Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Just In: Comey asks Judge To Toss Trump DOJ Indictment; Appeals Court: Trump Can Deploy National Guard In Portland; Former Biden Press Secretary Lashes Out At Democratic Party; Trump: Ukraine Could Win War, But It's Unlikely; Amazon Says Systems Back Online After Global Outage. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired October 20, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: Our friends in the Weather Center put together this cloud cover map for us.

[16:00:03]

Looks like folks in New England and parts of the Midwest might have trouble seeing it at times. Don't fret, though, this show lasts through November as earth passes a meteor stream in space. Hopefully. none of them end up in your backyard.

Thank you so much for joining us.

THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. Great to have you with us on this Monday. Kasie Hunt is off. I'm Pamela Brown.

And right now, as we come on the air, we are following major breaking developments in the criminal case against James Comey. The former FBI director just now making some key filings to the federal indictment against him, trying to get the case thrown out.

So, let's get off the sidelines and go into THE ARENA. My panel is here.

But first, let's get right to CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz with those filings.

I know you're looking through them, Katelyn. We know James Comey was going to argue a few things to try and get a judge to dismiss this case. Take us through what you're seeing.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Pam, the big one here is that Comey's team is using Donald Trump's words or attempting to use his own words against him, trying to get this case dismissed by saying, look at what Trump has ordered the Justice Department to do.

So I'm talking about a filing. It's called a selective or vindictive prosecution filing, meaning that Comey's team is arguing to a federal judge that Comey should not have been charged with a crime here. And the reasons that he were charged were not good ones.

In this argument, they say that Comey had been a critic of Trump. Trump had a years-long personal animus against Jim Comey, just totally hated him. And they're arguing that Donald Trump is the person that that said to the Justice Department, you must prosecute Jim Comey. And if that had not happened, this case wouldn't exist.

One of the things that the defense team writes here is that they say it's smoking gun evidence that Donald Trump has said on social media over and over again how much he hates Jim Comey, and that that is the reason that this case should be dismissed. They even attached 60 pages of social media posts. Some are Comey's criticisms of Donald Trump in the public sphere. But those 60 pages I paged through them. It is largely times that Donald Trump has written on the platform X, on Truth Social and in other venues that he really doesn't like Jim Comey.

So that is now going to be at issue before the judge. And a look -- that the judge will have to look and see whether that's enough to dismiss this case.

BROWN: Yeah, he has certainly made that clear. And how did these filings from James Comey, the Justice Department is taking issue with his defense attorney in the case. What's going on there?

POLANTZ: Pam, that is something that has come up today in this case. This is because there are documents from back in 2017 where James Comey was talking to his lawyers whenever he was dealing with his, what we call Comey memos at the time, the memos he wrote about his interactions with Donald Trump. What happened is that the Justice Department wants access to those records. They're currently being held by what's called a filter team.

So, a group of lawyers that keep them separate from the prosecutors because they are attorney client communications and to get access to them, this Justice Department, these prosecutors, are going to the judge and saying -- well, we think there may be a conflict of interest here. There may be an issue with one of Comey's lawyers, the lead lawyer in this case, Pat Fitzgerald, who's defending him.

They're not asking to get rid of Pat Fitzgerald on this case right now, but they are insinuating that he may have an issue going forward. But his team, Comey's team, Pat Fitzgerald, they're writing to the judge and say they're just trying to defame us. They're just trying to misdirect things. This is not a real issue here in this case.

BROWN: All right. Katelyn Polantz, thank you so much, as always.

My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams; chief Washington correspondent for Puck News, Leigh Ann Caldwell; former communications director for the DNC, Mo Elleithee; and Republican strategist Doug Heye. And former Trump attorney, Bill Brennan.

Also want to note on the left side of your screen, you'll see our ARENA text chain. That's where we're sharing additional analysis from a few of our top reporters and contributors.

All right. So, Elliot, I want to start with you. What we just heard from Katelyn about this filing from Comey's team.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah. To be clear, it is notoriously difficult to win a dismissal on the basis of vindictive or selective prosecution because a defendant has to get inside the heads of prosecutors and establish that they were thinking something bad when they brought the case, that they brought the case on some improper basis, or on, you know, that he was exercising his free speech rights and was prosecuted for that. So, they're really hard to win, except when you have a president of the United States issuing statements in writing over a period of years calling for the prosecution of a particular defendant, this might be the one case that tests this very hard body of law.

