Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

Trump: Anti-Weaponization Fund Is "Dead" But "I Wish It Weren't"; Just In: Officials Release Contents Of Guthrie Ransom Notes; Memo Obtained By CNN Says Trump Admin Is Trying To Rebuild Election Security Infrastructure It Gutted. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired July 31, 2026 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:01]

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT: My iPhone 15 Pro Max, it's kind of on its last legs, about 17 or 20-watt hours. One of these humanoid robots, 400 watt hours.

So, we're talking about 20 times the punch and really 20 times the concern for airlines. And that's why they're doing this big crackdown.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: I love how we protected the identity of that robot by not showing its face. Pete, put your robots on the people mover from Dulles that you're going to buy and take around.

ERICA HILL, CNN HOST: Oh, yes.

MUNTEAN: I'm ready, whenever they want it. We got to go.

"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.

(MUSIC)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Friday. Happy Friday.

Right now, honesty is the best policy, but it might not help get you confirmed as attorney general.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's dead, but, you know, I wish it weren't, to be honest with you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: President Trump today basically doing the thing you're not supposed to do, as Todd Blanche's nomination remains frozen in place, telling reporters at Camp David today that that controversial anti- weaponization fund is dead, even though he wishes that it weren't, notably doing it with, out loud, verbally, not in writing. That continues to be the sticking point for a few Republican senators.

Instead, the president choosing to attack those holding out in the Senate and getting personal. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Todd Blanche was a very, very good man. And he shouldn't be in the middle of this. He should get approved because you will never get anybody like him. You're never going to get anybody. And to make him a pawn in this whole thing, this is being done by a senator.

I don't really blame him, to be honest with you. I endorsed his opponent. And as soon as I endorsed his opponent, his opponent went through the roof and he won the primary election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right, let's get off the sidelines head into THE ARENA. My panel is going to be here, but we're going to get started with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.

So, Kristen, this time yesterday, Blanche was meeting with Cornyn and with Tillis, and we heard some rumblings that they might be getting closer to working things out. Then the president got involved. What is the latest here?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it's been 24 hours and no word at all. And I had been hearing that they were trying to get this done by 4:00 p.m. today. And after that meeting, I mean, there was nothing but optimism in the White House, the Department of Justice.

I spoke to a number of Trump advisors, officials who said the meeting went really well. They believed that everybody was on the same page. They were moving towards coming up with this deal, which of course is going to be the first step in actually getting to the confirmation vote. And now it seems as though it is stalled.

It's not clear what exactly happening behind the scenes but what you saw was first President Trump even before he said that kind of lashing out at John Cornyn saying that he was -- he was standing in the way, he didn't need to be standing in the way. And then he also said in the social post that essentially the people who perpetrated crimes in January 6 should be given some kind of compensation.

So that really set the tone for the entire day despite the kind of optimism that we've seen before and then you got to the cabinet meeting now President Trump also for the first time in that clip He does actually acknowledge that the fund is dead. We hadn't actually heard that from him before. And then he went on another rant about how great Todd Blanch is and how this is all Cornyn's fault. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You shouldn't be approved forthwith. I mean, you're not going to get a person like that. Everybody agrees to it. Don't forget, Senator Cornyn thought he was phenomenal until he lost.

He lost because of me. I endorsed somebody else, and as soon as I endorsed the other person, the other person became a rocket ship upward, and he lost.

And, you know, I think I'd be the same. I mean, I shouldn't say that, but I'd be upset also. And so, I fully understand it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HOLMES: Kasie, this is a problem of his own making. There were so many Republicans who wanted to pull their hair out when Donald Trump endorsed Ken Paxton for a number of reasons, but one of them is going to make it much harder to govern with the Senate he has. And remember, there are a lot of concerns that Republicans are not going to win the Senate, not have control of the Senate in November. So, this is their last shot.

Now you have all these people, including John Cornyn, who are angry at President Trump. He primaried him. He essentially ruined or ended his Senate camp -- his Senate career. So now you're having a lot of difficulty there, but I will tell there's a lot of frustration at the White House that this isn't done yet. They thought that this was going to be done again, as I said, potentially even last night.

Now, you're hearing a lot of blame shifting, a lot of finger pointing and a lot of frustration.

HUNT: All right. Kristen Holmes for us at the White House. Kristen, thank you very much for that report.

All right, my panel's here in THE ARENA, CNN contributor, host of "The New York Times'" "The Interview", Lulu Garcia Navarro; managing editor at the Cook Political Report, Carrie Dann; CNN political commentator, former director of public affairs at the Justice Department, Xochitl Hinojosa; and former chief staff to the former Vice President Mike Pence, Marc Short.

