Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Trump Lashes Out At Political Enemies In Partisan DOJ Speech; Rep. Becca Balint (D-VT), Is Interviewed About Senate Dems Join With Republicans To Advance Gov't Spending Bill; New Court Challenge To Mahmoud Khalil's Detention; Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Is Interviewed About Criticism From Dems. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired March 14, 2025 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: I won't tell you how old I was then.
(OFFMIC CONVERSATION)
HUNT: Really? Well, Jake, thank you. I'm excited to see it. Thanks to my panel as well. And of course, "The Lead" starts now.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you guys so much.
HUNT: Guys, thank you so much. Alyssa (ph), that was great.
[17:00:57]
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: -- is taking place. Republicans need to secure the support of at least eight Senate Democrats to avoid the shutdown. CNN's Lauren Fox is on Capitol Hill.
Lauren, walk us through what exactly is happening right now.
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, the votes are being cast on the floor of the Senate as we speak, Jake. And right now, this vote has not been gaveled. I mean, it's -- it is not final at this moment, but we do know that there are 10 Democrats who have so far voted yes, many of them in leadership, many of them part of the old guard in the Senate Democratic Party. Obviously, this has been an extremely difficult moment for the Democratic Party as they have been truly divided over whether or not to shut the government down, to try to have leverage against Trump's agenda or not. Last night you heard from Schumer that he was going to be voting for this, but he told us repeatedly in a pen and pad briefing last night that he was not going to say whether or not the votes were there.
So obviously, this is a really important step happening right now on the Senate floor. Again, this vote has not been completed, but after this procedural vote, we expect a series of amendment votes at the end of that process, then there will be a final vote to keep the government funded. This all happening obviously, in the early evening, just hours before that midnight deadline. Jake.
TAPPER: Yes, so it does look like a shutdown will be averted, at least for now. And Lauren, we should note, you talked about how Democrats are so divided. The House minority leader, the Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, was asked earlier today if he had confidence in his Senate counterpart, fellow New Yorker Chuck Schumer. And Hakeem Jeffries said, next question. I mean, how much trouble could Schumer be facing?
FOX: Yes, I mean, you are hearing so much frustration, especially from House Democrats, about Schumer's decision to move ahead with this vote, to support this vote and make sure that the government did not shut down. Of course, there really is such a divide in the responsibilities between what Leader Jeffries has to do in the House, where they were able to move this with largely just Republican votes, and in the Senate, where the votes from Democrats were truly needed to avert a shutdown.
House Democrats can vote no. There's really no consequence for them because this process can continue. Meanwhile, in the Senate, it's a different story. Despite the fact that Republicans have control of this chamber, they do not have a filibuster proof majority. That means at least seven Democrats, in this case eight Democrats were needed because Rand Paul is a no to make sure that the government stayed open. Jake.
TAPPER: And we assume that this is going to be gaveled down pretty quickly.
FOX: Yes, I mean, we expect that once all the senators have voted and it's the first in a vote series, sometimes this takes time to corral everyone to the floor that they will have this vote, then they will gavel it. But then again, they have to move through a series of other votes on amendments before they get to that final vote. That final vote though, just requires a simple majority. Republicans could carry that on their own, Jake.
TAPPER: Lauren, how unusual is it for Senate Democrats to be so divided on an issue like this?
FOX: It's really unusual, Jake, and in part because a lot of Senate Democrats, House Democrats have repeatedly argued over the last decade that they are the party of keeping the government open, that they are the party that wants to make sure that federal workers don't face uncertainty. But this was a really difficult choice because obviously this is one of the only leverage points that Democrats have in a divided -- in a situation where Republicans control all the branches of government. And they have been prepping for this for several months. And yet when they got here, they did not have a clear strategy in the Senate.
Just remember, it was only a couple of days ago that Schumer went to the floor and said that Democrats were united and not voting for this advancement of this bill. Then 24 hours later, a little more than 24 hours, he came out and said he was supporting it. Part of that reason, he said, was he was deeply concerned that if they went into a shutdown, there truly was no off ramp. His argument was Democrats were not going to have any leverage because again, they had a couple of votes in the Senate, but they do not have control of that chamber.
[17:05:01] TAPPER: All right, Lauren Fox on Capitol Hill with all the latest, thanks so much.
Now let's turn to our law and justice lead. In breaking news this afternoon, a norm shattering speech at the U.S. Department of Justice. President Donald Trump, who has long railed against the politicization of the Justice Department this afternoon came to the great hall of the DOJ and delivered one of the most political speeches ever given there by a U.S. president. The president claimed he was, quote, "turning the page on four long years of weaponization," referring to the Biden years. And then he launched into ways he apparently wants to weaponize the Justice Department against the news media and perceived political opponents.
