Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
New York A.G. Pleads Not Guilty in Case Pushed By Trump DOJ; Mamdani Defends Islamic Faith In Tearful Speech; Bannon Defiant In New Interview About A Trump Third Term. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired October 24, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:04]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: And for the full story about Keelan and his important work, go to CNN.com/heroes.
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Plant some flowers this weekend.
KEILAR: Love that story. Love it!
"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 Friday. We made it to the weekend.
Right now, the defendant, defiant.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LETITIA JAMES (D), NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: This is not about me. This is about all of us and about a justice system which has been weaponized.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: New York Attorney General Letitia James in federal court today pleading not guilty to two criminal counts against her following a very public, very persistent demands from President Donald Trump that she be prosecuted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Letitia James is a dirty cop.
Crooked A.G. Letitia James.
Letitia James from New York. This is another real lula (ph).
Letitia James is totally controlled by Washington. Letitia Peekaboo James. Peekaboo. She's controlled.
She's got serious Trump derangement syndrome.
Letitia James, a real bad one.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The 67-year-old 67th New York A.G. now vowing to fight and not doing it alone. As we come on the air this afternoon, a new reminder of the Shakespearean proverb that politics can and does in fact make for strange bedfellows.
Lawyers for Letitia James now telling the court they're teaming up with James Comey in an event to get both of their criminal cases thrown out. Combining motions to disqualify President Trump's handpicked U.S. attorney in the case, arguing that her appointment was illegal. And the new duo of James and James could expand soon, or if -- or maybe if and when the Trump Justice Department moves forward with other cases against some of the president's high profile critics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES: There's no fear today. No fear, no fear, no fear, no fear. Because I believe that justice will rain down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
We're also joined by CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz.
Katelyn, lets walk through Letitia James arraignment today. And what happens next with her?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, she pleaded not guilty. The court hearing ended. They set a trial date. It's going to be in January. So only three months from now.
But things got off so fast to start that we've already seen an argument on paper from Letitia James's defense team. It's that argument going up against Lindsey Halligan, the U.S. attorney, saying she doesn't have the authority to prosecute this case. The same argument that James Comey is going to be making an already is making in his own case, in the same district.
I'm going to read a little bit from this -- Ms. Halligan, Lindsey Halligan, the U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia lacked the power to present this case to the grand jury or sign this indictment, and she cannot continue to supervise this prosecution. They also write, this court must reject the executive branch's brazen attempt to sidestep the constitutional and statutory limitations on the appointment of U.S. attorneys.
So, essentially, what they're arguing and what we're going to hear at a hearing in three weeks where James's defense team. And the other James, James Comey, his defense team, will be arguing this same thing. They're saying that Lindsey Halligan was appointed to this position too far into an administration to not have someone confirmed by the U.S. Senate into that post that it -- this is Donald Trump run amok, running the Justice Department as the president, and that also, she wasn't someone that was coming from inside the U.S. attorney's office or the Justice Department to become the U.S. attorney and prosecute this case, take it through the grand jury.
That's the first big battle. The next big battle, though, will be Letitia James' attorneys arguing another very similar thing to what James Comey's team will be arguing that Donald Trump has launched a revenge tour against them. They're going to argue that their cases, both of them separately, they'll argue that their cases should be dismissed because the prosecutors shouldn't have brought them to begin with. That it was a constitutional violation and that they were vindictively sought out that the Justice Department was weaponized.
So, we're going to hear that over and over again. But not too many times over, because this case is moving so, so fast, and the trial date is not far away at all -- Kasie.
HUNT: Yeah, pretty remarkable.
All right. Our Katelyn Polantz, thank you, as always for your reporting. Really appreciate it.
Joining us now in THE ARENA to discuss is Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland. He is the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee.
Congressman, always great to see you.
Thank you so much for being here.
I want to start with your reaction today here to what we saw from Letitia James. Do you think the government has a case here?
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, I think what we're seeing with James is a pattern. Now where criminal defendants targeted by Donald Trump are alleging that the new U.S. attorneys who were installed just to prosecute them are not legitimately appointed, that the prosecution is patently unconstitutional because it is vindictive and selective in nature, and that the real justice process that existed before ended up with no indictment. And they had to implant these new U.S. attorneys to do it.
So, you know, I think that the merits of the case, could be, you know, debatable once you got into that except the problem is, is that the government is going to face all of these very difficult threshold motions to dismiss based on extremely, you know, aberrant and exceptional circumstances relating to a prosecution.
