Return to Transcripts main page
One World with Zain Asher
NY Attorney General to Appear in Federal Court; "Coalition of Willing" Meets in London on Ukraine; Trump Ends Talks with Canada Over Anti-Tariff Ad; Sources: Navy Tapped to Help Build Migrant Detention Center; James: This is about a Justice System that's been Used as a Tool of Revenge; New York Attorney General Speaks after Pleading Not Guilty. Aired 11a-12p ET
Aired October 24, 2025 - 11:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[11:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ZAIN ASHER, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: New York's Attorney General, set to appear in court this hour.
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN HOST, ONE WORLD: "One World" starts right now. Letitia James, a key Trump foe, is now facing federal charges of bank fraud
and making false statements.
ASHER: Plus, trade talks terminated. Why President Trump says he's ending negotiations with Canada?
GOLODRYGA: And the ACLU calls on ICE to release pregnant migrants from custody amid reports that they've suffered mistreatment. We'll speak to one
of the attorneys spearheading this effort. Hello, everyone. Live from New York. I'm Bianna Golodryga.
ASHER: And I'm Zain Asher. You are watching "One World". I want to begin at a federal courthouse in Norfolk, Virginia. That's where New York Attorney
General is due to be arraigned at this hour.
GOLODRYGA: Letitia James has been charged with two felonies connected to a mortgage she took out on a home back in 2020. She's accused of bank fraud
and making false statements to a financial institution. James plans to file a motion to dismiss the charges on the grounds that Donald Trump's hand-
picked prosecutor Lindsey Halligan was improperly appointed to the job.
Trump tapped Halligan to be the interim U.S. Attorney after a previous prosecutor resigned under pressure for allegedly refusing to prosecute
James and other Trump perceived enemies, citing insufficient evidence. Trump had been publicly pushing for James's prosecution after she won a
civil case against him for business fraud in 2024.
ASHER: Joining us live now is Gene Rossi. He's a Former Federal Prosecutor. So, as we were just saying, there these charges filed by Trump's hand pick
U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, despite the fact that Korea prosecutors continually objected over the fact that they believe that there was
insufficient evidence to bring this case. Just walk us through how her defense is working right now to try to dismiss these charges?
GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, I think as the days go on, the hours go on, we're learning that this case is weaker than we thought. I
used to work in the Eastern District of Virginia. My many years overlapped with Elizabeth. You see who wrote that memo saying they should not
prosecute Letitia Grant James, and what did they do? They fired her.
So, the first motion out of the box probably would be insufficient evidence to support the indictment. But I just want to say this, this case also
involves selective and vindictive prosecution. So those are two motions that also will be filed.
But a key motion for me is that Lindsey Halligan, who apparently is the only one who signed this indictment, that when she was appointed by
President Trump, his hand picks a successor, unqualified, in my view, when she signed that indictment alone, with no one else, that that document was
fraudulent and had no legal basis. So that's another argument.
The last thing I want to say about the charges of Letitia James. Getting a second mortgage for a second home under the federal guidelines is as murky
as muddy water. And what allegedly Letitia James did is something that millions, millions of people do over the years. And she's being picked out
and focused on because she's an alleged enemy of Donald Trump. That's a very sad thing to say, and it's very sad thing to prove.
GOLODRYGA: And while Lindsey Halligan was able to get a grand jury to indict Letitia James on these charges, no evidence has thus far been
publicly produced. I'm just curious, has any federal judge tossed out a case based on these allegations that the prosecutor herself in this case
was appointed unlawfully.
ROSSI: Yes, there are cases that say and there's a -- there's a memo from Sam Alito when he was with the Justice Department. In addition to some
cases, Sam Alito wrote a memo saying you only get one bite at the apple. You only get one interim U.S. attorney that was Eric Sieber, that was
fired, and that you cannot appoint a second one.
What should have happened is that the judges, under the law, they pick the Acting U.S. Attorney after the 120 days of the interim runs out.
[11:05:00]
So, you have the interim, then the judges take over. They appoint somebody. Lindsey Halleck -- Halligan is their second bite at the apple that is
arguably illegal.
