Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Epstein Files Heads To Trump After Congressional Approval; Judge Questions Whether Comey Indictment Was Properly Approved; New: Nvidia Beats Earnings Expectations Despite A.I. Bubble Fears. Aired 4- 5p ET
Aired November 19, 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]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Wednesday.
Right now, we are waiting for President Donald Trump to take action, six hours after the Senate passed the bill to release the Epstein files. After months of fighting over this story, blaming it on Democrats, claiming it's a hoax, Trump could, you know, take any moment and sign it into law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Just release the files, period. I don't care about how the sausage is made. I just want it out in the open for everybody to consume.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Republican Senator Thom Tillis, far from the only person in Washington who wants to be done with this story. But of course, it may not be that simple. Remember that on Friday, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, selected a prosecutor to look into Epstein's former associates, including prominent Democrats, that President Trump requested.
Bondi announced the new investigation despite a previous review of the case files that the FBI says, quote, "did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties," unquote.
Today, however, the attorney general says things have changed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What changed since then that you launched this investigation?
PAM BONDI, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Information that has come for -- information. There's information that -- new information, additional information. And again, we will continue to follow the law to investigate any leads. If there are any victims, we encourage all victims to come forward and we will continue to provide maximum transparency under the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Continue to provide transparency. And yet, all she says is there's information, there's information, there's information. The DOJ has all kinds of information that Congress had to write a law to get them to release.
So, what Bondi did anyway, has raised the new possibility that this investigation could give the DOJ cover to delay or refuse to release the Epstein files that, again, are in their possession. So, what happens if they do do that? In the Senate, where the bill was passed with unanimous consent, no one seems to know.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What's going to be the recourse if the Justice Department does not release these Epstein files?
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): I hope that doesn't happen, because that would, of course, defy the act of Congress and the stated intention of the president to release this information.
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): I don't think they'll do that, Elex. I think -- I'd be really surprised if they tried that.
SEN. ERIC SCHMITT (R-MO): I've been saying for a long time that I think that all the credible information that can be released should be released. And so that's where we're at.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): Aat the end of the day, it will all come out, because those investigations will be concluded at some point. And then the present leadership of the Department of Justice will be held accountable if it fails to disclose what needs to be revealed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA.
My panel is going to be here. We're going to get started, though, with CNN senior White House correspondent Holmes, who's been covering all of this for us.
And, Kristen, we just heard from the Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. I want to play for you what he said just a couple of moments ago as we talk about this. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: This will not and cannot be the end of the work. We'll keep the pressure up -- pressure for the president to sign and then pressure on the DOJ to release the full, unredacted files. No hiding, no game playing, no covering up. Pressure to make sure the documents are released in their entirety and not warped by a corrupt DOJ who's hellbent on hiding the truth, bending the law, and protecting Trump.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, Kristen, he led off there by saying pressure for the president to sign. What are you hearing about plans to do that?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I mean, your guess is as good as mine. We were told multiple times by multiple different officials that as soon as this was on his desk, he was going to sign it. Now, were we expecting some kind of pomp and circumstance like we see typically when President Trump signs these bills? Probably not. Just given the fact that he had actually actively fought against bringing this vote, even to the floor. So, the bill itself doesn't seem like something he might want to tout or celebrate.
But it was sent over by the Senate hours ago, and we were told by officials then that it might take some time to get to the White House. But again, that was hours ago. And yet we still have not heard any word. We've asked if the bill has arrived. We've asked if the president has signed the bill.
I was just looking down at my phone to see maybe we got an alert that said President Trump announced it, but he did not. We are still waiting to have any information as to when he is going to sign this bill.
[16:05:01]
And on top of that, additionally, there is still a big question as to once he does, what actually gets released and when I know we've had a number of people bring up the fact that there's this ongoing investigation, are they going to use that the Department of Justice to not release certain aspects or certain documents? It is still very unclear.
The White House has told me that President Trump is not going to stand in the way of anything being released, but again, now you have this separate investigation that's going to raise a lot of questions and potentially create yet another roadblock.
HUNT: All right. Kristen Holmes, with that update, as in, there is no update. Kristen, thank you. I really appreciate it.
All right. My panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN political analyst, national reporter for "Axios", Alex Thompson; CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg; CNN political commentator and former director of public affairs at the DOJ, Xochitl Hinojosa; and former Trump campaign manager, Bill Stepien.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.
