Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Ukraine Team Meets With U.S. officials Ahead Of U.S.-Russia Talks; Trump Doubles Down On Attacks Against District Judge; Chuck Schumer Defends Voting For GOP Spending Bill To Avoid Shutdown; Defense Department Workers Face Lie-Detector Tests In Leaks Investigation; Canada's New PM Mark Carney Calls For Snap Election; MLB Holds Record-Breaking Tokyo Series. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 23, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

EV WILLIAMS, CO-FOUNDER, TWITTER: But it was very messy. It's my company. And somehow I had lost enough control to be fired without notice. It was crazy. I failed at the biggest thing I've ever done. I was just mortified for a long time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: A new episode of "TWITTER, BREAKING THE BIRD" is tonight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific only on CNN.

The next hour of NEWSROOM starts right now.

You are in the CNN NEWSROOM. I'm Jessica Dean in Washington, D.C.

And we begin tonight with a renewed diplomatic push to end Russia's war on Ukraine. Ukrainian and U.S. officials just wrapping up talks in Saudi Arabia. This comes one day ahead of the Russian delegation arriving for talks with the U.S. And this is happening after Ukraine endured another night of attacks. Russia launching 147 drones, killing at least three people. That is according to Ukrainian authorities.

CNN's senior White House reporter, Kevin Liptak, is joining us now.

Kevin, what more are we learning about these talks and how the Trump administration is feeling?

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes. When you listen to Trump administration officials talking today, they do continue to put a positive spin on these technical negotiations that are underway now in Saudi Arabia, beginning today between the U.S. and the Ukrainian delegation, and continuing tomorrow, when those American officials sit down with their Russian counterparts.

Now, these are considered technical discussions. They don't rise to the level of the senior most advisers in these governments. What they're trying to do is work out some of the modalities of the various aspects of this ceasefire that they're trying to put into effect, beginning with this pause on attacks on energy facilities that President Trump agreed with President Putin to put into effect during their phone call last week, and which Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president, has also signed on to.

It remains to be worked out exactly when that will take effect, who will enforce it, and so that's something that they want to discuss. What we heard earlier today from both Mike Waltz, the National Security adviser, and Steve Witkoff, President Trump's foreign envoy, is that the discussions would also include a ceasefire in the Black Sea, as the both sides try and work to reopen ports, to restart trade in grain and fuel that has been stopped essentially since the conflict began in the Black Sea.

All of this is supposed to be working towards this larger ceasefire that President Trump is trying to pressure these sides to agree to. You'll remember the Ukrainian side has already signed off on a 30-day ceasefire without any conditions attached. Vladimir Putin still has some conditions attached. He still is holding out this maximalist position, including taking over territory that Moscow currently controls inside Ukraine, including requesting and requiring that Ukraine never be able to join NATO.

And so how all of that is resolved remains to be seen because those are two areas that Zelenskyy has said are nonstarters for his side. Certainly, President Trump is very eager to get this deal across the finish line. When you talk to European leaders, however, they do fear that Trump could be taking an overly credulous position towards Putin, and it was interesting to hear Witkoff speaking earlier today, saying that in his view Putin does not want to go into the rest of Europe.

He thinks that his ambitions would stop short of that, saying that he trusted him on that front, which I'm not sure is necessarily going to bolster these Europeans views in any way. So certainly a lot still to be worked out as President Trump really works towards ending this conflict.

DEAN: All right. Kevin Liptak at the White House, thank you so much for that.

Meantime, President Trump is ramping up his attacks against Federal Judge James Boasberg as he demands answers on why the Trump administration ignored his court orders and used a wartime law to send undocumented immigrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Last night, the president reignited his feud with Judge Boasberg, accusing him of having a, quote, "conflict of interest."

Now this after a series of posts on Truth Social this week attacking the judge, even calling for his impeachment, which then led to a rare rebuke from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. So far, Judge Boasberg has not made any decisions on whether he should lift the orders preventing the Trump administration from using the 18th century Alien Enemies Act to speed up deportations.

