Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

New: Judge Blocks Subpoenas For Fed Chair Citing "Zero Evidence"; Sources: Trump Admin Underestimated War's Impact On Strait Of Hormuz; Attacks In Michigan & Virginia Renew Security Concerns In U.S. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired March 13, 2026 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[16:00:06]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Breaking news, a judge has blocked the Justice Department's investigation into the chairman of the Federal Reserve. Judge James Boasberg has blocked subpoenas against -- issued against Jerome Powell, finding that the DOJ provided, quote, "essentially zero evidence," end quote. And that further, quote, "A mountain of evidence suggests that the government served these subpoenas on the board to pressure its chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning," end quote.

This decision marks yet another defeat in the effort to prosecute a long list of President Donald Trump's perceived enemies. Just moments ago, the U.S. attorney for the district of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, vowed to appeal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: This is a decision that is untethered to the law. It creates chaos where any defendant who wishes to evade an investigation, guilty or not, can allege I'm a victim, I'm being targeted. And therefore, you cannot investigate me. And if you find the right judge, you'll buy it. This is the antithesis of American justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines. Head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.

We're also joined by CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.

Paula, take us through the ruling that we just received.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Sure, Kasie, this is really extraordinary because in that press conference there, you heard the U.S. attorney attacking this judge for quashing or knocking down these two subpoenas that her office had issued as part of its criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

Now, she alleges that the judge was, quote, protecting Powell. But here, the judge in this opinion explicitly says that the government has produced essentially zero evidence to suspect Chair Powell of a crime. Indeed, its justifications are so thin and unsubstantiated that the court can only conclude that they are pretextual. The court therefore finds that the subpoenas were issued for an improper purpose. She goes on to call the judge a, quote "activist".

Now, this judge was appointed by former President Barack Obama, but has issued decisions that have benefited officials on both sides of the aisle during the course of his career. But again here, the judge saying that you have really only issued these subpoenas to pressure Powell to carry out the political objectives of President Trump. In fact, this extraordinary opinion starts with a series of quotes, social media posts directly from President Trump.

Now, as you heard there, she will appeal. But all of this comes amid larger concerns that the president has weaponized or tried to weaponize the Justice Department to go after his political adversaries. While they have been largely unsuccessful, Kasie, what I took away from this press conference was that the U.S. attorney is gunning for the top job. We know Attorney General Pam Bondi is on thin ice with the White House over a series of incidents but most notably her handling of the Epstein files.

And here, even though Judge Jeanine, the U.S. attorney, is unlikely to be successful in her appeal she is showing the boss that she is at least willing to fight on this priority of pursuing his adversaries.

HUNT: Audience of one. Paula Reid, thanks very much for that report.

My panel is here in THE ARENA. Former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short; CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist Lulu Garcia-Navarro; Democratic strategist, former senior advisor to the Harris and Biden presidential campaigns, Adrienne Elrod; and CNN political commentator, Republican strategist Brad Todd.

We're also joined by CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams who has scrambled with this last-minute breaking news to get here for us.

And, Elliot, let me start with you here. I mean, can you walk us through what you would point to as kind of the critical pieces here? And just how -- how big a deal is this basically?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Thanks, Kasie.

It's a pretty big deal. Now, let's just look at the legal standard for quashing or getting rid of a subpoena, which the federal reserve board has tried to do here and done successfully in front of the judge. It's when a subpoena is deemed unreasonable or oppressive. That's the standard in the law.

Now, something that the judge is very careful to do here is walk through -- before touching the law or saying anything, walking through a litany of statements that Donald Trump or other people affiliated with him have made about Jerome Powell, given the suggestion that because of the, let's say, for lack of a better term, targeting of the -- of the federal reserve and the Federal Reserve chair you know, an investigation into conduct, there was itself just a pretext for going after him.

[16:05:04]

You know, what I find remarkable here, Kasie, is that it's the nth time in this administration, or at least in the second Trump term where even if there was a legal basis for an action that the president wanted to take or that the attorney general wanted to take, it's the president's own statements that are damning them, that are -- that that are harming them.

