Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
New: Vance Tries To Clarify Trump Saying He Doesn't Think About Iran War's Impact On Americans' Finances; Trump Expected To Encourage Xi To Push Iran To Reopen Strait Of Hormuz, Agree To A Peace Deal; Sources: Dems Eye Aggressive Redistricting Plan For 2028. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired May 13, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: -- there was no clarity on where the wreckage was when they first arrived.
[16:00:05]
Is there going to be a black box? Could that be recovered?
PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: Usually in an airplane like this, there's not a black box, not a flight data recorder. Some do, some don't. And this is something that the investigators will have to pull. They'll be able to pull off some early details from an airplane, but maybe not the full picture.
SANCHEZ: Those 11 people are lucky there was a training mission going on right then.
Pete Muntean, thank you so much.
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.
As we come on the air, the vice president wants you to believe that the president didn't really say that thing that he said on camera yesterday. Let's watch it. You can make up your own mind.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: When you're negotiating with Iran, Mr. President, to what extent are American financial situation motivating you to make a deal?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody. I think about one thing. We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon.
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't think the president said that. I think that's a misrepresentation of what the president said. But, look, I agree with the president that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, the vice president is not the only Trump ally trying to clean up the president's words today. Here was the House speaker, Republican Mike Johnson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Yesterday, the president was asked about whether Americans financial concerns were motivating him to make a deal with Iran. His response was, I don't think about Americans financial situations. Do you think that's the right message? Do you think it should be, considering the financial toll?
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: I don't know the context in which he made that comment, but I can tell you the president thinks about Americans financial situations. I talked to him on average twice a day, sometimes three or four times a day. And we talk about it constantly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. So, on one hand, we have somebody saying, he didn't say it, someone else saying if he did, that's not what he meant. The backlash over the president's words about your financial situation, reflecting just how much pressure the White House is under to focus on affordability and the economy. That is not as easy as it could be when the president really, really, really wants to build his ballroom.
In a new memo sent to members of Congress and obtained by CNN, the White House is renewing its demand for $1 billion in taxpayer money, some of which would go to help secure the ballroom. The memo specifies that $220 million would be used for things like bulletproof glass, counter-drone technology for the complex, including for the ballroom. The rest would be allocated for other facilities -- Secret Service training, special events.
Trump officials claiming, quote, "None of these funds will be used to support non-security improvements at the White House," end quote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: The Secret Service put in an urgent request for additional security measures. It's not for the ballroom, it's for security measures. Now, we don't know what the final bill is going to be. That we get. The ballroom is totally privately funded. The president has dedicated like $400 million for that project.
And by the way, it's going to be a donation to the country. You're aware the ballroom will be there long after he leaves, and he'll only get a few months of its use. So, he's doing it for the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: This push comes as congressional Republicans find themselves caught between a president used to getting his way, and voters who polls show do not feel that a black tie ballroom is a good use of time and money. In fact, some consultants are already warning Republicans that the ballroom is emerging as a hot button issue in focus groups.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. DON BACON (R-NE): There's a lot of concerns in our conference. You know, the president offered up a good plan that donors are going to pay for this. I think the voters, the citizens are acceptable of that. But then to see $1 billion fee come out of this, that were going to have to pay for. I just think I think we should stick with the plan. This should be a donor-driven project. That's what the president said. I think that's what most voters want.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Let's get off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA. My panel is here.
CNN contributor, host of "The New York Times'" "The Interview", Lulu Garcia-Navarro; CNN political commentator, Republican strategist and pollster, Kristen Soltis Anderson; Democratic strategist, former senior adviser to the Biden and Harris presidential campaigns, Adrienne Elrod; and CNN political commentator, also Republican strategist, Shermichael Singleton.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you very much for being here.
Kristen Soltis Anderson, I actually want to start with you just on like, what you understand from the numbers of where people are on this ballroom because it is something we are increasingly picking up in the anecdata, so to speak. When you go out, you talk to people. It comes up as a point and you could see it in Don Bacon, who represents a, you know, fairly swingy place for a Republican -- for him to talk that way about it tells you that voters are actually picking up on it. What do you know?
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So one thing that Donald Trump has always been very savvy about is understanding the power of visuals and the importance that individual items or things people can really see and touch and feel can shape their opinions.
[16:05:11]
And in this case, its actually working very much against him that in this moment when people are feeling that cost of living is very high, something that they felt before Trump was president, but have continued to feel into his presidency and are now holding him responsible for, the political challenge the ballroom is presenting is if you're somebody who feels like, why doesn't anybody seem to care about my financial situation, it's a very clear and obvious symbol of something that you're like, well, how does that make my government work better? Or my grocery prices run down?