The Justice Department argues the judge exceeded his authority in blocking those deportations. The judge has made one thing clear, he wants to get to the bottom of whether the White House violated his court orders.

Joining us now is senior adviser to President Trump's transition team, Jason Miller.

[18:05:02]

Jason, thanks so much for being here with us this afternoon. We appreciate it.

JASON MILLER, SENIOR ADVISER TO TRUMP PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TEAM: Thanks for having me.

DEAN: I want to kind of pick up there where we kind of laid it out for everyone what the current situation is. And my question to you is, if these flights to El Salvador didn't defy any court orders, if they were done within the orders, why not just give the judge all this information he's asking for and move on?

MILLER: Well, keep in mind I'm not inside the White House Counsel's Office, and so there are going to be certain particulars to this that I wouldn't be the best to go and speak to.

DEAN: Sure.

MILLER: But I think what we're seeing here is the fact that we have a runaway judiciary. We have these district courts who are trying to step in and make laws to impact then effectively, or make precedent that would impact the entire country. So I think this is really something where you have one branch of the government, the judiciary, which is trying to overstep both the legislative and the executive.

And I think this is a real problem. You know, there are certain safeguards that are in place, but when you have the will of the people, you have 77.3 million Americans, 312 electoral votes, all going to support President Trump in this last election, the people want President Trump to be able to implement his policies. And so when you have one district judge who can do it -- do this and make the impact over the entire country, I think at this point, whether it's the legislative or the executive branch, does need to step in and have some aspect of legal recourse here because this is completely turning what I believe the framers intended on its head.

DEAN: I hear you, but, you know, district court judges have stymied Democratic presidents as well, Biden, Obama. Boasberg has also ruled kind of favorably into Trump's positions. He gave more lenient sentences for January 6th defendants than what the prosecutors recommended. He ruled to release this FISA court material that exposed problems with the FBI's probe into Trump's 2016 campaign and the Russian election meddling. And he also paved the way for conservative groups to get some of Hillary Clinton's private e-mails. So how do you square that?

MILLER: Yes, because we're talking about some very specific cases here. When we talk about President Trump's ability to deport these criminal illegals, this has been a massive problem in the United States over the past four years. And quite frankly, I think it's a big part of the reason why president won with that mandate that I outlined just a few moments ago. And when you have a judge like this who is going well outside of their scope, that I think most Americans look and say, wait a minute, we don't want to be barreling towards a constitutional crisis.

We don't want to be barreling towards a tyranny of the judiciary. That's exactly what's happening here. You have to remember, we have these three distinct, separate but equal branches of government. And when you have the judiciary, which is not beholden to anybody trying to rise over both the executive and the legislative, that's where I think it becomes a problem. And in many cases, myself, and I would say this would be a situation that definitely is the fact that we have judges who seem to be trying to hold themselves up as the last line of the resistance, much in the same way that we saw Russia, Russia, Russia --

DEAN: But, Jason, I'm just telling you --

MILLER: Or other things.

DEAN: Right. But Russia, Russia, Russia, he cleared the way for this release of the material. So I guess what I'm trying to figure out here, if you're going to go after this one judge, he's ruled in Trump's favor, and not that Trump brought those cases, but he has had rulings that weren't activist one way or the other.

MILLER: Yes. Important point here, and actually Axios had a good write-up on this this morning, that actually when you talk about these district court judges, they've ruled against President Trump at a 5 to 1 higher clip than they did against either Biden or Obama.

DEAN: Yes.

MILLER: So clearly something is out of sorts here. Something is wrong. Something is --

DEAN: Is it possible that the president and his administration are bumping up against what power they actually have. Is that possible?

MILLER: I don't think so, because when it comes to something as basic as being able to deport criminal illegals, that seems to be something that is so basic to defending the safety and security of Americans that it really can only be a resistance driven judge, in my opinion, that would be causing that. I mean, this is -- I mean, this is such a basic tenet of the first rule of government, protect your citizens, make sure that you're keeping people safe.

DEAN: Right.