It took about two hours for Trump to sign the bill ending the government shutdown after Congress passed it, Jonah. Like, just to be clear, once the Senate transmitted it, he could have signed it at any moment. Do you think he's going to sign it?
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think he's probably -- I think he's probably going to sign it.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I can't believe we're asking that. But that's where we're at.
HUNT: I was not expecting to come on the air at 4:00 and have this be the question.
GOLDBERG: Yeah, I think he's probably going to sign it. And I don't -- I don't think we're going to get a release of all the documents. I think historians are going to look back on this and think that this was one of the great examples of collective dysfunction and error going way back. And you should not release -- in principle, you should not release raw, investigatory files. There are lots of people who can be harmed by this.
But this is sort of where we are. And I don't think even if they release everything, it will satisfy everybody, because this is now in the realm of conspiracy theories. It's not falsifiable. The lack of evidence will be seen as evidence that the conspiracy goes even further. We still have people making millions of dollars claiming that we didn't land on the moon, and that Kennedy was assassinated by Muppets or something, right?
This is never going to end. And I think Trump deserves a lot of the blame for getting himself into this position. But at the same time, it's a hot mess and everybody deserves some blame.
HUNT: I want to play a little bit of what Joe Rogan had to say on his podcast today, Bill, because this has reached beyond obviously, the political media ecosphere that if you're enjoying our show, you probably participate in relatively regularly, right? This has gone beyond that.
Here's what Rogan had to say today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE; Epstein files.
JOE ROGAN, PODCASTER: I heard there's no files. I heard it's a hoax. And then, all of a sudden, he's going to release the files. Well, I thought there was no files.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Man --
ROGAN: He wants an investigation now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Listen --
ROGAN: Like what is going on?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, it seems like a fair question, Bill. Like what is going on?
BILL STEPIEN, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Well, I think you're seeing on a national podcast like this, this has entered the public sphere, like, in a way, for four years or years under Biden, like it never did. I think you really see public opinion move against or towards the release.
Eight in 10 want them released and importantly, two and three Republicans, maybe most importantly, want these released. Those are numbers that that Trump sees. And when you see really for the first time in a decade, public fracturing of the MAGA base. I think that's what really concerns him. And it's also a year to the midterms less so. So, I think all these factors are pushing towards maybe signing.
HUNT: Why is he waiting to sign it? I mean, like, what do you think?
STEPIEN: I don't know. I don't know. I mean, he's a busy man.
GOLDBERG: Nvidia earnings call. Like maybe he's paying attention to that.
STEPIEN: There won't be pomp and circumstance as was alluded to there.
ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I mean, you're talking about, like, the six hours that he hasn't signed the bill, but what about the last six months when he could have just released the files if he wanted to? You know, they -- the fact is that Donald Trump is one of the most litigious people in the history of America, not just American politics. And his philosophy going back all the way in New York City is delay, delay, delay, delay and try to put off any potential consequences. And you are now seeing it from the White House.
HINOJOSA: Well, and now he has the justice department to protect him from this. So I think Pam Bondi could delay in three ways. One, there is obviously redactions and victims and information like that. Yes, absolutely should be redacted. No question about it.
There will be a question about whether information about Donald Trump is redacted. And when you are providing information to Congress, we went through this with the Hur investigation where we received her report saying that Joe Biden was a well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory and Democrats strongly believed that the Justice Department should have removed that from the report or redacted it.
We felt that we would have to tell Congress, and also we never considered it. But if that were to happen, that would not hold up with FOIA. You would be able to take that to court. And there's no reason why something like that would hold up. Just like if there's something bad in there about Donald Trump, that's not going to hold up within FOIA.
HUNT: So, you're saying that the White House wanted that, quote, "redacted or removed"? The Department of Justice was under pressure to do it. They didn't do it. They sent it anyway because you didn't think it would stand up in court, among other things.
HINOJOSA: Yeah, among other things. And we were never considering it anyway. But we would also have to tell Congress. Congress can also ask for, okay, for the full files, non-redacted in a SCIF in a classified briefing so they can see everything. And that's something that DOJ will also have to consider. The two other pieces of this is the ongoing investigation part.
The ongoing investigation is not of Donald Trump. The ongoing investigation that they called for is of Democrats. So, if they're not going to release anything, it would be information about Democrats. It wouldn't protect Donald Trump, it wouldn't protect anyone else.
And then I think the last option, which we should all consider is what happens if Bondi just doesn't release everything like she could selectively release something. And how would that information get out through a whistleblower to FBI? Or how that information would get out?
