Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Trump Blames Messaging, Not Policies, For GOP's Midterm Blues; GOP Sen. Eric Schmitt's Basketball Mix-Up Derails "Gotcha" Moment At Hearing With Fmr. Special Counsel Jack Smith; WSJ: DOJ Reviewing If Prosecutors Mistreated Nixon. WSJ: DOJ Reviews Whether Nixon Got Raw Deal By Prosecutors; 1995: O.J. Simpson Found Not Guilty In Double- Murder Trial; Iced Coffee With Your Job Interview? Aired 12-1p ET
Aired October 03, 2026 - 12:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN ANCHOR: -- that you can find all of our shows online as podcasts at cnn.com/audio and on all other major platforms.
I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. Thank you for watching. I will see you again next week
[12:00:25]
KASIE HUNT, CNN ANCHOR: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to The Arena Saturday.
Every day that the midterm election ticks closer, President Donald Trump is facing more and more signs that a so-called blue wave is heading his way, and his frustration is on full display. This week, the President ended an interview with Time magazine saying this, quote, "Well, I hope I get a decent story. I don't think -- you know, it's hard to get a good story. Every question's a hit. I don't know what the hell's wrong," end quote.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Stocks are way down, and they're coming down further. We have inflation totally in control, and we've done a great job. And the thing I haven't done a good job with is explaining it to people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The problem facing the President is that it seems voters don't buy it when he says things like, inflation is totally under control. Just 17 percent of Americans approve of the way he is handling the cost of living. 17 percent. And when asked why prices are higher, two- thirds of people say that Trump's policies are to blame.
It is that simple. People are unhappy with the economy, and most of them blame the President. And now even staunch Republicans are publicly warning him that he is making the problem worse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARL ROVE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Team Trump needs to have a message of the day that it pushes every day and it stops as much of this extraneous stuff. We don't need to hear about the President saying, "I'm going to tear down the Kennedy Center if I don't get recognition." We don't want to hear about the -- I got the great triumphal arch."
BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: I would say that the Republicans don't have much going for them this cycle. The polls all suggest that. The mood of the country suggests that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: All right. My panel's here in The Arena. CNN Legal Analyst, Former Federal Prosecutor, Elliot Williams, co-host of the Interview podcast from the New York Times and a CNN Contributor, Lulu Garcia- Navarro, Former Communications Director in the Biden White House and a CNN political Commentator, Keith Bedingfield, and Former Republican Congressman and Speaker Pro Tem, Patrick McHenry.
Welcome to all of you.
Congressman, do the Republicans have anything going for them right now?
PATRICK MCHENRY (R), FORMER SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: A little rough out there these days. Little difficult. It's tough sledding. Look- -- and what Karl said was exactly right, which is you need a concerted effort out of the White House on what they've done for the American people and how they're making progress on the priorities the American people have.
We've not heard that for a day, much less day over day out of the White House. This is what happens in midterms. You get past Labor Day, the assumption is baked in, and the voters have a view. And the view right now is a quite negative 1 for the economy, for the way that they're experiencing the economy, more importantly than anything else, right?
The cost of living. They look at this at the gas prices, they look at this in the news, and they look at this at inflation that's being baked through because of the tariffs. The consumers are now facing it now in a way they weren't a year ago. So all these things lead for a major challenge for my party in just a month's time.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: And guess who they blame? Donald J. Trump, because all the things you mentioned are things that he did. He is trying to put the blame on the Biden White House. We are now two years into the Trump administration, and the things that all these problems are sort of at the root of, tariffs, the war in Iran, these are things that he did. And the voters know that. And so I think his strategy of trying to go around the country I don't think is going to bear fruit.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And can I just say that the banner that was up earlier, that Trump blames the messaging, not policies. As a longtime communications staffer, you have never, ever, what, you've never worked for an elected official who didn't say, "It's a messaging problem. It's a communications problem. Why aren't we communicating this better?"
But I am 90 --
HUNT: People just don't understand how him.
BEDINGFIELD: I -- great I am.
HUNT: Yes, exactly. Why don't people understand how great I am? I am 99.9 percent sure it was not the White House communication staff that chose to invade Iran, right? Chose to bomb Iran. So, you know, the idea that, like, he could stand back when, at a moment when, you know, as Lulu rightly notes, voters are not just saying, "I'm unhappy with prices. I'm frustrated with the economy. I don't feel like things are going in the right direction, but also, I specifically blame Donald Trump for that," that's a policy problem. That's not a comms problem.