We're also joined by CNN senior legal analyst and a former state and federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for being here.

Elie Honig, if you were the president, you were trying to get this guy over the finish line, would you have handled today that way?

[16:05:04]

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I think the president just said the least helpful possible thing he could have said for Todd Blanche's nomination. The president just gave voice to the exact concern that is animating Cornyn and Tillis. They are worried that even though Todd Blanche has said under oath this thing is dead, that maybe there's some way in the future it will be revived.

And today, Donald Trump says, A, I think the hush fund was a good thing, the slush fund was a good thing. I think those people deserve to get paid. And B, I'd like to see it come back to life.

And so, that's exactly the problem. here. So, something's got to give. Right now, they're at an impasse. Cornyn has said he's not giving way until he has written assurances. Trump doesn't seem willing to give those or allow Blanche to give those. And unless and until that gets resolved, I don't see Todd Blanche getting through the committee.

HUNT: Marc Short, what the president had to say about John Cornyn -- expound, please.

MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Let's correct a couple of things. One, he didn't endorse Paxton until he knew Paxton was going to win. So, the order of events here was that Paxton clearly was going to win, then he provided the endorsement.

Him saying that this is exactly the way I would play it, as Cornyn is, exactly right. It's truthful. The president understands leverage better than anybody, and that's the way that he would be playing this game if he was in John Cornyn's seat 2. I think John Cornyn is saving a lot of Republicans from a very difficult vote as long as the weaponization fund is out there, because a lot of Americans don't want to be paying people who assaulted police officers on January 6th with taxpayer dollars.

And so, this actually would help Republicans in the Senate to get this cleaned up before a vote on Todd Blanch ever happened.

HUNT: The president had suggested that he could wait, could pull it and put it back in the new Congress. Would that help?

SHORT: So, this is an important point. It would not help. The next Senate is not going to be more Republican than the current Senate. But the president then could keep in person an acting position longer. And so, if he really isn't worried about Todd Blanche ever getting confirmed and wants him to serve a full 18 months in acting capacity, the clock would start later. And so, there is a benefit for him to do that to actually keep Todd Blanche in that position without having to get him confirmed in the Senate.

HUNT: Interesting.

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Elie raised a good point about reviving the fund. The Justice Department does not need a fund to pay January 6ers who have assaulted police officers. They can do it and they can settle administrative claims.

They have already made public to the world that this fund was a possibility that they may welcome any sort of -- any sort of, you know, claims before the Justice Department saying that they were wronged and the Justice Department can settle those and not tell anybody.

And so, the piece, the piece I think that is key here and the reason why Cornyn and Tillis want this in writing is because they want in writing that they're not going to pay January 6ers when it comes to those who assaulted police officers. And while the fund might not be the fund and like actual there and working as a fund. They could still do the act, and that is why they don't want it in writing. In terms of the immunity claim, Trump just a little while ago just

appealed in the court right now when it came to the immunity claim. There was a judge who essentially said that there was collusion between the Justice Department and Trump. He, therefore, appealed it.

So, it is very much an active thing that Trump still wants IRS immunity and that this is still something that he believes that he should have.

HUNT: Yeah.

Carrie Dann, to the that Marc's making about saving other Republicans, here was what Senator John Curtis of Utah said about Cornyn and Tillis. He says, quote, "The Utah senator," the paper writes, The Utah senator backed Cornyn and Tillis' efforts to ensure the fund is defunct and not just nearly dead. Curtis said, I think what they're doing is smart. I think it basically boils down to Attorney General Blanche. He says it's dead. They want absolute confirmation. I think that's probably a good ask on their part.

It underscores the politics for these guys.

CARRIE DANN, MANAGING EDITOR, COOK POLITICAL REPORT: Absolutely. And to Marc's point earlier, my first thought when I read the tweet from Donald Trump of, oh, I'm just going to wait until Tillis and Cornyn are out of office, my thought was that's a lot of confidence in having a working governing majority in the Senate.

There's a scenario in which both of those men are out of the Senate and replaced by Democrats in the new Senate. That's not probably the most likely outcome, in Texas particularly, but it is a case that I think both of these senators have also said I'm speaking for my Republican colleagues as well.

