Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

James Craig Guilty Of Murder In Protein Shake Trial; Kamala Harris Won't Run For California Governor In 2026; Texas State Republicans Unveil Proposal For New House Maps, As They Attempt To Take 5 Dem Seats. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired July 30, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:07]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA.

We are following two major breaking news stories as we come on the air this afternoon. A verdict is being announced in the trial of a Colorado man accused of murdering his wife by poisoning her protein shakes.

We're going to bring in Whitney Wild right now as this is being -- about to be read out in the courtroom and, Whitney -- okay. Forgive me here. The control room is going to walk us through on the first count.

He has been found guilty. That first count is murder in the first degree, which is a class one felony. That is the first of six counts that are about to continue to be read.

But, Whitney, guilty on murder in the first degree. And again, forgive me if I have to cut you off, because again, this is just coming into our control room.

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Yes. You're right. So yes, it's murder in the first degree. And then, Kasie, I can tell you what the other charges he's been found guilty of are. It's a solicitation to commit tampering with physical evidence. He was found guilty of that.

There were two counts of that. He was found guilty on both of those counts. Solicitation to commit perjury was another charge he was facing. He was found guilty on that. And then solicitation to commit murder. He was found guilty on that, Kasie.

This is basically a clean sheet for the most part of guilty -- of a guilty verdict against James Craig.

And for viewers who are not, you know, completely caught up on this case, this case centers on a man named James Craig. He's from a suburb of Denver, Colorado, and prosecutors had accused him and now a jury agrees that he killed his wife, Angela Craig, over a 10-day period in March of 2023 by poisoning her protein shakes, by switching out antibiotics and filling them with cyanide, and then having someone else administer those pills to her as she was trying to recover from these poisonings.

Kasie, prosecutors had brought forth this theory that he intended to kill Angela Craig because he had fallen in love with a woman named Karin Cain, but she was one in a long line of women that he had had affairs with.

And so, prosecutors again, really leaned into this idea that, you know, it came to the point where James Craig was facing all of these problems in his life. He was facing financial problems at work. He was in love with the woman he had lied to, had claimed he was divorcing his wife, and so he needed to find solutions to all of these problems.

And if he could just kill his wife, that would solve his list of problems. And prosecutors say that was the motivation here. We cannot know in this moment what piece of evidence or what argument it was that convinced a jury that he was guilty on these counts.

And, Kasie, I'll tell you in all of these cases, I've covered, you know, in about a decade and a half of covering criminal cases, I'm always surprised at the evidence that jurors really latch on to. So maybe we will learn more about that.

Kasie, the defense had put on a had basically put on an argument, a theory that Angela Craig was suicidal. They presented no witnesses. James Craig did not testify. They were aggressive in their cross- examination. But again, there -- the facts that they put on were slimmed down compared to the long list of witnesses that prosecutors brought. They brought 40 witnesses in two weeks.

And we now know that jurors agree that he is guilty of this long list of charges here. Most importantly, murder in the first degree. He is now facing life behind bars.

Our understanding is that prosecutors are going to request they go straight into the sentencing phase of this case -- Kasie.

HUNT: Well, and again, Whitney, let's run down exactly what we've learned here in the last few minutes.

As you note, James Craig found guilty on count one of murder in the first degree, a class one felony. Guilty on count two, solicitation to commit tampering with evidence. Count three, also guilty. The same charge as count two.

Count four, solicitation to commit perjury in the first degree, guilty. Count five, solicitation to commit murder in the first degree, guilty. Count six, solicitation to commit perjury in the first degree, also guilty.

And, Whitney, I have to say I'm a little stuck on you saying he thinks this was the solution to all of his problems, that he had all of these issues in his life. And if he could just do this, kill his wife, many of those problems would go away. Obviously, now he's got more problems than ever before.

How long did it take this jury to come to this decision? It doesn't -- it doesn't seem as though there was a lot of doubt necessarily.

WILD: They took about 8-1/2 hours to deliberate, Kasie. Closing arguments were yesterday, yesterday morning the jury went into their deliberations yesterday afternoon.

They did ask one question. They requested transcripts from two witnesses.

[16:05:00]

A judge said that she was not going to supply them with those transcripts. In some cases, you can get them. In this case, you could not. So after that, we figured it was going to go pretty quickly. And again, this is about 8-1/2 hours of deliberations. So, you know, what is that about an hour and 15 minutes. Hour 20 minutes per, you know, for each charge here, Kasie.

