Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Trump Pardons Michael Grimm, The Former GOP Congressman Who Pleaded Guilty To Tax Evasion; Trump: "Very Disappointed" In Recent Russia Strikes In Ukraine; New: Trump Shrugs Off Musk's Criticism Of "Big, Beautiful" Bill; Just In: Jury Dismissed For Day In Sean "Diddy: Combs Trial. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired May 28, 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]

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL: Where is it on the airplane that it won't move? Is it inside the plane? Oh my goodness, that is insane. Apparently a pigeon inside the plane.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Travel plans. Another baggage handler caught the second pigeon. The flight did arrive about an hour late.

Our affiliate WCCO reports that one woman on board said she needed a drink afterward. The short flight, however, had no beverage service.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: What a bummer. I mean, come on, though, that's pretty funny. What? Someone left the door open for too long?

SANCHEZ: I don't know.

KEILAR: It must have been the deal.

SANCHEZ: Some of those snacks, those biscotti crackers.

KEILAR: Delicious.

SANCHEZ: Where's Pete Muntean to break it down for us.

(LAUGHTER)

SANCHEZ: Pete, where are you at?

"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news right here on CNN.

Let's head into THE ARENA.

This just in, President Trump pardons a former congressman who pleaded guilty to tax evasion. This as we await the release of reality TV stars who also received a pardon.

Plus, new peace talks expected between Russia and Ukraine. But can President Trump get Vladimir Putin to stop the killing?

And then rare criticism from Elon Musk as the former DOGE head turns his focus back to rockets and cars. He's got some parting words for the president's Big, Beautiful Bill.

Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to be back with you and wonderful to have you with us here on this Wednesday.

We're going to start our coverage this hour with breaking news out of the White House. President Trump, just within the last few minutes, using the power of his office to again issue another pardon for the third consecutive day. The president, flexing his clemency power to pardon or commute sentences for people with ties to his political allies.

Our panel will be here to weigh in, but we do want to start with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, who is live for us on the North Lawn.

Kristen, this is just the latest pardon. It's for a member of Congress.

And, of course, just hours after other pardons came down for a pair of reality TV stars. What are we learning at this hour?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie. Remember, it's important to keep in mind the context here, which is this is really a power of the presidency that is unchecked. It's one of the biggest powers he has. And usually when we see these controversial pardons, particularly in Trump's first term or even with other presidents, they happen at the very end of the tenure. But now what you're starting to see is Trump rolling them out just as he goes. A lot of them, people who have been supporters of President Trump at various points in his career.

So, let's talk about this latest pardon. This was Michael Grimm. He is a former politician, Republican congressman from New York. He was a congressman from 2011 to 2014. That's when he resigned after he pled guilty to one count of tax fraud.

Just to be clear, he had actually been charged with 20 counts of fraud, federal tax evasion and perjury, but then ended up pleading guilty to just that single charge.

He tried to run again in New York. He served seven months in prison, and then he became a Newsmax host, in which many times he had been complimentary of Donald Trump. As you said, this is just the latest of a string of what we have seen of pardons and commutations by President Trump. A lot of the people here, like the Chrisleys, whose daughter spoke at the RNC, who was a big avid supporter of Donald Trump, who claimed political persecution. And that's why her parents were in jail. These are the people that he is currently spending his time pardoning.

The day before that, it was a former sheriff who was a huge Trump supporter. So clearly here sending a message to people who are Trump loyalists and saying that he is standing by them as much as they have stood by him.

HUNT: All right. Kristen Holmes, for us this afternoon -- Kristen, thank you very much. And our panel joins us now.

CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams, CNN political commentator, Republican strategist and pollster, Kristen Soltis Anderson, former Democratic senator from Alabama, Doug Jones, CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings. And we're also joined now by CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.

Elie, let me sort of start with you on the on the big picture, and then we'll get -- we have several lawyers on our panel. In addition to being a former senator, Senator Jones is also a lawyer here.

But, Elie, can you just tell us a little bit about the story of Michael Grimm, this congressman? I was on the Hill when he was taken to task for basically threatening to throw a reporter, I believe, over the Cannon balcony. It was a bit -- it was an intense moment that sort of played out, but obviously he got himself into trouble after he left Congress.

What happened here? And why do you think Donald Trump decided to pardon him today?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Kasie, I couldn't even begin to get into Donald Trump's mind. He's obviously been on a pardon spree. And I think some of the pardons of the last few days have been indefensible. However, I think the pardon of the former Congressman Michael Grimm, if you look at it in isolation, actually is quite defensible.