And you know, there's a lot of quotes to social media posts from the president and others going after Jerome Powell, including at least one a day before the subpoenas went out here. It's just hard to take seriously these legal actions when the president himself and those around him are making it quite clear that they have another purpose beyond simply prosecuting cases.

HUNT: Right. Well, fair enough. And so, speaking of what Elliot is pointing to here, it is not hard to find, not just social media posts, but also videotape of President Trump attacking Jerome Powell. So much so we've only had this news in our inboxes here for a couple of minutes. But again, not hard to find. Let's -- let's watch what -- what we came up with in fairly short order.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Do you expect the Fed to listen to you?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yeah. If we had a Fed chairman that understood what he was doing, interest rates would be coming down, too.

He should resign immediately.

I think he's terrible. I think he's a total stiff.

This guy is a numskull. He keeps the rates too high and probably doing it for political reasons. Jerome too late, you know, he's too late. His nickname is too late.

Sir, please don't fire him. He's got three months to go. Don't fire him.

I want to get him out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, Marc Short, I mean, you've worked around President Donald Trump in his first term. You also have spent your career fighting for business interests in America, which rely on, you know, the stability of our economic system when you see something like this, this judge saying no, thou shalt not subpoena Jerome Powell, because there are other reasons besides his potential crimes that you're going after him. Does this give you additional faith and confidence in our system, or do you have a different reaction? MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Kasie,

look, I think there's lots of policy reasons that you could have complaints about Donald Trump's pick in Jerome Powell, Initially.

HUNT: Right.

SHORT: But --

HUNT: I love that you mentioned in there that -- hey, Donald Trump actually created this for himself.

SHORT: But the using lawfare is not the way to address those concerns. And I don't think there's any question that these cases were brought to try to pressure him to lower interest rates. The judicial malpractice is one thing. I think it's also political malpractice when they say they're going to appeal this.

In many ways, Judge Boasberg has given them an off ramp to get Kevin Warsh confirmed. Tillis will drop his opposition because he said as long as his prosecution is going, I'm not going to allow us to move forward. They're giving him the window to get Kevin Warsh confirmed, and instead, Judge Pirro is saying she's going to -- she's going to appeal this to take it further.

And so, in a way, it wouldn't be they even have to withdraw their own suit. It could simply be, hey, the judge wouldn't let it go forward. But by appealing it, they're basically going to continue to tie up Kevin Warsh nomination as well.

HUNT: Lulu?

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Guess why? Audience of one. The reason that this is happening is because Donald Trump wants it to happen. There is no other reason.

Clearly, we have now established there's no legal reason for it to happen. And this is another case where the administration has embarrassed itself. It has gone before the courts, and it has been told in no uncertain terms that this is an embarrassment.

I mean, if you read what it says, she basically said you have no grounds for this. There is no evidence.

HUNT: So, Brad Todd, I mean, the sort of greater ambitions here for Jeanine Pirro and Pam Bondi, right? There's a lot more that's going on kind of behind the scenes, as Mark alluded to, with kind of these top jobs in the administration.

How do you read what Jeanine Pirro, how she -- she essentially stormed out at the end of her press conference?

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think she's under the impression that she's supposed to march forward until informed otherwise. I do not know that that means anything with regard to Pam Bondi. I did find it interesting that Judge Boasberg says that he believes that the prosecution was done in order to get Jerome Powell or interest rates. That's probably true. But it's also true that Jerome Powell was trying to get Donald Trump to lower tariff rates by refusing to cut the interest rate.

You could see it in between the lines of everything he said when he was too late. President Trump's right. He has been too late. Every other central bank in the western world cut rates and Jerome Powell refused because he wanted to set tariff rates.

So, I do think there's a little bit of symmetry here. And of course, Boasberg has been a nemesis of Donald Trump's from the start in many cases.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: But isn't there a difference between if let's even take your supposition as true -- which I'm not certain it is.

[16:10:04]

There's a difference between having then someone prosecuted by the president of the United States and Jerome Powell doing his job, which is actually to try and get the economy in a better place.

TODD: I'm not for him being prosecuted. I've said that plenty of times, but I don't think that's Jerome Powell doing his job. Jerome Powell tried to do his job and the job of setting trade policy.