MILLER: And why the judge is picking a fight here, why we've seen some of these other fights that they've been picking, trying to stop the government from banning the chemical castration of minors and some other pretty nutty things that these judges have been stepping up for, but the point being, when you have one judge trying to set precedent for the entire country, and we have the district shopping and all of these types of things, I think that's something that's fundamentally wrong. And it's an imbalance with the judiciary as opposed to the other branches of government.

DEAN: What about the appellate process? I mean, this chief justice, John Roberts, put out that very rare statement saying that for more than two centuries, it's been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to a disagreement concerning a judicial decision. He said the normal appellate review process exists for that purpose. So why not just appeal it?

MILLER: Well, I think we could go into probably even a deeper conversation when we talk about the sum (PH), which I think Justice Roberts probably would fall into I would believe more along the judicial supremacy argument of things.

[18:10:05]

You take a look back at Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson, who would argue much more in the case of departmentalism in some of these cases. But there has to be that mechanism, whether it's from the executive branch or from the legislative branch, to be able to push back against this tyranny of the judiciary, which, quite frankly, is where I think we're going.

And I do find it rather troubling that some of the members of the judiciary find themselves as this last line of defense against President Trump. And we're talking about public policy matters here. And so I don't see why they're trying to stand in front of President Trump and the will of the people in trying to save and protect our country. And quite frankly, I think that's a dangerous precedent.

DEAN: I do want to ask you about a couple other things before we run out of time. I want to talk about Social Security and the Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's comments earlier this week. Let's play them and then we can talk about it on the other side.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD LUTNICK, COMMERCE SECRETARY: Let's say Social Security didn't send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law, who's 94, she wouldn't call and complain. She just wouldn't. She'd think something got messed up. And she'll get it next month.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

LUTNICK: A fraudster always makes the loudest noise, screaming and yelling and complaining.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Jason, since he said that, there have been a lot of people that are on Social Security that have spoken up and said, look, if my check didn't come, I'm not eating. I can't pay my bills. I'm not suggesting that's what's going to happen, but just the idea that Howard Lutnick was getting at, which is like, they wouldn't really miss it if they're really in need of this money. Do you not think they would notice?

MILLER: Well, let's go and take a step back here and point to what President Trump, the actual leader of our country, has said, and he's made it very clear that there will be no cuts to Social Security benefits. There will be no interruptions or anything of the sort. I know Frank Bisignano, who's actually has his hearing come up this week, who'll be the person who's in charge of the Social Security administration as someone who's dedicated to that.

So just to make it very clear for everybody, there will be no interruptions, there will be no disruptions. We realize that Social Security is a sacred compact between Americans and seniors and people who rely on Social Security. And President Trump has made that crystal clear. There will be no interruptions, no cuts to benefits. So I'm going to listen to President Trump here. And also, I think the incoming administrator, if he is fortunate enough to be confirmed, will make sure that Social Security is protected and preserved and there are no issues.

DEAN: OK. But to that point, I do want to play what Republican Senator John Curtis said this morning. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOHN CURTIS (R-UT): We're not being honest when we look people in the eye and say, we're not going to touch it. If we don't touch it, it touches itself. You know that, right? That's not being honest with the American people. And I think that's one of the things that makes them not trust us when we say something that they just know is not true.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Jason, should people be worried? They're worried. And then you have Republican senators saying it's not honest.

MILLER: Well, again, let's go back to what President Trump has said, and that is that Social Security will be protected and there will be no impact and no service delays or interruptions or cuts or anything of the sort. Now there are going to be efforts to go through and make sure that we don't have any waste, fraud and abuse when it comes to Social Security. And I think everybody should want that.

We should make sure that only the people who are supposed to be receiving those monies are receiving them. That is completely separate, though, from making sure that we have the services being delivered as they're supposed to.

Now, as we talk about longer term issues with regard to Social Security, clearly we have to -- there are a whole number of things that we need to do to make sure we preserve and protect it. I think a lot of things we can do to make the actual agency more effective, so we can get more for the dollars that we're spending. But when it comes to people and their benefits, President Trump himself has made it crystal clear on the campaign trail, Social Security will be protected.