I'm trying to do the three-dimensional math to see this fund as anything but bad politics. Voters this far out from an election do not want to hear about the president rewarding his political allies financially when voters are begging Washington to talk about the only issue that matters to them, which is kitchen table issues and affordability.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Can we just remember how we got to this weaponization fund, which was President Trump suing his own government and his own government saying, we'll settle with you, and offering him lots of taxpayer money. So, this is also doing his own government and his own government saying, we'll settle with you and offering him lots of taxpayer money.

So, this is also like, let's remember the original sin of all this, which is that this is money that belongs to the American people and that President Trump isn't entitled to anyway, which is why it's bad politics.

[16:10:09]

HUNT: Yeah, well, and let's talk for a second about, I mean, Carrie, you mentioned the Texas Senate race. And yes, OK, Texas has been a pipe dream for Democrats, Xochitl can weigh in on this as well. However, there is a new Fox News poll of Texas that shows James Talarico sitting at 51 percent, Ken Paxton sitting at 48 percent.

Now, of course, it's early to registered voters. There's a margin of error of three points. But that's not a walk for the Republican.

DANN: Right, exactly. And Donald Trump also said the quiet thing out loud about John Cornyn. Had he endorsed John Cornyn, John Cornyn would not be antagonizing the president over a cabinet nominee. It's definitely a problem of his own making, both that Texas, which even if Republicans, I think, are still favored in that race, it is going to be wildly expensive to fill the gap that Ken Paxton has in being able to raise enough money in a very expensive state to pull off a win with a very flawed candidate in Ken Paxton.

HUNT: Xochitl?

HINOJOSA: Yeah, I mean, my sister is running for governor there. But one of the things when it comes to Ken Paxton is Donald Trump -- it was announced today that Donald Trump is going to bail him out. He is going to -- MAGA, Inc. is going to put a significant amount of money into Texas, a place where they do not want to be spending. There are other states that make up the map where they could keep the majority, and that is a seat that they do not want to defend.

There are also -- people are preparing for shenanigans in that state. They know that they understand. As of right now, the polling average of James Talarico and Ken Paxton is about with all the polls together, Talarico is about one point up. That is a huge deal this far out from an election.

And there is reporting that Tarrant County, they're trying to close polling locations ahead of the election. So, you're going to see a lot of the shenanigans happening in Texas because Republicans understand that Texas isn't a solid Republican state that they can count on in November.

HUNT: Marc, would you just --

SHORT: I'm not going to buy into the stealing elections theories yet or closing down booths, but I do think that --

HINOJOSA: They're voting on it.

SHORT: I do think that Talarico is a far left candidate. He's not a moderate the way she wants to pretend that he is.

HINOJOSA: He is a moderate.

SHORT: But I think the challenge for Republicans is a lot of Republicans who just sit it out. And like the notion is you need Republicans that cross over. No, if enough Republicans just choose not to go because they're not as supportive of Paxton, then it creates a very difficult race. And yes, I think the NRC has said, look, Mr. President, you created this problem, you bail them out. HUNT: You can -- you can have it. You broke it, you bought it.

SHORT: Yeah. Right.

HUNT: Yeah.

Elie Honig, I want to circle back to this question of the IRS issue that Xochitl was raising, because there is this appeal that Trump's lawyers have appealed a ruling that ordered sanctions against them for how they handled this lawsuit.

Can you walk us through kind of what this means, why they've gotten themselves, how they've gotten themselves into this problem, and why it's such a problem?

HONIG: Sure, so the federal district court judge in Florida who handled the initial lawsuit, which was essentially Donald Trump private citizen versus Donald Trump's government, dismissed that case when the party said, we have a settlement, and then what came out of it is both the slush fund and the IRS immunity agreement.

Now, that judge then went back and said, I've now looked further at the record, I've received more facts from the parties, and I've concluded that there may have been misconduct here, that there may have been collusion, that this was not an actual lawsuit, this was both sides working hand in hand.

And now Trump and DOJ, they're appealing that up to the Court of Appeals. And this raises an important point that I think Lulu referenced earlier. This thing can theoretically still come back to life.

Now, that's why Cornyn wants it in writing. Getting it in writing is fine. But there's really no difference legally between Todd Blanch saying it's dead under oath and putting it in writing. The key is Cornyn needs signatures from both sides of this.

So, what he needs is a signature from Todd Blanch or a statement from Todd Blanch on behalf of the government. That part should be easy. The tricky part, though, is who's the other party? It's Donald Trump. And until Donald Trump signs off on this, he, in his private capacity, could always try to bring it back to light.

I think that's really Cornyn's problem here. It's not so much whether Blanche writes it or says it. It's you need the other party on board. You need Donald Trump on board. And given his comments today, I'm not so sure Donald Trump is on board.