HUNT: Do you think it's wise for James and Comey to combine legal forces here?
RASKIN: Well, I wasn't aware they were doing that. I mean, I think that their threshold motions, in any event, are going to be very similar because Donald Trump is clearly on a rampage against his political foes. And this cuts completely against the American system of justice. You know, if you go to an authoritarian regime, they don't have a doctrine called selective or vindictive prosecution because that's built into the system.
But here, where the rule of law is supposed to govern, that's totally antithetical to what it's all about when you have a president essentially identifying people to be investigated and to be prosecuted, and that so clearly what's been happening in these cases.
HUNT: I also want to walk through with you something we learned about yesterday from the former special counsel in the January 6th investigation, Jack Smith. He wrote a letter to your committee, the House Judiciary Committee, as well as to the Senate Judiciary Committee, offering to testify in public about the investigation that he led, having obtained toll records for a number of Republican lawmakers in the course of that investigation. Would you like to see Jack Smith testify?
RASKIN: Absolutely. You know, we have seen the special counsels and the independent counsels going all the way back to Kenneth Starr. All come and testify in public about their investigations and about all of the legal issues that are raised there. And there's no reason for this to be a back room behind closed-door session led by the Republicans on the committee. It should be a public hearing where everybody --
HUNT: Do you think Jim Jordan will go for it? Will he go for having it in public?
RASKIN: Well, he should go for it if he is willing to honor the precedent of our committee, which has always had the special counsels come in and testify in public before the entire committee, before the Congress and before the public. And the only reason they wouldn't do that is if they're afraid that Jack Smith would be far too convincing and far too compelling to the public in what he's going to say.
So, our fear is that they want to get him into a closed room and then very quickly, cherry pick a couple of statements or a couple of words, leak it out and try to spin it and distort it. We should let the whole world hear from Jack Smith about what he found in his investigation. And if the Republicans think that he did something wrong, then by all means they can -- they can question him on it.
But it's only if they're afraid of the answers that they would try to keep it behind closed doors.
HUNT: Are you generally comfortable with the idea of the Department of Justice getting a hold of lawmakers' cell phone toll records?
RASKIN: So, obviously, as a matter of course, that shouldn't happen only as part of a criminal investigation.
HUNT: Of course, even in that context.
RASKIN: Obviously, our Republican colleagues -- you know, well, in that context, look, our Republican colleagues have no problem with the Department of Justice prosecuting our colleague Monica McIver and threatening to send her to prison for 17 years. So obviously they're doing a whole criminal investigation on her. And then a prosecution, an attempt to send her to prison. So do I think in a comparable situation, if there's a criminal investigation going on into a violent insurrection against the United States government, where 140 officers were wounded and injured and the Capitol was stormed?
[16:10:08]
Would I be willing to have my, you know, pen record? It's not the content of the conversation, by the way. It's just who you were talking to. Should that be part of a criminal investigation? If there's probable cause or reasonable suspicion to think that evidence could come from that? Of course.
But all of that should be within the rule of law. But this has been completely within the rule of law. And those Republicans who are saying their phones were tapped are just telling falsehoods. That's not true. Nobody's phone was tapped. What they were asking for was the records of the conversations.
HUNT: Right? Line by line, not word by word, as you say.
Congressman Jamie Raskin, thanks very much for your time today, sir.
Always appreciate having you here.
RASKIN: You bet.
HUNT: All right. My panel is here in THE ARENA. White House correspondent for "The New York Times", Zolan Kanno-Youngs; "New York Times " journalist, podcast host, Lulu Garcia-Navarro; Democratic strategist, former senior adviser in the Biden and Harris presidential campaigns, Adrienne Elrod; and Republican strategist Brad Todd. Of course, also one of ours here at CNN.
Thank you very much for being here, to all of you.
We are also joined by our text chain. If this crew were not enough for you or you're watching on mute, thanks to them, they're going to be chatting alongside us as we dig into all of this.
Lulu, I want to start with you just kind of big picture here. I mean, look, Letitia James looks like she's campaigning for something every time she gets out in public and talks about this.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Or she's in a church. I mean, it was very sort of like -- it felt like she was like addressing.
HUNT: I've been in a lot of black churches over the years.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I got to say, it felt a little bit like that.
