Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Exclusive: Trump Mulls Removing Pirro Over Reflecting Pool Filing; Trump Denies Personally Approving Deal Blanche Made With GOP Holdouts To Get Their Support For Attorney General Nomination; Michigan Democrats To Pick Senate Nominee In Tuesday Primary In Race That's Pitted Progressives Against Establishment; GOP Rep. Max Miller Denies Abuse Allegations, Vows To Stay In Race. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired August 03, 2026 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Yeah, it is horrific.
Derek Van Dam, thank you so much.
"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts right now.
(MUSIC)
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's great to have you with us on this Monday.
As we come on the air, exclusive new reporting right here on CNN. One of President Donald Trump's most high-profile allies could soon be out of a job, all because of a bad pool reno.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Jeanine Pirro made a mistake. It was vandalism. The judge was extremely unfriendly to Jeanine. And frankly, I think she choked because the judge was really vicious. Instead of going after the people that did it, the judge went after her. and went after her department. And I guess she choked.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump this afternoon really turning on Jeanine Pirro. She's the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Two sources familiar with the president's thinking tell CNN that he is so furious that he's considering firing her.
Pirro's potentially unforgivable mistake, acknowledging that the president's high-profile renovation of the reflecting pool was, quote, "hasty and botched," end quote.
On Friday, the Justice Department dropped its criminal case against a man accused of damaging the pool's new liner. DOJ lawyers admitting to the court that, quote, "the damage that was the result of a botched installation and not vandalism as initially represented by the Department of the Interior, end quote."
Now, one of our sources says the president was blindsided with another saying he fumed about it all weekend. We saw that spill out onto social media with the president writing this, quote, "I disagree 100 percent with Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, on the reflecting pool. I don't know what she was thinking. And there may have been some contractor difficulty, but the major damage was caused by vandals," end quote.
All right, let's take a moment here. Okay, let's remember Jeanine Pirro has been aggressive in pursuing cases against people accused of vandalizing monuments or harassing law enforcement in D.C. She tried, though she failed, to indict a man for throwing a sandwich. Convict, excuse me.
Generally, you could say that she's done exactly what Donald Trump hired her from Fox News to do. Do you really think she would drop this case if the evidence were on her side after saying things like this?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEANINE PIRRO, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: There are several citations that have been handed out to individuals, and these are cases that will be prosecuted to the full extent.
Anyone who comes to this district who thinks that he or she is going to vandalize the reflecting pool or any kind of monument, you're facing 10 years in prison.
Someone was intent on doing incredible damage to the pool. We can state and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he caused damage, and that damage is over $1,000 -- with an expert. Come to the trial.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right, let's go off the sidelines, head into THE ARENA.
My panel is here, along with CNN White House correspondent Alayna Treene.
So, Alayna, great reporting here.
Can you tell us a little bit more about what the president is doing, thinking about Pirro behind the scenes?
ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, look, this was a key thing that I had been questioning over the weekend, which was clearly the president was disappointed and angry with Pierro. You showed that statement that he had issued shortly after that court filing was released on Friday evening. Saturday, the president responding, saying he disagreed with Pierro 100 percent.
But this morning, I spoke with two sources familiar with the conversations that he had been having throughout the weekend about her and they told me that he was furious and then he spent the entire weekend fuming about her and that given one of the sources had given the harsh criticisms he had levied at his US attorney for the District of Columbia that they expected it was highly likely that she would be out a job soon.
I think another key part of this is one of the sources a senior administration official told me that the president had been blindsided by that filing and, of course, that is something that people in the West Wing and throughout the administration never want to happen when it comes to Donald Trump. They said that he was never given a heads up that this was coming.
And of course, this is something that has been so central to the president's fixation. It's been something of an obsession, sources say, of his, not only the reflecting pool and trying to get that realigned and the right shade of blue, but all of the projects he's been working across D.C. on because he believes it's part of his legacy.
So that's part of why he's so angry with today that kind of across D.C. on because he believes it's part of his legacy so that's part of why he's so angry with Pirro and you could see today that kind of spilled out into public view.
At one point, he said that he thinks Pirro choked that's what he told reporters just a few hours ago in the Oval Office.
[16:05:05]
He also said she folded like an umbrella. These are very strong words from the president, but again, two people telling me who have been read out on some of the conversations the president has had that they believe she could be out of a job soon and that he's seriously considering it.