But what they're going to have to establish is that, number one, there were other people in the world who could have been charged with the same crime.

[16:05:03]

But this defendant, Jim Comey, was singled out on account of his behavior. Right? And you have those statements from the president. If, you know, it's mind boggling that the president has put as much in writing as he has, because that might jeopardize the whole case. And so, we'll see.

BROWN: Yeah. What the latest is, that Truth Social post, I think we have it. When he called on his attorney general to prosecute him and two other perceived enemies. So that was Adam Schiff, Letitia James. Letitia James has also been indicted.

If Comey is successful here, what is the likelihood that that ruling on vindictive prosecution could spread to other Trump adversaries like Letitia James and also John Bolton?

WILLIAMS: Yeah, well, the very nature of this kind of motion is that it's particular to a defendant, the circumstances related to him. Now, Jim Comey is in a different place, certainly, than John Bolton, because Jim Comey has been identified by name multiple times by the president in a way that John Bolton hasn't. They just become more complicated cases.

Now, every one of these defendants, because they were all charged in rapid succession in relation to each other, they can point to the others and say, wait a second, look, there's a pattern of people who've spoken out against the president who have all been charged with crimes. Again, they're all going to be treated differently. But, you know, the timing just does not work well to prosecutors favor in this case.

BROWN: I wonder, Bill, what you think about this as Trump's former attorney, this -- this filing in the case that they're saying and pointing to the president's own words against James Comey as a way to prove, in their case, vindictive prosecution. WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Pam, I think it's

the smart thing to do on behalf of Mr. Fitzgerald and his team. I'd do it myself if I were in his shoes. Having said that, I agree with Elliot. It's an uphill battle.

And this particular president is not bashful about letting his feelings known about the whether people, people he likes, people he doesn't like. But what must be remembered here is that the grand jury indicted Mr. Comey, not the president. Miss Halligan, the U.S. attorney, could have filed an information that is simply the U.S. attorney writing a document saying, I charge you with X or Y.

I would prefer if I was defending Mr. Comey to have all these things and use them. But, you know, I don't know that it'll be successful. Anything in writing on either side is a problem because, you know, it doesn't go away. We had a mayor in Philadelphia, my hometown, Mayor Frank Rizzo, and he used to say, never write a letter and never throw one away.

And it shows the impact of writing. But they're going to have to get around the fact that a grand jury indicted Mr. Comey. And I, as Eliot said, I agree that's an uphill battle.

So, I think that that's going to be a dog fight.

BROWN: And as you noted, this is a case where Trump silence moving forward will be critically important, having worked with him before. And as you point out, he likes to talk about everything like the weather, whatever is on his mind, right? How would you be advising the president as this case plays out?

BRENNAN: Well, if I could get in a room with him about all of these pending cases, I would say, Mr. President, please let the Department of Justice do their job. They're very good at it. And just, you know, don't say anything. Keep your mouth shut, basically.

But -- and I think he will. I think, frankly, and I don't think I heard Elliot mentioned the Bolton case. I really think that the Comey case, the James case and the Bolton case are different. The Bolton case is an 18-count indictment indicted by a president and Biden appointee, prosecuted by a long-term national security prosecutor, Mr. Sullivan.

That case is a problem on its own, and it's been lingering for about five or six years. These cases with selective and vindictive prosecution, selective, is you pick one of a group who could be prosecuted, and you pick that person.

BROWN: Right. I want to bring in some of our other panelists here.

Doug, how do you view this as a Republican?

DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Look, part of Donald Trump's strategy isn't about necessarily sending James Comey to jail or anybody else. He likes using that language because it silences a lot of the opposition. As long as he's messing with their lives, he's having a good time with it. And I think we sort of we sort of forget that as we look at the legal machinations.

This is all basically Donald Trump not playing -- or not playing three dimensional chess. He's playing checkers. And that's how he that's how he -- he operates. And we sometimes lose that.

BROWN: What do you think, Mo?

MO ELLEITHEE, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I don't disagree with Doug at all. But look, this whole thing, you know, going back to Elliot's earlier point, this is a president who can't help himself. He just can't help himself. And he needs to be out there. He needs to be poking and trolling the opposition, and he needs to let everyone see what's in his head at all times.

Republicans, his people are always touting he's the most transparent president in modern history.

