doing this, literally, as she's about to give birth.
Secondly, I wish we had cameras in the courtroom. Those drawings are really peculiar. They just are. They're as bad as the freak offs. I'm sorry, but they're very strange and they don't bear any resemblance to the people. They're perhaps not as bad as the freak offs. I'm sorry.
HUNT: Because they all might be a little bit far.
COLES: We all have to use them, but they are particularly strange, I would -- I would say. "The Daily Beast's" Michael Daily has been down at the courtroom every day, and he says the most extraordinary thing is actually watching Janice Combs, Diddy's mom, sitting behind him as she has to listen, watch the video endlessly of the hotel video of him beating Cassie up, and then having to listen to his various activities during the freak offs and his children and his grandchildren at one point leave the courtroom.
But this entire sort of broken family sitting behind this tyrannical father, it's the most extraordinary drama.
HUNT: Alyssa? GRIFFIN: I think Elie made this point that they certainly haven't proved the case yet. This is the beginning of what's going to be a months-long trial. Cassie Ventura's testimony. Incredibly compelling, incredibly brave. I mean, this woman dealt with just unconscionable actions that she had to then relive by sharing.
But I feel like they're going to need to bring in some kind of an expert witness who can contextualize the nature of abusive relationships, and why she felt coerced and had to stay, despite the fact that she publicly appeared at events with him, despite the fact that there was some level of love and she had some sympathy.
[16:30:13]
That's the connective tissue that I think they're going to need to add to really show that she couldn't get away even if she wanted to.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, we're going to change gears entirely. Louisiana Senator John Kennedy will be here live in THE ARENA. What he sees as the way forward on the president's priorities in Congress.
Plus, homeland security now addressing a report that they're considering a reality TV show where immigrants compete for U.S. citizenship.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:35:05]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back. Next steps emerging on Capitol Hill right now for that imperiled Republican big, beautiful bill, which was blocked by Republican hardliners in a key committee earlier today. Members of the House Budget Committee now set to reconvene Sunday night at 10:00 p.m. after what's likely to be a busy weekend of negotiations. Sounds like a lot of fun, 10:00 p.m. on Sunday night for a budget committee hearing.
Joining us now to discuss, Republican senator of Louisiana, John Kennedy.
He serves on the appropriations, banking, budget and judiciary committee.
Senator, always great to have you here in THE ARENA. Thanks so much for coming on today.
I spoke to Kevin Hassett earlier this hour, and he actually couldn't contain his own laughter when I asked him about what was going on in the House Budget Committee with these hardliners. What exactly are they accomplishing by doing this?
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Well, look, I see what you see, what the American people see us. I would describe it as a -- I don't know modestly Kafkaesque. You have to remember that when you're dealing with really important issues like the House is dealing with members of Congress tend to not be like most teenagers. They're all over 40.
In over 300,000 years of human history, nobody's ever calmed down when they're told to calm down. So, I'm not going to tell my house friends to calm down. But I would tell them to, gently, number one, take their meds. And number two, keep their eye on the ultimate objective.
The ultimate objective here is yes, to reduce spending. And I can come back to that. But number one is to extend the tax cuts. If we do not extend the tax cuts on December 31st of this year, there will be a $4.3 trillion increase on the American people, hundreds of thousands of people will be thrown out of work. A lot of those will end up living. I don't know, living in a refrigerator box behind out back.
We can avoid that by extending the tax cuts. And that's the main objective. The second objective is reducing spending. That will lower prices. It will -- it will lower interest rates. How much?
I'm asked all the time, Kasie, how much spending do you want to reduce? I want to reduce as much spending as we can until we run out of votes. But everybody's not going to walk away from this happy? You can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. And well never get it resolved until Trump weighs in.
HUNT: Well, it certainly sounds like Mr. Hassett believes that that President Trump will be weighing in and that the budget hardliners may have a different song to sing on Sunday. And I do appreciate your parenting and marital advice about telling people to calm down.
Let me change gears briefly because we had some news on immigration here at the beginning of the show. The Supreme Court weighed in and said that the president cannot use the Alien Enemies Act to deport people until more decisions are made by lower courts.
Do you think that's the right call?
KENNEDY: Well, actually, I haven't read the whole opinion, but I've read the news excerpts. I think what the Supreme Court did was just extend its hold, if you will. I don't think they've reached the merits yet.
You know, it's an interesting case. The statute is old, passed in 1798. It basically says a president can deport migrants without due process. If the country is being invaded by another nation. And the president, President Trump says, well, these MS-13 guys had the support of Maduro in Venezuela. I think the case is going to turn on the facts.
And -- but I don't think the Supreme Court is ultimately has ultimately ruled yet. They have extended the whole, though. That's -- that's what I've read.
