Return to Transcripts main page
Isa Soares Tonight
Israeli Strike Kills A Hamas Official In Gaza Hospital; U.S.-Russia Negotiating Teams Meet Again On Ukraine Ceasefire Talks In Saudi Arabia; Mass Protests Rock Turkey As Erdogan Arrests Political Rival; Trump Admin. Accidentally Text War Plans To Reporter; Aliens Enemies Act Hearing Underway; Depardieu On Trial For Sexual Assault; New Night Of Protests In Istanbul. Aired 2-3p ET
Aired March 24, 2025 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[14:00:00]
ISA SOARES, HOST, ISA SOARES TONIGHT: A very warm welcome to the show, everyone, I'm Isa Soares. Tonight, unfathomable loss and utter devastation
in Gaza. Israel striking vital hospital infrastructure while weighing a massive new ground offensive. We have the very latest. And the U.S. tries
to find common ground between Ukraine and Russia as negotiation teams meet once again in Saudi Arabia.
And it comes as a new wave of Russian missile strikes injure dozens. Plus, Turkey's President denounces what he calls a movement of violence as tens
of thousands of demonstrators take to the streets to protest the arrests of the President's main political rival. But first, right now, a federal
appeals court is hearing arguments, one of the most high profile legal challenges facing the Trump administration.
The court is deciding whether to overturn a freeze by James Boasberg, Judge James Boasberg, blocking the administration's use of an 18th century law
used to quickly deport alleged Venezuelan gang members with no due process. We brought you that story last week, if you remember.
Well, in mid-March, the White House invoked the Aliens Enemies Act, giving the President sweeping powers to detain or deport non-citizens during war
or an invasion. Earlier Monday, the judge refused to throw out his original order, saying those who faced deportation are entitled to a court hearing.
And we'll of course, we'll stay on top of that as soon as there are any more developments, as it's happening now, we will, of course, bring that to
you. But first, I want to start in Gaza, because this is what 18 months of war has done to the children of Gaza. Each figure here behind me represents
the life of a child. Take this in.
In total, this is a staggering 15,000, and this is according to Gaza's Health Ministry. It's an almost truly inconceivable death toll which has
transformed Gaza's parks and playgrounds into graveyards, torn families apart and left life in Gaza. As you can see, utterly unrecognizable.
Tonight, we want to take a minute to break down that number, 15,000.
And just take stock for just a second, 890 of the children killed were under the age of one. A quarter, roughly 4,000 children were under the age
of five. Two hundred and seventy four were born and died while the war was raging and bombs were falling around them. Unimaginable to have life -- to
have really lived their lives, entire short lives knowing nothing, but fighting and fear.
In total, more than 50,000 Palestinians have died in Gaza in the last 18 months. Now, Israel has resumed and redoubled its offensive, and that
number will keep rising. Hospitals, as we've been telling you here on the show, repeatedly, are overwhelmed and they're struggling to cope.
And now, once again, the hospitals, their staff and their patients are in the firing line. On Sunday night, an Israeli airstrike hit Gaza's largest
functioning hospital, that's the Nasser Medical Complex. A doctor working there when the strike actually happened sent us this footage he shot in the
moments just after.
According to the staff there, the attack hit the men's surgical unit, and as you can see here, the real extent of the damage he has caused. Let's get
more perspective on all these lines here, and really the toll that we were just really outlining here. Jeremy Diamond joins me now from Jerusalem. And
Jeremy, it is really staggering, a staggering figure, really hard to wrap your head around.
Just give us a sense of you -- as a sense of what the Israeli government is saying about the new assault on Gaza, and this recent airstrike that we
were talking about there on Nasser hospital. What are you hearing from doctors there?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes, well, the Israeli military confirming that it did indeed carry out that airstrike on Nasser
hospital, saying that it was targeting a member of Hamas' political bureau, accusing him of cynically using that hospital and hiding behind civilians.
But it is important to note that not only does "Al-Aqsa TV', which is Hamas affiliated, say that this political bureau member was in fact receiving
treatment at this hospital.
[14:05:00]
But the bar for any power to carry out an airstrike on a hospital is extraordinarily high. Hospitals enjoy special protections under
international humanitarian law, under the laws of war, and the only really valid reason for a belligerent to attack a hospital is if the enemy is
using that hospital to actively carry out an enemy act against its opponent.
And that means, according to most international law experts, that you would have to have a militant actively firing or plotting to carry out attacks
against another force. It would have to be an active act of war, rather than simply being in that hospital, even having a weapon in that hospital.