[16:10:02]

Well, in this case, they're absolutely right. He is being very transparent. He is showing people his vindictiveness. And it seems like there's a very real possibility he could come back and bite them where it hurts. In terms of this prosecution.

BROWN: Of course, it's different in a legal sense. But as you'll recall, Leigh Ann, during the campaign, he said, "I am your retribution." Right? He put that out there.

LEIGH ANN CALDWELL, CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT, PUCK NEWS: Yeah. And what's interesting is you're seeing what the priorities of the president are through the Justice Department, through what these districts are, what sort of crimes they are charging, and what sort of things that they are prosecuting. And retribution is very high on that priority list.

I'm waiting to see what charges they're going to find for Adam Schiff. That's another person that. That Donald Trump has really been talking about, wanting the Justice Department to prosecute. Obviously, they haven't found anything yet, but I'm sure they're trying.

BROWN: Yeah. I mean, because they are -- did Letitia James, James Comey, from that post which are reporting indicated he accidentally put that out publicly, then he deleted it and it was meant to be a private message. But that is definitely factoring in to these cases already.

I want to ask you also what we heard from Katelyn about the prosecutors ask to the judge to remove Comey's lead defense lawyer, citing this potential conflict.

WILLIAMS: Right. The challenge to the prosecutors here is that the Justice Department's inspector general already looked at that very issue of did Patrick Fitzgerald, Comey's attorney, play some role in these disclosures? And they found nothing there. So they're sort of arguing an uphill battle to begin with, point one. And point two, as a general matter, in our legal system, courts tend to allow attorneys to have the defense counsel legal representation of their choosing. It's, you know, look, the government isn't entitled under the Constitution to prosecute people. However, defendants are entitled to lawyers. And unless there's some huge, profound reason why a defense attorney should be taken off a case, courts are very reluctant to do so. And so, we'll see what they do with it here. But it just doesn't look like a great case for them, for the prosecutors.

BROWN: All right. You all, thank you so much. Bill Brennan, thank you. I also want to thank THE ARENA text chain, and the rest of my panel. Stand by.

More to discuss, because ahead in THE ARENA, we have some new reaction from President Trump on the massive nationwide demonstrations where millions of Americans took to the streets to protest Trump's policies.

But first, what a former White House press secretary is now saying about her time working for Joe Biden, including what she says she witnessed about his age and health, and who she blames for his bungled reelection campaign.

We'll be back.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY DOKOUPIL, CBS HOST: What you said in this book is you're angry at the people who tried to push him out.

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Yes. That's correct. And --

DOKOUPIL: Some Americans are going to say, seriously?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:17:12]

BROWN: Back now with some breaking news on the president's attempt to deploy National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon.

CNN law enforcement correspondent Whitney Wild is with us now.

Whitney, what more do we know about this?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, there is a major victory for the Trump administration. They had sought to appeal this temporary restraining order that limited the national guard's ability to be deployed in Portland. Originally, a district court judge had, as I said, put a restraining order on that, attempted to extend it.

The Trump administration appealed, and for now they are celebrating a major victory because this appeals court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the three judge panel who oversaw this case, has put a stay on that district court judge's order, which means that the Trump administration can deploy the National Guard troops to Portland to protect that ICE facility.

This is an important win again for the Trump administration. But it is also significant when you look at the totality of how the judiciary around the country may look at similar cases. The Ninth Circuit is widely considered a more liberal circuit. You know, the courts on the West Coast are largely considered more liberal courts.

And so, for the Ninth Circuit to give the Trump administration this win, that will -- that will put quite a bit of wind in their sails, pamela, because they are facing other similar lawsuits in other districts throughout the country.

One of the points that was made in the majority opinion here, it appears to suggest that there's a lack of assistance, or maybe not enough assistance from the Portland police department. And as they are looking at the totality of the Trump administration's claims, the totality of a potential risk here, it appears that they do think that the Trump administration will likely win on appeal. And the reason I bring up the Portland assistance is because here in Chicago, the help from local law enforcement was one of the reasons that a judge issued a temporary restraining order on the national guard being deployed in Chicago.

And the point here, Pamela, is that as the judiciary looks at all of the factors here, what is the real risk to an ice facility? What is the real responsibility for law enforcement in this area to protect them? They are considering the assistance they're getting from local law enforcement and deciding whether or not the national guard is warranted here.

