Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Admin Escalates Scrutiny Of Dems In Video On Troops; Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell Sues Trump Official After Criminal Referral; Erika Kirk: Efforts To Back A Vance 2028 Run "In The Works"; Trump: I've Directed Envoy Steve Witkoff To Meet Putin In Moscow. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired November 25, 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: So, I hope for the sake of those children that they don't get too close.
JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: He's going to North Carolina.
SANCHEZ: Impeccably dressed turkeys though.
DEAN: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Very polished.
DEAN: Tim, thank you.
TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: My family did not have turkeys. Happy thanksgiving, everyone.
DEAN: You, too.
SANCHEZ: Thanks so much, Tim.
"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday of Thanksgiving week.
Right now, asked, not answered. Now answered.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INTERVIEWER: Is the FBI getting involved?
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Based on the fact that it's an ongoing matter, there's not much I can say.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Less than 24 hours after that comment, we now know the FBI is getting involved with this story. As we come on the air, the Trump administration is again escalating its scrutiny of the now infamous video involving six Democratic lawmakers. The FBI now looking to schedule interviews with each of them.
Senator Elissa Slotkin writing today that, quote, the FBI's counterterrorism division appeared to open an inquiry, quote, into her. And in a joint statement today, some of the lawmakers said the president is, quote, using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress.
This newest involvement by the FBI, happening less than a day after the Pentagon said it was starting its own investigation into Senator Mark Kelly, even threatening to recall him to active duty to potentially face a court martial.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): I'm not going to be silenced. I'm not going to be intimidated. I mean, these two guys, they inform me of this in a -- in a tweet because this is not about the law. This is about the media cycle. And it's about intimidation
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
We're also joined by CNN correspondent Arlette Saenz and CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, who is live from West Palm Beach. The president is going to be heading there later this evening for the holiday.
But, Arlette, let me start with you. What more are we learning here about what the FBI wants from these members of Congress?
ARLETTE SAENZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, the FBI is seeking interviews with the six Democratic lawmakers who had posted that video reminding members of the military and the intelligence community that they would not have to obey unlawful orders from the president. Now, one big question is whether they're what exactly these interviews are for. The sources have yet to detail what type of investigation might be underway from the FBI.
But as you mentioned, Senator Elissa Slotkin said that she believed that it was the FBIs counterterrorism division which opened an inquiry into her and potentially other lawmakers as well. Now, there was a joint statement from the four Democratic house lawmakers who were part of that video and they wrote, quote, President Trump is using the FBI as a tool to intimidate and harass members of Congress.
They went on to add, "No amount of intimidation or harassment will ever stop us from doing our jobs and honoring our constitution."
But this news that the FBI is seeking interviews with these six Democratic lawmakers is a significant escalation. Just days after President Trump went to Truth Social and said -- accused these lawmakers of engaging in seditious behavior punishable by death. Now, at the same time as the FBI is requesting these interviews, there is also the Pentagon, which has launched a separate investigation into allegations of misconduct, specifically into Senator Mark Kelly, who was a retired captain in the U.S. Navy. So we're still waiting to learn a bit more of what the FBI wants with these interviews, whether these lawmakers will sit with it.
But what we've heard from these Democratic lawmakers is that they are really undeterred amid the president's threats, saying that they will not be intimidated from speaking out.
HUNT: All right. So, Kristen, what are you hearing from the administration about how this is unfolding?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, I mean, Kasie, the same on the side of the administration. They're undeterred. This is something that they want. President Trump himself wants these investigations. We know that the White House supports this. They know about it and that they want these kinds of investigations brought into anyone who they believe challenges President Trump.
Now, in this case, in particular, you heard all that talking there about some of the things that President Trump had said. Sedition can be punishable by death. Just to paint a clear picture here, this really angered President Trump to the point where he was posting and reposting 16 times in a row just on this video alone, and the pushback from the White House has remained the same. They say that these Democratic lawmakers can't answer questions about what illegal requests the administration or orders the administration was giving to the military, and therefore, that equates to them telling these members of the military or the intelligence community to circumvent the chain of command.
[16:05:02]
That is the argument from the White House.
What we have heard about how this all came to be is that the FBI, who, by the way, Kash Patel, was meeting with President Trump in the Oval Office today sought out meetings with these various lawmakers by first going to U.S. Capitol Police, who then directed them to the sergeant at arms, who handles all things as the chief law enforcement officer of both the Senate and the House, there's both the House and Senate sergeant of arms.