ASHER: And just in terms of what is happening right now within the Justice Department, I mean, there must be turmoil there, because you have career
prosecutors who are being forced out. You have a lot of pressure on them to bring charges against, you know, Donald Trump's perceived enemies. Just
talk to us about how all of this is impacting career officials within the Justice Department.
ROSSI: That's a softball question. For almost 30 years, the Department of Justice was my mosque, my temple, my synagogue, in my church, I can say the
same thing about EDVA. I was a career prosecutor. I served under probably ten acting or confirmed U.S. attorneys and attorney's generals.
I will say this. This is the most politically driven Department of Justice since 1870 when a Department of Justice established by Ulysses S Grant.
What you have, and I got to stress this, you have the top two officials, three officials in the Department of Justice who were personal criminal
defense attorneys or related there to the President of the United States.
So, when he picks up the phone and calls one, two or all three of them in a conference call, he doesn't hesitate to take advantage of that personal
relationship that he had when he was charged as a criminal and convicted as a criminal. That's astounding to me.
GOLODRYGA: Why do you call this a softball question?
ASHER: Yes. All right, as an insult, though, I don't think he meant it as an insult.
ROSSI: Don't say it again. I'm sorry.
GOLODRYGA: It wasn't meant as an insult. It's just stating the obvious.
ROSSI: Oh, no, no, no.
ASHER: Given the pattern that we're seeing.
ROSSI: I got to say this. When I say it's my temple, my mosque, my synagogue, my church, I feel it right here. And the people that I know in
the Justice Department and the ones who left, they are my dear friends. They are my comrades. And it pains me. It pains me, what's going on? How
people are getting fired for one reason? They are doing the right thing. That's
sad.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, indeed. And we're talking about a political litigator as well that have served for many years in both Republican and Democratic
administrations. We should also note that Letitia James has pleaded not guilty.
ASHER: Not guilty.
GOLODRYGA: All right, Former Federal Prosecutor Gene Rossi, thank you.
ASHER: Thank you so much, Gene.
ROSSI: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: You never ask softball questions. All right, key European backers of Ukraine are meeting in London today to ratchet up the pressure
on Russia as the war in Ukraine enters its fourth year.
ASHER: So far, sanctions and U.S. and European efforts to bring Russian President Vladimir Putin to the negotiating table have failed. Today, the
UK is hosting a summit of the "Coalition of the Willing". Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is meeting with British Prime Minister Keir
Starmer and other leaders. They're set to hold a news conference this hour. We will bring that to you as soon as it happens.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, the meeting comes after the European Union agreed to bankroll Ukraine for two more years, but failed to agree on a deal to use
frozen Russian assets to support Kyiv.
ASHER: Separately, days after President Donald Trump announced tough new sanctions on Russia, sources say a top Russian Envoy is in the U.S. for
official talks.
GOLODRYGA: International Diplomatic Editor Nic Robertson joins us now from outside the London Foreign Office. So clearly some more support here.
Always welcome for Ukraine in terms of European promises for not only more financial aid, but military aid as well, the United Kingdom pledging more
missiles for Ukraine.
But let me ask you, Nic about some disappointment as it relates to the frozen Russian assets. Belgium was concerned about any legal liability, and
thus this issue once again being deferred. How significant is that?
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: Yeah, this is something that's been going on for quite some time, the discussion behind the scenes
about this European Union proposal to take those frozen Russian assets, about $140 billion worth, in, mostly in Belgian banks.
[11:10:00]
And to use them as through a complicated banking procedures and legal procedures, has to be said to use that as a collateral, if you weigh to
guarantee a loan that Ukraine would use to spend on keeping the country running, to spend on fighting the war alone, that it would only have to pay
back if Russia paid its -- paid reparations, war reparations to Ukraine in the future.
Now, because the Belgians have custody of the money, they were the most concerned in the European Union about the legal implications should Russia
come after them. So, the effort behind the scenes of the EU has been to find a way to sort of equitably underwrite, if you will, the money in the
Belgian banks that could, in the future, be used.
And this is something British Prime Minister will have been talking about today, that the efforts to make sure that that money and that low -- that
sort of financial procedure can go into place. But in the meantime, the European Union has said it's going to underwrite the cost for Ukraine, for
its economy for the next couple of years, and the meeting here as well.