Now, one other thing I think is important to note here is that I was told that Trump and Pirro spoke by phone on Saturday. One of these sources said that their conversation, quote, "wasn't pretty". I remind you as well, and you mentioned this, that in that filing from Friday, they essentially say, and this was an embarrassing really reversal for Pirro, that there just wasn't enough evidence that the Department of the Interior, they said they had not been forthcoming with the information clearly in its possession if they had been they said, quote, "the government would not have sought a grand jury indictment".
Despite that and despite the Justice Department arguing there just wasn't enough evidence to move forward with the case against the Olympian David Hearn, the president I'm told still believes that it was vandals who are responsible for the damage done to the reflecting pool and that he doesn't have any anger really toward Burgum.
Burgum for his part has continued to argue that there was vandalism. He said on Saturday the evidence is clear scandals have repeatedly caused damage to the reflecting pool. That is what Trump is siding with now, really directing his anger at Pirro -- Kasie.
HUNT: All right. Alayna Treene for us from the White House -- Alayna, thank you very much. All right, our panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst, former
federal prosecutor Elliot Williams; Capitol Hill correspondent for "Puck News", Marianna Sotomayor; CNN political commentator, former Biden White House communications director Kate Bedingfield; and former Republican congressman from Michigan, Peter Meijer.
We are also joined by former Trump attorney, Bill Brennan.
Welcome to all of you. Thank you for being here.
Bill Brennan, this seems to have gotten remarkably personal for President Trump toward Pirro. But, of course, his anger at her surely related to his personal feelings about his background in construction, and for whatever reason, this particular project has become something -- well, let's say it's taken on some significant symbolism.
Do you think the president's doing the right thing here, firing potentially Jeanine Pirro over dropping this case?
BILL BRENNAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Well, Kasie, thanks for having me.
Of course, that's premature to assume he's going to fire the U.S. Attorney, but this is a great day for justice. The critics that have been saying that the president puts puppets in these U.S. attorneys' positions should be happy about what happened here. Judge Pirro, as U.S. attorney for the district, looked at the evidence as it came out, reevaluated the Department of Justice's position as a good prosecutor should do, employed her prosecutorial discretion, and decided to let Mr. Hearn's case be dismissed.
And, you know, that's the way it's supposed to work. And if it's true, what's been reported that, you know, the president was, quote/unquote, "blindsided", critics should be happy about that, too, because that shows that she's not calling the president for permission to act.
So, I see it differently. I see this as a great day for justice. I know Ambassador Eisen is one of the legal team for Mr. Hearn, and, you know, he appeared to have some sour grapes, but, you know, Norm's a smart and he takes a lot of anti-administration positions, but I got to part ways with him on this one. Any time I ever have a client who's indicted by the federal government, and for whatever reason, the U.S. Attorney's Office opts to dismiss the charges, I'm doing handstands.
So, I see this quite differently from the way that it's playing out in the press. Mr. Hearn --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: But this argument that you're making --
BRENNAN: -- looked at the evidence as it developed and said, I'm dropping this. I think it's a good thing.
HUNT: Right. And my question is not at all about her. I mean, if she looked at the evidence and did this thing, the question is about the president of the United States who has looked at all of those things that you just labeled as the right thing to do and said, this is the wrong thing. I want her out, potentially.
BRENNAN: Well, I might part ways with you on that the president's looked at all of the evidence. The president's running the country if not trying to run the world.
HUNT: I never said the president looked at all the evidence. I said the president saw what Jeanine Pirro did and is now potentially threatening to fire her.
BRENNAN: He has -- apparently has -- it -- you know, he has a contracting background, so he has it in his mind that vandalism causes, but it appears that the evidence that was presented to the U.S. Attorney's Office as it unfolded shows a different story. So, he's going to have to just get over that if that's the case, and he probably will.
But I applaud Judge Pirro --
[16:10:00]
HUNT: Will he, though?
BRENNAN: -- for employing prosecutorial discretion and doing the right thing if that's really the case.
HUNT: Okay. Elliot Williams, can I get you to weigh in here?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: You know, Elena Treene at the beginning said this is embarrassing for Jeanine Pirro. Yes, it's embarrassing for Jeanine Pirro. It's also embarrassing for the secretary of the interior, Doug Burgum. It's embarrassing for the president of the United States. It's embarrassing for the Justice Department.
Everything about how this played out is horribly embarrassing, Kasie. And I think it's important to step back and not, you know, make Jeanine Pirro the hero here. The question is, at the time that they filed charges in the first place, did they have enough evidence to proceed with a case that they thought they could win in court?