So, the FBI sent these letters to the Senate sergeant of arms in order to try and get these meetings. Now, whether or not they've actually been in touch in any way beyond that, completely unclear at this moment. But it should be noted that the president is all in on this. He is backing this fully, and he wants to see these investigations, which is likely why you're seeing them brought.
HUNT: All right. Kristen Holmes, Arlette Saenz, thank you both very much for starting us off today. Really appreciate it.
Our panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist and podcast host Lulu Garcia-Navarro; CNN political analyst and national political reporter of "Axios", Alex Thompson; former Democratic congressman from New York, Max Rose; and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings.
We're also joined by CNN senior law enforcement analyst, the former deputy director at the FBI, Andrew McCabe.
And sir, I'd like to start with you, Director McCabe. What here -- I guess what I'm trying to understand here, what we know from these lawmakers is that these interviews have been requested. Now, that would suggest that they are, at this point, not compelling these members to testify and correct me if I'm wrong, but that would take a judge, I believe, to actually sign off and say, yes, we should do this.
What is your understanding of what the counterterrorism division at the FBI could possibly be investigating about a video that six Democratic members of Congress put together and put on the Internet?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, Kasie, I can't tell you exactly what they're thinking, but I can tell you what they shouldn't be doing and what they shouldn't be doing here is anything with respect to this whole issue. And this is not a close call by any stretch.
So, you cannot conduct investigative activity on -- for anything if that -- if the -- if the factual predication or the basis of that request to initiate investigative activity is based solely on First Amendment protected activity, and that is exactly what we have here. This is like the red hot molten core of First Amendment protected activity. These are political people engaged in political speech.
There is no -- to my understanding of the reporting, there is no alleged conduct or behavior or efforts to you know, actually, contact people in the military and convince them to do something illegal or to take those steps themselves. None of that. This is entirely First Amendment protected activity. And Director Patel's comments today that he was going to leave it up to the career agents and analysts in the FBI to determine whether or not there was adequate predication, is also wrong, and I think reveals once again that he has little understanding for how the FBI works.
And that agents don't -- first of all, analysts don't open cases, agents don't open cases. They request that cases be opened. And that request goes to a supervisor. And the supervisor has to check first for exactly this. You -- that's the first box you check, is this based on First Amendment protected activity exclusively here? It very much is.
What's more, to go forward and open a case on a member of Congress, a sitting elected political leader by definition, makes it a sensitive investigative matter. And that request would have to be approved by the chief counsel of the field office. It has to go to headquarters, get approved there. DOJ has to get notified within 14 days.
So, at every one of those levels, someone hopefully would have the good sense to say there is no business for the FBI here, and that's what they should be doing with this.
HUNT: So if these requests have gone out already to the sergeant at arms in the House and the Senate for these interviews, would your understanding be that all of those things have potentially either already happened or been totally circumvented for this request to go out?
MCCABE: I think either is possible, and I'd really like to know exactly what was the argument. What's the threat and what is the information that they have that some sort of threat might exist? What is the -- what is the predication and the and the reason for this? And how do they possibly overcome the concern of First Amendment protected activity being the only basis for these investigation?
You know, it raises, I think, really, really disturbing questions about how much the bureau in some ways has been cowed by this administration and their heavy-handed, vengeful kind of activity, even within the organization, right? People who stand up and do things that the president doesn't like get fired. People who resist the current direction and strategies and the way the organization is being utilized or maybe have participated in investigations in the past that are now disfavored for one reason or another, get fired.
And the danger of doing that is exactly this. You cow the organization and some of its leadership into approving things and engaging in things that they know they shouldn't do, but they go along with the pressure that's been applied on them.
HUNT: So, Scott Jennings, one thing that I've been kind of watching for here is how Republicans are responding or not, to what the administration has been doing here. And this does seem to be an example where, yes, you can find some voices of support for the president and going after this, but most of the Republicans I've listened to talk about this are more circumspect about it than they are about a lot of things the President Trump does.
I mean, you heard it from Lindsey Graham, who, of course, was a JAG officer himself, is the -- I mean, it's worth remembering that power changes hands on the regular in Washington. And the idea that the president is going to go after sitting members of Congress for putting out, you know, a video online that, you know, Republicans rightfully say, has political elements to it. It seems, as I struggle to see where -- who -- which Republicans are really behind the president on this. And that seems to underscore that perhaps it goes farther than he often does.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And administration investigating members of Congress. Are you describing operation Arctic Frost to me, or are we talking about current events? I mean, here --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: I'm talking about a video, Scott. Right. You put a video out, okay.
