Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
U.S. Questions Whether It Is Dealing With Right Iranian Officials; Who Pays For The War?; Trump-Voting Pastor Denies He's Masquerading As A Dem In Senate Race. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired March 30, 2026 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:21]
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:
Breaking news, questions tonight about whether the Iranian officials Trump is negotiating with have the power to even make a deal. Incredible new reporting this hour, even as Trump claims he's making progress with the new regime. New regime.
Plus, will the Middle East pay? The White House press secretary today says the president wants Arab countries to pay for the war he started. So, is it like when Mexico paid for the wall?
And he voted for Trump, railed against abortion in Joe Biden, yet he's running for the Democratic nomination, one of the most crucial Senate races of this year. Democrats are now saying he's a plant. So, is he? We have an exclusive KFILE report.
Let's go OUTFRONT.
(MUSIC)
BURNETTT: And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.
And OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news, utter confusion. Incredible new reporting tonight as the war in Iran enters its 32nd day, sources are telling CNN tonight that the Trump administration is not even sure it is talking to the right people in Iran, which is incredible for many reasons. But maybe let's just put one out there, right?
Trump is now threatening to bomb desalination plants in Iran, which would put many tens of millions of lives on the line. If he doesn't get what he wants, but he's leveling threats like that, not even knowing if he's talking to the right people to get what he wants. It's stunning.
And it's unclear if the Iranian officials who are receiving Trump's messages have the authority even to sign off on a peace agreement, never mind the ability to implement it. All of this, of course, is jaw dropping.
And Trump either doesn't know this or he's in denial about it, its s unclear because here's what he posted today. He said the United States of America is in serious discussions with all caps, a new and more reasonable regime to end our military operations in Iran.
Now, of course, it's the same regime that was replaced, right? It's the ayatollah's son who's more hardline than the ayatollah himself, the original supreme leader. So, who might this new and more reasonable regime be that Trump is referring to?
Well, Secretary of State Marco Rubio doesn't seem to know.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: It's very opaque right now. It's not quite clear how decisions are being made inside of Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: At least that's honesty.
Now, one Iranian official is taking a page from Trump's book, though, and getting his message out using social media. You're looking at him there. He's a parliamentary speaker, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf. And he just tweeted, "The enemy promotes its desires as news while threatening our nation at the same time. Big mistake. If they hit one, they'll take several back."
Now that is in a sense, a page from Trump's playbook. Now, Ghalibaf once ran for president of Iran. I visited his campaign headquarters in Tehran back in 2013. He was a popular mayor there at the time, and he's now paying a bit of cat and mouse with Trump.
Last night, he tweeted, "Polymarket so-called news or truth is often just a set up for profit taking. Basically, it's a reverse indicator. Do the opposite. If they pump it, short it. If they dump it, go long. See something tomorrow. You know the drill."
Pretty interesting to hear this coming from the Iranian regime. And sure enough, early this morning, two hours before the markets open, Trump did what -- well, yeah, Ghalibaf saw it coming. But so, at this point did a lot of other people. Markets were getting really upset.
So, Trump came out and said, oh, guess what. Great progress has been made. Then true to Trump's pattern, he threw in some sensational threats. You know, if that progress doesn't continue. He said, if for any reason a deal is not reached shortly, which it probably will be. And if the Hormuz is not immediately open for business, we will conclude our lovely stay in Iran by blowing up and completely obliterating all of their electric generating plants, oil wells and Kharg island, and possibly all desalination plants.
They love the word obliterating in this administration. And there's that desalination threat again.
But Trump is putting more and more American lives on the line. As of tonight, there are more U.S. troops in the Middle East, now over 50,000 service members in the region, thousands more on their way.
We've got new images from the USS Boxer, which carries another marine expeditionary unit of up to 2,000 marines can be in that unit. The Boxer, as I said, on its way, and you can see the crew carrying out a number of military exercises. This is what they're putting out there for us to see it.
Despite the threats and the increasing manpower, Iran is not showing signs of desperation. It took out a U.S. E-3 sentry aircraft in Saudi Arabia over the weekend, and this was a big deal for a whole lot of reasons, one of which is it appeared to be very clearly, extremely precision strike against one of the most important military assets that the U.S. has on the ground in the region. And analysts say the destruction of this aircraft and its radar could hamper American forces' ability to spot threats by Iran. Those planes are not a dime a dozen, to put it mildly.
[19:05:00]
Meantime, Iran continued to fire missiles towards Israel today. And when it comes to the strait of Hormuz, which has been shut down for a month going into the fifth week, it will be this weekend. Iran is now moving ahead with plans to slap tankers going through the waterway with a toll a toll, though, that American and Israeli ships will not be allowed to pay their band, and that toll is at odds with the optimism were hearing from the administration. Because today they were talking about all these tankers going through the street.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: So you wouldn't have seen those tankers if not for the presidents diplomacy and his team engaging on this matter, which we expect that compliance moving forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Kristen Holmes is OUTFRONT live outside the White House.