And I came on this program, quite frankly. We were talking about it saying, well, I don't know. Based on what we've seen in the public record, it doesn't look like they do, but let's see what evidence comes out. Well, the evidence that came out was this bonkers memorandum that the Justice Department's submitting, throwing the Department of the Interior under the bus saying that we never had evidence to suggest that we could proceed with the prosecution in the first place. They went forward with a purely political prosecution that they could not plausibly stand up in court and say that they could support in any court of law.
And they knew that. We all knew that. And quite frankly, the president knows that as well. If there is vandalism in the United States and certainly in all of our hometown, except for Peter, of Washington, D.C., that prosecute it -- people should go to jail if they're hurting national monuments.
But that's not what happened here. There was never evidence, credible evidence, that could stand up in court that this individual committed a federal crime.
HUNT: I mean, this has turned into a back and forth between Doug Burgum, the secretary of the interior, and, of course, the Department of Justice.
Let's watch what the president has said over the last month or two about what he says is was vandalism of the reflecting pool, and then we'll read to you a little bit from what the DOJ actually said about it. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Two hundred ninety, 300-foot slit right through it, probably a box cutter or a knife of some kind.
They cut it up good.
It's been gruesomely vandalized by thugs, bad people.
But we have one area where they cut it. It's still holding, it's not leaking, but they hurt it.
They actually caught them and they've -- those guys have some problems ahead of them.
They would cut it and they would grab this very expensive and very good material, totally waterproof. And they rip it.
They cut all the way along the base. Cut, cut, cut.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So there was the president.
Now here's what the DOJ now says actually happened. OK, quote, "A recent visual inspection showed damage throughout the reflecting pool, even in the middle of the pool, where a vandal would not likely attempt to peel the lining.
And sorry, this is, of course, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, not the DOJ. Given all of this newly disclosed information, it is difficult to attribute the widespread damage to the reflecting pool to vandalism, let alone to establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
Peter Meijer, should the president fire Jeanine Pirro over this?
PETER MEIJER, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: I mean, Bill makes a good point. And by the way, when you were talking about that indictment, I was suggesting we needed a commission to look into whether or not it was potential delamination, it was a curing issue.
So, I've been right on --
HUNT: You've dropped some -
(CROSSTALK)
MEIJER: I just want to say the adhesion was imperfect.
So, from a public facing standpoint, obviously, this is something the president has talked a lot about. And it's a fine line between, yes, there should be independence at the Department of Justice, though sometimes that's a bit of a fig leaf. But there should be that degree of independence.
At the same time, if it's something that's going to have political repercussions or is going to directly contradict what the president has said many times in many different settings in increasingly colorful ways, maybe a little behind the scenes heads up could have prevented that feeling of blindsided-ness because you know even if it's a minor thing, even if they're 100 percent right in the facts, we're going to be talking about this 180 as we're doing today.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it's also important to not lose sight of the fact that this is the second time in a couple of weeks that we've seen the administration through the judicial process be called out for lying -- outright lying about their stated reasons for making decisions when we had the case a couple of weeks ago where the decisions about eliminating clean energy projects in states that Trump won in or sorry that Trump lost in 2024. was not, Chris Wright said, it's absolutely not the reason we're eliminating these projects. And then through the judicial process, we learned, in fact, it was.
So, you know, there are ramifications in all this that are bigger than just the reflecting pool. And the other last thing I would just say is I am sure that Republicans across the country who are fighting for their political lives wish that are bigger than just the reflecting pool.
And the other last thing I would just say is I am sure that Republicans across the country who are fighting for their political lives wish that Donald Trump was spending less time thinking about the reflecting pool and talking about the reflecting pool and cut, cut, cutting of the reflecting pool, and talking a little bit more about what's going on in the lives of people.
[16:15:08]
HUNT: Maybe cutting their costs would be better.
MARIANNA SOTOMAYOR, CAPITOL HILL CORRESPONDENT, PUCK NEWS: One hundred percent. I mean, that is what Republicans are pleading for. Like, please stay on topic. Talk about affordability. That hope is somewhat lost among lawmakers who realize that they are going to have to champion this by themselves.
They have a big enthusiasm problem with Republican voters. They wish Trump, again, could go campaign with them. Talk about this, but yeah, not happening. Clearly, he's talking about cutting.