HUNT: Well, and also, I mean, I remember obviously when Biden was struggling, right? And the criticism there was he was looking at people and trying to insist to them, everything's great.
BEDINGFIELD: Very much so.
HUNT: Look at these great economy numbers. And at the time, the Trump people were like, yes, you can't do that. And this President, it seems, has often had success getting people to believe the things that he says, but he's running straight into the same problem here.
[12:05:06]
BEDINGFIELD: It's exactly the same problem. And you, you know, you do sit in enormous frustration when you feel like, as we sat in the Biden White House and felt like, you know, we had a good story to tell on, you know, you had the stock market going up. You had -- you know, we had like, lowest unemployment particularly post-pandemic.
You had supply chains, you know, coming back to life and one of the most resilient economies, frankly, in the world post-COVID. But the problem is you can't tell people, hey, it could be a lot worse. And that is actually, I've heard Trump say a version of that. That doesn't work. I mean, we would, you know, on inflation --
MCHENRY: But the issue is inflation.
BEDINGFIELD: -- and on inflation, we would consistently say, well, the rate of inflation is cooling. And people are like, that's great. My stuff is still getting more expensive.
HUNT: Congratulations, it's still more expensive.
BEDINGFIELD: And he's running into the exact same trap.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes, you know, it's interesting. And on the blame point you were making, Kate where ultimately Donald Trump owns these things, we talked about a, a blue wave at the top of the segment. You said perhaps a blue wave's coming.
In many respects, it's less a blue wave than a red undertow in that the unpopularity of the President, and to some extent Republicans, but really the President luckily brings other candidates down with him rather than lifts Democrats up.
MCHENRY: So the issue here is, is the party in power is on the ballot.
WILLIAMS: Right.
MCHENRY: Right?
BEDINGFIELD: Very much.
MCHENRY: And you don't have an alternative vision from the Democratic Party, number one. What I would tell you is the out party has no obligation to offer that, and certainly the Democratic Party is not offering an alternative vision. You don't hear that from Talarico because he's got Paxton on the ballot in Texas.
So these things are set up as the incumbents being challenged about the state of the economy and the way the voters can punish the in party and speak out for the experience they have right now are taking people out of office.
BEDINGFIELD: And that's --
MCHENRY: That is to the benefit of the Democratic Party.
BEDINGFIELD: And that's exactly right. And the, frankly, the Democrats would be nuts in this environment to try to make these races about themselves and not about Donald Trump. I mean, that would be literal political malpractice. Now, as soon as we get to the presidential election, yes, of course, of course --
MCHENRY: That's going to be a challenge.
BEDINGFIELD: -- it's incumbent on the Democrats.
WILLIAMS: I have a white paper.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, if you watch -- if you watch any ad as I did the other night when I was in New York City and I was sitting there watching all the ads, and on the right all the ads are about scary Democratic socialists who want to turn this into a communist collective. And on the, you know, and on the left, all of them are about Donald Trump, right?
And so that is the message that people are receiving, and at the end of the day, it's not really about, I'm going to make your life better or worse. They're just trying to scare them into voting one way or the other. The other thing I'll say is you said a very important word, which is anti-incumbent. Because we are actually seeing that in blue places. So voters who are angry at Democrats because they have a super majority are struggling. Whereas the inverse is true. So like Texas, it might be a flip, right? But you might lose Minnesota. And so this is really interesting in terms of how the electorate is just mad at whoever's in power.
MCHENRY: Well, the corruption element and the theft of public funds is on the ballot in Minnesota. I think Minnesota could be this outlier year like New York was in the '22 midterms, where it was a big standout for Republicans about, around public safety. And I think Minnesota has its own special elements there, but it is blue states that are being much more challenged by Republicans, the Republicans have a better opportunity than in Republican-led states, where they're absolutely getting hammered.
HUNT: Yes. Is there anywhere else on the map, Congressman, that you think is -- that may be a surprise on election night?
MCHENRY: Canada. Canada for Republicans. We've got to look for external forces. I'm being glib about that. But I do think Minnesota's a special story, an individual story where you could see Republicans pick up the governorship. You could see major gains in Minnesota because of the dynamics of the Democratic Party and their malfeasance over 30 years in Minnesota.
I think you would see things across state legislatures. We haven't talked about that a great deal here but the flip of state legislatures and the significance there, I think we're going to see that play out on election night in the days after.