JENNINGS: Defending it. No, I'm saying -- I mean, she said that power changes hands, and I assume what you meant was that you shudder to think what would happen when Democrats, they already had power.
HUNT: I mean, Democrats are in power, and Republicans who are making political videos, right? Are they going to use the FBI to investigate them, too? Right?
JENNINGS: Here's what I think.
HUNT: What?
JENNINGS: Here's what I think. Plenty of Republicans are outraged about this. This video was clearly designed to try to create a narrative among the American people that the president had been or was about to give illegal orders. And it appears to me that it all has to do with what he's doing with Venezuela. That seems to be what they're mad about. Although they did ask Elissa Slotkin on TV, and she cited a Hollywood movie to rationalize or justify what she had done.
I don't know what the truth is about these interviews, and I don't know if they'll ever be compelled to do it or not, but I do know whether Republicans are circumspect about the law enforcement angle here. Most Republicans I know are pretty darn angry that Democrats made an irresponsible public statement trying to tell the American people that the commander in chief had been or was about to give illegal order.
HUNT: I'm making a distinction between the creation of the video and whether Republicans are mad about that, or think that it was a bad idea, and the idea that the president of the United States is going to use the Pentagon and the FBI to go after sitting members of congress for basically talking.
JENNINGS: Well, I agree with you. Some Republicans have been circumspect about that. Others that I've heard say, you know, if there's something here, it ought to be looked into, but I'm just -- I'm going to give you the political analysis, which is most Republicans that I've heard from on this and hear about on it are very, very angry that these Democrats did something this irresponsible.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Can I move away from the what about, what about, what about, which I know, Scott, you love to do and actually say --
JENNINGS: Why don't you acknowledge that it's a real argument?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Let me, let me, let me actually say what is -- what is -- what is actually happening here, which is, you know, I'm a longtime foreign correspondent. I've lived in many countries and covered them.
This is stuff you see in China. This is stuff you see in Russia where you go after opposition members for sedition, where you go after opposition members for legislative disruption, for colluding with foreign governments. Like these are all words that you hear in other countries like Venezuela, for example, when they're trying to intimidate the opposition in this country. So, what we're seeing here is not a good faith sort of attempt to
really understand what's happening or whether these lawmakers did something wrong or didn't do something wrong. What you're actually seeing is, is like this very familiar tool book in other countries, which is intimidation over free speech.
You cannot like what they said. I don't -- I don't --
JENNINGS: Is Arctic Frost intimidation?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Can I -- can I -- oh.
JENNINGS: Well, I mean --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Can we stick to the -- can we stick -- can we stick to the actual -- can we stick to the actual --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Did you see that in other countries?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: So do you agree with what the presidents doing?
JENNINGS: Do I agree that he should be mad about this? Yes.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Mad is different.
HUNT: It's different.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: It's different.
JENNINGS: I don't know what he's doing. All I've heard is from Democrats who claim that they're now being investigated. I don't know what the truth is, but do I think he should be outraged about it?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Do you think -- do you think the FBI should be investigating lawmakers?
JENNINGS: I don't know, I'm not -- I'm not qualified to tell you whether they have broken any laws or not.
HUNT: Max, you were a lawmaker yourself. How do you look at this?
MAX ROSE (D), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: I also served in uniform in the military, and that informs my thinking on this, much more so than being a member of Congress. Yes, this is about free speech.
[16:15:00]
But on a deeper level, this is about what makes our military actually so strong, which is that each and every one of our service members swears an oath to a set of values and the abiding principles of the U.S. Constitution, and they have an obligation to reject unlawful orders. And all these members of Congress did is reiterate that.
Now, we can imagine an alternative universe where we actually have a responsible president with responsible cabinet leaders, where they turn around and say, and you're right about this, it's likely that the biggest sticking point here are these what I believe unlawful strikes off the coast of Venezuela. The president could turn around and say, let's go to Congress, and they could reassert their obligation to be the only body in the United States of America that declares war.
In the end, though, they are doing what is perhaps the most destructive thing they've done this year, which is to call for egregious levels of punishment to members of Congress who are just stating the law.
ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: In fairness, the six members of congress have not articulated that it is Venezuela that they're talking about, and they left it very open ended on purpose. I mean, it was a political argument, and Elissa Slotkin was not able to answer questions about what legal arguments they were making.
HUNT: None of them has.
THOMPSON: Right, exactly.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And it was a completely political thing that they did.
(CROSSTALK)
THOMPSON: And that's why -- and as soon as Trump, as soon as the FBI declared or, you know, Elissa Slotkin said the FBI was leaning into this, they were investigating this. All those Democrats also leaned into this.
They wanted to pick a fight with Donald Trump, and they are leaning into it. It's also not a coincidence that Mark Kelly, Elissa Slotkin and even Jason Crow have all been mentioned as potential presidential candidates.
HUNT: Director McCabe, can -- I let you kind of weigh in here on what we've been talking about here? And how -- how this compares or doesn't compare to other investigations conducted by the FBI?
MCCABE: Yeah, sure. It doesn't compare at all I think to the -- I think if I'm -- if I'm listening to Scott correctly, the reference to the invest -- the subpoenas that were issued by a grand jury to retrieve telephone-related information on members of Congress, those were not -- those are -- that was not an investigation initiated into members of Congress. It was an investigation of an insurrection at the Capitol, and in an effort to try to determine who may have been in contact with the person who the investigators thought was the kind of ringleader of the plan, which was at that time the president, still the president. So, yeah, that was -- that's not accurate.
I think it's really fascinating that we are talking about this in terms of like, what is the president mad about? And should these members of Congress have made this statement? I totally agree with the -- with the perspective that there's clearly no violation of law here. They're simply amplifying a message that soldiers get all the time that they are obligated to not follow illegal orders. But so -- even if you think what they said was irresponsible or
indiscreet, or maybe unnecessary, you can say that. How about the Republicans go out and release their own video? You know, this is what political speech is. This is the way we were supposed to have these conversations in this country.
We shouldn't be resorting to deploying the FBI out to police everybody's political perspectives. So yeah, I think there's -- absolutely, is it a controversial, and should we have a good, you know, vigorous argument about it? Sure. But the use of federal resources to try to criminalize this behavior, to me, seems absurd and baseless.
HUNT: And very briefly, sir, what would the next step be if right now, these interviews are clearly not compulsory? What might happen next?
MCCABE: Yeah, you're right about that. They're absolutely not compulsory. The members of Congress could simply decline and say they don't feel like meeting with the FBI. People do that all the time. They could -- if they have an investigation officially opened, they could begin using any one of the many different investigative techniques that are given to the FBI by the attorney general and the attorney general guidelines.
They could start -- for instance, they could go to a grand jury and ask for subpoenas to pull toll records if there -- to see if these members of Congress are interacting with each other in some way that they think might have been conspiratorial. They could go start talking to members of congressional -- their congressional staff to see if there are witnesses to any alleged unlawful activity. I can't even imagine what that would be. But these are the sorts of things they could do.
They could start recruiting sources of information. They could -- with proper authority, use undercover. So there's -- there's all kinds of, you know, the FBI is enormously powerful. There are many investigative techniques at their disposal, at their -- at their fingertips. And theoretically, they could use any of them.
HUNT: All right. Andy McCabe, thank you very much, sir, for your time.
[16:20:01]
I appreciate it.
All right. The rest of our panel is going to stand by. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, California Congressman Eric Swalwell is now suing a key member of the Trump administration after he was referred to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. We're going to talk live with the congressman.
Also this hour, Turning Point USA says it's preparing to put its weight behind a specific Republican to succeed President Trump. We'll discuss.
Plus, one of the best-known names in Democratic politics getting real about the state of the party, what they need to do to win elections.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW ROSS SORKIN, CNBC ANCHOR: How do you ultimately, and maybe I'd say who -- who within the party right now, do you think represents the party? You know, Scott Bessent, by the way, said he thought that Mamdani represents the party. I don't know if that's true either
JAMES CARVILLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: No one represents the party.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:25:15]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL PULTE, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY: If you commit mortgage fraud, you know, you need to be held accountable, period.
SORKIN: Can you speak directly to how this came about in terms of going and looking at her work and looking at these mortgages, who told you to do that?