He started, of course, by airing grievances, some of them legitimate, with investigations and prosecutions involving him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They spied on my campaign, launched one hoax and disinformation operation after another, broke the law on a colossal scale, persecuted my family, staff and supporters, raided my home, Mar-a-Lago, and did everything within their power to prevent me from becoming the president of the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: He then turned to his supportive attorney general and FBI director and presented what seemed to be marching orders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The American people have given us a mandate and really a far reach -- just a far reaching investigation is what they are demanding into the corruption of our system. And that's exactly, I'm sure what Pam and Kash and everyone else mentioned here and not mentioned is going to be doing. We will expel the rogue actors and corrupt forces from our government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Part of the orders also apparently include prosecuting those in the news media who do not cover him glowingly.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: And I believe that CNN and MSDNC who literally write 97.6 percent bad about me, are political arms of the Democrat Party. And in my opinion, they're really corrupt and they're illegal. What they do is illegal. It makes no difference how big a victory I had. I can have the biggest victory in history.
These networks and these newspapers are really no different than a highly paid political operative. And it has to stop. It has to be illegal. It's influencing judges and it's really changing law and it just cannot be legal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: It makes no difference how big a victory I had, the president said while complaining about the news media, it has to stop. It can't be legal. Prompting the question is the president suggesting that it should be a crime for the news media to report accurately that he lost the 2020 election? That as his attorney general, Bill Barr, stated at the time, there was no widespread fraud that would have changed the outcome? Is that what he's suggesting?
This is all of a piece, of course, in his view, of the Justice Department starting just hours after his inauguration when the president pardoned or commuted the sentences of every single rioter who stormed the Capitol on January 6, nearly 1,600 of them, including criminals, who smashed windows with police riot gear, sprayed police officers in the face with chemicals, attacked law enforcement with fire extinguishers, wooden planks, flagpoles. Last month, the Trump Justice Department tried to drop the charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Conspiracy, wire fraud, soliciting illegal foreign campaign contributions, bribery. Trump's acting attorney general at the time, Emil Bove, saying explicitly that the Justice Department made its decision, quote, "without assessing the strength of the evidence," unquote, against Mr. Adams, who has denied all wrongdoing. The White House's reasoning for wanting the charges dropped.
They wrote in a legal memo that they thought Adams indictment would interfere with his ability to help the Trump administration with the deportation efforts against undocumented migrants. Then there's the case of Republican former Nebraska Congressman Jeff Fortenberry. He was facing charges for allegedly lying to FBI agents about illegal foreign money raised for his 2016 campaign. The Trump Justice Department withdrew the charges against him almost immediately after the president took office.
Since Inauguration Day, the Justice Department has paused all investigations into corporate bribery. They've curtailed enforcement of a foreign agent registration law, deemphasized the criminal prosecution of Russian oligarchs. This as senior administration officials are eyeing the notion of closing the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section, which is the section that investigates and prosecutes alleged misconduct by government officials, Democrats and Republicans alike. Last month, President Trump signed an executive order pausing the enforcement of a law that makes it illegal for U.S. companies to bribe foreign governments over business deals.
And then today, in front of a room full of DOJ employees and prosecutors, the president listed political opponents, we didn't show you their names, and news media like CNN, we did show you their names that are providing not glowing coverage of him and suggested that we are committing crimes with no evidence and no truth to what he's saying.
[17:10:10]
Based on his remarks, President Trump does not seem to be opposed to the weaponization of the Justice Department. He seems to be objecting to someone else wielding that weapon. Now he has it. And who knows for whom he's coming next.
Let's get right to our panel. Jim, I'll start with you. Obviously, there was stuff in there that we can all applaud, going after fentanyl, going after cartels. But what is this?
JIM TRUSTY, FORMER CHIEF, JUSTICE DEPT. ORGANIZED CRIME AND GANG SECTION: Well, it's kind of what he's complaining about. I mean, he just front loaded this whole show for 10 minutes rattling off every negative you could think of, including cases like Jeff Fortenberry's where the guy served the sentence after being prosecuted in the wrong district. And this Department of Justice said enough's enough. So, look, I mean, I could pick apart lots of stuff, but I'll just say this. You know, I think what he's talking about when it comes to --
TAPPER: But you think what I just said should be illegal?
TRUSTY: No, what I think he's talking about with media mistreatment is defamation, not crime. I don't think he's trying to fill a gulag with Jake Tapper and his friends. I think he's trying to say there's something wrong about sustained efforts that are in lockstep with one party to constantly malign somebody from the other side. He's lived that. I mean, if you're going to pretend there's no media bias against President Trump, then, you know, it's going to be a very short show indeed.
