Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Soon: Israeli Government Vote On Approving Ceasefire Deal; Sources: Justice Department Indicts Trump Foe New York Attorney General Letitia James. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired October 09, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

MEG TIRRELL, CNN MEDICAL CORRESPONDENT: -- of total respondents saying that they trust him for that.

[16:00:02]

Again, major splits along party lines.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Our thanks to Meg Tirrell for that report. A quick separate health note. You may have noticed that Meg was wearing pink. We're wearing pink.

It's actually pink October, a reference to this being breast cancer awareness month. Obviously, it impacts a lot of people, a lot of family and friends. And so, it's just something to be aware of.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: That's right. And we're here to wear pink to make you aware of it.

And THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

(MUSIC)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Thursday.

Celebrations in the streets of both Gaza and Israel. Soon, the full Israeli government will vote on whether to approve this ceasefire deal, the one that President Trump says will end the war with Hamas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We ended the war in Gaza and really on a much bigger basis, created peace. And I think it's going to be a lasting peace. Hopefully, an everlasting peace. We secured the release of all of the remaining hostages, and they should be released on Monday or Tuesday.

You remember, October 7th was terrible, but also from the Hamas standpoint, they probably lost 70,000 people. That's big retribution. That's big retribution. But at some point, that whole -- that whole thing has to stop and we're going to see to it.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: The president today hailing this deal as a historic accomplishment, one that could come to define his second term after two years of war and months of intensive diplomacy, a peace that seemed previously unattainable, now seems possible if the Israeli government votes to approve the ceasefire deal, their military would begin withdrawing from parts of Gaza, a process that is expected to be completed within a day. At that point, Hamas would have 72 hours to release all 20 hostages, and the remains of 28 others.

Israel will in turn release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. But at that point, everything gets a lot less certain. Who will rebuild Gaza, who will govern Gaza? Will Hamas disarm? Will Israel withdraw from Gaza fully? An Israeli official and another regional source telling CNN that substantive discussions over what comes next haven't even started.

Today, though, President Trump is celebrating projecting confidence that today's success is just the beginning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: So, I don't know what phase two is. But we will -- there will be disarming, there will be pullbacks, there will be a lot of things that are happening. You know, I gave you a whole list of 22 different things that will happen -- will take place. And I think it will take place, and I think you're going to end up with peace in the Middle East.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here, but we are going to start first with our correspondents covering this story firsthand.

Jeremy Diamond in Tel Aviv for us. Nic Robertson is in Cairo. Kristen Holmes is at the White House.

Jeremy, I want to go first to you. You have been in hostage square throughout the afternoon and throughout the evening. And this, of course, a day that so many have been waiting for, for the hostage families in particular, hoping for my question, I think, for you is why now? Why are we looking at this at this moment that the Israelis are going to be willing, from your perspective, from the vantage point, you have to sign off on this.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, first of all, Kasie, there has just been an extraordinary atmosphere here in hostage square. You can probably hear the music behind me. There is a concert taking place here as people are really reveling in a moment that they have been waiting for two years now to arrive.

And it is important to note that for two years, Israelis have come right here to hostage square to protest. Saturday night after Saturday night in extraordinary numbers, demanding that the Israeli government reach the very kind of deal that is about to become a reality. And to your question of why it has taken so long, that is indeed a

question that I have heard from many people here today who had hoped that this deal could have reached -- been reached much sooner. I think it's quite clear from the vantage point here that president Trump and his efforts to actually make this a reality were certainly the X factor, the kind of pressure that they brought to bear to box in the Israelis. And then on the other side to have the Turks, the Egyptians and the Qataris boxing Hamas on their side.

And then quickly, very much will this agreement into being that seems to have been what changed here over the course of really just the last couple of weeks. The Israeli government is meeting right now to actually approve that deal. This is a process that could take several hours, but it is expected to pass through that cabinet vote. And very shortly thereafter, a quick sequence of events that will result in a ceasefire going into effect.

Israeli troops partially withdrawing from Gaza and as early as Sunday or perhaps Monday, we expect to see those Israeli hostages being released from Gaza.

I should also note, Kasie, that the celebrations aren't just here in Israel. They are also inside of the Gaza Strip, where we have seen Palestinians just breathe out an enormous sigh of relief after two years of horror that they have experienced in Gaza, more than 67,000 people killed there, according to the Palestinian health ministry, Gaza practically razed to the ground, much needed humanitarian aid will now be flowing in as a result of this, and, of course, a reprieve from the bombardments, an end of the war, it seems -- Kasie.

HUNT: So, Nic Robertson, from your vantage point and Jeremy mentioned the pressure that has come to bear on Hamas from the various corners of the region. But why now? Are they willing to give up what they had been hanging on to so tightly their bargaining chip in those hostages?

NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: It appears because, and they say it's because they've got the guarantees that they wanted, that this is a real end to the war. And I think that when they say that we then understand that they did feel that they were losing and under pressure.

And if Gaza City, as Prime Minister Netanyahu has said, was the last major stronghold of Hamas, the last city that hadn't been overrun by the IDF, that hadn't had its buildings destroyed, that hadn't had its tunnels destroyed, that hadn't had Hamas replaced with other sort of security structures. Or at least had, Hamas's ability to hold these towns in thrall, in their grip broken in these other places. This was under threat in Gaza City.

So, if they wanted to hold on to anything and have their sort of major stronghold and the potential of keeping tunnels and some semblance of authority and, and space that they can work in, they had to do something now. Now they feel that they've got the guarantees from the international community that having given up their leverage, the hostages, the living hostages, the bodies of the deceased that the international community, the mediators, the United States will force Israel into, you know, into complying with the ceasefire. That's their concern.

