Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Soon: First Court Appearance For Suspect In Kirk Killing; Shapiro: Trump Wants To "Cherry Pick" Political Violence Cases. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired September 16, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:21]
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday.
We do come on the air with breaking news. We're just moments away from the first court appearance for the man accused of killing Charlie Kirk. Twenty-two-year-old Tyler Robinson was indicted this afternoon on seven counts, including aggravated murder.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF GRAY, UTAH COUNTY ATTORNEY: I am filing a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. I do not take this decision lightly and it is a decision I have made independently as county attorney based solely on the available evidence and circumstances and nature of the crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Moments ago, the Utah County attorney unveiled the charges that Robinson will soon face in court. Here they are. That one count of aggravated murder, one count of felony discharge of a firearm, two counts of obstruction of justice, two of witness tampering, and one of committing a violent offense in the presence of a child.
We are also learning significant new details about what investigators believe Robinson did after allegedly shooting Kirk. Listen to them read these chilling text messages and it's an exchange that the Utah County attorney says occurred between Robinson and his roommate, with whom he was romantically involved.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAY: To be honest, I had hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I am sorry to involve you.
Roommate: You weren't the one who did it, right?
Robinson: I am, I am. I'm sorry.
Roommate: Why?
Robinson: Why did I do it?
Roommate: Yeah.
Robinson: I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Our panel will be here in THE ARENA.
We're going to get started, though, with CNN senior national correspondent Ed Lavandera in Provo, Utah, CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson, CNN senior national security analyst Juliette Kayyem, and CNN senior justice correspondent Evan Perez.
And, Ed, I want to start with you. Can you walk us through the charges that the suspect is now facing? What it means?
ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. Well, the preliminary one is the aggravated murder, and that is the capital offense that prosecutors here say they will seek the death penalty on. And then there's six other charges involving witness tampering and so forth. And that involves accusations that the 22-year-old suspect was asking his roommates -- his roommate, to destroy evidence, which is essentially the evidence in the text messages that prosecutors are going to use as the confession in all of this.
The county attorney says that ultimately it will be up to a judge to admit that evidence into the trial down the road. But what was really striking is, is that from what we can gather, those text messages were being sent while the 22-year-old suspect was still in the vicinity of the campus, just moments after the shooting.
And this is how the county attorney described some of the text messages and what he says -- said essentially how the 22-year-old suspect broke the news to his roommate about what had happened.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAY: On September 10th, 2025, the roommate received a text message from Robinson, which said, "Drop what you're doing. Look under my keyboard."
The roommate looked under the keyboard and found a note that stated, quote, "I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it." After reading the note, the roommate responded, "What? You're joking, right?" Robinson, I am still okay, my love, but I'm stuck in Orem for a little while longer yet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LAVANDERA: So, Kasie, as you mentioned, seven criminal counts in all. We mentioned the aggravated murder. Theres two counts of obstruction of justice as well as tampering with a witness. Other charge of violent offense committed in the presence of a child. And some of these being enhanced because it was the prosecutors say it was done in the presence of children who were in the crowd that afternoon.
So significant criminal charges, all of this as we still await whether or not federal criminal charges will also be filed -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right. So, Joey Jackson, with all of that said, we learned here that officials did not go a grand jury to get an indictment.
[16:05:10]
Why not? What does that mean?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: So not yet. What ended up happening -- Kasie, good to be with you -- is that the officials investigated the specific case, the facts, the circumstances. And in doing that, decided to charge these specific things.
They charged the aggravated murder with regard to using the firearm in a manner in which -- in the killing in which it caused a grave risk of death to other people. When you engage in an activity like that and it's really in a mass group of people that are there, you certainly know or engage in the risk that others could be harmed. That gets it to the issue of the death penalty, of course, and then the variety of other charges concerning the suspect attempting to hide his clothes, hide his rifle, tamper with the witness, telling him to remain silent. So, they're not at the grand jury stage yet.
What will happen that means, Kasie, is that for purposes of today, there will be this virtual appearance where hell appear. That is the suspect. Before the judge, be advised of his rights, being advised of the fact that there are these charges.
