Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Now: Hurricane Melissa Hits Jamaica With Record Intensity; House Speaker: Don't See "Path" For A Third Trump Term; New: States Sue Admin Over Withholding Food Aid Funding; GOP-Led House Oversight Committee: Biden Pardons By Autopen "Void". Aired 4-5p ET
Aired October 28, 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: This, they understood, is something unlike what they have seen so far. They were bracing very much for this, and we'll continue to monitor it.
"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, as we come on the air this hour, a monster category five hurricane Melissa makes landfall in Jamaica. One expert calling it the island's "storm of the century".
Hello, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA.
Right now, the eye of the storm is fully inland over western Jamaica. Two hours after officially making landfall. It's brought catastrophic winds, flash flooding and a storm surge of up to 13 feet. Local authorities expect landslides triggered by rainfall of more than three feet, bringing the danger far inland for some residents evacuated for safety with sustained winds that peaked at 185 miles an hour.
Hurricane Melissa is one of the strongest storms in history. When the first category five hurricane to make landfall in Jamaica.
We have reporters on the ground in the Caribbean covering this storm. CNN meteorologist Derek Van Dam is live for us in Kingston, Jamaica. CNN Havana bureau chief Patrick Oppmann is in Santiago, Cuba. And CNN meteorologist Chris Warren is standing by in the CNN extreme weather center with more.
Derek, we do hope you're staying safe out there. Please let us know if you need to move.
What are you seeing as this storm hits the island?
DEREK VAN DAM, AMS METEOROLOGIST: All right. Kasie. I want to just put into perspective what we decided to do. We were inland in Kingston about an hour ago, and, you know, we wanted to see, since the eye has passed this area, we wanted to see what, you know, was the result of the storm coming through Kingston and largely, the city has been spared by extreme devastation. But the conditions here along the coast, as one would expect, are very extreme.
We're getting pelted by seawater from the Caribbean Sea. That's a good 30 yards over my shoulder, the very angry sea. But, yeah, we decided to come here and see what the situation was on the ground.
We know that far west of here, where the eyewall made landfall. Conditions are significantly worse than what we are. But I think that's an important perspective because we are so far away from what was the landfall, the most intense hurricane to ever strike this island nation.
And here, we are getting pelted with -- I mean, I've got an anemometer here. I keep measuring it. I think were probably getting a good 60 to 65 mile an hour gusts here. So that's a strong tropical storm force and very challenging to stand up in these conditions.
What we saw was flooding on the city streets. We saw some billboards and signs that were taken down from the wind. Some electrical poles that were bent sideways. But I would say that that is a drop in the bucket for what is happening across parts of western Jamaica.
We've got an opportunity to get out of this wind as well. But this is the scene set here it is. Kingston still getting blasted by this monster hurricane. That's well inland. Moving off the north coast of Jamaica. And, yeah, this is about as extreme as our -- as our technology allows us to report from because, look, frankly, it just gets harder to, to communicate and harder to broadcast in any worse conditions than this case, Kasie.
HUNT: Of course, Derek, and we're very grateful for you and your team and the efforts that you're making to bring us this.
Can you talk a little bit about the speed or lack of speed with which this hurricane is moving across the island, and what impact will that have on the potential devastation?
VAN DAM: Okay, so the storm is moving at a painfully slow pace and that is only going to prolong the destruction that it could potentially bring. Normally, you know, we -- I talked to the deputy director of the National Hurricane Center a couple of days ago. And, you know, they said that parts of the island could experience hurricane force winds for over 24 hours. That's not normal. That's not typical.
So, what that will do is it will create destruction for at least a day. I got to keep an eye out on what's coming down the road here. It's just basically calm, for instance, whatnot.
[16:05:02]
There's no metal signs or anything like that, but we -- yeah, this is a slow-motion disaster. And this is what we're most concerned about, where the catastrophic winds made landfall and where they continue to rip apart portions of western Jamaica. That will be far, far worse than what we're experiencing here. HUNT: All right. Derek Van Dam, please stay safe out there. We'll let
you get inside for just a moment, but do bring us any new updates that you may have.
Let's get to Patrick where, of course, things are -- I'm sorry. We're going to go to Chris Warren because, Chris, my understanding is we have a new update from the hurricane center.
CHRIS WARREN, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Kasie, that's right. It is now a category four hurricane. Now, a four and a five still bring catastrophic wind damage. The potential for that, or that's the expectation. Now, 150 mile per hour category four hurricane winds still possibly gusting stronger than 20 miles an hour.