And I think we've got another sense from Hamas today. The way they're framing this to their audience, that they made the decision because they wanted to end the killing, that they wanted to end the starvation, that they wanted to end the displacement. They said that was the only reason. Of course, the other reasons may be that they did feel losing their weapons, that they did feel losing the fight, that they did fear losing their political standing and political future, something they built over 40 years.

So, they're selling it to Palestinians as we're doing this for you, not for us. There are political, military organization that clearly wants to survive. So, I think it seems that they've taken the pragmatic view that this is the best route to survival. And of course, that's the concern for Israel, because they have to be disarmed. That was part of the agreement.

They have no political standing in the future. Of course, all of that, Hamas is going to try to find a way to maintain the arms and maintain a political relevance and a future.

HUNT: So, Kristen Holmes, I mean, from that perspective, and obviously, the president was pressed about this today. He is taking a victory lap here. Take us behind the scenes.

What do they -- what does the White House say was the difference maker here? But perhaps more importantly, how do they make it hold?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, look, that's the big question. I think that they're still going to be pressed on that. And no one inside the White House is going to tell you that this isn't a precarious time.

They are celebrating. They do believe that this is the beginning of a long-lasting peace deal, but they understand that there is still a lot at stake, and they're really not leaving anything to chance. I mean, despite the fact that they are celebrating this phase one, we've just learned that Middle Eastern envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who were critical in these negotiations, are meeting with the Israeli government as they go over this ceasefire plan.

They want to follow this through all the way to make sure it gets done. Once this is approved, that's when you'll start to see those Israeli troops pulling back to the line that is agreed upon. And then you're going to start to see the release of those hostages.

And clearly, the showing of these two officials who have been part of the negotiations step by step inside of that Israeli government meeting, goes to show you that they want to have control over every single part of this. They don't want any of this to shift, and they know just how fragile it is.

In terms of President Trump's thinking and the thinking of the administration. They believe that they can get to another phase of negotiations. They understand that this is just phase one. They also understand that there are a lot of sticking points that not both sides are going to agree upon, like disarmament or like a Palestinian statehood. Those are two things that have been hard lines for both Prime Minister Netanyahu and on the other side, for Hamas.

But they do believe they now have the framework in place and the momentum in place to keep this going. They know the same people are going to be working on the negotiations in the next phases as well, and they believe they can take this another step further.

HUNT: All right. Jeremy Diamond, Nic Robertson, Kristen Holmes, thanks to all of you for starting us off with that great reporting.

My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN national security analyst Peter Bergen, CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg, Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod, and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings is here.

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

Peter Bergen, I want to start with you. Big picture here. Nic was getting into some of this, but this question of whether or not Hamas is actually going to disarm seems like a critical one for whether or not this actually is the end of this story here.

You obviously have studied these groups for years and years. What dynamics do you think we should be watching?

PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think it's highly unlikely they're going to disarm. It's been an armed group since the beginning. I mean, I guess there are sort of elements of disarmament that you could kind of put forward that would sort of address some of the concerns. But one in the laundry list of reasons that Nic Robertson ticked through about why Hamas did this deal. I don't think you can discount the fact that ordinary Gazans were really sick of the war, and they were putting pressure on Gaza to say enough.

And so, you know, I mean, Hamas wants to the other thing, the puzzle here for me is what are the security guarantees to Hamas that they would actually think of, as it were, kosher? Meaning --

JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Halal.

BERGEN: Halal.

HUNT: Yeah.

BERGEN: Because, you know, I mean, Israel has, you know, there's been ceasefires before and there hasn't -- hasn't been observed. So, what and what are the American guarantees to Hamas that they would actually think are legitimate? And I don't know what the answers are. We may find out.

HUNT: Jonah Goldberg, "Axios" reported that part of this was, Donald Trump and Bibi Netanyahu kind of in person and on the phone, I should say and they report this. When Hamas comes back with a "yes but" to President Trump's Gaza peace proposal, Trump called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss what he saw as good news. Netanyahu felt differently, quote, Bibi told Trump, this is nothing to

celebrate, and it doesn't mean anything, a U.S. official with knowledge of the call told "Axios". Trump fired back, "I don't know why you're always so F-ing negative. This is a win. Take it."

What is that dynamic on display there?

GOLDBERG: I think it's -- Bibi Netanyahu has earned the right to have a tragic vision about how international events go and how the situation in his neighborhood goes. But this is one of these places where I think Trump's approach is better. Trump, this is -- this is indisputably a diplomatic victory that he deserves a lot of credit for by being able to force not just Bibi Netanyahu, but also force the Turks and some others to force the hands of Hamas and other stakeholders in the region.

And I don't want to take anything away from it. It's rare I come on here and praise the guy, so I should do it forthrightly.

I would add one point to Peter's point in the setup piece. Theres another major player in why Hamas agreed to do this, and why this was possible, and it's the IDF.

At the -- two years ago, Israel had seven essentially enemies on seven fronts. It kicked the asses of six and a half of them, including Iran, which was the linchpin of all of this military victory actually forces opportunities for diplomatic change. That Trump, to his credit, took advantage of. I think there are a million ways this thing can all go wrong, and there are a million reasons to think it probably will at some point. But if hostages start coming home, that by itself is a huge victory.

HUNT: So, you're basically saying old school realism won the day here because they won the war.

GOLDBERG: Trump once said winning solves a lot of problems. And in the case -- in wars, it's particularly true.

HUNT: He loves winning, Scott Jennings. And here's what "The Economist" actually had to say about this. Obviously not always. You know, propping up the president on the world stage.

They said, "This peace deal is a triumph for Mr. Trump's transactional bullying style of diplomacy. The qualities that enabled Mr. Trump to get a ceasefire, his willingness to bully, escalate, create a burning sense of urgency are different from the sustained commitment over many years that will be required in his role as the chair of the reconstruction authority."

So, a raised eyebrow, but a lot of credit.