Thereafter, there will be in Utah a preliminary hearing, a grand jury exists, certainly to protect an individual. At a preliminary hearing, the prosecution will have the ability to present evidence saying to the judge that it's legally sufficient to hold him in. That is, we have the information, the facts, the evidence to establish these charges. And as a result of that, he should be held in.
And so therefore, grand juries generally have that role here. You have a right to begin a case with an information. That's a criminal complaint. And then at some subsequent point go to the grand jury. But if you have a preliminary hearing establishing that you have the requisite amount of proof, that may not be necessary.
HUNT: Okay. Fair enough.
So, Evan Perez, let's play this moment from the news conference where the prosecutor talked about the gun that was allegedly used in this shooting, what the suspect had to say about it. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAY: I'm worried what my old man would do if I didn't bring back grandpa's rifle. I had to leave it in a bush where I changed outfits. Didn't have the ability or time to bring it with. I might have to abandon it and hope they don't find prints. How the F will I explain losing it to my old man?
Robinson, "My dad wants photos of the rifle. He says grandpa wants to know who has what. The feds released a photo of the rifle, and it is very unique. He's calling me RN, not answering."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Wow. And we also learned at the news conference the suspect's mother played a role in identifying him. I mean, what do all these new details say to you?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: You know, Kasie, I mean, it's really remarkable to see someone who has just allegedly committed a heinous crime, you know, a horrific murder in plain sight of so many people. And one of the things that he's taking time talking to his -- to his roommate, his partner is how concerned he is, how he's going to explain losing his rifle.
This rifle that his grandfather apparently had given to him. It's a 1937. It's a 90-year-old curio weapon, which apparently can fire very well. He even makes a remark about that and points out that, you know, he added a $2,000 scope on it to make it, to make it work. And so that's one of the things that he has time to sort of talk about.
And he clearly expected to get away with this, right? There's a part where he talks about, you know, how long have you been planning this? The roommate asks, and he responds a bit over a week.
Clearly, he thought he was going to get away with this and expected to be able to keep this secret until his old age. It's a remarkable, remarkable set of facts there that are laid out, and it clearly indicates that despite what you're hearing from some of the politicians about how they're looking for people who might have, been part of a plot or something like that, it's clear that he did this and the roommate did not know about it. At least, you know, from all of these messages.
HUNT: Indeed.
And, Juliette, the suspects personal life and his politics, the prosecutor talked about that a little bit today. I want to show our viewers some of that, and we'll talk about it on their side. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAY: Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left, becoming more pro-gay and trans rights oriented. She stated that Robinson began to date his roommate, a biological male who was transitioning genders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, what are you -- what do you make of this in terms of radicalization? What it says, if anything? And there's also all this information from what was on the casings that was clearly Internet- based radicalization.
JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Right. And it's a combination of many things. So, we've been hearing for the last couple of days, sort of this left leaning turn and will -- by Robinson, we'll learn what the details of that are in terms of, you know, was it -- was it related to the roommate who was a lover? What is not answerable yet?
And I know everyone wants to put a sort of left wing, right wing on everything is the violence part. Lots of people change their minds about politics. Lots of left people become super right. Right people become left, that the violence piece is still inexplicable to me.
I do not buy the argument, you know, that is being sold by some partisans that there's something about the left wing movement that is inherently violent, any more than I believe that about the right wing. We have to take left right out in this. It may be that left progressive trans rights animated his political -- his greater interest in politics, as we've seen. But it does not explain the violence because, remember, lots of partisans -- most partisans are not violent. And so, we're still looking for that.
And that's where what you said about this other stew that he's a part of, right. The gaming world, the sort of ironic cynicism that he's using to talk to folks even as Evan said, this sort of weirdness about being focused on whether he's in trouble with his grandfather, he just committed a political assassination.
All of that may help us understand again how politics leads to violence. Lots of politics, lots of rough and tumble politics in this country. And that is what may be unanswerable, but is something that people like me who want to stop political violence on the right and the left, look at in terms of minimizing that aspect of American politics right now.
HUNT: Well, we certainly are seeing an uptick in it. It's sort of part of our daily coverage of all of this.