You know, it's interesting that, you know, again, this idea that Angela Craig was the source of all of his problems and she just needed to go away. There were several pieces of information that prosecutors brought forward. There was one woman, again, as I said before, he had a long list of women that he had had affairs with. And there was one woman who said that she was having an affair with James Craig, and they were talking about this movie, "The Purge".

And "The Purge", if you don't know what "The Purge" is, it's this movie where for a period of time, everything's legal, violent crimes legal, murders legal. And as they were talking about this movie, James Craig said that he would purge his wife.

And prosecutors brought that moment back up in their closing arguments yesterday and saying again, remember, he said if he could, he would kill his wife. And then they said, and as they know, he did do that over that 10-day period in March of 2023, Kasie.

So, an extraordinarily compelling testimony. Some of it came from his own children. Two of his daughters testified. One of them, Kasie, testified that once he was behind bars, he asked her to create a deepfake video that would make Angela Craig look as if she had asked him for poison so that she could commit suicide many weeks before her death.

So again, this is tied to some of these other counts of solicitation to commit tampering with physical evidence. This -- there were many subplots here. One of the subplots was that he was trying to convince people to produce false evidence.

And then finally, Kasie, we haven't even gotten to this. There was another subplot here where once he was behind bars, he was trying to basically, you know, concoct a murder for hire plot to kill four people, including the lead investigators in this case, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Whitney, we actually do have now the video of what played out in the courtroom as this verdict was read, finding James Craig guilty of murdering his wife by poisoning her protein shakes. Let's watch what happened in court. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JUDGE: As the verdict form count one, murder in the first degree -- we, the jury, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, find the defendant, James Craig, guilty of murder in the first degree.

Verdict form count two, solicitation to commit tampering with physical evidence. Annabel Craig (ph), we, the jury, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, find the defendant, James Craig, guilty of solicitation to commit tampering with physical evidence.

Verdict form count three, solicitation to commit tampering with physical evidence. Casey Bohanan (ph), we, the jury, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, find the defendant, James Craig, guilty of solicitation to commit tampering with physical evidence.

Verdict form count four, solicitation to commit perjury in the first degree. William Walden (ph), we, the jury, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, find the defendant, James Craig, guilty of solicitation to commit perjury in the first degree.

Verdict form count five, solicitation to commit murder in the first degree. Nathaniel Harris (ph), we, the jury, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, find the defendant, James Craig, guilty of solicitation to commit murder in the first degree.

Verdict form count six, solicitation to commit perjury in the first degree as to Castellani Konstantinidis (ph), we, the jury, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, find the defendant, James Craig, guilty of solicitation to commit perjury in the first degree.

As the verdict form count seven manslaughter cause or aid suicide, we, the jury, find the defendant, James Craig, not guilty of manslaughter causing suicide.

We then turn to the foreperson and ask, is this the verdict of the jury?

FOREPERSON: Yes.

JUDGE: Do all of you agree with this verdict?

JURY: Yes.

JUDGE: This point in time, you can be seated.

Let me ask then, if either party wishes to have the jury pulled from the people?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, Your Honor.

JUDGE: From the defense.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

JUDGE: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm going to just for so that you are aware --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. We were watching their tape of the reading of the verdict in the trial of James Craig, who has been found guilty of murdering his wife by poisoning her protein shakes.

[16:10:07]

Joey Jackson is with us with a little bit more analysis here, joey, as we were just discussing, the jury deliberated for a little over eight hours here to find this verdict, 48 witnesses, according to Whitney, called here. That's a pretty high number. What stands out to you about the case and about how we got here?

JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, quite a bit, Kasie. Good to be with you.

The evidence was compelling in this case, and I don't think this verdict is a surprise to anyone. For those wondering why it was not a death penalty prosecution, this jurisdiction doesn't have the death penalty. However, he still faces life in jail and that, I'm presuming, is exactly what he'll get.

In terms of the witnesses and what they say -- look, when you have your daughters testifying against you and you've already heard about the deepfake video that he writes a letter, chapter and verse telling his daughter how to create one, saying, hey, mom, suicidal, right? Can you do this for me? And then you have your other daughter saying, you know, he said, "I don't want an autopsy. Let's not have an autopsy."

And you have your other dentist who you're a partner with saying, there's cyanide in the office. What are we doing, that's problematic.