[16:05:02]

So, this was a person, as you said, who was a member of Congress, representing a district in New York. He was federally charged. He ended up pleading guilty to tax fraud for a total amount of $900,000, which, by the way, in terms of federal tax fraud, that's not a major case. That would go down to the --

HUNT: We always say that. But, you know, I think regular -- for most people, $900,000 is a lot of money. I mean, what kind of how much money does it normally take to get prosecuted for tax fraud?

HONIG: For sure, to any normal human being, id include myself in that, $900,000 is a lot of money.

HUNT: I would love -- I would love that.

HONIG: The scope of federal -- in the scope of federal tax fraud cases. That's not going to be seen as a big time case. That's a -- it's a fine case to prosecute. It's a medium to smallish federal case. Usually, federal cases involve many millions of dollars, often on the corporate tax fraud level.

So, he pleads guilty to tax fraud. He's sentenced. He does his time eight months. He completes his time. He's not getting out early.

And it's worth mentioning he's a fairly young man and he was horribly injured. He's paralyzed now from the chest down because of a tragic accident that he had.

So, to me, if you look at the Michael Grimm pardon, just in isolation, it's hard to criticize that one for me. But of course, we're in context here. And like I said, Trump's been on a bit of a bender, rewarding loyalists and sycophants over the last couple of days.

HUNT: Yeah. So, Senator Doug Jones, I mean, this power obviously is totally unchecked, right, for the president. And we can put up some pictures of people that Donald Trump has pardoned in his second term. He, of course, started with nearly 1,600 January 6th rioters. We've -- we're showing you one of the most -- one of the ones you may remember most from the day.

There's others here. We saw Rod Blagojevich there, Ross Ulbricht. This, of course, the Chrisleys, a pair of reality TV stars. When you take this all together, what story does this tell? What message does this send?

DOUG JONES (D), FORMER ALABAMA SENATOR: I think it tells a story of a very transactional president. There is some -- there is a transaction. Theres some connection, whether it's just support or whatever.

It is the opposite of what he says about the weaponization of the Department of Justice. He is now using the pardon power to reward friends consistently. And it's really, I think, a pretty pathetic use of the pardon.

I agree with Elie about Congressman Grimm. His personal circumstances and all, I don't have a real problem with that. Although I would say that his tax evasion at $900,000 was about four times that of Hunter Biden. So, you know, there is a weight there that I think we need to do.

But I -- look, I just think, you know, we're going to continue to see these the entire Trump administration, all the friends will get pardoned.

HUNT: All the friends, Elliot Williams?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think you're absolutely right. It's important to note. And Kasie noted this, it is a virtually unchecked power that the president has. And every president certainly in my memory, and I'm sure everyone else is at the panel, has pardoned people who are real clunkers, who should not have in any way gotten clemency.

Biden did it. Obama did it. Clinton did it. Bush did it. And it happens because of the power.

HUNT: It feels like a dirty tool.

WILLIAMS: Yes, that's what the framers wanted, because they wanted to put this limitation on the executive and its ability to prosecute people. They wanted to be able presidents, to be able to get people out of prison.

Now, I think what's different here is the termination or sidelining of all these attorneys and the pardon office in the Justice Department that could have provided better advice to the president as to how's this person behaved? What's the nature of their crime?

Is this person deserving of you know, of clemency? And quite frankly, you know, to be honest, Joe Bidens folks didn't really do a great job of following the pardon attorneys advice, either. So that's the problem here. It's the sidelining of the people who really could be the --

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, the other thing that I think is notable is many of those examples, you mentioned of past presidents doing this, and it being considered very unseemly is that it always happened toward the end of their presidency.

WILLIAMS: Right.

ANDERSON: That there was a sense that there would be a political cost paid. I think it's interesting that Donald Trump is doing this in a moment where it's not as though he's trying to hide it under some other big story, or at the end of his term. He's doing it now, and it's because he believes, I think correctly, that he won't pay a big political price for it.

I mean, remember on his first day in office, of all the things he did in that first day, I tested whether voters liked him. The least popular thing he did was pardoning January 6th, folks. But that was kind of a nothingburger to a lot of voters, because the very same day, Joe Biden had pardoned his entire family preemptively. And so, it's just one of those things that I think voters go, this is all disgusting, and it doesn't really move the needle.