And I think all Americans who rely on Social Security should rest assured that President Trump is going to take care of them. Now, when we talk about the overall effort again to reduce some of the wasteful spending across the board with regard to government, I think that is an important function that we need to be doing as we take a look at every single agency. Theres a big difference between that and making sure that people receive the benefits that they've paid into and quite frankly deserve.

DEAN: All right, Jason Miller, we do appreciate your time. Thanks so much for being on.

MILLER: Thank you.

DEAN: We'll have more news for you when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:19:04]

DEAN: Defiance from the top Democrat in the Senate amid mounting pressure from his own party to step aside. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer not mincing words in an interview earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): Look, I'm not stepping down. And let me just say this, Kristen. I knew when I cast my vote against the government shutdown that it would be -- that there'd be a lot of controversy. And there was. But let me tell you and your audience why I did it, why I felt it was so important. The CR was certainly bad, you know, the continuing resolution, but a shutdown would be 15 or 20 times worse.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Schumer has faced a barrage of criticism from Democrats since providing a key vote in advancing the Republican spending plan to keep the government open.

CNN's Eva McKend is in Washington.

Eva, you've been following this. Where does Schumer stand with his party?

[18:20:00]

EVA MCKEND, CNN NATIONAL POLITICS CORRESPONDENT: Jess, it's hard to say definitively at this point. What we do know from speaking to Democratic voters is there is deep disappointment with Schumer and Democratic leadership more broadly in this moment. Our own CNN poll last month found nearly three quarters, 73 percent of Democratic voters say the party's caucus in Congress is doing too little to oppose President Trump.

And when I speak to organizers in left leaning groups, they tell me the hope is that voters pressure their own senators on the Schumer question and then ultimately that pressure translates to the caucus turning on him and him stepping aside. You heard, for instance, from Colorado Senator Michael Bennet recently. He said it's important for people to know when it's time to go. Doesn't necessarily inspire confidence there.

And here's how one Democratic House member is thinking about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): What I do know is that it was not a good look for the two congressional Democratic leaders to be on opposite sides of the continuing resolution. That created a great deal of agita out there, and legitimately so. So I am quite certain that Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer have learned from this experience and are going to, at a minimum, be unified going forward here.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MCKEND: So, as you heard earlier, Schumer remains defiant and maintains the country is in a constitutional crisis. The big question now is, will he change his strategy, Jess, as a result of the criticism he is facing from all corners.

DEAN: All right, Eva McKend, thank you so much for that.

And CNN senior political analyst Ron Brownstein is joining us now.

Ron, let's pick up where we left off there with Senator Schumer. He's been very clear that he's going to forge ahead. He doesn't see the need to step aside at all. How do you see this leadership struggle playing out over the next year, two or three?

RON BROWNSTEIN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes. You know, I see a couple of different streams converging here. I mean, first, you know, there's something that obviously predates this, which is the frustration among many Democrats that the party leadership has become a kind of gerontocracy. And in some way, what you're seeing about Schumer is a spillover of frustration about Biden.

You know, that they were both kind of marinated in an era where politics was very different, and they are not really attuned in their -- you know, down to their bones in the nature of the modern competition between the political parties, not only communications, but just the way of dealing with the other side. And I think, though, even more broadly, I mean, you know, there are two different axes of the debate among Democrats.

One is like whether the party should move to the left or move to the center, and that's, you know, that's a real debate. But, you know, the more important one immediately is not so much on ideology as temperament. It's how hard you fight and whether you use every tool available to respond to a Trump administration that is certainly using every tool available on its side to try to tear down an awful lot of things that Democrats and many independents care about.

So, you know, whatever the merits of Schumer's policy argument, and there are merits of, you know, as we've talked about before, shutting down the government has never really worked to get you what you want, he really misread the room of the Democratic Party. And I think that ultimately, I don't know if he's going to get deposed, but I think he probably is on the clock at this point if nothing else.

DEAN: It is. It is interesting. And you make such a good point, which is, you know, we've seen Biden leave. Mitch McConnell has stepped down. Nancy Pelosi has stepped down. As we've seen so many of that generation step down or move on, he's still there.