Now those winds, those category four hurricane winds are going to be right in here, you can have these strong winds, hurricane force outside of it. But the high end is right on the eye wall. So that red and that blue and that yellow right around that small little circle right here. But all that purple is where you're likely getting hurricane force winds.
Still, Derek is over here getting some strong winds, not seeing as much rain as we're seeing in other parts of the country right now. But as we look at Montego Bay, Montego Bay right now, getting the brunt of it with the heavy rain and the very strong winds, this is where it made landfall near New Hope with multiple problems there in terms of the flooding, the storm surge and of course, the catastrophic winds.
And this is a look at the map of the island. Here's Kingston, heavily populated Kingston, so much more rural where it did, come onshore, bringing with it seawater, also rainwater and flooding coming out of the hills and the mountains here. There's New Hope. And then it moved inland almost all the way the center, almost all the way across Jamaica at the moment.
Here's Montego Bay, lot of resorts through here, a lot of development. There's the airport. So we'll keep a close eye on that.
In terms of rainfall, starting to see a back edge to the rain. And that's the green right here where another one to two inches of rain is possible. Still can't rule out quite a bit of rain in the mountains near Kingston and Montego Bay as far as the forecast for winds still 80 to 85 mile an hour winds expected.
Montego Bay and then next by late tonight, into tomorrow morning, it will be eastern Cuba, expecting to see a direct impacts from what looks to be a landfalling category four hurricane.
HUNT: Chris, at this point, what do we expect in terms of the most severe outcomes here? I mean, is your main concern as we head into the evening, the wind, the rain, the storm surge, what are you looking for?
WRREN: For initially for Jamaica, I'm concerned about the wind in the surge up here. As you can see, the counterclockwise swirl, Kasie, of the storm still has the winds coming back out over the water this way. The big wild card. We don't have a lot of sensors here. I mean, we're
only -- we're not showing you just one of these locations because we choose to. This is like, very little available data for us. So, we don't know how much rain has fallen. And we really don't know just the extent of all of the winds across the island.
So, the big concern, I think, and the big wild card still is if any of these rain bands set up. So, flooding is still a huge concern. And then later on tonight into tomorrow, it will be Cuba.
HUNT: All right. Chris Warren, for us with that update on the forecast, Chris, thank you very much.
I want to bring in now, Brian Bogart. He's the World Food Programme's representative and country director, and he joins us now from Kingston, Jamaica.
And, Brian, of course, you are riding out this monster storm to try and be ready to help people. How are you and your team holding up right now?
BRIAN BOGART, REPRESENTATIVE & COUNTRY DIRECTOR, WORLD FOOD PROGRAMME: We're doing fine. I mean, I think in situations like this, if you are lucky enough to be just outside the direct path of the storm, you might have some power outages -- you might, you might have to stay inside for a period of time, but we're really just thinking about the people who are in western Jamaica right now, what they must be going through.
HUNT: So, let's talk about that just a little bit. I mean, the storm is, of course, moving through the island. How does it work for an organization like yours? I mean, when will you be able to get out to try to assess the damage and get into some of these communities that will need you?
BOGART: Well, first, as soon as we have the all clear from the government of Jamaica, we're already planning to move into the most affected areas. Of course, there will be issues around debris and access roads, bridges, et cetera, given all the flooding and storm surges that we can already expect to be happening in western parts of the country.
But right now, we're really planning to get out, try to understand where the needs are, where they're most acute, and we're lining up our pipeline of relief assistance so that we can deliver that to Jamaica and begin getting it out to people as soon as we can.
[16:10:14]
HUNT: And, of course, sir, there are some areas in the region that even absent a hurricane like this, they are dealing with food insecurity. They have relatively poor infrastructure. How do those challenges impact your response to an emergency like this one?
BOGART: Well, I mean, we certainly also recognize that the same areas that are being battered by this storm on the south coast of Jamaica were also impacted only a year ago by Hurricane Beryl, a category four storm, and some of those areas, like Saint Elizabeth Parish are the main food producing regions of the country.
So, we know that, you know, the first time you're hit by a storm of this nature, it's devastating. The next time that a storm like this impacts the same communities, you can only imagine how difficult it will be for them.
HUNT: Yeah, no, for sure. And can you talk a little bit about kind of what that means in terms of recovery for Jamaica, that these food producing regions are set to be so affected?