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it will probably go down as the most historic moment in either of his two presidencies. Peace in the Middle East, when those hostages do walk out, I mean, they think there's 20 that are alive. All day long I have been thinking about Edith Ohel, who I met in Israel this summer. I was traveling there, and she is the mother of Alon Ohel.

You may have heard of Alon. He was taken hostage at the Nova music festival. He's the jazz pianist. They have the pianos around, the yellow pianos. And I will never forget meeting with her and just the shattered life of a mother waiting for her son to come home.

And now he's going to come home. And Donald Trump is responsible for it. And I just don't think you can take anything away from it. I don't know what Hamas is going to do in the future. I don't think we should trust these people any further than we can throw them.

But for the next few days, when those people come out, this is an unqualified diplomatic victory for the United States of America. It's not just a personal victory for the president, although it is enormous. But this is the power of the United States of America when it has a president that is capable of showing bold and pragmatic leadership on the world stage.

So, I couldn't be happier. But mostly because of my friend Edith who I met in Israel. She's going to get her boy back.

HUNT: I mean, I have been thinking about the hostage families all throughout this, and I know you, of course, wear that pin every time you come on our air, which sends that message, too.

I want to -- I want to play some of what President Trump said today about Bibi Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister. Again, as we're waiting for the Israeli cabinet to formally approve this deal. It's obviously going late into the night in Israel. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Mr. President, given that there are some tough provisions for Israel in this, in this agreement, are you at all concerned that Bibi Netanyahu may not continue in his post? He may be deposed.

TRUMP: That Bibi may go a little bit out of whack?

REPORTER: He may no longer be prime minister when this is over.

TRUMP: Look, it's politics. It could be. I don't know, I think he's very popular right now. He's much more popular today than he was five days ago.

This has been a very good thing -- I don't think he did it for that reason. Okay. But I think just looking as an analyst would look, I think it's been -- I think Bibi should be very popular right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Adrienne Elrod, Donald Trump does often play political analyst, even if he says he doesn't want to. But obviously, the question there is about Netanyahu's own political standing in his country, the legal challenges he faces, the question being, were those legal challenges part of the reason why he pursued this war in Gaza so aggressively, at the potential risk of Israels reputation on the world stage? I'm interested to know what you think the dynamics are for Israel here in the United States of America now, because there has been obviously a lot of attention on the terrible suffering in Gaza as well, in a way that, you know, has been challenging in many ways.

ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Well, I mean, look, this is -- and I spent some time in Israel as well, about five or six years ago, and it really is you. You can study. And talk about the dynamic until you're actually over there. That's when you really understand the dynamics on the ground. When I was there five years ago, it was relatively unpopular. He's even more unpopular today, but he has taken a hard line and that has helped gel some of his conservative support.

How that plays out here at home, you know, we'll see. I mean, I think it is mission critical, and we should definitely celebrate where we are. There's a couple of, you know, really major moments that Donald Trump deserves a lot of credit for. But I think over the next, you know, three to four days, once the hostages come home, we have to hope that phase two arrives.

And if we -- if Trump and Bibi are successful in phase two, I think that's going to change a lot of the dynamics for both of them.

JENNINGS: I'm wondering where all the free Palestine protesters are going to be over the next few days. A lot of demonstrations in this country. Well, Donald Trump just freed Palestine, apparently. And these hostages are coming back.

And I just wonder, you know, for all of the anti-American and anti- Western civilization sentiment in these rallies that we've seen, what do they have to say today? I thought we might see a little bit more today, but it makes me wonder what they were rallying for all these all these months.

HUNT: I think you're on again tonight, Scott, so you can -- you can figure that out and perhaps we'll -- we'll see.

Peter Bergen, thank you so much for coming. Really appreciate your expertise.

The rest of our panel is going to stand by.

Coming up next here, Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin will be in THE ARENA. What does she make of this cease fire deal and President Trump's role in securing it?

Plus, today, two major challenges to President Trump's attempts to deploy the national guard as blue states try to convince the courts the president is out of line.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIIFED FEMALE: The president's 1206 determinations are entitled to great deference, but that deference has a limit, and that limit is this case, where the president's determinations are untethered from reality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:24:08]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA. We are continuing to follow the breaking news on the Gaza ceasefire plan. The Israeli government meeting right now to vote on whether to formally approve the ceasefire resolution. Israeli sources telling -- CNN that President Trump's son in law, Jared Kushner, and the special envoy, Steve Witkoff, have joined that meeting.

Joining us now to discuss, someone with deep understanding of the region, Democratic senator from Michigan, Elissa Slotkin. She, of course, also a former CIA analyst who served three tours in Iraq alongside the U.S. military and sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Senator, thanks very much for being here. Big picture here. How much credit do you think Donald Trump deserves for this ceasefire?

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): I mean, look, if all signals are very hopeful right now and he would deserve real credit, as the negotiators on the ground, Witkoff as well.

[16:25:01]

I mean, this is a very, very difficult problem set. Like in some form or fashion, it's been going on my entire life, longer than that. And so, if they're able to get us to a ceasefire, get hostages home, end the humanitarian situation in Gaza, I mean, that would be a real accomplishment. And I would applaud him for it.

HUNT: Which of the sort of phase two pieces of this do you think is most potentially problematic or concerning going forward? One critical one, maybe, for example, the demand or insistence that Hamas disarm, it doesn't seem clear yet that that's actually going to move forward.

SLOTKIN: Yeah. I mean, I think -- look, we've had other ceasefire deals in the past and they do the exchange of hostages for prisoners, and then it kind of fizzles out, right? And you really hope that that doesn't happen this time around. But it's always been on that sticking point of kind of who is on the ground with weapons in Gaza. You know, IDF where they located in Gaza and then Hamas, what are they able to do in Gaza? (VIDEO GAP) which by my reading means disarmament.