And, Kristen, a stunning new report from all of our team here at CNN. And major questions tonight about who the Trump administration is actually negotiating with. Number one, and whether the people that they think that they're negotiating with actually have the power to implement any deal.
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, with most of the regime knocked out, we are hearing that U.S. Officials are uncertain of who could actually even make a final deal to end the war in Iran. There are so many questions that we have had for this White House as to who exactly they're negotiating with. They have not answered that question.
Now, it seems from this new reporting that the reason for that might have been because those people might not be the people in power who can actually make the decision. And we are told that the Trump administration is casting a wide net with various Iranian officials because of this. But there has been some difficulty in actually getting in touch with these various Iranian officials. They are away from their devices, their phones, they are hunkered
down. They don't want to get killed in a missile strike. So that's been part of the complication.
Another part of the complication is these indirect messages that are going through Pakistan and Turkey. We are told that the administration, President Trump is communicating with at least two specific Iranian officials indirectly, one of them being the foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, the other one being who you mentioned. Ghalibaf.
Ghalibaf is seen as one of the only people who might actually have power now because of his relationship with the new supreme leader. But, Erin, even more complication with that, because there are still so many questions as to what is actually going on with the new supreme leader. We have not heard from him. We have not seen him.
U.S. Officials have publicly said he might be dead or incredibly injured. So, is he actually calling the shots? Iranians are saying, yes, he is calling the shots.
And I do want to play. I do want to read one thing for you. This is from a regional source, and I think this is quite striking, says no one can tell anyone today that whomever shows up to Islamabad has the power for the Iranian regime, talking about the Pakistani capital that's been rumored for a potential location for these in-person talks, no one can tell you that the person who shows up actually has the power. That is just striking, given that we're hearing from President Trump and from the White House, even just today in the briefing, that these negotiations are going very well.
BURNETT: Right, exactly. And Trump talking about a new regime as if he has clarity on who it is and that its new as opposed to more hard line than the one in the past.
All right. Thank you very much, Kristen, at the White House.
And everyone's here with me.
So, Evelyn, you know, you hear the new reporting and Kristen going through some of this, and it is pretty stunning. The White House not sure that they're dealing with the right people. And now, of course, multiple layers of their leadership have been taken out.
And Israel continues to eliminate individuals that they think are rising, right?
EVELYN FARKAS, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR RUSSIA, UKRAINE & EURASIA: Right.
BURNETT: They have done that.
Now, I know there's been some that the White House has apparently been able to stop for now, but there's others that they haven't. And Israel takes them out. And then you got to find out who you're dealing with, how big of a -- and Rubio was honest. FARKAS: Yeah.
BURNETT: I'll be honest. Rubio was honest.
How big of a problem is it that U.S. officials aren't even sure who they're dealing with right now?
FARKAS: I mean, I think it's a problem because there are experts in our government who know exactly who's who. It is true that all these layers have been taken out. So, we knew that Larijani was in charge of the security forces. And by the way, they are the ones in charge. So, you just have to figure out who is essentially calling the shots for all of the security forces, because the ayatollahs rely on the security forces to maintain control.
BURNETT: Right.
FARKAS: So, at the end of the day, they are really in charge. They are really calling the shots. Now, they may be decentralized, and it may be that communications is slowed down.
But the other thing that people have told me who are real experts on the Iranian, you know, political class, is that they're technocrats. If you -- it's like the U.S. government, if you take out a layer, there's another layer who have been trained up to be civil servants and to be in charge. So --
BURNETT: Right.
FARKAS: It is a problem that our government is saying they don't know who they're talking to and whether these are credible sources. That does that is disturbing, because it means that maybe our intel is not that good, or maybe the Israeli intel is not that good. But I do believe that the Iranians, they're probably not as disorganized as this makes them sound.
BURNETT: Yeah. And it shows us a deep state in the sense, as you say, of a deep sense of stability in a certain sense. I mean, who knows whether that will be the case, right? But that there is layer after layer after layer.
[19:10:00]
Now, Colonel, you know, we also keep hearing we just heard the word obliteration again, right? But we hear about the navy being gone day after day after day. And obviously, maybe it really is gone now, I don't know.
But today, even hearing about another naval commander taken out, I'm merely making this point in that they're saying that the ability of Iran to launch strikes is so deteriorated, and yet Iran continues to do things. For example, hitting this this Saudi Arabia air base and hitting that plane, that sentry plane very specifically in the tail area, where some of the most sensitive equipment is. Obviously, precision. Okay? And so, they have the intelligence wherever they were getting it from. So fine, maybe Russia, then they had the ability to do it. So, you've been on one of those planes, in that area. Can you just tell us the significance of this?
COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST: This is huge, Erin, because this is a surveillance plane. It's the airborne warning and control system. And what it does is it provides basically radar coverage to a much greater range than you would otherwise have if you only had ground-based radars.
So, what that means is instead of seeing just, let's say 100 miles out, you see 250 miles out. And of course, it depends on topography and atmospherics and things like that. But the key thing is it extends our ability to surveil the airspace, and that is crucial if you're doing anything, any type of military operation anywhere in the world.
BURNETT: And that plane is not easy to replace, I understand, you know, it could cost up to $200 million to even replace it. We don't have a lot of them.
LEIGHTON: So, actually, it costs more than that. To replace this plane, it costs about $700 million.
BURNETT: Seven hundred million dollars.
LEIGHTON: Seven hundred million dollars. The insurance cost, if an insurance company were to come in and give you a value for it, like for a wrecked car, it would be somewhere between $300 million and $500 million. So, this is significant.
And what you're talking about here is not only the aircraft itself, but the ability of the aircraft to perform its mission, which in addition to the radar piece is also command and control piece. So they can use the AWACS as a way to command forces on the sea, on the ground, and in the air.
BURNETT: All right. Now, this is all crucial. And, Adam, you know, this is what gets into what how you're looking at this, which is, you know, what is really the reality and people follow your market analysis every day. When we were talking about Ghalibaf mocking Trump on social media, basically saying you know, whatever, whatever -- he's calling Trump out, saying he's trying to manipulate the markets.
Now Trump is -- whatever word you'd like to use -- he is timing the markets, right? He puts bad news out on Friday night. He changes course before the markets open on Monday morning. He did it again this morning. Right.
So, I guess the question, Adam, is even in light of when you see something like this plane that Colonel Leighton is laying out, do the market still trust Trump?
ADAM KOBEISSI, FOUNDER AND EDITOR-IN-CHIEF OF THE KOBEISSI LETTER: So, you know, if you look back three weeks ago or closer to the beginning of the war, when the first headline came out of a potential deal or end of the war or some sort of optimistic headline from President Trump, oil prices fell 35 percent in less than 12 hours. It was the biggest daily drop ever.
As time has gone on, the impact of these statements on the market has diminished considerably, right? Like we saw a headline this morning, look at the S&P 500. The S&P 500 went up around 1.5 to 2 percent after President Trump said that there's been progress made on the talks. Within two hours, the market actually turned red and then closed towards the low of the day.
And what's happening here, you know, the president of the United States, the United States itself will always have very strong influence on the market. But the value of that influence has definitely fallen because of the fact that immediately after any claim is put out of peace talks, progress towards ending this conflict, it's almost immediately denied by other side. And why are they doing that? Because of the fact that the primary form of leverage that the Iranians have right now in this conflict is pressuring the U.S. and its allies through capital markets, right through higher oil prices, higher interest rates, lower equity prices.
And in reality, what's likely happening is something in the middle of that where there are likely talks happening somewhere in the behind the scenes, maybe not directly, maybe through an intermediary, but until the market really sees progress on that, we're going to continue to see oil prices rise.
Right now, U.S. oil prices are back to $105 per barrel. That's up $50 per barrel since December. We're on track for one of the biggest monthly gains in history for oil prices ever recorded.
BURNETT: Which is really incredible --
KOBEISSI: To say the least.
BURNETT: Yes. And we're only starting some of this, you know, even if you were to suddenly just go back to four weeks ago and just pretend none of this ever happened, would really take a long time. And we haven't even started to see some of the pain that's going to come from this.
Evelyn, I'm just curious also on the sense of trust and a deal that that Adam's touching on. Okay, the United States has now shown twice that it will be in negotiations and then just come and bomb the bejesus out of a country. Okay. So that country is never going to trust the United States.
Now, I know the United States will say, and I remember Jen Psaki back when she worked for the State Department, said to me about an Iran deal, it's not about trust, right?
[19:15:01]
So, I'm not trying to oversimplify it. But if the Iranians will never trust the United States to keep their side of it, why would Iran keep theirs? FARKAS: Right. I mean, I think Jen Psaki is right. It's not about
trust. At the end of the day, it's about interests. And this Iranian regime doesn't want to be at war with us forever. You know, they have their own reasons to want this to end.
But right now, as Adam said, they see a lot of value in putting the pressure on us, putting the pressure on Trump, making us look foolish, making us look uncredible. Right? So I think that they'll let this go on until it becomes too painful for them.
At a certain point, they have to sell oil. They have to try to govern, you know, so they will capitulate. Will they trust us? No.
But again, I think that generally there's always some level of distrust. I mean, we never trusted the Iranians when we had the agreement that Obama signed with them on the nuclear program, we never trusted them. That's why the U.N. had to go and verify.
(CROSSTALK)
FARKAS: Exactly. And Reagan always said, trust and verify. And every other president has believed that as well.
BURNETT: Right. But there was also a level of credibility. And I guess that's the intangible that we're all talking about that that now is different.
