Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
NYT: Trump Wants DOJ To Pay Him $230 Million For Past Cases; GOP Senators Urge Trump To Pull Controversial Nominee; Crews Demolish Part Of East Wing To Build Trump's Ballroom. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired October 21, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, he was -- he was one of the people that was there inside the chamber that day. But he was not accused of any violence that day. Of course, these threats now being taken very seriously by the New York state authorities.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: All right. Kara Scannell, thank you so much.
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 Tuesday.
As we come on the air, breaking developments right now on the president and his plans for payback. "The New York Times" is reporting this afternoon that President Trump is moving to demand that the Justice Department financially compensate him for the various federal investigations into him. What exactly does he want? Nearly a quarter of a billion dollars, $230 million, to be exact.
"The Times" is reporting that the president filed complaints related to the investigation into possible connections between his 2016 campaign and Russia, as well as the 2022 case around classified documents where the president reportedly alleges the FBI violated his privacy by searching his Mar-a-Lago property.
Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is going to be here to weigh in, but I want to start with one of "The New York Times" reporters that's a byline on this breaking story. "New York Times" White House correspondent Tyler Pager joins us now on the phone.
He is traveling with the vice president at the moment.
Tyler, can you walk us through the reporting, you and your colleague Devlin Barrett are laying out here?
TYLER PAGER, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK TIMES (via telephone): Yeah. Kasie, thanks for having me. And it is quite a remarkable situation here, right? The president submitted complaints to an administrative claim process, and these date back to prior to -- to before he was elected president for a second term. And they relate to two separate investigations by the law enforcement agencies. As you said, the first one in connection to the investigation into Russian election tampering in the 2016 campaign and the second one related to the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago as it looked for classified documents.
And so, you know, what is remarkable about this situation is that people who are adjudicating these cases are Trump's former campaign lawyers, who are now installed in positions at the Department of Justice.
HUNT: So, Tyler, I want to read the statement that CNN just got in. This is from President Trump's personal legal team. So, outside the White House, they tell us this, quote, "President Trump continues to fight back against all Democrat-led witch hunts, including the Russia, Russia, Russia hoax and the unconstitutional and un-American weaponization of our justice system by crooked Joe Biden and his handlers."
Can you walk us through what you've heard from the president, from the White House, from outside advisers, et cetera?
PAGER: Yeah. I mean, the president himself referred to this very process when he was in the Oval Office last week with Kash Patel, the FBI director. Pam Bondi, the attorney general, and her deputy, Todd Blanche. And he said he was sort of suing himself, and he brought up the sort of remarkable situation in which his Department of Justice is in, you know, in charge of deciding how much money taxpayer dollars he's going to receive.
Our sources tell us that he has not yet received that money, but they are hoping and expecting him to do so. So, the president is aware of this situation. He mentioned it in the Oval Office, you know, made this oblique reference to this very process and even commented on the sort of remarkable dynamic at play here.
HUNT: So, Tyler, in this in this set of complaints, does the president single out anyone by name that he thinks did him wrong?
PAGER: I mean, part of it looks at, you know, he puts the blame right at the top, which is the attorney general under Biden, Merrick Garland, and also Christopher Wray, the FBI director, and Jack Smith, the special counsel who was investigating Trump. So, all of this is, you know, this case fits into the broader rhetoric and actions we've seen from the president before he was elected. And through his current administration, it is targeting the very same people he has long railed against, which are top law enforcement officials under the Biden administration.
And so, this claim is, you know, in line with the public remarks he's made. And also in line with his directions, very, you know, sort of explicit directions to his now, law enforcement officials to investigate these people.
HUNT: So, Tyler, you report in your piece that protocol for DOJ is that settlements of claims against the department for more than $4 million, so way less than the claim here, quote, "must be approved by the deputy attorney general or associate attorney general."
[16:05:15]
So, I mean, given the types of people that Trump has installed at DOJ, I mean, these are people loyal to him. Is the expectation here that they're going to give him the money?
PAGER: I mean, that is the expectation from, you know, senior officials we spoke to in conversation. I mean, we asked the Department of Justice for comment, and a spokesman said, you know, in that they will follow the guidance of career ethics officials. But it's important to note that in July, Pam Bondi, the attorney general, fired the DOJ's top ethics advisor.
HUNT: Indeed, important to note. Tyler Pager, thank you very much for your great reporting on this, for going out of your way to join us on the phone. I really appreciate it.