BOGART: Sure. I mean, I think the first thing in our first priority is getting food to people who are -- who are in shelters, people who are in their homes but have lost their roofs, people who have been displaced from their homes. That's really the immediate priority.
I think, next, we need to make sure that we can restore market functionality that the private sector is able to reach these areas and that infrastructure repairs are done to allow private transporters to deliver food to these communities so people can buy food from shops and stores. And that's really the first priority.
I think next, we really do need to look at what we can do to invest in communities that produce food, not only farmers, but there's also a lot of fishing communities in the south coast of Jamaica, and that fish supply is incredibly important, both for food supply in Jamaica, but also for the economy as a whole.
HUNT: All right. Brian Bogart of the World Food Programme, thanks very much for spending some time with us. Stay safe. We hope that you're able to get help to people who need it there on the ground. Thank you very much.
BOGART: Thank you very much.
HUNT: All right. Coming up here in THE ARENA, we're going to continue to cover Hurricane Melissa, including another update that is expected soon from the National Hurricane Center.
But first, we're going to dig into the new details today about what House Speaker Mike Johnson says he privately told President Trump about the possibility of him serving a third term. The very mixed reaction from Republicans about whether it's a real idea or not.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Senator, is it constitutional for President Trump to run for a third term? He's teasing that.
SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-AL): You know, if you read the Constitution, it says it's not. But if he says he has some different circumstances that might be able to go around the Constitution, but that's up to him.
(END VIDEO CLIP) (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:17:33]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SETH MEYERS, LATE NIGHT WITH SETH MEYERS, HOST: It's so weird to make a hat for a thing that can't happen. Wearing a Trump 2028 hat is like wearing a hat that says Super Bowl champion, New York Jets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So yes, those Trump 2028 hats, which are in fact selling on the official Trump store for $50 taking on new meaning for those who say that they take President Trump seriously after he once again floated the idea of running for a third term despite being prohibited from doing so by the 22nd Amendment.
Today, the House Speaker Mike Johnson, himself a constitutional lawyer, revealed that he has in fact spoken about the possibility with the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: I think the president knows, and he and I have talked about the constrictions of the Constitution. As much as so many the American people lament that, the Trump 2028 cap is one of the most popular that's ever been -- been produced, and he has a good time with that, trolling the Democrats, whose hair is on fire about the very prospect.
I don't see a way to amend the Constitution because it takes about 10 years to do that, as you all know, to allow all the states to ratify what two thirds of the House and three fourths of the states would approve. So, I don't -- I don't see the path for that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst, Elliot Williams; Republican strategist and pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson; former communications director at the DNC, Mo Elleithee; and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings.
Welcome to all of you.
Scott Jennings, you're on the record talking about, what you think about the possibility of the president running for a third term. And I should note, we do have our text chain here is going to provide some additional commentary on this as we talk about it. I found it remarkable that the speaker acknowledged that he had spoken with the president about the, quote/unquote, constrictions around this. And it really seems to speak to this question of whether or not this is just a massive troll or something the president is actually thinking about.
What do you think?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think he's trolling the Democrats, which he loves to do, and they fall for it every time. They've been doing it for 10 years on a number of issues. You know, there's -- look, the president himself acknowledged that this sort of gimmicky idea about electing a vice president.
And I guess the other gimmick would be to elect him speaker of the house and then have the president and vice president. These are all gimmicks. He said it would be too cute by half. And he's right.
He's not going to need a third term. He's had two very successful terms. I'm sure by the end of 2028.
[16:20:03]
But I think this is a troll. I think people are unnecessarily falling for it, and I think they're probably selling a ton of hats because of it, and they're laughing the entire time it's happening.
HUNT: Let's watch what Senator Tommy Tuberville said about this, just because I think it speaks to this -- this big question of how seriously should this be taken? Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUBERVILLE: If you read the Constitution, it says it's not. But if he says he has some -- some different circumstances that might be able to go around the Constitution, but that's up to him. We got a long way to go before that happens.
REPORTER: But you're open it?
TUBERVILLE: Well, I think that there's going to be having to have to be an evaluation from President Trump's viewpoint to the Constitution. There will be a lot of legal aspects to it. But will it happen? It's very unlikely, but, don't ever close the book on President Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, Scott, he seems to be much more open to it. And I guess the thing I can't help thinking about is the weeks before January 6th of 2021, when I was on the phone with people like Lindsey Graham, who would say, you know what? Just let him have his moment. Just let him work through in public. The fact that he didn't win the election, you let him contest it, let him try it in the courts. It'll all be fine in the end.
