Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Comey Pleads Not Guilty, Plans To Ask Judge To Dismiss Charges; Trump Calls For Jailing of Chicago Mayor & Illinois Gov. Pritzker "For Failing To Protect ICE Officers"; Former Fight Pilot Launches 2nd Bid For McConnell's Senate Seat. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired October 08, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RIC GILLESPIE, AUTHOR, "FINDING AMELIA": -- files, they ought to start with some that actually exist.
[16:00:07]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Ric Gillespie, thank you for bringing us that fact check. We very much appreciate it.
Occam's razor, the simplest explanation, no matter how tragic. It's sad to hear that that's likely what happened to Amelia Earhart.
ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: It is. You're right.
SANCHEZ: Yeah.
HILL: All right, well, that's going to do it for us this afternoon. Always a pleasure to be with you, my friend.
SANCHEZ: Not the most uplifting note to end on, but a pleasure to be with you as well.
HILL: It is a little tough one to end on, but that's okay.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hey, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Wednesday.
A personal feud between the president and the former FBI director soon to be tested in a court of law. Today, James Comey pleaded not guilty to charges that he lied to and obstructed Congress. The trial that Comey vowed to face scheduled to begin on January 5th.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: My family and I have known for years that there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump, but we couldn't imagine ourselves living any other way. My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I'm innocent. So, let's have a trial.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: But this case could be over long before a trial starts. Comey's lawyer says they plan to file at least five pretrial motions for dismissal, one alleging outrageous government conduct, another claiming the prosecution is vindictive and selective. Comey's lawyer telling the judge, quote, this prosecution was brought by President Trump.
Now, how far we've come since this moment, you may remember it, eight and a half years ago, Donald Trump, just days into his first term, summoned Comey to the White House, tried to turn a handshake into a hug. No more.
This morning, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who defended Donald Trump in his own criminal trial, argued that this prosecution is actually proof that the Justice Department has not been politicized.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: We completely got rid of the weaponization that took place over the past four years in this Department of Justice, and now we are applying the law equally to everybody. And that means rooting out corruption. Of course it does. And he's being treated exactly like every other individual in his position.
Whether there will be more charges, I can tell you this, there's -- we are not worried about the political blowback, if any, of us doing our jobs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, is Comey being treated exactly like anyone else would be?
A judge will soon have to decide the answer to that question. Comey's indictment came just days after this social media post from President Trump, in which he named Comey and told the attorney general, Pam Bondi, quote, we can't delay any longer. It's killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice and indicted me five times over nothing. Justice must be served now.
And just this week, the president said he could involve himself in the Comey case if he wanted to, even as he denied being behind it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, I think he's a crooked guy. He's a dirty cop. I mean, I have nothing to do with the case. I just say, good luck.
REPORTER: But you called on Pam Bondi to prosecute him in a post on Truth Social?
TRUMP: No, no, I don't call anybody. You know what? I'm allowed to do that if I wanted to do that, it wasn't me that voted. They voted to indict him. But he's a crooked guy, in my opinion. And we'll find out. The courts are going to determine that in a little while, I guess.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA.
Our panel is here.
But first, I want to bring in someone who was in the room when James Comey was arraigned. CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz.
Katelyn, thanks for being with us in THE ARENA today.
Tell us what you saw -- through what you saw this morning. What happened in the courtroom? What was the emotion, if any, like? How did it all unfold?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Comey, is a man with a lot of decorum as a former FBI director.
But, Kasie, I -- I just want to bring up you just played that video of that awkward hug years ago of James Comey going and meeting Donald Trump for the first time in the White House. The exact same thing is what Comey wore today. I don't know if that's by design, but he had the red tie, the light blue shirt, and the navy suit on. He looked just like that.
And to look at what the courtroom was. So, I'm sitting in the pews, but in front, there are two tables. There's a defense side and a government side. And it was a little different than most courtrooms today.
On the defense side, its two lawyers, two very esteemed, well- practiced lawyers. They've appeared in many courts before, including Pat Fitzgerald, the lead defense counsel, who himself was a former U.S. attorney in the Bush administration and the Obama administration.
[16:05:01]
They're flanking Comey at the defense table.
And then on the prosecutor's side, it wasn't your typical lineup of government line attorneys. Lindsey Halligan, she sat in the middle of two line attorneys from the Justice Department who will be arguing the case. She didn't speak to the judge.