And there are other things in this, you know, billion dollars that are going to Secret Service that I think actually would be justifiable in this moment. Right. There are things about security at the White House complex that do need upgraded.
When you go to visit the White House, you walk through like a temporary little thing to get scanned at some of the gates. I mean, there are things that are justifiable, but I think the ballroom itself, just its existence, creates a symbol that's very easy to point to and go, wait a minute, is he focused on that or is he focused on me?
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yeah. The ballroom is as politically toxic as the algae blooms in the reflecting pool that is also overbudget. This is another example of the president just playing into the fever dreams of Democrats who want to portray him as an out of touch king. And then you have this where he's holding up his, you know, placards with these big Corinthian pillars, and he's talking about the gold trim. And people are actually not being able to fill up their tank with gas to take their kids to preschool. It's insane.
HUNT: Shermichael, I mean, how do you look at the plans for this? The millions perhaps, you know, billion dollars that could cost and considering the way Americans feel about their own lives. I mean, how is this not a let them eat cake moment?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I think I mean, I know what the president said in the clip, but I also know there's significant reporting that suggests one of the reasons the president is so quickly trying to have a find a resolution to the conflict in Iran is because he's looking at the polling numbers that do indeed suggest that most of the American people are concerned and worried, particularly independents. Most Republicans are still with him. But it's a swingy folks that lean to the right that I think a lot of strategists and consultants and pollsters are telling the White House, hey, this is problematic.
That said, in terms of how you communicate this, there are two set asides here. There's the cost that a lot of private donations are going towards the actual building. Then when you itemize the budget, which is the $1 billion that were talking about, that's all security costs. And I think the White House needs to really be very clear with the American people. The building itself is being built with private donations. The 1 billion is security costs.
But then again, you do have to press him --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: The problem here --
SINGLETON: -- the immediate issues that the American people are worried about.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yeah. The problem that the GOP is facing on the hill is that the bill is coming to them, right? So, what might have been a political problem for the president is now becoming a political problem for everyone in the House who has to run because he's saying, oh, you know what, you guys have to sign this and you guys have to pay for it. And so, every single Democrat in every single swingy district is going to hang that ballroom around. SINGLETON: Yah, but I'm not convinced -- just really quickly. I'm not
convinced that this singular issue is going to be enough, that that's going to hammer Republicans come this fall.
I mean, look at the polls. Look at the polling numbers on Democrats as a collective. Democrats aren't doing that well.
ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: No, we are, we are. We're doing much better than you're giving us credit for.
But look, I think the ads are writing themselves. I mean, he literally says on record, I don't care about Americans' financial situations. If I was an ad maker, which I'm not, Kasie, but if I was, I would be having a field day. I would also probably clip Lulu's comments and throw that into an ad as well.
But the bottom line is, by the way, I'm not because I'm not an ad --
HUNT: The risk we take every day.
ELROD: Be ready. Be ready. But look, the bottom line is this is just another optic problem that Republicans have.
And to Lulu's point, I mean, Republicans are now forced to go on record for this vote. I think the American people, especially those who voted for Donald Trump because their prices were too high, and theyre even higher now, are looking at this and saying, now he's trying to pull a fast one on me. He's trying to clump this into, oh, the Secret Service needs more funding, which, sure, maybe they do.
But to clump the ballroom funding into this and then try to guise it under $1 billion package or $100 billion package, whatever it is for the Secret Service, just -- no, no one buys it. And it's a further problem that Trump is creating self-perpetuated problem for Republicans they have to deal with in the midterms.
HUNT: One thing that, of course, seems to be motivating President Trump in his second term is the idea of his legacy, right? These things that he has been focused on for many years, he's obviously been on the public stage as a public figure in America for a lot longer than he's been running the country.
Let's flash back to 2016 because this ballroom and, you know, Lulu pointed out, he's good at -- or excuse me, Kristen pointed out, the presidents good at taking something tangible and using it to his political advantage.
[16:10:12]
It raises the question, is he so focused on this ballroom now to the -- to the detriment of that, while ignoring that instinct that he might have, because its something that he has wanted to do for quite literally decades. Here was Trump in 2016 saying that years before 2016, he had offered to build a ballroom at the White House
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: I offered, by the way, Jerry, years ago to build a ballroom at the White House free of charge, $100 million ballroom. I said, we'll get the top five architects in America. We'll get the top people, top everything. We'll have the best ballroom. I will build a ballroom free of charge, at least $100 million. We'll make it the finest ballroom in the world.