And it's not clear that Israel has met that bar, although they certainly suggested that they have by accusing this Hamas member of, quote,
"operating" from that hospital. But as you said, this is just the latest attack on medical facilities, and the latest way in which this war is
leveling an enormous cost, not only on civilians, but on medical facilities and personnel in particular.
This strike, for example, hit the second floor, the men's surgical department of this hospital, which is one of the last remaining fully-
functioning hospitals in Gaza. And of course, as a result of this, that wing of the hospital can no longer be used. And this is happening as we are
learning of the mounting numbers of Palestinians who have been killed over the course of this war and the enormous toll that it has had on civilians
in particular.
SOARES: And meantime, Jeremy, I understand you have new information here that Israel is considering a new ground offensive. What more can you share
with us?
DIAMOND: That's right. It is important to note first that this is one possible scenario under consideration. The decision hasn't been made to go
this broad, but if indeed this is the route that Israel chooses, it will be massive and it will be earth-shattering. As many as 50,000 troops could be
sent into Gaza.
And what's critical about this plan is that it would not only involve these troops going into combat in certain areas and then leaving those areas as
has previously happened, but instead potentially clearing Hamas forces from a certain area and then occupying that area for months or perhaps even
years, which could, of course, bog down Israeli forces to be dealing with subsequent insurgencies that would erupt as a result of Israel occupying
those areas.
What is also important to note is that this information is coming out as Israel and Hamas are being pushed by the mediators to revive the current
ceasefire. And as those negotiations proceed, we don't have any indication yet that there's any real traction for a potential deal here. But we know
that Israel is trying to leverage this military pressure as part of a -- as a negotiating tactic.
And certainly, these plans could be part of that negotiating tactic as well, hoping that this will pressure Hamas into releasing more hostages
without Israel having to agree to an end of the war, which is what phase two and three of this ceasefire agreement, that both sides had previously
agreed to would, of course, do. Another important note, it's not clear that the Israeli public has the appetite for such --
SOARES: Yes --
DIAMOND: A widespread offensive in Gaza. We have seen protests, of course, in recent days, and a majority of Israelis in multiple polls have said that
they would prefer a deal to free additional hostages and end the war, rather than a resumption of the war and a large scale offensive like this
one. Isa?
SOARES: Very important context there from our Jeremy Diamond in Jerusalem this hour. Appreciate it Jeremy, as always, thank you. Let's get more on
this then. James Elder joins me now from Geneva, he's a familiar face as you all know on the show, a global spokesperson for UNICEF. And James, I do
wish that at times when we had you on the show, we had you from -- at least from a positive news.
Unfortunately, it's this staggering figure and statistic, this unfathomable loss that we just -- you know, showed our viewers, 15,000 children killed
since the war began. And this as we heard -- as you heard there from our Jeremy Diamond, that one of the things that the Israeli government is
considering is potentially a new ground offensive.
JAMES ELDER, GLOBAL SPOKESPERSON, UNICEF: Yes, Isa, it's very hard to wrap your head around that. I spent most of the weekend in contact with people
in Gaza. They certainly can't -- they're hoping against hope. They're getting evacuation orders. So, you're talking about, you know, girls and
boys and families who moved 4 or 5 times, went somewhere, maybe not home, but went to some sort of house of a relative, started to rebuild, started
to repaint, do whatever they can, and now they've got evacuation orders.
[14:10:00]
All those things we prayed would never happen again, and suddenly, you've got 270 children killed in a space of a week. You know, the -- Isa, as you
know, we heard on your program so many guests, every day, people around the world now for almost a year and a half, if you can believe, have pleaded
for this to stop.
Some world leaders have pleaded for this to stop. Instead, as we hear from your program, then the nightmare seems to be doubling back. So, here we are
again. You know, repeating truths that should not need repeating, counting the bodies of dead children, the numbers there, 15,000. If a viewer was to
go to the funeral of a child, and I don't know those people who have ever been to a funeral of a child, it is not something you want to experience.
Fifteen thousand, you would go to a child's funeral every single day for the next 40 years. That captures how many girls and boys have been killed
in Gaza. And somehow, as you rightly point out, Isa, it's accelerating again now.
SOARES: Yes, and that is the fair. And just for context, for our viewers, 890 of the children killed were under the age of one, a quarter, roughly
4,000 children under the age of five and 274, James, were born and died while the war was raging, the bombs were falling around them.