HUNT: Wat -- how do you see? And, you know, our team put together that really great graphic there that kind of laid out all the people that the president has talked about. I think it kind of helps underscore visually that when he went out there on the campaign trail and talked about retribution, right. It is now unfolding, as you see on your screen, right? Three people indicted. There are some people that would argue John Bolton's case is slightly different than James Comey and Letitia James's.
Then there's all of these people under investigation. There have been calls to investigate those other people. I mean, the president is following through on a promise. What does it mean for the country?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think. We're in unprecedented times. I mean, what the president argues and has argued is that he was the victim of sort of prosecutorial overreach. He was a victim of the DOJ, and he also points to the fact that Letitia James, when she was campaigning you know, promised to put him behind bars. So, he would say, fair is fair, right? That is -- that is his position.
And of course, what you're hearing from the Democrats is that this is completely insane. And I think the problem here is this when you see that list and you see those people -- you know, there is no other way to interpret this than. Yes, he promised he was going to do it, but is it legal? Is it right? Is this really what the Department of Justice should be used for?
And I think this is what we're grappling with, because if we get into a situation where the president himself is meddling in the Department of Justice and making the Department of Justice an arm of his own personal vendetta machine, then it is no longer an independent sort of entity that that is beholden to the people. It is beholden then to Donald Trump. And that, of course, is the fear.
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: We certainly seem to be getting close to.
GARCIA-NAVARRO : I think -- I think we're there. I think we're there.
KANNO-YOUNGS: The president has installed loyalists throughout the Justice Department, including his personal lawyer, in a top position. Also, this example with Letitia James really is an example of just how much he's installed loyalists, not just in the justice department, but in a place like a housing finance arm, right?
For this case, you should pay attention to the name Bill Pulte. That's a Trump loyalist that's leading that department. When you talk about these mortgage fraud investigations, that's being opened and led by Bill Pulte, another person who is a Trump loyalist here, it really is. We're seeing the combination of the result of installing people that show loyalty to you, but also making good on this campaign promise for retribution here and utilizing the government, both in small ways and large, to go after some of these political.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And the only thing I will add with this is I think it will be materially different and very, very problematic. If really he does go after Adam Schiff, who is a senior person sitting in Congress. I think that really opens an entirely different ballgame. HUNT: Brad Todd, how does this cut with the electorate? I mean, you
work all the time with Republicans on Capitol Hill that have to win elections in tough states, right? Places where people probably voted for the president, mostly because everything was too expensive, right? Or maybe they thought that former President Biden was too old to hold office, but they didn't necessarily sign up for the main focus to be things like this. What impact does this have there?
[16:15:03]
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think certainly in any case, in politics, you're better off talking about things that might change the lives of voters. Thats the sort of the golden rule. Don't make it about the politicians. Make it about the people who pick the politicians in all your actions.
And so, that's one thing we always advise candidates is to try to spend as little time as you can talking about yourself and about your opponent, more time talking about the voters' problem. So that'd be my first admonition. But in this case, I think most people who voted for Donald Trump do believe that the Democrats did use lawfare to try to not only unseat him from office, but to erase and delegitimize him.
And Letitia James, in fact, promised she would do that. She didn't say, I have the evidence he's committed the crime. She says, elect me and then you'll get a Trump prosecution. She made it a political promise to the people of New York.
And it's kind of ironic to me that she's about to be face trial for inflating her assets in order to get favorable financing. That, on a much larger scale, is what she went after Donald Trump on in the civil fraud case. She said that he inflated his assets in order to get favorable financing.
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Nineteen thousand dollars. It's different than what Trump's --
TODD: But the nature of the -- the nature of the alleged crime is the same is still the same thing. And she prosecutes regular people for this all the time as the state attorney general. What she's being now facing herself, that's the same crime she prosecutes.
HUNT: Is there any distinction between -- I mean, obviously, the state attorneys general are or at least in New York, it's an elected position, right? I mean, that makes it inherently political in a way that, of course, the federal department of justice in theory, isn't?
TODD: I think the federal department of justice, I mean, Eric Holder said he was going to be Barack Obama's wingman. Bobby Kennedy was John F. Kennedy's attorney general, and he was his brother.
HUNT: I knew -- I knew you were going to say this.
TODD: I just don't buy that this -- that this, the Department of Justice is this independent entity that doesn't answer to the White House. And I don't think the voters buy it either. HUNT: Adrienne?