He was way out of his lane. He was wrong. And Trump's been --

GARCIA-NAVARRO: He's trying --he's trying to keep the economy --

HUNT: But is the job of the Federal Reserve not to look at the policy and the economic environment, which is included policy?

TODD: It did. And when -- when the economy began hitting Jerome Powell's benchmarks, he continued to refuse to lower rates. And it's all because he was trying to force Trump to change his tariff policy. And that is not his job.

HUNT: Elliot Williams, I want to play for you something else that Pirro said at her press conference today where she talked about the grand jury and what this ruling from Judge Boasberg may mean in the long term for Powell. Let's watch and we'll talk about it.

WILLIAMS: All right.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PIRRO: By inserting himself and preventing the grand jury from even obtaining, let alone hearing evidence. He has neutered the grand jury's ability to investigate crime. As a result, Jerome Powell today is now bathed in immunity, preventing my office from investigating the Federal Reserve.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: Elliot, what does -- what does she mean there? I mean in some ways, when I hear that, it's -- oh, actually she's saying the thing that Marc is saying. Well, now, they can just let the investigation go and they can get their guy confirmed on Capitol Hill. But what say you, the legal mind?

WILLIAMS: Yeah, there are a few problems here again. And you know, and this -- this picks up on somewhat of what Brad was saying. There might be valid policy differences between the Fed chair and the president. But when the president is out making a number of statements directly targeting someone who is about to be investigated in the process being investigated, that undermines the integrity of the prosecution. You know I think that's point one.

Point two that I would know, and Judge Boasberg knows this in the opinion, they were also requesting internal documents of the Federal Reserve, which themselves, absent some real evidence of criminality or wrongdoing. They're not policy differences, evidence of criminality. That's not proper either.

And so, number one, the Federal Reserve has an interest in its own internal materials. And number two all of the conduct and statements by whether it's the Justice Department, the president or those around him, just make it not a serious prosecution.

And again, there are all kinds of reasons why you might want to move, move forward with political actions or whatever else. But this was -- you know, to use Brad's word of lawfare, you are attempting to use the criminal justice system in a documented way you can read the statements in the opinion, use the criminal justice system to go after people, to specifically target them. And the judge has made clear that's just not appropriate.

HUNT: Yeah.

Adrienne Elrod, of course, a lot of this originates in the Biden administration, of course, the inflation that we were dealing with in the wake of the pandemic and some of the policy choices Democrats made on the Hill frankly. But now, you also have a situation where, you know, this is a president who has been railing against Jerome Powell for not cutting rates fast enough in the face of a lowered rate of inflation. However, he's also placed inflationary tariffs on goods. And now, he's gone to war with Iran, which has resulted in a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which threatens basically worldwide inflation due to oil costs rising and that affecting basically all goods and services.

ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGSIT: Yeah, you just laid it out perfectly. I mean, sure it is -- it's a tale as old as time that presidents will oftentimes say to the fed, we want you to lower interest rates, hint, hint, you know, nod, nod, hint, hint. But Trump has taken it to a whole new level.

And you just laid it out perfectly in the sense that a lot of these, the inflation that we still have going on today, a little bit of a hangover, hangover from covid and maybe passing the Inflation Reduction Act, which will inject a lot of money into the economy and added to the inflation but it also has to do with the fact that Trump has imposed these tariffs that have caused inflation to not go down as much as it typically would. So, he can go after Powell as much as he wants to. But at the end of the day, this is something that he has caused.

HUNT: All right. Fair enough.

Elliot, thank you very much for jumping up there for us. We really appreciate you.

WILLIAMS: Thank you.

HUNT: The rest of the panel is going to stand by. We're going to talk much more about this with the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Robert Garcia will be here later this hour.

But first, the day's other breaking news, global oil prices hitting a level not seen since summer 2022 today, as the defense secretary vows again that today will be the heaviest day of U.S. strikes on Iran since the beginning of the two-week war.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Iran's leadership is in no better shape, desperate and hiding, they've gone underground, cowering. That's what rats do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:19:24]

HUNT: Right now, the death toll for Americans in the war with Iran is mounting as the nation mourns the loss of six airmen who were killed when their tanker aircraft crashed in western Iraq. U.S. Central Command saying that two aircraft were involved in this fatal incident. Neither hostile fire nor friendly fire is suspected. This photo showing damage to the second plane after it landed safely in Israel. The Pentagon says it's investigating.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: War is hell. War is chaos and as we saw yesterday with the tragic crash of our KC-135 tanker, bad things can happen.