Can -- you know, we did see a brief ceasefire. We never really got to phase two of that ceasefire deal as Jeremy was just saying. But in that first
pause, can you give us a sense what life was like for children? This is something my team and I were discussing, James. Did they return to school?
What kind of impact is this having on children every single day? From a physical point of perspective, from a health perspective, but also from a
psychological perspective, trauma?
ELDER: Yes, starting with that last one, is that starting with trauma. For a long time, I've spoken to child psychologists in the west, in the Middle
East and in Gaza to try and understand just what this looks like. What does it look like for these children? Because it's not embellishing for us to
say that every single child, every girl and boy in Gaza needs some type of mental health support.
So, we have reached this point where it's unprecedented, and we are in uncharted territory. But most recently, when I was there late last year, I
had a child psychologist say her biggest fear actually was for children going back. If there was a ceasefire, they would go home and they would see
the rubble. They would learn that their friend was killed.
And then the great fear was if then hostilities started again, because children already, you know, their life is so fragile, psychologically,
they're fragile. Child psychologist, Isa, have had breakdowns. So, we simply don't know the terrain we're in, except we do know that children in
Gaza historically have had one of the highest literacy rates, and we risk losing that.
And that has a great cost to the idea of peace across the Middle East. Now, you talked about the general level of health there and the age of children.
What I've seen so many times in Gaza, little girls and boys, little Yasmine(ph), little Omar(ph), because of their size, when there's a blast,
they're thrown further because of their size, because of their little bodies, their bones break easier.
Because of their size, they have less blood. So, when emergency workers are prevented to getting to them, then it's almost a death sentence. This is
why we see the age not just of children, but as you rightly say, five-year- olds, four-year-olds. And yes, Isa, it's a really important point about those children who didn't get a chance of life.
Right now, it's not just about the bombardment. It's about aid being blocked, bombing whilst restricting aid coming in. So, we've got
ventilators for children who need them, for premature babies who are going to die. And there are ventilators 5 miles across the other side. This is
everything as bad as we first saw in October, November 2023.
SOARES: Yes, and on that, James, aid has been stopped for many weeks now. You know, I know you've pleaded, I know you've implored. What are you
hearing back? What are you hearing, be it from the Israelis? What are you hearing from the Americans on this?
ELDER: Well, I think what you hear generally, I mean, in the corridors of power, these discussions are going on, the most senior U.N. official in
terms of Humanitarian Affairs, Tom Fletcher is very candid around the need for aid to return. But in fact, what you hear from some of those parties is
in fact, are doubling down a quite an aggressive language on restricting of aid.
Now, aid is not a privilege. Aid in a war zone is a fundamental right. So, just as we heard in terms of that hospital being hit, the level of security
around international humanitarian law, that's what we see we're losing right now. We see this breakdown of an international order. And
unfortunately, it's girls and boys who are suffering the most.
I mean, we have a -- you know, Isa, in November, the electricity was finally turned on -- turned on again, not a right, a privilege turned on
for the biggest desalination plant that allowed UNICEF to support around 600,000 people, like one in four people in the Gaza Strip getting safe
water again, that's been turned off for more than a month now.
[14:15:00]
You've got half a million people again, again at risk because of that. So, you know, this is not by accident. All these decisions --
SOARES: Yes --
ELDER: Are by design. All these decisions lead us to, as you said, that calamitous, horrific, historic rate of girls and boys being killed.
SOARES: Yes, it is incredible. I can't wrap my head around it. I don't know how anyone can. James, always great to have you on the show. We just
wish it was better circumstances. James Elder, such an important voice on our show here. Thank you, James. Now, I want to turn to the United States
because what appears to be a stunning, truly stunning breach of U.S. national security.
An American journalist says top Trump administration officials accidentally sent him war plans. Jeffrey Goldberg, who is the editor-in-chief of "The
Atlantic", says he was included in a group chat about U.S. military strikes in Yemen just a couple of hours before they were actually carried out.
Goldberg says the message to the chat group, title Houthis PC Small Group appeared to be from U.S. National Security adviser Michael Waltz.
Here's what former U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had to say when he spoke to CNN just in the last hour. Have a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEON PANETTA, FORMER U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: There's no question this is legitimate. But what they're not paying attention to is that you've
included somebody on the outside who has no business knowing about this information. There was a mistake here. Somebody on "The Atlantic" got the
most sensitive e-mails you can imagine at the federal level. That is a serious blunder. It has to be investigated and somebody, frankly, needs to
get fired.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Leon Panetta there. We'll have more on this breaking news story in just a moment. Also still to come tonight, what legal powers does Donald
Trump have when it comes to deportations? Later in the hour, we'll check back in on today's appeals court hearing over, of course, the Aliens
Enemies Act, so, we were telling you at the top of the show.