But just that scene of Comey versus Halligan is something that was very unusual in itself. And you could tell by this proceeding that this defense team that they want to go after the prosecutors here, that's going to be the design of it, and they're going to want to do that much before anyone gets near a jury trial, that they are going to be bringing these briefs, these arguments, to the judge saying that this case should be dismissed because Halligan shouldn't have the ability to be the prosecutor on it or have signed that indictment, that there was vindictive prosecution here or selective prosecution, that the grand jury was abused, that there's been outrageous government action.
That's going to bring not just the work of the Justice Department behind this case into court. It's also very likely going to put the political climate at the center of the courtroom. Halligan herself being there as well, is another thing that brings politics in there. She's a political appointee.
And today, Kasie, one thing that jumped out at me was that the two line attorneys working with her, they very clearly said they too were just getting their arms wrapped around the evidence in this case and that they needed some more time to figure out exactly what they may want to bring at trial, especially when it relates to possible classified documents.
So, there's a long road ahead. And Judge Nachmanoff, he doesn't want it to take too much time. The trial date is January 5th, less than three months from this day.
HUNT: Wow. There's a lot there. Katelyn Polantz, thank you very much for that reporting. Really, really interesting stuff.
All right. Our panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; Republican strategist, pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson; former director of public affairs at the Justice Department, Xochitl Hinojosa is here; and Republican strategist Brad Todd is also here.
We also are joined by our text chain on the left side of the screen. You can read along for additional analysis and reporting from some of our top contributors.
But, Elliot Williams, let me start with you, because, I mean, what Katelyn just laid out there is a pretty remarkable scene. I mean, what stands out to you about what this was like today?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It is a pretty remarkable scene. That is how I would put it. Let's put it this way. If Jim Comey is not prosecuted, there is one person to blame and that is Donald Trump. If in fact there was any legitimacy to these charges whatsoever, and there might be I'm not a grand jury certainly found enough probable cause to establish at least one of them, if there's any legitimacy to them, Donald Trump has sunk most chance of really getting to a conviction here.
Number one, all of his statements, including in writing about the defendant, have made a clear case for selective prosecution in getting the whole thing thrown out. It's the social media. It's the statements and speeches going back years.
And even if we are to acknowledge that this is a special time and these are special circumstances, and they going after Donald Trump as well, there is a clear record of the president directing a prosecution here. We have not seen that with this level of specificity. In any case, certainly in my lifetime and in anybody's at this table. So --
HUNT: Xochitl, you're obviously the Democrat at the table, but you also have worked in the DOJ in their public affairs outfit. What stands out to you about what we saw today from Comey? Because, I mean, obviously, the way Merrick Garland ran his Department of Justice quite different than what Pam Bondi is doing.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, and it's not just Merrick Garland, I think, when both of us have been at the Justice Department under different A.G.s but every attorney general, whether you agree with them or not, whether they're a Republican administration or a Democratic administration, understands the need for career decisions and decisions about prosecutions, especially in matters like this one, to be risen up from career employees and not made by -- decisions not being made by political appointees.
That is clearly not happening here. They are not going through normal DOJ process. And I think Lindsey Halligan is just -- it's quite clear that she's now at the center of it. The only person also that signed the indictment, which could end up proving problematic if she is if they are questioning whether or not she can even be in the position as U.S. attorney at this point. So, it's problematic that she signed that indictment, and everyone should just be clear on that.
And I think it's also just showing you just the reason why people are often frustrated about this, that the Justice Department doesn't talk about their investigations and they don't talk about an ongoing prosecution, especially either before indictment or after indictment, for the reason that Elliot just laid out, which is you could potentially hurt a case. And Donald Trump speaking out.
I mean, I remember when I was at the Justice Department, if Joe Biden said something about one of our cases -- you know, everyone at the Justice Department would freak out.
[16:10:07]
But there's been nothing like this before.
HUNT: Elliot, can I ask you this as a technical, as an as a non- lawyer? Is it surprising to you that, you know, Katelyn's reporting is that these two line prosecutors that surround Lindsey Halligan tell the judge, like, we don't know yet what our prosecution is. I mean, shouldn't you come to this hearing knowing that or --
WILLIAMS: They should, and in fact, they will have to present their case to the defense at some point. The Constitution requires that. You have to provide evidence to the defense. So, he knows what he's facing in court.
So, at a certain point, they need to come forward with their evidence. Now, of course, it can be the case where prosecutors get more evidence over the course of a prosecution. They don't know everything on the day they file it.
HUNT: Right.
WILLIAMS: But look, this was a very thin indictment from the jump. It was only two pages long, did not provide much information. And we don't really have much reason to believe they really know what's behind the charges.