I mean, clearly the media takes sides when it comes to President Trump and he's frustrated with that. And I understand it doesn't mean it turns it into a crime or something, but, you know, he's allowed to rail about it a little bit, I think.
TAPPER: Well, first of all, I'm not going to disagree that there's media bias. Of course there's media bias left, right, center. But the idea that the DNC, I mean, I think it would make people, the DNC, amuse the notion that I am a pawn of theirs. But beyond that --
TRUSTY: You're more a rook, you're not a pawn out there.
TAPPER: Well, I mean, we've had on people from the Trump administration every day this week presenting their case to the American people. Beyond that, though, and I'll go to you, he's talking about criminalizing it. This isn't a -- if it was a grievance session about the media, I would have at it. You know, by the way, Joe Biden did that, too. But I mean, this was something else.
This was talking about criminalizing it.
TOM DUPREE, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASST. ATTY. GENERAL, G.W. BUSH ADMIN.: Well, look, I think all of us can agree that reporters should not go to jail for doing their jobs. I mean, that's kind of where I begin and where I end. What I thought was notable today, Jake, and I agree with you, by the way, that it was norm shattering. I mean, the great hall of justice is usually used for, you know, DOJ awards ceremonies, attorney general speeches and the like. So, again, Trump added it to his list of norm shattering events. But in many respects, I thought today's remarks were very classic Trump. He began by, you know, vowing to get even against his enemies. He talked strong on crime, getting tough on crime, getting tough on fentanyl, getting tough on illegal immigration, I thought those were the strongest portions of speech.
TAPPER: Right. And bravo.
DUPREE: I like that. I mean, that's part of the 4 percent --
TAPPER: Right.
DUPREE: -- positive content. I thought that was very good. And then, of course, he walked off the stage as YMCA blared over the speaker.
TAPPER: Yes.
DUPREE: So again, it was a day like none other the Justice Department has seen. But I think from his perspective, it was vitally important for him to physically go to the Justice Department to both kind of spike the football, in a sense, and say, there's a new sheriff in town.
TAPPER: Yes. Xochitl, let me just say, what's your impression of what President Biden thought of the Garland Justice Department for whom you worked and the news media? I'm not saying they're not the same guys and they don't have the same complaints.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.
TAPPER: But was he a fan of either, President Biden?
HINOJOSA: I will say, and you've done reporting on this as well, and so a lot of others, is that the White House was often not a fan of what the Justice Department is doing. And you know what, that happens in many presidencies. There are times when Barack Obama was frustrated with Eric Holder. Normally, if the attorney general is doing their job right and not coordinating with the White House on law enforcement issues and especially on making decisions --
TAPPER: Yes.
HINOJOSA: -- on criminal investigations, then yes, there will be times that the president is going to be at that.
TAPPER: It's more than Obama versus Holder, though, because --
HINOJOSA: Yes.
TAPPER: -- there are investigations into Joe Biden --
HINOJOSA: Absolutely.
TAPPER: -- and investigations --
HINOJOSA: And into his son. TAPPER: -- and a criminal prosecution and a guilty verdict against Hunter.
HINOJOSA: And it's his son. That's exactly right. Yes. And there were -- he had grievances with the media, and we heard that from Joe Biden.
I think that what you saw here, and we cannot normalize it, was a political rally at the Justice Department. There were about -- I looked at the audience, there were about five career people that I could see in that Justice Department. It wasn't filled with career people the way that it normally is. This was a speech about Donald Trump going after his foes and protecting himself and his friends, and that's what that was about. He listed a number of people, he listed the media he wanted to go after.
TAPPER: Yes.
HINOJOSA: That is something that is unprecedented and the American people should be truly worried about.
DUPREE: I don't think Trump is attuned to kind of the traditional distinctions that historically have been observed between, you know, for example, political actors at the White House and the Justice Department, and that this is not something that he subscribes to in the way that previous presidents have. I mean, we saw it today, but we've also seen it in the last two months since he to office.
HINOJOSA: We can't normalize, though.
TAPPER: So, first of all, Jim, you're here. Why do you think you're here? Why do you think we invited you here? To give that point of view.
[17:15:05]
TRUSTY: Well --
TAPPER: OK, but -- but --
TRUSTY: There's always change afoot in CNN, I get it. I know.
TAPPER: But my point is, why are you here?
TRUSTY: Because I'm trying to give some objectivity to something.
TAPPER: No, no. Why do you think we invited you?
TRUSTY: Well, I mean, you want to do a victory lap because I'm here. That's fine.
TAPPER: No, no, but I'm just saying --
TRUSTY: Because I'm eye candy, Jake. Clearly, that's why I'm here.