And we learned later that there actually is a lot of stuff going on behind the scenes with electors in the states. And then ultimately, there's a mob that shows up at the Capitol on January 6th, and a lot of that talk about how none of it should be taken that seriously turned out to really not be the correct way to look at it.
Do you think something like that could be happening here? I mean, certainly, Tommy Tuberville has laid -- you know, he's one Republican, but he's laid out what you could see as the ensuing logic.
JENNINGS: What would you do? I mean, how would you run? How would you go about --
HUNT: Well, you just named, like, two possibilities that are being talked about, right?
JENNINGS: So, no, I just -- I guess I don't take this very seriously truthfully. And the president himself on Air Force One the other night acknowledged that the sort of gimmicky idea was too cute. The American people wouldn't go for it.
He also then started immediately talking about how J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio, in his opinion, would be a powerful team to carry the ball into the future. I think if you were planning to run, you wouldn't be talking about the next iteration of your political movement.
HUNT: Very possible.
Elliot Williams, legally speaking, are there any I mean, look, the Internet is full of these theories. MAGA world has all of these thoughts and feelings about how maybe he sets himself up to be vice president, blah, blah, blah. Is there a legal road around the 22nd Amendment that doesn't involve the 10-year process of changing the Constitution?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: There's a legal road around anything in the United States if you're willing to just disregard the Constitution. And I just think, sure, it can happen if people don't stop it, right?
It's -- but I agree with Scott fully. This is a troll. This is the kind of thing designed to make Democrats hair explode. It's also a test at the same time for congressional Republicans. And each time one of them is asked, does the president have the right to do this? If the answer is anything other than no, they're either trolling the Republicans -- you know, trolling the public, trolling Democrats.
HUNT: Or they're afraid of President Trump.
WILLIAMS: Or afraid of President Trump, whatever it might be. But, you know, its there are far bigger fish to fry. And we can talk about -- we talk about them every day on here, far bigger things to get angry about than something that has no legal basis whatsoever. And I just think, you know, Democrats love taking the bait.
HUNT: I do not observe your hair to be on fire at the moment.
MO ELLEITHEE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DNC: And if I had any --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: That'd be a small brush fire.
(LAUGHTER)
ELLEITHEE: Yeah, yeah, exactly. That's exactly right. Now, look, I'm actually in -- mostly in agreement here. Mostly. I
mean, this president knows how to do a couple of things really, really, really well.
He knows how to delight his supporters. Check. He knows how to troll Democrats. Check. He knows how to stay relevant and control the news cycle. Check.
But he also has been and for all those reasons -- I think this thing is, you know, not really not real. But he also has been raising concerns amongst a big number of Americans about his amassing of power, about how he has continued to put more and more power into the executive that wasn't there before.
Seven million people turned out at these rallies a couple of weeks ago, and while they were all holding signs about completely different issues, the throughline for all of them was about how he is trying to amass all this power.
So you don't have to take this seriously. But politically, I don't think its a very smart thing to do because all these people who are getting animated, who are getting excited and who are whose hair is on fire and are already showing a willingness to take political action, it's another data point.
WILLIAMS: Real quick. You know, I'm sorry, Kristen, just real, real quick. I just -- the ruining of the Justice Department, I think is here right now. Thats the legal issue to worry about.
[16:25:01]
I just think all this nonsense about can President Trump keep being president and forever is the kind of thing that Democrats lose their mind about.
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And also, I mean, it's somewhat baffling about all of this to me, is a lot of times when you have a lame duck president, someone who, like, they are not going to be on a ballot again, there's a question of relevance, right? If you -- but Donald Trump doesn't have the problem of not being relevant.
I mean, Republicans are not thinking, well, this guy's not going to be on a ballot anymore. Let's just worry about who will win the next primary. He very much is beloved by his base, has a strong, firm grip on the Republican Party. He doesn't need the prospect of being president again in 2028 to remain relevant. He has cemented himself, at least, for the short to medium term, as the leader of the Republican Party, even if he is technically a lame duck.
HUNT: Which may explain partly why some Republicans are indulging this conversation.
All right, my thanks to our text chain. The rest of the panel will stand by. Coming up next, here we are standing by for an update from the
National Hurricane Center on Hurricane Melissa as it tears through Jamaica.