And I think so. Those are the three ways that I think that we're not going to necessarily see anything. And Pam Bondi is going to find a way.
HUNT: Bill, you look like you're trying to jump in. No?
STEPIEN: No.
HUNT: Okay, fair enough.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Complicated. It's complicated.
THOMPSON: But to Bill's point, what's interesting, you know, it wasn't really surprising that Thom Tillis, who is retiring next year, was objecting this. What was more interesting is you had people like Josh Hawley, like Eric Schmitt, like people that are on the right, and obviously, Marjorie Taylor Greene. This is part of the fracturing, the MAGA base. You have a lot of ambitious Republicans that for the first time, really see an issue that is powerful, that they can get to the right of Trump on and they are taking advantage of that.
GOLDBERG: In a second term.
THOMPSON: Yeah.
GOLDBERG: In the last term.
HUNT: Right. So, to that -- that broader point, I mean, this is one of the moments and Bill alluded to it at the beginning of the show, one of the first times we have really seen what has been a Republican Party dominated by one man for a decade, some fracturing away from where he is. And it's not necessarily just on the Epstein issue, although that is really central to it. And we pulled together a couple examples from, you know, we called it
the manosphere during the campaign, right? These podcasters, these people who helped drive some new supporters to the president, they seem to be turning on him in certain ways. Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIM DILLON, HOST, "THE TIM DILLON SHOW": This is the end of the Trump administration. This is the beginning of the lame duck presidency. It's obvious to everyone, even his most ardent supporters show up to the White House, like Laura Ingraham, kind of shocked, going, what the hell is going on?
He will trail off. He will get older. He's going to -- he's adorned the White House in gold. Epstein's going to suck the oxygen out of a lot of this.
ROGAN: I was like, oh, my God, what the (EXPLETIVE DELETED) are they doing? Like it's like, that's not how you envision the government. The government made a hype video?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah.
ROGAN: They were making like deportation hype videos with (EXPLETIVE DELETED). And I was like, what are we doing? That's what I'm saying. Everything is turned into like the WWE. It's -- none of it is real.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Jonah, what does this say to you?
ROGAN: It says that look, the audience must be entertained perpetually. And there's not enough coming out of the Trump White House.
HUNT: Are you not entertained?
ROGAN: I am not entertained. I am --
HUNT: Not to quote a Russell Crowe movie or anything. In case that was not clear.
ROGAN: Not to throw my sword across the set and have it bounce off the balcony. No, but, look, I think that the Epstein thing is the tip of the spear of a sense that there are a lot of people in the sort of, particularly the social media, MAGA influencer, manosphere, whatever it's supposed to call it, who see story lines that are monetizable, that are in conflict with the president's political interests, and they don't care as much anymore.
You know, it's -- and so I think that's what got Marjorie Taylor Greene into this. You know, Charlie Kirk before he was tragically killed, he said, I'm not going to let go of this. And the Trump White House leaned on him and he said, okay, I'm going to let go of this.
But there are a lot of other people who just don't follow orders from Trump in the same way. And this is what you get.
THOMPSON: Some of this is not that unusual for a president in his second term. I think because of the Joe Biden years, we don't always remember that during second term, you do start seeing splintering of coalitions. You also see presidents often over, or, you know, misinterpret their mandate or overinterpret it.
And I think you could argue we don't know yet. We're going to see in the 2026 midterms. But I think you could argue that that is what's happening here.
HUNT: I mean, Bill, one thing about Donald Trump, you know, having covered campaigns before he was on the scene and then the ones, obviously, that have featured him is that he has consistently defied what everybody assumed were the laws of political gravity.
And I feel like I've asked a thousand times, people in your chair, is this the moment when those laws start to apply to him and, you know, I stopped asking the question because it was just, you know, it was we were wrong so many times. But is this finally that moment?
STEPIEN: I don't -- I think he tried to get ahead of it.
[16:15:01]
I think maybe some people were concerned it was the moment. I think he played politics that had been played for a long time now on this issue, I think pretty smartly. I think he and his team were wondering, why are we using political capital when it's, you know, very finite on an issue like this? So, I think it was smart to win on these podcasts. I think you're right. Charlie Kirk got a call saying, hey, man, what's going on?
I think a lot of this is to attract that attention, get the clicks, get the calls from the White House. That's how these guys stay in business.
GOLDBERG: Also, on that political gravity thing because I -- I talk about this all the time. I was wrong about political gravity in 2015, 2016, and many times after until it dawned on me that the laws of political gravity don't apply to Donald Trump, the laws of celebrity gravity do. And it's a completely different quantum physics.