That's going on right now, the British Prime Minister saying, as you mentioned, they're actually quite a successful week for Ukraine, but saying
more can be done on the oil and gas front to cut Russia off from global markets, and has also commented, and this seems to be in reference to the
Tomahawk cruise missiles.
President Zelenskyy went a week ago to the White House to discuss with President Trump. President Trump said he wasn't prepared to give them the
moment to Ukraine. The British Prime Minister saying he hopes more can be done on long range missiles as well.
GOLODRYGA: All right. Nic Robertson, thank you. Let's take a closer look at the Russia, Ukraine situation with Julia Ioffe, the Founding Partner and
Washington Correspondent for Puck. She's also an Author her new book "Motherland: A Feminist History of Modern Russia from Revolution to
Autocracy". And she joins us now from New York. First of all, congratulations, Julia, on the book.
It has received wide praise, so I've been following this journey of yours for a number of years, and just so impressed and delighted that this book
has finally come to fruition. And as you've said, a subject not specifically focused on Vladimir Putin. So wonderful news that alone.
We'll get to the book in just a second. But let me ask you about where things stand here, because it was a rather pivotal move this week from
President Trump to impose sanctions for the first time on Russia targeting two of its largest banks, also sort of putting off a summit between him and
Vladimir Putin and Budapest in the next few weeks.
That having been said, though, we've now reported that Putin's top Economic Envoy is in Washington, D.C., and may be meeting with Steve Witkoff, given
the vacillation that we've seen from Donald Trump and sort of his erratic back and forth in terms of embracing Putin and then pulling back from him.
Is this Moscow's attempt to try to win him over again? And do you think they'll be successful?
JULIA IOFFE, AUTHOR, MOTHER: A FEMINIST HISTORY OF MODERN RUSSIA: I think it is their attempt to win him back, unfortunately, and they have always
dangled this while Trump has been trying to end the war in Ukraine. Russia has always dangled this. I would say, illusory promise that should this war
end, or should relations, more importantly, for Moscow, between Moscow and Washington, be normalized?
That there are these fantastical sums to be made for American companies in Russia. I don't know that that can actually happen. But there has been an
attempt by the Kremlin since the very beginning of this administration to say, you know what? Don't worry about Ukraine. Just let us handle it. You
don't have a -- you don't have a dog in this fight. Just put it aside.
And why don't we just talk to each other as great powers and establish economic cooperation and just do business deals together, which, of course,
is music to Donald Trump's ears and the Russian government with Putin at its head. Of course, understand that this really drives this kind of
potential deal making money making really drives Donald Trump, and so they're, of course, trying to play that card.
ASHER: Julia, I want to talk about China, because on Thursday, the EU essentially added two Chinese oil refineries, PetroChina and Chinaoil Hong
Kong, to its sanction list, saying that they have been invaluable to Russia's war machine. And these are sentiments that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has
echoed as well.
Just in terms of whether it's weapons components or war materials. Just talk to us about how invaluable China's support has been in terms of
enabling Russia to continue this war.
IOFFE: Well, the main, main reason that China has been so invaluable to Russia is that it provides an alternative to the U.S. and to the West.
[11:15:00]
Before there was kind of one player in the game, and if the U.S. and the West sanctioned you, you were kind of out of luck. But now there's a whole
parallel financial system, et cetera, that you can rely on, on a supply system that you can rely on if the West shuts you out.
So, in the years since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, it has lost its biggest market, oil market, energy market in Europe, but it
has quickly reoriented itself toward India, toward China, to other countries. And that has allowed it to continue funding its war and funding
its war economy, and to insulate Russians from the effects of not just the war, but of Western economic sanctions.
So, China has provided that as well as a diplomatic shield at the U.N. and in other places. It has provided dual use technology, microchips, et
cetera, that it can use in building weapons and drones and other high-tech machinery that it can use against Ukraine and Ukrainians. And it has
continued buying Russian oil, not just through the seaborne fleet, but through a big pipeline.
And that, because that is nearly half oil and gas are nearly half of the Russian federal budget, that is, of course, keeping the war machine
running.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, and we've seen President Trump recently lash out at India for buying Russian oil. We haven't seen that same level of frustration
expressed against China, yet. We know the two men may be meeting as soon as next Thursday at an Asian Summit.