HUNT: Yeah. So let's watch what we think we know about what this indictment is, which, of course, related to testimony that Comey gave to Congress in the Case. It turns out that -- according to CNN reporting, this is actually about how Comey handled the reopening of the Hillary Clinton email investigation back in the 2016 campaign, the allegation that he lied to Congress about leaking or authorizing a leak, I should say to reporters, lets watch a moment from that testimony.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): So, your testimony is you've never authorized anyone to leak. And Mr. McCabe when -- if he says contrary, is not telling the truth. Is that correct?
COMEY: Again, I'm not going to characterize Andy's testimony, but mine is the same today.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Brad Todd, I don't think anyone is arguing that Jim Comey is liked by really anyone in Washington, right?
WILLIAMS: Right.
HUNT: I mean, he's managed to everybody off to use --
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This day was coming. We just didn't know which president was going to direct his indictment.
HUNT: Well, I mean, Joe Biden was president for four years without doing it. What is your level of comfort with what's going on here and what is the level? I mean, I understand that Republicans do not like Jim Comey, but there is obviously a difference between not being liked and being indicted.
TODD: Well, first off, I love Xochitl's optimism. Like she thinks that there's this halcyonic view of the Department of Justice that people have trusted it, and I appreciate that she does. And we need to be able to get to where everybody feels that way.
But a lot of conservatives and Republicans think the department of justice has been broken for a very long time. They don't look back at some good old days when Democratic career prosecutors, they were career prosecutors who happened to be Democrats, most of them, did things their way without so and so. They didn't need political interference because they were the political interference. So, I think that point is a very different viewpoint from -- on the conservative side and on the liberal side.
As for Comey and the politics of it, I have a little concern that this is looking backward, and I think that Donald Trump does best when he is fighting problems in the windshield and not in the rearview mirror. And so, I think that the Jim Comey issue, while he has some grounds to be upset with him, it is in the rearview mirror. And I don't think it helps him in the future.
HUNT: So that tees you up nicely, Kristen. I mean, where are voters on this? I mean, are is this a potential risk for Republican voters who perhaps or for Donald Trump, I should say, with Republican voters who perhaps want him to, I don't know, worry about the cost of living?
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, I think Brad has nailed this in that, for many people who voted for Donald Trump, they voted for him knowing that, he said things like, I will be your retribution. But there's a difference between voting for him, knowing that he said that and voting for him because he said that. And there are a lot of voters who I think voted for him in spite of some of that.
Pew Research Center put out some great new data today. You know, three quarters of Republicans say they think Trump has improved the way the government works, 73 percent think he's improved. The country's standing around the world. But four in 10 of those same Republicans think that he's improperly used the government to go after his political opponents.
And so there are voters holding these -- Republican voters, holding these two thoughts in their minds at the same time. I like what he's doing as president, but I wish he'd knock some of this off because it feels like it's on the wrong.
TODD: He also has a lot going on that's positive. You know, there are pieces about to break out in the Middle East, and it's largely due to Donald Trump's efforts and he stuck his neck out.
HUNT: I'm going to clip and save this claim that you're making.
HINOJOSA: I know.
TODD: So -- well, it may not be for long.
HUNT: Millennia, okay?
TODD: It may not be for long. May not be for long.
WILLIAMS: Something's coming.
TODD: But he's put far more effort and put more on the line to achieve the possibility of it than almost any president we can remember. And that's a thing to be talking about today. And that's the thing. This is a distraction from talking about that.
HINOJOSA: Well, it's not -- I mean, I would say a distraction. Donald Trump brought this upon himself by, you know, telling Pam Bondi that she needed to move forward with this. One interesting part about yesterday's hearing when Pam Bondi was testifying and was asked specifically about whether or not she talked to Trump about this matter.
Normally, A.G.s often say, I can't talk to you about my conversations with the president. That is a typical answer. Unless it has to do with a criminal matter where the president should not be involved, and A.G.s know that it is wrong for the attorney -- for the president of the United States to interfere in a criminal investigation.
[16:15:06]
So, A.G.s previously have said, have drawn the line there and said, I have not spoken with the president about this matter because this is a criminal matter. And I found it interesting that she did not say that.
WILLIAMS: It's remarkable. I mean, I can give you anecdotal examples from my time there where, you know, every week the weekly legislative affairs meeting, every cabinet department would go around, they'd get to us and wed say, we have nothing to report because we would not report things we were working on to the people in the White House.