And then you have these google searches with regard to how to kill someone. And so that it's undetected. Thats pretty powerful. The defense did what it could do in terms of the whole issue about, hey, she was suicidal. That is his wife. There was this journal, but I don't think that really stuck, particularly when there were people, family members and friends who said that was just not the case.

Yes, the marriage was -- there was some marital discord and anyone would have the effects of that. But she's not going to be so depressed and witnesses as to take her own life. And so, what I'm saying is that the evidence was compelling. And as to the issue of the subplot involving him, murder for hire, you can attack the credibility of particular inmates.

But when the evidence seems to suggest that, hey, you did this, you solicited the murder of a detective, of an officer of two particular people in custody that are other inmates. It just all piled up.

So, I think in this particular case, there's some verdict you can't get. Understand your question, I don't know, based upon the totality of the evidence here and how it was presented over those 48 witnesses, that this could be argued with. He apparently, you know, was guilty, as the jury would suggest.

And again, final point, Kasie. And that is, in terms of the affairs, you know, the defense trying to say, hey, he's a serial affair person. He has affairs with everyone. Why would that be a motive for him to kill his wife?

Well, the timing, he's with this one woman in particular, professing his love, saying he can't wait to be with her. His wife's dying in the hospital at the time. Is that really what you'd be doing? Is that comport with human nature?

And so, I think in this particular case, the jury did its duty, and they determined what they did. And that is guilty as to all counts that were in the indictment.

HUNT: Well, and, Whitney Wild, to that point, where, of course, the courtroom is in a brief recess for about ten minutes after the reading of that verdict before the judge will return, and he will be sentenced.

Can you talk through a little bit what the options are for the judge, considering what the verdict is?

WILD: The murder in the first degree charge that he was found guilty of comes with a mandatory life behind bars without the possibility of parole. So, what we saw on video moments ago, that is the last moments that man will spend when he is not behind bars in prison. The other counts, Kasie, range, you know, in some cases, they're up to 25 years in prison.

But practically speaking, we are almost certainly going to see a sentence of life behind bars. Again, prosecutors asking to go directly to the sentencing phase. We may hear more witness impact statements. Part of the argument for going directly to the sentencing phase here, Kasie, was because people had come in from out of town.

And so, you know, it was important for the victims to have their chance in court to say how much he stole from them when he committed this crime. And so, we will hear, I expect that we will hear from victims, their victim impact statement. But again, I mean, you know, practically speaking, Kasie, that man is most certainly going to spend the rest of his life in prison.

HUNT: All right. Whitney Wild, Joey Jackson, thanks very much for being there for us on that.

All right. Coming up next here, the days other big breaking story. Kamala Harris making a big decision about her political future. What it means for the Democratic Party.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:18:59]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back. We learned this afternoon that former vice president Kamala Harris has

a bombshell announcement she will not run for California governor next year, less than a year after she lost the 2024 election to Donald Trump. Harris's decision has already led to the inevitable speculation that this means that she will run again for president in 2028.

In a statement explaining her decision, Harris says this, quote, for now, my leadership and public service will not be in elected office. I look forward to getting back out and listening to the American people helping elect Democrats across the nation who will fight fearlessly and sharing more details in the months ahead about my own plans.

Our panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN political director and our Washington bureau chief, David Chalian; CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg; Democratic strategist, former senior adviser for the Harris campaign, Adrienne Elrod; and CNN political commentator, Republican strategist Brad Todd.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.

David Chalian, I spoke to one person close to Harris who insists this is just a decision about 2026.

[16:20:06]

It's not a decision about 2028. And yet.

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR AND WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Well, and yet, as you said, speculation. Listen, I think that is true. The "for now" in her statement is doing a lot of work --

HUNT: It is.

CHALIAN: -- fueling the speculation about 28.

But, Kasie, I mean, just a totally different assessment politically of looking at getting into a gubernatorial race where a lot of the polling had her as a dominant force if she were to get into the race, no sure thing to victory, obviously, in '26 versus what may be an extraordinarily crowded race in '28, that is far off yet, and that I don't think she will have any ability to sort of clear in any way for herself in '28.

So, I do take the advisor that you talked to and others I've spoken to at their word that this is not a decision about '28. Obviously, she's doing everything she can to preserve her options, and were going to see a lot more of her in the next 18 months than we've seen in the last six months. There's no doubt about that.