We'll put it someplace so it works contextually, magnificently. It will be done. We'll have committees set up. I never heard back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: He said he never heard back.
Josh Earnest, who was the press secretary for President Obama in February of 2016, was asked about this. Let's watch that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Okay. And so, Donald Trump offered to build a $100 million ballroom here at the White House. Was that ever considered? What do you -- what else can you tell us about that? Because it is confirmed that he made that offer, apparently.
JOSH EARNEST, OBAMA WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: I've read a little bit about this. I --
REPORTER: You didn't know about it?
EARNEST: I can -- I can -- I was not the one that was consulted. But I can tell you that this is not something that was at all seriously considered.
REPORTER: And why not?
EARNEST: Well, I'm not sure that it would be appropriate to have a shiny gold Trump sign on the -- on any part of the White House
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: What a difference a decade makes, Lulu.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Oh, yeah. Although I will say in Trump's defense that he maybe built a ballroom in 2016, it might have cost $100 million, right?
HUNT: Right. Inflation, you know?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Inflation, you know. Exactly. Something that we're all dealing with quite a bit at the moment.
HUNT: Kristen, I -- the other thing that the president has done here is really push back aggressively on reporters who've asked him about this. He was that same gaggle where he said, "I don't care about your financial situation." He was also asked about the ballroom. This is what he said then. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have a ballroom that's under-budget. It's going up right here. I've doubled the size of it because we obviously need that and we're right now on budget, under budget and ahead of schedule.
REPORTER: The price has doubled?
TRUMP: I doubled the size of it, you dumb person. Doubled the size.
You are -- you are not a smart person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: What does that response say?
ANDERSON: I mean, he -- building ballrooms, doing golf clubs. You know, these are the sorts of things that he did in his private life that he has brought to his second term in a big way, taking over golf courses here in D.C., the municipal courses. That's been a hobby horse of his.
I want the reflecting pool to look a certain way. I mean, he's bringing the stuff he did in his private sector life to this job and making it a big centerpiece of what he publicly, visually appears to be doing. And that's where I really think that this problem is.
I don't think that America would begrudge the president the opportunity to make the White House safer, to beautify some of our national monuments, but its in the context of cost of living going up so high, and in a sense that if you make a pie chart of all the time that the president should be spending on things, the American voters may not know what they think the president should be doing to make their cost of living lower. But they look at those and they know I don't think that's it. And I think it's that misdirection and that what is he actually spending his time doing? It just feels like a mismatch. And it's created this massive political
GARCIA-NAVARRO: FYI, we're at war. I mean, this is the other part of all this. This isn't just like cost of living is going up because, huh, who knows why? This is because we are at war in a conflict that this administration chose to execute, that is now driving up gas prices all over the world. And as exploding the cost of living here in the United States.
So, you know. Yes. Not only is the split screen, I think under any administration problematic, but specifically now, because we are at war and this president, instead of focusing on the color of a pool or the ballroom, should be trying to resolve it on.
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: No, go ahead.
ELROD: Really quickly. A quick point. I mean, on that note, how many Americans, to your point, Lulu, are actually looking at this and saying, oh, good, he's going to make it twice as big because I'm going to go to the ballroom. I mean, how many people in America are ever going to see this ballroom? But it's their taxpayer dollars that he's trying to get to pay for it.
SINGLETON: But quickly, I think that's -- I think that's why he's trying to bring resolution to the conflict. I think this meeting with Xi Jinping is critically important. And can he encourage him to put pressure on the Iranians to open the Strait of Hormuz?
[16:15:00]
All of those things are going to be consequential to addressing the cost of living issue.
HUNT: Yeah.
All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, former President Obama on the campaign trail in a key midterm race. Why he's popping up in a place where a Democrat hasn't won statewide office in more than three decades.
But first, President Trump, just hours away from a critical meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. We're going to talk with the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY FALLON, LATE NIGHT HOST: The two leaders aren't expected to make any kind of major deal. Yeah, it's nice Trump can take a break from not making a deal with Iran to not making a deal with China.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:20:08]
HUNT: Wow. Chinese officials rolling out a literal and figurative red carpet for President Trump upon his arrival in Beijing earlier today, where he's set to conduct high stakes talks with President Xi Jinping and other top officials just hours from now. The historic two-day summit, already once delayed due to the Iran war, is unfolding at a crucial moment for the United States on the world stage.