But, you know, we have to the proof is in the pudding here. Theres clearly things that have to be worked out. And the Israelis are signaling that they have to work on some details. So, I like the idea that Witkoff and Kushner are in the parliament meeting. There are cabinet meeting, excuse me. They're pressuring.

They're clearly using force of the U.S. government -- you know, pressure of the U.S. government to get this over the finish line, which, again, I think is an important and laudable thing.

HUNT: Senator, I'm going to ask you to stand by for me for just one second.

And I would like to come back to the senator to get her to react to this immediately. But we do need to get to this breaking news out of the White House with Kristen Holmes.

Kristen, I understand we have some breaking news.

HOLMES: Yeah, we have just learned that New York Attorney General Letitia James, who obviously brought the charges and one against President Donald Trump, has just been indicted by the Department of Justice. This was a case that President Trump wanted to be brought. It's a mortgage fraud case.

And it's also what led to the leaving of the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert would not bring these charges. We heard he had reservations about bringing these charges, and instead he left that position.

And President Trump handpicked Lindsey Halligan to serve as the U.S. attorney in that district. We saw Lindsey Halligan bring the case against James Comey, the former FBI director, to a grand jury. They also indicted.

Now, she has brought the case earlier today to a grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia against Letitia James. We don't have all the details of what how many counts or which counts she might have been indicted on. But we have learned that the grand jury did vote to indict Letitia James as well.

Again, this is yet another time, another person that President Trump has spoken about both publicly and privately, who believed should be brought to a court of law, even though there were several attorneys who did not believe this mortgage fraud case was strong enough.

Halligan, who is a Trump loyalist, ended up bringing the case herself, which is, of course, as we know, part of the reason that President Trump appointed her to this position. And the grand jury did indict Letitia James earlier today.

HUNT: All right. This, of course, comes on the heels of the indictment and eventual arraignment of Jim Comey.

Kristen, do stay with us. We're going to keep digging into this with our panel here in a moment.

But I'd actually like to go back to Senator Slotkin from Michigan.

And, senator, I realize you're learning the news of this right along with us. But of course, this is a part of a bigger story of what's gone on in this second Trump administration.

So, what is your immediate reaction to this news that Letitia James has been indicted by a grand jury?

SLOTKIN: Yeah, well, obviously I haven't seen any of it. I'm just hearing it for the first time, but it just is part of a bigger trend of the president of the United States using the Department of Justice, using the legal system to go after political adversaries, using the arms of our democracy to go after political adversaries, whether it's Comey or now, James, Lisa Cook on the Fed, Adam Schiff her on the Senate.

And if that doesn't send a shiver down the spine of anybody, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, because turnout, I mean, you know, another administration could be in and suddenly, the arms of the government are being wielded against the Republican Party.

It's just a broken way to do politics. It's corrupt. And I think that, you know, anyone who cares about the Constitution and cares about our institutions surviving should care that the president of the United States is using Pam Bondi to do his bidding against adversaries.

HUNT: Senator, this, of course, if its related to this mortgage fraud question, which Kristen mentioned, would mean that some information that the government is in possession of a Trump appointee over at the Federal Housing Administration is using that information to move forward with this.

[16:30:09]

And obviously, you mentioned Lisa Cook. It's a similar issue in that particular case. What is using the government to do this mean in your view?

SLOTKIN: Again, it is -- it is something that, you know, I don't know if it's unprecedented in the history of our country, but I think most Americans understand that we have three branches of government, they're co-equal. And as our Founding Fathers set up, you shouldn't be able to sit in the White House and use the courts to get back at your enemies.

And Democrats and Republicans, I've worked for them both in the White House, right? I worked for Obama. I worked for Bush. Two different parties.

But the idea that you would tell your attorney general, I want to go after these people, just make a case against people I don't like because they annoyed me. They pissed me off. They're from New York, so I pay a lot of attention to them.

You know, that to me is a dangerous, dangerous precedent to set. And again, even if you are not a Democrat and you know, you're a big supporter of President Trump, which a lot of people in my state are, I think people are smarter and they understand that if this is the new trend, what's going to happen when a Democrat is in power? What's going to happen against the people I care about? So, it's a really, really dangerous, slippery slope.

HUNT: Can I ask you what you're hearing from -- you know, when you when you go back to Michigan? I'm from Michigan originally. I'm sure there are voters there who voted for Donald Trump. They heard what he said on the campaign trail about retribution. Do you hear them telling you when you go home that they're on board

with the way he's going about this? Is it registering with them at all, or is there a level of concern, as you sort of allude to?

SLOTKIN: Yeah, I mean, I think it depends who you talk to. I will tell you, the biggest thing that I hear from people is like, look, I voted for Donald Trump because he was going to put more money in my pocket and my costs have gone up and not down. That is for sure. The prevailing theory.

And, you know, I had a guy, I was I was pumping gas and a couple of Trump supporters next to me. You know, they had the Trump sticker on their car. They pulled up. They were -- they were pumping gas. We were being very friendly. They recognized my face.

And they said, you know, I don't agree with the Democrats on this and on that. And, you know, and they were clearly still very supportive of Donald Trump. And then they came back around after pumping gas and he's like, yeah, but I didn't vote for this yoyo crap on tariffs. I didn't vote for my prices to go up.

So, I think that's a sentiment that's certainly growing. But on the issues of democracy, there are certainly people, you know, who when they're being intellectually honest, say, you know, it's not good for the country. These retributions are.

I don't like the look of these raids that are going on in American cities. You know, these ice raids with people who are masked. You know, that that doesn't look like the America that I love. And I know, but I'll tell you that costs are still by far the thing that people are paying attention to because it's in, you know, your pocket, your kids, your life. More than anything that goes on in breaking news on the TV.

HUNT: Fair enough. And it's always very, very interesting. I really appreciate you giving us a window into that, because it's not always easy to see it from, from here in Washington as it, as it is when you all get to go back home.