But I'm not. I don't read this as automatically she thinks she's going to jump into the '28 presidential race.

HUNT: Adrienne Elrod, what do you think?

ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Look, I think her statement speaks for itself. This is a woman who has served Californians as San Francisco D.A., as attorney general, obviously is in the United States Senate and as vice president of United States for the entire nation. I think she wants to take a step back, really focus on, you know, how can she help the American people? How can she be a part of, you know, pushing back against some of Trump's dangerous and divisive policies without having this transactional relationship with voters, which is exactly what she made clear in her statement that she wants to be able to go out there and fight for people without having to go through the slog of running for office.

You know, she deserves to have a little bit of space here in this moment to, you know, not always be running for office, not always be in elected office, but also making sure that she can be a viable force in the Democratic Party. And a very important voice. And I'm also confident that she had run for governor of California. She would have won that race. But she certainly, of course, has made it clear that she wants to keep her options open.

HUNT: But in keeping that options open, her options open, there's no guarantee. In fact, there's really no way you must you must have to acknowledge that she would start at the top of the heap in a 2020 primary.

ELROD: Well, I think she's making it clear that she's not focused on 2028 right now. She's focused on 2026. Obviously, we've got some off year elections in Virginia and New Jersey coming up that I'm sure she will weigh in on and be a part of a big surrogate in those races, too. She's focused on making sure that Democrats can get a little bit of power back at the federal level. And I think that that is where her focus will be, and we'll see what happens after the midterms.

HUNT: Jonah Goldberg, are you surprised by this decision?

JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No. I think it makes a lot of sense on her terms. Democratic Party is more unpopular than it has been in something like 30 years. And I think it makes a lot of sense. If she wants to run again for president, not to be in the public eye for a while because we have not experienced any big surge of Biden era nostalgia. There's still a lot of hard feelings out there, and, frankly, if I were her, I would take a bunch of board seats and not think about running again, if not ever, then certainly not in 2028 either.

CHALIAN: But board seats can complicate a political --

GOLDBERG: For sure. But I would just -- I would just sort of cash in and get out of politics if I were her.

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This is a 2028 move. The California Democratic Party is a bowl full of Froot Loops, and to be the leader of California as a Democrat, she will have to become the Froot Loops she really wants to be, as we saw in 2019.

And so, if she wants to run in 2028, she's got to get further from her Froot Loop past and she can't do that if she's --

GOLDBERG: I have a slight disagreement with that. But I agree with you but California being a bowl of Froot Loops. But -- who can deny that?

But the -- you know, like as Rahm Emanuel, you know, you need -- you need -- the way the Democrats are going to get back into power is by calling out Froot Loops, is by doing some sort of Sister Souljah stuff. Much fewer opportunities to sort of say, I'm not the Democrat you think I am. And to run against the brand if she doesn't hold another office.

HUNT: Well, so the thing -- the thing is, and David Chalian and the heart of the challenge that it seemed to me, Kamala Harris was this incredibly fast rising star right out of California. She comes to the Senate. It's immediately clear that she's here to run for higher office, right? She's reaching out to reporters like us. Right. It's very obvious.

And then she struggles in public to identify what kind of Democrat she is, right? Is she going to run on the left the way that she did in the primary when she was a candidate herself, or is she going to find --

CHALIAN: Where she did not even make it to the voting, right?

HUNT: Exactly.

CHALIAN: Exactly.

HUNT: Right. She drops out before that even happens after, you know, what people thought was a, you know, a strong kickoff rally. But then and I want to play this moment that sort of crystallized, I think for a lot of people, the struggle that she had, obviously, she had a very compressed timeline to try to win the election. No one's taking that away from her.

But she was asked why she would be different from the president that she had been serving when she did this appearance on "The View".

[16:25:04]

And here's how she answered that question. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: There is not a thing that comes to mind in terms of -- and I've been a part of most of the decisions that have had impact.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: I mean, is she at the point where she really knows who she is, Jonah Goldberg?

GOLDBERG: I don't think so. Look like part of the complaint about her is that she was trained up in a left wing environment. She knew how to talk to the left to rally progressive groups, but she had no, you know, the term of art on the on the far left is ability to do hippie punching, right, of --

HUNT: I've not heard that term.

GOLDBERG: You know, Google it.

(CROSSTALK)

HUNT: OK, I'm glad I'm not alone.

ELROD: Yeah.