The two superpowers set to discuss A.I.., trade and Taiwan, but perhaps no issue looms quite as large as the conflict in the Middle East, which China believes will give it leverage in the talks, sources tell CNN.
CNN's senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes joins us now from Beijing.
Kristen, we're just hours away from this high-stakes meeting. What are you looking for? KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I mean, the
number one focus here is clearly the economy. We know that Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent has really been the one that was laying the groundwork for this trip in the weeks ahead of it. Usually, this is done by the secretary of state meeting with counterparts, but instead its really been done by Scott Bessent talking about trade, talking about tariffs, talking about potential for economic deals. Of course, we know President Trump traveled here with roughly a dozen of Americas top CEOs, with the White House wants out of this is some kind of business deals, an investment in America and these private sector deals that we've seen come out of these foreign trips before, like when we saw the CEOs that traveled with him to the gulf states at the beginning of his term.
But as you noted here, there is this Iran war that is looming over this entire trip. President Trump did not want to be coming into this trip, in this position currently, given the fact that he had pushed these six weeks, thought the war would be over by then. It's obviously not. Not only is it not over, but we have a situation which President Trump is increasingly frustrated. He's reconsidering combat mission inside of Iran after we were told he had written to Congress saying that all of that was over and they were on to a new phase of the Iran war.
Whether or not that gives Xi leverage, I think one of the things that we should be paying attention to is what Trump is going to try and use as leverage. One of the things we saw come out of the defense department in this trip, while President Trump was traveling, was a contract for Taiwan to support them. It was a very small contract. It was only one year. It was $12 million. Just remember, these contracts are generally billions of dollars, but that's a little bit of a muscle flex for President Trump.
If he didn't want that to go through while he was in the air flying to China, it wouldn't go through at that time. But President Trump is showing that he has some leverage, particularly when it comes to Taiwan, saying he has something that president xi wants.
And that is important, given that we know that he is going to Push Xi to try and get involved with Iran, to push Iran to reopen the strait or to come to some sort of peace deal. And just to show you how big of an issue this is, I mean, just last week, the top negotiator for Iran was here meeting with Chinese leadership ahead of President Trump's visit.
So, it goes to show you just how significant that is ahead of these meetings.
HUNT: All right. Kristen Holmes, for us live in Beijing. Kristen, thank you very much for that.
Joining us now in THE ARENA, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, Congressman Adam Smith of Washington state.
Congressman, thank you very much for being here. It's great to see you. I would like to start with this question about Iran. What leverage do
you think the president has over Xi? The Chinese president, that might prompt Xi to push the Iranians to open the strait?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Well, he doesn't have a lot. I mean, the one thing he does have is, look, it's better for China if there's less chaos in the Middle East. They get a lot of oil from Iran. They get it from other countries in the Middle East as well.
That certainly impacts China. So, I think they would like to see this come to a conclusion. But she is also very much aware of the fact that we are suffering far more from that chaos in the Middle East than he is. And he's going to use that as leverage against us to try to cut that deal. So, that's possible. But President Trump's decision to go into this war in Iran and also the ill thought out trade war that he launched against China last year, has put him in a weaker position.
This is a tough negotiation, given where we stand right now. But China does have some interest in calming things down in the Middle East. It's not a lot of leverage, but it's at least a point to start the conversation.
HUNT: You mentioned the trade war. And, you know, when you talk to administration officials early on in post liberation day, if you want to use the president's term for it, when they put those tariffs across the world and they were arguing with the Europeans and others, they would always tell you, you know, the end game is a deal with China, right? Where are we in making progress toward something that ultimately would make the American people better off in this regard?
[16:25:05]
SMITH: Yeah. At the moment, we're nowhere because Trump overplayed his hand, he put these. I forget what the numbers were. It was over 100 percent tariffs and a bunch of different areas. And then China having, you know, facing that very aggressive move. They use their own leverage points.
They stop buying soybeans and a lot of other things from the U.S. had a devastating impact on our farmers. And then, of course, they restricted the critical minerals that are so important to what were doing. So, you know, that was the problem. He led with his chin and then wound up in that weaker position.
And look, this is another thing to worry about as we go into this negotiation. President Trump basically has one move, and that's to come into a negotiation and punch the other person in the face repeatedly and hope they capitulate. That's what he thought the bombing campaign in Iran would do.