HUNT: Fair enough.
One other topic of conversation today is, of course, that tweet from the former FBI director, James Comey, now deleted, showing the numbers 86 47 in the sand. Do you think that was an appropriate thing for James Comey to put on social media?
KENNEDY: No. Look, you can only be young once, but you can always be immature.
[16:40:00]
I know Mr. Comey pretty well. He's been a lot of Senate committees. He's very self-assured.
As Lyndon Johnson used to say, he can strut sitting down. He's got a chip on his shoulder. In fact, the chip on his shoulder has a chip on its shoulder.
He, as an FBI director -- he interfered not just in one presidential campaign. He interfered in two. He tried to screw both Trump and Hillary Clinton. People have forgotten that what he tried to do to Secretary Clinton.
Did he -- did he -- yeah. I mean, he a good argument can be made he cost her the election. You know, I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. I just I'm not saying -- I don't know what his intent was, but it was bone deep down to the marrow. Stupid. And I don't feel sorry for him.
HUNT: Do you think he was calling for violence against President Trump as -- as the great master of a pithy phrase. Most people who use this term seem to come out of the restaurant industry and insist that that's not something that is a statement of violence. What is your view?
KENNEDY: I have no idea. I don't know what was in the guy's head or in his heart. Comey's a little bit neurotic, and he loves attention. I mean, he loves attention. And I mean, I just don't know, maybe he was trying to get attention. If he -- if he was trying to do it, he succeeded.
He's got the attention of a whole bunch of FBI agents. So, we'll see. So, I honestly don't know what the guy was thinking. He probably actually wasn't thinking.
HUNT: All right. Senator John Kennedy, always grateful to have your perspective, sir. Thanks so much for being here. Hope to see you soon.
KENNEDY: Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next, more on the state of political threats and violence in the U.S. and whether the administrations investigation into James Comey over what we were just talking about has merit.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:46:30]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JESSE WATTERS, FOX NEWS HOST: Do you believe Comey should be in jail?
TULSI GABBARD, DNI: I do. Any other person with a position of influence that he has people who take very seriously what a guy of his stature, his experience and what the propaganda media has built him up to be.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The Trump administration has opened an investigation into former FBI director James Comey after he posted this image. We were just talking about it in the last block of seashells placed in the form of the numbers 86 47, 86, a term meaning to remove or get rid of, 47 could, of course, refer to Trump as the 47th president.
And some Republicans, including President Trump, say that 86 is a call for assassination. Comey, who was fired by President Trump in his first term, later deleted the post and he apologized. He said, quote, he didn't realize that some folks associate those numbers with violence. The president, however, says that Comey knew what he was doing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: A child knows what that meant. If you're the FBI director and you don't know what that meant, that meant assassination. And it says it loud and clear. Now, he wasn't very competent, but he was competent enough to know what that meant. And he did it for a reason. And he was hit so hard because people like me, and they like what's happening with our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: CNN chief law enforcement intelligence analyst John Miller joins our panel. John, first, I think that you have a family background that will allow us to clear up exactly what 86 does or doesn't mean. And you also have some new reporting.
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Right. So, first, coming from a family of bartenders and bar-goers, 86 meant you're cut off. You know, you got to go. You can't come back.
HUNT: But it's not a violent term.
MILLER: No, I mean, it didn't mean -- it didn't mean we were going to kill you. It didn't mean you were going to get beat up. It just meant you're cut off.
HUNT: So, your child would not necessarily mean that 86 would mean an assassination?
MILLER: Unless the term has somehow evolved, which is always possible. But it's not its origin, and it's not the understanding.
And I'll tell you a little bit more about that right after this development, which is, I am told as of now that the plan is and they've been going back and forth, going back and forth on this through the day so it could change, is that former Director Comey is to be picked up at his home, brought in by the Secret Service to the Washington field office to conduct an interview. They would interview him.
And I've been through thousands of these cases over the years where you're working on the beach. Did you see the shells when you took the picture? Did anybody else see them? Did you place them there? Were they there already when you posted it? Did you mean that to be a threat? What do you understand 86 47 to mean, so on and so forth.
Under Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 871, it's a crime to threaten the president, but it also delineates through case law, the threat has to be direct, and a reasonable person would have to look at it and say, that's definitely a threat. This is not going to make that bar, in any reasonable prosecution.
But if it does, and this is what I was referring to before, go on the web, there are thousands of items for sale of 8646 regarding Joe Biden, T-shirts, cups, mugs. And they're discounted now because they're really irrelevant.
But there's also thousands of things for sale, and 86 47 that are there as political messages.
[16:50:07]
It's pictures of people wearing the shirts, placing the stickers. It's going to be very hard to say. None of those people, places or entities are under investigation or being looked at or being charged for Biden or for Trump, and that this case is somehow separate or clearer as some kind of threat.