Joey, I do want to wrap up with you because the prosecutor went to some pretty public lengths to talk about how important it is that he received a fair trial, which is, of course, a part of our constitutional norms and rules in this country. Let's watch that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAY: I understand the public's desire to know the facts. My own family members have pressed me for information. Why are we reluctant to share the details of the investigation itself and comment on the case? Because I want to ensure a fair and impartial trial.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, Joey, I mean, this is obviously a very high-profile case. Is there going to be a request for change of venue? You know, what may the defense do here? JACKSON: Yeah, there'll be a lot that's done. Certainly, as it relates
to what the prosecutor did here, I mean, he should be commended for that.
Generally, prosecutors, Kasie, it's all about the facts. Nothing but the facts. And what he did was really look to the four corners of the particular criminal complaint that he laid out, to give the indication of what the alleged conduct is here.
He didn't editorialize, he didn't categorize. He didn't do anything, right, or characterize. He just gave what it is. Why? Because ultimately, there will be challenges as to right the point of fair trial. Could he get a fair trial? Should there be a venue change from that community? Are people to focus in that community on guilt, to really get him that?
And so, there'll be a lot of motions by the defense when that time comes. But ultimately, in the event the prosecutor just gives the information that they laid out, I think it lessens the ability to make the argument no matter where it went.
I mean, there may be a question of fairness. It's national, but it certainly lessens the ability to argue that you're not getting your fairness when the prosecutor is sticking with that and not saying right, left, center, I'm going to do this, that I'm going to follow the facts, I'm going to follow the law. And that's exactly what he did in the press conference.
HUNT: All right. Joey Jackson, Ed Lavandera, Juliette Kayyem, Evan Perez, thank you all very much for getting us started today. Really appreciate it.
And coming up next, the new and sometimes surprising reactions coming in after top Trump officials vowed to crack down on what the attorney general is calling hate speech. We'll discuss with our panel.
Plus, Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett will be here live in THE ARENA as she prepares to question FBI Director Kash Patel in her committee after a blockbuster hearing today in the Senate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: If you want to work on bringing this country -- it's my time, not yours.
SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): My God, my God!
PATEL: If you want to talk about --
(CROSSTALK)
BOOKER: Dividing this country.
PATEL: It is my time --
BOOKER: I follow you on your social media posts that tear the country apart.
PATEL: -- to address your falsehoods.
BOOKER: Oh, you can try all you want --
PATEL: To division in this country.
BOOKER: -- to not take responsibility for what --
(CROSSTALK)
[16:15:00]
PATEL: Senator, it's my time --
BOOKER: Sir, you're mucking this committee. Sir, you don't tell me my time is over.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: There's free speech and then there's hate speech. We will absolutely target you. Go after you. If you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that's across the aisle.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The Justice Department and the White House are vowing to punish people for what they call hate speech.
It's a little bit unclear what that means and how a crackdown might infringe on Americans' right to free speech. This morning, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, seemed to walk back the comments that we just saw her make there.
[16:20:06]
She posted this on the platform, quote, hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment. It's a crime. Adding, quote, you cannot call for someone's murder. You cannot swat a member of Congress. You cannot dox a conservative family and think it will be brushed off as, quote, free speech, end quote.
At a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill this afternoon, the FBI director, Kash Patel, testified that the White House has not ordered him to investigate specific political organizations or groups.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PATEL: I've been asked by my chain of command to properly root out criminal activity wherever it is, in whatever investigation we are conducting, and that's what we're doing. SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): If those distinctions about whom
you're going to target been based on direction from the White House.
PATEL: Nobody gives me a list on who to target. My targeting list is from the men and women at the FBI.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Our panel is here.
"New York Times" journalist, podcast host, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, former Biden White House communications director, Kate Bedingfield, and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.
Kristen Holmes, I want to start with you kind of on where the White House is on this because, I mean, obviously, you saw what Pam Bondi said right there. We also know that obviously hate speech that calls for violence, like she outlined very clearly what is against the law.