HUNT: All right. Bill Brennan, thank you as always for your perspective, sir. Appreciate you being here.
BRENNAN: Thank you.
HUNT: The rest of our panel -- of course -- is going to stand by.
Coming up next here in THE ARENA, a high-stakes Senate primary that's divided the Democratic Party. It's almost here. We're going to talk with Senator Chris Van Hollen. He's one of a handful of Senate Democrats who's broken with leadership in his endorsement in the Michigan race.
But first, a key vote on Todd Blanche's nomination now just hours away, questions remain about the deal he made with Republican holdouts and what the president knew and when he knew it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I understand there's been a sign-off but I don't know what they agreed. I think Todd Blanche agreed to reconfirm things that he's already said.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:20:37]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I didn't look at it. All I know is that Todd Blanche is great. He's going to do a great job. Everybody knows it.
And I understand there's been a sign-off. But I don't know what they agreed. I think Todd Blanche agreed to reconfirm things that he's already said. And what he said was OK.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Todd Blanche moving closer to being confirmed as attorney general after two key Republican senators say they'll fall in line and vote for President Donald Trump's pick. Just hours after Blanche appeared to formally, in writing, kill the Justice Department's $1.8 billion so-called anti-weaponization fund, President Trump implied that didn't actually change anything.
Now the trouble is, according to the terms of the settlement that created the fund, it can only be altered with the written agreement of all parties. That same settlement also effectively gave Trump, his family, and his businesses immunity for any potential past tax issues. That deal was largely unaddressed in Blanche's new documents. Just this afternoon, the president said he feels entitled to that special treatment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I was treated very unfairly by the IRS. It was weaponized against me. Think of it. I had a case from -- this is a 10-year-old case. And it was settled. It was done. The case was over.
I announced I'm running for president, and they terminated the settlement. Frankly, if you talk about reparations or if you talk about payment, what they did to me, I had a very good case against them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay, so here we are. where the president continues-- and I think it's worth, before we really dig in here-- worth underscoring why John Cornyn and Thom Tillis had trouble trusting what was going on, because Todd Blanche would say one thing, and then the president would say something else. And this went on for months. Just watch. You'll see.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I do believe there has to be compensation for people that were destroyed.
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: Anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they are victim weaponization.
TRUMP: I wasn't involved in the settlement. I could have been involved, but I didn't choose to be.
BLANCHE: We are not moving forward with the fund, period.
TRUMP: I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans.
BLANCHE: There is no weaponization fund. The weaponization fund is dead. It's not moving forward.
TRUMP: I thought it would be Very fair for people that spent years in prison, people that were treated so badly for, in many cases, people that did absolutely nothing wrong. So I view that fund as a positive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: OK, so clearly Elliot Williams, they wanted to get these senators to yes, that's the political half of this. The legal part of this is again to this question of if all parties have to sign off, that would be the Department of Justice and Trump, the president, is it clear that any of this is actually binding?
WILLIAMS: It is not clear that any of this is actually binding. And the biggest thing this exposes is the problem with having the president literally be on both sides of the V in the lawsuit here. It's, in effect, Trump versus Trump, or at least the Trump White House versus Trump, the man or the Trump Treasury Department versus Trump, the man. That creates a huge legal problem that led one of the judges that
looked at this to say, wait a second, there isn't even a controversy here. I can't even adjudicate this. This is a big problem.
Now, look, two federal judges who have looked at this have already been incredibly skeptical about all of these agreements and about this very settlement to begin with. And I think you can expect them to look at it. One of them, the federal judge in Virginia, Leonie Brinkman, has already requested at more than one point sworn declarations from the government. I think you're going to see that kind of thing again to put them further on the record just because it's not clear.
Now, in fairness to Todd Blanche, he has said multiple times that the fund is dead and signed a document today saying that it was. Now, I don't know if that's a legally enforceable I think there's a really good argument to be made that it's not, but I think a judge really needs to sort this out.
And it just does not, it's just more like, to the point I think Kate had made earlier. Republicans need to be talking about prices right now, not this. And this is going to stay in the news.
BEDINGFIELD: Yeah, not this, which is actually a pretty significant political vulnerability for Trump. This notion that he is focused on himself, that he is focused on enriching himself and his family. I mean, this is actually one of the big liabilities that Trump has out in the country and one of the reasons that his favorability is so, so low.