ELROD: Well, look, I think one of the -- Congressman Raskin made this point and I -- your reporter made it earlier, too, which I think is very an important distinguishment here is the fact that a career prosecutor did not sign these indictments. They were signed by Lindsey Halligan, the acting U.S. attorney, for the relevant district. That is not how typical indictments go down.
Typically, they are signed by career officials in the Department of Justice. So that to me is a very distinguishing factor between some of the prosecutions. I mean, even if you're the kind of person who's like, well, I'm not sure if this is like a for tat or what the difference is. Just simply look at the process and the procedures that this Department of Justice has taken.
TODD: But in the end --
ELROD: Even Pam Bondi, I think, has taken some reservations as to some of these indictments. And that's one of the reasons why I think they've been digging around on Adam Schiff and they haven't found anything.
HUNT: Well, so speaking of Pam Bondi, there's this new filing, Zolan, that were outlining here. This is from Letitia James trying to get Lindsey Halligan off the case. Her attorneys, they cite that September 20th post by President Trump directly to his attorney general, Pam Bondi, that urges her to prosecute Tish, Comey -- Tish James, Comey and Adam Schiff.
I mean, this has been the focus of and I'm sure our lawyers in the text chain are having at this quite a bit, right, that there was, you know, later leaked that the president intended this toto be a direct message like it was supposed to be private. I'm not sure if those two things are related.
What do you make of it?
KANNO-YOUNGS: I mean, I remember when that was posted, we were interviewing different legal experts. That was that basically said, you see this? This will come up in the defense for Tish James here because it basically is indicating that this is not just about the evidence before you, but it's about political animus, right? It's right there. You see it.
Also, you were talking about Lindsey Halligan just worth reminding again that Lindsey Halligan was brought in because the career prosecutors in this office thought that some of these investigations, that the evidence was not there to actually bring charges, she was brought in because she would agree to actually bring forth this case as well, even when career prosecutors would not. Both of those data points are going to be brought up here where it goes, we have to see how the court case runs out.
But we have not -- it's not just the undermining of like the norms of Justice Department independence. It's also that the president talks a lot about these cases before evidence is presented, and actually shows his motivation and trying to go after them as well.
HUNT: Right.
All right. My thanks to THE ARENA text chain, who I'm sure has provided some excellent legal analysis, although I'm not usually able to read the whole thing while I'm doing this as well. The rest of our panel is going to stand by.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, growing questions over President Trump's White House renovations after his one-time top strategist suggest he's not planning on leaving at the end of his second term.
But first, the attacks in New York -- in the New York mayoral race, getting more personal just hours before the start of early voting. What Zohran Mamdani is now saying about his faith after controversial comments from his top opponent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: I thought that if I behaved well enough or bit my tongue enough in the face of racist, baseless attacks, all while returning back to my central message, it would allow me to be more than just my faith.
[16:20:05]
I was wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAMDANI: Growing up in the shadow of nine 9/11, I have known what it means to live with an undercurrent of suspicion in this city. I will always remember the disdain that I faced, the way that my name could immediately become Muhammad. To be Muslim in New York is to expect indignity.
But indignity does not make us distinct. There are many New Yorkers who face it. It is the tolerance of that indignity that does.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York, standing outside a mosque this afternoon for an impassioned and at times emotional speech defending his Islamic faith.
[16:25:09]
The 34-year-old frontrunner could be just 11 days away from becoming the city's first Muslim mayor.
Mamdani speech, coming after his opponent, Andrew Cuomo, has turned to stoking fears of Mamdani faith and background in the final stretch of the campaign, Cuomo, drawing criticism for this moment during an interview yesterday when he laughed at the suggestion that Mamdani would cheer for a terror attack.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
ANDREW CUOMO (I), NYC MAYORAL CANDIDATE: People's lives are at stake. God forbid another 9/11. Can you imagine Mamdani in the seat? And --
SID ROSENBERG, HOST: Yeah, you know, I could. He'd be cheering.
(LAUGHTER)
CUOMO: That's another problem.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. My panel is back.
Zolan, the moment there with Andrew Cuomo where he basically laughs when the host says that Mamdani would be cheering another 9/11 has been roundly criticized, of course, seems to be what prompted Mamdani to give this speech. Mamdani has obviously been lauded for his -- the way he's communicated. Some people have compared that moment to the race speech that President Obama gave during the 2008 campaign.