But, you know, I'll play for you what Senator Ted Cruz very much on the right, had to say about what the First Amendment protects. Let's watch that. We'll talk about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): The First Amendment absolutely protects speech. It protects hate speech. It protects vile speech. It protects horrible speech. What does that mean? It means you cannot be prosecuted for speech, even if it is evil and bigoted and wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Where is the White House on that?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think it gives you somewhat of an idea, because Bondi also issued yet another statement to "Axios" about this kind of walking it back even further, saying that people are not going to be punished for hate speech, but that very, very much trying to find the nuance here.
Theres a lot of pushback, even from the right, as you saw there with Ted Cruz, when it comes to free speech, hate speech, making sure that they're still allowing for the First Amendment, something that they've been fighting for, say, they've been fighting for now for his entire time in office. So they're aware of that line.
But that doesn't change the fact that President Trump is asking the attorney general and members of his law enforcement team to look into these various left groups.
And, you know, you hear what Kash Patel said there. But if you actually listen also to Stephen Miller, who talked during the podcast that they did in honor of Charlie Kirk yesterday, you can see kind of where they're going with this. They're talking about labeling these groups as terrorists and terror cells. Then, they're talking about investigating them financially and looking into them that way.
That's where the focus is right now is what they can actually think that they can do legally. But when it comes to free speech, there is a lot of pushback, and a lot of discussion going on in the White House as to what they can and cannot do.
HUNT: I mean, Scott Jennings, where do you think the line is? Because, I mean, you know, Ted Cruz, pretty free speech absolutist in those comments there. And a lot of conservatives have said that for a lot of time. But obviously, the killing of Charlie Kirk has crystallized this conversation. Very difficult national moment.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. I agree with Ted Cruz. I'm a free speech absolutist myself.
I mean, obviously, Attorney General Bondi laid out things that you cannot do. I mean, you cannot, sort of try to do some of the activities that she specifically listed. But generally speaking, Ted Cruz is right, and it is conservatives who have, I think, lately and most vociferously stood up for the rights of free speech in this country. And I think it's largely been on the left where you've had people trying to, I think, infringe upon free speech.
It would be a mistake for us to, as conservatives, to abandon our strong defense of free speech. And so, I'm glad -- I'm glad what Ted Cruz said. I'm glad General Bondi also narrowed down the kinds of activities that she thinks run afoul of law, which I think ultimately, she wound up in the right place.
HUNT: Let's watch what Sonia Sotomayor, who -- you know, we don't get tons of chances to see Supreme Court justices speak in public, but she spoke it seemed to be a little bit of a response to Pam Bondi. Watching you decide.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, U.S. SUPREME COURT: The thing that gets to me is every time I listen to a lawyer trained representative saying we should criminalize free speech in some way, I think to myself that law school failed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Kate Bedingfield, what do you make of what she said there?
[16:25:01]
How we as Americans deal with free speech. And Scott's point, right? I mean, we dealt with this so much with social media companies and platforms. The de-platforming of President Trump, various other ways. The algorithms were manipulated.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. Look, I mean, I think -- Scott and I don't agree on a lot. I agree with Scott on -- I'm also a free speech absolutist, and I think that it is important that we continue to protect what is a -- truly a fundamental bedrock American principle. And I think the fact that you've seen kind of figures from both the left and the right come out today and really push back on what we first heard from Bondi gives me a little hope that we haven't lost sight of some of the fundamental principles in this country that have underpinned our government and have made us a free society for, for the entirety of the time that our country has existed.
I think where it where it starts to get concerning is when you have figures from frankly, from President Trump on down who are using -- trying to use this moment to suggest that there, you know, there is inherent violence on the left and that, you know, the government should be seeking out and rooting out these organizations when we have no indication that this shooter acted, you know, at the behest of or through the organization of any of these groups.
And I think when you start to bleed those two concepts together and create this notion that in this incredibly fraught moment, in the wake of this horrific, horrific shooting, when you foment the idea that we have to be at each other's throats politically, I think that's a risky -- I think that's a dangerous place to be.
JENNINGS: Why did I do it? I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out.
BEDINGFIELD: So can I ask you? So --
JENNINGS: He has flat.