And I think that -- that still holds true now, even though this story is not good for him and wants to get past it, but he can thrive on negative attention the way no normal politician can.
HUNT: Right. It raises the question of whether the presidency is now shifted to be one where celebrity gravity is what matters and is distinct, as distinct from political gravity. I guess we're about to find out in '28.
All right, coming up next, here in THE ARENA, the Justice Department up against a big deadline at the top of the hour, a judge is demanding answers after that bombshell revelation today in the case against former FBI Director James Comey. Plus, why the world's richest man is today saying that A.I. will make
money irrelevant. And what else he predicts could go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELON MUSK, TESLA CEO: In the long term, where will things end up long term? I don't know what long term is. Maybe it's 10, 20 years, something like that. For me, that's long term. My prediction is that work will be optional.
MODERATOR: Optional?
MUSK: Optional. So --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:09]
HUNT: All right. Within the next 40 minutes, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern, the Justice Department will have to respond to a stunning admission that was made by President Trump's hand-picked U.S. attorney, Lindsey Halligan.
During a hearing on whether the federal charges against the former FBI director, James Comey, should be thrown out, Halligan testified that the full grand jury never reviewed the final indictment before it was handed down.
CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz was in court today. She joins us now.
So, Katelyn, can you help us understand this bombshell revelation, why it matters so much?
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It matters because it fuels everything the defense wants to do in this case, all of the arguments that they want to make that everything that was done when the Justice Department decided to prosecute James Comey at the very end of September, Lindsey Halligan going into that courtroom and securing the indictment, that all of it was inappropriate or mishandled or just done in a way that the Justice Department should not be working. That's what their argument is going to be. And this is fueling it.
What happened in court today, Casey, though, was on its own, separate and apart from that, a real shocker. I mean, it was a moment in court where a hush fell over the courtroom. The judge didn't know what to say initially. He kept asking to make sure he understood exactly what the prosecutors were saying. They repeated themselves a couple different times after talking amongst themselves.
And the bottom line is that the prosecutors say that when the grand jury was asked to approve an indictment against James Comey, there was only one set of charging documents shown to the full grand jury, and they voted no on that because they didn't want to approve one of three charges. Ultimately, Lindsey Halligan, the prosecutor who was working in that district with the grand jury separate from the grand jury room and the full grand jury redrafted that indictment. The set of charges against Comey to pare it down and that what was handed up, that is what Comey is facing now.
Very possibly, Comey's team will be able to argue that this indictment is invalid because the grand jury didn't approve it. There is some mixed possibility there of the prosecution saying that, you know, it's a clerical error. We could correct it at some point. That is a possibility out there, but it fuels this other argument where Comey's team says, we really need to see these grand jury transcripts and the things that happened in the grand jury were wrong. And the choices that Lindsey Halligan was making as a prosecutor were not legally sound. They were being done because Donald Trump told her he wanted Comey charged.
All of this is coming together at a moment where the judge has to make a lot of decisions on these arguments. The big one will be, does this case survive to go to trial, which is set at the beginning of January, not very far away at all -- Kasie.
HUNT: Indeed. All right, Katelyn Polantz, thanks very much for that reporting.
Joining our panel here in THE ARENA, CNN national security analyst Carrie Cordero.
Carrie, so, I mean, bottom line is this we've talked a lot about Lindsey Halligan's legal experience or prosecutorial experience or lack thereof. Is this essentially a rookie mistake that could derail the whole thing, or is it malicious? I mean, what do you see here?
CARRIE CORDERO, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think it's hard to say in terms of what was happening to her at that exact moment. You know, we don't know what her thought process was, whether she simply didn't know enough to know that the actual charges needed to go back to the grand jury. And she thought this was just a paperwork thing.
But what her intent, I think, actually was, is sort of less relevant to than how the judge actually will handle what actually transpired. And so I wonder whether the judge will be going back to consult with perhaps other judges and review records that have taken place in that court before, and whether the Eastern District has ever had this problem before, and how they might have handled it in other circumstances.
[16:25:04]
That would be one thing that I would think the judge would want to look at, so that whatever decision he ends up making isn't necessarily targeted to her as an individual. But is -- this is how this court handles these types of mistakes.
HUNT: I want to play a little bit of what Todd Blanche said back in September, around the time that this indictment was handed down. He, of course, is the deputy attorney general, former personal attorney to Donald Trump. But now, of course, with the Justice Department.