HUNT: So, speaking of writing, let's go back again. I mean, honestly, this soundbite never gets old. This is Todd Blanche, okay, talking to a House committee. It was pressing him to take this from a verbal confirmation to a written confirmation. Here was how Blanche answered it at the time. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. GRACE MENG (D-NY): Are you going to issue a new memo in writing rescinding that May 18th memo?

TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm not committing to putting anything in writing. And I said it over and over again.

MENG: Nothing in writing.

BLANCHE: I don't know what the purpose of putting something in writing. I'm telling you what we're doing.

[16:15:03]

Meaning, like, what's the -- why do I need to put something in writing if I'm telling you what we're doing? I'm not committing to doing anything in writing. No.

MENG: OK.

BLANCHE: I mean, I'll take it under advisement.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: I mean, Elie, I take your point, like verbally under oath, okay, maybe it's the same, but if it's the same, why wouldn't he put it in writing?

HONIG: It's the perfect example of what I was just saying. Todd Blanche could go write an affidavit right now in five minutes saying, I hereby swear and affirm that as the acting attorney general of the United States, we will not bring back the slush fund and the IRS immunity agreement.

The problem is, and Blanche knows this, and this is why he's giving that squirrely answer there, it doesn't have any effect unless the other side signs on, too. And I think Blanche is sitting there thinking like, whatever I say is fine, I can put it in writing, that'll take two minutes, but I got to get the boss, I got to get Trump to sign on in his personal capacity. And as we just saw, that's going to be much more complicated.

So, I think Blanche is savvy enough to know when he's giving those answers. I can do whatever I want, but I sure as heck can't make Donald Trump sign this. And that's really the heart of the complication here.

HUNT: An audience of one, as is so often the case when you see cabinet officials or Republicans testifying on the Hill these days.

Elie Honig, thank you very much, my friend. Always appreciate having you.

HONIG: Thanks.

HUNT: The rest of our panel is going to stand by.

Coming up next year, Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman will join us here in THE ARENA. What he makes of the new CNN polling that shows an increasing number of Americans identifying as Democratic socialists.

Plus, the situation unfolding thousands of miles away from D.C. that President Trump says should be a, quote, talking point for Republicans in the midterms.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: If we're not in office, our country will be invaded levels that made Spain look small time and when I watched it I said boy, I said, I'm going to say it because I knew you're going to be at Camp David. They say that's going to be a talking point.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:21:22]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

We are continuing to track the status of Todd Blench's Attorney General nomination. It's been on shaky ground all week because of public resistance from two key Republican senators over concerns about the controversial anti-weaponization fund and the deal that Trump made with the IRS.

Joining me now is Democratic senator from Pennsylvania John Fetterman.

Senator, I'm always grateful to have you here in THE ARENA.

And I know you have said that you're going to be a no on this Todd Blanche nomination, but I also know you have good relationships across the aisle. When you look at the landscape, are there more Republicans than meet the eye who are opposed to the Blanche nomination over these issues that Cornyn and Tillis have raised? And is that number potentially five senators or more like 15?

SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): Oh, yeah, I know. I mean, yeah. I'm hard -- a hard no -- hard no on Blanche and now -- I mean, I haven't encountered a single Democ -- I mean, a Republican that's like, oh, I love that $1.8 billion you know slush fund or whatever you want to refer to it at all.

It doesn't make any sense. I mean, it's unconstitutional, honestly, you know from what it seems. So -- and I don't see him being confirmed. And if anything, I think he's going to serve as acting or whatever the term, you know, as long as statutorily he's able to do that because I don't see being confirmed because there just aren't any votes.

I mean, he just the -- incinerated the careers of several Republicans, Cornyn, Cassidy and then -- well, Tillis, too. So that's three right there in play and Senator McConnell, of course, is ill.

So, I mean, the math just not there and now there's certainly not any Democrats that are going to support this. HUNT: And do you think that there are more Republicans than just the ones that you named that also don't want to vote yes on Todd Blanch, just aren't willing to say that in public?

FETTERMAN: That I don't know, but because I think they all realize that the math really aren't there now.

And as long, I truly don't know how long he can serve, you know, acting, you know, right now, but I think effectively he is and he is acting. So, is it really much difference? But I really don't see him being confirmed, at least certainly through the end of the year, honestly.

I mean, you know, Trump has zero leverage, whether if it's Coren or Cassidy or Tillis or these senators that are leaving.