TAPPER: You are to me. TRUSTY: No, look -- we'll talk later. No, look, I'm happy to provide a countervailing point from time to time. What I would say is the characterization of, even the tone of this presentation today is off. I mean, this guy spent 20 minutes talking about Bobby Knight and I'm sitting there thinking, if my team hadn't gotten eliminated last night, I'd love basketball conversation. But I'm watching it going, oh, OK.
And he had a light tone throughout 99 percent of this thing. What you guys have done is grafted together the scare tactics of, oh my God, he's going to criminalize CNN. It's just not realistic. He's looking at it like I've been slandered. He has a legitimate grievance that he was treated different than any president or former president.
TAPPER: By the Justice --
HINOJOSA: And he is not.
TAPPER: By the Justice Department.
TRUSTY: By the Justice Department.
HINOJOSA: And there were indictments.
TAPPER: We are going to keep this conversation going in the next block. Everyone stick around. Much more in our breaking news and moments. President Trump lashing at his enemies in a stunning speech at the Justice Department. Also talking about Bobby Knight for 20 minutes.
Jim wants me to mention that.
Plus, more breaking news on Capitol Hill. Ten Democrats just joined with Republicans to clear a crucial hurdle. And now we're waiting for a final vote to avoid a government shutdown. And the federal government cracking down on Columbia University and the students who were involved in anti-Israel, occasionally anti-Semitic protests on campus. The new ultimatum that that Ivy League school is facing as immigration officials searched two dorms.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:20:50]
TAPPER: Welcome back. The crucial vote to dodge government shutdown just passed. Ten Senate Democrats joined with Republicans, 52 Republicans to pass the funding measure that the House passed earlier this week, despite growing pressure from the rest of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party's base to block that bill. I'm back with my panel.
Let's go back. We'll talk more about the government funding bill later in the show, but I have a legal panel here, so let's stick with this. Xochitl, I want you to take a listen to this from President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: We must be honest about the lies and abuses that have occurred within these walls. Unfortunately, in recent years, a corrupt group of hacks and radicals within the ranks of the American government obliterated the trust and goodwill built up over generations. They weaponized the vast powers of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to try and thwart the will of the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Now, you don't have to be -- I know you disagree. You're shaking your head. You're going to get the mic in the sack. You don't have to be a member of MAGA to say, you know what, those Peter Strzok, Lisa Page texts were awful. There was FISA abuse.
There was that weird thing with Carter Page. I don't know about that Alvin Bragg case where he like basically invented a felony. You don't have to be a member of MAGA to look and say, you know what, he does have some legitimate grievances.
HINOJOSA: Here is what I want to assure people about. Merrick Garland is -- was a judge. He was a longtime career prosecutor. He did everything to follow the facts in the law and allow that to happen in a -- it was a special counsel matter where Merrick Garland wasn't making the decisions. What I'll say even further, there is a jury in both Florida and D.C. that believe that there is enough evidence for Donald Trump to be indicted on --
TAPPER: Mini grand jury.
HINOJOSA: -- a grand jury on 44 counts. And this isn't just some conspiracy theory. There was no weaponization. Donald Trump -- the federal government believes that Donald Trump committed crimes. And Jack Smith said in his report that if he were not elected president that he believes he would have been successful in these two cases.
And so, the reality is the only reason why he can go out now and claim weaponization is because he is president. They dropped the charges only because he was president. There is no other reason. Nobody acquitted him. There was no other reason that those charges were dropped other than the fact that the American people elected him.
TAPPER: I will just -- so for people at home -- Jim, I'm coming right to you. For people at home, I should note I was talking about the Russiagate investigation and the Alvin Bragg case, and you deftly switched it to the Jack Smith investigation.
HINOJOSA: Well, I was not involved in the Alvin Bragg or the rest of investigation.
TAPPER: You were not involved in the Alvin Bragg. But I'm just saying -- just for people at home, I was taking issue with some other ones.
HINOJOSA: Yes, yes.
TAPPER: Go ahead.
TRUSTY: Look, I was at DOJ for 17 years. I was the chief of the organized crime and gang section. I got to see a lot of the major decisions being made under, like, five different attorney generals. To sit there and pretend that this was apolitical, that everything was by the book, is absurd. Four days after the Mar-a-Lago raid, her friend, the attorney general, stood up and did an unprecedented press conference to talk about the subject of the raid.
That's not something --
HINOJOSA: After it wasn't sealed.
TRUSTY: That's not something --
HINOJOSA: After it wasn't sealed.