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I agree. It's being done out in the open. It's being done in the light of day. We're not doing it at the 11th hour here, or as were on our way up to the Capitol to see the next president being sworn in. And I might add, I don't think there's any doubt who's actually signing these pardons, you know.

At the end of Biden's term, we had thousands of people that were pardoned or offered some kind of clemency for drug offenses. I have my doubts about whether Joe Biden signed all of those. And there's obviously because of the new books that are out, clear reporting here, that there was something of a politburo running the White House at the end of the Biden administration, when many of the most controversial pardons were issued.

So, in this case, Donald Trump, I think, is fully owning all of these decisions. And I agree with Elie, in the Grimm case, if for no other reason than this paralysis that he suffered and the fact that he paid his debt, I think it's a defensible -- WILLIAMS: And in fact, one of the factors that these career attorneys

would have advised the president on is the behavior and circumstances of the person post their conviction, and someone suffering in a horribly tragic injury be exactly the kind of thing that a president ought to consider in deciding whether to grant clemency.

HUNT: Although it does seem clear to your point that the president seems to know he's not going to pay a political price.

JONES: Well, he's in his last term. He's a lame duck. He's -- what price is he going to pay? I mean, the question is going to be whether Democrats can seize on it for the midterms. I doubt it. It's never really been an issue that sticks regardless.

So, you know, look, I don't think Donald Trump is doing anything with regard to whether or not he pays any kind of political price. I don't think he really gives a damn about that.

HUNT: Yeah. Scott Jennings, the president, was asked today. He took some questions from reporters at the swearing in for Jeanine Pirro earlier, or at least Jeanine Pirro was there. I'm sorry. I think he was signing executive orders.

He was asked about whether he would pardon. And let's put up the headline first. Gretchen Whitmer, the governor of Michigan, was the target of a kidnapping plot. And in August of 2022, a jury convicted these two men of conspiring to kidnap her. Prosecutors allege that one of them was the ringleader of the plot to kidnap the Democratic governor from her summer home, and the other one was part of a plan, part of the plan, in practice, detonating explosives in preparation for this.

So, the president today is asked whether these two should be pardoned. Here's his response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm going to look at it. I will take a look at it. It's been brought to my attention. I did watch the trial. It looked to me like somewhat of a railroad job. I'll be honest with you. It looked to me like some people said some stupid things. You know, they were drinking and I think they said stupid things.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Scott Jennings, do these two people deserve to be pardoned?

JENNINGS: Well, he said he's going to look at it. I don't know, I will tell you this. When this trial was over, I read some very, very deep reporting on how this case came to be. The number of federal agents that were involved. You know, there were, in some cases, more federal agents involved in some of these circumstances than actual people that they were looking at.

And so, I will just tell you what I heard him say there. He's channeling what a lot of conservatives have come to believe about this particular trial. So, short answer for me is, I don't know, he said he's going to look at it, but I would encourage you to look at the reporting on it, because after the trial, a lot of details about it were pretty troubling.

HUNT: Yeah. Go ahead.

JONES: One of the problems that we've got in today's world is this there's going to be deep reporting like that. Scott, on everything. I prosecuted cases, I defended cases. And I guarantee you every case you can find deep reporting of somebody that is going to see something that's just BS, and, and what I am concerned about with these pardons, particularly on this guy, particularly on January 6th, is that you are sending a message to folks that if you believe, like the president does, and if you're a fan, that you can do a lot of bad stuff in this country and get away with it, and that is a really horrible signal.

Unless this reporting is verified and as Elliott said, there are people looking at this to give recommendations. This is sending a horrible signal for a -- for a president who is supposed to be for law and order.

HUNT: Yeah, Elie Honig, I want to give you the last word here, because I know you've got to run after this. You know, I think for this, I think what was noteworthy about the president did today was just that he didn't simply rule it out. Gretchen Whitmer is someone, of course, who is a potential presidential contender in 2028. She, of course, was somewhat infamously in the Oval Office, holding up a folder covering her face because the political moment was difficult for her.

But it did result in her, you know, standing with President Trump as he announced that he was going to fund, you know, an air base in Michigan, right? I mean, these two have had this kind of long-standing relationship, but this attack basically against -- this plot against Governor Whitmer is political violence, right? Straight up.

And it seems like there's potentially more significant implications, as the senator is saying here, we saw some of it around January 6th, but this is a direct attack on an elected official. How do you see this in terms of the law? Because the previous standard has always been, you know, no matter what side you're on, we all, as Americans stand against this.