BEDINGFIELD: The counterpoint in Minnesota, of course, is the interior enforcement and actions there, and just the raw anger that persists in those communities. So I, you know, I think --I hear what you're saying, absolutely. I think in a year where the fundamentals are as strong as they are, at least as they appear to be right now for Democrats, combined with the anger on the ground in Minnesota about Alex Pretti, Renee Good, ICE being in those communities, I think it's going to be a really tough hurdle for Michele --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But it's --
BEDINGFIELD: -- Tafoya to clear.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, but it's also candidate quality. I mean Peggy Flanagan, you know, has her own challenges, right? And so --
HUNT: Well --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And so I think what we're seeing equally, like New Hampshire's another really good example of a race that is not very clear who's going to win that.
MCHENRY: Oh, no, Kelly Ayotte's taking it, walking away in New Hampshire.
HUNT: Well, in the Senate race. (CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In the Senate race.
HUNT: Yes, with Sununu on the ballot, yes.
MCHENRY: Yes.
[12:10:05]
HUNT: All right, coming up next here in The Arena, the big oops moment this week in the Senate. That's our quote of the week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What would you say if I had a series of text messages from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a Warrior Hawks game on February 3rd, 2024, the day after Willis and Wade announced their affair?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ERIC SCHMITT (R), MISSOURI: Who knew Jack Smith was a Caitlin Clark fan? Look, maybe that's the one thing that we have in common. We're college basketball fans. My job is to ask questions
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[12:15:16]
HUNT: Well, it may be his job, but man, it was a tough week. Because this week in Washington, Republicans exposed Former Special Counsel Jack Smith as a, drum roll please, Caitlin Clark fan. Smith made a rare public appearance this week to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about his two prosecutions of President Trump.
The hearing took a turn though when Republican Senator Eric Schmitt, who you saw there, attempted to catch Smith lying under oath, suggesting, poster board and all, that Smith used a 2024 Atlanta Hawks basketball game as cover to meet with Fani Willis, who was of course prosecuting the Georgia election interference case against Trump at the time.
The issue, though, Smith wasn't actually at that basketball game, but rather he was 650 miles away watching the Iowa Hawkeyes, which brings us to our quote of the week from a bewildered Senator Amy Klobuchar, who asked, "Could it then be that the University of Iowa is the Hawkeyes?"
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What would you say if I had a series of text messages from your team that said you were in Atlanta at a Warrior Hawks game on February 3rd, 2024, the day after Willis and Wade announced their affair?
I don't think you know that we have this stuff, so --
JACK SMITH, ATTORNEY AND FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- I'll give you a second to process it so you don't, you know, perjure yourself.
SMITH: You just took it down really quick. If I could look at that again.
I recall going to a University of Maryland basketball game where Caitlin Clark was playing. It was Maryland playing Iowa, I think February of 2024. But again, that's -- you can check that out if that's what we're talking about.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: University of Iowa.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is it the Hawkeyes?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So could it then be that University of Iowa is the Hawkeyes? Could that be it?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Could that be it? I mean, Congressman, it's a rough moment.
MCHENRY: Inauspicious. The day that Eric Schmitt, who by all accounts on Capitol Hill is regarded as very intelligent, very astute and the day he was touted as JD Vance's potential vice president, vice presidential running mate inauspicious.
We've all been there on Capitol Hill. Over 20 years, I've got my hits. I've got my misses.
HUNT: I don't remember one that bad though.
MCHENRY: Oh, I've got --
HUNT: I have to tell you.
MCHENRY: We'll talk about it -- we'll talk it over during the break. I don't want to belabor this. But in this circumstance, first of all, he gave Amy Klobuchar the opportunity to look, like, informed on college basketball. That's a mess.
The story is staff. And very important here --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Oh, come on.
MCHENRY: -- it is a member's -- no, hold on a second. It's a member's responsibility and a senator's responsibility to make sure they know what they're doing in these questions. But in this circumstance, I know what happened here.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
MCHENRY: The prep was done by the committee --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: AI.
MCHENRY: No. The prep was done by a committee. And instead of verifying and checking it, you walk in, you go. And bad, bad outcome. But again, I don't think it's -- this tells much more about the fact that not a damn thing's going on in Capitol Hill.
WILLIAMS: No.