Colonel, I showed images of the USS Boxer, and those are images that the Pentagon is putting out. You know, this is the -- right, this is the propaganda from the -- from the Pentagon. But they're sending a message of readiness and that they're on their way. And that could be another 2,000. We don't know exactly how many are in that view, but that's what can be on the USS Boxer.
When you have this many forces in the region, do you end up in a situation where you end up using them?
LEIGHTON: Often, yes. Now there are ways to pull it back, Erin. But you know, there's -- there's kind of its kind of like a wind up toy when you move forward and there's a certain momentum that you have when you deploy forces.
BURNETT: Eventually, when you let it out of your hand, it.
LEIGHTON: It just moves forward, it shoots out, moves forward. It's like a top spinning across the table. That's the kind of thing that were looking at here potentially, because if you don't control what is happening next, you're going to end up having to do something. And you know, clearly these forces need to be prepared.
The MEU, the 31st MEU, which is the USS Boxer's marine expeditionary unit, they are clearly ready to do certain things when called upon to do them. That is their job. That is their mission.
But the problem that they're going to have that the that the White House is going to have is they're going to have to figure out, do they really want to use them or are they going to do something else to position them, maybe for negotiating purposes or something like that?
BURNETT: All right. Thank you all very much, Evelyn, Colonel Leighton and Adam, appreciate all of you.
And next, breaking news, are the walls closing in on anonymous traders who are just amazingly getting it right every time, right before Trump posts or says something on Iran, they get it right and make a whole lot of money. Well, federal prosecutors are looking at whether insider trading laws were broken.
Plus, CEO sounding the alarm over Trump's war with Iran. One warning it could wreck the Housing market. His words are actually incredible.
And the White House says President Trump wants Arab countries to pay for his war with Iran, even though they're getting a whole lot less money over there now because of the war. So where have we heard that before about, you know, somebody else paying Mexico? That's right. Did Mexico ever pay for the wall?
Well, former Congressman Charlie Dent and Jamal Simmons are next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:22:37]
BURNETT: Breaking news, President Trump wants Arab countries to pay for the war he started with Iran. Here's an exchange earlier today with the White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Who's paying for the cost of this war? Will those Arab countries step up to do just that?
LEAVITT: Well, I think it's something the president would be quite interested in calling them to do. I won't get ahead of him on that, but certainly, it's an idea that I know that he has and something that I think you'll hear more from him on.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Well, if that sounds familiar, it's because it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I will have Mexico pay for that wall.
Mexico is going to pay for the wall.
Mexico's going to pay for the wall.
Mexico will pay for the wall. I promise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Now, that was a decade ago. Mexico is still not paid.
Former Congressman Charlie Dent and Jamal Simmons are both OUTFRONT.
Congressman, Mexico obviously never paid for the wall. I'm also just, you know, just to have everyone understand, even by the Pentagon's own estimates, in the early days of this war, they were running, what, $1 billion a day? On this, it's obviously significantly higher now. Since then, the plane that we lost, Colonel Leighton, was just expressing would be three quarters of $1 billion to replace that one plane. Okay.
These costs are mammoth, just in actual costs. So do you think Trump is going to get the Arab countries who are, by the way, getting crushed right now, I mean, with their own economies, especially places like the UAE, to pay for this.
CHARLIE DENT, FORMER U.S. CONGRESSMAN: I don't think the president's going to be able to send them an invoice and that they're going to pay it. I don't think that will happen. But had he built a proper coalition prior to the commencement of hostilities, he could have sought arrangements like we did during the First Gulf War, where we had the Saudis, I believe, pay for all of our fuel costs for our need, they contributed all the oil and diesel.
We could have done those sorts of things. We could have asked them to pay for base housing, airstrips, military hangars, aprons, all sorts of things that we need -- ports, docks. But this needed to be done in advance. We have these arrangements currently, say in South Korea, and even with the Japanese, where the host countries actually do contribute significantly. We could be asking for more, but I don't think in the middle of the war is the right time to be asking.
BURNETT: No. And even prior to the war, I mean, I know, for example, some Gulf countries did get a heads-up right beforehand, but they had strenuously said don't do it, right?
So, now, they want it done to be finished. But it was -- it was obviously not a coalition at all prior.
[19:25:00]
Jamal, you know, it is a tactic, though, that Trump and his team have used. So don't worry about all the big massive costs here because someone else is going to pay for it. And then they just hope no one checks the receipts?
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, it makes you wonder, is it a tactic that they are doing in advance, or are they just making it up as they go along? And that's the part that has me super nervous. Just as an American who's watching this, someone who cares about our troops, who cares about the security of our homeland, is are they just making this up as they go along? And that seems tough to me.