But unlike in his personal business, when that fails, he can't just shut down his university, declare bankruptcy at the hotel and move on. So, he has got to come up with a more sophisticated idea to how to use leverage and bargaining to get to a better place. So yeah, we're not in a good place in that negotiation. Now, China has their own economic problems. We should not put that
aside. You know, they had a real estate bubble that popped. They got a real problem with their population in terms of their working age population. They would like things to be less conflicted as well. So, you got to figure out how to use that little bit of leverage to get to a broader deal.
But to date, President Trump sort of, I don't know, bellicose, confrontational, scatterbrained approach to this, has weakened our ability to use that leverage to get to a deal. We can hope that the next two days will get us back on more solid footing.
HUNT: Fair enough. When it comes to Taiwan, which is another critical issue here for the United States, especially in the age of A.I. and the chips, many of which are built in Taiwan, there has been reporting and conversation around this idea that she is planning to press President Trump to slow or to reduce our arms sales to Taiwan.
Do you think that's on the table and what are the ramifications if it is?
SMITH: It's hard to tell with Trump. I will say I led a delegation to China back in September, and I met with senior level officials throughout China, had these conversations, also had a lot of detailed conversations with Ambassador Perdue, who was our ambassador to China, who's doing a fantastic job. He's got a great team over there, and I think he understands the ins and outs of this. And look, China wants to get to a less bellicose place than where they were a couple of years ago because of the challenges that we face.
Taiwan is a major red line for them. They are very concerned about that. And I'm sure if President Trump made concessions on Taiwan, that might open up things elsewhere.
But President Trump doesn't have to make concessions on Taiwan. He just has to maintain the status quo, which is one China. That's our policy, one China, but no reunification by force. So therefore, we have the right to arm Taiwan to make sure they can defend themselves against that and maintain that strategic ambiguity.
That's what needs to happen. I have confidence in Ambassador Perdue and his team. I hope that he can be guiding where Trump is at, because, as we know, Trump tends to follow whims or if he feels insulted, so who knows where this could go? There is a path here where you don't have to sell out Taiwan. You can maintain the status quo and get to a better economic deal with China.
HUNT: It doesn't sound so bad when you put it that way, sir.
SMITH: It's not easy, however. And it's -- A, it's not easy and B, it's President Trump and he's terrible at this. This notion that he's the best negotiator in the world has ever seen. I guess he's got the most bankruptcies. But other than that, he doesn't have a very strong record. But this is the challenge we all face now because he's the guy. We got to see what he does.
HUNT: A challenge indeed.
Sir, very briefly, before I let you go, I want to ask you about some of your hometown politics, if you will. And there's reporting that Hakeem Jeffries and Democrats want to push redistricting kind of across the map, including potentially in Washington State, where you have this independent commission that draws lines. If there is -- if they go through with this push and their threats to punish people who don't go along with them to get rid of that commission. Are you on board?
SMITH: Yeah. Look, at this point, we have to be on board with whatever we can do to counter the incredible, aggressive moves by the Supreme Court and the Republican Party, which are sadly, increasingly, one and the same.
I mean, getting rid of the Voting Rights Act, redistricting in the middle of elections. Look, you know, I want to get back to a place where there is no partisan gerrymandering. We have a voting rights law that we had proposed when Democrats were in charge of the house that would have done that. I think that should be the nationwide standard. But if these are the rules, we have to play by them.
I mean, it's tough in Washington state because all of our Democrats are concentrated in the Puget sound region. You would have to draw some incredibly weird looking districts in order to do it. But look, I mean, this is the reality that we're in. So I think as long as those are the rules, we got to play by them, and we got to play aggressively.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Adam Smith, thank you very much for your time, sir. Always appreciate having you.
SMITH: Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: See you soon, I hope. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, the Taco Tuesday. That was anything but normal. The political trio that showed up at a Texas restaurant.
Plus, Democrats say they have a plan that could get them at least a dozen more House seats. New CNN reporting on that new push, including the warning to anyone, Democrat -- any Democrat who might stand in the way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): We're not going to unilaterally disarm. Not now, not ever. And this redistricting war is just getting started.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:35:09]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Hey!
JAMES TALARICO (D), TEXES SENATE CANDIDATE: Mr. President, good to see you. Nice to meet you, sir.
OBAMA: Good to see you. Hey, people. I hear the tackles here are okay.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They're amazing.
OBAMA: They're not bad. That's the word on the street. I think.
TALARICO: We have breakfast tacos.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Egg and cheese.
TALARICO: That's right. I come here a lot.