MCHENRY: Pardon me, on a Saturday morning. But nothing's going on in Capitol Hill. This is, like, the most interesting thing that happened in a, like, the 50th interview of Jack Smith.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But again, like, right before the midterms, is this what you want to have Republicans be doing --
WILLIAMS: No.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- in Capitol Hill?
WILLIAMS: Nope.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Not knowing college basketball, getting this guy there and having him look like a meme-able sort of spirit animal. No.
BEDINGFIELD: It's also -- it's just -- it's a little more -- I think the whole thing's a little more damning because it, you know, it's one thing if the -- and I agree with you, it was clearly staff prep.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
BEDINGFIELD: I mean, that it was. But in the effort of preparing all of this, the staff were misidentifying the team in order to make this, you know, what they thought was, I guess, this very damning point about him having been in Atlanta. I mean, it's not, you know, the --
HUNT: Substantive --
BEDINGFIELD: It was -- thank you.
HUNT: Error.
BEDINGFIELD: It was a substantive error.
HUNT: Accusation. Right? Like, they were trying to make accusation. But, yes, the substantive that was on.
BEDINGFIELD: It's like, it's not like they were, you know, they gave him a bad number or, you know, the wrong name of something that, you know, was embarrassing, but didn't -- I mean, the actual substance of what they were accusing him of. So you got to think that as the staff were piecing this together, there was a level of, you know, malintent there that I think most people would look at and say, that is not what we want our Capitol Hill staff to be focused on.
WILLIAMS: Yes. And I agree with you both fully. It is such an egregious failure of staffing. That doesn't excuse the senator in any way. But the magnitude of the failure, we do know what happened here. It's -- and I think in this zeal to try to find ill will on the part of Jack Smith, they fabricated an entire thing.
[12:20:06]
Now, look, Senator Schmitt's lawyer. Having been a lawyer, I, having worked on Capitol Hill, I know the power of the Perry Mason moment, the gotcha moment. They -- it works well. It's theatric, but you got to know what you're doing when you sit down in that room, and this is such a colossal screw-up.
I mean, I've seen reporting that the individual who's chief counsel to him is now seeing some of his chances of going to the White House --
HUNT: Yes, he was potentially going to go to the White House.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
WILLIAMS: -- evaporating having worked on this and so on. But when I --
BEDINGFIELD: Yes, what else?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I guess, I -- my point about the staff wasn't --
WILLIAMS: Yes.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- that they weren't involved. My point about the staff is -- and this is a rule that I live by, which is if something goes badly, you take the hit. Because when things go well, you're going to take the win.
BEDINGFIELD: Which he did.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: No one's going to be like wow, the, --
MCHENRY: He did it with a sense of humor. He did with a sense of humor in the hallway interview, and he's had a sense of humor about it coming out of this, as he should. And he is not the one who's pointed to the staff. I'm just telling you the practical application of this.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
MCHENRY: When you have a board like that, there's already been an enormous amount of prep work.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But it's not funny. But the problem is, I mean, I know we're sniggering -- MCHENRY: I'm not saying it's funny. I'm saying --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: No, no, but my point is that --
MCHENRY: -- he had a sense of humor about the mistake he made.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I get, but this is my point about this, which is, that it's not funny. He's trying to bury someone. He was trying to use this --
MCHENRY: By the way, Jack Smith has tried to bury a lot of people here, so --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But that's not what, but --
MCHENRY: Let's just -- the mean words on Capitol Hill are not trying to put people in prison for life.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But the point -- but the wider point here --
HUNT: Well, they actually have said it.
BEDINGFIELD: I'm not trying to accuse him of perjury, by the way, which is a crime.
HUNT: Yes, I mean, there were definitely threats in this hearing around criminal charges towards Jack Smith.
MCHENRY: This is not the first hearing. It's the culmination of a lot of years of groundwork on Jack Smith as far as to dig himself into this deeper.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, the word that Eric Schmitt said was, I don't want you to perjure yourself. I mean, that already --
WILLIAMS: Yes
GARCIA-NAVARRO: -- implies that there are going to be repercussions for what you're saying. So that this has become like a ha-ha moment to me, I think also misses a little bit of the point of what was trying to -- what they were trying to do there.
WILLIAMS: And getting out of the Jack Smith good-bad debate, just on the basic politics here, the only shared religion in the United States is sports particularly college basketball, college football. Basic errors on the campaign trail or as politicians about something like who are the Hawkeyes are politically bad, and they're not humanizing for voters.