HUNT: Let's turn to Democratic politics. I know that -- one of the candidates in the Michigan Senate race, Abdul El-Sayed, referred to you or potentially to what he would like to do with your political future. He said, well, if we put one ogre on a pike, then perhaps we'll be in a bigger position of power.

I know that you have responded to him. But what do you think it says about where the Democratic Party is that El-Sayed has done as well as he has done in a purple state Democratic primary and that he's using the kind of language that he's using?

FETTERMAN: Yeah, that El-Sayed. I mean, he's the Pontiac Platner without a doubt. Oh my gosh, he's the best news for the Republicans in Michigan, you know, coming. Rogers is tough. He barely -- barely just lost and Slotkin is a very strong candidate and Rogers just barely lost by I think 19,000 votes.

So, El-Sayed, he's a socialist. I mean, this guy's, you know, campaigns with proud pro-Hamas kind of candidates -- and people like Piker and others as well, too, you know? I mean, he can call me a name, I really don't care. But, you know, his views are garbage and he is just going to put that seat in play and the same kind team and the same people like Bernie Sanders and other ones after they just blew up the main race there by pushing P-Hustle in Maine.

Now they're doing the same thing in Michigan. So, like, hey, sit, sit, sit these out at this point because think the damage is already done because I've seen the polls and El-Sayed seems to be up double digits, yeah, and I think that's the third or fourth.

HUNT: I know, obviously, you and I have talked a number of times on this program about your own political intentions in terms of your political party, but I'm interested to know if you feel like you are vulnerable to a primary from the left in Pennsylvania when you're up for reelection?

FETTERMAN: Well, yeah, obviously, you know, anyone's, you know, has the possible of a primary, but we haven't even seen -- we haven't seen right now and now. I mean, that's -- you know, 2028 is a long time away, but without a doubt that, you know, you know, at least in in Wisconsin, you know, crazy pants is going to win for governor for the Democratic side. El-Sayed seems like he's going to win.

And you look at the woman in Colorado or the ones in Maine, and you know, look the kinds of people that were willing to vote for a trash bag like Platner now. So overall, without a doubt, the socialisms are really -- it's their dancing days without a doubt.

And, you know, now, you have people, they're proud that they're going to abolish the border, abolish prisons. abolish the Senate and the Pentagon. And I mean, that's not slurs. That's really -- that's their platform. That's the kinds of thing that these people are proud to run on and defend.

HUNT: You just ticked through quite a few people who defeated establishment or incumbent candidates from the left. I mean, again, directly, do you think you would lose a primary?

FETTERMAN: I mean, that's -- it's -- that's a long time out. No, I mean, no, but what I'm saying without a doubt, you know, I'm never going to pander to the fringe or the crazies, you know, and the DSA. You know, I'm a -- I'm a loyal Democrat. I vote 91, 92 percent line Democrat, you know, but yes, without a doubt, I'm going to always proud and stand with Israel.

And now I think it's always going to wrong to shut our government down. If we still try to do the same thing, I will be the only Democrat that will vote against that now, too.

So, you know, but don't claim it's a big tent party if someone you know that represents such a state like Pennsylvania, if voting 91 percent isn't good enough as a Democrat, Then yeah, there will be some crazy pants that are going to maybe to try to primary me, but overall, look at the kind of people that are winning right now, and you know Wisconsin, you know, they just elected Johnson and he ran and he was he reelected in my cycle in 2022.

And now, you know, like Hong -- I think I think her name Hong. Yeah, I mean she's running away with it now. Yeah, and no, that would put Wisconsin in play, you know, gubernatorial, because her views are -- I mean, they're bizarre even for, like, you know, at least left people.

You know, I know a lot of great progressives, you know, in the Senate. You know, these people would never even believe and have those kinds of views.

HUNT: So, given all that, I mean, are you definitely going to run for re-election?

FETTERMAN: I mean, I've already filed. I mean, I'm fundraising for it. I've already, I've already, you know, like, you know, if you look at look at my campaign, I've already, you know, essentially announced that now.

But it's like, why people keep asking, you know, why aren't you get other senators on here and ask them to it's like --

HUNT: Well, you're just in a very unique and interesting position. I mean, take the fundraising point. You just opened a PAC with Dave McCormick, the Republican fellow senator from Pennsylvania, but of course, a Republican. It's very unusual in this political climate.

What are you planning on using that joint PAC for?

FETTERMAN: Well, why is it bizarre when there are plenty of donors that have enough shared interest? There's a lot of things that Dave McCormick and I are going to work together and then so it's not, I'm not sure why that's really an issue. I mean, it's an individual behind a lot of the work together, and then so it's not, I'm not sure why that's really an issue. I mean, it's an individual behind a lot of the agriculture industry.