All right. Our panel is here in THE ARENA. "New York Times" journalist and podcast host Lulu Garcia-Navarro, CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg is here. Former senior policy adviser Ashley Allison for President Obama, former Trump campaign adviser and Republican strategist David Urban.
And we're also joined by professor of constitutional law and global health policy at Georgetown University, Michele Goodwin.
I want to go to Michele in just a second on kind of the details here about the DOJ. But, Jonah, I'd like to start with you kind of on the politics of this and the righteousness of it or lack thereof. I mean, what is your initial reaction?
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it's weird politics. I mean, look, I'm on the record. I think that the New York and Georgia cases against Trump were really flawed and should never have been brought. I thought most of the federal ones were much more defensible.
But I just think it's -- it shows you what a different time were in that this is even being considered, given that we're in the middle of a government shutdown. People are losing their paychecks. Trump has already been accused of profiting off of the presidency and the optics of -- while smashing down the East Wing of the White House, collecting a quarter of $1 billion and keeping and bringing all of this stuff back up in the news, right?
There's this criticism that you hear a lot that he cares too much about himself and wants to relitigate all these things in the past. He is reintroducing Russia, Russia, Russia as a thing to talk about to, to monetize for himself. I think it's really weird politics.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Can I just also say the thing that has not been said is that those $250 million are taxpayer money? I mean, this is the people's money. This is my money. Your money. Whoever pays taxes, that's their money. Going into the president's pocketbook like that is what we're talking about here. HUNT: David Urban?
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, listen. I agree with Jonah that the -- most of those cases are brought against the president are just egregious, right? The Letitia James case, the Alvin Bragg case. I was, you know, a part of the 2016 campaign firsthand and had to suffer through the Jim Comey Russiagate, watching my friends get dragged before grand juries so I can understand some of what the president wants.
But to Lulu's point, exactly, this is taxpayer dollars, right? If the president wants to get an apology from the Department of Justice or from somebody for doing them wrong, one thing for John Q public to come out of their checkbook to pay him money. It's not like Donald Trump's brand has been hurt by that, right? If you go around the world and look at the Trump developments, the Trump properties and how profitable the Trump Organization is today, I don't think it was harmed by any of that.
I mean, he may be personally aggrieved and deserved an apology from some of these folks, but I think taxpayers paying that is, it's probably not something that you want to see.
HUNT: Well, and, Michele Goodwin, I mean, to that point, I mean, can you just pick up there because, I mean, "The Times" does write, quote, "The situation has no parallel in American history," end quote.
MICHELE GOODWIN, PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW & GLOBAL HEALTH POLICY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: That's right. It has no parallel in American history, just as there is no parallel when the United States Supreme Court granted Donald Trump and any future president absolute immunity, nearly for any kind of criminal engagement, and certainly the concerns at that time amongst judges, amongst constitutional law professors, given that that was unprecedented, what would that mean in terms of future conduct by Donald Trump?
Now, it is important to note that this administrative appeal that he has done for this started not within recent weeks. It's been disclosed, but it started in 2023. And then another in 2024. It certainly does not smack of being presidential and certainly others would probably say, including those who've been Trump supporters, that his behavior is not always presidential.
But the point that's been made by members of the panel that is very clear, is that this would come out of taxpayers' dollars.
[16:10:00]
The other concern with this is that installed in the Department of Justice are individuals who have been personal attorneys for Donald Trump, and that conflict there is a conflict of interest there. And we'll see how that also plays out with this. It's very concerning.
HUNT: Yeah. Ashley, why don't we can pick up there? I mean, this how do you see the politics of this playing and kind of against the broader landscape that Jonah pointed to where we do kind of have this big picture question about where and how may Donald Trump be overreaching as president?
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. Well, I agree with David and the panel on terms of being taxpayer dollars, and I don't think so. If I was a Democrat, I would be pushing that message. But the reason to Jonah's point about why he's bringing up around Russia is to continue to present information to his base to make them still question the institution, the infrastructure. And it's a -- it's like a bait and switch almost, that he is using.
So I actually -- actually think on, to give him some credit, is like he is -- he uses these distractions when things aren't necessarily going his way, like a government shutdown to say, but remember what they did to me around Russia. And then just the long-term part of it is that do we really think that this Justice Department is going to -- if they were to decide to give him $230 million that we could all say that there was no conflict of interest when it was due.
I don't -- I really don't think anybody could say it with a straight face on how this Justice Department has been.
URBAN: Real quickly. The thing about the Comey thing that I don't understand, right, is that if you -- you're making Jim Comey a martyr again, right? If you're Donald Trump, this is what I understand. If you're Donald Trump, you just want Jim Comey to go away and kind of wither on the vine.