Plus, uproar on the streets of Turkey, how the arrest of Istanbul's mayor has turned into detention of more than a thousand people. We'll have much
more after this very short break. You are watching CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: Welcome back, everyone. Turning now to what appears to be a stunning breach of U.S. national security. An American journalist says top
Trump administration officials accidentally sent him war plans.
[14:20:00]
Jeffrey Goldberg; the editor-in-chief of "The Atlantic", says he was included in a group chat about U.S. military strikes in Yemen just a couple
of hours before they were actually carried out. Goldberg says the message to the chat group, titled Houthis PC Small Group, appear to be from U.S.
National Security adviser Michael Waltz.
Here's what former U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had to say just when he spoke to CNN in the last hour. Have a listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PANETTA: There's no question this is legitimate. But what they're not paying attention to is that you've included somebody on the outside who has
no business knowing about this information. There was a mistake here. Somebody on "The Atlantic" got the most sensitive e-mails you can imagine
at the federal level. That is a serious blunder. It has to be investigated, and somebody, frankly, needs to get fired.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SOARES: Let's get more on all of this. Alex Marquardt joins me now. Alex, this is quite something. I'm just reading Jeffrey Goldberg's text passage
here in "The Atlantic", his article. Can you give us -- just take a step back for us and just explain how he got -- how Jeffrey Goldberg got this?
ALEX MARQUARDT, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Well, he was for a reason, that still remains unknown -- added to this conversation by Mike
Waltz. Mike Waltz reached out and added him as a signal contact. This messaging -- encrypted messaging app several days prior to then being added
to the larger group chat, which as you said, was called Houthis PC Small Group.
PC being very important. It refers to Principles Committee, the principles being the senior most echelon of the U.S. government. Of course, Jeffrey
Goldberg very much is not one of them. There are all kinds of theories and speculation about who Waltz actually meant to include, but certainly
Goldberg was not meant to be part of that group.
He was then added to this conversation, which took place over the course of several days, real deliberations about whether this strike should go ahead
against the Houthis, and that's what former Secretary Panetta was referring to and saying it was legitimate. He meant, the conversation was legitimate,
not the way that it was carried out in front of this reporter, not the way that this national defense information was bandied about on a signal app.
Then the morning of these latest strikes against the Houthis, March 15th, at 11:44 in the morning, the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, forwards
the group and updates, saying that these strikes were going to happen two hours from then. And he included some extremely sensitive details that
Goldberg does not publish because they are classified, including operational details, information about the targets, the weapons the U.S.
would be using, and the sequencing of the attack.
Sure enough, two hours later, Isa, those strikes did happen. There was celebration on this group chat, John Ratcliffe, the national -- the CIA
director called it a good start, Secretary Rubio said good job to the Secretary of Defense, and others responded with a variety of emojis.
Remarkably, Isa, we are getting no pushback in terms of the veracity of this text chain from the White House.
A spokesman for the National Security Council, Brian Hughes, told CNN that this does appear to be an authentic message. They're reviewing how this
inadvertent number, meaning Jeffrey Goldberg's number was added to the chain, and then he tries to spin this as a real deliberation, a real
debate. He called it a demonstration of the deep and thoughtful policy coordination between these senior officials.
But now, there has been a cascade of condemnation, particularly from Capitol Hill, about how this was handled. Real questions about the
violations here of the Espionage Act. And then Isa, Goldberg finishes this piece with just a remarkable quote from the Secretary of Defense, Pete
Hegseth so confident in the security of this conversation.
He says, "we are currently clean on OPSEC, on operational security." Clearly, he did not know that a journalist was very much in the chat. Isa.
SOARES: My goodness. Thanks very much, appreciate it. Let's get more then on what the reaction has been and see what the White House has to say. Our
Jeff Zeleny is at the White House. So, Jeff, give us a sense -- have we heard anything so far from President Trump on this?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF U.S. NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Isa, we have not heard from the President directly, but there is an opportunity to do so
shortly here. He'll be appearing at an open event with the Governor of Louisiana, talking about economic development. So, I would assume and
expect the President would be asked about this.
He had a lengthy cabinet meeting this morning, talking all positive news about what various secretaries are finding. You really get the sense that
the White House was trying to fill the void this morning. They clearly knew this story was coming when Jeffrey Goldberg at "The Atlantic" asked them
for a comment.