And so, again, this is a major victory for the Trump administration. Our team is combing through this order now as well as the dissent to try to, you know, bring you the most detail about the reasoning here. This is a 57-page order and the majority the dissent was another 36 pages. So, we're still combing through all of that. But Pamela, the -- you know, in the short term, this means that the Trump administration can deploy the national guard to that ICE facility in Portland.

Back to you.

BROWN: All right, Whitney, while bringing us the latest on that. Thank you so much.

And that ruling in Oregon comes just days after the "No Kings" protest that took place across the country this past weekend. And one of the issues for some of the protesters was this idea of sending the National Guard into cities. And we've heard President Trump dismiss them, quote, small.

But according to the organizers, 7 million people took to the streets Saturday to protest. And what organizers describe as President Trump's, quote, authoritarian agenda. There are more than 2000 rallies held across the country. Speaker Johnson characterizing these protests in a similar way and

tying them to the ongoing government shutdown.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Now, the Democrats have had their protest and publicity stunts, I just pray that they come to their senses and end this shutdown and reopen the government this week. Republicans are waiting, the American people are waiting, and we are ready to act.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: All right. Our panel is back here. We're also joined by retired major general Randy Manner, the former acting vice chief of the national guard.

First of all, I'd like to go to you, Randy, on just this -- this latest development that we just heard from Whitney Wild on the appeals court, allowing the national guard to go to that ICE facility in Portland, Oregon. What do you think?

MAJOR GENERAL RANDY MANNER, U.S. ARMY (RET.): I think it's very unfortunate. Anytime we have American troops and American cities for made up reasons, I think it's something where if the administration is limiting those troops to only ICE facilities, that is still a small major victory that the national guardsmen cannot go anywhere that they want.

So reluctantly, of course, the court has spoken, and therefore, the National Guard will follow the legal orders of the -- of the administration.

BROWN: It's interesting, just again, you know, that this crossover of the executive branch and the judicial branch on these really big, high stakes decisions that are unprecedented, right?

WILLIAMS: Really unprecedented. And what this came down to is this question of whether the federal government is unable to execute the laws of the United States without the intervention of the National Guard.

Now, the argument that the lower court had made was that, well, of course these are protests happening. They might impede, they might slow down the work of the government, but the government is deporting more people than ever before. They're doing just a fine job of carrying out their orders without the National Guard.

So, the appeals court here seemed to say, and we haven't looked fully through it just a second ago, but the court seemed to say, well, no, this is getting in the way of the government's ability to do its job. That language, unable to execute its functions, is going to come up again, whether it's at the Supreme Court or whether it's with an appeal to the full ninth circuit, all 11 judges, which I think parties are, will almost certainly do.

I think it's -- there's an open legal question still, but.

BROWN: I want to bring you in, Doug, because as I mentioned earlier, this idea of sending the National Guard into states against the will of the governors in these states, it's something that has galvanized some of the protesters that were out there in the No Kings protests, right? There was 7 million people around that, according to the organizers. And they were there.

I mean, we had reporters there and the people we spoke to, some of them very moderate views, are really concerned that the country is sliding into an autocracy for different reasons. And then you have Speaker Johnson and other Republicans. I had Republican on earlier who were criticizing them and saying that they're communists and that they're small and that they're even antisemitic.

What do you make of the way Republicans are handling this?

HEYE: Look, they're going to follow the lead of Donald Trump and be dismissive of that. I don't think the protests were un-American. Protesting is very American. But I do think that they sort of took their eye off the ball here. And I say that because it was a beautiful weekend in Washington, D.C., and New York and Philadelphia this weekend, and all of those are just across the river from states that have very close gubernatorial races.

And if I'm a Democrat, I want those people on one of those final Saturdays going into a campaign, not at a protest. I want them knocking on doors and making phone calls. In Cherry Hill, New Jersey, in Union and Bergen County, New Jersey, certainly northern Virginia.

And by having them at a protest, when you're coming down to crunch time in a campaign, seems to me to take your eye off the ball. What I do instead is try and win those races as much as you can. Have those volunteers on the ground, do your protests after those elections. If you're successful, then you can talk about the momentum and say, look, we've just won these races and all these people are fighting on the ground for us now. It's a real missed opportunity.