How do you consider this?
KANNO-YOUNGS: I think you can look at the comments from other Democrats in New York, and really a range of public officials that have condemned Andrew Cuomo's reaction, you know, in that radio interview. You're seeing him face condemnation across, you know, across the spectrum, across the state.
And when you look at, you know, Mamdani's speech and response, I think he's channeling a feeling that probably many New Yorkers of his generation have felt, which is facing xenophobic and Islamophobic attacks at that time. And he's taking this and trying to relate to them in that way.
But as I mean, for Cuomo here, I was talking to one political consultant who compared this moment to that moment when John McCain was at a rally, somebody stood up, right, and made disparaging comments about Barack Obama. And you saw him --
HUNT: No, ma'am. No, ma'am.
KANNO-YOUNGS: -- sort of cut the question off, right?
HUNT: Yeah.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Now, compare that to this, where you have Andrew Cuomo giggling, you know, at this comment as well. That's a stark difference.
HUNT: Brad Todd, how do you look at the way Cuomo handled this and how Zohran Mamdani is handling it in turn? TODD: Well, I think first off, Mamdani is a lot better communicator
than Cuomo is. And you sort of sense that Cuomo is this politician from another era, which of course is a large part of his problem in this race.
I think however, the he -- 9/11 is still an event that happened yesterday in New York, and it will always be an event that happened yesterday in New York. The 93 World Trade Center bombing was an unindicted coconspirator who has been pictured with Mamdani. That picture has made the rounds this week. I think that probably started this this roll of comments.
I mean, he's obviously going to speak passionately and his faith is important to him. I don't think most New Yorkers will begrudge that. They want -- they want people who are leaders whose faith is important to them. But I think that he's -- this is a classic example of trying to turn a real problem, an undercurrent that's a real problem into a positive.
HUNT: Let's take a look at how Cuomo responded to the backlash. So, of course, you heard what he said in that radio interview. There was backlash. Then Cuomo commented on the backlash. Let's watch that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CUOMO: I didn't make that comment. I said about 9/11. That's another problem, referring to what I have said repeatedly, which is I have a problem with the fact that Zohran pals around with Hasan Piker, who said America deserved 911.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, Lulu, I mean, of course, critics are saying that that moment that he had in that interview that Cuomo had in the interview was Islamophobic. On the other hand, Zohran Mamdani has made, you know, has the phrase globalize the intifada has been an issue in his campaign, you know, because that was something that he didn't disavow, initially. And the point Cuomo trying to make there that he has associates who have made comments like that one about 9/11.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah. I mean, this is, though I think, a fundamental problem when we're talking about Islam and people who are of Islamic faith. I do think they get judged with a double standard on the political sphere. And I think this is a perfect example of that.
You know, Zohran Mamdani has had to answer repeatedly for, comments that he might have made -- actually, in the case of globalize the intifada, he failed to condemn as opposed to embrace. That is a distinction, I think.
And so, what we're seeing here is him having to repeatedly talk about his faith, defend his faith where he sits in the firmament in regards to issues like Israel and Palestine.
[16:30:08] And at the end of the day, he is way ahead of anyone that he is supposed to be running against. And you've seen Cuomo repeatedly try to make this an issue, pit him and his Muslim identity against Jewish New Yorkers. And the fact of the matter is, is that he is most likely going to be elected. And these particular, attacks aren't landing.
I think they're kind of -- kind of despicable. And I don't think they're working. And beyond all of that, there is a political question which you can ask, who do you hang around with? What does it mean? That's all legitimate political, you know, kind of discourse.
What I think Mamdani was speaking to in that particular speech, which was, I think, very effective, is all right. But let me explain where I come from and where I sit in the world and how I stand there. And you can either embrace that or not embrace that.
But to try and kind of create a religious conflict, which is what a lot of -- what I see, a lot of his, his adversaries doing, I think is falling pretty flat.
TODD: Isn't -- aren't there some of these problems of his own making, though? Like your point, as you point out, and you make the right distinction that he refused to criticize the phrase globalize the intifada, which is not the same as embracing it. But he also said that he had no opinion on Hamas's place in governing Gaza.
I mean, New York is home to the second largest number of Jews anywhere but Israel. And so, it's also a global city where the United Nations is. The New York mayor weighs in on these matters.