HUNT: Scott, just explain what you just read.
JENNINGS: That is. That is the message that the shooter Tyler Robinson sent to his roommate. That is what he said. He also engraved the word, hey, fascist, catch, on the bullet.
For 10 years, we have heard nothing from the left but that Donald Trump is a fascist. Republicans are Nazis. Authoritarians destroy the constitution. Bloodbath dictator for a day. And he wrote it on the bullet.
BEDINGFIELD: So, can I ask you?
JENNINGS: And he's been obviously marinating in some kind of information that radicalized him based on what he heard in the air in this country.
BEDINGFIELD: So does the shooter who assassinated Melissa Hortman, who was a Trump supporter, whose roommate said --
JENNINGS: Are you trying to equate these two --
(CROSSTALK)
BEDINGFIELD: Can you let me finish my thought, please?
JENNINGS: Please.
HUNT: We're talking about two people in politics who both disagree --
(CROSSTALK)
BEDINGFIED: I'm asking you, does that shooter represent the entirety of the MAGA movement? Of course not. I would never argue that. I don't think you would argue that.
So why is it acceptable to use this moment to argue that somebody, a sick individual who committed a horrific crime --
JENNINGS: How do you know he's sick?
BEDINGFEILD: -- is somehow -- are you here to argue for his sanity?
JENNINGS: I'm here to argue. All I know is what the prosecutor said today. He read very lucid messages from a shooter who was motivated by political hate, who had a plan to get away with it. He did not sound like a deranged person. He sounded like someone who had decided to take it upon himself to rid the world of someone that he hated politically, that he thought that the world would be better off without -- that's different than some deranged lunatic showing up off the street.
BEDINGFIELD: His actions were horrific, but to assign to assign the specific, hateful, violent, awful actions of somebody on an individual on the right or an individual on the left --
JENNINGS: I don't know --
(CROSSTALK)
BEDINGFIELD: -- the entirety of the political conversation is incredibly dangerous and irresponsible in this moment.
JENNINGS: Well, I think it's dangerous and irresponsible for nobody to take responsibility for 10 years of the use of the language, fascism, Nazis, authoritarian, so on and so forth. It's on the bullet case.
BEDINGFIELD: I have seen nothing but Democrats in the wake of this murder, saying that it was awful.
JENNINGS: You've seen nothing?
BEDINGFIELD: I have seen them --
JENNINGS: Literally nothing?
BEDINGFIELD: Elected Democrats. I have seen them saying nothing. But it was horrific that they condemn it, that they are sorry for his family, that this is an awful moment in the country.
I've seen President Trump do nothing but say it was the Democrats fault.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Can I -- can I just jump in here for a second?
HUNT: Lulu, yes, go ahead.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I just want to read the words of someone who I think is very wise in the wake of 2019 and the killing in El Paso. He wrote, we have to stop blaming the politicians we loathe for the vile actions of the deranged, evil people who commit mass shootings.
He went on to say, but here's the thing. We should not -- the rush to rage against Trump and the predictive punditry that he will inevitably fail to unite the country seems counterproductive to people who want a meaningful policy outcome. All politicians have a responsibility to ratchet down their own rhetoric and to ask their supporters to stand down as well.
And that man was Scott Jennings.
And so, what I would say about that is those were wise words then, and they should be wise words now.
HUNT: Agree.
JENNINGS: I don't -- I don't disagree with any of that. What I am not happy about is that we have the shooter's words.
[16:30:00]
We know what he put on the bullets. It's very, very, very clear what happened here. And there is a movement by some people to completely say, well, we have no idea. And we do.
HUNT: Hold on. I am, we are, we have the floor. You can have the floor back. But here's the thing. I had to really struggle to understand all of the details that were on those were on those bullets.
They are Internet memes from video games that people way younger than us play. Okay? There is something going on online that is merging with the real world in really strange ways. And I'm just -- I'm interested to know if you have grappled with that.
I'm not sure it fits quite neatly. We think about the world in a certain way. Right? We came up in our politics in a certain way, and now kids -- this kid's age are stewing in something different.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And you wrote something back then about a different shooter where they killed a bunch of Latinos and you very explicitly in that article for CNN said, I do not believe that we should take the actions of one sick individual who might have acted towards hate and extrapolate that more widely to President Trump.