But first, Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego will be here live. A new milestone is bringing the government shutdown to an airport near you, and dozens of states are suing the Trump administration over withholding critical funding for food assistance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): We just asked the Democratic -- my Democratic friends to keep government open. It's not like we're asking them to sell a kidney or something.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:30:51]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRIS MAYES (D), ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL: One in four children in our state are about to lose their source of food. That is why we are suing. The Trump administration can and should continue to provide SNAP benefits. Arizonans should not ever, ever be used as a bargaining chip while Donald Trump plays politics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was the attorney general of Arizona announcing today the Grand Canyon State, alongside 24 other Democratic led states, is suing the Trump administration to keep SNAP food assistance funds, commonly known as food stamps, flowing during the government shutdown.
Their lawsuit comes after the White House said they would not be using emergency funds to cover food stamps if the shutdown continues through this Saturday, something the top senate appropriator Republican Susan Collins, says the administration could do if they wanted to.
SNAP provides food stamps to nearly 42 million people. That amounts to about one in eight Americans, 39 percent of the recipients are children, while another 30 percent are elderly or disabled.
Joining us now in THE ARENA to discuss, Democratic senator from Arizona, Ruben Gallego.
Senator, thank you very much for being here.
Many of your constituents are, of course, set to lose this food assistance. I recognize Democrats are doing this because they say they're worried about health care premiums. But at what point do people need to eat first?
SEN. RUBEN GALLEGO (D-AZ): Well, at all points, they need to eat first. And this is why I signed on to the Hawley bill to actually make sure that SNAP beneficiaries get paid. There's going to be a lot of Democrats that are going to say the same thing and going to hope and hope that the Republicans will actually act in responsible manner.
Number two, we know Trump can actually allocate the money to do this. He has the authority. There's money there to make sure that people are fed, at least for a month beforehand, asking and seeking more funds.
You know, but we know who these people are. These Republicans are the same people that only a couple of months ago cut 60,000 Arizonans off from food stamps to pay for tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy. So, you know, what they're trying to do is hold one group of people hostage that are -- that are very poor and needy versus another group that is also needy.
Many Americans, hundreds of thousands of Arizonans and millions of Americans that are just trying to make sure that they don't have their insurance premiums rocket overnight.
There's a solution to this. It's very simple solution. We can both open up government and also pass some moderate reforms that we could all agree to when it comes to the extension of these premiums, to make sure people's insurance stays affordable.
HUNT: And do you have any indication Republicans are interested in that right now?
GALLEGO: Look, it's hard to tell. What I'm focusing on right now is the fact there's 24 million Americans that starting November 1st, are going to have to have a very, very tough decision. Starting November 1st, they're going to have to make a decision. How are they going to make up for the fact that this president and the Republicans have doubled, almost on average, all their premiums, their monthly premiums, you're talking about people that are going to go -- now have to add $200, $300, $600, maybe $1,000 a month to their budget, trying to figure out how to keep basic health insurance.
We know about 4 million of them are just going to not even buy it anymore. That is what I'm concerned about. That's what I'm focusing on. And right now, everything is so expensive. And these guys are just going to add an extra expense that is essentially, you know, something that they're doing. They're voluntarily doing this, for these 24 million American families.
You know, you don't have to be out there too much to see how expensive food is, how much electricity is. Utilities are. And now, the Republicans are going to be adding health insurance to that.
HUNT: So, I think my question is this. I mean, I take your point about these millions of people. The cost of living is incredibly high. But also, Republicans control the White House, they control the Senate, they control the House.
[16:35:00]
And in the past, Democrats, when Republicans have tried to do something like this, Democrats have argued that the norms of our government should be that you negotiate policy outside of a government shutdown. I mean, I have over many years covering Washington. People have said that over and over and over again.
And now I have neighbors in the D.C. area who are both employed by the federal government, who are having to use food banks. We are heading into Thanksgiving. Why is it suddenly right to do it this way and to do it for this long, when it didn't used to be the right way in Democrats' view.
GALLEGO: Oh, that's an easy answer. It's Donald Trump. You're talking about norms in the time of Donald Trump. It's also normal not to tear down the East Wing --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: But Democrats have spent so much time arguing about how maintaining those norms is actually incredibly important.
GALLEGO: It's all out the window. It's all out the window, Kasie. No.
When you're dealing time (ph) with Donald Trump, this is the man that is extorting people. He's literally, you know, breaking every rules. We're not going to go back and play by the norms when we know that what's on the line.