They're not, you know, it does not make anyone endear themselves. And, I mean, I think there are other -- back to the JD Vance Vice President question, there are other things that could sink Eric Schmitt. But the thing many people are going to remember, Democrats and Republicans, is that this is the guy who couldn't tell you what the name of Iowa's basketball team is. And in most of the country, that's a really big deal. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes.
HUNT: Well, and we can show you -- so Katie Britt, of course -- Senator Katie Britt of Alabama was caught with her face like that. This is her husband, OK, who tweets this, who says, "My wife watching me sleepwalking and crushing left-over." And she retweets that. I mean, you know. But like that's -- or her face is like, it's, you can see it all right there.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes. It's, I mean, it is -- it's excruciating. It is just in the sheer sort of cringe, secondhand embarrassment, whatever we call it. It's excruciating.
MCHENRY: Senator Britt's face says it all. It was a slow speed wreck, and you knew what the carnage was.
WILLIAMS: We needed the theme music from Curb Your Enthusiasm right there.
BEDINGFIELD: We also -- I got to give --
WILLIAMS: Da, da, da, da, the.
BEDINGFIELD: I got to give Amy Klobuchar props for the just flawless pitch perfect delivery of the --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Indeed.
BEDINGFIELD: -- of the dagger, the dagger --
MCHENRY: Which by the way, you could hear --
BEDINGFIELD: Because she had the knife moment.
MCHENRY: -- perfectly clearly in the mic, her staff telling her what she then --
BEDINGFIELD: And she delivered it with such, like dripping disdain.
MCHENRY: Oh, yes.
BEDINGFIELD: It was beautiful.
MCHENRY: Oh, yes, a lot of theater.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: She's got good staff.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in The Arena, was Richard Nixon framed? Was Watergate all set up by the deep state? Why are we even asking these questions? We'll tell you.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD NIXON, 37TH U.S. PRESIDENT: I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their president's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got. (END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NIXON: I welcome this kind of examination because people have got to know whether or not their president's a crook. Well, I'm not a crook. I've earned everything I've got.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[12:28:49]
HUNT: The Trump Justice Department is now reviewing whether former President Richard Nixon got a raw deal during the Watergate investigation. Recently, a known Watergate revisionist gave a 78-slide presentation at the DOJ titled, "Watergate as Law Fare." That's according to the Wall Street Journal.
The department telling the Journal that he was invited because of his expertise and that the presentation, quote, "does not constitute an investigation." All of this comes at a time of renewed interest in Nixon's legacy with some Republicans flat out saying that the former President was, quote, "couped out of office." Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RILEY MOORE (R), WEST VIRGINIA: People are coming now to the truth, and that truth being that Richard Nixon was absolutely couped out of office and was framed, all of this was fake, and we now know more about the deep state and its power and its ability to literally change things at the top.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: You at home can't see the faces of the panelists as we watch that. Kate?
BEDINGFIELD: I mean, this stuff is so dangerous. It's so dangerous. It's just -- this is settled. This is a set of settled facts that are not only settled, you know, historically through the law, but have broadly been agreed on socially for the last, what, 50 -- almost 50 years now. And so just, you know, reopening this idea that we as a society can never just agree on a set state of historical facts having happened the way they happened is obviously not the first time. It's not even close to the most recent example. But I just -- everything about this kind of sends a chill through me because this is, I think, one of the most dangerous and long lasting, I can't even, I can't even find the word, consequences of the Trump era.
Now, he didn't, he, obviously he didn't invent this. And I know folks will say, I have, folks will say he tapped into an anger. I get all of it. But the idea that we're going to use this moment to go back and relitigate something that has been settled history in this country for 50 years under a hyper partisan conspiracy theory lens, dangerous. ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yes. Go ahead.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: No, go ahead.
WILLIAMS: I would say, you know, and it makes total sense if you believe that there is a deep state buried deep inside the government that is committed to undoing the President and conservatives around him. And I think for people who believe that, this makes total sense. But to your point, Kate, that's a lot of conspiracy theory stuff that has been long debunked over a long period of time. And yes, it is corrosive and toxic.
I will also say that the Justice Department being the ones to work on this while they are doing Nixon hunting things they aren't doing, is human smuggling, human trafficking, narcotics, antitrust, environmental enforcement --
HUNT: All kinds of other things that you should --
WILLIAMS: Yes. It happens, arsons, homicides or even prosecuting the President's opponents, which quite frankly, they spent a lot of energy on, don't really do that well, but they're not doing that either. So it's a bizarre use of Justice Department time and resources.