What about House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries? I think a lot of people want to see him step into a more aggressive role, but do you see him doing that?

BROWNSTEIN: You know, it's not really his personality. I mean, he's more measured and cautious in some ways. And certainly the way he speaks in public, he's probably the closest the Democrats have in Washington.

And Jessica, events are going to basically clarify things for Democrats. I mean, if there's one thing the Democrats should be able to do, you know, they used to say about the baseball player George Brett, you could wake him up in the middle of December. He could clear snow off the ground in the backyard and hit line drives at 3:00 in the morning. If there's one way the Democrats should be able to hit line drives at 3:00 in the morning, it's on a budget fight that pits tax cuts primarily for the rich against spending cuts on programs for the middle class and working class, particularly Medicaid and Affordable Care Act subsidies and everything that you just played about Social Security.

So to some extent, the ball is rolling toward them. I mean, they will have a better second half of the year in all likelihood, than the first half of the year, just because of the nature of the inevitable conflict that's coming over the Republican budget. But I think a lot of Democrats are looking more to leadership outside of Washington, quite frankly. And I think there's going to be a lot of interest in the governors for 2028.

And as we've talked about before, it really is the state's attorney general going to court and all the ways that Jason Miller was so frustrated about that are providing the real cutting edge of Democratic ability to push back on what Trump is doing.

[18:25:02]

DEAN: And we just had a special adviser to the Trump transition team, Jason Miller, on, and he was -- his whole point that he kept trying to hammer home is that Trump is being unfairly targeted by these federal judges. What's your take on that?

BROWNSTEIN: The way you phrased that question to him was exactly right. I mean, you know, yes, it is true that there is growing -- there has been concern in both parties growing over the last few administrations about the increasing tendency of district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions, and that is something that in a, you know, alternative universe where the parties were cooperating, we would be addressing.

But the interview with Miller was very revealing. He kept using the phrase that judges should not stand in front of the will of the people, which, first of all, is a concept that is, you know, most often used in strongman authoritarian regimes where the leader portrays himself as essentially beyond the law because he is the embodiment of the will of the people. The job of judges is not to interpret what the will of the people is if such a thing can even be discerned. It's to determine what the law is and whether, you know, the statutes pass constitutional muster, or whether actions passed are in line with statutes.

That's the job of the judges. And, you know, when you asked him, well, are they ruling against him because they are more activist or because you guys are pushing harder against the boundaries of statute and constitutional limits on the power of the presidency, I think the evidence pretty strongly, you know, argues for the latter. And so, I mean, the job of -- what they are basically saying is that the leader, you know, basically embodies the nation in a way that transcends law.

And that is not the job of judges to accept that by any means. And all Americans should be uneasy about that because, boy, once you go down that road, you know, what goes around comes around pretty fast.

DEAN: Yes. All right. Ron Brownstein, always good to see you. Thanks so much.

BROWNSTEIN: Thanks for having me.

DEAN: Still to come, the Defense Department vows to get to the bottom of recent media leaks by using polygraphs on employees. Up next, we're going to talk with a former polygraph chief at the Pentagon about the implications of such a move.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:31:36]

DEAN: The Defense Department says it will use lie detector tests on its employees as it investigates recent leaks to the media. The move comes after a "New York Times" report Elon Musk would be briefed on U.S. Military plans for a potential war with China at the Pentagon on Friday.

Now, the White House has denied that. Trump said he wouldn't share such information with anyone. Musk did meet with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and other senior Pentagon leaders for over an hour.

With us now is Tom Mauriello, who was a polygraph expert at the Defense Department and National Security Agency. He's now a senior lecturer and forensic consultant with the University of Maryland.

Tom, thanks so much for being here with us. First, I just do want to get your thoughts --

THOMAS MAURIELLO, FORMER CHIEF POLYGRAPH AT THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT: My pleasure.

DEAN: -- on this idea of the Pentagon using polygraphs on its own employees.