And it seems to me like Mamdani, if he doesn't want to be dogged by this, then he should make very clear that he sides with the people of Israel against the terrorists. He sides with Jewish New Yorkers with their viewpoints on global affairs. And if he doesn't, is that not fair game?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, I mean, I'm not going to speak for him, but what I would probably say and what he has said is that his positions on Israel and Palestine are pretty clear, and that is distinct from his position over Jewish New Yorkers and how he would deal with that. And I think the conflation is part of the problem here, because you can have an opinion on what Israel is or is not doing, and that does not mean that you are antisemitic or that you are going to somehow hurt the interests of Jewish New Yorkers.
And I think that is the distinction that he is trying to make. Now, you can, as a voter in New York, take that on board or not take that on board. I mean, but the continual emphasis that because of his religion, that somehow he is untrustworthy and cannot be, sort of, you know, embraced by people of the Jewish faith in New York I think is continually going to be something that people are going to kind of look at and say, well, why is this equation being made?
HUNT: All right. We're going to have to leave this here.
But coming up next here in THE ARENA, the '80s, back. Why Ronald Reagan now the center of a bitter battle between President Trump and one of America's closest allies.
Plus, the man who arguably created Donald Trump's path to the White House, now saying there's a plan for him to stay there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: Trump is going to be president in '28, and people just sort of get accommodated with that.
INTERVIEWER: So, what about the 22nd Amendment?
BANNON: There's many different alternatives.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:37:43]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BANNON: He's going to get a third term. So, Trump '28, Trump is going to be president in '28. And people just sort of get accommodated with that.
INTERVIEWER: So, what about the 22nd amendment?
BANNON: There's many different alternatives at the appropriate time, we'll lay out what the plan is. But there's a plan and President Trump will be the president in '28.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: There's a plan. Former White House chief strategist and OG MAGA man Steve Bannon once again claiming Donald Trump will end up with a third term. He is, of course, not alone.
President Trump himself has suggested running again multiple times. He is even selling Trump 2028 merch, both online and at the White House. The demolition of the East Wing this week has also added some fuel to this fire. Would you totally renovate a house that you were about to move out of? I don't know.
It all comes as President Trump tries to assert new authority over elections and putting election deniers into positions of power.
My panel and our ARENA text chain are back.
Brad Todd, is President Trump going to run in 2028?
TODD: No, no. And he doesn't think he can.
HUNT: He doesn't think he can.
TODD: He doesn't think he can. HUNT: Say more.
TODD: Yes. It's -- I think that Steve Bannon -- and Jared Kushner once called Steve Bannon a suicide bomber in his time in the White House. And I think that that's probably -- this is another effort to stir up trouble and get clicks.
I do tell you that if there was a plan, I don't think they would do it in an interview with "The Economist". I mean, I love "The Economist". I subscribe to "The Economist", but that's not where this news would break.
HUNT: What do you think, Adrienne?
ELROD: Look, I mean, I appreciate your optimism, and I hope you're right, but I think we have to take this seriously. I mean, I completely agree with the way you laid out at the beginning of the segment, Kasie, which is, first of all, you don't do a giant overhaul, which is highly controversial. the East Wing of the White House completely demolishing it if you're only going to be there for the next three years or so. So that feels a little, you know, iffy there.
HUNT: Maybe he plans on attending many balls there.
ELROD: Yeah, perhaps. Maybe he's looking to --
TODD: It's a legacy.
ELROD: -- to some Vance-Rubio balls in like 2029 and 2030, in his own mind.
But look, I think it's something that we should all take very seriously. It's certainly something that legal scholars both independent and Democrat within the Democratic Party apparatus, are looking at very seriously. We've been looking at this for a very long time, because what we don't want to have happen is get caught flat footed and not have a plan in place should he actually decide to go forward with this.
[16:40:09]
KANNO-YOUNGS: I should say, as someone covering the White House, just I know, reporting that there's the plan that Bannon is describing here. And I think it's important to emphasize the former when you introduced him to as a former strategist in the White House, who's on the outside here?
But look, we have heard the president muse about this joke about 2028. He has the hats as well.
ELROD: He has hats.
KANNO-YOUNGS: And we wrote earlier this year that even if there's not a concrete plan here, there is a political strategy. He's often thrown out 2028 when his White House is being criticized for a certain issue or certain crisis. So then there's a distraction. It keeps the spotlight on him. It also keeps people guessing in a way.