And, you know, Democrats despise the guy. Republicans despise the guy. He kind of fades into anonymity. But now Donald Trump, by doing this, by bringing this back, makes him cause celebre. I'm sure his speaking fees and people are asking him to come talk places. Jim Comey is once again like a flavor of the month.
And if you're Donald Trump, I would think that's exactly what you don't want. So I don't understand that.
HUNT: Jonah, I mean, devil's advocate wise to like Trump might be saying, you know, be playing the aggrieved party here. But I mean, if you ask Ron DeSantis why Donald Trump won the election, it's the lawsuits against him.
GOLDBERG: No, for sure. Look, even before the lawsuits, it's the fact that, television news cameras cannot look away like he figured out that he would rather positive attention than negative attention, but he would take negative attention over no attention any day of the week. And lots of people are going to talk about this, and it's going to be a weird look, and its going to force people to take a side or be against them and all that and that. You can't blame the guy for going back to the well of what's in the past.
HUNT: Very briefly, Michele, go ahead.
GOODWIN: Yeah, yeah. No, the timing for this isn't great. Weve got a government shutdown. There are people who are understanding that Trump economics are not something that benefits them, or helps them pay for the price of eggs. In fact, they can't pay their rent. They can't pay their mortgages or their car notes. And here you have a president and I quote saying, I have a lawsuit
that's doing very well. And when I became president, I said, I'm sort of suing myself. And I don't know to settle the lawsuit, I'll say, give me X dollars.
When you're putting that message before the American public that I'm sort of suing myself. And I can say to myself, give me X dollars, that's not coming out of his bank account, that's coming out of the accounts of poor Americans who are struggling right now, from farmers to people in the suburbs.
HUNT: All right. Michele Goodwin, thank you very much for joining us today to talk about this breaking story. I really appreciate your time.
And joining us now in THE ARENA to discuss further, Republican senator from Oklahoma, James Lankford. He sits on the Senate Homeland Security and Intelligence Committees. And he also was at the White House today. The president had lunch with Republican senators.
And, Senator, I want to get to that in a second. But I do want to just get your reaction initially to this proposal, which "The Times" is reporting that the president is basically asking for, demanding $230 million from the Justice Department.
Your reaction?
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD (R-OK): Yeah, I think we've got a lot -- we've got to learn still about this. We have a "Times" report. That's all we have at this point.
I think what you're defining is the president, unlike anyone else, couldn't actually say if there was something unjustly done to me. I can't complain about it. I think the president for years has said, hey, this was unjust.
I think now history has proven the Russiagate was a hoax. It was actually formed by James Comey and Brennan and others that were behind the scenes on it to be able to push a narrative that they knew at the time was false or suspected could be false. And the president's trying to be able to come and say, "I want justice," like every other American.
I'm interested in the details on this, but I don't know it yet, as you don't yet either from the one story. So, I'm going to let all the facts come out before I start making judgment on it.
HUNT: Fair enough, Senator.
[16:15:00]
Let's turn to another story. This -- this is about one of the presidents now embattled nominees that you, of course, as a senator, are having to consider. And that's the -- Paul Ingrassia. He's the presidents pick to lead the office of special counsel. Many of your fellow Republicans, including John Thune, of course, the majority leader, pushing the president to pull his nomination. There was this reporting in "Politico" over a list of racist and antisemitic text messages that he sent. And I'm going to walk through them briefly.
He reportedly says that he is a, quote, Nazi streak. He argued that the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday should be ended and, quote, tossed into the seventh circle of hell, where it belongs.
Do you think this should disqualify Ingrassia from the position?
LANKFORD: I think there are multiple issues with Paul Ingrassia's nomination. This is something I've raised for a while with the White House say there's real concerns just in his qualifications on it. He got the bar last year on it. He would be overseeing 300 attorneys after literally just becoming an attorney himself a year ago.
There's a lot of issues there because he would have the responsibility to be able to oversee anyone in the federal agencies or any entity that has a complaint about discrimination or workplace issues, when obviously he's made very, very public statements that come across as discriminatory issues.
So, yeah, there's a lot of questions there. If he comes up for Thursday, I would tell you I have a lot of questions for him. I've met with him privately. I've already stated publicly.
I'm not going to support his nomination, but I want to be able to raise those if it comes -- if he comes to a hearing on Thursday. But I serve on that committee. I'm not someone who can support this nomination.
HUNT: You say if it comes to a hearing on Thursday, do you expect that the hearing might be called off?