[16:20:03]

American heroes, all of them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: A total of 13 American service members have been killed since the war started. Today, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Iran now has no air

defenses, no air force and no navy, but that Americas attacks would only escalate.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HEGSETH: Today will be yet again the highest volume of strikes that America has put over the skies of Iran and Tehran. The number of sorties and number of bomber pulses, the highest yet ramping up and only up. And as the world is seeing, they are exercising sheer desperation in the straits of Hormuz, something we're dealing with, we have been dealing with it and don't need to worry about it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Don't need to worry about it.

Meanwhile, oil prices remain near $100 a barrel amid attacks on ships in the Persian Gulf. Multiple sources familiar with the matter tell CNN the Pentagon and the National Security Council significantly underestimated Iran's willingness to close the Strait of Hormuz. The White House denying that report, saying in a statement, quote, through a detailed planning process, the entire administration is and was prepared for any potential action taken by the terrorist Iranian regime," end quote.

So, we're now almost two weeks into this war. President Donald Trump has offered a wide variety of answers. When asked how long it will last, he said it could last weeks. He said, "We've already won." He said, "We still need to finish the job." And he said that it will end when he wants it to.

Now?

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

TRUMP: When it's over, and I don't think it's going to be long, when it's over, this is going to bounce right back so fast.

BRIAN KILMEADE, FOX NEWS HOST: When are you going to know when it's over?

TRUMP: When I feel it.

KILMEADE: Okay.

TRUMP: I feel it in my bones.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

HUNT: Quite a metric, right?

I want to bring in CNN senior national security reporter Zachary Cohen.

So, Zach, take us through your reporting on what happened here. The Trump administration essentially underestimating what the Iranians would be willing to do in the Strait of Hormuz.

ZACHARY COHEN, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: Yeah, I guess we should be really clear from the outset here that the U.S. military has spent years, even decades, planning for, exercising and wargaming out a scenario where there was a major disruption in the strait of Hormuz. That's something that the U.S., the pentagon has long prepared for and remains prepared for from an operational perspective.

We've even seen in the past the U.S. Navy conduct the kind of escort operations that have been discussed by the president and some of his senior advisors in the last few days as they've talked about trying to address this current issue in the strait.

But what's different here? And while those plans still exist, what's different here is what our sources described as the administration's view of how willing Iran would be to take this step. Now, closing the Strait of Hormuz or effectively closing it in the way that they have, is near the top of the escalation ladder, so to speak this is a step that intel analysts have long believed Iran would only take if they believed they were facing an existential threat. And our understanding is that inside the administration leading up to this operation that they didn't view it as likely that Iran would go this far.

And that was informed in part by the fact that Iran had threatened to do this previously, including when the -- when the Trump administration during the president's first term, assassinated Qasem Soleimani, the Iranian general, and again issued a similar threat back last year after the Trump administration bombed those Iranian nuclear sites. So, the fact that they hadn't followed through in the past certainly colored the perspective leading up to this operation. As far as we understand it the other issue here is that there was a general understanding that closing the Strait of Hormuz was also a sort of self-inflicted wound on the Iranians, because they also rely on the strait for their own economic well-being.

And so those things combined really did make that scenario unlikely in the minds of the Trump administration, and has raised a lot of questions among industry officials and foreign diplomats who are surprised that the pieces weren't in place to quickly address this problem once it happened. And we've heard from a number of individuals calling, especially in the oil industry, calling for a navy escort operation.

But the reality is, is that it's extremely difficult and dangerous to carry out. And the Trump administration is still working through how to do that.

HUNT: All right. Zach Cohen -- Zach, thanks very much. Really appreciate your reporting. Great to have you.

And joining us now in THE ARENA, retired Army General David Petraeus, of course, the former commander of U.S. Central Command and former director of the CIA.