WILLIAMS: That's a great point, Doug. And even if you take it out of New Jersey and Virginia, where you've got governor's races, I think a refrain for many people is, okay, what now? You got 7 million people. What now?

Did you -- did you collect everybody's emails and you're going to raise funds from them? Like, are you going to set up a phone chain and have them volunteering in 2028? What now?

And yes, the energy and the activism enthusiasm, like you said, it's American and it's wonderful. But if people really care, even if it's not about those two races, like what? What like today, like literally today on Monday, what like are people just still cleaning up the signs or like where what's next?

[16:25:00]

BROWN: It's a fair point. I wonder what you think, Mo? ELLEITHEE: No, you can walk and chew gum at the same time. Just make

sure you're walking and chewing gum. I don't disagree with that, right?

Seven million people around the country, many of whom are not close to New Jersey, not close to Virginia, desperate for an outlet to show their disapproval with this president and his and his policies and his actions, the fact that they came together was fantastic. Now, what do you do with that energy moving forward is a key question.

I also think that the president keeps giving them a reason to mobilize, not just with his actions, but we all remember wasn't that long ago that the Republican Party ran an entire campaign against Hillary Clinton for using the word "deplorables" to describe some Trump voters. And politically, that was a smart thing for them to do.

This president and this speaker and their allies are saying anyone who disapproves, anyone that showed up. And we all saw a lot of those protesters, little old ladies standing on street corners waving signs are un-American and deserve to have excrement dropped on their heads, as the president showed in that in that A.I. video. Right?

If Democrats can actually use that to harness some of the same energy that Republicans did back in 2016, they just have to do it. They just have to figure out how to organize and mobilize these people.

BROWN: I wonder, have you ever seen a White House attack protesters like this before?

CALDWELL: Yeah. No, I haven't. And it's really interesting that they're doing it. It's not just the president. It's not just Speaker Johnson, as well. But the entire apparatus around the White House, all of their social media people, their tech people are also using on the Internet and memes to attack these protesters which is an interesting strategy because they're almost drawing more attention to it. And you have to wonder if they are actually worried about it. If this is getting under their skin to your point about the upcoming races in Virginia and New Jersey.

I think that Democrats believe that this is a motivating factor. Maybe they're not out knocking on doors, but they are out expressing their opposition to the president, hoping that that is going to motivate and encourage. People to get out to the vote. Get out to. Vote once early voting starts or early voting has already started in Virginia, or in a couple of weeks when they head to the polls.

And it's also -- really quickly, it's also interesting that the party is now waking up. After the 2024 loss, Democrats were completely beside themselves. They were in the doldrums, and now the fact that they're actually holding rallies and stepping up is a sign that Democrats are pleased to see.

HEYE: But we've seen this before. Remember the pink hats. And we had this exact same conversation. My God, the Democrats are galvanized. There's so many people and they're galvanized and they're going to beat Donald Trump. And they didn't. So I take this with a lot of grain of salt and --

CALDWELL: Well, they did beat Donald Trump after, you know, he lost the next election. They lost the midterms as well.

HEYE: Here he is back.

CALDWELL: Yeah, but that was like --

HEYE: Look, dressing up like Kermit frog, Kermit the Frog and holding a sign of J.D. Vance with a shaved head. That's a great Saturday. I wouldn't say that's a cogent political argument that's really going to motivate voters.

BROWN: What did you think about J.D. Vance, you know, going on Bluesky and showing prominent Democrats kneeling to Trump and then Trump with the A.I. video dumping waste. I think we have this A.I. video of himself wearing a crown and dumping human waste onto the protesters. What did you --

HEYE: It's always funny when you're talking about your opponent. So, these people are talking to their base.

And I think the challenge with those images and what we saw at the protest is most voters aren't paying attention to that, and they still want to hear which party is going to address jobs and costs and on and on.

ELLEITHEE: This White House has spent more time and energy producing memes than they have trying to bring the parties together to end the government shutdown. They have spent more time on these memes than they have, fulfilling his number one campaign promise, which is lowering the price of everyday living for Americans. That's a message Democrats ought to be latching on.

BROWN: All right. Thank you so much. Randy Manner, thank you.

Ahead in THE ARENA, those new comments from Karine Jean-Pierre. What Joe Biden's former spokeswoman, spokeswoman is now saying about his 2024 reelection campaign and the current state of the Democratic Party.