[14:25:00]
But extraordinarily, the -- as Alex was just saying there, the National Security Council spokesman is you know, basically turning lemons into
lemonade here, and saying this group chat shows that there are deep policy discussions. But look, everyone knows who has ever worked in an
administration that those conversations are held in the situation room or in classified systems, not on signal on a normal iPhone.
So, I was talking with a Republican official who formerly worked in a Republican administration. He called it amateur hour. Just stunned that
this level of detailed conversation would be unfolding with so many people, and not a single person raising a question, hey guys, let's not have this
conversation here.
The White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles says limited experience in government was on the chat. She congratulated people for a job well done
effectively. But the President's reaction to this will certainly be interesting. I assume the administration will double-down and defend. But
the question here is on Capitol Hill, will there be any calls for hearings from Republicans or not?
You can imagine if this -- if this scenario was switched and this was the Biden administration and a Republican Congress, we know what exactly the
conversation would be. So, the bottom line here is, this is not a normal course of activity. It's extraordinary. We will see what the President
says, but it does offer a window into the conversations between these advisors, and it also shines a light on the fact that even the Vice
President is not necessarily on the same page as the President.
And he had very scathing things to say about the U.S. is a European ally as well. So --
SOARES: Yes --
ZELENY: Certainly, black eyes all around here for this administration on this. Isa.
SOARES: And we are expected to see President Trump at some point this hour. I'm sure, Jeff, that he --
ZELENY: Right --
SOARES: Will be peppered with questions on this as the news breaks. Of course, we'll keep our eyes peeled for any reaction to that, and how
actually they frame this and how they spin this. Appreciate it. Let's get more on this --
ZELENY: Sure --
SOARES: CNN's political and national security analyst David Sanger joins me now. David, I mean, we heard Leon Panetta say this is a serious blunder.
Your take.
DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Yes, Isa, it's a -- it is a blunder. I mean, the problem is not the debate itself. The
debate seemed to make perfect sense as they -- you know, as it unfolded, everybody played to type. J.D. Vance argued that the Europeans should be
doing more of this.
The U.S. taxpayers shouldn't be paying for it since it was the Europeans who were benefiting from the commercial traffic running through that area
in the Middle East, and why should the U.S. be policing it for them? But what's remarkable is the cavalier way that they dealt with the war plans
itself. So, I think, you know, it was an inadvertence to add Jeff Goldberg, the editor of "The Atlantic", to the -- to the listing.
But it was quite deliberate when Pete Hegseth dropped the warp detail -- war plan details into this unclassified channel. As you heard Jeff say
before, imagine the situation was reversed. So, we don't need to imagine it because we knew what happened, what Republicans were saying when Hillary
Clinton made a very similar error by communicating over unclassified e- mails with her staff. And you remember the yelling about that in the 2016 campaign?
SOARES: And don't we all remember that? And just for our viewers, just David, around the world. I mean, Signal, the messaging service we're
talking about here, that is not approved, correct? For government-sharing kind of classified information. Just reiterate that point for us.
SANGER: That's right. The -- you know, classified data is supposed to stay on classified channels run by the U.S. government. Now, Signal is widely
used by Democrats, Republicans, Intelligence people, defense people, it's supposed to be for unclassified conversations. It is a very well encrypted
system. And the fact that they are -- that this array of people from the Vice President to the CIA director to the Defense Secretary, are all
willing to go use it, tells you that they probably haven't cracked the Signal system, and they all think it's quite secure.
And it does bring a remarkable level of encryption and security to conversations. But that doesn't mean that it's legal to use in these
circumstances by U.S. government officials.
SOARES: Yes, let's speak to some of the information, and Alex Marquardt was talking about this just earlier before you came on. Some of this -- how
sensitive some of the information that was being discussed on Signal. Goldberg writes -- he would not quote from a Hegseth message because -- and
I'm quoting here, "the information contained in them, if there had been read by an adversary of the United States, could conceivably have been used
to harm American military and Intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East central commands era of responsibility. He does go on
share though that the Hegseth post contain operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons,
the U.S. would be deploying and attack sequencing.
[14:30:23]
I mean, that is incredibly detailed and very worrying indeed as you -- as we hear Goldberg (ph) outlining this.
SANGER: Yes, you would imagine what the reaction would be if a major news organization published that detail before the attack happened, and the
question is, did Mr. Hegseth, by putting it on a signal chain, exposed that information to adversaries?