OK, Julia, let's get to your book and put Vladimir Putin aside for a second, because motherland explores women who really built modern Russia?
And the idea, you know, you've talked about stems from your own extraordinary family, and the women in your life who you've said really are
just, you know, examples of ordinary Soviet women.
And we're talking about medical doctors, PHDs, engineers, going back a number of generations. And you write about early Soviet feminism, and that
was really a home-grown movement, not something that was imported from the West. Can you talk about how it was able to sustain for as long as it did
for so many decades in the Soviet Union, because it's rather surprising. It was leaderless for the most part.
IOFFE: Well, there were leaders. There were leaders like Alexandra Colin Tai like Nadezhda Krupskaya Lenin's wife, Inessa Armand, a revolutionary
who for a time was romantically linked to Vladimir Lenin. But you know, it helps when you establish a dictatorship right away, and then you impose
these kinds of policies at the very beginning.
So as soon as the Bolsheviks took power, just a few months later, they introduced no fault civil divorce, paid maternity leave, child support that
a woman could get, even if her child was born out of wedlock, free higher education for women. Legalized abortion in 1920.
This was government policy and their government policy in a dictatorship; there was so there wasn't all that much fighting to be done. That said the
men at the top, who were responsible for implementing these policies weren't actually that interested in the true emancipation of women.
They wanted women to work and be productive and help build a modern industrial state. They didn't really want women to compete with men for
political power, for social power and social equality. They wanted women to work, but also to be mothers and homemakers all at the same time, all full
time.
And so even though, by the end of the Soviet experiment, Russian, or I'd rather say Soviet women, didn't really want to do all that by themselves,
they were exhausted. They didn't really have much of a choice, because this was government policy in a totalitarian state.
GOLODRYGA: I have to say it's produced some remarkable women in your family. I have to say my family as well. We share a common thread of coming
to the United States as political refugees. I was a bit younger than you were, but there was a quote that your father said that really resonated
with me, because I heard it from my parents many, many times.
And he said Russia was a country without a future. And it seems that from all of the reporting you've done for this book, you've come to the same
conclusion.
IOFFE: Yes. And I've come to the conclusion that is, that is my father's favorite line in the book. Everybody --
GOLODRYGA: -- so happy to hear it every time.
[11:20:00]
IOFFE: Right.
ASHER: Seven years later, you can say, dad --
IOFFE: You're right.
ASHER: Julia Ioffe, congratulations on the book.
GOLODRYGA: Congratulations. Really excited about this project and looking forward to seeing your success in promoting it.
IOFFE: Thank you so much, Bianna, Thank you, Zain.
ASHER: Thank you, Julia.
GOLODRYGA: All right, well, a voice from the past is affecting the future. Coming up, why a speech by Ronald Reagan in 1987 has put the brakes on
trade talks between the U.S. and China?
ASHER: Out with the old and in with the new the East Wing of the White House is now just a pile of rubble, new details of the controversial
construction job underway at the most visited home in the United States.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ASHER: All right, the White House continues to accuse Canada of not negotiating a new trade agreement in good faith. Economic Adviser Kevin
Hassett told Fox News, Canadians have not been very collegial. His comments come after Donald Trump abruptly cut off trade talks.
That move was sparked by an ad released by the Canadian Province of Ontario, which uses audio from President Ronald Reagan criticizing tariffs
in a 1987 radio address. The Reagan Foundation says the ad misrepresents the late president's speech, but does not say how. Here's a bit of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When someone says, let's impose tariffs on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting
American products and jobs, and sometimes for a short while, it works, but only for a short time. But over the long run, such trade barriers hurt
every American worker and consumer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney came out this morning and offered to resume talks whenever the United States is ready.
ASHER: Our Paula Newton joins us live now from Ottawa. And obviously this puts Canada on the back foot. Mark Carney just had his second working visit
to the White House on October 8th. Just in terms of what Canada's options.
I mean, obviously we know that the U.S. President is unpredictable, to say the least, and obviously this latest move just proves it. But Mark Carney
had an economic policy address where he talked about essentially doubling Canadian exports to other destinations besides the U.S. This is Mark
Carney's way of trying to sort of Trump proof the Canadian economy.