TRUSTY: Ma'am, let me finish. It is unethical for any prosecutor to have a press conference to talk about the fruits of a raid when the person hasn't even been charged, which was the case then. Now, Garrett Marlin (ph) --
TAPPER: Merrick Garland.
TRUSTY: That guy made that decision to go on air thinking, I just need to explain what we're doing.
HINOJOSO: No. Unless it's been public.
TRUSTY: And then -- and then he --
TAPPER: We're coming right back to (inaudible).
TRUSTY: Then he hid behind Jack Smith, but Jack Smith answered to the attorney general every step of the way. Now, let me just say, grand jury, let's talk about a grand jury where the grand jurors were -- they asked questions of Tim Parlatore 43 times.
TAPPER: You're talking about in Florida?
TRUSTY: In D.C.
TAPPER: In D.C.
TRUSTY: Forty-three times designed to get him to invoke attorney client privilege, which he did. He was even telling the prosecutor, this is unethical. You can't keep asking questions knowing I'm going to invoke. And she kept doing that.
TAPPER: OK, Xochitl and then --
HINOJOSA: I mean, Merrick Garland is the most apolitical person attorney general there had -- and he's been criticized.
TRUSTY: I'm worried about lightning striking. HINOJOSA: -- actually, by both parties. And he is -- he has been -- he follows the facts in the law. He's a career Justice Department official. I can tell you there was no politicization in that investigation whatsoever. The White House was never updated about it. It was Jack Smith made the decisions, would update the attorney general. And when it came to every decision, it was Jack Smith's decision.
[17:25:17]
TAPPER: Tom, let me just come to you quickly. On the point I made, if I may, invoke anchor privilege. The point I made about somebody in middle America saying, well, I don't know about this Jack Smith stuff, but there's other stuff that's fishy with the Russiagate investigation. I don't know about that Alvin Bragg case. What do you say to them?
DUPREE: Look, I would say to them, I think when Trump says that there was fishy things going on at the Justice Department, I think he has a point. There was.
HINOJOSA: What's your proof of that?
DUPREE: Now, people can --
HINOJOSA: I'm sorry, what is your -- what is your evidence of that?
DUPREE: Well, for example, you had people admitting to false statement --
HINOJOSA: In the Jack Smith?
DUPREE: -- on the FISA warrant. Jack Smith, when you said the case would still be going, it wasn't. It was dismissed. The document in this case was dismissed.
HINOJOSA: It was case that was under appeal because -- but it was dismissed.
DUPREE: And the fact --
HINOJOSA: It was dismissed on a technicality, which was that Jack Smith was appointed incorrectly, not on the facts.
TAPPER: Let's just -- let's just Tom finish here.
DUPREE: That's more than a technicality. But I would say that, look, I think Merrick Garland is going to go down in history as someone who, like Jim Comey, unites Republicans and Democrats in strongly disapproving of his performance. Republicans think he was too political. Democrats wonder why he waited so darn long to bring the charges against Trump.
HINOJOSA: And he canceled out that noise and did his job.
TAPPER: All right, thanks one and all. I don't think we're going to resolve any of this in the show, but thanks one and all for being here and for your passion, if you appreciate it.
Fighting inside the Democratic Party in full public view as the party's lawmakers fight over their strategy, if there is one, for taking on Republicans. I'm going to talk to a House Democrat if they have any solutions next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:31:03]
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: And we are back with breaking news in our Politics Lead. You're getting a live look right now at the U.S. Senate floor where we are awaiting this final vote on whether or not there will be a federal government shutdown. The bill did pass a major hurdle today, a procedural vote requiring 60 votes. And it caused major infighting among Senate Democrats. And it also led some House Democrats -- some House Democrats to express their anger at the Senate, specifically at Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, for supporting this procedural motion to allow the government funding bill to go through.
Let's bring in Democratic Congresswoman Becca Balint of Vermont. Congresswoman, why do -- why are so many House Democrats mad at Chuck Schumer?
REP. BECCA BALINT (D-VT): Well, and I do want to say, it is across the ideological spectrum in my caucus, from Blue Dogs to progressives. People feel like this was a moment that was a test for all of our leadership and not to blink and not to cave. And this funding bill is not a clean C.R. It's not a clean continuing resolution. It allows Musk and Trump to continue to wreak havoc on the Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare. It gives them a blank check to be mucking around in things they shouldn't have their hands in and trying to claw back money that we as Congress have already dedicated.
And so I want to be really clear that the statements that have been made by -- by me and others from my caucus are representative of the caucus as a whole. And we also felt like Leader Schumer was not communicating well with our leader. And we took some really tough votes. And this was such a show of strength and togetherness on the part of House Democrats. And I felt like what we saw from Leader Schumer was -- was disorganization on his part.