And so, I guess my question would be, why should that be different today?
JENNINGS: Look, I am only reacting to what I have seen and heard out here for the last eight years, which is nothing but Democrats and liberal pundits and supposed analysts assigning the word fascist to Republicans from Trump all the way down.
I see a shooter who's engraved it on a bullet. I have a shooter who sent a message to his roommate. Whatever. I've had enough of his hatred. I'm only simply suggesting that we stop looking the evidence in the face and saying, gee whiz, what happened here?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I understand the paint, but language has been used --
JENNINGS: We know.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- on all sides.
I mean, the person who have, you know, the people who have called President Trump a Nazi was his present vice president and his present secretary of Human -- Health and Human Services.
So, I mean, language is a problem. There's no question. I think what everyone is reacting to here is the fear that the use of this is going to make it so that you are now targeting people who aren't involved in this at all.
HOLMES: And I also think one other thing people are reacting to is the idea that I think everyone who saw or most people who saw what happened last week were horrified by those events, by watching this man get killed in broad daylight. And there was a lot of hope that this would be a moment, an actual turning point, moment of this is going to be all of these people calling for cooler temperatures and different rhetoric, and it just wasn't.
And I think that's also what people are reacting to is that if not this, then is there anything at all that can happen? Watch a 31-year- old father get gunned down in front of his family and nobody changes their rhetoric.
HUNT: We -- this has been a very strong conversation. And, Scott Jennings, I want you to know that we take your point that the way that we talk matters very, very much and that anything that leads to violence is absolutely unacceptable. And I really appreciate having your perspective. We'll talk more in just a minute.
But up next, we have Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. She is here live in THE ARENA.
Plus, the new message today from a potential 2028 candidate about political violence. What he says Democrats should do and his not-so- subtle criticism of the president/
(BERGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO (D), PENNSYLVANIA: Too many people don't believe that our institutions and the people in them can solve problems anymore. They feel alone, ignored, shut out by a government that isn't working for them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:38:22]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA.
And joining us now is a top lawmaker on Capitol Hill, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. She sits on both the House Judiciary and Oversight Committees and will be questioning the FBI director, Kash Patel, at a hearing tomorrow.
Congressman, I'm very grateful to have you on the show here today.
And I want to start by just asking you to respond to the conversation we've been having here on this set. It's the conversation the country has been having. You heard with the attorney general said earlier today about potentially using the Department of Justice to try and go after certain groups. Do you think that the way that she is approaching this hate speech is appropriate?
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): No. Absolutely not. I don't think that that's any surprise of anyone that I would disagree with this current attorney general. You know, it is sad that it seems like there are people on the right specifically that are using Mr. Kirk's tragic death to go ahead and move forward with their tragic agenda.
If you believe that you swore an oath to the Constitution, then maybe you should read it. Maybe you should start reading some case law. Maybe you should understand that the First Amendment is not about speech, that you like. It is about protecting speech.
And to be clear, we do have laws that are on the books because not every single thing that you say is necessarily protected in most states. They have terroristic threat laws that are on the books, because you can't just go out there and threaten somebody or do things that seemingly look like threats, and you have the ability to carry them out and you can be prosecuted.
[16:40:02]
If there's anything that this DOJ and this FBI director need to be doing, they need to be surveilling online to figure out who the potential threats are.
As we know, this young man who is alleged to have shot Mr. Kirk, he was a gamer. He was doing a lot online. In fact, he confessed online. And the FBI, who was looking for him, still couldn't find him. That tells you how adequate they are at their jobs right now.
And I don't put this on the men and women that are currently serving. I put this at the leadership that is decided to divert at least 20 percent of the FBI resources to just pet projects of this president. In addition to that, we know that the shooter that was in Colorado, where children were shot on the same day as Mr. Kirk, yet no one wants to talk about it, was also posting some very concerning things online, to the extent that the FBI had been alarmed about his activity, and ultimately he carried it out. The Minnesota shooter was posting online for 30 days, and people saw what he was doing. And then he did it.