[16:30:01]

I mean, I'm on Ag, and now, of course, Dave McCormick's going to support our agriculture thing.

So, it's not some sinister thing. I'm not changing my party. If I was going to change this party, I would have done that by now. I mean, they've been offered plenty of things. I could have a lot of things.

HUNT: I haven't asked you. I've already asked you. You've already answered. So --

FETTERMAN: No, no, no. But let me say this too. Like you know, if I announce, yeah, hey, hey, guess what? I'm switching. You know, my votes are going to be exactly the same right now. It's going to always be wrong to shut our government down. I'm always going to stand with Israel.

I'm always going to identify the individual that's going to win in Wisconsin. It's just pure crazy pants, you know? But -- and you know, also, I can only say good things about, you know, we have a lot of great Democrats running whether Ossoff, whether it's Cooper, whether Brown, in Ohio or whether Talarico.

I mean, you know, look at look at the mess that the Republicans are putting running in Texas. And now, they put Texas really in play now, too.

You know, I won't be on your show or any other show criticizing, you know, these Democrats, but I'm going to call out the crazy pants or you know and they are, and they are going to hurt, you know, our chances because remember we need four seats, four seats. And now if El-Sayed wins, and it seems that they will, that would make it much more difficult, you know, after the crazies blew up everything by pushing a garbage candidate like Platner.

HUNT: All right. Unfortunately, we're out of time. Although I will say LeBron coming to PA feels like that's something we can all get behind in a bipartisan way.

FETTERMAN: Oh, yeah. I mean, we could get -- of course, yeah.

HUNT: Does Shapiro get credit for it? FETTERMAN: Oh, he'll certainly try. You know, that's one of his superpowers.

(LAUGHTER)

HUNT: All right, Senator John Fetterman, thank you so much for joining us. I really appreciate it. I hope you come back soon.

FETTERMAN: All right.

HUNT: All right, ahead here in THE ARENA, breaking news in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the move by law enforcement to hopefully generate new leads.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SAVANNAH GUTHRIE, NBC ANCHOR: I'm asking you, begging you to do the right thing now. Make the right choice. Help us find her. Tell us where to look for her. I truly believe it is never too late to do the right thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:36:52]

HUNT: Breaking news just into CNN. Authorities in Arizona have released the full contents of two notes allegedly sent by Nancy Guthrie's purported abductors to a news outlet in Arizona.

The first note came from someone who claimed to have her. It said, quote, She is safe but scared. And it said that she would not be released until $4 million was paid in bitcoin.

The second note was directed at the Guthrie family, and it claimed that Guthrie had died. Nancy Guthrie was last seen on January 31st, six months ago.

CNN security correspondent Josh Campbell, and former FBI agent, professor of criminology, Bryanna Fox, both join me now.

Josh, can you first take us through We've seen a lot of reporting of what these notes had said, but now we're getting a chance to read them in full. What do they say and why are they being released?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, and people will recall there were multiple notes that were received by different outlets purporting to be from the kidnappers. Some of those authorities believed were hoaxes and people were indeed charged.

But authorities say that they believe these two that are in particular that they're releasing today were from the purported kidnappers were now at the six-month anniversary since her tragic disappearance. authorities are releasing this for a very specific reason. They want people to read exactly what is written. All of us have a unique writing style, the syntax that we use.

They're still trying to identify the perpetrators. And that's why I'm going to read you a couple of these notes.

Again, authorities want you to look at the verbiage here to see is this the style of someone you know. Now, in that first note that you mentioned, this was on February the second. It was received by media outlets, including our affiliate KOLD in Arizona. The note said that we have Nancy. She is safe but scared they demanded the $4 million as you mentioned.

It goes on to say if payment is not received the ransom will be increased to $6 million U.S. dollars which will need to be paid by 5:00 p.m. on Monday the night. Once payment is received to the bitcoin address below, she will be released within 12 hours. If payment is not received by the last deadline, she will be killed. They say that your mother is aware of this and her life is in your hands.

Now, fast forward just a few days later, on February 6th, yet another note is received by the media addressed to the Guthrie family that much different in tone. They say we did not fully grasp the seriousness of her physical condition. We never intended to hurt her. That was not our intention. She perished shortly after she was taken.