GODLBERG: Picking fights with the crazy sort of left, she only knew how to sort of pander to it. And that is a real problem for a Democrat today who wants to sort of reclaim the center is to say they're not owned by those groups. If she doesn't run for governor of California, where are those opportunities going to be?

ELROD: Look, I actually disagree. I think she knows exactly who she is. I think she has very strong convictions. I think she has a record that backs up those convictions from fighting for criminal justice reform, fighting for women and families. She knows who she is.

Candidate certainly evolve. I don't want to go back and rehash the, you know, 2020 primary versus the 2024 election, but candidate positions evolve. I think, however, to your point about kind of taking a step back and, you know, being a private citizen for a while and continuing to use her voice in a very effective way, I think that's a good thing for her to do right now. If that's what she wants to do, it's her own personal decision.

HUNT: So, David, we have this just in. Gavin Newsom has tweeted, "Kamala Harris has courageously served our state and country for her entire career, whether it be as a prosecutor, attorney general, senator or vice president. She's always kept a simple pledge at the heart of every decision she's made for the people." That, of course, was her slogan. "Grateful for her service and friendship and looking forward to continuing the fight in whatever the future might hold for her."

CHALIAN: They might be fighting each other. First of all, the Gavin Newsom, Kamala Harris relationship is amazing. You know, they kind of grew up together in San Francisco public life. She was D.A. as he was going to be mayor. And they share the same political advisors in their lives. He has said in the past, you know, he wouldn't run if she's going to run, clearly, you saw if you saw him in South Carolina a couple weeks ago, that's out the window here. But I think that will be a fascinating relationship to watch, if indeed she does choose to get in this race as he seems poised to do.

TODD: As a Republican, I hope she runs. I hope everybody else defers to her and lets her run. Dick Nixon came back after being vice president and losing a presidential race in 1960. That's the model she should --

(LAUGHTER)

ELROD: I am confident were going to have a very robust primary in 2028, and that is exactly what our party needs. HUNT: Very robust vote for.

ELROD: Yeah.

HUNT: Everyone in the kitchen --

(CROSSTALK)

TODD: -- for Kamala.

HUNT: Coming up next, we're going to have more on whether Kamala Harris's decision about 2026 is really about '28. And we're going to talk with another potential Democratic presidential candidate, the former ambassador, White House chief of staff, among many other titles, Rahm Emanuel.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:32:31]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

We are continuing to follow one of these top stories that we've had this hour. Former Vice President Kamala Harris ruling out a run for California governor in 2026, leaving the door open for a run for president in 2028.

Joining us now, Rahm Emanuel, a fellow potential '28 presidential candidate. And, of course, a member of the CNN family as senior political and global affairs commentator.

Ambassador Emanuel, thank you so much for being here. You are someone who is obviously facing a decision like this yourself. You spent a lot of time with people who have to make these decisions. Youve helped guide them through it.

Why do you think she made this decision right now? Our understanding, of course, that the thinking was if she ran for governor, she couldn't run for president. So, she's closing the door on that.

RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Yeah. I think first of all, just kind of putting in the mindset, having decided to run for Congress, then deciding to run for a mayor, then deciding not to run. Look, these are personal decisions. They're professional decisions. They're pragmatic decisions. A lot of times you're head and your heart are in different places, and you're trying to resolve that.

And I kind of think this is what it is. She's basically closed the chapter on 2026, doesn't foreclose a chapter of 2028 or in the future beyond that, I think, is one of your panelists brought up? I mean, Richard Nixon loses in '60, runs for governor in '62, says that's it, and comes back in '68. And she's young enough to do that.

And, you know, every one of us who've kind of served public life and kind of go through that wind shear, as I say, sometimes you reenter the atmosphere without your windshield or your heat shield on. I think in this case, she's going to reboot and recharge and well see my instincts sitting here, July, the summer of 2025. You haven't heard the end of Kamala Harris. It's just not for 2026. It's really kind of one dimensional in that sense.

HUNT: Do you think its harder for her to come into a presidential field? Potentially. I mean, oftentimes, right. The previous nominee would clear the field in a presidential race, right? Other people would defer.

That does not seem to be on tap here for Kamala Harris. And there seems to be this searching in the Democratic Party for younger voices, for newer voices. How welcome do you think she'd be in the field?

EMANUEL: Look, I -- there's a piece of the chapter given the pain and anguish in what we're dealing with, that just 2024 closes the book shut, move.