Let's watch what he said at the time and talk about how it fits in here. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: The FBI investigated this case very carefully. This is not something that just came up overnight. This is the work of hard charged prosecutors and investigators that led to the grand jury indictment. The only people that know the evidence right now is the FBI, the Department of Justice and the grand jurors in that room.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Except the issue there seems to be that the grand jurors did not actually know the information in that room. I mean, isn't what we learned in court today completely contradict the arguments they've been making here?
CORDERO: I don't know if it contradicts that. The grand jurors had the information because the entire indictment, the information supporting the indictment was presented. And then, as I understand it, the grand jurors just said that they were not going to approve one of the charges.
But his comment about the prosecutors strikes me as not representative of what has actually transpired, because, as I understand it, none of the prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia were willing to bring this case, which is why Lindsey Halligan was reassigned from the White House to become the interim U.S. attorney, why there are prosecutors working on this case directly with her, who had to be brought in from other districts. There was no prosecutor, career prosecutor in that office that was willing to sign on to this indictment of the former FBI director.
HINOJOSA: Yeah. Career prosecutors don't make this mistake. I'll tell you, when this came out, my phone was blowing up from former career prosecutors at the Justice Department saying, this is incompetence. It is embarrassing for the political leadership because, remember, this was an indictment brought by political leadership of the Justice Department, not necessarily by the career prosecutor. A lot of career prosecutors obviously refuse to bring this indictment.
And this is a mistake that you don't make. This is -- this is what I'll say is that there are predictions from these career prosecutors that I was speaking with that they believe this case could be thrown out by thanksgiving. And as Evan just said in the chat right now, this case might not actually go to trial in January.
And so, these mistakes that Lindsey Halligan has made throughout the time is exactly why you have to have seasoned career prosecutors in these positions, bringing these cases, because they're the ones who have the experience. And she does not.
And this doesn't just mean, for this case, there are plenty of people in EDVA who are no longer there that are handling some of our top national security cases, and they don't have that talent anymore.
So, what happens if we start making mistakes on some of our top national security cases now? That's terrible for our country.
HUNT: Bill, this obviously came out of I mean, there was a tweet from Trump asking Pam Bondi to take action to investigate all of these people. Who is Donald Trump going to blame if this case against Comey falls apart?
STEPIEN: Well, I think this White House is operating extraordinarily well, right. Leak, disciplined focus, all things I wish that were happening when I was there and the first term. But when I see names kind of leaning in on U.S. attorney recommendations from what I'll call the dark Giuliani era of 2021 on important matters like this, I get concerned and you see resumes that I think are lacking and ill fitting.
And these are like a comedy of errors out of, like, my cousin Vinny, if we're being honest. Like going to the wrong courtroom, standing on the wrong side of the judge, as has been reported. It's embarrassing.
I think the biggest concern I have is I think the case is right. I think the case is wrong. We may never know. And there's a process to allow us to understand those things that we may never see because of incompetence.
GOLDBERG: Yeah. As a political matter, I'm not saying the judges should think about the politics of these things, but particularly if there's going to be a Biden appointed judge, it would be kind of good to rule on all these things, keep them under seal, and actually hear the merits of the case, and then come down like a ton of bricks on all of it and say, I could have thrown this whole thing out from the beginning, but I didn't want to do that. An abundance of caution, because I actually think the underlying claim about him lying is really, really, really weak. And there's a reason why career prosecutors didn't want to bring it.
HUNT: Is it my cousin Vinny?
CORDERO: Well, but just as a matter of process, I don't think that's really how the judge will handle it. I understand you're saying it from a political standpoint, but I think today's events bring us one step closer to dismissal.
And whether it's on this, error that the acting U.S. attorney made or whether it's on vindictive prosecution because all of the cumulative facts continue to point in that direction. I think today got us one step farther to being dismissed before it, before it ever is addressed on the merits.
[16:30:03]
HUNT: All right. Carrie Cordero, thank you very much. Really appreciate your time today. The rest of our panel is going to standby.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, a member of House leadership will be here live. Democratic whip Katherine Clark joins us on set.
Plus, what one lawmaker is now telling CNN about why exactly she was texting with Jeffrey Epstein during a committee hearing in 2019.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEL. STACEY PLASKETT (D-USVI): I've been a prosecutor for many years. And there are a lot of people who have information that are not your friends, that you use to get information for, to get it the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: During the high, very high profile Michael Cohen hearing, Stacey Plaskett was in direct communication with Jeffrey Epstein.