HONIG: Yeah. If the president were to issue a pardon for the people who plotted to attack Governor Whitmer, that would be a dark day. That would be a shame, because contrary to what we just heard the president say, President Trump say, this was not just about people expressing some dumb ideas or expressing some thoughts.

They took action. If you remember the facts of that case, among other things, and you put the quote up on the board, they set off explosives. They detonated explosives, practicing for this attack.

At one point, I remember they surveilled her home. She lived on a lake. They sent people out. They watched her to understand and learn her movements. So, this was about much more than just thought. This was about action.

This was about an actual plot. And I'd be -- I'd actually be -- look, I don't know, maybe I should never say id be shocked if Donald Trump does anything when it comes to pardons, but I would be shocked if he issued a pardon in this case. I think it would be a disgrace if he did.

HUNT: All right. Elie Honig, always grateful to have you here on the program, sir. Thanks very much for being here.

Our panel will be back.

Up next here, new comments from President Trump on Russia's war in Ukraine, as the Kremlin sets a date for the next round of talks with Kyiv.

Plus, the final hours before a major court battle in the president's fight against one of the nation's most prestigious colleges.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Harvard wants to fight. They want to show how smart they are, and they're getting their ass kicked.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:20:35]

HUNT: Welcome back to THE ARENA.

President Trump's second term has been a series of fights to expand his control. Control over Congress, over the courts, over law firms, over universities, you name it. And more often than not, we have seen President Trump be successful in getting what he wants.

But a major exception has been Russia's war on Ukraine. After repeated promises to end the conflict on day one, President Trump has been unable to get Vladimir Putin unable to control Vladimir Putin in a way that would get him to commit to making peace.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'm very disappointed at what happened. A couple of nights now where people were killed in the middle of what you would call a negotiation. I'm very disappointed by that. Very, very disappointed.

Like when I see rockets being shot into cities, that's no good. We're not going to allow it.

REPORTER: Do you still believe that Putin actually wants to end the war?

TRUMP: I can't tell you that. But I'll let you know in about two weeks. (END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So Russian state media announced today that ceasefire negotiations will resume in Istanbul next week. At the same time, it's clear that President Trump is growing more and more frustrated with Putin.

A month ago, he practically begged the Russian leader, writing in all caps, Vladimir, stop wanted them to stop bombing civilians in Ukraine. Now imagine for a moment that Donald Trump was telling congressional Republicans to stop doing something, anything at all. Do you think they would ignore him? Probably not.

But Vladimir Putin certainly felt free to. And this week, President Trump posted that Putin had gone absolutely crazy and was, quote, playing with fire.

Throughout his life, of course, Donald Trump has successfully used insults and pressure to bend people to his will, but not, apparently, Vladimir Putin. So that, of course, brings us back to President Trump's quote, I'll let you know in about two weeks. Promise is specific, also vague. Two weeks, soon enough to build suspense long enough away to get lost in the news cycle.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Do you trust President Putin?

TRUMP: You know, in about two weeks.

REPORTER: If Ukraine doing enough to get this, to get this --

TRUMP: I'd rather tell you in about two weeks from now.

REPORTER: You're saying two weeks about President Putin. What is two weeks? Give us -- what is the actual date? What is the timeline?

TRUMP: Two weeks or less. And if it's a little more at the time, I say, but you know, they're losing a lot of people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Do you see those little dates up at the top? April 27th. May 19th. Today is May 28th. So, two weeks, two weeks, two weeks.

Now, we're still two weeks away. Washington correspondent for "Puck", Julia Ioffe, joins our panel now with more on this.

Julia, you know, President Trump, not the first American president to -- I mean, if you recall, George W. Bush once looked into his eyes and apparently saw his soul, but Trump has not been able to basically demand that Vladimir Putin do what he wants and have Vladimir Putin go along with it. How do you look at this?

JULIA IOFFE, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, PUCK: Well, thank you, first of all, for putting up the, you know, the montage of the receding that is two weeks, two weeks, two weeks. As for why Vladimir Putin won't do Donald Trump's bidding, Donald Trump is discovering what every single American president who has dealt with Vladimir Putin as a counterpart has discovered, which is that the U.S. doesn't have a whole lot of leverage over Vladimir Putin, especially when he decides to do something and that he really wants it.

He has been facing sanctions from the west for 11 years now, and his economy is doing better than ever. He is sitting -- he's a sitting president. He has been for over 20 years. He has eliminated every political opponent. The country seems to love him and approve of him.