HUNT: Yes. One person who is playing an interesting role in this debate, who of course is talked about as a potential, if not the likely Republican nominee in 2028, is J.D. Vance, who has compared himself directly to Richard Nixon. Let's watch that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I also, just at a personal level, you know, OK, young senator, vice president, writes some bestselling books, is hated by the media. It kind of sounds like J.D. Vance. So I'm a little, you know, I've always liked, I've always liked Richard Nixon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I've always liked Richard Nixon. Like --
PATRICK MCHENRY (R), FORMER SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: Well, you're staring at me. And I'm a Republican on the panel. Let me just tell you. Yes, I grew up liking Richard Nixon.
HUNT: Even after Watergate.
MCHENRY: I'm sorry, I was born after Watergate, so. But there's a -- yes. And I was born out of office, yes.
HUNT: I'm sorry.
MCHENRY: So --
HUNT: Sorry the bow tie --
MCHENRY: Yes, I know, sorry. I mean, this is -- might go with my own.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: No bow tie, only Botox. That's what I say.
MCHENRY: But -- so let's unpack this. Is there evidence of the deep state? Yes, there is. Really? You know, so who is deep state and when do we find out who deep state was in the last 10 years, you know, in the last 10 years.
WILLIAMS: OK.
MCHENRY: Number one. Number two, saying that we are seeing a slide show, slide deck, about revising a piece of history. That too is not new. And the idea that somebody took a meeting at the Justice Department and that we've got to do pearl clutching about this.
(CROSSTALK)
BEDINGFIELD: There's still question about the deep state. Wait, wait.
WILLIAMS: Strong disagree.
BEDINGFIELD: Just really quickly, really quickly.
MCHENRY: Quickly. Go for it. Have at it. But that's two points. Go for it.
BEDINGFIELD: But a whistleblower coming forward in some form or fashion about wrongdoing is not inherently the deep state. And conflating those two things, I think leads, leads us to a bad place.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Did Nixon do it or did he not do it? Wait, wait. Did Nixon do it or did he not do it? Did he do it or did he not do it? And was it illegal?
MCHENRY: The tapes indicate what he did. That is all clear for history.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: And not only that, he acknowledged it.
MCHENRY: But I'm telling to think about this for a different lens here on this panel discussion rather than just going, I agree, Nixon was a bad man, right. There are laudable things about his legacy.
WILLIAMS: No doubt.
BEDINGFIELD: Sure. I would even -- I would agree with that.
MCHENRY: They had -- the reason why we're talking about this is the Nixon library exists part of the presidential library system. His papers, they continue to do research about that era, the opening with China and all that stuff that does have a connection with this point. You had the Vice President there and a member of the House you quoted from.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: So we're not -- but can I just say we're not arguing here about whether or not Nixon's legacy is complicated. What was said here is that Nixon was couped and thrown out of power by the deep state. No, but that's what the discussion is. We're not having a wide ranging discussion about Nixon's actions in China or any other thing.
We are talking specifically about how he ended up leaving office and why he ended up leaving office. And I think that is --
[12:35:05]
MCHENRY: That is not what we know -- apparently we know how many pages are in the slide deck. We don't know the contents of that nor -- so you're jumping to a conclusion and I'm giving you an alternative conclusion. You have your view. I got.
HUNT: So I can tell you what was in the presentation.
MCHENRY: So I'm telling you what, go for it.
HUNT: No, no. So, so during the presentation, this is according to "The Wall Street Journal" that reported on this presentation was given at DOJ. Shepard, who is this, this person that they had in, showed officials that some of the internal documents from the Watergate Special Prosecution Force that was first led by Archibald Cox, Leon Jaworski took over the probe after Nixon ordered Cox's firing in the infamous Saturday Night Massacre. Shepard alleges that Cox and Jaworski violated the due process rights of defendants caught up in the Watergate probe by meeting secretly with the judges, overseeing their trial and suppressing evidence from the defense. So he is like directly trying to contradict.
MCHENRY: Do you think that would be something of substance that we should know about? I would think so. Does it change the fact that he resigned from office? No. Does it change this panel's view on President Nixon? No, obviously not. But an undertaking like this is not the pearl clutching exercise that we should just, oh, the end of democracy as we know it, we're not going to have election.