[16:35:04]
Why are you okay with that?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), MINORITY LEADER: It was a dramatic overreach. Stacey Plaskett has made clear her position as it relates to Jeffrey Epstein repeatedly, and her words speak for itself.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, continuing to defend Democratic delegate from the U.S. Virgin Islands, Stacey Plaskett today following the failed effort to censure her for texting Jeffrey Epstein during a 2019 congressional hearing. House Republicans yesterday accused Plaskett of having taken direction from the disgraced financier during this high profile 2019 hearing in which the House Oversight committee questioned Trump's former fixer, Michael Cohen.
According to texts released last week, Epstein suggested Plaskett asked about Cohen's assistant, Rhona. Plaskett, responding quick, I'm up next. Is that an acronym?
Epstein then texted Plaskett after her questioning. He said this, quote, "Good work." Plaskett has denied that Epstein influenced her line of questioning and said that she received many texts from constituents and the public, sharing information.
When she was asked this morning if she regretted those messages, Plaskett said this:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PLASKETT: I think Jeffrey Epstein is a reprehensible person, absolutely disgusting. I believe that Jeffrey Epstein had information and I was going to get information to get it. Having a friendship with him is not something that I would deem to have. And so, I'm just looking forward.
PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: So no regrets, basically, is what you're saying?
PLASKETT: I'm moving forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining us now, House Democratic whip, Congresswoman Katherine Clark of Massachusetts.
Congresswoman, thanks very much for being here.
REP. KATHERINE CLARK (D-MA), DEMOCRATIC WHIP: Good to be here.
HUNT: Was it an error in judgment to text Jeffrey Epstein during a hearing?
CLARK: You know, I take Stacey Plaskett at her word, and I --
HUNT: Would you have done the same thing?
CLARK: I -- you know, I don't -- I also agree with her that Jeffrey Epstein is reprehensible. And that's her word. And I agree with her.
But I think we have to look at this situation in the context in which it arose. Democrats have been working with the survivors to fight for the full release of these files. They have blocked even a member of congress in Adelita Grijalva for 50 days, taking office to prevent her from being the final signature to bring this to a vote that we had yesterday. As we are going into that vote, we still have the president of the United States calling it a Democratic hoax, while we have survivors on Capitol Hill pouring their hearts out, asking him to support them. And we have the speaker of the house also saying, this is a show vote.
HUNT: But why was this guy -- I mean, why was Jeffrey Epstein up in members of Congress's phones, I mean, Democrats, Republicans? I mean, isn't this an example of everything the public cannot stand about this Jeffrey Epstein scandal?
CLARK: I mean, I think any connection with Jeffrey Epstein is one that that brings up revulsion in people. But we have to look at what happened here. We have this vote that up until minutes before the speaker of the house is saying is a show vote, it's trying to undermine it. It's trying to signal the senate not to take it up. And then the pressure became too much. They all voted for it.
And within minutes, we couldn't even, like, take minutes. They come up with a censure against a Democrat. It is it is a classic move by the Republican Party to try and change the channel and take off the fact that they delayed this and could not get behind the victims and get for justice.
Every single member of the Democratic Party signed that discharge petition and said full transparency. And that includes Stacey Plaskett.
HUNT: So, one -- some House conservatives have accused their leadership of cutting an agreement with Democrats to drop the censure resolution against Plaskett in exchange for Democrats dropping one against one of their own members, Cory Mills.
Do you know if that happened?
CLARK: I can tell you this that we want to center our work around what the American people have told us, and they are telling us the language they are using. Casey, is survival. They are feeling so financially stretched, like they are working harder. Every single day and not getting ahead.
Sixty percent of American households can't afford the basics. We have been fighting to say, please do something to reverse these health care cuts that you made and stop this impending crisis we have with ACA premiums as we are now in open enrollment, and these premiums are hitting home for Americans.
HUNT: I appreciate the pivot very much, but I would like to steer us back towards -- I mean, one of the other things that's coming up here has been Larry Summers, right? This question of what he's going to do. He was a Democratic official as well.
I want to play what Elizabeth Warren said about Larry Summers. And then we'll talk about it. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Larry Summers has shown terrible judgment. I mean, like historically bad judgment. No one should trust Larry Summers' judgment and Larry Summers should not be trusted in a position of responsibility.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Larry Summers has said he's going to keep teaching at Harvard University.
Do you think that he should continue to do that?