General, I'm very grateful to have you here today, especially as we are just learning that a marine expeditionary unit is on its way to the Middle East. Of course, 2,500 marines, sailors.

Can you help us understand what that says about the mission in Iran right now?

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: Well, I think it says that we want to have forces in position in case we need them for some kind of mission that we haven't already conducted.

[16:25:03]

And I can envision a number of different contingencies here having to do with achieving freedom of navigation through the Gulf and the strait. Perhaps something involving their oil export capabilities and some others, without getting into specifics, where a marine expeditionary unit would be very, very helpful. We had them deployed in Iraq a number of occasions when I was the commander and so forth, and used them extensively when I was the commander of central command as well. It's a very capable organization. It's got a lot of flexibility and so forth.

And of course, we're also moving the aircraft carrier task force that was in the eastern mediterranean, the USS Gerald Ford is a part of that. The largest aircraft carrier in the world, that's also being repositioned. So, they're obviously putting a lot of different assets in position if we decide to pursue one of the contingencies that has to do with this particularly challenging mission.

I thought Zach was exactly right about it. And as the central command commander, we rehearsed again, freedom of navigation. We ensure that all the rest of that. But it's a really tough mission. And if you revisit the tanker wars as they were called in the mid-1980s, when we did reflagged tankers and we escorted them with our ships, it was a very challenging endeavor. And there were a lot of back and forth as Iran responded to it, we actually took out some of their oil platforms.

It ultimately ended when one of our naval ships took down a civilian airliner, which it thought was an Iranian fighter. And that so stunned Tehran that I think they said if they're willing to do this, lets end it. But it was a tough, tough issue.

And the very first ship that was escorted, the USS Bridgerton, it was a civilian vessel, actually hit a mine and had to turn around and go back. It's just that any -- any success that they can have at all really shakes the confidence of the major oil companies that own these huge supertankers. And it's not insurance. It's actually lives of their -- their skippers, their crews on these vessels that they don't want to put at risk. So, this is a tough one.

HUNT: Tough indeed.

And what is your sense of the reporting Zach had there that basically the national security community underestimated Iran's willingness to do this, that essentially the thinking was they wouldn't go this far?

PETRAEUS: I really don't have insights into what the intelligence community offered or the national security community in this case. What I will say is that I don't believe Central Command has ever been commanded by an admiral before, and it's a very good time to have an expert on this. I'm sure he went through that strait innumerable times over the years. He was actually the three-star in the theater as the naval component commander for Central Command, as well as the Fifth Fleet.

So, you couldn't have a better commander for this particular challenge. The challenge is that it's a really pernicious one. It's tough and there are missions like this where, again, you have to bring everything to bear.

And what you're trying to do is reestablish confidence in the minds of the CEOs of commercial companies. They're not state-owned enterprises as they are some other places in the world, and they're not going to move and risk this, I don't think, unless they really are certain that these ships aren't going to get struck and that they won't lose members of the crews.

HUNT: General, what is your sense of how much time is really needed to have this continue to allow the outcome on the other side to be one that is better than where we started?

PETRAEUS: Well, we're already much better in a number of different ways. Obviously, a number of very senior regime leaders have been killed. We've taken down very substantially their air missile defenses. We have air superiority now we can fly anywhere with non- stealthy aircraft and take on targets.

We've done a very good job at reducing the number of missile launchers and missile stockpiles. And even now, taking out the actual industries that produce the components that are assembled for those taking down drones, the infrastructure of the regime forces has been very, very heavily damaged. The challenge is that this kind of basically religious fanaticism that animates the new supreme leader noting that his father was killed in a strike early on he was there, was wounded, his mother and wife were both killed.

That kind of fanaticism can manifest itself in taking actions that bring even further damage and destruction on Iran and it's people. And above all, its regime forces. And I -- you know, the answer that people, when they ask me, how did this end, I've also said it ends when President Trump believes that it should end, that there have been the objectives met and all the rest of that.

[16:30:09]

Maybe there's some missile math issues in there as well. How many interceptors do we have and how many launchers and missiles do they have, if that's uncomfortable?