[16:25:06]
I also think just the idea that Donald Trump is going to adhere to any kind of independence of the Department of Justice, which he's made very clear he's not interested in or adhere to any written piece of paper period of any kind to constrain him if he decides he wants to move forward with this. So I, you know, I think Tillis and Cornyn, if they truly had the concerns that they articulated, they should have held strong, because the idea that this is somehow going to prevent Donald Trump from moving in the way he wants to move, that defies everything we've known about Donald Trump for the last decade.
SOTOMAYOR: Yeah, so the confusing change of heart, especially for Cornyn, because he was the one who was really insistent on getting in writing this clarification on whether the IRS can audit Trump, his businesses, and the family. He also suggested last week that, you know, if he could just talk to Todd Blanche, things could get figured out, suggesting that it was likely the president who was barring anybody from putting anything in writing.
So, I mean, we don't know yet if they've gotten any assurances, but there are legitimate questions, especially among senators, who will have to also take a floor vote. That is the big thing. Tomorrow, he'll be -- his nomination will go through the Judiciary Committee, but there are still questions about whether there are enough Republicans to confirm him. Republican leaders are saying, yes, this is fine. We can, you know, course correct this very quickly if we need to throughout the week.
WILLIAMS: But all I was going to say was that everybody at this table has followed congressional Senate confirmations to some extent for some time. All the statements from John Cornyn and Thom Tillis were senators who wanted to get to yes from the beginning. They've wanted to support this nominee and just needed something nominal on paper to give them the cover to do that.
I don't think that's being cynical about them. I just think they wanted to vote for the nominee and they have enough right now to do that.
MEIJER: And the thing that annoys me about this whole rigmarole, right, because the point of this was to get their support to get it out of the Judiciary Committee, not on the full floor yet. Now Todd Blanche is going into that with such a stronger hand because this question has already been asked and answered. Anytime a Democrat comes up and says, well, what about the anti -- hey, I put it in writing. I said it multiple times. How much more can I give you? This thing is dead.
You may still reference things that Donald Trump has said. Todd Blanche can't control that. But I think that's what I'm frustrated about in this whole process, is this is getting to a stronger position for Todd Blanche going into this confirmation hearing.
And what are we doing here? Why have we spent days arguing and talking about this? I --
WILLIAMS: And, you know, it's not -- and this--.
HUNT: Sorry, I wanted to let that sigh breathe.
(LAUGHTER)
WILLIAMS: And I want to be clear, this issue is not the biggest strike against Todd Blanche being confirmed for deputy attorney general of the United States. The fact that he is the former personal lawyer to the president of the United States is the biggest strike against him. Somehow that's dropped away.
And to your point, Peter, we're getting in the minutiae of, well, is his signature legally binding on a document when he said the fund was over, and it's sort of a forest trees issue?
BEDINGFIELD: And his role in the potential clemency, leniency for Ghislaine Maxwell, too.
HUNT: Yes, for sure.
All right, coming up next here in THE ARENA, new reporting coming in on a Republican lawmaker accused of domestic abuse. What allies are privately urging the president to do ahead of a critical deadline for Congressman Max Miller.
But first, Democrats voting tomorrow on whether Haley Stevens or Abdul El-Sayed will be their candidate in the Michigan Senate race. The first Democratic senator to endorse El-Sayed, Senator Chris Van Hollen will be here live.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): Are you ready to take on Donald Trump?
CROWD: Yes!
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Are you ready to send Mike Rogers back to Florida for a second time?
CROWD: Yes!
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Are you ready to go vote?
CROWD: Yes!
OCASIO-CORTEZ: Then I am your gal. Let's go win!
(CHEERS)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:27]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACK COCCHIARELLA, HOST: You've heard a lot of people say that if you're not going to just kind of fit in nicely with the Democratic establishment, you shouldn't be a Democrat.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Well, maybe the converse is true. Maybe the Democratic establishment should begin to understand they are way, way out of touch --
COCCHIARELLA: Yes.
SANDERS: -- with where the American people are, that we don't need a party anymore which is dominated by wealthy campaign contributors.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Senator Bernie Sanders, harsh words there for the Democratic establishment, just days ahead of the biggest test yet for the progressive movement, tomorrow night's Michigan Senate primary, when voters will choose what kind of Democrat they want as their candidate in one of the country's most competitive battleground states.
Joining me now, Democratic senator from Maryland, Chris Van Hollen, who was the earliest Senate endorser of Abdul El-Sayed, who is, of course, the progressive candidate in this race. And I think my main question to you, sir, is are you confident that
Abdul El-Sayed could win enough Haley Stevens voters in a general election if he were to pull off the primary to keep the seat in Democratic hands.