[16:35:01]

You said two things. One is younger voices, the other one is new. They're not the same, but kind of bringing a different -- somewhat in that sense of new, bringing a different voice in the sense of strength, bringing a different voice in the sense of determination of what kind of were the focus of the voters are.

I think if you look at 2024 and some of the mistakes that were made, it was focused where the party was, not where the public was. And that's a consequence. I think this is somewhat moving forward in not deferring, because I think a lot of people want to move on.

HUNT: Where do you think victory is for Democrats in 2028? Is it on the left side? No, I mean, this is because this is the fundamental debate we were just having, too. And you've seen all of your candidates, right, struggle, okay, to appeal to the left, turn out the left side of the party, or do what Bill Clinton did, right? What's the right path?

EMANUEL: Yeah. So, Kasie, one is I think if I could the Washington, New York media political have a wrong template.

HUNT: OK.

EMANUEL: And let me illustrate what I mean. You have the sense of that -- all the party's base is X, and you see one crowd and you get all excited. I remember people election day running around saying, look at the yard signs. And that's what kind of said everything.

Look at the new jersey primary that just happened for governor. Five candidates, the spectrum ideologically, the spectrum racially, the spectrum generationally and 50 percent of the vote went to the two out of the five most conservative or most moderate members. You had the mayor of Newark, mayor of New Jersey, mayor of the teacher's union, a very popular important interest group within the party. And 50 percent went somewhere else -- I actually think the template, or what's in your mind's eye of what makes up the Democratic Party, is actually not what makes up the Democratic Party.

So that's number one. I think the presumptions need to get kind of a windshield cleaning on that. I do think while the moderate or raging moderates may not be loud, they vote as the New Jersey primary just showed. And if you look at the new Virginia primary, Abigail, who's the Democratic nominee for governor, nobody, quote/unquote, out of the left or the more progressive wing even challenged her.

So I think that tells you where the Democratic primary vote is. And the data keeps coming in that way. And I think it indicates that. And I would even say -- it's probably going to get me in trouble, but I don't care, if you look for -- while the New York primary for mayor was not a perfect template, because I think the challenges of the candidates were flawed, et cetera, Mamdani never brought up the whole cultural debate, couldn't run fast enough away from his record on defund the police.

That tells you, even in New York City, the debate of on the cultural left that's so dominated the party in 2024 was not even salient as an issue or a sense of organizing what wasn't said is as important to understand his victory as what was said. He talked about how people are living their lives on the edge financially. He did not engage in New York City on any of the cultural issues that have dominated the party, '23 and '24, 2023 and 2024. That tells you both when you look at New Jersey, New -- Virginia and even the New York election, put aside some of the ideas that he's offered for solutions that I think are not actually going to ever happen, and I think are out of the mainstream of the party.

Put that aside -- what he did not talk about is his revealing as what he did talk about.

HUNT: It's a really great point, and I think it's part of why Andrew Cuomo was anxious to come on the show yesterday and talk about his previous cultural comments.

EMANUEL: But -- go ahead.

HUNT: No, no. Go ahead. We're running out of time, though. And I do want to ask you about something because you made some comments about Gaza that have gotten a lot of attention considering your personal background.

And this really has become -- I mean, you know, obviously the pictures that are that we are seeing of children in Gaza are absolutely heartbreaking. This is the kind of issue that has clearly broken through in a way that not every issue in our politics does.

And I'm really interested in your assessment here.

I mean, the Democratic Party and frankly, the United States has always in recent memory stood behind Israel and defense of Israel, obviously defending their right to exist. But also, you know, backing up -- I mean, we saw this from the Democratic president, Joe Biden. You're seeing a continuation of that from President Trump.

Do you think that we are at a point where the public is going to demand that that change?

EMANUEL: Yeah. Well, you mean the public meaning here in the United States?

HUNT: Yeah.

EMANUEL: So, let's just deal with some facts. Obviously, you have October 7th, a horrific incident. Hamas worst situation in the sense of violence and killing of Jews since the Holocaust.

[16:40:02]

And they have been using and as I make this point all the time, Hamas uses its people to protect its weapons. Israel uses its weapons to protect its people -- fundamentally, morally, ethically and strategically different. Now, that said, on March 18th, the cease fire, Israel decides to end it. Since that time, 50 Israeli soldiers have died and have achieved no, quote/unquote, pressure. Where Hamas has given in the leadership of the IDF, said, we have achieved the degradation and the deterrence we lost on October 7th.