Plus, President Trump calling one of his counterparts a lunatic. And that president is not responding.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:33:56]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TONY DOKOUPIL, CBS HOST: What you said in this book is you're angry at the people who tried to push him out.

KARINE JEAN-PIERRE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Yes. That's correct. And -- DOKOUPIL: Some Americans are going to say, seriously?

JEAN-PIERRE: And -- and -- but not just the party that pushed him out. The party as it's behaving today, in this moment when we need a Democratic Party to be fighting to be an opposition party.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Former White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is now going after her now former colleagues in the Democratic Party. The onetime chief spokesperson for the Biden administration says it was frustrations over the party's efforts to get the president to drop out of the 2024 race that ultimately led to her decision earlier this year to leave the party.

And she also addressed something that she has rarely spoken about publicly, President Biden's age and mental state, particularly the time before and after that June 2024 debate here on CNN with Donald Trump that ultimately led the president to end his reelection campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEAN-PIERRE: Had a role that saw him practically every day and traveled with him. And you saw nothing for more than 95 percent. We've always said, we're not going to say, oh, he didn't age, he aged.

[16:35:04]

And he poked fun at it. We always owned up. And with age comes what happens when you get older --

DOKOUPIL: Which is?

JEAN-PIERRE: What I -- what I -- but when we talk about the mental acuity and again, I take this very, very seriously. I never saw anyone who wasn't there. I saw someone who was always engaged. I saw someone who understood policy, pushed us on the policy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: My panel is back with me, and we are also joined now by CNN chief political analyst, someone who knows Joe Biden well. That would be David Axelrod.

So, let's kick it off with you, David, because you were one of the first Democrats to suggest the president should step aside in the 2024 race.

What do you make of the fact that Karine Jean-Pierre is seemingly blaming the people who were pushing Biden to leave the race, like you, for the current state of things?

DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, look, Karine's a friend and she's entitled to her feelings, and I understand them, and I think they're based in a commendable loyalty to the person that she served, but it's pretty obvious that the president shouldn't have run.

You know, she makes the point that she didn't see any diminution of his mental acuity, though he did age. The problem is, when you start at the baseline that he was starting at, aging can be very, very destructive. And I said, you know, before -- two years before the election, I said, it's hard to persuade people that you should serve until you're closer to 90 than 80. I sat in the office next to a president for two years, and I saw just how crushing that job was, and I watched a young man age before my eyes.

So it was -- it was unreasonable, really, to think that the president, on him -- imagine how different -- he, in January of 2023, said, you know what? We should go. I need to focus on what's happening coming out of this pandemic. I want to finish that job, and I want to hand it off to a new generation of leadership. That would have been -- it might have been an entirely different story.

BROWN: So, do you not believe when she said she didn't witness any sort of mental decline on the part of the president?

AXELROD: I don't know, I don't know. I mean, you know, people have said different things and, you know, the public witnessed what it witnessed. But even if even if he even if he was functioning in an impeccable way than if you want to accept that the idea that we knew how he was going to be when he was 83 and 84 and 85 and 86, I think is farfetched. And that was what was irresponsible.

BROWN: I want to play another part of the interview where Karine Jean- Pierre was asked about what she thinks Democrats should be doing now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEAN-PIERRE: Should see, for example, why aren't there more lawsuits from Democrats? Why are outside groups lining up to do the opposition protests? We should have the Democrats more involved. Why are Democrats are not standing in front of a hospital that's about to be shut down because of GOP hikes that is going to cost lives? Why are they doing press conferences, press conferences there?

We should not -- what we're seeing and what I hear from people, not just me, they feel as if the Democratic Party is acting as it is normal times, and they are relinquishing their power.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So she says, when it comes to fighting the Trump administration, the Democrats are, quote, too timid. David, how would you describe Democrats in this moment? Do you agree with her on that?

AXELROD: Well, I think that the Democrats have definitely been feeling their way, and I think they should be aggressive in the courts and the Congress. You know, frankly, through protests and in every way possible, to resist the kind of trespasses on fundamental constitutional principles that we see every day. But I would say to everyone, and you guys started on this discussion, I think Mo or somebody addressed this in the last segment. I've always said and I said during the campaign that if you're talking

about democracy over the kitchen table, it's because you can afford the food that you have on the table. If you are struggling with the cost of food and housing and energy and health care, you're probably talking about that. And that is the fundamental challenge we face.