WILLIAMS: But I just -- I get back to the very first principle here, as is there a deep state hidden within the government that is committed to undermining Republican presidents? And the answer is no. You know that.
MCHENRY: That's not.
WILLIAMS: No, that's true.
MCHENRY: I did not say it was to undermine Republican presidents.
WILLIAMS: That's what --
MCHENRY: If you go back to the Clinton administration, the Clintons, Bill and Hillary would tell you that they think that is true and there's a likeness to this and that you can have an apparatus of the enterprise of our government that runs counter to the stated policies they want to see outcome. That is -- then that is how I would define the deep state. WILLIAMS: I think the idea of apparatus, of course there are people who don't share the President's politics at work in government, but the idea that there's an apparatus that's organized toward taking down presidents, whether that's Clinton, whether that's Trump, it's just not true. It doesn't exist.
HUNT: All right. We are unfortunately out of time for this lengthy debate. Ahead here in The Arena, do you remember where you were during this moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If there is any disruption during the reading of the verdicts, the bailiffs will have the obligation to remove any persons disrupting these proceedings.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right, Mrs. Robertson.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All right. Mr. Simpson, would you please stand and face the jury?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
[12:42:19]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Last June 13th, '94 was the worst nightmare of my life. This is the second.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Thirty-one years ago today, Fred Goldman, the father of Ron Goldman, reacting to this moment from just an hour before those remarks you just saw.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Simpson, would you please stand and face the jury? Mrs. Robertson.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Superior Court of California, county of Los Angeles, in the matter of the people of the State of California vs. Orenthal James Simpson, case number BA097211. We the jury, in the above entitled action, find the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson not guilty of the crime of murder in violation of Penal Code Section 187A, a felony, upon Nicole Brown Simpson, a human being, as charged in count one of the information.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: October 3rd, 1995, O.J. Simpson was acquitted by a jury for the killings of his former wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. The moment the verdict was read, one of the most unifying and divisive moments in recent American history. Unifying in the sense that we basically all remember where we were in that moment.
Phone companies reported that basically no one was making any calls because everyone was watching television. The stock market saw a deep drop in the number of trades. Water companies reported historic lows in usage, presumably because nobody wanted to use that moment to go to the bathroom. But the not guilty verdict quickly exposed an America deeply divided along racial lines.
A CNN poll conducted just after the jury's decision found that 62 percent of white Americans believed that Simpson should have been found guilty, compared with 14 percent of black Americans. So, I mean, I remember being in my fifth grade classroom, not to date myself, but like my choir teacher had put it on television for a whole bunch of 10 year olds. We can debate like the propriety of that and whether or not it should have happened, but I do remember exactly where I was even today. I have to imagine most of you guys do too.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes, I was in eighth grade. My eighth grade teacher put it on television. I remember it very well. I actually remembered, I didn't think about it until the clip started playing, but I remembered that the forewoman fumbled his name. Like I knew when the clip started playing I was like, she's going to fumble his name because I remember that moment. But yes, I mean, it was truly a moment where all eyes in the country were on the same television, essentially.
[12:45:03]
And, you know, I remember there being a sense of not out -- not outrage. We were really too young. I think we were too young even --
HUNT: I didn't understand I was too young to have.
BEDINGFIELD: I mean, we had been following, of course, the case, and we knew, you know, I think there was a sense of surprise, but not, I think that we were too young to really grapple and certainly too young to really grapple with the racial component that sort of had really had, you know, exploded in the country around this. But it is. It's absolutely a memory that is, yes, in my mind.
HUNT: Elliot Williams, let's watch. This was Denise Brown, who actually gave an interview to ABC this past week, talking about her sister, Nicole Brown Simpson, watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DENISE BROWN, NICOLE BROWN SIMPSON'S SISTER: That's why I want to talk to young people. I want to talk to young girls, young men, young boys. I want to talk to every victim out there before it's too late. You don't want to end up like Nicole. I think it's so important to reach people when they're young before they get into these, like, horrific relationships.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: She's talking, of course, about, you know, the dynamic around gender, women and men. But of course, at the time, this was largely about race.
WILLIAMS: Yes. And I think lost in sort of a lot of things we're talking about here, about how polarized it was and so on, was the dynamic between O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson was not a positive one, certainly during their time together, but also leading up to whatever happened on that night and, you know, the 911 calls and so on. And she raises an important point just in terms of whatever is going on behind the scenes in people's lives and so on.