You were -- we were talking --
HUNT: Just trolling? I mean --
KANNO-YOUNGS: There's also -- I mean, we know this White House is there's no shortage of trolling online as well. And sort of the, quote/unquote, owning of the Dems and the libs.
I do think the spotlight part here is important, and I think there's a link between this and also the construction of the ballroom, which is even when he leaves the White House, he wants a certain stamp of his to be on the White House.
HUNT: And that stamp is already there.
KANNO-YOUNGS: And that stamp is there.
HUNT: Well, it's actually gone right now.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Right.
HUNT: Exactly.
KANNO-YOUNGS: East Wing. But he wants people to remember sort of, you know, the Trump era, even when he leaves.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: You know, what I will say is that this is incredibly triggering to Democrats. And, you know, people use the word trolling. I don't know that this is trolling necessarily. What I would say is that this doesn't come out of a vacuum.
I mean, this was a president who tried to launch an insurrection on January 6th. This is a president who is still trying to litigate the 2020 election. This is a president who is putting people in positions of power. That has to do with our next election, too. That are election deniers.
I mean, there is a lot -- there are many things that could lead one to believe that that it is not beyond the realm of possibility. We wouldn't be saying this if this were Biden. We wouldn't be saying this if this were Obama, it wouldn't even be a subject of discussion.
ELROD: Using the National Guard in ways that could, you know --
HUNT: Well, and speaking of --
ELROD: -- 2026 midterms.
HUNT: Adrienne, speaking of the way that things become part of the conversation, this was Maggie Haberman talking to "Vanity Fair". She says this, he clearly enjoys knowing that it bothers Democrats that he says this about a third term. But there is a troll aspect.
But the thing with all of his trolls is they start out that way, like Canada as a 51st state, and then he socializes them. They take on a life of their own, or he breathes more of a life into them.
ELROD: I mean, Maggie is the queen of covering Donald Trump, and she knows what's going on in his brain. And she's a great analyzer of his thoughts.
I mean, this is the playbook that we've seen him play out. I mean, you just laid it out there very succinctly. You know, he also talked about Greenland. Let's not forget that that's still out there and the ether that, you know, he's attempting to acquire that land.
It's something we have to take very seriously. And I think that oftentimes people, especially a lot of the MAGA Republicans, like to sort of laugh it off and call us snowflakes and say that were, you know, not we're -- it's a joke and we're taking it too seriously. But at the end of the day, the way that that was just laid out is exactly why we do take it seriously. These are real threats.
HUNT: A.I. video from over the as recently as over the weekend, where the president is, you know, doing a version of this trolling thing. I mean, Brad, how -- like, why are they doing that?
TODD: Well, we've never had a president who so has such an acute understanding of how to rewire the brains of his enemies five times a day. And by doing so, you keep them off their off their game. You keep them talking about things that don't matter.
And I think that there's a lot to the way he does this. He knows the -- his use of the Internet helped propel him more than Steve Bannon did to be a president in 2016. And I think he continues to do that.
He understands internet culture. It's a throwaway culture, right? You do things, you get thrown away, people laugh, you own the moment.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But I think the problem here is with that is that you're making the same two different arguments all the time. One argument is, oh, he's just trolling and it doesn't matter. And the other argument is, oh, but he said it. He said it. When he does things that he says then he's like, but look, he said it and we should just agree with that.
HUNT: Aren't you the OG take him seriously, but not literally.
TODD: Right, right?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Should be taken literally and not seriously. I mean, you can't -- you're always trying to have it both ways. And I think that that's what is --
ELROD: Well, we should take him literally because we are watching this play out obviously, obviously in the courts and the DOJ, too, when he's going after his political enemies, I guess that he would do that.
HUNT: I guess we're going to find out time is marching on. I want to thank our friends in THE ARENA text chain.
Our panel is going to stand by. [16:45:00]
Ahead, "Shark Tank" co-host Kevin O'Leary joins us in THE ARENA to talk about how Ronald Reagan -- yes, the one and only -- is escalating Trump's trade war with our neighbor to the north.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RONALD REAGAN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: When someone says, let's impose tariffs on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while, it works, but only for a short time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
REAGAN: Throughout the world, there's a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition.
[16:50:02]
America's jobs and growth are at stake.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So that ad paid for by the Ontario government in Canada promoting free trade, has led President Trump to cancel trade negotiations with Canada. That one-minute spot features excerpts from a speech that then-President Ronald Reagan delivered in 1987 about tariffs.