Everybody is obsessed with the president's stupid little meme of him flying a plane over these protesters and dumping a bunch of crap on them, but a lot of working people are being crapped on every day they feel because they're working harder and harder and they can't get ahead. Even at a time when the president tells us we've got more wealth than ever -- well, he's got more wealth than ever.

[16:40:03]

We know that his wealth has doubled in the year that he's been president. But most people aren't doing that well. In fact, most people are doing worse or feel they're doing worse than they were, more feel they're doing worse than better. And at best, they think they're just, you know, bobbing in the water here.

So, there's -- there are things that the Democratic Party should focus on that I think they have not focused on as strongly as they should.

BROWN: And there are certainly Americans, some who were out protesting, who feel the way you just said. And yet they feel like the Democratic Party isn't doing enough for them. CBS did a poll earlier this month and gave people a list of words, and asked if any of those words described either party, the word that most Americans, at 64 percent felt described the American. The Democratic Party was, quote, weak.

So, Mo to you, how does the party overcome that perception?

ELLEITHEE: Look, where I kind of half agree with Karine is that people don't see the Democratic Party right now as fighters. What I heard from her was they don't see them fighting hard enough against Donald Trump.

I think what the party's real problem right now is most people don't know what they're fighting for. Right now, you don't need to convince a lot of people that why they should dislike Donald Trump. His approval numbers keep going down. His favorable numbers have always been underwater. His first president in American history to be elected with upside down favorable numbers. More people disliked him than liked him when they elected him.

So we don't need to tell them why not to like him. If we can focus on the kitchen table failures of the Trump administration, while at the same time putting forward saying, here's what you get instead, if you vote for Democrats, but they haven't done that yet. If Democrats were to stand up in 1994, when Newt Gingrich and Republicans stood up on the steps of the us capitol and said, here's our Contract with America, here's ten very simple things we are going to do if you give us the keys to congress. If Democrats were to do something like that, then I think you start to see a narrative change. That's the part that's -- that most people haven't really grasped on to.

WILLIAMS: Where the last time you saw a really big narrative change like that, it was with Republicans after 2012, which was a party that was also wayward and having branding images -- branding image problem, which led to Donald Trump, which was that kind of shift of this is what we or I can bring to you. And it worked. And he won. And I think you're seeing something sort of similar there where the party just sort of twisting in the wind.

CALDWELL: Well, I think that's also why you see the party so confident right now in their position with the government shutdown, the polling that they have suggests that the public is mostly on their side. It is showing the base that they are able to fight and trying to fight for something. And it's also why you have Democrats and the government shutdown focused on health care and not the democracy issues.

BROWN: All right. Thank you all so much. David Axelrod, thank you as well. Stand by to our panel.

Just ahead in THE ARENA, sources revealing new details to CNN about what really went on in private between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:47:51]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They could -- they could still win it. I don't think they will, but they could still win it. I never said they would win it, I said they could win. Anything could happen.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: Anything can happen. President Trump is reassessing his own assessment from last month when he said, quote, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form.

The change comes after an hours long phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin last Thursday. In a tense working lunch with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday. Sources tell CNN that during that lunch, Trump grew frustrated, raised his voice and insisted Ukraine make territorial concessions to Russia.

But by the end of the meeting, Trump endorsed a freeze in the current battle lines.

Former NATO supreme allied commander and CNN senior military analyst, retired admiral James Stavridis is in THE ARENA to talk more about this.

So, what do you think? Would Putin be okay with freezing the current battlefield in a hypothetical peace deal, Admiral? JAMES STAVRIDIS, CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: President Trump has a lot of cards to play here. He could give Ukraine those Tomahawks. You and I have spoken about. He could put more economic pressure on by pushing the sanctions bill through the Senate. He could encourage the Europeans to confiscate Russian assets that are held in European banks.

He has a lot of cards to play. And frankly, at this stage, let's just freeze the battle lines where they are and get Putin to the negotiating table. I would call that a win. And I think that may be what the president is striving for at this point.

BROWN: But we saw him bring Putin, in a sense, to negotiating table with the Alaska summit. And then after that, Russia only escalated the attacks on Ukraine. So what do you think would be different this time around?

STAVRIDIS: What would make it different would be if President Trump played the cards I mentioned and. Yes. President Trump is getting President Putin to a negotiating table with him in Budapest.