LANKFORD: I think the hearing is still going to happen. There's eight nominees there. The White House has to make its own decision on whether they're going to bring forward the Paul Ingrassia nomination. There's three of us that sit on the committee that are Republicans, myself, Rick Scott and Ron Johnson that have all said publicly that we're not going to support this nomination.
But if they want to continue to be able to go through the process, we're glad to be able to go through the process and have the hearing to be able to ask the questions, to be able to actually expose. Here are the issues and the concerns that we have.
HUNT: And just to put a finer point on it, it sounds as though you were opposed to his nomination fairly fully in the absence of this new reporting from "Politico". Is that the case, or was this the nail in the coffin for you?
LANKFORD: No, the most recent reporting was more evidence, but it was consistent with what we've seen in the past. There's been a lot of public statements that he's made in support of Putin. Theres statements that he's made that were antisemitic, that he's posted before he made a post two years ago that said the descendants of slaves should pay reparations to the descendants of slave owners. So, there's been these comments that are out there for a while that
multiple of us have raised, raised questions about to say, hey, this does not feel like somebody that we should support. That's why I sat down with him in my office to be able to talk at length about all these different things, and then came out and said, "No, I can't support it."
HUNT: Senator, can I -- can I just ask you, you know, I know obviously Oklahoma has had its share of difficult racial history. And I know you've worked on reconciliation efforts.
Can you explain a little bit about how that is influencing how you're looking at this?
LANKFORD: Yeah, I look at every American as every American, period, regardless of race, background, every American is every American. And we all have rights that are protected. We have equal protection under the law.
And that is something that we have gotten better at as a nation. We've come a long way in 250 years of working on our more perfect union, on this.
Oklahoma in 1921 had the largest race massacre in American history. We've come a long way as Oklahomans to be able to see where we are. That happened in Tulsa. Tulsa now has a Black mayor.
And so, we look at the history and where we've come from, and that's something to look back and to celebrate our progress and to say, how can we continue to be able to move forward rather than saying, all that's terrible, that it all needs to go away? That's not true. We're all Americans and we protect all Americans.
HUNT: Just finally, briefly, sir, did you -- did you speak to the president about these issues today at all?
LANKFORD: I did not about this particular issue. I had lots of conversation and lots of other things. Obviously, the shutdown was a major part of the conversation. Some of the tariffs, some of the things that are going on.
So, we had a really good conversation, both in a public setting over lunch and then in the oval office itself afterwards.
HUNT: You want to give us any headline?
LANKFORD: Nope. Sure don't.
HUNT: All right. Fair enough. Senator Lankford, always grateful to have you. Thank you very much for being here.
LANKFORD: You bet. Good to see you again.
HUNT: All right. See you soon, I hope.
Coming up next, here in THE ARENA, our panel will weigh in on the controversy surrounding Paul Ingrassia.
And next this hour, the former lead counsel in Donald Trump's first impeachment, current New York Congressman Dan Goldman will be here live. What he thinks about the president's latest fight with the Justice Department?
Plus, the maison makeover, mansion makeover. The stunning new images from the White House to make way for the president's quarter billion dollar ballroom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You probably hear the beautiful sound of construction to the back. You hear that sound? Oh, that's music to my ears.
[16:20:02]
I love that sound. Other people don't like it, I love it, Josh. I think when I hear that sound, it reminds me of money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: Welcome back to THE ARENA. We are continuing to follow this new reporting from "The New York Times".
The president demanding the Justice Department pay him around $230 million in compensation for the federal investigations that he faced.
Joining me now is Democratic Congressman of New York Dan Goldman, who sits on the House Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees.
Congressman, thanks very much for being here.
Let's just start there. We were just having a conversation about this with Senator Lankford and our panel.
What is your reaction to the president wanting his Justice Department to pay him $230 million?
REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): Well, it's -- finally, we have the confluence of all of the corruption and politicization that Donald Trump has brought to this administration. We are combining the weaponization of the Department of Justice by him putting his political lackeys there with his grift and corruption to make money off of the presidency.
It is completely absurd. Donald Trump would have been convicted at trial in both of those cases. The only reason they went away is because he won the election, and a president cannot be tried. And the notion that there was anything wrong with those investigations is preposterous.
But even more so, to then demand of his own Justice Department and his own appointees that they pay him $200 million for who knows what is a shakedown with -- of his own government, where he is literally just digging into the coffers of his own government and saying, let's just put $230 million into my own pocket.
When are the Republicans going to stand up for anything?