MAURIELLO: Well, I think it's probably a good idea. When you a large amount of people who are persons of interest, in other words, if there's a large group of people who may have the information that's being leaked, then you have to decide how you're going to attack that. And the polygraph, not a lie detector, because I want to make it clear, the polygraph is not a lie detector. It doesn't detect lies. It never did. And hopefully it never will. OK. All it does is detect a reaction of the sympathetic nervous system that we associate with lying sometimes, but it could be for other reasons.

DEAN: And so to that end, how reliable would you say polygraph tests are?

MAURIELLO: I have no idea. And anybody who does research, who alleges a percentage, the question is, how do they know that? The only one that ever knows whether the polygraph worked or not is the one -- is the subject. So the polygraph, if it's being used that way as a screening device, you have X amount of people that are all equal in reference to being a person of interest., you use the polygraph.

If somebody successfully passes the polygraph, then you can put that person aside and then focus on the people who -- that have a reaction to the polygraph. Again, I will never say lie. A person who consistently reacts to the relevant questions is somebody who needs to be investigated further than the folks that have passed. And that's the way the polygraph is used as a screening device. Otherwise, the investigation would take years to do.

DEAN: And so I hear what you're saying, use it as a screening device. It's not -- you have no idea exactly how accurate it is in your estimation. So knowing that, to use this on employees that would potentially likely lose their job and -- or potentially face charges for leaking to the media, do you think that's like a proper way to do it?

MAURIELLO: If people are going to lose their job because they don't pass a polygraph, that's totally improper. And I'm not sure if that's the way it's being used. There are 16 polygraph programs in the federal government, 16 different agencies use it. Some of them, you need to pass a polygraph to be hired to get a clearance. In many of the agencies, every five years, you have to be re-polygraphed. So there is a requirement for many of these agencies to submit to a polygraph test.

Now, if they're not successful, that is not a reason to believe that they're involved in anything. They reacted.

[18:35:03]

It's at that point that the investigator needs to find out where that reaction is coming from. You know, many times when I was the chief of polygraph, you know, we had many people who didn't pass the polygraph the first time. We brought them back the second or third time, asked the same questions, and all of a sudden they passed and we didn't get any new information. So why is that? You know. So the polygraph is a great investigative tool.

It's a psychological tool, really. Many people just admit to things before they even turn the instrument on sometimes. And so -- because it becomes a psychological thing, but people think the polygraph is more than it really is. It's a great tool. As long as it's not misused and it's not my understanding that anybody that wouldn't be successful, when taking the polygraph in this instance, I don't believe they would be losing their job. I'd be surprised if that happened.

DEAN: And that you think would not be appropriate if that was the case? You're saying you don't think it is the case?

MAURIELLO: Absolutely would not be appropriate.

DEAN: All right, Tom Mauriello, thank you for that context. We really appreciate it.

MAURIELLO: My pleasure. Thank you, Jessica.

DEAN: Canada's new prime minister is calling for a snap election amid President Trump's threats of tariffs and annexation as he seeks a mandate from Canadian voters before taking on Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:41:06]

DEAN: Tonight, Canada is gearing up for a general election that's right around the corner. Newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney calling for a snap election, and he brought in help to show he does not have a problem confronting President Trump.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIKE MYERS, ACTOR: But let me ask you, Mr. Prime Minister. Will there always be a Canada?

MARK CARNEY, CANADIAN PRIME MINISTER: There will always be a Canada.

MYERS: All right. Elbows up.

CARNEY: Elbows up.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DEAN: Carney taking office less than 10 days ago. His Liberal Party has the minority in parliament and was expecting a heavy defeat this year. But Trump's return to the White House has upended the country's political landscape.

Paula Newton joins us now from Ottawa.

Paula, this is a bit confusing for American viewers because their elections are done a little -- your elections are done a little bit differently. It's a much shorter time. But walk us through what's going to happen and how the tariff war and annexation threats have impacted the Liberal Party prospects.

PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I'm not going to broach the irony of that, Jessica, since given the fact that President Trump is saying that we should just be the 51st state anyway. But yes, again, it can be confusing, right? Because it does tend to change even through every election. Even the length of each election is different. This one a mere five weeks. Can you believe it?