Maybe we should focus on policing the speech. That is more than just speech, but it is leading to actual deaths. Instead of just looking at what hurts the feelings of conservatives.
HUNT: So, I -- I'd like to ask you to respond to critics who have pointed the finger at Democrats, who have used phrases like fascist or Hitler made comparisons to those things over time. Do you think that that's contributed to this, or are those critics wrong?
CROCKETT: They're absolutely wrong. Here's the reality -- they don't want American people to know any forms of history. We know that there was news out today about the president going after yet more historical information.
The reality is that when we look at what is taking place, when you look at an authoritarian and what they do is they try to basically say, you have to do whatever the government says, even if that means that your personal freedoms are going to be subjected to whatever we say, whether it's right or wrong. Right now, our personal freedoms are constantly under attack. Your first question was specifically about our First Amendment rights.
Right now, it is about doing whatever the man who currently occupies the White House wants done. There should not be anyone that faces consequences because they actually know history, and they are trying to prevent even more disaster and harm from coming to the American people.
What crosses the line is when you say things, especially on air, like, yes, euthanize homeless people, that is a problem. Or when you're having a rally and you start talking about beating up people and causing physical harm, or when you joke about what happened to Mr. Pelosi when he was attacked, or when you decide that there are over 1,500 people that were charged and convicted, whether it was in a trial or they signed plea agreements after beating law enforcement and tearing apart our Capitol, and you decide to let them go free.
It seems like violence is okay, if it is only because the man that is currently serving in the White House asked for it. Even when we look at ICE officers and what they are doing to those that are accused of violating our law, that is what they think violence is okay for.
But then when it ends up happening and it comes back on the other side, they claim that it's because of the Democrats and them using words like fascist.
HUNT: Congresswoman, we've heard the president say that he basically thinks that the political violence problem on the left is worse than the political violence problem on the right. Do you think the political violence problem on the right is worse than what it is on the left?
CROCKETT: I think it's a false comparison in the first place, and I think we should have a leader that is responsible enough to denounce -- denounce political violence, period. It's not about where it comes from. It's about the fact that it is happening.
It is never okay. It is never okay if it happens on the left. It is never okay if it happens on the right. And if we had someone that knew how to how to be an adult in the room, he would say that.
But when we look at it, please tell me who is fostering this gun culture, right? I mean, the reality is that the average person on the left probably couldn't make a shot from 200 yards because they haven't been playing with assault rifles since they were a little kid. Like that is just the reality of how people on the left typically work.
And if we believe that political violence is a problem in this country, if we believe that our children on campuses just because they want to go out and have a day of free speech on campus, may be subjected to this kind of violence, then maybe we need to start talking about legislation that will keep these types of weapons out of certain people's hands.
[16:45:11]
Now, whether or not this gentleman would have qualified under any type of laws that many of the Democrats have proposed, I don't know. But the reality is that they typically want to say it's somebody with a mental health problem. Well, maybe red flag laws would be helpful in those circumstances. The reality is that we are elected to at a very minimum, try to do mitigation and try to make sure that everyone, whether they are left or right in the middle or nonaffiliated, can express their views without this idea that they may be subjected to violence, which a lot of it could actually be prevented.
HUNT: All right. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, I really appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective today. Thank you.
All right. Coming up next here, the 2025 speech with a possible 2028 message.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:50:027]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHAPIRO: During moments like this, I believe we have a responsibility to be clear and unequivocal in calling out all forms of political violence and making clear it is all wrong. That shouldn't be hard to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The Pennsylvania governor, Josh Shapiro, today emerging as probably the most high-profile Democrat to make a public address condemning political violence in the wake of Charlie Kirk's assassination.
Shapiro, who is widely considered a likely 2020 presidential candidate, knows personally what it is like to be targeted for what you believe in. This past spring, his house was set on fire in the middle of the night as his family slept by a man who says he intended to beat the governor with a hammer.