HUNT: Congressman, it is, as has been pointed out, taxpayer money that would be on the table here. Is there potentially recourse for a taxpayer who disagrees with this?
GOLDMAN: Well, it's very hard to just get taxpayer standing, but there certainly I'm sure are many people much more knowledgeable and experienced than I am who will be looking at a lawsuit. But it shouldn't get to that. And that's why I bring up the Republicans. Okay?
They have a constitutional duty. They take an oath to be a member of Congress or a senator, not to be a shill for Donald Trump. And when something is so egregiously and shockingly wrong as this, they need to stand up for the United States. They need to stand up for the taxpayers. They need to stand up for their constituents.
And if they were to do that, Donald Trump would not do this. But they're so afraid that they won't even stand up against something as obviously wrong as this. So, it shouldn't have to get to a lawsuit. And we that keeps getting lost as we talk about all these court cases.
The Republicans have abdicated their job as members of Congress as a co-equal branch. And it is time that the America, the media, constituents, everyone stand up and say, hey, you can stop this. You must stop this.
HUNT: Congressman, I want to ask you about another topic, because, of course, the Virginia Giuffre memoir was published posthumously today. She, of course, alleges and walks through just horrible things that happened to her when she was trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein.
And I want to play for you something that James Comer, the chairman of the Oversight Committee, said -- of course, Republican -- about what might be in the Epstein files, that the Oversight Committee has been coming into possession of and releasing some of.
Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): The evidence we've gathered does not implicate President Trump in any way. Public reporting, survivor testimony and official documents show that Bill Clinton had far closer ties to Epstein. We're working to bring former President Clinton in for a deposition, but the Democrats aren't helping one bit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Is this true?
GOLDMAN: I mean, it's -- I don't even know where to begin. It is a clown show over in the oversight committee. But obviously, there's plenty of evidence already, including a letter to Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday book that Donald Trump had some indication of what's going on.
We know about the many, many times Trump traveled on his plane. We know about Trump saying he knows about Epstein's penchant for younger girls and more importantly, they are covering up disclosure of the Epstein files. The Republicans, who literally made this a top campaign issue, are now going through a very, very complex cover up.
And part of that cover up is James Comer, because that oversight investigation, very specifically does not ask for the types of evidence where Donald Trump's name, likeness would be -- photographs, video recordings, audio recordings, witness statements, the investigation origination documents. The oversight committee has not asked for those.
The discharge petition that we, Mike Johnson, is preventing Adelita Grijalva from signing by not allowing her to be sworn in, that would require those documents to be turned over.
[16:30;11]
And as a former prosecutor, I believe that is where you would see Donald Trump. So, this notion that Bill Clinton should come in for a deposition and Donald Trump shouldn't is preposterous. And the idea that there's no evidence about Donald Trump when this massive cover up is going to such great lengths as to have this ruse oversight investigation, that is intentionally avoiding the most evidence should not be lost on anyone, and no one should be fooled.
HUNT: All right. Fair enough. Congressman, just briefly, before I let you go, you're a New Yorker. You have yet to endorse Zohran Mamdani for mayor.
Are you ready to endorse him?
GOLDMAN: You know, I've had conversations with him. I'm not ready to endorse him.
HUNT: Are you going to vote for him?
GOLDMAN: I -- I don't know what I'm going to do, to be honest. I think --
HUNT: Are you going to vote for Cuomo?
GOLDMAN: I don't know. Honestly, I haven't gotten to that point. I've been trying to work through these issues. You know, I'm a Democrat at heart, and I believe in the Democratic Party.
I am very concerned about some of the rhetoric coming from Zohran Mamdani. And I can tell you, as a Jew in New York, who was in Israel on October 7th, I and many other people are legitimately scared because there has been violence in the name of anti-Israel and anti- Zionism.
And I've asked him to speak out on that and to condemn that. And I frankly haven't really seen him do much on that. And I believe that, you know, for my personal reasons as well as my professional reasons as a representative of New York City, that it is my duty to make sure that everybody, including the Jewish community, feel safe here and many in the Jewish community do not feel safe right now.
And I hope that Mr. Mamdani takes that to heart and takes some action to make the Jewish community understand that he will keep us safe and secure.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Dan Goldman, really appreciate you being here. I hope you'll come back soon.