The president's given us three choices about what it is he's going to work for. Was it nuclear? Was it nuclear arms? Was it to degrade the get rid of the Iranian regime? What was it that we went to war for? And he's doing briefings from air force one in the hallway in the
aisle of an airplane. Where's the oval office address? Where's the address? Where he explains the American people, why were there, what our goals are, how do we judge success and how do we value this operation when our men and women come home? Not well.
BURNETT: Now, I know. Congressman, the president has is very fond of a poll, a sub tab of a poll in NBC recently that said he's got full approval of MAGA. But yet when you look at some of the people who are standard bearers for some of MAGA in the media sphere, you see something that would be troubling if you were the leader of MAGA. So, joe rogan, okay, has had some scathing criticism of this president recently on several issues. Immigration, by the way, I think may have been where it started, but now also on the war itself.
Here is rogan today or not today -- just the other day. But here is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, PODCAST HOST: That phrase sucks. Here's the thing. Like, first of all, America is great. Make America greater, I'm down. But make America great again, and then it becomes a movement of a bunch of (EXPLETIVE DELETED) dorks, because a lot of them are dorks. A lot of them -- these really weird (EXPLETIVE DELETED) uninteresting, unintelligent people that have got something they cling to. And there's a lot of people that are just real, genuine patriots, and they're all lumped into this one group, and you got to accept the dorks too? (EXPLETIVE DELETED) that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Okay, J.D. Vance then defended -- defended MAGA.
I'm curious though, Rogan supported Trump in 2024, but this is not the first time recently that he's come out and said no, and he's not afraid to say it. And he knows people are hearing it. How significant is this?
DENT: I actually think this is more significant than, say, a Tucker Carlson or, sorry, Megyn Kelly, because Joe Rogan struck me as a guy who was maybe a soft supporter of Donald Trump, not seen as a real MAGA guy. And I think Rogan maybe speaks to these softer Republican or Trump voters who are also feeling some remorse over the war, over immigration, maybe tariffs, any number of issues they could be very upset about.
So, I think that Rogan's impact is much greater than these other people who, you know, are going to fall in line with Trump. They're going to yell and they're going to scream, but they're always going to eventually get on the need to Trump at the end of the day, Tucker Carlson, Kelly and all the rest.
BURNETT: That is a really interesting point that that who Rogan may be speaking to.
SIMMONS: Absolutely. Do you think of Joe Rogan, he's really like an anti-establishment figure more than he is a Democrat or a Republican.
BURNETT: By the way, he called these people weird, expletive, uninteresting, unintelligent people that have got something they cling to.
SIMMONS: Well, that's not going to bring us together, I don't think, Erin. That's not the kind of language that unites America. But for those of us who do want to see, you know, our security well, our unity go well and make sure we're competitive, Joe Rogan is one of these people who does care about, I think, the American homeland and wanting us to be competitive in doing these things like dealing with the Epstein files, figuring out not going to war. Trump made a lot of promises to people like Joe Rogan, which he seems to be breaking now, and those people are breaking away from Trump.
BURNETT: It's interesting, you know, if you took this and summarized it in one word, you might use deplorables. Just might I?
(LAUGHTER)
BURNETT: All right. Thank you both very much. I appreciate it.
And OUTFRONT next is a candidate running as a Democrat in a crucial senate race, really a Dem or a Republican plant. KFILE has an exclusive here for us.
And the feds may be zeroing in on those anonymous bettors, including one who made a whole lot of money, just miraculously getting the timing of Trump's strikes in Iran right. Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna is next. What does he think about these suspicious trades?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:33:46]
BURNETT: Breaking news suspicious bets on predictions, markets correctly predicting Trump's military actions against Iran time after time, making at least one anonymous trader $1 million richer. Some of those trades are now under federal scrutiny. CNN is learning that federal prosecutors are specifically looking at whether the bets violated insider trading laws. It also comes as several suspicious trades on oil futures, adding up to at least half a billion dollars in some cases that were made just before Trump delayed strikes on Iran's power plants are also raising questions.
OUTFRONT now, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna, member of the House Armed Services and Oversight Committees.
So, you know, in both of these, your Venn diagram here is pretty much 100 percent.
So the White House has pushed back on any suggestion of insider trading, even though I think it was Anthony Scaramucci said the other day, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, anybody who's covered financial markets can look at this and say, there's clearly some problems here. The White House told "Axios" any implication that administration officials are engaged in such activity without evidence is baseless.
Are these bets and trades suspicious to you?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Yes. And here's what makes me so angry. Weve had over 13 service members either die or be injured. There are over a thousand civilians in Iran who have been killed, including some young girls.
[19:35:03]
And you have people making money off this? I mean, it's the most horrific thing, war. I mean, there's so many ways to make money in America. And this is what you're choosing to make money off, of people's death?
It is outrageous. It is morally bankrupt. These people should be prosecuted, and we should stop any trading on these issues in the administration.
BURNETT: So when -- when we look at this, you know, we were talking about for example, the tariffs very oddly timed trades that would come right before Trump would, you know, threaten 150 or pull back to 40 or whatever.