CLARK: Well, listen, part of the push for transparency, push for these whole files is what's in them. What do people do? Whether it's Larry Summers or a Republican? We -- it doesn't matter people's political affiliation. What matters is, did they do something? Did they know and not say anything? Did they participate in these monstrous crimes against young women?
And that is what we're going to continue to push for. I think that the president probably will sign the bill that we passed in the House and was quickly passed in the Senate, but the real step is the next one. What will he release? What will DOJ, who has been under subpoena since August by Congress to release all of these files -- what is the next step? And if that step of transparency, whoever it ensnares, they should --
they should pay the price for being associated with Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
HUNT: All right. Congresswoman Katherine Clark, thanks very much. Really appreciate your time today. Great to speak with you.
All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, what just happened on Wall Street? It's impacting everybody with a 401(k). And why the man once referred to as the first buddy has a little something to do with it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: You're so lucky I'm with you, Elon. I'll tell you. You are -- has he ever thanked me properly?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:47:10]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENSEN HUANG, NVIDIA CEO: There's a whole movement of computing from general purpose computing to accelerated computing, and that -- if you just -- if you take that into consideration, you'll come to the conclusion that in fact, what is left over to fuel that revolutionary agentic A.I. is not only substantially less than you thought and all of its justified.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was Jensen Huang, one of the most important people you've probably never heard of, predicting the speculated A.I. bubble will not burst. He, of course, is CEO of Nvidia, the massive semiconductor maker that has become absolutely central to the A.I. boom.
New numbers just in from that company are giving us an inside look at just whether or not that's true. The A.I. giant posted strong revenue and profit that exceeded Wall Street's expectations. Growing sales some 62 percent in the last year. This is going to impact anyone with a 401(k), because Nvidia is such a massive company that it accounts for roughly 8 percent of the entire S&P 500.
And while there are plenty of questions about how A.I. companies are valued, one man who you probably have heard of doesn't seem to have any doubt about the overall impact.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUSK: Where will things end up long term? I don't know what long term is. Maybe it's 10, 20 years, something like that. For me, that's long term. My prediction is that work will be optional. (END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Work will be optional, says Elon Musk.
All right. Joining our panel here in THE ARENA is Jacob Ward. He's a veteran tech journalist and host of the "Rip Current" podcast.
Jacob, I'm so thrilled to have you here. On something that, you know, you have so much expertise in covering. We heard Elon Musk there obviously talking about the real world impact. He also said he thought humanoid robots and A.I. are going to eliminate poverty. He said currency is going to become irrelevant, among other things.
But big picture here -- I mean, do you think the Nvidia CEO is correct that these valuations are justified because the world is about to change so much?
JACOB WARD, TECHNOLOGY JOURNALIST, THERIPCURRENT.COM: Well, right. I mean, hello, Kasie. Thank you so much for having me.
HUNT: Of course.
WARD: You know, right. Take the day off, everybody. Don't worry about it because as Elon Musk says, right, work is -- work is finished. We no longer have to think about that ever again.
You know, this has been the A.I. bubble. And investors are calling it that, you know, has been really an article of faith. The whole thing is built on the idea that we are going to wind up in a place whether it's, you know, what Musk is saying there, that were there, that were never work again.
Or as Dario Amodei, the head of Anthropic, says, you know, we might cure cancer. These are, you know, the utopian ideas at the far end of this.
And, you know, Nvidia's business -- I mean, you called it a giant, right? It is literally the biggest company in the history of companies. $4.5 trillion, that company is worth. And so, everyone was wondering, does this day do these earnings, you know, mean the turning point, the point at which we recognize, oh, maybe this is built on more feathers than concrete.
Well, they seem to have pulled it off yet again. Right? We're in a place where they beat analyst expectations yet again, pulling in $51.2 billion for the quarter. So, you know, they've done it again.
[16:50:00]
But, of course, lots of questions remain here, Kasie, because we are still not entirely convinced, right, analysts aren't that A.I. has all productivity. And, you know, stuff that's been -- that's been offered. And we don't know if it's going to get to that utopia that everybody's talking about.
HUNT: Yeah. Can I play for you, Jacob, what Elon Musk said about the, quote/unquote, elimination of poverty in the context of this? Because I'd like to dig into it with you. Let's watch that.