When we were working on nominations, if there were White House people in the room, you know, you can talk about policy and strategy, but the moment a case comes out, you would send the White House people out of the room. This is the way it has functioned since Watergate. I came into the Justice Department under John Ashcroft, a man who was so conservative that he literally covered the nude statues in the building, like every attorney general has operated in this manner.
HINOJOSA: It's very true. It's very true.
TODD: Wait a minute, though. Eric Holder said he would be Barack Obama's wingman. Bobby Kennedy was literally the brother of a president.
HINOJOSA: And he did not --
WILLIAMS: Let me respond. Let me respond to that specific -- number one, Eric Holder was pilloried for that statement. Number two, what evidence do you have or can you point to that either Barack Obama or Joe Biden or George Bush or anybody else directed the prosecution of anybody ever?
TODD: Well, I think you can look at Joe Biden deciding to recruit agents in the Catholic Church because Latin mass might be a terrorist --
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: No, no, Brad, I asked a very painfully straightforward question.
TODD: I just don't think anyone buys that, Elliot. I just don't think anyone buys it.
HINOJOSA: We prosecuted Hunter Biden and investigated Donald Trump and investigated and prosecuted Bob Menendez and prosecuted Henry Cuellar. I mean, the list goes on --
WILLIAMS: And I would say --
HUNT: Bob Menendez is evidence. WILLIAMS: And I would say Rod Blagojevich and Tom DeLay, and Dennis Hastert, and all these political leaders who are prosecuted without the interference of the White House. You have to trust the people who have done this before. And I understand there's a partisan difference between Trump and Biden and so on, but it is simply not the case.
And people can growls, I'm not here to defend Joe Biden. Thats what Xochitl exists for.
HINOJOSA: I'm not either.
WILLIAMS: But --
(LAUGHTER)
TODD: There's not a single Republican American who believes Merrick Garland dispatched a career prosecutor to help Bragg -- Alvin Bragg with a partisan prosecution --
HINOJOSA: No. I know this person.
WILLIAMS: No, no, no.
HINOJOSA: Hold on.
WILLIAMS: You bring up a state prosecution, and I'm going to ask you the question again. Name an instance. Name any evidence you can point to that a president of the United States prior to Donald Trump, in our lifetimes, directed or called for specifically the prosecution of an individual. It just doesn't -- it has -- you can't point to it. It doesn't exist.
And the conversation quickly pivots to -- well, Joe Biden was a bad guy or Hunter Biden. This tell me when Joe Biden picked up the phone and called the attorney general and told him to prosecute a case, it simply hasn't happened.
HINOJOSA: And not even in his own matter.
WILLIAMS: Right.
HUNT: All right. Point taken. We got to take a break, though.
Coming up here, one of Donald Trump's former lawyers will be here in THE ARENA. What does he make of James Comey's motions to dismiss these charges? How strong a case does he think prosecutors have?
Plus, President Trump calls for the arrest of the Chicago mayor and the Illinois governor. J.B. Pritzker, said governor, now responding.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D), ILLINOIS: There's one thing I really want to say to Donald Trump: If you come for my people, you come through me. So come and get me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:39]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR (D-MN): Do you consider that a directive to the Justice Department?
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Senator Klobuchar, President Trump is the most transparent president in American history. And I don't think he said anything that he hasn't said for years. I am not going to discuss pending cases because Comey was indicted in the Eastern District of Virginia by, I may point out, one of the most liberal grand juries in the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was the Attorney General Pam Bondi yesterday, refusing to give a straight answer when she was pressed on whether this post from President Trump influenced the Justice Department's decision to pursue charges against James Comey.
In it, he names Comey and says, "Justice must be served now". Today, Comey pleaded not guilty and indicated that he plans to ask the judge to dismiss the case as a vindictive and selective prosecution.
So, we wanted to bring some -- the perspective of someone who has represented Trump into THE ARENA, but we're having some technical issues on that front. That will be Trump attorney Bill Brennan. We are joined by former federal prosecutor Berit Berger and THE ARENA text chain is back with us.
Berit, let me ask you, and we'll bring Bill in, you know, if and when he is available to us.
But what do you make of the strategy that the defense is deploying here of filing these planned motions that essentially say this this shouldn't fly. We shouldn't even start this trial?
BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It's a smart strategy, and it really shows how experienced the defense attorney is, how much experience Mr. Comey has. And it really just highlights the different levels of experience in this case, right?
So, today, you had, Mr. Comey and his lawyer, Pat Fitzgerald, both who have decades of experience in the federal government, both, obviously, Mr. Comey, the former director of the FBI, but also as a former U.S. attorney, and Pat Fitzgerald is a former U.S. attorney for many, many years.