To circle back to what we're talking about here with Letitia James, I take your point about the three branches of government. Republicans that I talked to will point to Letitia James and how she went about doing things as perhaps slightly different than a federal -- the federal Department of Justice. She's obviously elected, right? It's a different system.

And she did talk about going after Donald Trump in a way that a lot of Republicans felt was kind of a blanket way, essentially saying, I will look for anything I can find on him. You know, you're someone who thinks a lot about the country in a way that's not always the partisanship that we are used to here in D.C. do you see anything problematic with the way Letitia James conducted herself? That, you know, could potentially have caused Republicans to have the level of mistrust in the system that they clearly had?

SLOTKIN: You know, I can't speak to the individual cases and the things that she particularly brought up. I just -- I'm not well- educated on the actual legal documents, but I will say we have a legal standard for things, right? You can't -- you shouldn't just be able to say, well, I don't like Jim, so I'm going to launch an investigation and I'm going to go prosecute against Jim.

There's a legal standard that you have to prove in our courts before someone can be, you know, put through the system. And I think those standards should apply, whether you are a Democrat or Republican, whether you're in New York or D.C. or Michigan or Kansas. And that, to me, is the only thing that keeps our system surviving.

It can't be about personalities. It has to be about a legal standard that we all have to meet.

[16:35:01]

So, the proof should be in the pudding. If there's -- if there's things that have been launched against Donald Trump and they're thin and there's nothing there, and they're, you know, more political than they are factual -- well, then it shouldn't survive the gantlet of getting into our system. Same thing for Donald Trump and his attorney general.

If there's no "there" there. And some of the cases that we've started to see against the political enemies of Donald Trump, they are thin as hell. So that to me, I'm not a lawyer, but there should be a legal standard. And whether you're a Democrat or Republican, you got to meet that standard.

HUNT: All right. Senator Elissa Slotkin, I really appreciate your time. I do hope you'll come back and we can talk about health care and the government shutdown. If that's still winding around next week. I know that's what we had originally set out to do, but I appreciate you rolling with the breaking news. Thank you very much.

SLOTKIN: Thank you.

HUNT: All right. Our panel is back and we're joined by Elliot Williams, our attorney in residence.

So, sir, thank you very much for being here. Obviously, we're just learning some of the details here.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah.

HUNT: But of course, we saw what happened with Jim Comey. Now we're learning a grand jury has indicted Letitia James in federal court. What say you?

WILLIAMS: Yeah, I think if someone broke the law, knowingly committed mortgage fraud or whatever else, they ought to be investigated, prosecuted, and go to jail for it. That's a basic fact of our system.

I think the president's own statements have undermined the seriousness of any prosecution here. And quite frankly, not unlike the Jim Comey case, if she is to go ahead and, you know, she's charged with a crime, moves to have it dismissed for selective prosecution or malicious prosecution, she can actually point to Jim Comey's case and say, now, look, there is a pattern of the justice department indicting opponents of the president by the president's own statements that suggest that we -- I mean, it's really my case, but we collectively would not have been singled out and prosecuted but for the president's own statements.

So, you know, if -- if this case doesn't succeed, the president really has no one to blame but himself for going on the record as much as he has in the way that he has by specifically saying, I want these people targeted and I want them to go to jail.

HUNT: All right. I want to bring in Kara Scannell, who, of course, covers the legal system for us, Department of Justice, among other things. She is in New York and has some more information about what has actually unfolded here.

Kara, what have you learned?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, we know that this case was presented before the grand jury today, and this indictment was handed back up. Its still unclear exactly what charge Letitia James is facing, but this investigation has been focusing on a mortgage that she had taken out for a house in Norfolk, Virginia. She was taking out the mortgage to help her niece buy the home and what her lawyer had previously been pushing back once this investigation came to light, saying that there was a mistake on one document submitted in the packet, but that Ms. James had made clear repeatedly that this was not a primary residence.

And so, the question here is if this is the precise charge, would it relate to a false statement in this mortgage application, an application to take out a loan from a bank, which is a serious charge. His lawyer, her lawyer has acknowledged there was a mistake, but has said that it was very clear that this was not any intentional mistake and that it was made clear in the rest of the application that this was not something that was intentionally fraudulent.

Now, our reporting has been that there was a struggle between -- within the Justice Department before Lindsey Halligan was named the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, that the prosecutors there had interviewed more than a dozen witnesses, and that there was not a feeling that they could sustain an indictment against Letitia James. Obviously, that U.S. attorney resigned, and Lindsey Halligan was put in place.

So that is another dynamic here of how this has come to be. And we're looking to see exactly what this charge is. If it involves some other conduct or if it is limited to this one mortgage that we know was a focus of the investigation, and that some of the witnesses were brought in and investigated about.

I mean, her lawyer has also said that this is, you know, the hypocrisy of weaponization. That is what Trump said that his investigation by Letitia James, where she brought the lawsuit, he was found civilly liable for fraud, for inflating the value of a number of his properties. That was a big attack across the board on Trump's wealth, his prominence as a businessman on the Trump Organization and the real estate empire that he built.

And so, there has been bad blood between them for years. He is accused James of politically going after him for politics, that this -- that that case was unfair when he testified on the witness stand at that trial, he attacked her directly. She was sitting in the courtroom. They have had this longstanding feud between them.

And so, her lawyers have said that that is now retribution. Now that this is a case that shouldn't be brought, we have reached out to her team for comment on the knowledge now that she has actually been indicted.

[16:40:06]

We have not heard back yet, but you know, the next steps here will be learning what those charges are and what their response will be to it.

HUNT: All right. Kara Scannell, thanks very much for that. And if we get more reporting, please do let us know. We'll be right back with you.

Jonah Goldberg, you're our constitutional originalist at the table. So I'm going to start with you before we go to Scott.