Two days ago, a leader in the IDF, a young man who served in Gaza, committed suicide. Two facts, 50 have died since March 18th, one of the highest suicide rates for soldiers in Israels history. Hostages since March 18th that could have been out over 100 days are still there.

Now, in my view, for Israel and Israel is more isolated, I think this has been a horrible decision to continue efforts rather than get the hostages out for Israel on every level, strategically inside the country and outside the country.

Saturday in Paris, Israel and Syria reached a some understanding that should be upheld. Unfortunately, there are kids going with hunger. The U.N.'s participation in not driving the food in there because they decided Hamas should be the ones protecting them, rather than others. I don't. The U.N.'s done that route. Hamas has decided to use its own people for its own advantage.

But in this case, the prime minister and his coalition government and elements of his coalition government have decided to put Israel in the worst position. Strategically, they're isolated from Europe, they're isolated internationally, 50 more kids have died for no greater strategic advantage. Kids are killing themselves on suicide who have served there and the hostages since March 18th are spending 100 plus days longer.

And everything I've said is being said inside Israel. And I think the prime minister has not taken strategic advantage of what the Israeli security apparatus has created for Israel. You have security situations, military operations like in Lebanon, like in Syria, like in Iran, that create opportunities strategically and politically. And he has failed to seize them.

And that's my view. And I don't think those 50 Israeli soldiers that have died have advanced Israels strategic interest one iota. HUNT: All right. Rahm Emanuel, I'm very grateful to have your

perspective, sir. I hope you'll come back on the show soon.

EMANUEL: Thanks, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here inside the Texas tussle, State Rep James Talarico will be here live as Republicans propose a congressional map that would be a gut punch for Democrats.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:47:02]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STATE REP. JAMES TALARICO (D), TEXAS: You have far more in common than the stuff that divides us. Then that's a threat to their power. It's a threat to their wealth.

JOE ROGAN, PODCAST HOST: You need to run for president because you --

(LAUGHTER)

ROGAN: Yeah, we need someone who's actually a good person.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: That was James Talarico, the Democratic Texas state representative who made waves last week with a highly praised appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast.

Talarico hailed as a rising star in the Democratic Party, is one of the people who's going to be meeting with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries later on tonight.

Jeffries heading to the Lone Star State amid a controversial Republican redistricting effort that if it's successful, could give the GOP up to five more seats in Congress. For weeks, Jeffries and his team have been privately shaping a legally risky, potentially costly plan to redraw house maps in Democratic controlled states to counter those gains. His visit coming as Texas Democrats weigh whether to fight the legislation by breaking quorum.

Now, what does that mean? They would essentially flee the state to grind legislative business to a halt.

And joining me now is Democratic Texas State Rep James Talarico.

Mr. Talarico, thank you very much for coming on the program. It's an honor to have you here.

Let me start with the plan here. Do you support the idea of breaking quorum? Would you leave the state to prevent this from happening?

TALARICO: I would be willing to break quorum if it got to that point. Obviously, that's an extreme step to take. It's something that shouldn't be taken lightly. It should be a last resort.

We just got the maps today. We're going to have a hearing on Friday, but I am willing to do that. If the Republican majority doesn't turn around and stop this power grab from going through in our state.

HUNT: What does this mean to you at big picture that this is how Republicans are handling this?

TALARICO: Yeah, I think we need to be very clear about what's happening. President Trump is attempting to rig the midterm elections next year. You know, he and his allies in D.C. passed the largest transfer of wealth in American history with that big, beautiful bill kicking millions of Americans, including millions of Texans, off their health care to fund tax breaks for their billionaire donors.

And it's unpopular. They know it's unpopular, but they don't care because they have this plan to rig the next election. Trump called our governor and said, find me five seats. And that's exactly what Greg Abbott is doing. And this should be alarming to everyone, not just Democrats, but independents and Republicans, too, because politicians choosing their voters instead of voters choosing their politicians is the rot at the core of our broken political system.

And it means that they'll never have to fear the voters ever again. And nothing could be more dangerous in a democracy.

HUNT: What do you plan to ask of the House minority leader today?

[16:50:05]

TALARICO: Well, I'm just going to be open to what he has to say. We're obviously hosting him down here at the Texas Capitol, and I want to hear his perspective on this. But ultimately, this has got to be a decision by Texans for Texans. And we're grateful to have the support of people around the nation.