You know, and I would also just say this one, for me, is a big one in that it's really the first modern, even cable news trial of the century. It reshaped the way we watch and what we expect from criminal trials while we watch them on television. And I think it's almost before O.J. and after O.J. I mean, I largely wrote my book about this last year, just about how we take in events like this.
And I think people expect that kind of sensation now even in relatively humdrum, boring trials. This is what people --
MCHENRY: But your book on Bernie Goetz, you explained this as a cultural moment of people's understanding of something, and you put it in that context.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
MCHENRY: This has that same level of just significance across America.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
MCHENRY: And we were discussing this in the break, which was on your college campus and my college campus, the same things happened as a result of it. Really fascinating to look back and see what that really meant.
HUNT: Yes. Lulu?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I think the thing that I'm left with and my recollection of the aftermath, of course there was the racial aspect and everything else. Gender was not much discussed, unsurprisingly. But what I really remember is this idea of a tiered justice system that I don't think that I fully understood and that there was a real debate about having the all-star team representing you and, you know, a sense that was this a fair trial and can you buy yourself out of a very sticky situation if you are powerful and wealthy regardless necessarily of your race? And I do think that was something that I remember reflecting on.
[12:48:19]
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, something totally different. The new debate over workplace etiquette. Everyone at this table has an opinion. My guess is you do too. We'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My Gen Z candidates are showing up to their interviews with iced coffee, iced latte in hand. It is perceived, from my opinion, my hiring standpoint, that when you show up with an iced coffee or an iced latte, that this interview is just like a stop on your list of errands for the day. Don't show up with iced coffee or the iced latte. Save that for well before the interview or after the interview.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: It's the Internet's latest debate. Is it OK to bring an iced coffee to a job interview? Is that OK instead of a T.V. show? I'm sorry, what is going on here? So the recruiter that posted that video did not expect that she would ignite a conversation, really, a nationwide debate about the shifting expectations of professionalism and challenges that Gen Z faces with the current job market. But it has also spiraled beyond iced coffee. If you're going to an interview, is bringing a drink the issue? Would a hot coffee be acceptable? Is the ice simply, like, too casual?
I mean, what do you guys think? I mean, listen, I've always had coffee on the sets of, I used to do a lot of work in the morning, so there's coffee on the sets, but I never would bring an iced coffee to a job.
BEDINGFIELD: Sorry, what? Sorry, what? Yes, I don't know.
WILLIAMS: Instagram, I was just scrolling a little bit.
HUNT: I couldn't focus. I don't know. What was that Kate? So it does anyone at this table -- would anyone at this table take an iced coffee to.
BEDINGFIELD: No.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
WILLIAMS: You know, honestly, I have searched myself this week, wondering, is this just a generational thing? Times shift, times change, and am I the dinosaur here? Probably.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: No, come on, come on, come on.
WILLIAMS: I'm trying, Lulu. I'm trying.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: People do not bring an ice drink to an interview. And why, regardless of the perception, everything else, are you really going to be going like, yes, I really do believe that I'm the best person. Wait, hold on. Sorry.
WILLIAMS: I know. Yes.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Anyway but I mean, it just doesn't make any sense. It's not even casual. It's just, like, it interrupts the flow.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes. Also, they're going to offer you a cup of coffee or a bottle of water when you come in. So if you're really like if you need to be caffeinated that badly or you need to hydrate that badly to get through your interview.
[12:55:08]
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But wait, what about bringing --
BEDINGFIELD: Part of this social --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: What about bringing the person that is interviewing you and iced coffee?
BEDINGFIELD: No, no. That's too --
WILLIAMS: Here's the question.
MCHENRY: Oh, I like that.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I don't know. I think that might be a good one.
MCHENRY: That's a good one.
WILLIAMS: Can we just stipulate that this is the superior way to consume coffee?
HUNT: Absolutely not.
WILLIAMS: Oh, Kasie.
MCHENRY: Correct.
(CROSSTALK)
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Iced coffee forever.
WILLIAMS: L'chaim.
HUNT: Thank you all for watching. Don't forget you can see The Arena every weekday right here on CNN at 4:00 p.m. Eastern. You can also catch up by listening to The Arena's podcast. You can follow us on X and Instagram at thearenacnn. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Have a nice coffee. It's one of the last weekends before it'll stop making sense. The news continues next on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