OBAMA: I can tell.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: One of the Democratic Party's most influential figures appearing on the Texas campaign trail, former President Barack Obama, visiting an Austin taco shop on Tuesday with senate candidate James Talarico, who. Democrats are hopeful could finally be the person to turn the Lone Star State blue. Texas, you may remember, is also where Democrats first entered the national gerrymandering wars last year, an effort that Democratic leadership continues to aggressively pursue.
Even though a pair of recent rulings set the party's redistricting ambitions back by as many as 10 House seats, Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his allies now preparing to take on fellow Democrats from New York to Oregon who get in their way. Sources tell CNN that primary challenges are not off the table.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFFRIES: Our resolve is more robust now than it ever was because its clear Republicans can't defend their policies. Republicans have concluded that they need to cheat to win. That's what they're celebrating. We're not going to unilaterally disarm, not now, not ever. And this redistricting war is just getting started.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. Joining our panel now in THE ARENA, CNN's senior political commentator, former Congressman Adam Kinzinger.
He has got a new children's book out called "That's What Heroes Do". Congratulations on the book. Very exciting.
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Thank you.
HUNT: Congressman -- of course, I want to -- so you're based in Texas now. You know, if you -- if you have thoughts about Obama campaigning with Talarico, I'm absolutely interested to hear them. But of course, this takes place in the context of this broader redistricting war where, I mean, clearly, Democrats now feel that Republicans have rewritten the rules. And, you know, theyre going to have to play by them, even though many of the states that are blue have different sets of rules for doing this.
KINZINGER: Yeah. That's right. And they have to I mean, honestly, if you think about like, why is it that Russia and the United States never use nuclear weapons against each other? This will make sense in a second. And it was because we had this thing called mutual assured destruction. We knew that if we used them on Russia, they'd use them on us. And eventually both sides kind of made the decision every day not to do it.
And it's kind of the same thing with redistricting. If Republicans I mean, this is the thing that's so crazy. It bears mentioning again, because sometimes we just take it for granted as people understand this, it is not normal to do this in mid-decade. This -- this is done every ten years. They made a decision to do it again for the sole purpose of gaining more seats. A
nd if the Democrats at this point stand back and say, yeah, well, but we still believe in fair maps and everything, you unilaterally disarm. And I think only if the Democrats play the same way can we actually get to where we should, which is like nationwide redistricting reform.
HUNT: Fair enough.
Lulu Garcia-Navarro, I mean, this is essentially -- I mean, the -- Jeffries here is also threatening to potentially primary leaders or punish Democrats who don't get on board with this, which is something that they're -- they've been historically reticent to do sometimes. What do you make of that fact?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think they -- desperate times call for desperate measures is I think the thinking behind this, they have seen that if things go the way that they have, especially with what the Supreme Court did, essentially they, they very well may lose the House.
And so, I think their determination is very simple. It's math, right? This is all math. And they need to do whatever they can in order to beat back the Republicans. What also bears mentioning is that what suffers here is democracy because what is happening here is that people will be disenfranchised Republicans in blue states and Democrats in red states.
And so, this is really bad for our democracy. This is really bad for our body politic. But the Democrats feel that they have no choice. The voters will decide that in the way that they can. But Jeffries is bringing down the hammer.
HUNT: Kristen, I mean, the base of the Democratic Party may be all in on this, but voters generally say they don't like gerrymandering, right?
ANDERSON: They do. But I think at this point, if you are the Democratic Party, the reason why you feel a little more comfortable going in on this is that you feel like, well, if they assume that its sort of a plague on both your houses, that its sort of a wash, like, lets just go for it anyways.
[16:40:02]
I think a challenge they're going to face is how much more like blood can you get out of the stone in some of these states where you have Democratic leaders who have said, were all in? I mean, Congressman Kinzinger will know the state of Illinois gerrymandered out of its mind long beyond or long before any of this stuff happened. And so, if you are Governor Pritzker in that state and you go, heck, yes, lets stick it to Republicans, like, there's only so many ways you can carve up that state to make it even less fair to Republicans.
HUNT: Yeah. And of course, Congressman, she's referring to the fact that you were redistricted into a district with someone else and chose to retire. I mean, because part of this is, of course, some of its historically anyway, has been partisan, but some of it's also been like pro incumbent as well.
KINZINGER: Yeah, absolutely. They happened to me twice, by the way. Happened on both redistricting cycles. And the first time I won. Yeah -- the first time I won and I wasn't supposed to.
But -- yeah, I mean, and so I hate it. I mean, I want to be very clear about it. I think I think gerrymandering is stupid. Illinois has done it to the -- to the nth degree.