Strict finance campaign laws, we have Mark Carney just been prime minister for 10 days taking over from Justin Trudeau, who was prime minister for nearly a decade. That's the Liberal Party. Then you have the conservatives. Pierre Poilievre, who in fact was ahead in the polls, if you can believe it, Jessica, just late last year by nearly 30 percent. And now this race is a virtual tie. Except that even if it's a virtual tie between those two leaders because there are actually six national parties, how this all gets divvied up in seats and who actually becomes prime minister still a bit of a cliffhanger to say the least.

One thing that is without any doubt, Jessica, is that everyone is taking aim at Donald Trump. I want you to hear now from both Mark Carney and Pierre Poilievre really illustrating the person that both of them really will be running against. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CARNEY: I'm asking Canadians for a strong positive mandate to deal with President Trump and to build a new Canadian economy that works for everyone because I know we need change. Big change, positive change.

PIERRE POILIEVRE, CANADIAN OPPOSITION LEADER: I will insist the president recognized the independence and sovereignty of Canada. I will insist that he stop tariffing our nation. And at the same time, I will strengthen our country so that we can be capable of standing on our own two feet and standing up to the Americans where and when necessary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NEWTON: What will really matter, because you can hear that the tone and the message kind of the same is how both of these leaders propose to fight back against those tariffs. And that really comes to a head in the middle of the campaign on April 2nd, when Donald Trump, Jessica, as you know, promises to put in those reciprocal tariffs. All economists believe that it is very likely that Canada will then, within a few months, be in a recession.

But more than that, if Donald Trump goes through with these tariffs for sustained amount of time, it will really reshape not just the Canadian economy, but its very relationship with the United States.

DEAN: And that seems that pretty certain.

Paula Newton reporting from Ottawa, thank you so much for all of that.

Well, a sure sign that spring is here, the boys of summer about to hit the field, but is America losing its grip on its national pastime?

You're in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:49:22]

DEAN: Late March doesn't just mean the start of spring. It also means baseball season is right around the corner. Thursday is opening day for America's pastime. But it might not just be hours anymore.

CNN's Harry Enten is joining us now to run the numbers on baseball's growing -- oh, wow. Harry comes with props today. How about that?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA CORRESPONDENT: I come with props. I got the hand. I got my New York Giants baseball cap. Remember before the Giants played in San Francisco they played New York. My father was a huge Bobby Thompson fan. I got it all for you, Jessica.

DEAN: OK. All right, so with that in mind, he never comes unprepared.

Harry, this isn't the first sign that baseball is rapidly gaining traction in Japan. Apparently, it's been gaining traction.

[18:50:01]

ENTEN: Yes. I mean, this to me is such an interesting thing. I'm going to take these first two slides for you and sort of explain what's going on in Japan. You can see Japan gives Major League Baseball a massive boost. And what are we talking about here? I want you to take a look. Just this past week, we had the MLB Tokyo series. Look at how many people in Japan tuned in. To borrow a phrase from Phil Rizzuto, holy cow. In game one of that, between the Dodgers and Cubs, it was 25 million.

In game two, look at this, 23 million. And keep in mind Japan has a population 200 million fewer folks live in Japan than live in America. This would qualify, this game one would qualify as a top six primetime program in the United States. I mean, oh, my goodness gracious. That is tremendous. And as you were saying, it's not the first sign. It is not the first sign of baseball gaining so much popularity in Japan.

You go back to last year's World Series, the 2024 World Series, in terms of viewership, the average game in America, it was 16 million. In Japan, it was 12 million. It was the most watched World Series ever in Japanese history. And of course, keep in mind those games were taking part in the morning in Japan. They were taking part in the morning, and yet they nearly had the same exact amount of viewers.

And that, of course, totaled out to allowing baseball to get over 30 million fans tuning into the World Series last year worldwide. And that, of course, is a massive number, because I've tended to say that baseball has been struggling in the States but when you look at it from a worldwide angle, baseball, I dare say, is thriving -- Jessica Dean.

DEAN: Yes, that is so interesting. So why is baseball doing so well in Japan?