They are respected. They've done trials. They know how to make these motions. This really stood in stark contrast to the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. This was only her second time appearing in court as a federal prosecutor. So, you see that the experience that these gentlemen bring to the case
goes to the motions that they're about to make.
[16:25:06]
They're logical motions. The president has made it very easy for them to make these motions. And even though these are legally tricky ones to make and aren't usually successful, if there's ever a case where there will be, I think it's this one.
HUNT: Interesting.
I think Bill Brennan is with us now.
Bill, there you are. If I could just get you to respond there to what Berit is arguing here. How do you look at the strategy we're seeing play out here?
WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, I think it's a smart strategy. Mr. Fitzgerald knows what he's doing. The he made it very clear he's going to say the president, in fact, was a de facto indictor here, if you will, of Mr. Comey. But that's really not the case. The case was presented by the U.S. attorney of the district. A panel of grand jurors indicted, and they're going to have to get around that.
I mean, a grand jury indicted Mr. Comey certainly presumed innocent, there's no doubt about that. But this wasn't some type of information that was filed by the U.S. attorney. Where just U.S. attorney on his or her own charges, this was a grand jury that heard evidence and indicted. And while the presumption of innocence remains, he is certainly in the deep end of the pool at this point.
HUNT: Berit, how do you look at the role the grand jury played? Because that's been drawn into our political debate as well.
BERGER: It's a different standard than they will face when they go to trial for a criminal jury. When you have to actually prove the case in a court of law, you have to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt. It has to be unanimous.
The same rules don't apply in the grand jury. You don't have to have a unanimous grand jury. You only have to have majority. And it's also a much less onerous standard.
So, while certainly, I think we can't discount the fact that he has been indicted by a federal grand jury, which is nothing to scoff at. I mean, it is -- it is sobering to see your name on top of an indictment. I think they will face a harder challenge, both from the judge when he actually gets a chance to review the law and to see if this withstands these, these motions, and then ultimately with the jury.
So, I think it will be a far greater challenge. Again, the last thing to remember about the grand jury, they're not hearing from defense counsel, so they're getting one version of the story only from the prosecutor. It's not an adversarial process in that grand jury room.
So Mr. Comey didn't have representation. He didn't have a chance to have his voice heard in the grand jury room, which he certainly will when its actually taken to trial.
HUNT: Bill Brennan, we heard from --
BRENNAN: Kasie, I agree with Berit.
HUNT: Jump in. Yeah.
BRENNAN: I agree with Barrett. There certainly two standards. The first -- it's kind of like a -- is there anything "there" there type of standard. Almost like in a non-federal case, a preliminary hearing. It's just -- is there anything at all to tie the defendant to a possible crime. It's a much lower standard.
And Mr. Fitzgerald seemed to indicate today that he would challenge that process. I think that's going to be a tough sell at the trial level. Barrett is absolutely correct. It's beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a much tougher standard.
But it's very important to realize that a grand jury did indict Mr. Comey, and that's a problem.
HUNT: Barrett, I want to ask you about something that our friends in our text chain were discussing just a moment ago. Elie Honig making the point, underscoring what Brad Todd had said on our panel earlier in that there have been instances in the -- in the Department of Justice or in our system writ large that have made Republicans not trust the system. Letitia James and Alvin Bragg, for example, obviously, state based cases.
But I'm curious your take on that piece of it. I mean, does it matter? Should it matter if Americans buy into the idea that the department of justice is above politics?
BERGER: Look, I think the Department of Justice always should be above politics. Perhaps that's a quaint notion these days. I mean, there are differences between Letitia James -- Jones -- Letitia James and Alvin Bragg. Both of those were elected prosecutors. They're state level prosecutors. Bragg being district attorney. And Tish James being the A.G.
I think, you know, while there are still attorneys that are held to ethical rules and they really should not be speaking out of court, they certainly, I think, went further than they should have. And I was critical about them years ago when they were making those statements. I think it is different when you see this level of politics in the Department of Justice.
The Department of Justice, I think, has held itself for many years to be above the fray. Certainly during the time that I was at Department of Justice, you know, we prosecuted as many Democrats as we did Republicans. And the idea was, I mean, certainly, we were always interested in the big case. We wanted to get, you know, if there was a big name or we knew we
could make a big case, that would be splashy. We wanted that case, but it certainly wasn't the case that we wanted it because it was a political friend or a political foe of somebody in the administration.
So, I think they, while you can criticize their behavior, I think it is a little different.