PULTE: We received a tip. We only used public documents in our referrals. We only use public documents in order to determine the fraud. As part of a federal investigation. I'm not going to explain our sources and methods, where we get tips from, who our whistleblowers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: That was President Trump's housing agency chief, Bill Pulte, declining to tell CNBC last month how exactly he uncovered purported evidence of mortgage fraud by Fed Governor Lisa Cook. She's just one of four prominent figures to be accused of mortgage fraud by Pulte in the last few months. They say they've been targeted by the administration for being a perceived political enemy of the president.
Today, one of them, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell, pushing back against those allegations. He's accusing Pulte in a new civil lawsuit of abusing his access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac databases.
Joining me now in THE ARENA, California gubernatorial candidate, Democratic Congressman Eric Swalwell.
Congressman, thanks very much for being here.
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): Of course.
HUNT: Let's just start by outlining -- I mean, what are you -- what is the basis of your suit here?
SWALWELL: It's to rein in an out of control presidency that's going after its political opponents. The suit against me is nonsense. Just like the suits against Schiff and Cook and James are nonsense.
The president is wasting taxpayer dollars by going after anybody who speaks out against him, and then innocent people are having to spend millions, not the president. Innocent people are spending millions to defend themselves. So, this effort is to go on offense, to say enough is enough to Pulte and Trump and hopefully it stops the next allegation that would probably come next week if we don't stand up to them.
HUNT: What's your understanding of the status of the criminal referral that was made for you and mortgage fraud? Is that moving forward?
SWALWELL: Like most things with this administration and Department of Justice, it's completely being laundered through the press. You know, we learned about this through reporting in the press that he had made the referral. So, I don't know, Kasie.
I will also just say, maybe I'm a little bit lucky that I'm getting a little bit of more process than others, that he sent it to the Department of justice, because for other individuals who have spoken out against him, the president just wants to charge them with sedition and have them hanged. But what has given me hope is that not a single one of them, no one from Mark Kelly to Elissa Slotkin to Jimmy Kimmel, who's also, you know, had his show taken off the air because of the president -- no one who's been targeted by this president has flinched or bent or hidden under the bed.
We're all standing up to him because we believe that it will always be the truth over Trump.
HUNT: So, the truth over Trump, that is something that, of course, is likely to be a centerpiece of your campaign for governor of California. Can you talk a little bit about what voters there are saying about what they want that contributed to your decision to run for this office?
SWALWELL: Yeah. Well, leading up to Prop 50, I had gone across the state to help us get the five seats back that Texas had taken. And I heard two things. Two things from voters. People are scared and prices are high.
And the next governor has two jobs -- to keep Trump out of our homes, out of our streets, out of our lives. And two, to bring a new California that brings down prices as it relates to homes, to increase the number of small businesses that we have in our community, and also to modernize the state and how it delivers services.
And I've done this work as a planning commissioner, a city council member, a prosecutor in Oakland, and taking on Trump in Congress for the past, going on nearly ten years. And so that's why I'm ready to bring the fight home and do it in California.
HUNT: I want to show you a little bit of what James Carville, of course, a longtime Democratic savant of Clinton era fame, had to say earlier today on CNBC about the state of leadership in the Democratic Party. Let's watch. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARVILLE: Well, who's the leader? Well, I don't know. Is it? No, it's not you. Well, maybe it's just no, I don't believe that. Well, they can't be one. We're not going to have a leader until we have a presidential nominee.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Who do you think is the leader of the Democratic Party?
SWALWELL: It's the Avengers right now, right? Youve got Jasmine Crockett coming to California, helping us elevate the vote to pass Prop 50.
[16:30:03]
Ruben Gallego is going to Iowa, and New Hampshire is a marine, Latino first in his family to go to college. There's a bunch of us who are stepping up, but we all understand, you know, the assignment. And that is to bring down prices, period.
HUNT: You failed to mention your sitting governor of California, sir.
SWALWELL: Well, he is a show, don't tell leader. And that is -- that's why, you know, you're seeing him also his leadership style being mimicked by others in a good way because some Democratic leaders send eight page, strongly worded letters to the president when they don't like something.
Gavin Newsom goes to the courts and wins to get the troops out of our streets. And he went to the voters and has won to match what Texas did with their rigged redistricting process. That show, not tell style is what people expect right now.
HUNT: Strongly worded letters. Is that a reference to, I don't know, the Senate majority leader, minority leader Chuck Schumer?
SWALWELL: A direct reference, yes.
HUNT: Okay. Fair enough.
Congressman Eric Swalwell, thank you very much for your time, sir. Have a happy Thanksgiving.