What's on the line is 24 million people are going to have their insurance rates premiums doubled. That's a new thing, by the way. And the fact is the president -- and everyone expects us to play by these rules and norms --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: But didn't -- didn't Democrats kind of set that up in the bill that you passed, though, that these subsidies were going to expire?
GALLEGO: When we passed the bills back in the day as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, of course, we were trying to, you know, maybe hope for the best that this country and our Republican colleagues would understand that raising insurance rates on people is a bad thing. I'm sorry they don't see it that way, but it's also not my job to make their job easier. My job is to make sure that the premiums of 24 million Americans does not double overnight.
And if its -- if it makes it harder on the Republicans that were putting them in a very difficult position, that they have to answer for that. And hopefully, it actually comes with a good outcome, which is Americans not having to pay higher premiums, then that's good.
But I'm not going to abide by old norms, especially when you're dealing with this presidency, this administration. And how the Republicans themselves have been acting.
HUNT: Speaking of norms, the conversation we were having earlier, this is on a different topic from the shutdown. The president has entertained talk of him having a third term selling Trump 2028 hats. And the House Speaker Mike Johnson said that he had had a conversation a private conversation with the president about the constrictions of the Constitution.
How seriously do you or don't you take the possibility of the president trying to have a third term in office?
GALLEGO: I don't take it seriously because he will, you know, be in violation of the Constitution, and he should be arrested if he attempts to do that.
HUNT: Do you think -- you think he should be arrested if he attempts to have a third term in any way? At what point? I mean, if he talks about it, what constitutes doing that in your view?
GALLEGO: If he -- if he -- if he files to run for presidency and attempts to run for elections, and then circumvents and ignores the rules, I think that would be a quick decision by the Supreme Court. Then at that point, once his presidency is up, when he is supposed to be, you know, out of office, he's in violation of the Constitution of the United States and he should be arrested.
HUNT: All right. Senator Ruben Gallego, thanks so much for spending some time with us today, sir. Appreciate your time.
GALLEGO: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Ahead here in THE ARENA, we are watching for an updated forecast that's coming in any minute on Hurricane Melissa. Our Bill Weir will be here to talk about just how this became one of the strongest storms ever.
And also, the sudden shift today from one of the most vocal and wealthiest climate activists.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AARON ROSS SORKIN, CNBC HOST: I wonder now when you look back, given that you're changing sort of the metric with which you use, do you say to yourself that the Paris climate accord and its goals were misplaced?
BILL GATES, MICROSOFT CO-FOUNDER: No, not at all.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:43:14]
HUNT: All right. We're continuing to track Hurricane Melissa as it makes its way across Jamaica, leaving a path of destruction in its wake. The storm's rapid intensification is thanks to warming oceans and record setting strength is becoming the new normal.
CNN's chief climate correspondent, Bill Weir, joins us now with more. Bill, I'm so grateful to have you, because -- I mean, seeing the level
of intensity of this storm, I mean, it has stunned meteorologists. Can you help us understand how it compares to what we have seen in times past?
BILL WEIR, CNN CHIEF CLIMATE CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. There was a really good study just a couple years ago that looked at 830 Atlantic hurricanes and tried to find which ones went from a category one to a monster in less than 24 hours.
In the '70s and '80s, it was about 3 percent of storms that did that. The last two decades, it's about 8 percent. So, it's more than doubled. A warmer, overheating planet doesn't mean more hurricanes, necessarily, but the ones that do pop up can turn into these rippers that are just devastating on coastal communities.
Nobody cares if this happens out in the middle of the Atlantic. But in places like Jamaica, Cuba, right now these folks are going to feel it. And then, of course, a warmer atmosphere holds more water. So, the rains, as this slow moving storm just dumps into the mountains of Jamaica, heart goes out to those folks.
But this again, could be one of the coolest falls of the rest of our lives. This is a new phenomenon baked in, and it's just confirming the science that has been warning this for a long time.
HUNT: One of the coolest falls for the rest of our lives. It's a really striking way to think about it.
So, Bill, how can people and communities prepare for and try to survive these storms if they're going to continue to break records like this?
[16:45:04]
WEIR: I think it's just the knowledge that these aren't our grandfather storms anymore, or wildfires or droughts that we're working with new laws of physics as the planet overheats under all this fossil fuel pollution. So, the Boy Scouts motto for communities, be prepared, think about adaptation measures to take. How connected are you? Evacuation routes, all the stuff that, you know, you hear sort of preached on sunny days that may not land, but on days when it when it is bearing down, make a hell of a lot more sense.