KHANNA: Right.
BURNETT: So, we've seen this before so far though, no one has been held accountable. And I guess that's the question for you, Congressman. Is someone going to be held accountable? And do you think this has to do with anyone close to Trump?
I mean, ultimately, if this is insider trading, that information ultimately did come from there, whether or not they knew about it.
KHANNA: Right.
BURNETT: That's the source of the information.
KHANNA: Well, this is what people are so upset about while they're struggling. They see elite folks getting away with a rigged game, whether it is insider trading or trading on information of someone who knows what the presidents going to do, or whether it was the Epstein issue with these rich and powerful people who raped young girls are getting away with it. Theres just this frustration that if you're powerful, if you're wealthy, you don't play by the same rules as everyone else.
And that is why there needs to be a bipartisan effort here to say, hold these people accountable. And it may not be -- I'm not saying that Trump is the one who's telling them.
BURNETT: Right, but like I said, they may not -- people around Trump may not have known, right? They knew the information, but somehow somebody that heard it from somebody, right? I mean, you can have a game of telephone. KHANNA: Right, and those people should go to jail. They should be held
-- I mean, they're trading on national secrets before -- before they're known.
BURNETT: Which is why the administration responds, it would seem to me, should be anybody who is engaging in such activity. We want held accountable.
KHANNA: Yeah, that's what a normal president would do.
BURNETT: So you mentioned the Epstein -- Jeffrey Epstein. You sent a letter to King Charles ahead of his visit to Washington next month. And you write in it, Congressman, "I respectfully ask that you privately meet with survivors of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's abuse so they may speak to you directly about the ways powerful individuals and institutions failed them."
Obviously, King Charles has faced protests in the U.K., but his brother, former Prince Andrew, has was arrested and lost his titles. I mean, there has been accountability there. Maybe, maybe way too late. But accountability, that certainly has not happened in this country.
Do you think that King Charles will meet with those survivors? You've given it to make it private.
KHANNA: Right. I hope so, because I don't want this to be a spectacle. And it was a very respectful letter. It said, we appreciate your coming on the 250th anniversary to honor that. And there are survivors who would like to meet with you. It will be private, but him meeting with those survivors would mean a lot to the survivors.
And just to hear their stories for decades, to hear what some of the allegations are against his brother and the other men, to understand what the royal family knew or didn't know. And I believe it would be a message of reconciliation, healing and accountability.
And, you know, the irony is, as you said, there were two American congresspeople, Thomas Massie and me, who got the files released. And yet it's Britain and other countries that are actually --
BURNETT: There's been any accountability.
KHANNA: -- accountability, and it's Britain asking America to say, release the rest of the files. I mean, it's just a total farce of a lack of accountability here. I think the king meeting the survivors would be the right thing. It would be good for him to show that, you know, he's listening.
BURNETT: It would be a seismic statement as well to the world for him to come here and do that.
Congressman Khanna, thank you very much, I appreciate it. It's good to see you and here in person.
KHANNA: Appreciate it.
BURNETT: It's nice. Always, always --
KHANNA: Like speaking to a blank screen. But I always enjoy it.
BURNETT: You're not A.I.
All right. Next, CNN reporting there is confusion when it comes to who the administration is talking to in Iran. But is this chaos actually part of Trump's plan?
Plus, he's running as a Democrat. But KFILE's Andrew Kaczynski has uncovered the candidate that actually voted for Trump, pushed conservative views and even attended an event sponsored by the Republican Party. So, is he a Republican plant like some prominent Democrats are claiming? KFILE is next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:43:58]
BURNETT: Tonight, an exclusive KFILE investigation into a Nebraska senate candidate, the state's Democratic Party says is a Republican plant. William Forbes is the person's name, 79-year-old pastor running in the Democratic primary, even though he told CNN he voted for Donald Trump and multiple elections. He railed against abortion from the pulpit, and CNN has learned he also attended a leadership training sponsored by the Nebraska Republican Party just months before filing to run as a Democrat.
Nebraska Democrats are backing independent Dan Osborn, deliberately leaving their own primary empty to avoid splitting the vote against Republican Senator Pete Ricketts. Forbes, they say, threatens to upend this plan.
And KFILE's Andrew Kaczynski broke this reporting. This is a crucial race because it could help determine control of the Senate.
Andrew's OUTFRONT now.
You know, Andrew, this went from six months ago. People didn't think the senate was in play. Now, all of a sudden, we are in a very different world. And so, this race has become front and center.
So, enter in William Forbes, 79 years old. He insists he's a lifelong Democrat. But you found out he voted for Trump multiple times in addition to many other things.
[19:45:01]
What does your reporting show?