We believe it was heart related. She is buried in nature now. Nothing you could have done could have changed the outcome. We want your family to know this and hope that you can all find peace. They say that we are truly sorry, which of course likely come as zero consolation to the Guthrie family that have been absolutely heartbroken by this incident.

The last thing I'll note is a lot of people that worked in law enforcement like Brown and myself saw that one video that Savannah had issued shortly around the time this note was received, a lot of people noticing a difference in her tone, whereas before, she was appealing to this person to let her mother go.

[16:40:05]

People recall that video, she says, we understand. And the tone of her voice appeared to be they want her remains back. It's how a lot of people read into that. And again, looking at this note, taking this at face value, at least according to the reported kidnappers, Nancy Guthrie did not survive.

Again, authorities are looking for all the tips that they can. In addition, finally, they're also continuing to analyze DNA from the scene to see if that may assist.

HUNT: Wow.

Bryanna, I mean, one of the other features of this first note that they released is that it includes some details of what happened at the scene that seems to give some credibility to this. What do you read into that? What do you read into what we've learned from seeing the full text of these? BRYANNA FOX, PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA: Yeah. Seeing the full text, I think, was the most illuminating part that we've received publicly since, of course, the video of the man on the porch. everything that Josh just said. We're able to learn things about the way this person is communicating.

But the other thing is that part you mentioned, Kasie, about the -- what was seen at her home, the broken floodlight that was destroyed and then the Apple Watch that was at the foot of her bed.

Now, just before I came on, I was trying to do some research to see if those had been reported from February 1st until February 2nd when these notes were received. And I had not seen anything. However, I had only a limited amount of time, but that would say a lot about the validity of these notes. If those were not reported publicly before the note was received, you have to wonder then why would that kid or this person who entered her home or the ransomer had that information?

HUNT: Josh Campbell, I mean, if you are in this situation, right, Savannah is now this week pleading with whoever knows. I mean, if we're going to assume that the contents of these notes that were put out there are accurate and she -- her remains are somewhere, how would the FBI go about dealing with someone who -- if this person says, well, we're truly sorry, we didn't want it to go this way. Maybe they are inclined to give the family the peace that they are begging for. And yet doing so could expose them. No?

CAMPBELL: No. You're absolutely right. I mean, again, it's hard to put ourselves into the mind of someone who would do a heinous act like this. But that is obviously something that is likely going through their mind that, you know, if the remains are found, could that then in some possible forensic way lead to me.

But again, authorities have been saying from the beginning and the Guthries have been saying from the beginning, they just want her remains back. They understand that they will never be with her again in this world with her alive, but at least they are appealing to the humanity.

And one thing about that second note, which is somewhat unusual, is -- you know, I don't want to use the word humanity too flippant, but the idea that they're saying, look, we're really sorry. You know, I've worked kidnapping cases in the past where the person ended up dying. You don't see a letter like this. In fact, oftentimes what we saw was a further demand for ransom in order to get their remains back.

And because we don't see that, because there is some semblance of, you know, some kind of humanity here where they're saying that we hope you can find peace, I think it's that part that the Guthries are hoping that this person that is still out there and has this weighing on their conscience or someone in their orbit, related to them, someone who might know something, just pick up the phone. Let this family have some sense of closure.

HUNT: Indeed. Just really twisted, stunning, so difficult.

Josh Campbell, Bryanna Fox, thank you both very much for your expertise.

And just a reminder that if you at home have any, any information about Nancy's disappearance, call the Pima County Sheriff's Department. That number is on your screen. It's 520-351-4900 or call the FBI at 1-800-CALL-FBI.

All right, coming up next here in THE ARENA, new CNN reporting on how the Trump administration is trying to rebuild the infrastructure that protects elections. The very same system that they gutted, now less than 100 days until the midterms.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:48:37]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

A new memo obtained by CNN showing that the Trump administration is scrambling to rebuild the same election security infrastructure that it gutted less than 100 days before the midterm elections.

We're learning that a key federal cyber agency, it's shorthanded as CISA, is reassigning the remaining employees into new roles where staffers expected to, quote, build trusted relationships with state and local election officials. This as election officials and nonpartisan experts warn it's too deep into the election cycle to make any major changes to any of this.

Carrie Dann, I realize your expertise at "The Cook Political Report" is mostly looking at the margins in these races and things. But I know you also talk with secretaries of state. You're kind of aware of the granularity in the local landscape that is our election infrastructure. I mean, how much concern have you been hearing from candidates, from campaigns, and from others considering what's been happening at the national level.