TAPPER: So let me ask you, why do you say that -- that this vote is a blank check for -- for Elon Musk and -- and President Trump to muck about with Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid? I mean, it's a -- it's a government funding resolution. And I understand that there's stuff in there that you don't like, but it doesn't, I mean, there's no provision saying and with this bill, Elon Musk can do X, Y, Z. So -- so what do you -- exactly what -- what do you mean?
BALINT: So when you look at what the top line numbers are, there is leeway for them to not fully fund things like the PACT Act to make sure that our veterans are protected from the ongoing health concerns from the burn pits. There are also -- there's language in there that calls into question whether this bill would put at risk a lot of the litigation we have in front of, you know, against this administration. So we have to legislate, we have to litigate and we have to agitate. And that's what we're trying to do here. That's what the American people want us to do. That's what we hear overwhelmingly in our town halls.
TAPPER: You mean because it caps the spending for domestic priorities that gives previ -- that gives allowances for the administration to decide what goes to Medicaid, what goes to the PACT Act, et cetera?
BALINT: That's right. And when you look at what they did on their -- their budget blueprint just a few weeks ago, you know, they're not being honest with their own voters. There is no way that they can get to those spending cuts without going after Medicaid, without going after food programs. And so they constantly keep it vague so that they can pretend that they don't know what is really going on here. But that is one of the reasons why it's important for us to every step of the way, go toe-to-toe with this administration and not give them an inch.
[17:35:04]
TAPPER: But the alternative, if Chuck Schumer were here and he might, I think we're going to have him on the show later today. The alternative is a government shutdown, right? Because the House of Representatives voted the way it did.
BALINT: Right.
TAPPER: Every Democrat except for one voted against, but Republicans control the House. So the Senate had a choice. And some argue -- some would argue that a government shutdown would give Russ Vought more power and more ability to go after Democratic priorities that -- that Republicans don't like than continuing to fund the government.
BALINT: Certainly there is an argument that has been made by some senators that that may be the case. I think what is important for us in this moment is to not continue to do our jobs as if this is 1980. We have to be willing to throw some punches and some elbows and to stand firm in what we know is right. And this particular, you know, I don't -- I -- I don't even want to call it a continuing resolution because it's so much more than that. And it could have been a clean bill.
We could have had Democrats and Republicans coming together for a clean bill for even a month to give us time to work out the details. Republicans weren't willing to do that. They did what's called jamming the Senate. They -- they passed their bill and got out of town. And so, you know, I just want to be really clear, I hate the frame that somehow we would be voting to shut down the government. That's not what we want.
What we want is to be able to negotiate with this president in good faith and with the Speaker of the House in good faith. And we do not have that. And we have not had that from Speaker Johnson since the beginning of his leadership.
TAPPER: Democratic Congresswoman, Becca Balint from the great state of Vermont, thank you so much. Appreciate your time.
BALINT: Thank you, Jake.
TAPPER: The new ultimatum today for Columbia University after anti- Israel protests rocked that campus last year and this year. We're breaking down the Trump administration demands, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:41:25]
TAPPER: In our National Lead, important new development is in the wake of last year's anti-Israel demonstrations at New York's Columbia University when protesters occupied campus buildings and in some cases intimidated Jewish students. We learned today that U.S. immigration agents arrested another Columbia University student, not from this country, who took part in the demonstrations, and a third non-American student self-deported to Canada.
This news comes as the Trump administration just issued a remarkable ultimatum demanding changes at Columbia. CNN's Shimon Prokupecz is at the university. Shimon, tell us about this latest arrest.
SHIMON PROKUPECZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, so the latest arrest is a -- a woman. These are two women that the Department of Homeland Security have been investigating. And there are more investigations clearly ongoing here because officials from the Department of Homeland Security took an extraordinary measure here last night. They came on the campus with a warrant looking for one of these women, and they are looking for another person.
The one woman who was arrested, she is the -- according to the ICE officials, she's a Palestinian woman from the West Bank who overstayed her visa. She was arrested last year in April during the protests here on the campus, and that's how she ultimately comes on ICE's radar. And so they went out looking for her. They arrested her.
Now, there was a second woman as well who was at -- who was a student here at the college. She was a doctoral student, and she self- deported, according to ICE officials. She used that CBP app that the administration created to self-deport. She went to LaGuardia Airport, and she left to Canada.
Now, what they also tell us is that she also, this other student, was also arrested here last year during the protests. She was issued a summons, and that is also how she came on the radar of ICE officials. So she now has left the country. The other woman is in custody with ICE officials. And it appears, based on the searches that were done here at the uni -- at the university last night, that they are looking for at least one other student, Jake.
TAPPER: All right, Shimon, thank you so much. Appreciate it.