People are seeing it in insurance markets, of course, as well. That's forcing folks to wake up. To the financial realities of this. But there are so many ways in lives that we can connect with neighbors and strengthen communities. And, boy, I've seen it time and time again in a lot of disasters. Those who do that suffer the least after one of these horrible events.
HUNT: Yeah, I'm sure.
So, let's talk about one of the major players on the world stage. Historically, in terms of climate change. That's Bill Gates, of course, one of the richest men in the world. He has spent most of the past decade working, spending his money, giving his money away to try to combat climate change.
He's now saying that he wants to refocus his efforts on poverty and diseases, that the world should refocus on poverty and diseases. Let's play a little bit of an interview he did on CNBC. It aired this morning. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SORKIN: There are going to be people who are going to say that you are you are changing the goalposts because of this political climate as a way to placate President Trump, who has not been on the side of some of the net zero. And obviously, the Paris climate accord and things like that.
GATES: Well, I'm glad that some of the provisions that promoted new climate technologies got preserved. I was disappointed that a lot of that was taken away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, Bill, I mean, how are the shifts that Gates is underlining here, how's this going over in the climate science community?
WEIR: Well -- and the climate world is reeling in general since the second coming of Donald Trump, who has just declared all-out war on science and on the technology around it and new energy systems there, even storm measuring and adaptation that we've been talking about has been cut here.
And so, you've seen all of the billionaire class change the messaging around. They've seen the Democrats change messaging. It's less about starving polar bears. It's about abundance and better, faster, cheaper technologies and cleaner communities, which obviously resonates more.
There is no satisfying season finale to the climate change story. You know, as I was saying, it just gets worse and worse. But what's interesting, I talked to Bill Gates at his last breakthrough, energy ventures confab in London. This is the leading investors. All the new technology to try to combat this.
And I pressed him on it. This -- and this was right before a couple of months before the election, which Donald Trump won. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WEIR: What do you say to disillusioned folks who just think we're running out of time and the grownups aren't taking this seriously enough?
GATES: Well, I'm spending billions of dollars and, you know, finding the best innovators. Really, the only way to square the need for this, emissions reduction and people's desire to not be the one who pays a high price for it is innovation. And that's, you know, why the companies here, they're scaling up is how we get the best of both worlds.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WEIR: But, of course, he pulled back on some of those investments. He's trying to stay focused on a dozen or so winners and scale those up. But in terms of scattershot investment, you can see it. This will be used by detractors and denialists to say that the story is shifting in some cases. But for context, Bill Gates has always been focused on global health, on children --
HUNT: Yeah.
WEIR: -- in developing countries, and serving them in times like this, like in Jamaica, those are climate solutions as well. It's a different way to look at a lot of the same connected problems.
HUNT: All right. Bill Weir, very grateful to have you on the program today to talk about all this as we cover this breaking news. Thank you very much for your insights.
WEIR: Thanks.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, new reporting coming in to CNN. What a top Trump DOJ official is now saying about whether Biden era pardons for people like Aanthony Fauci and Adam Schiff are valid following a new report from House Republicans.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:54:04]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: The so-called chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, continues to behave like a malignant clown. We can't point to a single thing that he's actually done to make life better for the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries just within the last hour, slamming a new report out from Republicans on the House Oversight Committee that calls for a Justice Department investigation into pardons that were issued by President Biden. The report openly questions the legitimacy of any actions that were taken and signed by autopen instead of by Joe Biden's hand.
And this afternoon, there's new reporting on just how real this DOJ investigation is. In an email obtained from a source, President Trump's top pardon attorney at DOJ, Ed Martin, told House Republicans that his probe into this issue revealed, quote, abuses and went on to say that his office, quote, cannot support the validity of autopen pardons for individuals like Anthony Fauci, Adam Schiff, Mark Milley.
[16:55:08]
Here was the House speaker earlier today on this question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: It's unprecedented. There is no legal precedent because no previous president had an autopen or had the audacity to have people signing things on their behalf when they didn't even know what was in it. And so, we're in uncharted waters as a nation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. My panel is back.
Eliot Williams --
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
HUNT: -- the autopen, first of all, has been used in the past. Occasionally, yes.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
HUNT: Okay. So, fact check there. But what, if anything, is there any "there" there to this?