He has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, and he doesn't care that he's losing a lot of people. Russians don't care that they're losing a lot of people. They care that they're winning on the battlefield.

And so why stop? Because the president of some other country, a country that is your arch nemesis, tells you to stop. It makes no sense. Theres absolutely no incentive for him to stop and to do what Donald Trump says.

[16:25:00]

None.

HUNT: Scott Jennings, I want to -- I want to play because you actually worked for -- you actually worked for George W. Bush, and you've recently flown on Air Force One with President Trump. Let's just flashback and watch what George W. Bush said about Putin. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: I look the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul. He's a man deeply committed to his country and his -- best interests of his country.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, certainly, Scott, the second part surely, surely correct whether he's trustworthy. However, you know, he has not followed through on the many things he has said that he would do over the years. Of course, the annexation of Crimea being sort of the top thing on that list.

How do you understand -- Donald Trump clearly thought that he could strong arm Vladimir Putin to the peacemaking table, and that has not worked so far. How is the White House like thinking about that?

JENNINGS: Well, I think when Trump came into office, he thought he would be able to inject some good faith into these conversations, to try to end this war and try to deal with both parties fairly and that, you know, anytime you put a new player on the field, you know, there's new credibility at play there. And, you know, he's learning what a lot of people have learned over

the years. Vladimir Putin is a killer. He is not interested in, you know, playing nice with us or anyone else. He has goals and aspirations for his country that are probably not in the best interests of the rest of the world, certainly not in the best interests of Europe.

I applaud President Trump for trying to bring about a peace to this war. It cannot go on forever, and nobody wants an open-ended conflict. But certainly, at this point, it's pretty obvious, you know, that the Russians are not allowing President Trump's good faith efforts to affect their attitude about the future of Ukraine.

I take the president and his team at their word. They want a Ukraine that's sovereign, free and prosperous, and a future. That should still be our goal. I hope and pray that he can get there.

I would also just point out one more thing, and that's that Donald Trump always is talking about ending war and stopping killing. You know, he's talking about peace before he's talking about conflict, which is noteworthy. And we'll see what happens in a couple of weeks.

HUNT: But Senator Jones, one of the things that Trump said today is that this isn't my war. This is Biden's war. Zelenskyy's war and Putin's war. This isn't Trump's war.

There is a suggestion that if he can't make any progress here, he's going to wipe his hands of it. But that does potentially have major implications for the West.

JONES: Well, I think it -- it also has major implications for what Vladimir Putin does. He knows that unfortunately. And by the way, I agree with Scott. I applaud any efforts to bring peace to this war. I absolutely do. The problem is that before Donald Trump even got to the Oval Office, he was talking about cutting off Ukraine. He had a confrontation with President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, not only here but worldwide.

Vladimir Putin is no fool. He's watching this, and he's saying, why should I cave in on anything? Why should I negotiate anything when I got the president of the United States who is about to cut off Ukraine and they're going to rely solely on Europe? I don't think Donald Trump is a really good negotiator when it comes to so many things, including this and tariffs.

So I think it has huge implications for the West.

HUNT: Julia Ioffe, very quick last word to you. I say thank you.

IOFFE: Well, I was going to say the experts that Donald Trump has dismissed his entire political career have been warning about exactly this. And instead, he's bought Vladimir Putin a lot more time to keep killing, to keep taking territory, to do all the things that he's been doing for all three years, including during negotiations with Ukraine. That everybody has been talking about, and experts have been warning about. But the fact that it has taken Donald Trump several months to get to

this conclusion, with no discernible action, by the way, coming from that conclusion, has just bought Putin time. He knows that every new success of president who comes in, who wants to reset things, who has to learn everything by himself from scratch, just buys him more time.

HUNT: The reset button is something that seems to have come up as well with other previous presidents since George W. Bush. Julia Ioffe, always grateful to have your expertise on the show. Thank you so much for being here.

All right. Coming up next here, a longtime Harvard law professor will be here just ahead of the school's courtroom showdown with the federal government and the Trump administration.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:34:08]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I think they should have a cap of maybe around 15 percent, not 31 percent. We have people want to go to Harvard and other schools, they can't get in because have foreign students there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: President Trump floating a new proposal today for Harvard University and other higher education institutions, a 15 percent cap on a number of admitted foreign students. It's worth noting that international students actually make up 27 percent of the student body at Harvard.

Trump's suggestion coming amid his ongoing feud with Harvard University and his effort to deter what he calls, quote, troublemakers from attending the country's elite universities over American students.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: People with 1,600 on their boards don't get in, and they're getting -- they're letting people in and they're bragging about how they're teaching them basic mathematics.