Now, if you trust Signal, then you're trusting -- though they probably haven't. On the other hand, we know that the Russians and the Chinese,
among others have worked very hard to get inside the phones, right into the -- at the firmware level of individual telephones. And it's conceivable you
could imagine situations where they might have been able to go read it. We just don't know.
But it does look beyond careless and I think it is worth asking the question if the shoe was on the other foot, and it was in some past times,
how would they -- how would Republicans react?
SOARES: Indeed. And we shall see how -- when we hear from the president potentially this hour, what the -- what he's likely to say on this. Very
quickly though, on Vice President Vance seem to be at odds with President Trump here. What did you make of what we heard from Vance, not just on
this, but also on Europe?
SANGER: Well, on Europe, I mean, we know Vance's views pretty well from his trip to Europe, I was on it. And here we're just getting a more
unvarnished part of it. I thought it was interesting when he said in here, he didn't know how much President Trump knew about this impending attack
and how it was going to be done does raise the question how fully informed was the president.
SOARES: Yes, and the quote is, "I'm not sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe right now. There's a
further risk that we see a moderate to severe spiking on oil prices. I'm willing to support the consensus of the team and keep these concerns to
myself, but there is a growing argument for delaying this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the economy is et
cetera."
Appreciated so much for us to get into plenty of reaction, no doubt likely to hear from the Democrats, but hopefully, we'll get some insight from the
president when we hear from him in the next hour or so. David Sanger, as always appreciate your insight. David, good to see you.
SANGER: Great to be with you.
SOARES: Thank you. And still to come tonight, we'll head back to court where the Trump administration is arguing it should be allowed to use a
wartime law to deport alleged gang members even during peace time. Those details just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:35:00]
SOARES: Welcome back, everyone. This hour we are tracking a major legal showdown in Washington. Right now, a U.S. Appeals Court is hearing
arguments whether or not the Trump administration can move forward with its controversial deportations under a wartime authority. Judge James Boasberg,
who is not part of today's three-judge panel has placed a temporary block against these quick deportations, though, the administration argues the
block should be lifted.
Meanwhile, we just heard from one of the judges on the panel who said, quote, I'm going to quote him here, "Nazis got better treatment under the
Alien Enemies Act."
Let's get more on this. Joining us now to discuss today's hearing is attorney and CNN opinion writer Raul Reyes. Raul, you've been busy these
days. Great to have you back on the show. And I just saw from the judge, Judge Patricia Millett, who said Nazis got better treatment under the
Aliens Act -- Enemies Act, to which then the DOJ attorney replied, well, your Honor, we certainly dispute the Nazi apology.
Just give me your sense of how you think this is going to go, given what we've just heard and what you are listening for here in today's hearing.
RAUL REYES, CNN OPINION WRITER, IMMIGRATION ANALYST, ATTORNEY AND USA TODAY CONTRIBUTOR: Well, my sense is that this appeals hearing is really not
going in the way the Trump administration wants. The panel appears extremely skeptical of their claims. And remember that the Trump
administration, they're basing this case to -- for their deportations to El Salvador around the Alien Enemies Act, which says that they have these
wartime powers which they can use when the country is either at war, which we're not, or in -- when we're in the throes of the administration. Their
claim rests on the -- in my view, the stretch that this gang, this Venezuelan gang, is invading the United States. So, that's a tough claim to
make to begin with.
And what is at the heart of this case, though? Both this morning with the federal judge and at the hearing this afternoon is whether the government
improperly used the Alien Enemies Act to deport these Venezuelans by not allowing them due process.
SOARES: Do you think they're all -- do you think that they have -- do you think that administration has the right, has the legal authority to invoke
the act with -- from what you've heard so far, and the argument, which we've heard very little from their side, by the way?
REYES: Right. Well, I'll -- let me say this. Conventional legal wisdom and established scholar -- scholarship says that really, in this instance, the
Trump administration does not have a solid legal case for invoking the act. And the reason for that is because their whole case, like I mentioned, it
rests on this idea of invasion and that these Venezuelan gang members, alleged, are agents of the Venezuelan government.
Now, we know from the government's own admissions that many of the people deported had no prior criminal histories, and Venezuela itself is trying to
stamp out this gang. So, that -- you know, that's a steep bar to clear.
SOARES: Yes. And when was asked, when administration was asked, how do you know, they talked about these tattoos. We actually had a lawyer
representing one of these young men who she says is not part of the gang, the Venezuelan gang.