ANDREW KACZYNSKI, CNN KFILE SENIOR EDITOR: Yeah, I didn't find out. He just told me like I because, you know, when I was interviewing him, I just called him up. I was like, who did you vote for? And he got a little agitated with me because he's like, you've asked me so many times who I voted for. And then he told me, I voted for Trump in multiple elections. But we also reviewed videos that Forbes posted to a Facebook page that
he deleted shortly before launching his campaign. And they show him espousing traditionally conservative views on things like abortion, social issues. He railed against, quote, "cultural Marxism and Black Lives Matter".
He praised Republican governors for passing abortion restrictions. In one sermon, as you mentioned, he described attending a day long leadership training in Nebraska that he told his congregation was sponsored by the Nebraska GOP. Listen to him right here.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAM FORBES (D), U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE FROM NEBRASKA: Someone told me about a leadership training in Kearney that was sponsored by the Nebraska GOP, and it was last Friday in Kearney. It went from two -- from 10:00 in the morning to 2:00 in the afternoon. There were three sessions and a wonderful meal in between. And so, I went to that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KACZYNSKI: Erin, that event was sponsored or run by the Leadership Institute. That is a conservative organization whose motto is literally, quote, "where conservative leaders are made". And Forbes told his congregation that it was funded by the national GOP. When I asked Forbes about that, he was unapologetic. He told me, "I'm trying to get information from everybody." He said, "They want clones. I'm not a clone. I think for myself, I'm a free thinker."
He also denied to me that he's a Republican plant. He told CNN he simply filed because no other Democrat was on the ballot. But we also found he expressed conservative views on other issues, attacked then President Joe Biden.
Take a listen to a little bit of what we uncovered.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FORBES: The biblical Christian worldview is that we hold the same value for human life at all ages, whether in the womb or at 104. We're so thankful for that new law that's been passed and is going to in Texas. And Governor Noem in South Dakota, she's working on passing a similar law in South Dakota. And I understand Governor DeSantis in Florida is working on passing a similar law in Florida to protect the unborn.
Dementia Joe, right? Dementia Joe, our president, you get it. What lawlessness he created in two years.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
FORBES: Isn't that the truth?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: I mean, all of that. It really quite strong, right? And says a lot there.
So, what is the Nebraska Democratic Party saying about all of this?
KACZYNSKI: Well, Erin, they are furious and they are actually taking action to stop Forbes, the Democratic Party chair, Jane Kleeb, said that the Forbes campaign is, quote, "a political maneuver engineered by Pete Ricketts to split the opposition vote, adding, to, quote, "that she said he is running to trick voters.
And, Erin, the reason this is so important is because the Democrats strategy here was not to run a candidate of their own at all. Osborn ran a stronger than expected senate race there in 2024. He lost by seven points. That was a state that Trump won by more than 20. And this really given Democrats hope that this seat could be in play if they don't split the vote.
We asked Ricketts campaign about this. They denied any involvement, telling CNN that they, quote, had no role in the Democratic primary. The state Republican Party declined to comment.
Now, Erin, Democrats are so alarmed by Forbes, they actually told me they're spending money to back another candidate, Cindy Burbank, in that primary who is running literally just a block him. She filed on the last day of the primary to stop him. And she has pledged that if she wins the primary, she's going to drop out and support Osborn in the general election if she wins.
The Nebraska secretary of state even tried to have her removed from the ballot before the Nebraska. That would have left just Forbes on the ticket. The Nebraska Supreme Court then ordered her reinstated.
So, Erin, it is going to be interesting to see how this plays out. It's certainly a very interesting race. State party is telling people don't vote for their own candidate, vote for Osborn instead.
BURNETT: It's amazing just how high the stakes are for so many.
All right. KFILE, Andrew Kaczynski, thank you.
And next, why one CEO is warning the housing market is about to become and I quote, a blood-stained hellscape.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:54:13]
BURNETT: Tonight, CEO sounding the alarm over Trump's war with Iran. Listen to a real estate CEO, a regular on Fox News.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF SICA, CEO, CIRCLE SQUARED ALTERNATIVE INVESTMENTS: High energy prices are kryptonite for the housing market and the housing market -- the best way to describe the housing market has been a blood -- a blood-stained hellscape.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, world renowned leadership expert who spent 50 years studying power and influence, currently senior associate dean for leadership studies at Yale. He's advised thousands of Fortune 500 CEOs and five U.S. presidents, and he has known President Trump for more than 20 years.
It is in that context he is the author of the new book, "Trump's Ten Commandments: Strategic Lessons from the Trump Leadership Toolbox".
[19:55:01]
Now, Jeff, I want to get to your book in just a question -- I mean, in just a second. But first, Trump's been sending mixed messages on Iran and he times them often very perfectly for a market close, whether it be crude oil or stock market futures.
And Deutsche Bank now has a model that they say actually predicts when Trump is going to do a complete flip flop. The TACO model, Trump always chickens out, as they've dubbed it, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.
So basically, the higher it goes, that means there's more pressure, whether that's markets going down or whatever it might be. And the higher it is, the higher the odds he's going to reverse course.