But the difference here is, is very simple, which is every 10 years, there's a census in the country. And then they determine how many state congressional districts each state gets. So, you have to draw new districts. And you know, that's where the games are played.
There was no new census done. This was done for one reason, because Texas thought we could probably squeeze out some more Republican seats. And so that was the first shot in a whole different battle. That's different than what happens every ten years.
So, like I said, for me personally, I think it would be great if the country passed redistricting reform, but I think both sides are going to have to feel the pain of this kind of redistricting war to both come to an agreement.
HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough.
Shermichael Singleton -- I mean, we, were just learning two, that it looks like South Carolina might actually end up in a special session to do redistricting, even after we thought the governor was not going to do that because of pressure from the Trump administration.
Because the other piece of this, right. Yes, there was the political kickoff in Texas, followed by California and other states. But then there was this decision around the Voting Rights Act that has prompted all these southern states to strip, by our count, as many as 10 black leaders. I mean, how is that good for the country? SINGLETON: It's not good. I look, I don't agree with this at all. And
I'm a conservative. I've defended certain aspects of the president's policies on this network since he got reelected.
But this to me, you have to have some level of morals and ethics. And I get some of the points from Democrats, like, we have to do this even though this is a race to the bottom, the rules have changed. So therefore, we change our values, too. That's just not the way I look at reality. I don't govern myself based upon how my opponent governs themselves.
If they have no values, do I all of a sudden dismiss mine? No, of course not. Somebody has to be the adult. Some party has to say, wait a minute here. What about the long term implications of this?
More Republicans should say, Mr. President, we want to win. This isn't the way to do it. And I would expect some of my Democratic friends to say to the minority leader, Mr. Jeffries, this is not how you win elections in this country.
ELROD: Look, we don't want to be doing this. And I just for the record, want to say that I worked on a campaign in Texas when Tom DeLay did mid cycle redistricting in 2004. That was started by Republicans. It is not something that we want to be a part of, but what I like about the way Leader Jeffries is the tact that he's taking is saying, we have to fight back.
We don't want to be doing this. I mean, Congressman Kinzinger is absolutely right. None of us want to be doing this. But if we stood back and didn't fight, our voters would be upset. We would lose seats in the process. And if were going to have any balance of power back in this country, especially in Congress, Democrats have no choice.
SINGLETON: You know, I'd rather lose seats and have values. But that's just the way I feel about that.
ELROD: Why do we have to be the ones?
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: I'm the only Republican -- outside of Kristen. I mean, I'm the only partisan here on this network for weeks now, I have been speaking out against this because I understand the implications for the country in the long run. Democrats could do the same thing. We don't have to agree on everything.
ELROD: But I think it's unfair.
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: At some point we have to stand up and be against something.
ELROD: Republicans are the ones who started this. And I do hope that we have a national federal policy in the near future after we get through this cycle that actually addresses this and keeps it from happening.
SINGLETON: But we won't, we won't. You know that as well as I do.
ELROD: Well, I would like to try to have some faith, but you're right. We got along.
SINGLETON: Yeah.
HUNT: Maybe at some point well see voters picking their politicians instead of what we're kind of experiencing right now, which is politicians picking their voters.
Adam Kinzinger, thank you, sir. Always great to see you.
Send us a copy of the children's book. I'm always in the market for new ones.
The rest of our panel is going to stand by here.
Ahead in THE ARENA, the stunning and unanimous decision today by the South Carolina Supreme Court overturning the guilty convictions in one of the most high-profile double-murder trials in recent memory.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:49:11]
HUNT: Right now, were following a stunning development in a high profile murder case in South Carolina that captivated the nation. The state's supreme court today overturned Alex Murdaugh's double murder convictions and ordered a new trial in the killing of his wife and son. In a unanimous ruling, the court pointed to the county clerk's improper comments to jurors, saying that she, quote, placed her fingers on the scales of justice and denied Murdaugh a fair trial.
CNN national correspondent Dianne Gallagher is with us, and we're also joined by CNN legal analyst, defense attorney Joey Jackson.
Dianne, let me start with you. You covered the entirety of this trial. How do we get here?
DIANNE GALLAGHER, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it's been five years now. Yeah. And look, this is a blockbuster. But I would say not entirely unexpected opinion from the South Carolina Supreme Court.
[16:50:02]
It's all kind of laid at the feet of that now former Clerk of Court Becky Hill and those comments that she made to jurors during that 2023 murder trial. Now, the opinion refers to Hill's, quote, "shocking jury interference", noting she, quote, "egregiously attacked Murdoch's credibility and his defense," thus triggering the presumption of prejudice which the state was unable to rebut.