[16:35:00]

Where do these people come from?

So, we have to look at the list. Harvard wants to fight. They want to show how smart they are, and they're getting their ass kicked.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Joining us now is Laurence Tribe. He's a professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard University. He, of course, taught there for five decades and is an alum, of course, himself. Professor Tribe, I'm very grateful to have you on the show today. You

could see there that line, Harvard, they're getting their kicked from the president. It almost seems personal to him.

What did you read into that? And what do our laws what does our Constitution say about this kind of targeting from a president of an institution like this?

LAURENCE TRIBE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Well, Kasie, first of all, I think the president has the wrong ass in mind as to who is getting what kicked.

Two hours after he imposed his sudden rule, saying that Harvard could no longer host foreign students, there was a temporary restraining order issued by Judge Allison Burroughs, who's going to hear the case in full on Thursday.

He's got it all wrong. The fact is that presidents are not allowed to micromanage institutions that are not their affair -- universities, law firms, nonprofits, networks like yours, and the Constitution has plenty to say about what the president can do.

There is, of course, the Bill of Rights, and he's violating it right and left. He's retaliating against Harvard and other places that he doesn't like because he disagrees with their ideology and wants to run them differently. That's unconstitutional.

But more than that, the Constitution contains something that hasn't been talked about enough in this context, namely, absolute ban on what are called bills of attainder. They go back to the 1300s in England, King Edward II issued the first. A bill of attainder is simply a political act which singles out an individual, institution or organization for punishment on the ground that the political branch, whether it's the parliament or the congress or the president or a king, believes that they've done something wrong.

And the system of law that we've got says that you have a trial for that. For example, when a Trump University was accused of fraud, Trump was all over the place saying, you can't just say we're doing it. We're entitled to a full trial. And he finally settled the case.

Well, it's a little odd that Trump University gets due process and a fair trial, but Harvard University and Columbia and Penn and the others don't. So he's got everything completely backwards.

Our Constitution, in addition to the Bill of Rights, has this flat ban on identifying particular individuals or institutions for punishment. It's like the mirror image of the pardon power. You had a segment earlier on how the president is pardoning his friends or pardoning people who are going to, you know, benefit him in various ways. He's got an open-ended ability to pardon. He doesn't have a similarly open- ended ability to punish.

Pardon, on the one hand, yes, the president's power is almost unlimited. Punishment, on the other hand, the boundary on the president is absolute. So, unlike the Bill of Rights, which talks about things like due process of law leading to the question, well, how much process is due process or unreasonable searches and seizures? Thats not black and white, but the absolute ban on bills of attainder is black and white.

That's why the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, in 1946, said that you can't have a law that names three guys who testified in Congress and says, we'll have no more contracts with them. And the Supreme Court, I think, would agree with what I hope Judge Burroughs would hold in a case like this. So, the president is wrong.

HUNT: Sir, do you think that Harvard has handled themselves in the correct way here in taking on the administration? Clearly, some of these other universities have decided to handle this differently. And there is, of course, the stated reason for the administration to take on some of these things is some of the antisemitism that has been in public on college campuses.

[16:40:02]

Your view?

TRIBE: Well, my view is this president is hardly one to talk about antisemitism when he says there are good Nazis in the march on Charlestown. Theres antisemitism everywhere. Harvard is fighting it. Maybe it could fight even harder.

But I'm Jewish. I perceive the need to fight antisemitism, but I don't need Donald Trump to tell Harvard how to run itself. I think Harvard is handling itself really well because unlike the places that just cave in and discover, you can't really deal with a monstrous, tyrannical force, he'll just come back for more.

The law firms that caved in are regretting it. The ones that stood up to Trump are winning one after another.

HUNT: I think -- you were referring earlier, of course, to Charlottesville and what happened there. And, of course, the quote from the president was that there were very fine people on, on both sides of those confrontations.

Professor Larry Tribe, I'm very grateful to have you on the show today, sir. Thank you very much for being here. I hope you come back soon.

TRIBE: Thank you, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, President Trump asked about that rare and public criticism from Elon Musk over the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill.

But first, we're going to get a live report from New York, where today, lawyers for Sean "Diddy" Combs asked the judge to declare a mistrial.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:45:50]

HUNT: All right, welcome back.

Court has just wrapped up for the day in the sex trafficking trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. Today, a new batch of testimonies and a call for a mistrial.