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Kasie, it's great to be with you. And the short answer is yes. I actually think Abdul El-Sayed is the stronger candidate in the election, in the general election, because I think he is going to be able to pull people together over that very clear message.
And Bernie Sanders outlined it as well, which is that we not only need to take on a lawless Trump administration, but Washington, D.C. does need shaking up.
[16:35:02]
And what Abdul recognizes is it's not so much left versus right. It is the folks at the very, very top, the top 1 percent, who have rigged the economy in their favor at the expense of everybody else and are now using about $60 million in super PAC money to oppose El-Sayed because he does want to shake up the status quo and they want to protect the status quo.
HUNT: Do you think that this all shows that Bernie Sanders is now the kingmaker for the Democratic Party?
VAN HOLLEN: No, I don't think so and I don't think he would say that at all. I think that's the voters, the Democratic Party voters, who are hungry for candidates who not only are going to fiercely oppose Donald Trump and the corruption of the Trump administration, but want people who are going to fight against these big money special interests that are trying to rig the economy against them.
I mean, people are really struggling. They're going paycheck to paycheck. Costs are going up and up and up. And they are looking for candidates who are going to directly address those issues.
And Abdul El-Sayed is one of those candidates. He will fight for working people. Look, this is why he was endorsed by the UAW, by the National Nurses Association, by AFT, the teachers, and others.
HUNT: So, one of the most animating issues, of course, in this race has been the issue of Israel. And obviously, AIPAC has come in with a considerable amount of money that they have spent in this primary.
I actually want to play for you David Hogg, who, of course, survived the Parkland school shooting, ran to run the DNC, is something of an up-and-coming young leader in the party. He compared AIPAC to National Rifle Association and referenced his own experience. Let's watch, and we'll get your take on the other side.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID HOGG, FORMER DNC VICE CHAIR: It shouldn't be. Both are getting kids killed. And I don't draw a line between whether it's kids in Parkland, kids on any street in America, in any community, or if it's kids in Palestine. It's not okay.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Do you think that AIPAC and the NRA are comparable?
VAN HOLLEN: Kasie, I think that the similarities between APAC and the NRA, they are both very strong and influential and well-financed lobbies, in the case of the NRA trying to stop common sense gun laws. In the case of AIPAC, wanting unconditional American taxpayer support to send weapons to the Netanyahu government and the government of Israel even after we witnessed the devastation in Gaza.
So, yeah, they're very strong and powerful lobbies. So is big pharma. So is big oil. So, in that sense, I do think that these big lobbies that spend a lot of money in elections -- obviously, they have similar characteristics.
HUNT: Do you think that whoever is the next Democratic nominee for president should or can? Is it politically tenable for them to accept money from AIPAC?
VAN HOLLEN: I certainly hope not. I mean, I don't think that Democratic candidates should be taking funds from AIPAC or from big oil or from big tobacco. So, I hope not. And I hope that we will have a policy in the next Democratic administration in the White House that is both pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian.
In other words, you can support security and self-determination and human rights for both peoples. But to do that, we need to get serious about making sure that our policy reflects that position.
HUNT: So, speaking of policy, and as we think about this fight that's crystallizing between the progressive wing and the more establishment wing of the party, socialism has become a theme because, especially in some of these New York districts, there are actual DSA candidates.
Now, Abdul El-Sayed has said that he is not a socialist, that he is a capitalist who has identified some problems with capitalism. But you yourself have suggested you may run for president of the United States. And my question for you, as someone who's been taking a progressive lead in your party, what role should the DSA, the Democratic Socialists of America, have with the Democratic Party?
VAN HOLLEN: Well, Kasie, you're right. I've said I'm kicking the tires.
[16:40:00]
And my view is that we are a big tent party, meaning we should make room for people with lots of different voices. I mean, people within the party can decide to agree or disagree with particular proposals. But look, you know, we all encouraged our colleagues to support Joe Manchin. He was the Democrat that could win in West Virginia. And I certainly supported Joe.
And when Mamdani becomes the Democratic nominee in New York City, we should be supporting Mamdani. And I think the Democratic Party is big enough to be able to take both voices. And I think we need to have a debate, Kasie, in the Democratic Party. We need to have a lot of churning. I actually think at this point in time, that's very helpful for all of us.