The challenge here is that the Iranians get a vote, and I'm not certain at this moment, you know, we hope for a Delcy Rodriguez. And what we got was Kim Jong Un, you know, to use the analogy of Venezuela. And again, this is the son of an extremist, the supreme leader, a cleric, and I fear that he will prove to be as nonpragmatic, whatever we hope might emerge as was his father. And that's the dynamic here, as always, in war, the enemy does get a vote.

HUNT: You took -- you took my question right out of my mouth, honestly, because of course, you famously posed it. Rick Atkinson tell me how this ends in, in Iraq and when you say the enemy gets a vote, I mean, how realistic is the possibility of a quagmire here if the Iranians continue to use essentially asymmetric warfare tactics, drones in this strait, and keep it closed or at least extremely dangerous for an extended period of time?

PETRAEUS: Well, I actually don't think we'll see a quagmire. That really -- for me, it gives rise to thoughts of 100,000 troops on the ground and very challenging circumstances and the enemy and so forth.

And I think at some point, there will be a recognition, even if they don't start saying, long live Iran, instead of death to America and death to Israel, that there will be a recognition. They've got to stop this, because at a certain point, they're just going to strangle their own country, and they may actually give rise to the kind of splintering of the regime forces to take over this supreme leader position. And that would be very threatening to him. But it could go on longer than certainly it should.

And I guess the bigger issue here is if he continues down the path that his father did and tries to resurrect the nuclear program or the missile program, which Israel is going to take out anyway. By the way, if we hadn't done this, they were worried about its reconstitution. If that's what we end up with, we may have to revisit this from time to time because Israel is not going to allow a threat to manifest itself in the way that it did, actually, prior to 10-7, it learned something. It changes national security orientation fundamentally since then.

And that means we're going to have to really plus up the defenses and a host of different ways. Hardened infrastructure in the region. Go underground with a lot of this and so forth. And so there could be a fundamental change. And of course, the countries in the region have the resources to do that as well.

But that will not be obviously the result that we wistfully had hoped would be, which would be that a pragmatist would take over and there could be some kind of more constructive relationship with the leadership that realized that what they have brought on their own people is just nothing but destruction and damage and death.

HUNT: All right. Well, on that cheerful note, General David Petraeus, thank you very much, sir, for bringing your expertise here to THE ARENA. I really appreciate it. I hope you'll come back.

PETRAEUS: Good to be with you, Kasie. Thanks.

HUNT: All right. Ahead here in THE ARENA, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee will be here live on the breaking news around that decision of the DOJ investigation into the Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

Plus, new details on the synagogue attack in Michigan, including a connection to the fighting in the Middle East. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): Whether antisemitism is coming from the left or the right, whether it's coming from some group that you like or don't like, you have a responsibility to call it out because when you don't, it gives permission for people to climb that escalation, that ladder of escalation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:38:32]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Mortgage rates are down despite the Fed. I mean, Scott, you got to work in this guy. He's got some real mental problems now. He's -- something wrong with him. It's just ridi -- I be honest, I'd love to fire his ass. He should be fired. The guy's grossly incompetent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: That was President Trump last November criticizing and insulting the Federal Reserve chairman, Jerome Powell, over his decision not to cut interest rates. This is of course, become a major point of contention between the two men. It's been that way for years.

Today, a judge blocked the Justice Department's investigation into Powell over spending on renovations to the Fed headquarters in D.C. The judge writing in a scathing opinion, the subpoenas the DOJ issued were meant to pressure the chair into lowering rates. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro says her office will appeal.

Joining me now, congressman from California, Robert Garcia. He is, of course the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.

Congressman always good to see you thank you very much for being here.

First of all, what is your reaction to this decision by this judge, but also Jeanine Pirro's intense reaction saying -- vowing to appeal?

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): I mean, look, first, it's very clear the judge made the right decision here, the right ruling. I think I would encourage people to actually read what the actual judge wrote.

[16:40:00]

This was a very powerful pushback on the Department of Justice and what the DOJ has tried to do is, as we know, go after Trump's political enemies and play retribution games. And this attack on this project, I think the American people understand very clearly, was just all about the president wanting to get at the Fed chair. And it is ridiculous if we continue to see these attacks from the Department of Justice on whoever Donald Trump thinks is an enemy, whether its members of Congress, whether it's members across -- across this country that are involved in our educational institutions.