Joining us now to discuss is attorney Brad Parker. He's part of the legal team representing Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University student who immigration agents detained last week, originally from Syria, I believe. The ACLU just posted video of Khalil's arrest last week. They say the video was taken by his wife, who's eight months pregnant. She is an American citizen. Khalil acted as a spokesman and negotiator for the demonstrators last year when he was a graduate student. He was born and raised in Syria, has been a legal resident of the U.S. since 2023, first on a student visa, and now on a green card that the Trump administration wants to revoke.
Let me start by getting to the developments at Columbia in a second. I want to start with you bringing us up to date on Khalil's detention. So the legal team has filed a joint letter to a federal judge outlining next tapes -- steps in the immigration case. Tell us about that.
BRAD PARKER, ATTORNEY IN MAHMOUD KHALIL'S LEGAL TEAM: Yes, so the joint letter is actually for the proceedings that have been initiated in New York under a habeas petition that challenges the detention and the basis of detention for depriving Mahmoud of his liberty. So the -- the immigration proceedings haven't actually started yet. They're scheduled to start later this month. So we're -- we're fighting right now to bring Mahmoud home back to his family and to have him released from detention because this is, you know, a clear case of an individual being targeted and retaliated against for constitutionally protected speech, political dissent. So that's what we're -- we're challenging right now.
[17:45:04]
There was a hearing conference on the 12th where initial hearing where the government shared the, you know, notice to appear form. And I think the main thing from that is that the only basis for his removal action is a determination solely by Secretary of State that his presence and activities are reasonably thought to potentially have serious adverse consequences for the United States. That's it. There's no criminal charges. There's no unlawful activity that's even alleged by the government at this point.
TAPPER: Right. But let me -- let me ask you to -- to give us some clarity on some of the things that the administration is alleging. The Deputy Attorney General today, Todd Blanche, said the Justice Department is looking at bringing terrorism charges against Columbia protesters for any possible, quote, material support of terrorism, unquote.
Administration officials say that the group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest, CUAD, that he helped lead, gave out pro-Hamas propaganda. They point out the administration, Hamas is a designated terrorist group. What exactly does Khalil acknowledge that he did? Did he give out pro-Hamas literature?
PARKER: He do -- he says he did not. Vehemently says that those allegations are false. And -- and again, right, the -- the government has not alleged that he's done any unlawful activity. Again, the -- the only grounds for his deportation and removal action is tied to this specific determination by the Secretary of State that's it's purely on the political speech, political dissent. He -- he -- he does not have any affiliation, does not support Hamas. There's no connection to it. And again, even the government in the proceedings is not alleging any unlawful conduct.
TAPPER: All right, Brad Parker, thank you so much for your time. Come back. This case isn't going away anytime soon. We appreciate it.
So we have some breaking news. Senator Chuck Schumer is going to lo -- join us live next as the Senate's on the verge of averting a government shutdown. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:52:16]
TAPPER: Now, we're back with our breaking news. We're awaiting the final Senate vote on a spending bill to avoid a government shutdown. Let's bring in the Senate Minority Leader, Democrat Chuck Schumer from the great state of New York. Senator, thanks so much for joining us. So Leader Schumer, you just voted to advance this spending bill, along with nine of the others who caucus with Democrats.
Most of the rest of your party in the House and the Senate did -- did not vote that way. They wanted to not support this continuing resolution to keep the government open. Do you understand why they voted the way they did and why so many of them are angry with you?
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Well, let me say this. First, we always knew there would be disagreements. But I felt, and those who voted with me felt, that as bad as the C.R. was, and I know a lot of members didn't like the C.R., the government shutdown would be far worse. A government shutdown gives Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE almost complete power as to what to close down because they can decide what is an essential service. If they determine that SNAP, kids shouldn't get food, is not essential, they can just cut it out summarily.
They could fire half the workers in the federal government. It would have been a far worse consequence. Now, it wouldn't have happened for a week or two, but my job as leader is to lead the party, and if there's going to be danger in the near future, to protect the party, and I'm proud I did it. I knew I did the right thing, and I knew there'd be some disagreements. That's how it always is.
TAPPER: Are you -- are you worried at all about your leadership position? We've talked to a lot of Democrats who are very angry.
SCHUMER: No.
TAPPER: Senator Michael Bennett today accused leadership of having, quote, no strategy, no plan, no message.
SCHUMER: Look, I think I have the overwhelming support of my caucus, and so many of the members thanked me and said you did what you thought was courageous, and we respect it. I -- I -- I think I -- my caucus and I are in sync, and everyone knew what I was doing and respected it. TAPPER: Why is the party even in this position? Some might say that you should have been bringing up appropriation bills last year, and then there wouldn't have been this need for a continuing resolution.