GOLDBERG: Sure.

HUNT: But this, you know, I mean, there was a message from the president, right on. Truth Social to his attorney general five days before Jim Comey was indicted, that said, Pam: What about Comey, Adam Shifty Schiff, Letitia, question mark, question mark, question mark. And that, of course, is referring to Letitia James.

So, now, two of those three people have been indicted.

GODLBERG: Yeah. So, I want to pick up on something that Senator Slotkin said. She said she was warning people about the potential slippery slope of where we go from here. Perfectly fine point to make.

What it misses is that we are way down a slippery slope, like way down, right? And I am perfectly happy to say that what Trump is doing is worse than what Obama did or than what Biden did, and people will say, but, you know, and but that's how slippery slopes work -- work, right? Things get worse the further down you go on them.

And there were cases that were brought against Donald Trump that have no business being brought. Zero. There were other cases against Donald Trump that I think were slam dunked because he was guilty, like the obstruction thing. They all got conflated into one thing.

In this case, I don't -- all I know is what we've reported on air about Letitia James. It sounds pretty flimsy. I think the Comey thing was, is outrageously flimsy, and the answer that you get from Trump defenders is, well, they started it first. And so therefore two wrongs make a right. And I don't think that's a very sophisticated argument. HUNT: Do two wrongs make a right, Scott?

JENNINGS: Well, the implication that I don't support the Constitution that you made, notwithstanding.

HUNT: I did not say that.

GOLDBERG: You accuse me being an originalist.

HUNT: He's famous for being a constitutional originalist.

JENNINGS: Here's what I think. If Democrats like Slotkin are going to come out today and whine about selective prosecutions over Tish James, her entire career is built on the selective prosecution of one man.

Now, I also believe what Elliot said. There's a process here. Everybody gets their day in court. Obviously, a grand jury saw enough evidence to bring charges. We don't know what they are, but a grand jury looked at this and says, okay, there's something here. She gets to go to court, just like Comey, just like anyone else.

But to me, it's just not going to fly to boohoo over selective prosecutions on this particular person who promised in her campaigns, who went after him on things, as Jonah said, that had no business, no business ever happening, if not but for the man's last name being Trump. So, I'm not going --

GOLDBERG: How is that not a "two wrongs make a right" argument?

JENNINGS: I'm not -- I'm not saying -- I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm saying she gets her day in court. I'm saying a grand jury saw enough evidence to bring charges, and I'm saying she gets to go to court and tell her side of the story, and then we'll see what happens.

But I'm just arguing the political debating issue here. Democrats are going to say, this is the first time we've ever had somebody go down the road of selective prosecutions on her. Give me a break.

GOLDBERG: No, I agree with that.

WILLIAMS: The one thing I would add to Jonah's that do two wrongs make a right point, and it's not a great moral argument. I think it's what you said.

It's also a legally unsound argument. If -- when she goes into court to have this indictment thrown out and again, just like Jim Comey, she has a decent basis for it based on the president's own Truth Social feed. The argument that, well, she started it, and the Democrats did it first is just not going to hold up in court because of how explicit the president's conduct has been around this issue.

Again, not disputing any of the concerns I know conservatives have made about the system and what happened before and so on. It's literally in her case, you have the president of the United States directing the attorney general to prosecute her. And quite frankly, on the basis of evidence that appears to be thin, that prosecutors in the office had misgivings about. That is -- it's just not going to hold up.

HUNT: Let's watch. We found some recent comments from the president about Tish James. This is from a cabinet meeting a couple of months ago. Let's watch that. We'll talk about it on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You have an attorney general who's a total stone-cold crook. New York state, Letitia James, a total crook. All they do is want to go after political opponents. They do whatever expeditious for them. She's the one that took out Cuomo because she wanted to run for governor. And then she ended up getting 1 percent of the vote. She polled at 1 percent. She dropped out, went back to attorney general.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Well, Adrienne Elrod, you have some of Donald Trump's New York background kind of coming out there. Obviously, with kind of the sort of very in the weed's knowledge of politics in his original home state.

[16:45:00]

Big picture here, to Jonah's point, there were a series of cases against President Trump, right, during the time that he was out of office, that ranged in, you know, severity and topics, you know, subject matter. Obviously, there was what happened after January 6th, but a lot of what had happened in New York state. Alvin Bragg with Letitia James had come before that.

ELROD: Yeah.

HUNT: Do you think -- I mean, how should Democrats be handling this right now? I mean, obviously, there is a big democracy argument to be made. And you heard Elissa Slotkin make some of it. But I think there's also a question based on the fact that Donald Trump is now in office about whether that was effective.

ELROD: Well, look, I think, Kasie, this is our -- you know, what? Many Americans, not just Democrats, but many people who were concerned about voting for Trump again and voted for him because the costs were high. This is something that they're concerned about. We're now seeing this play out in real time.

I mean, I think there's a couple of distinctions. Number one, the cases that were brought against Trump were made by career prosecutors, not by political appointees like Lindsey Halligan is. And number one.

Number two -- I mean, look, this is not a surprise. We knew that this was likely going to happen, but I think the big picture here is there is no daylight between the Department of Justice and the Trump White House. And that is what is concerning.

And I think, Senator Slotkin proved why she is one of our most effective surrogates in the Democratic Party in laying out the case there, that, you know, the guy that she talked to at the gas station made it clear, like, you know, I voted for Trump because I wanted more money in my pocket. I didn't vote for him because, you know, tariffs are high. And certainly Americans, they don't want this.

I mean, this is not the way that I think the American people want to see the president of the United States, you know, go back after his political enemies. And I think seeing this play out the way it is now and seeing a tweet or a post on Truth Social that is now coming to light, five days later, six days later, after he tweeted it.