ENTEN: Why is baseball doing so well in Japan? You know, I think there are many reasons. But one of them I just got to say is Shohei Ohtani. I mean, the bottom line is stars make the game and Shohei Ohtani is to Japan, I would argue, as Babe Ruth was to the United States of America. And one way you can see this is the most Instagram followers, look at this, Shohei Ohtani for Major Leaguers, nine million.

The next closest guy is Mike Trout, his former colleague on the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, or the Los Angeles Angels, who came in at just two million. And so what you just see is Ohtani has the most, the most Instagram followers worldwide for a Major League player. And of course, he is from Japan. I just think he is blowing this entire game up in that country, and they are just doing tremendously well at this point, Major League Baseball is, Jessica.

DEAN: It's fascinating. Really I'm surprised. I didn't know this. Maybe people did. So is it safe to say it's Japan's pastime now?

ENTEN: Well, two things. Number one, any time I can get you to be surprised, I'm giving you information you didn't know, and I feel --

DEAN: I am. I'm surprised.

ENTEN: I feel like I'm giving something to you and giving something to the audience. Now, you were mentioning whether or not, you know, is it fair to say that baseball is now Japan's national pastime? Look at this. In Japan, baseball, favorite sport to watch, 45 percent of Japanese folks say it is. Compare that to the United States of America. Look at this trend line. Back in 1960 it certainly was at 34 percent in America.

Look at where it was in 2023, though. It was just 10 percent. Football leads at 41 percent. So football now is the most popular sport in America. But when it comes to Japan, Jessica Dean, there is no doubt that baseball is the most popular sport there, in large part because of Shohei Ohtani. And you're seeing in those record ratings and is allowing baseball to be a global game truly.

DEAN: So before we let you go, Harry, the first weekend of the NCAA tournament, wrapping up.

ENTEN: Yes.

DEAN: Now, we talked to you about this last week.

ENTEN: Yes.

DEAN: I know you were very -- you were -- I think if I'm remembering correctly, you were pretty heavy on Saint John, which was beat by my Arkansas Razorbacks. I'm sorry. It's what happened. So who do you have winning it all now heading into the Sweet 16? Have you adjusted?

ENTEN: Well, I will say that first off I went with my heart. H-E-A-R- T, instead of my head. And now who do I have? Now I have Houston, H-O- U-S-T-O-N. Of course, in New York that might be Houston, but in that -- in the rest of the country it's Houston. I've got Houston going all the way the Cougars.

DEAN: OK. All right. You heard it here first. Harry Enten, always good to see you. Thank you so much.

ENTEN: Thank you.

DEAN: Tonight on CNN, it is an all-new episode of "UNITED STATES OF SCANDAL" and Jake Tapper has a preview -- Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Thanks for having me, Jessica.

So this week's episode takes a look at the Supreme Court nomination of Clarence Thomas all the way back in 1991. It sparked a national debate when one of his former employees, law professor Anita Hill, accused him of sexual harassment, which in 1991 was a relatively new concept to a lot of people. What followed was a series of unprecedented hearings that left many Americans divided and unsure of what to believe, whom to believe.

I sat down with Anita Hill herself to discuss this legacy. Here's a preview.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: In all of this, in the hearings in 1991, in the election of Bill Clinton and all of it, there is this underlying acceptance that women are subordinate, can be treated differently, are there for the pleasure of men. That's really what this is.

[18:55:15]

ANITA HILL, ACCUSED CLARENCE THOMAS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT: I honestly think that all of those women are to be believed. The public believes them. The question is, do they really care?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: These hearings and Professor Hill's testimony sparked a conversation that started in 1991. It's still going on today about the role that gender dynamics play in systems of power -- Jessica.

DEAN: All right, Jake. Thank you.

Be sure to tune in to an all-new episode of "UNITED STATES OF SCANDAL" with Jake Tapper. It airs tonight at 9:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific only here on CNN.

Several challenges to Trump's early actions appear to be headed to the Supreme Court as Trump continues to test the limits of the courts and just how much power they have to slow down his agenda.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)