But this is a fight within our state. And it's got to be handled within our state. And I know my colleagues and I here at the Capitol are ready to use all the tools in our toolbox, even in the minority, to stop this power grab and protect the democratic process for everyone, not just Democrats.

HUNT: So, speaking of what's happening in your state, but also nationally, there is, of course, a major Senate race brewing on the Republican side. John Cornyn, under considerable threat from a primary from a person, Ken Paxton, who many in the Democratic Party think presents potentially an opportunity for them. And of course, you have gotten a lot of attention on the national stage. How seriously are you thinking about making a bid for the U.S. Senate?

TALARICO: I just want to clarify something. Ken Paxton is not an opportunity. He is a threat. He is the most corrupt politician in our state, maybe in the entire country. I was part of a bipartisan effort in the Texas House of Representatives to impeach Ken Paxton for his corruption, because he used his position of public trust to enrich his own donors. So, it may be a political opportunity, but the idea of Ken Paxton

being our senator, I think, is a threat not only to Texans, but all Americans. I am looking at that Senate race, obviously, this special session is where my focus is at. I was hired to do this job by my constituents here in central Texas. I intend on doing this job before I start applying to other jobs. So once this special session is over, I'll think about how I can best serve. And that includes the U.S. Senate race.

HUNT: Obviously, Joe Rogan raised a presidential bid. I realized that he brought that up. You did not.

We got some news today from Kamala Harris. She's not going to run for governor of California. That potentially leaves the door open in 2028. I guess I'm interested in hearing from you. There's so much soul searching going on right now in the Democratic Party, and there have not been a lot of leaders that have really risen to the top. What do you think the party needs right now?

TALARICO: Well, you know, a lot of people are saying that the Democratic Party is in the wilderness and in my faith tradition and actually in most major faith traditions, the wilderness is a place where new ideas and new leaders come forth. And so, I think we should embrace this time in the wilderness. It's a time for experimentation and innovation and that soul-searching that you mentioned and that's healthy for a political party.

We lost the last election. We have to come to grips with that, and we got to figure out what we need to do differently to build a coalition. Not a 50 percent or 51 percent coalition. I mean, a real big coalition like we had in the New Deal era or the Great Society era. A big enough coalition that can transform this broken political system and actually make peoples lives better.

And that's going to take some reflection and prayer. And I hope that's what we lean into over the next weeks and months. I don't want to rush into the next presidential election or try to find some savior to lead our party out. It's going to come from ordinary Texans, ordinary Americans who want to take back this political party so that we can take back this country.

HUNT: All right. State Rep James Talarico, I'm very grateful for your time today, sir. Thanks so much for being here.

TALARICO: Thanks for having me.

HUNT: All right. Jonah Goldberg, your thoughts. This young state rep has gotten a lot of attention in a short time.

GOLDBERG: Yeah, there's a lot there I agree with. I do think Ken Paxton is about as corrupt as any politician in America. I don't like the redistricting stuff. I think it's a violation of Democratic norms.

I'm also like, I think that iconic shape of Texas should be changed to a football because it's like Lucy and the football. Every media cycle, we are told -- HUNT: We have a graphic on this actually.

(CROSSTALK)

GOLDBERG: -- this new Democrat is going to turn Texas blue. And I just don't think it's going to happen.

HUNT: Yeah, we have a -- we have a graphic that has them all stacked.

Very briefly?

CHALIAN: Different kind of Friday night lights.

GOLDBERG: Yeah.

(LAUGHTER)

CHALIAN: I think he is very seriously looking at that Senate race, and I think that the attention he got for the Rogan podcast seems quite interesting to me, because I think that Democrats are constantly seeking right now some kind of communication, attention role model, or at least blueprint to work from. And somebody like that. I mean, he says the wilderness is for experimenting. I think at least he's offering up some examples to his party about how to communicate.

HUNT: In a different way of speaking that could resonate with a different group of people.

[16:55:02]

All right. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks to all of you for joining us here in THE ARENA today.

Thanks to my panel as well for being here. Really appreciate you guys.

And if you missed any of today's show, you can always catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. Just go ahead and scan the QR code. It's right there on your screen. You can follow us wherever you get your podcasts.

You can also follow us on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.

Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD". Youve got a big show planned, Jake, the speaker emerita and the current House speaker.