[14:40:00]
Who did -- she did not know he was even being sent. But you know, we did hear though, from -- Raul, we heard from the border czar, Tom Homan, who
says every single migrant on the plane was a member of TDA. Well, kind of conceding a lot of gang members don't have criminal history. So, how do you
think then, Raul, that the appeals court will approach the issue of who the government purports these passengers actually were?
REYES: I think the administrator -- the appeals court will address this issue in the most appropriate legal fashion, which is to examine the
individual cases of the deportees. Because remember, immigrants in the United States, even people who may be undocumented or engaged in criminal
activities, they still do have right to counsel, right to due process, certain amounts of civil liberties. And for people who may be following
this case who don't get into the legal weeds, I want to remind people that our government, this administration, could deport these people if they were
gang members under existing immigration law, that's possible to do.
The reason that the administration is invoking the Alien Enemies Act is because they want to do it as quickly as possible without any judicial
oversight. And to me, that's what the appeals court is going to be looking at. I don't think they're going to be siding with the administration, I
think they will back the judge. And so, potentially we may start seeing individual cases now coming forward.
SOARES: Sorry to interrupt. Sorry to interrupt. I'm going to go to the White House. I'm sorry to interrupt. Do stay with us. Let's go to the White
House.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: -- anything about it. I'm not a big fan of The Atlantic. It's -- to me, it's a magazine that's going out of business.
I think it's not much of a magazine. But I know nothing about it. You're saying that they had, what?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They were using Signal to coordinate on sensitive materials and --
TRUMP: Having to do with what? Having to do with what? What were they talking about?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With the Houthis?
TRUMP: The Houthis? You mean the attacker on the Houthis?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Correct.
TRUMP: Well, it couldn't have been very effective because the attack was very effective. I can tell you that. I don't know anything about it. You're
telling me about it for the first time. Anything else?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- this any announcement on Hyundai. Is this a blueprint for you for other automakers to come to the United States to do
what Hyundai was doing and investing so much in Louisiana and creating these new jobs?
TRUMP: Absolutely. It's a nice -- that's a nice question from you. That's a shocking question. How nice it is, huh? That's OK. That's a question --
that's a good question actually. Yes, sure. Hyundai's a great company. We have other great companies coming in, and we have some that are going to be
staying here and very much expanding, and we have a tremendous interest in every business. I can't just say automobiles, but automobiles is a big one.
And yes, this is the beginning of a lot of things happening.
We've had -- as you know, Apple's announced a $500 billion investment and other companies have announced $250, $300 billion, but we are well into the
$3 and $4 trillion mark, which has never happened to our country before. What it really means is jobs. All we care about is jobs, right? We care
about quality and quality of life and safety and security, but we care about jobs and they're going to have a lot -- we have a lot of people
coming in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was going to ask (INAUDIBLE) a question, if you don't mind.
TRUMP: Go ahead.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How did you convince Hyundai to come to your great state? How did you convince them to come to Louisiana?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was easy. I told him we were going to have a great president this year. Right? Look, again, I think that this is America's
seeing the American --
SOARES: Right. We went to President Trump when he was being asked about the story we brought you in the last few minutes, in fact, and that is to
what appears to be a truly stunning breach of U.S. national security. As we sort of told you in the last 15 minutes or so, an American journalist,
Jeffrey Goldberg, who is the editing chief of The Atlantic said that Trump administration officials accidentally sent him war plans.
War plans. He was part of a group chat about U.S. military strikes in Yemen. President Trump, as you see there, that was the first question, at
least that we went to him, that we heard. He was asked about this. His response was -- that's the article that we're referring to. His response
was, I know nothing about it. And if it was about attack on the Houthis, it was very effective.
What we have seen here, and we have heard here from Leon Panetta into the last few hours -- or in the last hour or so, that this is a serious
blunder. It needs investigating. And we were looking for some clarity there on what the president knew about what was said and what was carried out as
part of this Houthis PC, a small group chat, but -- which include a U.S. national security adviser, Michael Waltz.
[14:45:00]
But he did not elaborate on that. He simply pretended he didn't know or he did not know. He said, I know nothing about it. We'll continue to monitor
what the president says. If he says anything else regarding this story or any other top story, of course we will, of course, bring that to you. In
the meantime, he was talking tariffs. We, of course, keeping our eyes on the market, stock market as well to see if any news are announced on that.
Still to come though tonight, the sexual assault trial for French actor Gerard Depardieu is back underway. We are live in Paris with today's court
proceedings.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SOARES: The trial of actor Gerard Depardieu is back underway in Paris. His poor health forced a five-month delay. Prosecutors accused the 76-year-old
of sexually assaulting two women on a movie set in 2021. In both cases, he's accused of using violence, coercion, or threats in the alleged
assaults. Depardieu has denied all accusations against him.