HUNT: Bill Brennan, quick last word to you. We're up against the clock.
BRENNAN: Kasie, you make -- you make -- you make a really good point, though.
General James -- Letitia James ran on a campaign that elect me, and I'll get Trump. I'll find something. He must have done something. So, she is an elected prosecutor. But she ran on. Give me the job and I'll get Trump. That's just not the way we do things in America.
Alvin Bragg took over a case that the federal government declined to prosecute. And then Cyrus Vance, a well-respected predecessor of Mr. Bragg, said, no, we're going to pass on this. He tied it together with duct tape and zip ties, and he prosecuted the president. He got a conviction. We'll see if that lasts.
But, you know, there's political motivation in all sides in everyday life and in prosecutions. But in this case, whether you think President Trump put his thumb on the scale or not, a grand jury indicted Mr. Comey, and that can't be denied.
HUNT: All right, fair enough. Bill Brennan, Berit Berger, thank you both very much. I really appreciate your time. I also appreciate our friends.
BRENNAN: Thank you for having me.
HUNT: Of course, in the text chain very much.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, CNN cameras spotting National Guard troops from Texas, gathering a few miles outside Chicago. What we're learning about if and when they might be sent in.
Plus, the major escalation from President Trump calling for Illinois's top Democratic leaders to be jailed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR BRANDON JOHNSON (D), CHICAGO, ILLINOIS: This president is unstable, unhinged, a double minded individual that, quite frankly, is a threat to our democracy. I'm not going anywhere.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:30] (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: This is a fundamental attack on our democracy. It's not about immigration. It's not about safety. It's about authoritarianism. And we're going to push back, and we're going to defend Chicago and all American cities against this tyrant.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson criticizing the president's continued push to send the National Guard into his city. The battle between Democratic-led cities and President Trump hitting an inflection point today when the president posted on Truth Social that the Chicago mayor and the Illinois governor, J.B. Pritzker, should be jailed for, quote, failing to protect the ICE officers.
Here's how the mayor and governor responded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: It's certainly not -- it's not the first time that Donald Trump, called for the arresting of a Black man unjustly. I'm not going anywhere. I'm going to stay firm as the mayor of this amazing city.
GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D), ILLINOIS: This is a convicted felon -- I mean, think about that -- who is threatening to jail me. I got to say. This guy is unhinged. He's insecure. He's a wannabe dictator.
And there's one thing I really want to say to Donald Trump: if you come for my people, you come through me. So come and get me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. My panel is back, and we also want to bring in Major General Randy Manner into THE ARENA, the former acting vice chief of the National Guard bureau.
General Manner, let me start with you here.
Pretty remarkable call from President Trump there to say that these two men should be jailed, these two political leaders should be jailed. What's your reaction?
MAJOR GENERAL RANDY MANNER, FORMER ACTING VICE CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU: I happen to agree with the governor and the mayor that the president is becoming more and more unhinged. He is acting irrationally even beyond what he was previously. The idea -- it's completely not about immigration anymore. This is about him escalating his intimidation of cities and leaders who are not supportive of him.
And this is nothing more than using the military as one more technique of intimidation. It's very sad. And every American should be alarmed at this invasion of state's rights.
HUNT: General, what do you make of the way that some states, in the case of Texas, for example, Governor Abbott is sending his National Guard to Illinois? CNN reporters have now seen Texas National Guard troops on the ground there.
What kind of precedent does that set? I mean, what is your -- how should we be understanding that, in your view?
MANNER: This is unprecedented. This has not happened before ever, where a governor sends in troops to another state's governor that are not welcome. This is again full indication of a dictatorship and intimidation in the use of the military. And it shows, quite frankly, whether it's Texas sending troops to another state or quite frankly, in Tennessee, where, you know, the president called up the governor and said, why don't you deploy your National Guard in Memphis?
Well, remember the governor of Tennessee could have done that on his own beforehand. But whenever the president called and said, I need a favor, I need you to do this for me. That's 100 percent political. There is no crisis.
And the -- what is happening is, is the president and the administration with Stephen Miller are trying to create false flags and hoping something goes wrong, where ICE members are perhaps even killed so that they can bring in thousands of federal troops.
[16:40:16]
And that's what is extremely difficult here.
This is not about de-escalation. The president has no intent to de- escalate. He only wants to escalate and to divide and to feed his own ego. End of story.
HUNT: Kristen Soltis Anderson, one thing that I have been wondering, as we've been covering this story around immigration and we've seen more and more pictures of people being, you know, arrested or, you know, put in vans is whether there is a tipping point where voters have started to look at this and say, you know, I was for the secure border. I, you know, don't think undocumented immigrants should be in the country. But this is like too much for me.