We've seen it, of course at the Fed, and it continues over and over again and as far as the U.S. attorney, I mean her press conference she just had right now. I'm sorry that was a joke. She's vowing to do what exactly?

The motivation for actually going after and trying to pursue these subpoenas was ridiculous. There's no case there. This is just about Donald Trump's revenge tour. The DOJ, the U.S. attorney should get a clue here and just allow the Fed to do their job, which as we know, they are mandated to be independent from the executive.

HUNT: So, Congressman, you of course, in your role on the Oversight Committee, expect to hear from Pam Bondi, the current attorney general. There's been some conversation around whether Jeanine Pirro is potentially a future replacement for Pam Bondi. If the administration is unhappy with her. What do you plan on focusing on with the current attorney general?

GARCIA: Well -- first, I mean, that -- I've heard that same rumor that that would be a complete disaster. I mean, I'm not sure you get worse than Pam Bondi. But that that might be it right there. Let me just as far as the attorney general is concerned, we worked as Democrats, we were united as a committee and we were able to pull over a few Republicans to actually vote with us, to actually put in place a subpoena for the attorney general on the Epstein files.

This was a significant move. She's going to be in front of our committee answering questions on what we believe is a massive cover up. Half of the files have not been released to the American people and to the Congress.

We know that survivors have been essentially exposed. They've been doxed, their names and names of their families, intimate photos of them -- I mean, all been released to the public with no consideration by this attorney general. And we want to ask her why this cover up continues why documents appear, why they disappear. So, she has a lot of questions to answer in front of our committee and I'm glad that some Republicans are finally joining us and demanding these answers.

HUNT: One other person you're demanding answers from the committee sent a letter to the prison guard that was on duty at the prison where Epstein died and you want her to testify? In the probe. Can you walk us through what you're hoping to learn? Because there are likely people out there who are going to see this and wonder if some of the -- what had been labeled conspiracy theories about his death are things that are being entertained by the committee.

GARCIA: Well, I think first, I think we should be really clear. I think overall, the Jeffrey Epstein investigation needs to be very clear that our intention is to get to the truth. And I actually agree with Chairman Comer that there are enough questions that have arisen around Jeffrey Epstein's death that they need to be investigated.

There -- the public knows there have been now investigations by our own government around the death. They've made their case known. They believe it was a suicide, that has been the governments position. At the same time, there are enormous inconsistencies. There are other outside agencies that have looked at this case and what actually happened,

I think it is both smart and wise for us to actually ask questions and to revisit this investigation. Jeffrey Epstein, as we know, ran the largest sex trafficking ring that we've seen in the modern era, and the influence, the foreign governments that were likely involved, the powerful people that he was connected to. I think the public does deserve another look at exactly what happened.

And so, I support bringing in the prison guards who can clarify and ensure that the decisions around the investigation that were made by the government and the suicide -- and the -- and the suicide attempt and the death were actually factual.

HUNT: All right. Congressman Robert Garcia, thanks very much for your time, sir. Appreciate it. I hope you'll come back soon.

All right coming up next here in THE ARENA, what were now learning about the Michigan synagogue attack and how connections to the Middle East are now involved in the investigation.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:49:09]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

We are learning more about the suspect in the attack on a Michigan synagogue. He was a Lebanese born U.S. citizen. His two brothers and two of their children were killed in an Israeli airstrike in Lebanon last week. And that incident in Michigan, coming just hours after a deadly shooting at Old Dominion University in Virginia by a veteran and convicted ISIS supporter.

I want to bring in CNN chief law enforcement and intelligence analyst John Miller, who is joining our panel now.

John, you have your new reporting on the suspect in the Michigan attack. What can you tell us?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, what we are learning is and this gives us some insight into what caused that fire from the back of that pickup truck is that Ayman Mohamad Ghazali, the 41-year-old suspect in this case, on March 10th went to Phantom Fireworks in Livonia, Michigan, and made a purchase of fireworks.

[16:50:00]

Now, according to Bill Weimer, the executive vice president and general counsel for the company, he came in, he was jovial. He was happy. He engaged with the staff.