[16:50:01]

The negotiating table we want is to get both Zelenskyy and Putin to the table. I think if we can accomplish that by putting pressure on Putin, notably using Tomahawks and economic means. Then I think at that stage, the president's right, anything could happen. But likely those battle lines would freeze where they are and the rest of Ukraine, Pamela, that's not held by Putin sails on -- democratic, free in a path to the European Union. It's not the worst outcome.

BROWN: In your assessment, why do you think the president isn't playing those cards right now that you mentioned?

STAVRIDIS: I think he first feels he has this kind of special relationship with Putin, although, as you pointed out a moment ago, I think Putin flat out disrespected President Trump in Alaska. But I think President Trump still feels he has a personal relationship. And then secondly, he President Trump, I think, would like to settle it in a way that, allows to end the conflict along the current battle lines, which would be the least destructive of human life going forward.

So I'll give him legitimately, he wants to accomplish those two things where I part company with him is his reluctance to use the additional cards that he has to play.

BROWN: Really quickly over the weekend, Colombia's president accused the U.S. of murdering an innocent Colombian fisherman in one of the Trump administrations strikes in the Caribbean. And then, you know, Trump basically went after the Colombian president attacked him.

There's been a whole back and forth between the two. Where is this headed, in your view?

STAVRIDIS: Well, first and foremost people should understand that Colombia has been arguably the closest U.S. ally south of the United States over the last 50 years. We have stood alongside them. When I was commander of Southern Command, I visited Bogota at least monthly.

And that's an important, strong economic and security relationship. So unfortunately, the current arguments between president Trump and the president of Colombia, Gustavo Petro, is driving the two nations apart in a way that is going to make stopping drug trafficking much harder going forward.

BROWN: All right. Admiral James Stavridis, thank you so much for your time. As always.

STAVRIDIS: Thanks, Pamela.

BROWN: Coming up, the global internet outage that's upending the start to the workweek. What a Monday it has been.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:57:30]

BROWN: So, it's not news to anyone that Monday is not a very popular day of the week, right? But adding a global Internet outage and it's not good for anyone, basically. Amazon says its systems are now back online after a massive blackout today, but the problems are not over.

CNN media analyst Sara Fischer is joining us now.

Sara, what do we know about what caused this and what's being done to make sure this doesn't happen again?

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST: Pamela, it's a completely fluke thing. So when you have big outages like this, typically it's one of two different causes. The first is an error with the back end meaning its Amazon's fault or the cloud servers' fault, or it's an intentional attack from a third party.

Typically, when we see big outages like this, we want to assume that it was like a big cyberattack or something like that. But that's not what happened here. This very sort of minutia thing called a DNS attack happened or DNS failure happened within Amazon that essentially caused a chain link effect throughout all of Amazons servers, starting with a core server in northern Virginia.

Now, it's a huge, huge issue because this one little failure caused a huge swath of the Internet to go down, and it really underscores how important it is that we start to diversify our internet infrastructure, so that one company doesn't pull so much of the web offline.

BROWN: I think it was surprising to a lot of us like, wait a second, this one company, if something happens, all these other companies that we rely on are impacted. And I saw one estimate that this could have cost hundreds of billions of dollars. Do we know more about what the cost here is?

FISCHER: Oh, yeah. Well, first of all, you have the market cap, the market value of companies that went down that were going to be impacted, including Amazon. But then too, you have to think about all the business and the transactions that were lost from the companies that went offline, even for just a few hours. It can cause mass disruptions.

Everything from transit companies united and delta said they were impacted to financial service companies and banks. The U.K.'s government bank was impacted by this. And then, of course, you have all the streaming and social media companies and consumer facing companies, gamers, crypto companies that were all impacted. And so, transactions couldn't happen across all of those platforms.

This is going to be a case study, Pamela, for years to come, as to why we shouldn't rely so heavily on three major cloud providers, not just in the U.S. and around the world. You know, Amazon by far the biggest with like a 33 percent market share. But then you have Microsoft and Google, which are also so, so massive.

BROWN: Yeah. And it's just still a question of how long it's going to take to pick up the pieces here. A lot of us were sleeping when it -- when it happened. And there was this ripple effect.

Well, Sara Fischer, thank you so much and thank you to my panel as well.

"THE LEAD" with my friend and colleague Jake Tapper starts right now.