Now we're talking about comments like advising jurors to watch his body language, not be fooled by the defense's evidence. And when deliberations began, noting this shouldn't take long.
Now, Murdaugh was, of course, convicted of shooting and killing his wife, Maggie, and his younger son, Paul. The court did note this is not a decision on whether he is guilty or not, just if he received a fair trial. And the justices said that he did not.
But it does mean that Murdaugh is no longer a convicted killer. And that's something his attorneys say is extremely important to him. He's always maintained his innocence, adding, quote, "The Supreme Court's decision today affirms that the rule of law remains strong in South Carolina. We look forward to a new trial conducted consistent with the Constitution and the guidance this court has provided."
South Carolina's attorney general says, look, they are going to run it back. He adds, quote, "While we respectfully disagree with the courts decision, my office will aggressively seek to retry Alex Murdaugh for the murders of Maggie and Paul as soon as possible. He also notes the decision does not mean that Murdaugh is being released. He will remain in prison for his financial crimes.
And, Kasie, that's extremely important to note. Alex Murdaugh is currently serving state and federal sentences for stealing millions of dollars from his clients and law firm. He pleaded guilty to those offenses, dozens of them. His federal sentence is 40 years, so he's not getting out of prison. But he is no longer a convicted murderer.
HUNT: And worth noting, of course, that Alan Wilson, the attorney general, is running for governor of South Carolina. So, there's a political layer to this as well.
Joey Jackson, if you are Alex Murdaugh's defense team and you're facing a new trial, what did you learn from the last one and what do you do differently?
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, I think you learned a lot from the last one. But I think on the issue of the decision, I mean, listen, you can't and you would hope when you retrial it if there is a retrial that you don't have court clerks who are influencing the jury, right?
You need to have a fair trial, Kasie. That's the basis of it. And no matter what I've learned from a case in terms of how it should be presented, it's going to mean nothing if I have a clerk who's in charge of the jury, who calls the jury to tell them, hey, were going to be late today, come in early today. What do you want for lunch today?
So, they have so much credibility saying, hey, you know what, don't be confused. You know, in essence, he's a liar. Verdicts not going to take long, is it? So that impairs what happens.
But I think the other thing that is going to be different is what the court also said, not only about the fairness of the trial in terms of the influence of that clerk, but also the amount of evidence that could be admitted. That has nothing to do with the actual murder. Remember that. What was this -- this panel of judges also said was you
cannot have 12-1/2 hours of financial testimony about how he's a thief. He robs from clients. He -- you know, there's not a dollar that he doesn't want to put in his pocket. He's not honest with everybody.
After a while, the case doesn't become about whether or not you murdered or you didn't. It becomes about are you a good or a bad guy? Its character evidence that simply shouldn't have been there. And so, the court decision also speaks to the fact that, hey, you could admit evidence as motivation as to why he might have killed his family, but that's just way too much.
So I think on retrial, not having to deal with all of the financial information, the court didn't say you can't admit any of it. The court just said you have to use your discretion as a trial judge, a little better in allowing for it. But do we really want to change the nature of the trial into a financial trial case and not a murder case? So, I think with that out of the way, they will -- that his Murdaugh's attorneys have more of a roadway to declare that perhaps he is not guilty of murder.
HUNT: Dianne, briefly, you mentioned that he's going to stay behind bars because he pled guilty to all these other crimes. But should he remain not convicted of murder -- I mean, does that change how long he could potentially be held in prison? I mean, does his life look materially different in the absence of this conviction?
GALLAGHER: I think some of that is still to be determined. What Joey pointed out is very important. If we do get to a retrial on those murder convictions, especially because, one, his attorneys have already said they will likely look for a change in venue. I imagine its going to be very difficult to find a jury in South Carolina.
So, there's a lot of steps that we still have to go through on this trial that captivated the nation. We talk about the cottage industry that kind of came out of this books, documentaries, miniseries, all sorts of things that still come from this right now.
[16:55:06]
And I don't imagine that's going to slow down any way whatsoever. So, it is going to be difficult for his team, I believe, and also the state.
HUNT: I'm sure.
All right. Dianne Gallagher, Joey Jackson, thank you both very much. Really appreciate it.
JACKSON: Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks so much for my panel. Really appreciate you all being here.
Thanks to you at home for watching as well.
And a quick programing note, the former FBI Director James Comey will join us live in THE ARENA tomorrow. Do tune in, same place, same time, 4:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.
But for now, don't go anywhere. The singular Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake.