GOLDMAN: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA. What's next for the Trump nominee who allegedly said he has, quote, a Nazi streak? What lawmakers are now saying about his upcoming confirmation hearing?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:45]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Did the president indicate whether he's pulling Paul Ingrassia's nomination? Did the president indicate whether they'll --
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD), MAJORITY LEADER: I think they'll have something official to say about that. But, you know, you know what we've said, and youll probably be hearing from them soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Senate Majority Leader John Thune earlier today seemed to indicate that President Trump's embattled nominee to lead the office of special counsel will soon be pulled from consideration. Paul Ingrassia's nomination has been on shaky ground, especially after "Politico" published racist texts he is said to have sent to a group of Republicans.
My panel is back on the left side of your screen. We are also joined by THE ARENA text chain, where we're sharing additional analysis from some of our top reporters and contributors, especially for those of you who are watching on mute and you can't even hear what I'm saying right now.
Anyway, David Urban, I hearing Senator Lankford talk about Paul Ingrassia was actually pretty interesting. And just to me, like, this is going nowhere fast.
URBAN: Yeah. Jim Lankford is no squish, right, in terms of supporting this president. And the amazing thing to me is this gentleman has been able to twist in the wind for so long, this story has had 48 hours now, 72 hours. Whatever it's been, I can't imagine that if you're the White House, you should have just pulled the plug.
Someone should have called this gentleman up and said, here's the deal. You're either going to withdraw, we're going to withdraw you, within the next 24 minutes. And he should have been gone.
He's definitely not going to get a hearing. You saw what the majority leader said. I think he's waiting for the White House to do it. I'm not quite sure why its lasted this long, but listen, the Republicans have done, you know, really tried hard to make inroads with people of color, black, brown people, all these things. And you've got this like the Republican junior whatever in New York state. And then this guy, you don't want that out there. You want to bury that.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I've got a question though. One group text chain with Nazis. That's maybe, you know, suspicious. But now the second guy with a Nazi --
URBAN: Maybe the same one, Lulu. I don't know.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, you know, I -- could there be a theme there? I don't know, you know, curious minds want to know. And the fact is that all you have is the president and the administration defending these people.
URBAN: No one's defending, to be honest, no one's defending this gentleman. Right? He's not --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: He hasn't been pulled yet.
URBAN: Well, then why is he still nominated?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: He's still nominated.
URBAN: I'm not quite sure why no one has yanked it. But listen, it didn't come up in his vetting because, you know, this is obviously a private text chain that was somebody else threw it over the transom.
GOLDBERG: I hear you and you're being very gracious by calling him a gentleman. I -- the best I can muster is carbon-based life form.
He was unfit for any position in government long before we found out about these private texts. And as Congress being the Article One branch, the supreme branch of our -- of our Constitution, the fact that he had publicly said Donald Trump is the Constitution and that's all that matters, should have been enough for the Congress to say no to him.
HUNT: Our originalist over here would definitely say this.
GOLDBERG: He is -- but he is also said horrendous things. In the past, publicly, the all the private texts do is turns out that he has the authenticity to be the same garbage person he is in private that he already was in public.
[16:40:02]
HUNT: And let's walk through some of what "Politico" learned. And then, Ashley, I'll send it your way. But just if you haven't caught up or read "Politico", the chain before says Paul belongs in the Hitler youth with ubergruppenfuhrer, did I pronounce that right? Steve Bannon.
And then Paul Ingrassia, who is the nominee in question, writes back, I do have a Nazi streak in me from time to time. I will admit it. There's the exchange.
Then, he also has things to say along the lines of MLK Jr. was the 1960s' George Floyd and his holiday should be ended and tossed into the seventh circle of hell, where it belongs.
Now, someone in the group chat has the wherewithal to write back "Jesus Christ", which seems, you know, Ashley, I don't know what your response is, but --
GOLDBERG: About the same.
ALLISON: Yeah. I go to Lulu's point. Like, why are so many people who have these secret text chains? Well, there were a lot more in a group chat. Yeah, there were a lot more.
URBAN: But there are people calling them out, the group.
ALLISON: But why -- wut why are they --
HUNT: My grandfather fought in World War II. Okay? He got shot in the shoulder, right?
Now, he was in the Pacific theater. But the point of this was to stop the Nazis, right? And like, as someone who grew up with that, I guess I never really thought that covering politics we would end up with Nazi in the --
ALLISON: Nazi streaks, you know?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I was just in Germany when those text messages came out from the Young Republicans. And I can tell you that people were shocked there, like the word Nazi here gets bandied about.
HUNT: Now, it does. It didn't use to.
GARCIA: It's not -- I mean, there, it's living history. And the fact that there are people here who are being nominated or are in positions of power using it and boasting about it, is really shocking.