I will say, when it comes to, you know, these different labels that people throw around. I mean, I hear the president now calling Democrats the Communist Party and all this kind of nonsense.
And I'll just remind people that when FDR was formulating the Social Security program, Republicans and others viciously attacked him for being a communist and a radical socialist. So, let's keep all of this in perspective.
HUNT: All right. Senator Chris Van Hollen -- sir, thanks very much for spending some time with us. I appreciate it.
VAN HOLLEN: Great to be with you. Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: All right, ahead here in THE ARENA, a new statement just in from Congressman Max Miller as we get new CNN reporting on what President Trump is privately saying about the Republican lawmaker who's facing allegations of domestic abuse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I always thought he was a very good person, and I'm going to let the families figure that out. You know, those families, I know they're working on it. It's a very sad thing, especially when you know somebody so well to be going through that, but it's accusations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:46:10]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's a very sad thing. I know Max is a good person. I mean, I always thought he was a very good person, and I'm going to let the families figure that out. You know, those families, I know they're working on it. It's a very sad thing, but it's accusations. And I'm going to let them figure that out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: President Trump today addressing the domestic abuse allegations against Republican Congressman Max Miller. But amid those public comments, sources now tell CNN that Trump allies are pushing the president to encourage Miller to drop his reelection bid, fearing those recent headlines will cause him to lose.
The congressman is facing abuse accusations from his ex-wife, Emily Moreno. Moreno's father is sitting Republican Senator Bernie Moreno. He now says that Miller is unfit to serve and is publicly urging him to resign. Just moments ago, Miller again said he's not dropping out with just days to go before Wednesday's deadline for replacing him on the ballot.
In a lengthy live stream on Sunday, Miller, quote, "categorically denied the allegations".
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MILLER: Understand one thing, every one of these allegations traces back to a single source, my former wife. Just want to be clear, no court, no agency has ever substantiated any allegation of abuse against me. No criminal charge has ever been filed against me.
Ask yourself, if I had assaulted her, would she had offered to cook me dinner six days later? Would she have invited me to spend an afternoon at the playground with her and our daughter? Would she have written that we were in a friendlier place? No, she wouldn't have.
I'm not getting out of this race, and I'm winning in November.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay, CNN political commentator, former Trump White House communications director, Alyssa Farah Griffin joins the panel. The rest of my panel is also here.
Alyssa, Max Miller was someone who, of course, worked inside the Trump administration. You also are a Trump administration alum. He is, of course, repeatedly refusing, made that video on Sunday where he looked at the camera and said, if I'd abused her, why would she have cooked me dinner just days later?
What's your reaction to what Miller said there? And how does it square with the person you know?
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This is such a hard story. Listen, I personally really liked Max Miller. We served together in the first Trump administration. He's someone you'd want to be seated next to on Air Force One. He's a charming, gregarious person, but oftentimes abusers are that way.
And listen, he's obviously denied all allegations, but I would remind folks that before these allegations from Emily Moreno were leveled against him, former White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham also accused him of domestic abuse when they were dating. The allegations were in her book and they were very similar and they show a pattern of behavior.
And I wish that more people believed her at the time and perhaps he never would have been in office in the first place. But it's a tough moment for the Republican Party because many of us were saying, you know, recently Graham Platner needed to get out of the main Senate race because of the allegations against him. I don't care if you're left, right or center, if you have these kind of allegations against you, you should not be in public office. Max should get out. He should get the help that he needs. There could
potentially be you know, a redemption arc here if he really gets the help he needs. But it's a very sad story and he should get out of the race.
HUNT: Congressman Meijer, what do you think is the right thing for Max Miller to do?
MEIJER: Yeah, I mean, this is obviously taking place within a custody battle, a divorce, I mean, I was really waiting to see what Senator Moreno was going to say because if anybody is both concerned about the well-being of their grandchild and also understands sort of the scope of this, it would be him.
[16:50:11]
HUNT: Well, here, let's read let's read what he said. Okay, he says this. This is Bernie Moreno, the father, sitting Republican senator and father of Emily Moreno, ex-wife of Max Miller, who's leveled allegations that he denies.
Quote, "It's been horrific to watch this play out in full public view, all while knowing an innocent two-year-old girl is caught in the middle. Our priority has always been protecting our daughter and our granddaughter. Out of concern for the safety of my family, I hope to keep this matter private, but Max Miller's increasingly erratic and dangerous behavior has made that impossible.