CNN's Kara Scannell is live for us outside court in New York.

Kara, what did you see unfold in the courthouse today?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, the last witness was just on the stand. Deonte Nash is a friend of Cassie Ventura and also was the stylist for Ventura and Combs. He was testifying that he saw Combs be physical with Ventura a handful of times, and one of those times he described how Combs was showed up at her apartment, told him that they needed to leave, and was pushing them out the door.

So Nash testified that the next thing, he and Ventura left, Combs had followed them in the car, and he then asked them to pull over. So, when Combs walked up to the window, according to Nash, Combs threatened to release the sex tapes, also telling Ventura that he would send these tapes to her parents' job to try to get them fired. Nash testified that Cassie Ventura then started to cry.

This is the first witness who has corroborated Ventura testimony about Combs making threats to release the sex tapes. He testified that when he asked her about the tapes, Ventura had said that she told them that she was having sex with other men on them. She said she didn't want to do it, and when asked why she was doing it, Ventura testified -- Ventura told Nash Puff wanted her to.

So, another bit of testimony here about Ventura's reluctance to engage in these freak offs.

Now, earlier in the day, there was also testimony from an LAPD officer and an arson investigator who arrived on the scene of Kid Cudi's home when his car was firebombed. That arson investigator testified that it appeared to him that it was a targeted attack, that the roof of the car was slashed, and a Molotov cocktail with gasoline was thrown in, and the jury saw additional photos of damage to the car.

Now, the prosecution then also asked if any fingerprints were recovered, and this caused a moment in the courtroom because he testified there were a partial fingerprint on the Molotov cocktail bottle that belonged to a female. The investigators said that they also had fingerprints from the door of Cudi's home. But he said that those fingerprint samples were destroyed. That caused Combs' lawyers to ask for a mistrial. The judge denied that -- Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Kara Scannell for us outside court -- Kara, thank you very much for that report.

All right. Coming up next here, the rare criticism that Donald Trump is getting from Elon Musk.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:53:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ELON MUSK, TECH BILLIONAIRE: I was like disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit, not just decrease it and undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing. I think a bill can be -- can be -- can be big or it can be beautiful. But I don't know if it can be both.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: A little candor there from Elon Musk, who's criticizing the presidents Big, Beautiful Bill. He says it can't be both.

Musk, though, is retreating from Washington.

In response to Musk's comments, House Speaker Mike Johnson now saying the House is, quote, eager and ready to act on DOGE's findings because you may remember, Musk's whole thing is cutting government spending. Musk has been both pulled back into his companies, as they have suffered because of his time in the political spotlight, and he's been pushed to the side by a number of Republicans who can read the polls showing just how unpopular Musk has become.

Today, though, President Trump seemed to decline an opportunity to criticize Musk.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Elon Musk, in a television interview, criticized the One Big, Beautiful Bill, saying he was disappointed it didn't cut enough. Essentially, that undercut the DOGE efforts. What's your reaction to that?

TRUMP: Well, the reactions, a lot of things. We will be negotiating that bill, and I'm not happy about certain aspects of it, but I'm thrilled by other aspects of it. That's the way they go. It's very big. It's the Big, Beautiful Bill. But the beautiful is because of all of the things we have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. My panel is back.

Scott Jennings, you recently spoke to Elon Musk for a project that you are working on. Feel free to tell us about that. But this -- I mean, it is interesting to me. He's a business leader who's looking at this and saying like, this is a bad idea.

JENNINGS: Well, I did interview him. I'm writing this book. It's called "Revolution of Common Sense". You can preorder it on amazon right now in the fall. Great Christmas gift. FYI.

You know, he was -- this was on like the hundredth day or so in office, and I could tell he had some frustration with some of the Republicans he'd met in Washington about their lack of enthusiasm for cutting spending.

[16:55:03]

Everybody says they want to do it until you're given a chance to do it.

In this particular --

HUNT: And then it gets hard.

JENNINGS: Yeah. I mean, in this particular case, I think you can actually do both because of the way the rules of the congress work, they can't actually do the discretionary piece in the reconciliation bill. They have to do a rescissions package.

And my understanding is the speaker of the House wants to do it. They should do that because the DOGE effort is worth codifying. It's worth keeping this flame alive.

All Republicans will tell you they want to see wasteful spending cut, and they want to see it done on a rolling and permanent basis. So I'm still very grateful for Elon Musk and what they started. But the Congress has to pick up this ball and do it in a different vehicle.