ALLISON: It just feels so commonplace now. And I don't like it. I don't want it to be.
If I -- if I could live my life and be an individual and just be an American, I would. But I don't always have that privilege. And I said it before and I'll say it again, what you say in private, you think in public, and you live in public and you interact with people in public from all different walks of life.
So, when we are saying we need things potentially like DEI to overcome some of these racist tendencies or terrible thoughts of people who may be in power, who think it publicly but say it privately. And we're called race baiters. This is the reality of our country. I don't want to actually hide it. I want to know it exists. I think we have to know we have a problem in this country in order to solve it, in this country.
GOLDBERG: So, I agree with all that. I've been dealing with this on the right for about a decade now. I was at "National Review" for 20 years. There's always been a fever swamp, part of the right.
One of the points in "National Review" is to keep it at bay. William Buckley chased out the antisemites and all sorts of ways. In the last 10 years, starting with what was once called the alt right, which Steve Bannon wanted to make. Breitbart, my old friend Andrew Breitbart's website into the platform for the alt right, there became this whole movement that said, you can trigger and own the libs by using this language.
They invited people who meant it sincerely. They also invited people to just use it glibly as a way to sort of trigger people and to be transgressive and all of that.
And the problem is, is that if you started paying attention to politics in your teenage years or early college years 10 years ago, you are now the entry level -- you were at the beginning of the food chain of the Republican Party, and there's been a tolerance for a lot of these people that -- because they think they need to be cool and edgy, and the podcast bros love them.
You know, this Ingrassia guy is a big defender of Andrew Tate, who's a, you know, a horrible, horrible, you know, antisemite. And --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Misogynist.
GOLDBERG: Misogynist beyond belief.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes.
GOLDBERG: And the whole idea of like, caring about norms and stuff is seen as being weak and selling out to the libs and all that kind of stuff. And a lot of the grown-ups need to -- I take cart the young Republicans canned all of these schmucks in that group chat that J.D. Vance saw fit to sort of defend, and they're a lot -- it's dawning on a lot of people on the right that, you know, we let in these monsters and these -- and to be fair, some of them are really monsters, and some of them are just morons. And it's difficult from a distance to tell the difference because the morons are using the language of the monsters.
URBAN: And, Kasie, to your point, you know, you know, your grandfather fought in World War II. Theres, you know, the context, if you've been to Auschwitz or Dachau or been anywhere, you know, overseas, you get this.
None of these kids were born before 9/11. They don't even know what 9/11 was, let alone World War II, right?
So, it lacks a lot of context and the flippancy with which we call fascists, Nazis. This we do it so, so frequently in politics today that it becomes --
ALLISON: But this man is going before the Senate to be the special counsel. We can't call him a kid.
HUNT: I think the point you're trying to make is --
URBAN: But my point is, it's like there's no place in the body politic for any of this stuff, right? It needs to be condemned, but it needs to be condemned widely, right?
[16:45:03]
ALLISON: Yeah.
URBAN: No fascism, no Nazism. If you disagree with somebody, disagree with them. But the ad hominem attacks, the crazy Nazi, the crazy fascist need to stop, just need to stop, period.
HUNT: All right. This has been a remarkable discussion, Jonah. Thank you very much for that. Fascinating, really. And thanks also to our ARENA text chain.
Our panel will be back in just a moment.
Ahead in THE ARENA, part of the White House grounds, the White House -- I mean, part of the White House turned into a demo site. The history that is also coming down with the East Wing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We took over a building that was not properly taken care of. It just wasn't. It's a very special building, and we are taking care of it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:50:11]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You probably hear the beautiful sound of construction to the back. You hear that sound? Oh, that's music to my ears. I love that sound.
Other people don't like it, I love it, Josh. I think when I hear that sound, it reminds me of money. In this case, it reminds me of lack of money because I'm paying for it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The East Wing of the White House being demolished before our eyes. At least part of it to make way for President Trump's $200 million 90,000 square foot ballroom. The history of the first lady's office torn down, apparently. That's
despite President Trump previously saying his ballroom will not interfere with the existing building.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It will be built over on the east side, and it will be beautiful. It will be views of the Washington Monument. It won't interfere with the current building. It won't be. It will be near it. But not touching it. And pays total respect to the existing building, which I'm the biggest fan of.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So the Treasury Department, it sits directly opposite the East Wing, right? You look out the windows, you see the East Wing. They're asking employees to stop, refrain from taking and sharing photos of the ongoing construction.
Our panel is back. THE ARENA text chain also back.