WILLIAMS: I'm really not seeing it. Only because the tradition of autopen has existed in every presidential administration, across parties. I had an autopen when I worked at ICE.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: I'm sorry. Elliot Williams, you were important enough to have an autopen. I'm so impressed.
WILLIAMS: I am important, Kasie. But no, it -- and so, it's a common practice.
JENNINGS: Did you allow people to use the name Elliot Williams without your knowledge of the document or what was on the page?
WILLIAMS: I don't recall.
JENNINGS: So, I'm asking you if you were a government official and you had an autopen, which you did, would you let some staffer sign things in your name without reading?
WILLIAMS: Here's the question. Here's the question. Was my authority delegated to that person? And I think they do have the authority to do so.
Laws and regulations. And I'm serious, Scott, laws and regulations --
JENNINGS: The authority to delegate pardons and executive orders. The president of the United States can say, you unelected staffer can go sign my name on a document that I've never seen for a decision that I've never made?
WILLIAMS: Quite often, the United States code delegates authority. So, through the president of the United States, through the attorney general, whatever else X person can carry out a function, and certainly that could be the case.
Now, Donald Trump, for instance, in his first term, pardoned like 1,600 people. And I have a hard time believing that he was aware of every single person that he was pardoning. One could make a challenge. Every president does this.
Now, if it's a -- hold on, if it's a question about Biden's fitness for office, did he know what he was? Of course, raise that question. But I just -- one, given how vast the pardon power is and two, given how comprehensive the use of autopens are across administrations, I have a hard time seeing legal challenge.
JENNINGS: Nobody can be delegated the pardon power. It is a constitutional power.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
JENNINGS: And I don't really think you can delegate the executive order power either, because the executive has to make the order.
HUNT: So, Scott, the president, George W. Bush, and forgive me, I'm doing some research here in real time. But we are on justice.gov, office of legal counsel. Date of issuance, July 7th, 2005. So, this is the Bush administration.
They ask whether the president may sign a bill by directing that his signature be affixed to it. And the Justice Department says, yes, the president need not personally perform the physical act of affixing his signature to a bill he approves and decides to sign in order for the bill to become law. Rather, the president may sign a bill within the meaning of Article One, Section Seven, by directing a subordinate to affix the president's signature to such a bill, for example, by autopen.
JENNINGS: The issue is not the use of the autopen. The issue is the last thing you said. Directing someone, the president making a decision. What Comer and the guys over at Oversight have found is that there's no clear evidence that Joe Biden personally made the decisions that only a president can make.
WILLIAMS: Well, that's -- and that's a fair question. But signing legislation is as much a presidential power as issuing pardons is, right? They're both in the Constitution. The president has the power to execute or pardon me, to execute legislation has the power to pardon. If, as is the case with George W. Bush, he can delegate the signing of legislation.
JENNINGS: You're missing the point. The allegation is Joe Biden had no idea that his signature was being affixed to certain things. And if that's true, it is a valid question. If the president doesn't personally make a decision or make --
WILLIAMS: I think it's a perfectly valid question, I'm just saying the notion of presidents delegating their authority, even --
JENNINGS: The president is not a figurehead. WILLIAMS: -- even on constitutionally mandated powers, the president
can delegate his authority. And that might have been the case here.
ELLEITHEE: An allegation that you say there's no -- right? There's no evidence that supports that allegation. Every piece of testimony that's come before the committee so far by people who would be in the know, have all said the president knew, he was aware, he directed. The president has said it since then, that he was aware, and he knew, and he directed.
WILLIAMS: Yeah.
ELLEITHEE: So like --
WILLIAMS: Scott, we were talking about this. We were talking about this in the break. I mean, one thing that could be done is you call the president and people around him to testify, to explain his level of knowledge.
My point is, virtually -- I think every power has some way of being executed through other people --
ELLEITHEE: I mean, this president, the current --
WILLIAMS: -- in American government. If it's -- if it's a broader question about, whether Joe Biden fit to be president, well, that's a political debate to be had. Congress can have it.
JENNINGS: To me, it's just very simple, that what they have found is that there's no clear -- they can't really document the decision making chain of command. So, you get the president's signature on documents and no clear paper trail of how he made that decision, who he told to affix his name to it. It's a legitimate investigation.
HUNT: Well, I guess we are about to find out.
And Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD". We should note that it is he who obtained this letter that shows what Ed Martin has been doing here.
I'm sure, Jake, you're going to have much more coverage on "THE LEAD".