SWALWELL: My pleasure. Thanks. You, too.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, who's talking about a J.D. Vance 2028 run? What they're saying and why it matters.
Plus, another Democratic governor giving a new timeline on when he will decide a presidential run.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. ANDY BESHEAR (D), KENTUCKY: Let's focus on people's everyday needs. Let's recognize that for America to continue to be great, that American dream has to be real. And let's make it happen.
PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Someone might hear what you're saying, read your op ed and say, this sounds like a pitch for running for president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:36:05]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIKA KIRK, CEO, TURNING POINT USA: Don't worry, it's already, you know, it's in the works. But that was a thing that my husband was very direct about. It was, interestingly enough, one of the last few conversations we had was how intentional he was about supporting J.D. for '28.
MEGYN KELLY, HOST: Yeah.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, it might only be thanksgiving of the first year of President Trump's second term, but how could it possibly be too early to cover the 2028 presidential primary? As you heard there, Erika Kirk, who now is at the helm of Turning Point USA, announced that she's following her late husband's wishes by supporting Vice President J.D. Vance as the Republican nominee in 2028.
The biggest player in the shadow primary, though, is, of course, President Trump himself. He's been less direct.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: Do you view Vice President J.D. Vance as your successor, the Republican nominee in 2028?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: No, but he's very capable.
REPORTER: Do you agree that the heir apparent to MAGA is J.D. Vance?
TRUMP: Well, I think most likely, in all in all fairness, he's the vice president. I think Marco is also somebody that maybe would get together with J.D. in some form.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Former Chicago mayor, U.S. ambassador to Japan, political consigliere to many, Rahm Emanuel joins our panel now.
Rahm, so what do you think here about how this dynamic is going to play out?
We'll start with the Republicans, but I want to talk about the Democrats with you two. J.D. Vance is clearly getting set up to inherit MAGA. But the way the president deals with it obviously is a huge question that's hanging out there. What do you make of it?
RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, 2028 begins with the results of 2026. And if you're interested in anything about 2028 and being successful, not just politically, electorally or but in governing, you got to have 2026. And I think the Democrats are well-positioned because you have a rubber stamp Republican congress. You have a whole issue about the fact that the Republicans have let the whole affordability issue not only is an issue get away from it, because the American dream is unaffordable.
So, who's head of MAGA or inherits that? That's a sideshow. You got to deal. And I think the Republicans are making a big mistake after the government shutdown.
All they have done is brought lawsuits or fights, and the whole issue is about health care costs. The whole issue is about the fact that you have young kids coming out of college, living in their parents' basement, can't afford a home.
And to me, that's where the Democrats have to be focused on. That's where were focused on. We may have disagreements on how to resolve it, but we know what the challenges are facing the American people.
So, 2026 is a stepping stone to 2028. If you're not focused on 2026, you're not really well prepared for 2028.
HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough. Give me -- I come back to you in a second.
But, Scott Jennings, I want you to weigh in on this question about J.D. Vance and where he sits right now in the MAGA universe. Is there -- is -- how does how he handles himself, how does that play into his future prospects as the nominee?
JENNINGS: Well, a clear and unequivocal front runner. If you want to start assigning those labels this early, number one.
Number two, I mean, look, as the president said, he's a sitting vice president for a president who is enormously powerful and enormously popular in the Republican Party. I have no reason to believe Trump won't be by the time '28 rolls around. And I have no reason to believe that J.D. Vance won't be viewed as a loyal lieutenant, you know, and number two, to Donald Trump for -- throughout this administration.
And so, J.D. Vance has the inside track. Now at the same time, when you're running for president, as vice president, you have a challenge, which is you have to defend everything that just happened in the last four years, good and bad. And then you also have the challenge of putting your own spin or your own imprimatur on the party's platform. And I suspect J.D. Vance will have some different ideas or some new ideas. And of course, he'll be running to replace Donald Trump, who cannot be replicated in terms of political talent.
So I agree, he's the frontrunner. I agree, he's by far the most likely person to get the nomination. [16:40:03]
But being the nominee following Donald Trump will come with its unique challenges.
HUNT: I'm enjoying Brad here. Turning Point USA for J.D. Vance, not more news than Steinbrenner for the Yankees. Ain't that the truth?