And there is some polling at 51 percent of Americans in this recent "New York Times"/Siena poll said that 51 percent say that his immigration enforcement, the president's immigration enforcement, has gone too far.
How do you understand these numbers? And like what is your data telling you about this question?
ANDERSON: Yeah. So, the president, since he has been sworn back into office, immigration is typically been one of his stronger issues, but his numbers have fallen a bit since January. And I think it's in part from what you're talking about, that there are some voters who said, I feel like the border is in complete crisis. I feel like we have no control over the situation. So I'm willing to give the president a lot of latitude to do some things that might be outside my comfort zone to solve the problem.
But as voters now feel like the border is more secure, and as we've now turned really toward this interior enforcement, there are images that where people are going, well, wait a minute. I wanted the bad guys to get deported. I don't know about this person in my community. Are they really a bad guy? And so, that's the line that President Trump has to walk.
The best thing he has going for him right now is that he has a message of, I'm doing this thing, and voters go, you're doing something. I might not love it. They're not at all sure what Democrats plan would be on this issue, which is why he still retains a really big issue handling advantage over Democrats on immigration.
HUNT: And of course, the other question here, that and the general touched on this, but the use of the National Guard in this same poll, 53 percent say that Trump's actions have gone too far on that. Is this another risk point for him?
ANDERSON: Well, I think a lot about, you know, the extent to which the polls did or didn't move in June when n we had the National Guard go in in response to protests about ICE in Los Angeles. We've seen this happen before, and it sort of very quickly got consumed by other news stories.
So, it remains to be seen. Will this be a rerun of that? Will this be different in some way to what happened in Los Angeles? I think that's still an open question.
TODD: You know, Donald Trump didn't create this problem. This problem was created by governors and mayors in blue states and blue cities who refused to help enforce immigration law. Article VI of the Constitution says there is federal supremacy. Immigration law falls under that.
The federal government's laws on immigration are triumph, and it's the job of governors and mayors and police chiefs and sheriffs to help enforce it. And if these blue state mayors and police had been helping ICE enforce immigration laws, if they would help them now, then you could be a lot more precise. You could get the bad actors, you get the criminal actors out.
Because the states are not helping enforce the immigration laws, you're forcing the federal government to do some things that it probably would rather not do.
HUNT: Well, I will say that Stephen Miller demanding a certain number of people be deported is also making it harder to meet those quotas.
General Randy Manner, I do want to give you a brief, last word here, as we've been talking about this. What would you leave us with?
MANNER: It's important to understand that the National Guard that are being deployed from Texas, they are professionals, they are orderly. They understand the rule of law. It is not like the ICE agents, which quite frankly, that is the equivalent of Trump's gestapo. Poorly trained.
They acted like a mob, and they cover their faces. They want anonymity. They look like a bunch of Proud Boys.
Please ensure that all of your listeners treat the guardsmen with respect, and they will do the same for you. They are not undisciplined thugs. They are your sons and daughters in uniform. And you should look at them that way.
HUNT: All right. General Randy Manner, thanks very much for being with us today, sir. I appreciate it.
The rest of our panel is going to stand by.
And coming up, we're going to talk to the retired marine fighter pilot who is making a second go at Senator Mitch McConnell's Senate seat, although it's open this time. Amy McGrath will join us live in THE ARENA.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:49:03]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AMY MCGRATH (D), KENTUCKY SENATE CANDIDATE: I flew F-18 fighter jets, 89 combat missions. I know what courage looks like. Right now, way too many politicians don't. And Americans are being thrown under the bus by cowards in Washington without the moral backbone to serve our nation with honor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. This week, retired Marine fighter pilot Amy McGrath announced she is running again for the Senate seat in Kentucky. This time, that seat will be open. She had previously run against Mitch McConnell. She raised and spent almost $90 million in 2020 when she was trying to unseat him, but she lost by 20 points.
The last time Kentucky had a Democratic senator in Washington back in 1992. And last year, President Trump won the state by 30 points.
Joining me now, though, in THE ARENA is Amy McGrath.
Colonel, thank you very much for being here. I really appreciate it.
I think my top line question to you is, what's going to be different this time?