And then also knowing that there's an attorney general who is nervous every single day that she's going to lose her job, so she's doing whatever Donald Trump wants her to do. He wants her to go after his political enemies. And you know what? She's doing it.

HUNT: Jonah, I'm glad you mentioned Adrienne what Elissa Slotkin was talking about in terms of the voters in Michigan because this has been the question I've had, right? I mean, Democrats are obviously so shell-shocked when Donald Trump won and he won convincingly, right, the presidential election, lots of soul searching.

Donald Trump has a mandate to do a lot of what he says. He comes in and he starts doing it. But my question has sort of been, and this is why I asked her a little bit about this, because as I've been talking to sources, there does seem to be an increasing question about whether the American public feels like the president has gone too far, has gone -- and on a whole host of things.

I'm curious if you think that that is something that you're also picking up in different areas, whether it's the visuals of the ICE raids is one in particular, because that was an issue he was so convincingly ahead on.

But now, there does seem to be this sense among people that are like, hey, you're going after people in my community. I'm not sure I like it so much, but this, I think, plays right into this story as well, right? Like he is, is -- yes. He ran on retribution, but now we're seeing it in a pretty aggressive way.

HUNT: Yeah. I mean, look, I mean, it the polling suggests that on a bunch of areas he's sort of underwater on some of the things he's doing in terms of sending troops into cities and whatnot. I like the way I kind of think about it is -- what does the median voter, the voter who could have gone either way in the last election, which contrary to, you know, the White House was not this massive landslide. It was decisive, but it wasn't, you know, historic landslide. Hispanics have not been converted the way Republicans are talking about them into full-fledged Republicans.

They were voting on inflation. We kind of know that from a lot of survey research. A lot of people were voting on pocketbook issues. And one of the reasons why Kamala Harris lost was the effectiveness of that ad about how she's for they/them and he's for you. Lots of people want to say that was an anti-trans ad, and I'm fine with saying it's an anti-trans ad, except I think he already had the anti-trans vote locked up. It was also an ad that said, this woman, this politician is caring

about boutique issues that are important to her base or to people in her bubble. Some of this retribution stuff, I think, tracks the same way. It's not that they necessarily think Trump's wrong about all of it. It's like he's just taking his eye off the ball. And I think that's dangerous for the midterms. And I think it's dangerous for Republican Party.

HUNT: Yeah. Scott?

JENNINGS: Well, back to the political strategy in 2024. What they did with those ads was effectively communicate that the priorities of the Democratic Party had nothing to do with --

GOLDBERG: I agree with that.

JENNINGS: -- with the priorities of everyday Americans.

[16:50:00]

But that's really the issue in every election. When the midterms come around, voters will look at all this and say, did he fulfill his promises? Do we feel like the economic trajectory is better?

I mean, we're still a year-plus out from that, and there's a lot more road to travel. I think on many issues. He has done exactly what he said he was going to do. Immigration is certainly one of them.

And then the jury is still out on the economy because so much of his policy is going to play out over the next year. I do think there's a lot of evidence that some of it is working. So, look, ultimately in government, the checks and balances lie in the hands of the voters. And when we come around next November, they'll decide whether they like it or they don't. And when we come around in 2028, we'll do it all again. It's worked pretty well for 250 years.

HUNT: All right. Let's reset for a second on this breaking news.

And I want to bring in Berit Berger, formerly of the Southern District of New York.

And, Berit, I want to talk a little bit about what Letitia James may be facing here. Obviously, we are, you know, still reporting this out, but the issue has centered on bank fraud, essentially because of a mortgage application that she put in.

Obviously, the Trump administration is able to access a lot of this information through the Federal Housing Administration. We've seen this come up in the case of Lisa Cook as well, the Fed governor.

What could Letitia James be facing here? And what would the grand jury needed to be convinced of in order to hand down this indictment?

BERIT BERGER, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yeah. So there's no actual federal mortgage fraud statute, which people sometimes think there is one. You use other statutes. So, prosecutors will usually rely on things like bank fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, things like that.

So, to go into the grand jury to get an indictment for this type of activity, they would have had to show that there was some sort of a misstatement that was made to a financial institution or a lender, but they can't just say it was, you know, a mistake or something small. It has to be some sort of material misstatement or omission.

And that is very intentional. The federal government is not looking to jam people up for errors that they have in a document that may not have been intentionally trying to defraud a lender or trying to get something past them. So, there is a high standard here that they'd have to show.

And remember to get an indictment, this is not an adversarial process. You don't need to have a unanimous grand jury. We certainly shouldn't scoff at the fact that if there actually was an indictment, that there is a federal indictment. Now, that's certainly not something to take lightly. But it's a far lesser standard, obviously, than what they would have to show when they get into court at a time of a trial where they'd have to have a unanimous verdict by 12 people beyond a reasonable doubt.

HUNT: And on that question, and Elliot Williams has been kind of underscoring this as we've been talking about it, what do you see here as her potential options for pushing back against this on the grounds that the president of the United States, who, you know, whose administration oversees the Department of Justice, is out there in public saying he wants the attorney general to indict her, basically?

BERGER: Yeah, I agree with everything, Elliot said. I think she certainly will have a strong case for some sort of selective or vindictive prosecution argument.

Now, remember, she would have that argument even assuming that she actually did the crimes that she's charged with. You can be very guilty of the crimes that you're charged with and still prevail on one of these motions, because this isn't a type of motion that's intended to reward somebody who's the defendant. It's really intended to punish prosecutors who bring cases improperly, who bring them for the wrong motives, so the judge, if they're examining that, won't be looking at the underlying evidence. They'll be looking at what the government did there.

So, I think that could potentially be a pretty strong motion for her, as it would be for Comey.

HUNT: Yeah. And Elliot Williams, to that point, I mean, we're seeing -- I think there's either four or five pretrial motions that the Comey people are planning -- the Comey defense is planning on bringing. I mean, what of those -- what -- if you look at this, you're defending Tish James. What are you bringing?