So, let's talk about the Democratic side for a minute, because in many ways, it's farther down the tracks in terms of the competition that is spreading out among various players who are trying to decide what to do. Let's watch a little bit more of Andy Beshear's interview with my colleagues at Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown earlier. Let's take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BESHEAR: We are going to change the map, and you're going to see that next year when we win some governors' elections that no one is expecting. After that, I'll sit down with my family and we'll see. What's most important to me is that my kids get the type of country that I grew up in, one that is stable, one that doesn't have a constant us versus them.
We need to not only win this next presidential election, but we need to heal this country, make things less partisan, and restore that American dream for each and every family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, Rahm Emanuel, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that this seems to be something you're thinking about as well. So, I'm going to put you in this lineup of people. But you're someone who's spent a lot of time in your life looking at a field like this and trying to understand what does the person -- what person is going to meet this moment, do you think Beshear potentially has what it takes? How do you kind of line up the field right now
EMANUEL: Well, look, I think that the first and foremost, the Democrats and I've written about this in "The Wall Street Journal", Donald Trump has dominated our mind for ten years, and we have sat there and allowed and defined ourselves as the anti-Trump. And there's a lot to be anti about. And you can just see it in any news period of time and what he's doing to the law, what he's doing to the economy, his focus on himself and his family and the corruption and not taking care of business.
But I would say to you, we have to be a party, not just about resistance, but about renewal and renewal of the American dream and its ability. And as the governor said, and he's a friend -- look, my kids are serving in the armed forces, and he's talking about talking to his family.
We knew how we grew up. We knew the basic understanding that if you worked hard and played by the rules, you could succeed. Today, you follow the rules, and you lead you into a dead end. And it's not the America we grew up with and we're not passing on our children, Andy's and mine, they're going to be okay.
Grew up in a loving home. Good education. But we've pulled up the ladder from everybody else's children being able to succeed. And it's not right.
And that's leading not only to the fact that the American dream is unaffordable. It's leading to a politics that is unstable. And that's not. We want to basically be stewards of a renewal in the American dream and a renewal in America, in the promise of America.
So, there's resistance, but it has to flip very quickly into renewal if we want the 2028 will be an election. That's a choice election. And you want people to give you the keys to the car.
HUNT: Yeah. Unstable. It's an interesting word.
Alex Thompson, you obviously do a ton of reporting on kind of the state of play in Democratic politics. What are you hearing about? What are you focused on?
THOMPSON: Well, if the Republican nomination is J.D. Vance is to lose, the Democratic nomination is anyone's to win. You just had a poll just out yesterday from New Hampshire that basically showed it's anyone's race.
You had Pete Buttigieg outpolling Kamala Harris interestingly, by about 20 points.
HUNT: In New Hampshire, just to be clear.
THOMPSON: That -- that's fair. And then Gavin Newsom, but like both of them were, but everyone was under 30 percent. It is anyone's race. And you are seeing people like Rahm Emanuel, like Beshear, basically, because it is the most open Democratic primary that we have seen in a generation, that everyone is already starting to make and test their arguments and travel the country, making them.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, this is what is interesting to me. The testing of the argument, because in the break, Scott and I were talking, as we often do, very civilly about what -- what is going to be the argument. And you just heard Rahm Emanuel there talking about this idea of renewal and bringing people together. That's an argument that Beshear is definitely putting.
You are not going to get that argument from Gavin Newsom. That is a very different type of argument that you're going to get. And so, what is going to get the hearts and minds of the Democratic base? And can that carry to the whole country?
HUNT: Congressman, what do you think?
ROSE: Yeah, I mean, I love my Republicans. Scott knows how much I want them to win future elections.
(LAUGHTER) ROSE: And for that, for that reason, I really would highly recommend that they do a coronation three years in advance of the election. It has worked for the Democrats every single time in presidential elections that we have tried it, and they really should go all in. In fact, they should nominate their vice president three years in advance as well.
The American people are going to love it, particularly the college kids. They always love when a nominee is just shoved down their throat.
JENNINGS: This point, by the way, I interviewed former Speaker McCarthy on my radio show today.
[16:45:02]
He made the exact same point. He said that J.D. Vance is the frontrunner, but it might actually benefit him if he has a primary and has a chance to, you know, compete and not go through a coronation. He thought it would actually make him a better general election candidate.
HUNT: I mean, candidly, presidential candidates that haven't survived tough primaries have a much harder time.
Rahm, last word.
EMANUEL: If you look at all the recent polling that was out last week, there are three distinct emotions that come across. Democrats are angry. Independent, unaffiliated voters are uncomfortable. And MAGA voters feel betrayed by the president.