He said he was purchasing fireworks for his family because they wanted to put on an Eid celebration marking the end of Ramadan. He went and he purchased a number of fireworks. He asked all the same questions that others asked, which is what are the loudest? What's the most powerful? What's the best display?

He went out to his truck, the same truck that was used in this attack, it appears, and then came back and said, my family needs more. At the end of the purchase, he had spent 2250 -- $2,250 on various fireworks, including aerial fireworks, firecrackers, a fountain display and to do this, he had to submit his driver's license.

He paid for it with a credit card. FBI and ATF agents investigating the case saw that charge, went to the store with a subpoena. These videotapes were turned over by the company voluntarily, in response to that subpoena.

Let me get to the question which is, what about this large purchase was not suspicious. And the answer is that is a store that often has $5,000 purchases, $10,000 purchases. And he asked all the same questions that other people ask. He said what it was for and when he needed it by, and it just didn't tick off any alarm bells along that -- along that line.

HUNT: Pretty remarkable. It does seem like a lot of fireworks, got to say.

John Mller, stand by for us. I want to have a brief conversation here.

And, Lulu, I want to play what the Oakland County sheriff said yesterday in the wake of this attack, because it was very striking, very direct comment about the Jewish community there and what this attack represented. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF MICHAEL BOUCHARD, OAKLAND COUNTY, MICHIGAN: We're committed to keeping this community safe. If you think you can target the Jewish community in this county or anywhere in this state, you're wrong. We're going to not only stand in front of them to protect them. We're coming for you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: A remarkably strong statement and a reminder of what this represented.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah and, and I'm glad it was a strong statement. This is a horrific act, and it should be roundly condemned.

And there is no reason for anyone to attack the Jewish community for the acts of the Israeli government. Those two things are separate. And it is absolutely reprehensible, full stop. Nothing more to say about that.

And then we do know that because of events in the Middle East, we do see a higher threat level in the United States. Those two things often go hand in hand and I do think the American people should be prepared for that and should be made to be prepared for that.

HUNT: Marc Short, I mean there have been a series of incidents here in the United States for at least that could have been worse than they were certainly this attack at this Jewish center and school synagogue could have been far worse if not for the heroic actions of the security guard that was on site there.

Do you think that the Trump administration is -- has been running our government in such a way that we are prepared to deal with these kinds of this heightened national security threat level?

SHORT: Yeah. I actually think, Kasie, my -- my take is different. I feel like we're -- Iran is the largest sponsor of terror in the world. We know that. They've killed thousands of Americans on the battlefield. Year and a half ago killed and raped many Israelis, their proxies did.

The fact that Democrats are not funding Homeland Security is unconscionable to me Democrats will claim they need a change in policy. The secretary has been fired. Tom Homan is in charge. The ICE agents have left Minnesota.

The fact that they are not funding Homeland Security when you're seeing these attacks happening regularly is incredibly irresponsible.

HUNT: Adrienne?

ELROD: Well, I mean -- look, I think number one, the reason why we're not funding homeland security is because ICE has been aggressive and has gone into neighborhoods and has done some horrible things to American citizens, including killing some.

SHORT: So, let's let more Americans get killed.

ELROD: But number two, but number two, I -- this is local law enforcement as well that is on the ground. And local law enforcement is largely funded by the states that they're in. And so I think when you saw the police chief in Michigan making a very strong statement, that's the kind of verbiage that we need for more law enforcement locally to make it very clear that regardless of your faith, regardless of what you stand for, we will not tolerate this sort of behavior against any faith -- community of faith.

TODD: We've had -- we've had three Islamist attacks in a week. Democrats are making the people that run our airports work without pay.

[16:55:03]

It's unconscionable.

HUNT: All right. John Miller, thanks very much for your time today. Really appreciate it.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Really appreciate you all being here. Happy Friday. Have a good weekend.

Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. Have a wonderful weekend.

Now, don't forget, if you need to do something this weekend, you can stream THE ARENA. You can do it live, but you can also catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. You can scan that QR code on your screen.

You can also catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. You can also follow the show on X on Instagram @TheArenaCNN.

But don't go anywhere. Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".

Hi, Jake.