Historians Leah Wright Rigueur and Tim Naftali are there, as well as White House reporter Alayna Treene.
So, we were actually just talking about this in the break so we could just like let our viewers into this conversation.
Lulu, do you want to kick off?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I was saying that there's wags on social media that are talking about, you know, basically, would you remodel a house that you're planning on leaving? And that is, of course, the fear of many Democrats that, you know, all the changes that he's making and the hat with the 2028, Trump, you know, is leading people to believe that he does not have any intention of vacating the residence.
Beyond that, though, there is, of course, just -- I don't know, there's a symbolism to like a giant bulldozer tearing down half of the White House.
HUNT: Is this like a "Love It Or List It" --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: It's crazy.
HUNT: -- episode? Trump loves the house. He's not going to list it in 2028.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I know, love it or list it. I mean, you know, I think he's going to love it. I don't think he's going to list it.
HUNT: David?
URBAN: Look, I think Donald Trump, what did he do before this? He built buildings, right? He's a real estate guy. This is -- this is something that needs to be done to -- I -- listen, I've been -- we've all been in the White House. I think the White House could use some additional space. If you know
the one thing that doesn't have -- the White House doesn't have is space. I think that when you have state dinners, you have big get- togethers.
HUNT: Well, there's going to be plenty of space now apparently.
URBAN: There's a lot of space and I think it will be fine. It'll be tasteful. It'll be something that --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Tasteful not --
HUNT: The word I would use.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: We've seen the mockups. Tasteful, it's not the thing.
URBAN: Listen, it's going to be -- it's going to be.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Nice try.
URBAN: Listen, it will be just like the rest of the White House. It will be live for generations and years from now, people will say, what a great idea it was.
ALLISON: I think --
URBAN: I hope, I hope the other thing he keeps showing people is this arc like the Arc de Triomphe, that he's going to put the 250th anniversary of America. I hope the president constructs that, too. We should be building great things in America, Union Station, and Central Station.
ALLISON: There is some history that we should also be preserving. I hear you on the needing the size of the state dinner. One of the things we were saying on the break is one of the things Obama did was they built a large tent for the Nordic state dinner. It was beautiful. It was massive. They used it for multiple events, but it is able to -- I think that was their last state dinner to expand the footprint so more people could come.
I'll say when I worked at the White House, we went -- we did a renovation of the bowling alley and made it more accessible because people with disabilities weren't able to get it. We didn't touch the historical things, but we expanded doors. That type of renovation is important to allow more people in the building.
Demolishing history --
URBAN: We're going to allow a lot more now. You got 90,000 square feet --
ALLISON: Demolishing history on the -- for the sake of like expanding --
URBAN: Listen, we just had -- we just had a multi, multi-year, multimillion dollar renovation of the U.S. Capitol Building which is spectacular. You have a visitor center.
HUNT: Yeah, but they built that underground. They didn't destroy the Capitol.
URBAN: Well, part of it is because there's continuity of government.
GOLDBERG: There's also a process. Look, I'm --
HUNT: Let's put the before and after pictures up here while Jonah is talking. We have like what the rose garden looked like before Trump, what the Oval Office looked like before Trump, and the ballroom renderings. Let's just cycle through it so people can kind of see the taste at hand.
Jonah --
GOLDBERG: So, yeah. So I'm with Lulu that there's something about the symbolism. It kind of reminds me of that now, like 15-year-old "Onion" headline of iceberg strikes world's largest metaphor. In the sense that, like Trump going in as a bulldozer, smashing everything without really having gone through any of the normal historic preservation kind of processes or any of that kind of stuff.
On the other hand --
HUNT: That's the rendering of the ballroom.
GOLDBERG: I think David --
URBAN: It has a Park Service.
HUNT: It looks like Mar-a-Lago.
GOLDBERG: I don't like the Mar-a-Lago style, draping everything in gold.
[16:55:02]
I think is kind of cheesy. At the same time, I think people forget Harry Truman basically gutted the entire White House and created a replica in 1952. Like presidents do update these things. I just think he could have done it with a little more concern and taste and delicacy.
HUNT: All right. We will -- we will leave it there. Thanks again --
URBAN: I like it.
HUNT: -- to our friends in THE ARENA text. Thank you.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my -- all of you for being here. Really appreciate it. Thanks to you at home for being with us as well.
If you missed any of today's show, you can always catch up with our podcasts. Scan the QR code. Follow along wherever you get your podcasts. You can also follow us on X, Instagram. We're slowly getting on TikTok. X and Instagram are @TheArenaCNN.
Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake.