WILLIAMS: And I agree fully with my classmate from law school, Berit Berger, right there, in everything she said. No, it's the selective prosecution point. It is -- this defendant was singled out on the basis of some factors outside of the four corners of the misconduct. And Berit's point is exactly correct. Even if she committed the crime,

even if the defendant did do the thing they are accused of, the fact that prosecutors were motivated specifically by politics or largely by politics is going to undermine it.

The other really important thing, she said, and I said this at the beginning, too. I use the word knowingly. She said material statement or omission, the person has to be -- has to know they're doing the thing.

[16:55:01]

Just messing up on your taxes or your mortgage or whatever else, it's not going to be enough to be convicted of a federal crime.

Now, if it's egregious, certainly someone can be convicted. And I think what will come out in time is, well, what was her degree of knowledge or culpability? This is exactly, exactly the same thing with Jim Comey.

HUNT: How do you prove that?

WILLIAMS: Well -- I mean, you prove either extreme recklessness in the persons behavior or sometimes people say, hey, Jonah, man, wo just cheated on my taxes, bro. Yes. And if someone puts that in writing.

GOLDBERG: I got that email from you the other day.

WILLIAMS: I know.

JENNINGS: How much of an exchange like that would have been had in a grand jury.

WILLIAMS: You don't have -- prosecutors don't have to put all their evidence in front of the grand jury. They just have to provide enough that demonstrates that its more likely than not that the crime was committed. Probable cause.

It's a really low standard. Another thing Berit had said. It's -- you just have to say, yeah, we think he did it. There's a decent chance he did it.

If it goes to trial, they've got to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt where a jury has to be certain of it. But they may not have had that kind of evidence.

JENNINGS: Is it likely that a grand jury would have said, did they know they were doing it? And the way you were discussing.

WILLIAMS: They can ask that, but that's not required for an indictment. They just need to be convinced, more likely than not, that something bad had happened. So, it is --

HUNT: So, the prosecutors could basically show up and say, well, we think she did this on purpose. Weve got some things were not going to tell you about them in the grand jury. It could be like, okay, great, we'll see you at trial and we'll see. But then at the trial, they have to have the email --

WILLIAMS: They have to have --

HUNT: -- that you sent to Jonah saying you cheated on --

WILLIAMS: Or at least some way of establishing that the jury is quite certain of it. But they can -- look, they can have the real estate records and they could have -- look, it's her house and she signed it and her signature and she said multiple times, this is my house. That's enough. Come on. Don't you think she did it?

And that's probable. I mean, it might be enough to get to probable cause. Again, you dont have to get the grand jury. You just have to get 13 of the 20, however many people in the room.

So -- and I don't want to pooh-pooh the grand jury process, right? It's important.

HUNT: Sure.

WILLIAMS: And yes, she was indicted or, you know, or was -- or was being charged with a crime. Full stop. We can agree with that. However, it's not a conviction of a crime.

HUNT: Berit Berger, can I just ask you I mean, in the case of Jim Comey, I mean, I've covered congress long enough to have a basic understanding of how often people get charged with lying to Congress. It's actually not that often.

There's also not that many, you know, average Americans who go and testify before Congress, have the opportunity to lie to Congress, et cetera, right? There's -- I want to set that aside for a second.

What Tish James -- and again, we're still getting the details, but if its related to this mortgage issue, I mean, this is something that everyone in America or many people, at least if you're lucky enough to be able to buy a house in America, you deal with this, right? The federal government doesn't go after all of these people for doing this.

Does that play a role here? I mean, how often has there been a federal indictment for a bank fraud type of situation, like the one we see here?

BERGER: Yeah, I mean, I think it's a huge difference, right? Because what Comey was charged with is essentially a process crime. And you're exactly right. It doesn't go to sort of the underlying, you know, wrongness. It's perhaps and perhaps something he said, you know, back in 2017. It's a process crime.

Mortgage fraud is something it is really bread and butter of most of the prosecutor's offices in federal offices across the country. I mean, they bring hundreds and hundreds of these types of cases every year. This is something that's not reserved for, you know, the few Jim Comeys of the world. This is something that we charge every single day. So why is that different and why is that important? Assuming that the

facts are there, let's say that they have the evidence, they have the receipts, they have the emails that Elliot was speaking about -- well, then, look, she is a very attractive target besides the political aspects, because you do want to hold people that are in, you know, political positions or positions where they're high profile, if they've committed that crime, you want to hold them to account for that, to say, look, this is a crime the United States takes seriously.

It doesn't matter if you have money, if you have power, if you commit mortgage fraud, which is a priority of the federal government, we are going to hold you responsible.

Now, I'm making a lot of assumptions in that statement, you know, that they actually would have the receipts for that. And she would still obviously have those selective prosecution arguments. But there is you can imagine that there's more there, there to something like that, because it is not just one of these process crimes. It's something that usually has to have a little bit substance there.

HUNT: Elliot Williams, obviously up against the clock, but I'll give you the last word here. What is the difference, if any, do you think between what we're seeing here with James and Comey?

WILLIAMS: I just don't -- the most important thing between the two cases, and I think Berit touched on this a little bit, is this idea of knowing that the person is committing the thing just a mistake and frankly, a mistake if she corrected it, that's the kind of thing that will come up in court and saying, well, wait a second, it wasn't intentional. And even if it was, you know, she sort of tried to rectify the problem.

A similar thing with Jim Comey is, if there's a mere dispute as to a statement or if a guy is unsure about something, that's just not going to be enough to get to reasonable doubt, the person has to be intentionally committing the crime.

HUNT: All right. Well, sounds like our news day just took a turn. Thank you all very much for being here.

And CNN's breaking news coverage is going to continue right now with "THE LEAD WITH JAKE TAPPER".