So, we see it with tariffs. We see it with firing Jerome Powell. We see it with Greenland. And now you see it higher than ever during the war as we've had these periodic times where he's talking about negotiations whether there aren't any. He puts it out there just the right time.
What does it say to you that major banks, okay, this is Deutsche Bank has created an index like this.
JEFFREY SONNENFELD, AUTHOR, "TRUMP'S TEN COMMANDMENTS": It's -- it is telling, it's disturbing, but it's intriguing. And it has to be understood. People that condemn Trump and they put him in a category call him a demagogue, an autocrat or say how smart he is or he isn't.
They miss the idea. They've got to understand that he's unorthodox in how he works. And you, you pick on a particular pattern of what he does. We had a piece consistent with the Deutsche Bank analysis that we thankfully just beat on last Thursday. We had a piece that came out in "Fortune" perfectly consistent, which is called, "This is not a bull market, not a bear market. It's a Trump market." And when we look at the comparable data to that, that thoughtful Deutsche Bank analysis, which is he's the most business-oriented United States president we ever had, whether or not that's good or bad let viewers debate. But he is. And his scorecard is looking at the financial markets as well as other commodity markets, oil markets and things.
BURNETT: Right.
SONNENFELD: So, he adjusts. Some people have referred to him as the Roomba president, you know, with the device that hits the wall, it vacuums your house and it keeps going back and hitting.
He bounces around. He's fluid. He's not an ideologue. He's not a conservative. He's certainly not a liberal.
He is what he thinks is a pragmatist and what serves his interest. So, he reverses course. The periodicity that that we look at there is what does he do on a Friday afternoon, Friday? That's when he puts out the bad news. And we've often known that in the corporate world that they put out bad stories on a Friday. They hope it's going to dissipate over the weekend.
BURNETT: Yeah.
SONNENFELD: He watches the international markets. He watches the overnight markets. And then if he has to do a correction on a Monday morning, we saw it kind of fizzled out.
BURNETT: What was the 48 hours until an attack right after the close on Friday. But then as it looked like it was going to be a complete disaster Monday morning, he extended it.
SONNENFELD: Last Monday morning, the markets went up 6 percent based on his reversal. But similarly, as we have seen, even with liberation day, he can move a market 18 to 22 percent like that. And that was taking it down.
So, yes, he's the most consequential person on the planet, like him or not. And the way it's moved -- he moves the markets is very disturbing and people need to learn how to play them or challenge it.
BURNETT: Right, right. Because he's doing it right. He's doing it.
You know, you argue some of his most inexplicable actions are actually deliberate, right? And some of them, you know, today, he actually highlighted a clip from a 1987 with Barbara Walters asking why the U.S. can't control Iran's oil. And we actually found another one, Jeffrey, from 1980, when he was talking about after the hostage crisis, taking Iran's oil.
Here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
INTERVIEWER: You're advocating that we should have gone in there with troops, et cetera, and brought our boys out.
TRUMP: I absolutely feel that. Yes. I don't think there's any question. There's no question in my mind. I think right now would be an oil rich nation, and I believe that we should have done it. Why couldn't we go in and take over some of their oil, which is along the sea?
INTERVIEWER: How would you do that? Would you send in the Marines? Would you take a chance on the war?
TRUMP: Let them have a rant. You take their oil. (END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Okay. A lot of things in his life do go back to the 1980s, okay? Things that he cares a lot about this obsession with Iran goes back. All right, 1980, 1987. For those two clips, 45 years we're talking, he's saying, take her on and take their oil. Do you think that obsession is what is guiding him now?
SONNENFELD: Well, look at the scorecard there. Once again, it goes back to that chapter for which I was referring to, where it has to do with using economics and business as your scorecard. For him, the success of the deal isn't what the diplomatic balance is, who has what kind of influence over different spheres of power in the world, or having to do with human rights, or whatever it has to do with who's getting the resources?
And for him, Iran -- now, you know, Iraq initially, now Iran, and looking at Venezuela, which was a complete I think, misguided example where he's looking that no, nobody, as we know, in the oil industry, had any interest in expanding into Venezuela. Venezuela. But he's using that as a scorecard that's a thick, heavy, sour crude that's good for asphalt and lubricants, but not for refining into gasoline.
But he was trying to create that illusion that that somehow he's going to be a winner by grabbing resources that he thinks looks valuable. It's the symbolism, the glistening symbolism, painting everything gold. Somehow it is -- that's what he goes for it. It is misleading and it's disturbing.
But that is your right. That's the yardstick.
BURNETT: All right. Well, thank you very much, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld. As I said, "Trump's Ten Commandments," a new book to understand why it is that he does some of these things that he does and these reversals that we're seeing on Iran.
Thanks so much to Jeff, and thanks so much to all of you for joining us.
"AC360" starts now.