Our Saskya Vandoorne and joins us now live from Paris with the very latest. So, Saskya, just remind us to just take a step back in terms of the
background of this case.
SASKYA VANDOORNE, CNN SENIOR PRODUCER: Yes, Isa. Well, I'll start off by saying that the hearing is still ongoing right now. And, you know, tensions
have been mounting all day inside that courtroom. Gerard Depardieu's lawyer spoke for an hour and 45 minutes urging the court to dismiss the case,
saying that the police investigation was biased.
Meanwhile, the plaintiff's defense have said that this is a tactic that it's being used by Depardieu's team to try and delay proceedings in the
hope that some of the eyewitnesses may drop out. But, Isa, you are right. This is about so much more than just one man. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
VANDOORNE (voice-over): He's France's best-known actor. Now on trial, accused of sexual assault by two women who claimed Gerard Depardieu
attacked them on a film set in 2021, according to the prosecutor's office. Both women alleged that on separate occasions, the actor pinned them
between his legs and touched their genitals, buttocks, and chest over their clothes. While Depardieu has denied the allegations, the case has reignited
the MeToo movement stalled in France as prominent actresses supported men's freedom to pester and defended art. Actress Judith Godreche, art is no
excuse for crime.
[14:50:00]
JUDITH GODRECHE, ACTRESS: In this country, I feel that it's not just the men who are the abuser, who are trying to shut down the women, it's the
society.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): But now, a societal reckoning brought on by the Pelicot trial. Dominic Pelicot was found guilty of the drugging and mass
rape of his then wife, Gisele Pelicot, an abuse that spanned nearly a decade. The case sparked a national discussion around sexual violence and
consent.
MARINE TURCHI, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST, MEDIAPART (through translator): The Depardieu and Pelicot cases have played an important role in raising
public awareness and changing how we view certain behaviors, that they are not about seduction, but rather about power dynamics and domination. It is
now a collective issue, not just a women's problem.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): The plight of household named of Depardieu has gripped the nation.
EMMANUEL MACRON, FRENCH PRESIDENT (through translator): I'm a great admirer of Depardieu. He makes France proud.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): The president's defense over two years ago still sparking outrage today.
VANDOORNE: And this trial may not be Depardieu's last. Lawyers say he's been accused of assault by over a dozen other women and is embroiled in a
separate case where he's accused of rape.
JEREMIE ASSOUS, LAWYER FOR GERARD DEPARDIEU (through translator): These are nothing but slanderous accusations, each more serious than the last.
So, he's been deeply affected. But he will finally have the chance to defend himself in a setting where the principle of fairness is upheld. As
for months, even years, he's been facing numerous accusations.
VANDOORNE (voice-over): If convicted, Depardieu faces up to five years behind bars, a verdict is still months away. But in the court of public
opinion, especially in the wake of the Pelicot rape trial, the pedestal Gerard Depardieu once stood on so proudly is already long gone while the
MeToo movement has been truly resuscitated.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VANDOORNE (on camera): And Depardieu was in remarkably good spirits today. He was smiling inside the courthouse, looking very relaxed. We expect him
to take the stand tomorrow, but this will be a short trial. It should all be done and dusted by Wednesday, and we expect a verdict in a few months'
time. Isa.
SOARES: Thanks very. Saskya Vandoorne there from Paris for us. We're going to take a short break. We're back on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:55:00]
SOARES: I want to take you there to Istanbul where the time is 9:54 in the evening. And we can see -- we continue to see these protests across
Istanbul, the fifth night of protests as we have seen. Many taking to the streets to decry the arrest of Imamoglu, mayor of Istanbul. We heard from
the president today who is taking a stand of course.
But just for context for you, police in Turkey have detained now more than a thousand people during protests, again, last week's jailing of Imamoglu.
And the interior minister says the arrest today were, quote, "illegal activities," and some he said affiliated with terrorist organizations. He
says more than 120 police officers have been injured.
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has slammed the protests as a movement of islands. But the opposition say the arrest of Imamoglu, Erdogan's strongest
rival, is politically motivated and protesters are defending democracy. We'll continue to stay across these images coming to us live from Istanbul.
That does it for us for tonight though. Do stay right here. Newsroom with my colleague Max Foster is up next. I shall see you tomorrow. Bye-bye.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[15:00:00]
END