DANN: Well -- and like you say, we're mostly looking at the potential outcomes in these elections. But in these toss-up races that could be very tight, there's always an asterisk of if this is a very close race, there's going to be litigation, there is going to probably be accusations of meddling in some of these cases. So, it is something that is a major concern.

And not just for the candidates and elections officials who have been raising the alarm about this, it's voters themselves.

[16:50:05]

Gallup had new numbers out on this just this week that half of American voters are not confident that their ballot is going to be counted correctly. And two-thirds of American voters are worried about interference from our own political officials.

So, if you have an electorate that is not confident in the system, that's not even taking into account foreign interference. There is a lot of doubt and concern from voters about the integrity of elections. That's for Democrats and Republicans alike. Obviously, they have very, very different concerns about what could go wrong. But I do think it sets up a very sort of dangerous brew of doubt and confusion that could be very easily exploited by some kind of cyberattack that CISA is designed to try to avoid.

HUNT: Lulu?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, why do we have this feeling that our elections aren't valid? We've had an administration that has been a president that's been completely sowing you know, mistrust in the very foundations of our democracy. And he has been obsessed with passing, you know, legislation that really only further muddies the water. And so, you know, what I would say about this is that I think the concern by the American people is valid. I think we're tumbling into this election without a real feeling that local officials and certainly federal officials are working off the same hymn sheet.

HUNT: Yeah, I mean, Marc Short, you obviously worked for the former Vice President Mike Pence during the first Trump administration. You also worked for the president himself. A lot of his focus is over his loss in 2020. But the distrust that that has sown -- we saw, obviously, what unfolded on January 6 because of the claims that he had made about who won and who didn't win, how do you look at what is clearly an increase in Americans simply not trusting the machinery of our election system? Because, I mean, isn't that what democracy fundamentally requires, that we all buy into it?

SHORT: Yes, Kasie. I think that the reason for defunding CISA in large part is because the previous director of CISA, who was appointed by Trump, confirmed the legitimacy of the 2020 election result. I think that I was privileged to be one of the few who received the same daily intel briefings that the president received.

And I think there's been a lot of different stories about what that said about the 2016 and 2020 elections. But all that I continue to receive is that China, Iran, Russia, what they wanted more than anything else was to sow division and distrust in our system, more than trying to pick one side over the other.

And if we're doing that ourselves, we're essentially doing the job of our biggest adversaries and enemies. And so, it would behoove us to generate a lot greater trust when there's no real evidence of theft in our election system.

HINOJOSA: Well, election officials should not be loyal to the president. They should be loyal to a free and fair election. And one of the problems is that Donald Trump has put within his national security apparatus, they're the ones that run the election, or at least run the election security part of this, people who are loyal to him, whether it be at DNI, whether it be Kash Patel, whether it be his attorney general, et cetera.

HUNT: Well, any president can put his people on the top of those agencies.

HINOJOSA: Yes, absolutely. But yes, but all of those people are extremely loyal to him. And the FBI director should never be loyal to the president of the United States. So, I think that is one thing that I think a lot of people are worried about.

The other piece of this is we are about we're in August or it is we are a few months before the election. When I was at the Justice Department, we started this work. This work was already happening to prevent foreign influence in our election.

And what I mean by that is all of, you know this probably as well, is the national security apparatus was already working on collecting intelligence and ensuring that there wasn't foreign influence on campaigns. That means hacking campaign e-mail accounts within systems, working with election officials on the ground, all of these things.

If the federal government is currently trying to rebuild the election infrastructure. They are months behind from what is needed in order to secure --

HUNT: Not years.

HINOJOSA: Not years, in order to secure our election. And that's the part that should be scary to everyone.

HUNT: Yeah.

All right. One note that we do want to add. Yesterday on the show, one of our panelists made an unexpected comment about Hasan Piker claiming that he abuses his dog. Hasan Piker denies this claim.

All right. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:59:27]

HUNT: All right, thanks to my panel. Really appreciate all of you being here.

Thanks to all of you at home for watching as well. Don't forget, you can watch much more of THE ARENA tomorrow. THE ARENA SATURDAY will air at noon and again at 4:00 p.m. Eastern right here on CNN. Do be sure to join us. We'd be very grateful to have you spend part of your weekend with us.

You can also, of course, stream THE ARENA live or you can catch up whenever you want to. It's in the CNN app. It's that QR code right there on the screen.

You also can catch up by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. There's another QR code for the podcast. There it is.

You can also follow show on X and Instagram. We are @TheArenaCNN.

But, of course, don't go anywhere. "THE LEAD", anchored by Pamela Brown, starts right now.