HUNT: Kristen Soltis Anderson, I was struck over the last five days or so to see, you know, Josh Hawley, conservative Republican from Missouri, saying, we're not going to cut anything from Medicaid. And then, on the other hand, Peter Orszag, Obama's budget director, saying, look, we really need to worry about the deficits. Like the world is like backwards.

But in terms of the personality stuff here with Elon Musk and Donald Trump and the way that Musk is now stepping out and sort of separating himself a little bit from what Trump is saying here. But on the other hand, Trump's not going after him. There's clearly -- I mean, it seems like a lot of people turned on Musk here in the last, like the first kind of period of time. How do you think public opinion is driving what we're seeing here?

ANDERSON: I mean, I think the DOGE effort came in Fast and Furious at the beginning. It took a lot of headlines and a lot of oxygen very early on in the administration.

But there was also a lot of I think now, flawed predictions that this was going to be two big egos and they can't coexist together. And this bromance won't last.

And it's okay for Elon Musk to say, you know what, I'm going to go back to Silicon Valley or Austin for a little while, and I'm going to work on my companies. This, to me, does not feel like the kind of blow up a lot of people were expecting between two big egos early on in this.

WILLIAMS: To me, I am genuinely curious about the fact that this is now going over to the U.S. Senate. You have 53 Republicans. They don't need any Democrats, but you're starting to get a sense of the kind of fissures that are happening over this bill.

And what will it take to get to 51 on this bill? I don't know the answer to that question. You know, we have a former senator.

HUNT: Senator Jones, this one's for you.

WILLIAMS: And I'm really curious about it because given how narrow that margin is, where do they go next?

JONES: You know, look, I think it's going to pass in one form or another. It's going to pass very similar to what it is. And I don't feel sorry for Elon Musk. And he complains about his Teslas. Nobody wanted to see crime and things like that.

But Elon Musk destroyed a lot of lives. To me, keeping the DOGE flame alive. Scott is like somebody saying, I want to keep the palisades fire going.

This was a disaster, I think, and it's going to be hard to overcome for years. I like the -- I like the fact that we need to kind of look at government and be more efficient, but the way that the damn chainsaw effect --

JENNINGS: We went from 4.5 trillion in spending in 2019 to almost $7 trillion in 5 years, four and a half to almost $7 trillion. When I interviewed Elon, I said, why are you here? You don't have to be here.

And he said, I'm trying to figure out a way to keep America from going bankrupt. He was very concerned about the devaluing of our currency and us spending ourselves into oblivion.

And that's what every Republican should be concerned about. So he's not wrong in his concerns, Senator. And I think something has to be done, or we are going to spend ourselves.

HUNT: But this bill is going to add to the deficit.

JENNINGS: I know, and look, there's a way to codify some of the cuts he wants to make. And there's a way to control spending. They do make some spending cuts in here. It's massive welfare reform.

But there's other things that have to get done. The tax cuts, energy deregulation, border security, it has to get done. But the spending piece, the deficit piece, it has to be dealt with. We can't it's not sustainable.

HUNT: Yeah. Well, again, I just circle back to -- I mean, I don't think that this bill is going to do that, but we'll see.

All right. We do want to end on this something totally different. You may remember if you're around my age, maybe one of the older millennials, the iconic line, Samuel L. Jackson, the movie "Snakes on a Plane". I have had it with this mother effing snakes. I wasn't supposed to say that, effing snakes, on the plane. Anyway, I wonder how he'd react to this. No, I'm going to get in so much trouble. Pigeons inside a plane. I'm sorry. What?

This Delta flight from Minneapolis to Madison, Wisconsin, was delayed over the weekend after two birds tried to hitch a ride. Here's how one passenger described the chaos.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TOM CAW, PASSENGER: I went to sit down and I overheard a passenger come up to the flight attendant, who was standing right by where I was, and she said, I think there's a pigeon on this plane. Then the pilot got on and said, attention, ladies and gentlemen, we have a wildlife situation on the plane. And this is not something I'm prepared to deal with. So, we are summoning folks to come, some crew to come on.

I said, well, maybe the pigeons were just tired, you know, they were tired of flying. They wanted someone else to do the flying for them. The woman next to me obviously was quite panicky about it. She said to me, she said, oh, I'm going to need a free wine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JENNINGS: His name is Caw? There's no way his name is Caw. Did a pigeon write that?

HUNT: I don't know. A baggage handler come on board and safely remove the birds.

Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".

Jake, what would you do if there was a pigeon on your plane?