Now, Trump claimed that it is fake, saying Canada cheated and the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute says that the ad misrepresented the former president's speech. The full context of the speech was Reagan's support for free and fair trade.
Here's some more of what Reagan said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REAGAN: When someone says, lets impose tariffs on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs. And sometimes for a short while, it works, but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is first home grown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Only for a short time, being a critical phrase there.
This afternoon, the Ontario Premier Doug Ford announced they'll pause the ad on Monday to allow trade talks to resume. Joining us now, the chairman of O'Leary Ventures and himself a proud
Canadian, Kevin O'Leary.
Kevin, great to see you. Thank you for being here.
Was it smart for the government -- the Ontario government to produce this ad? I -- like what's going on here?
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES: What's the difference between this tiff between Canada and the United States and what's going on with China, where one day it's going to be a 10 or 15 percent tariff and then they impose a rare earth issue and bang, it's 100 percent, and the meeting's turned off. And now, 48 hours later, it's back on. This is just a negotiation. That's all it is.
You know, the thing about Trump that people still don't get and I'm amazed after all these years, if you're an investor like I am, you have to shut out the noise and focus on the signal. So, what is the signal that Trump is putting out? Because I don't make money on noise. I make money understanding signal, which is policy. What's going on here?
The two biggest negotiations that matter most are the one with China, the world's second largest economy and the one going on with Canada, the geo-locked behemoth north, with all the resources, the power, the rare earth, the lumber, the water. They have unlimited supplies of that right beside the largest economy on earth, the United States.
Where are we going long term? And this is the investor in me just thinking this through, listening to Trump, listening to Carney, listening to Ford. Where are we going to be in ten years? We're going to combine these economies one way or another. Why? Because we have to do that to become the largest economy on Earth, to be able to spend three and a half to five percent GDP defending the north, where the Chinese are knocking on the door.
Anybody that doesn't understand the intentions of the Chinese government over the next decade is dreaming. They want to become the world's largest economy, and they want world dominance, both militarily and economically. The only way that's going to stop is Canada gets together with the United States, creates a behemoth economy, a behemoth, and says the Chinese don't beep with us in Taiwan or anywhere else.
We have the largest spend because we're going to spend three and a half to five percent GDP on just defense. Don't mess with us or it'll be a bad outcome.
The Russians are a sideshow up north in Canada compared to what the Chinese are going to do. That's the long term. So, if you're an investor, you go long Canada. Now, I haven't touched Canada for a decade because it was ruled by the idiot king. Now he's gone. The new guy sounds a lot smarter.
So I'm going along the Canadian dollar buying Canadian land, buying Canadian energy because they're going to win with the lowest cost power for data centers up there.
HUNT: Yeah.
O'LEARY: So, I'm listening to the signal, not the noise.
HUNT: So given everything you've just laid out about what you think the imperative is, do you think that President Trump is sending the right signal with his tariffs that are targeting Canada?
O'LEARY: It goes back to what I said about Trump -- bombastic. He's got a style. I mean, he does what he does, but he knows and Carney knows and Doug Burgum knows, and every premier in Canada knows, and all the governors and senators of the 26 states that have their number one trading partner with Canada understand what I just said. They understand the long-term goal, which is only five years away?
HUNT: Does Trump get it?
O'LEARY: This is -- 100 percent, he gets it. I know with certainty he gets it.
Now, he's manifested that demand by saying, I want to buy Canada and I want to make it the 51st state.
HUNT: I see.
O'LEARY: That's his style. That's not what's going to happen. Thats not what's going to happen because you got to remember the indigenous people of North America, both in Canada and the United States, they have a unique passport.
[16:55:05]
They travel across the border as if it didn't even exist. And we could do the same thing with the North American people. Remember that all the commodities --
HUNT: Fair enough.
O'LEARY: -- Canada has are priced in U.S. dollars. So, this is already happening.
I think my vision is the right one, and I'm betting my dollars on it. The rest of this stuff, noise.
HUNT: Fair enough. Kevin O'Leary, we're out of time, unfortunately. Thank you very much for your time today, sir. Come back soon. I hope.
All right.
O'LEARY: Take care.
HUNT: We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks to my panel. Thanks to all of you for watching.
Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD", and he will be in the chair on Sunday with a great lineup. Hi, Jake.