His biggest drop was among Republican voters. And there are three distinct emotions, and they're all about the fact that people cannot get ahead and get their head above water.
HUNT: All right. Rahm Emanuel, thank you as always, sir. Have a happy Thanksgiving.
The rest of our panel is going to stand by here.
Ahead in THE ARENA, we've got breaking news on a potential deal on Russia's war in Ukraine, with the president dispatching a top aide to Moscow.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:50:18]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think we're getting very close to a deal. We'll find out. I thought that one would have been gone quicker. We did eight. I thought that would have been an easier one. But I think we're making progress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, both the U.S. and Ukraine say progress is being made toward a draft peace plan to end Russia's war. But there are critical differences remaining. Among them, will Ukraine cede territory annexed by Russia? How much will Ukraine limit the size of its army? Will Ukraine renounce ambitions to join NATO?
While the talks continue, President Trump is sending special envoy Steve Witkoff to meet with President Vladimir Putin in Moscow.
I want to bring in CNN senior military analyst, the retired Admiral James Stavridis.
Admiral, always lovely to have you in THE ARENA. Thank you so much for being here.
I guess my question is a little bigger picture than this. I mean, is there any world where the plan that is on the table is tenable for Zelenskyy at all? Does it not end his political career? And is there any way Europe can possibly support it?
ADMIRAL JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), CNN SENIOR MILITARY ANALYST: Well, I think Europe can support it. The question is, will Vladimir Putin agree it? And, Kasie, here, lets back up. Three days ago, the peace plan that was bruited about by team Trump 28-point plan, pretty frankly, I don't want to say pro-Russia, but it certainly had a lot that Russia might have accepted.
Now, according to reporting, we'll have to see what's actually in it. We have a 19-point plan that is one Zelenskyy is going to agree with.
Here's the deal with deals. They tend to land in the middle. And so, look for an ultimate agreement, Kasie, that is not as much to the Russian side as a 28-point plan. Probably not as much to the Ukrainian side as the 19-point plan, but you're right, a key actor we tend to overlook here is Europe.
We tend to talk a lot about U.S. and Russia. We obviously we talk about Ukraine, the battleground. At the end of the day, people ask me who's going to win this war? Ukraine or Russia?
The answer may be Europe wins the war, meaning this is the catalyst that causes them to step up, spend on their defense, come together, support Ukraine. And I think President Trump may be able to facilitate that. That's not a bad set of outcomes.
HUNT: All right. Fair enough. The ceding of territory piece of this, is there a world where that is acceptable to Zelenskyy? But also, I mean, to the world, considering sort of the unprompted aggression that we saw from the Russians. I mean, it's a pretty significant breach change in kind of the way, honestly, it's supposed to work
STAVRIDIS: Two reactions to that. One is I hate it. I hate the idea that Vladimir Putin will gain Crimea. The four provinces that connected to Russia. It's 20 percent of Ukraine. It's significant. And he will have achieved that through force of arms. That's a terrible outcome.
However, A, territories have been changing hands after wars for thousands of years, hardly an unknown phenomena. And in that scenario, as much as I despise it and the Ukrainians will despise it, the rest of Ukraine, Kasie, 80 percent, the breadbasket of Europe, a big chunk of the strategic minerals, the vast majority of the population sails on, democratic, free, path to the European Union, which has its own set of security guarantees, plus potentially a good set of security guarantees from the United States and NATO.
Again, it's not a perfect outcome, but it is a better one than Putin running the table and conquering Ukraine. That's how I think this probably ends.
HUNT: Sir, do you think there's any -- is there a snowball's chance in hell Ukraine ends up part of NATO?
STAVRIDIS: Eventually, I think they will be. And I'll give you a case from history. About 100 years ago, Russia invaded Finland. The Finns fought them to a standstill. This is 1939. And in order to gain peace, the Finns gave up 10 percent, almost 15 percent of Finland to Russia.
[16:55:03]
And they said, we will be neutral.
Today, Finland is in NATO. I don't think it's going to take 100 years. What I would focus on if I were team Zelenskyy is getting into the European Union. NATO will come along sooner rather than later.
HUNT: Fair enough. Admiral James Stavridis always feel smarter after I talked to you. Thank you so much for being here.
STAVRIDIS: Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. Have a very happy Thanksgiving.
Erica Hill is standing by for "THE LEAD". She is going to be talking to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries in just a few minutes.
Hi, Erica.