Shapiro warning that if leaders don't condemn each and every act of political violence, we are setting down a very dangerous road.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHAPIRO: Unfortunately, some from the dark corners of the Internet all the way to the Oval Office want to cherry pick which instances of political violence they want to condemn. Listen, doing that only further divides us, and it makes it harder to heal. There are some who will hear that selective condemnation and take it as a permission slip to commit more violence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Our panel is back.
And, Scott Jennings, I will note that the governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro, was someone who, when president Trump, somebody you know, was hit by a bullet in Butler, Pennsylvania, Shapiro stood up and denounced it in a clear, unequivocal way. Now he's saying we do the same thing here. Do you think that he has got a point?
JENNINGS: Well, I think his point would be strengthened if he were honest today about who burned his house down. You know, it was a "free Palestine" leftist who came and burned down the governor's mansion. He left that out. He left that out of his tweet today.
And he's talking about cherry picking political violence. And were talking about where there might be political violence. The violence against the governor of Pennsylvania and his family came from the left. And so I -- I think look, I think there's a rush by Democrats who want to be president in 2028 to try to turn somehow Donald Trump's friend get shot.
And now everybody wants to blame Donald Trump for it. I guess that's what you have to do to get elected president as a Democrat.
HUNT: We are not doing that sitting here. Okay.
And, Kate, please go ahead.
JENNINGS: I'm sorry. Is that -- is that not what's happening? People are point --
BEDINGFIELD: The governor's point is that it doesn't matter where the violence came from, it should be condemned.
JENNINGS: I think -- I think it might. Shouldn't it matter, the motivations of the people?
BEDINGFIELD: It should be condemned regardless of the entire point of his speech.
JENNINGS: Agree. Don't you care about the motivation?
BEDINGFIELD: To sit here and suggest that somehow him not mentioning it was some sort of sleight of hand to try to make it seem.
JENNINGS: Of course, it is. I don't think his political party would --
(CROSSTALK)
BEDINGFIELD: -- the entire point of what he was saying. And it's a message that is badly, badly needed in this country at this moment.
JENNINGS: Look, I think that if we cannot be honest, if I were him and somebody tried to burn my house down, I think I'd be honest about who did it and why they did it. And it would matter for people to know that, would it not?
HUNT: Scott, is this not a lets rise above? Because anyone that is committing an act of political violence, who is trying to kill someone else for what they believe in, it's like it is inherently wrong and awful. I mean --
JENNINGS: Why are your two impulses mutually exclusive? Why can't we all say all political violence is bad, which I wholeheartedly believe? And also be honest, when people have clear intentions, I think there's a difference between people that have clear intentions. And, you know, clearly deranged people.
But in the case of Shapiro and I think in the case of Charlie Kirk, we know the intentions, the political intentions of the people at play. And when we sort of skirt around it and we're not honest about it, we let it off the hook. And I don't think we should let people with clear political intentions to commit violence off the hook. And so, I like what he said about condemning violence. I just would like it a little more if we could just be a little bit honest about what happened at his house.
BEDINGFIELD: You would just like it if a politically critical message was applied to what he was trying to say. I mean, that's what you're saying, right? You're saying you like what he said in condemning political violence across the board, but it didn't work for you because you didn't try to get in a dig at whose fault it was.
The entire point is that we have to condemn political violence from all sides, in all stripes, in whatever form. And I think the fact that we are sitting here, even having this conversation is deeply, deeply problematic in terms of where the -- where the temperature is in the country right now.
[16:55:04]
I think the fact that you would call him dishonest --
JENNINGS: I agree that it is problematic that a prominent Democrat cannot be honest about who tried to burn his house down. I totally agree with you about that.
BEDINGFIELD: Cannot be honest, as if did he misrepresent it?
JENNINGS: He didn't mention it and has refused to say it.
BEDINGFIELD: I think the only person misrepresenting what he said today, Scott Jennings, is, you.
JENNINGS: No, I'm reading what he tweeted. I listened to his speech. I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm just saying that, you know, unless we say it out loud, how will people know?
HUNT: Unfortunately, Scott, Jake Tapper comes after us, will be very upset if we get into his time. So, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: Thanks to my panel for being with us today.
Thanks to all of you at home for watching. Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake.