[16:50:06]
MCGRATH: Well, what's different, I think, is Mitch McConnell saw the writing on the wall. Right. And he stepped down. And Kentuckians want change. I mean, that's very clear. This is a midterm. So, it's a lot different than running back in 2020 when I ran against a 30-year incumbent who was the Senate majority leader in a tough fight, who, by the way, had a ton of dark money to help him out. And oh, by the way, we had COVID going on. So that made it pretty hard to campaign. I think that this midterm and Kentuckians, Kasie have proven that they
can vote for the best candidate in the race, you know, whether that person has a D or an R behind their name, because we just elected a Democratic governor in 2023 who's wildly popular.
So, I think this is a -- this is a fight worth fighting here in Kentucky because there's so much going on just in the last nine months that hurts Kentucky and hurts Kentuckians.
HUNT: I take your point about Mr. Beshear, although he does, of course, have the kind of name recognition that goes with that runs in the family, I guess we should say.
I do want to ask you, though, Ro Khanna, who is a progressive leader in the House of Representatives, he wrote this quote, I appreciate Amy's service, but Amy's previously run for the seat and only succeeded in enriching consultants and bleeding well-meaning donors dry one text at a time. We need a different kind of Democratic Party and approach to build a majority.
Those are some pretty tough words. What would you say back to him?
MCGRATH: Well, I would say Ro Khanna doesn't really know what he's talking about here. First of all, were all fighting for the same goal, and that's a Democratic majority that delivers for Americans and protects our democracy. I have deep respect for anyone doing that work.
My focus is on Kentucky and winning tough races that determine control of the United States Senate. And, you know, after my 2020 campaign, I worked to help power wins in Georgia and around the country, and pro- democracy -- helping pro-democracy candidates and causes for years. And I'm proud to continue to fight for Kentuckians.
So, we need to stay -- we need to stay focused on that and not somehow bashing each other.
HUNT: I want to show you a recent clip from Katie Porter, who's also well-known Democrat, particularly on a lot of these social media platforms.
She was pressed about how she might win over Trump voters in the California governor's race. And obviously, Kentucky, we've seen Donald Trump very popular.
I want to show you what Katie Porter had to say in this exchange with a reporter. And then essentially put the same question to you, let's watch this exchange.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INTERVIEWER: What do you say to the 40 percent of California voters who you'll need in order to win who voted for Trump?
KATIE PORTER (D), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: How would I need them in order to win, ma'am? INTERVIEWER: Well, unless you think you're going to get 60 percent of
the vote, you think you'll get 60 percent. All -- everybody who did not vote for Trump will vote for you. That's what you're saying.
PORTER: In a general election?
INTERVIEWER: Yes.
PORTER: If it is me versus a Republican, I think that I will win. The people who did not vote for Trump. I'm saying I'm going to try to win every vote I can. And what I'm saying to you is that --
INTERVIEWER: Well, to those voters. Okay. So you --
PORTER: I don't want to keep doing this. I'm going to call it. Thank you.
INTERVIEWER: You're not going to do the interview with us?
PORTER: Nope. Not like this. I'm not -- not with seven follow ups to every single question you ask.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I'm interested in your reaction to what she -- how she handled that moment there, but also, I mean, in Kentucky, it's an even more important question, right? Because the numbers are flipped, 60 plus percent of Kentuckians voted for Donald Trump. What do you do to win some of those people over?
MCGRATH: Yeah. So, obviously, I'm not -- I'm not running against the president.
But here's the thing -- so many Kentuckians, they thought they were voting for Donald Trump and for these Republicans in Congress to bring down prices, to tackle inflation. There were promises that were made, Kasie, that, oh, we won't go after Medicare and we won't go after Medicaid, and we won't go after Kynect. Thats our equivalent of the Affordable Care Act.
And guess what? What did they do when they got in power? They did all of those things. They raised prices. They not only made it worse, they not only made it better or the same, they made it worse. Okay?
These tariffs are shooting yourself in the foot and that -- and that's not what Kentuckians voted for. And they didn't vote to put 35 rural hospitals, you know, out to dry. They didn't vote to kick off 200,000 Kynect Kentuckians from their health care.
And so, my pitch to those voters is, look, is this what you voted for?
[16:55:00]
Because this is what you're getting, all right? And the only way to stop that is to put somebody in office who is going to be your voice and not the voice for the guy down in Mar-a-Lago and not the voice for billionaires or interest groups.
HUNT: All right. Amy McGrath, thank you very much for your time today. I really appreciate it.
I also -- we're out of time. I would love to next time, we're covering Pete Hegseth and women in the military. I know that's something you've been really focused on your career. I hope you'll come back soon. Thanks very much.
MCGRATH: You bet.
HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Thanks to all of you at home as well.
Jake Tapper standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake.