HUNT: Yeah. Worth noting, Matt Gaetz also used the phrase talking about fellow members of his own party. And John, I'm so sorry. Just to clarify, who is going to pick up Comey and interview him today.
MILLER: So, he's going to be escorted by the Secret Service. Okay. As the last arrangement we were told of to their field office and be interviewed. That means he's not under arrest. He's not in custody. He's not charged, and he's coming in voluntarily.
And remember who we're talking about. We think of as James Comey, the former FBI director. He's the former United States attorney for the Southern District of New York. He was the deputy attorney general of the United States of America. He knows under the law what constitutes a threat and what doesn't.
And the case law behind that. So, I think what you're going to see is this interview is going to happen that will be referred to the U.S. attorney for a decision. And I think it will be very difficult to come up with any decision other than, he apologized and we're moving on. But that could be a long time.
HUNT: Alyssa?
GRIFFIN: What a stupid series of events, in my opinion? Listen -- MILLER: I've always -- I've always stupid here, by the way.
(LAUGHTER)
GRIFFIN: Listen, I -- James Comey should know better now. This is protected under the first amendment. This is a matter of speech. This is not a direct threat. I concede all of that.
But this is an individual who knows the political environment we live in. He knows that we live in a moment of political violence, where the sitting president has had two assassination attempts on his life. You would think somebody who'd been through the years of background that he has would take a minute and be like, you know what? I don't think it's wise for me to share that.
And then add to it, the politicization -- politicization of the FBI. Gosh, I can't speak today. We complain so much. Oh, Kash Patel is such a partisan director of the FBI. But then you have a former FBI director who's making a deeply partisan statement right there. That doesn't help the rank and file FBI agents who just want a nonpartisan Department of Justice.
HUNT: I mean, it does raise the question, Chapin, of why he tweets at all.
FAY: Yeah, he's a -- it's a question of judgment. I mean, you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes, right? That's what's happening. But per Tulsi Gabbard's point, this man has a following. People listen to him. He's a person of stature. And he should have known better to do this.
I mean, and he's also. I think the point here is he's proving the Trump administration's point. His point about the politicization of the FBI, right? This guy, while he was the FBI director, was doing political stuff, and he's just reminding everyone that what Trump is trying to do is the right thing to do. That's all -- all James Comey is reminding anyone of.
SIMMONS: Well, wait a minute. Guys, wait a minute. The president of the United States is going after former staff members because of things they've said and written in public. The president of the United States is -- has his attorney general basically on another news channel as a pundit most nights of the week or many nights of the week, talking about what they're doing in the Justice Department and working basically for the deputy chief of staff at the White House.
When I was at the White House, you could literally -- I couldn't even call the director of public affairs at the Justice Department and ask a question without checking in with the counsel's office first.
MILLER: That's right.
SIMMONS: So, this -- this idea of, like, photos on Twitter being the thing that ought to get investigations is ludicrous to me.
COLES: But this is also why people are losing faith in American institutions, because this is a ridiculous waste of public money, right?
MILLER: And time.
COLES: I mean, it's -- America is rife with problems, right? You cannot walk down the street without knowing that. And this is what our officials are spending their time on. This is what the president is spending time on. It's ridiculous.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, John, it doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that the Trump Justice Department might prosecute James Comey for this.
MILLER: Well, we've had a United States attorney in Washington who has become so controversial, he can't even get confirmed as United States attorney for threatening to go after, as you just described, people who have said things that are annoying to the administration. But, you know, to pick up on -- on both of your points. You know, the president was asked about some criticism by Bruce Springsteen in a concert in Germany and on the --
GRIFFIN: Don't give him any ideas.
MILLER: On the plane coming back, he said he shouldn't talk about the president in a foreign country. Let's, you know, wait until he gets back to the United States and let's see what's going to happen. So, everybody's in the threat business these days.
COLES: So, the boss is taking on the boss. It's ridiculous.
(LAUGHTER)
SIMMONS: Well-played, well-played.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next, something totally different. Chocolate batteries you can eat. Sorry. What?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:59:30]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back. In a marriage of science and sweets researchers and chefs in Switzerland and Italy have created a wedding cake that is electric and also totally edible. I'm sorry. What?
Let's take a look. It doesn't look like a traditional wedding cake, but it has all the makings of one. Theres white frosting, there are lights. There is a cake topper.
But this cake topper can dance, apparently. And the gummy bears are animated by air. The LED candles are powered by rechargeable and edible chocolate batteries, batteries that you can eat.
Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD". Jake, I have no interest in eating any batteries, whether they're chocolate or not. Anyway, it's Friday, I think I'm going to have a cocktail instead of some cake.