WARD: Sure.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MUSK: A.I. and humanoid robots will actually eliminate poverty, and Tesla won't be the only one that makes them. I think Tesla will pioneer this, but there will be many other companies that make humanoid robots. But there is only basically one way to make everyone wealthy, and that is A.I. and robotics.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, he says, Jacob, that A.I. and robotics could make everyone wealthy. I think the way most people are understanding this, if work becomes irrelevant and there's all these robots, then there's no way for anyone to make any money at all. That the reverse of what he is saying is true. How do you -- how do you see it?
WARD: Yeah, it's pretty rich coming from a guy, right, who's just been offered $1 trillion pay package by his board. And, you know, I mean, he's speaking to a country where 50 percent of people hold about 2 percent of the nation's wealth, right? I mean, that is just how unequal wealth distribution is right now.
I mean, if you think back to January 2024, Sam Altman, creator of OpenAI and ChatGPT, told a podcaster that he was dreaming of the day he's been betting with his tech CEO friends on the day that someone creates a $1 billion, one person company. And I don't know how many, you know, I don't care how many billions you have. Not everybody gets to be a gardener in that compound, right?
I mean, I mentioned earlier, Dario Amodei, you know, talking about maybe curing cancer. He said that about his own product. He also said in the same sentence, we also might make everybody rich, and you also might have 20 percent unemployment. That is the thing here.
We're seeing a technology that is theoretically going to wipe out, you know, some of the best jobs you could have hoped for without a college degree, things like being a clerk or a bookkeeper or an admin, a receptionist. So, we really don't have any idea. So, I think it's pretty farfetched for Elon Musk, who has made some big predictions in the past and been right, but I think its pretty far fetched to believe him when he says that no ones going to have to work in the future.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, and Alex Thompson, how much do you think, especially as we reckon with where working class voters are going? I mean, how much have politicians reckoned with the degree of -- the pace of change here and what it's -- what it's going to mean.
THOMPSON: It's only just begun and you're seeing it really split the Democratic Party, especially as the Trump administration, despite a lot of the economically populist, populist rhetoric, they've really embraced all these A.I. companies as a way of in their idea of promoting economic growth. But what you're seeing in the Democratic Party is a real split that you have, just last month, Gretchen Whitmer really boasted about partnering with OpenAI to build data centers and have economic investment in Michigan.
But then you're also seeing some other Democrats on more sort of economic populist say, no, we got to slow down like Bernie Sanders has said, you know, just because China could be a threat does not mean that you just are going to blast through all these rules. And potentially, as he was mentioning, you have 20 percent unemployment.
And, you know, especially if the if the economy or the stock market, if this is a bubble, if it does pop, you're going to see the politics of this. Really, I think, ramp up way beyond what they've already done.
HUNT: Yeah. Jacob, how -- how fast do you think these real world implications are, are coming at us in terms of these robots and the unemployment rate quite frankly?
WARD: Well, I think, you know, were going to see I mean, were already seeing right, the shift of the labor power struggle, you know, and, and management power, you know, that has really shifted toward management recently.
HUNT: And you're seeing, you know, layoffs blamed on A.I. in some cases. In some cases, it's just that people clearly are -- have an enthusiasm for what it could provide in terms of being able to operate in a lean way as a company. But I think, you know, Alex's point there is a really good one that that the value of this company is a huge driver of the economy, right? It is it is affecting pension funds. It's affecting all kinds of things beyond its immediate dollar value.
But it is already operating in this really weird circular financing arrangement where some of its number one customers, like OpenAI and Anthropic, it is also starting to invest in. So, it's like, you know, back at camp, you know, where everybody sits on each others lap in a circle and you see how long that lasts, right? It's that kind of arrangement that we're seeing.
HUNT: Isn't that the definition of on this scheme basically?
WARD: This is -- I mean, you know, I'd say it's more circular than pyramid shaped, but it is pretty circular.
HUNT: Yeah.
WARD: And so the real worry here, right, is that if the bottom does fall out in that, it could have an enormous effect beyond the fact that we could be looking in five years at a world in which no one gets to have that first and second level sort of entry job, and suddenly, we're trying to hire people into a third level job who've got no experience in those first two.
[16:55:07]
It's really a world that no one knows how to reckon with. And certainly, the politics of the moment have no idea.
HUNT: All right. Jacob Ward, with that warning for us. Thank you. I hope you'll come back and join us again soon.
WARD: Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks to my panel. Really appreciate you guys joining us today. Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well.
Don't forget, you can now stream THE ARENA live, catch up whenever you want to, or video on demand in the CNN app. Just go ahead and scan that QR code below. You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. It has its own QR code.
Pamela Brown is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Pam.