SCHUMER: Well, you better ask Mike Johnson why that was. We couldn't get bills done in the Senate because we couldn't get agreement from Republicans in the House, plain and simple. You need the House, the Senate, Democrats and Republicans to agree on appropriations bills, and they would not agree, plain and simple.
TAPPER: A lot of Democrats seem to think that this is rolling over for President Trump, that if we're not willing, if Democrats, they say to me, if we're not willing to stand up for this, then what are we willing to -- to fight of -- over?
[17:55:00]
SCHUMER: Look, the -- the C.R. was a bad bill, and I didn't like it, but it would be far worse to give Donald Trump the keys to the city and the country. We all know that Musk and DOGE and Trump want to decimate the federal government, and letting them shut down the government, allowing them to shut down the government, they would have done it. Within two, three weeks, we would have had the whole country and all -- so many of the Democrats complaining. Why were they cutting this? Why were they cutting that?
And here's another thing, Jake. There is no exit ramp. Once you shut down the government, it is totally up to DOGE and Trump and Musk how long we're in shutdown. We could have been in shutdown for months. And why did Musk and Trump want a shutdown? Because they wanted this power to achieve their goal of dramatically shrinking, destroying, hurting innocent people in the government.
Why'd they want that? Very simple. They want to slash the government to smithereens so that they can give their billionaire friends a tax cut. We're against that. Cutting the government -- shutting the government down would have made it much easier for them, and I'm glad we didn't do it, but we're going to fight them every step of the way. And now we can move on into areas where we have stronger footing.
TAPPER: So a lot of House, I mean, every single House Democrat except for one from a Trump district in Maine voted against this continuing resolution, every single one. And one of the complaints we hear from House Democrats is they say a lot of our members took some tough votes here, people from Trump districts voting against this, people from Republican states like Georgia voting against this, Ossoff and Warnock, for example, in the Senate.
SCHUMER: Jake.
TAPPER: What -- what do you say to them?
SCHUMER: Well, very simple. It's a lot -- it's a lot different in the House. You could have voted against this C.R. and still not shut down the government. The Senate, because of the 60-vote rule, you would have had to shut down the government, and that was far worse an outcome. The Senate and the House are different. I respect what the House members did.
I'm glad all of them voted against it. But, as I say, it is much different in the Senate where if you would have voted against the bill and the bill would have gone down, the whole government would have shut down from one end to the other, creating dramatic and huge hardship for tens of millions of Americans. And, again, there was no way to get out of it unless Trump and Musk wanted it.
Again, ask yourself the question, why were Musk and vote and DOGE so eager for us to vote for a shutdown?
TAPPER: Your counterpart in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, was asked a question about whether he had faith in your leadership, whether he thinks you should stay Senate leader, and his response was, next question.
SCHUMER: Look, Hakeem and I get along. We've known each other a very long time, but I expected when I did this. You know, I think it was an act of strength, of courage, and I knew that most people wouldn't agree with me. But I'm confident I did the right thing, and I think history will vindicate that. You know, when you're in politics, you know what I've always said.
The higher you climb up the mountain, the fiercer the winds blow. And the only way not to be blown off is to have your internal gyroscope. My internal gyroscope, my very thorough look at what would happen on either alternative, came to a strong conclusion, and that was that a shutdown would be much, much worse.
TAPPER: One last question, and then I know you have to go vote, and that is, earlier this week --
SCHUMER: Yes, I've got to go vote.
TAPPER: -- earlier this week, you said that the Republicans didn't have the votes to -- to pass this. That seemed to send a signal to a lot of Democrats that you were going to stand up against it, and -- and then they got confused when you said you were going to vote for it.
SCHUMER: No, if you would have listened to my speech, I said we didn't have the votes yet, but the Democrats prefer, and it would have been much better, and that's what we were united on middle of the week, a 30-day C.R. extension where the appropriators could have gone to work. But that night, the Republican -- Republican appropriators said they're not going to come to a bipartisan agreement, which is really the only right way to go, and my members had to decide one way or the other. Enough of them decided to vote not to shut down the government. And that's the results we ended up with.
TAPPER: Democratic Leader, Senator Chuck Schumer --
SCHUMER: Thank you Jake.
TAPPER: -- of New York, thank you so much. Appreciate it, sir. We have much more in our two big breaks. SCHUMER: Nice -- nice talking with you, Jake.
TAPPER: Nice talking to you, sir.
[17:59:16]
Much more in our two breaking news stories, including President Trump delivering an extremely political speech at the Justice Department today. One of the top House Republicans joins me live in studio in moments.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