As he has submitted privately, Max Miller needs serious psychological help. He is a danger to my daughter and I hold my breath every minute he has custody of my granddaughter. If there are any basic standards of character required to hold elected office, Max Miller fails them."
Now, it's worth noting Senator Moreno came under criticism for waiting as long as he did to put out this statement, but he has put it out. And I mean, this line, I hold my breath every minute he has custody of my granddaughter.
MEIJER: That's hard to skip past. I mean, I totally believe that Senator Moreno, again, did not want to bring additional attention to this. This is a private family matter. It's taken place over a custody dispute over his daughter's daughter, not something that you want to get litigated in the public eye.
I mean, both on the personal family side of the House, on the political side of the House, Congress is not in session right now. But I can tell you, if you're a member of Congress and you are the reason why all of your colleagues are getting a microphone shoved in their face and saying, hey, what do you think about this terrible thing your colleague has alleged to have been done, that is not a way to build alliances within a caucus.
It's a great way to have folks start to throw you under the bus. And I think rightly so given the allegations.
HUNT: Yeah. Well, so we're reporting here, too, Trump has privately told some allies he doesn't believe miller can win the race given the accusations and that he should drop out that's according to one source familiar with internal conversations.
I mean, do you think Miller can win the race?
MEIJER: I mean, I have no idea the polling in that district. I do know there was about a week until the deadline to potentially replace him, I think five days to give notice of that replacement. So, this is the time when he's probably getting a lot of tough phone calls.
BEDINGFIELD: Trump could easily put public pressure on him to drop out. I mean, presumably part of the reason that Republicans are being so tight lipped about this is because of Miller's closeness to Trump, to the Trump family. They don't want to get on the wrong side of the president.
So, if the president actually believes that he can't win, and by the way, if he thought that these allegations were horrific, as I think any feeling thinking person would, he could -- he could publicly say that he no longer is standing aside Max Miller, but he won't.
HUNT: Alyssa, what's your view on that?
GRIFFIN: I mean, listen, Max was close to the president. He led advance for him. He traveled all over the world with him.
I think that was kind of the expected public statement from the president, which is essentially, you know, these are merely allegations, but he should get out of the race. I mean, the last thing you want to be if you're Max Miller already dealing with these horrific allegations is potentially being responsible losing a seat when the majority is so slim and so tight.
He is well known in the community in his district that he's running in. He was elected there once, but this story is being passed around Ohio like wildfire. I do think that even though it is a Republican district, it could get tight for him and he should drop out for the sake of the party, but also because it's simply the right thing to do.
HUNT: Marianna?
SOTOMAYOR: These allegations aren't new, and frankly, the speaker of the House has been asked multiple times what he thinks about Max Miller and the way that Republicans have framed this is kind of how the president is responding to which is this is a personal family matter. You have to let that play out.
There are also other Republicans, Corey Mills, for example, who also has allegations of sexual misconduct and violence. There's also Chuck Edwards, who the House Ethics Committee even today said he violated a number of rules based on sexual harassment against female staffers.
So, this is something that Republicans are going to have to contemplate. I think the reason why this is coming out more forward is simply because there is this Wednesday deadline where Miller could resign. I believe if he does, and it could trigger a special election before this Wednesday date. And if it's after, then Republicans in Ohio could put someone in his place by next week.
So, there's a number of things moving around there. But I think that Senator Moreno's statement really started to move the needle because even last week, I wasn't hearing much from Republicans having a legitimate conversation about potentially pushing him out. And now there is.
HUNT: Yeah. All right. Alyssa Farah Griffin, I want to say thank you.
I have to say, I mean, I think you were in working on the Hill when Speaker Ryan was in charge. I -- he handled situations like this differently than current leadership, I have to say, or at least that was my experience.
GRIFFIN: I mean, very differently.
[16:55:00]
This is something that would never have become a days-long story under Speaker Boehner or Speaker Ryan. It would simply be, we are going to nip this in the bud. This person is going to step aside, and they would already have two people lined up to potentially replace him. It's a very, very different moment, and it's because a lot of the cues are coming from the White House.
Mike Johnson doesn't want to get ahead of where the president is on Max, and it's an unfortunate set of events.
HUNT: Unfortunate indeed, understatement of a word.
Alyssa, thank you. Really appreciate it.
All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: Thanks so much, my panel. Really appreciate you all being here.
Thanks to you at home for watching as well.
But of course, don't go anywhere. Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Hi, Jake. Happy Monday.