[11:25:00]
PAULA NEWTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, unfortunately, he said himself that would take a decade. So, let's deal with the here and now. Not even a
speech from Ronald Reagan will change this. Canada's economy is extremely vulnerable, and as much as the Ronald Reagan speech certainly touched a
nerve with the president at this point in time.
The negotiation they were supposed to be having was over steel and aluminum, and in the next few days in Asia, they were going to try and get
to at least some kind of deal on those sectoral tariffs. That didn't happen and may not happen, given the fact that the prime minister himself says he
can't really raise President Trump on the phone right now even to talk about a bet over the World Series.
Look at issue here is something that Mark Carney has repeated for the last few months. And that is the fact that they cannot control U.S. trade
policy, and they must do what they can to negotiate what they can. But also look elsewhere. It's really not clear to me in terms of the sobering
comments from Mark Carney on what more Canada can do here?
Mark Carney has a very good relationship with President Trump. They text and talk all on the phone all the time, I am told. And Mark Carney remind
everyone flew at the last minute to the Middle East to continue to support Donald Trump and that Middle East peace effort that he has ongoing. And yet
again, it was the Ontario Premier, not the government of Canada, that came up with this ad that, you know, so incensed the president.
And to that end, it is not clear what more Canada can do right now to really set these negotiations right.
ASHER: All right. Paula Newton, live for us. I mean, as you point out, it would take a long time, a decade, as Mark Carney said, to actually look
elsewhere in terms of trade. Paula Newton, thank you. All right, you're looking at live pictures of the U.S. Capitol, but there's not a lot of work
going on in there.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, for about a month now, the Senate has left for the weekend, meaning no movement on the government shutdown that's in its 23rd
day. On Thursday, Senate Democrats blocked a bill that would pay workers who are deemed essential during the shutdown.
ASHER: Friday, of course, is usually pay day for many of the 1.4 million federal employees who are either off the job or working without pay. Here's
the effect of that political wrangling, long lines at food banks.
GOLODRYGA: Still on the job, however, are demolition crews at the White House.
ASHER: Yeah, these before and after satellite photos. Take a look here show you the entire East Wing essentially being knocked down. It's making way
for a giant new ballroom that comes with a giant price tag, $300 million.
GOLODRYGA: The White House says construction is being paid for by private donors, adding that they have been transparent about the process all along.
The project is expected to be finished before Trump's term ends in January 2029.
ASHER: Yeah, later today, U.S. President Donald Trump leaves on a high stakes three country tour of Asia, with stops in Malaysia, Japan and South
Korea culminates in a highly anticipated bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping next week amid tariff tensions. That will be their
first meeting since Donald Trump's second term began.
GOLODRYGA: Earlier this month, China ramped up restrictions on rare earth minerals. In response, Trump threatened again to raise tariffs on Chinese
exports from 30 percent to 130 percent by November 1st. China has vowed to retaliate if that happens. All right, still to come for us, sources say the
Trump Administration is turning to the U.S. military to help build what's needed to house detained migrants.
ASHER: Plus, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is responding to a claim about the treatment of pregnant migrants in ICE custody.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:30:00]
ASHER: Welcome back to "One World". I'm Zane Asher.
GOLODRYGA: And I'm Bianna Golodryga. Here are some headlines we're watching today.
ASHER: President Donald Trump has ended trade talks with Canada over a TV ad. The Government of Ontario used an excerpt from a 1987 speech from then
President Ronald Reagan that slammed tariffs. The Reagan Foundation says the ad misrepresents President Reagan's words. Canada's Prime Minister says
in his words, we can't control the trade policy of the United States.
GOLODRYGA: U.S. Defense Secretary has posted a video of an overnight strike on a boat in the Caribbean. Pete Hegseth says the boat was operated by a
drug cartel and was smuggling narcotics. Six people were killed in the strike. This is the 10th targeted boat strike since the U.S. began its
campaign last month.
ASHER: U.S. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio is in Israel at this hour, happening a short time ago. He said there is no Plan B if the ceasefire in
Gaza falls apart, expressing optimism about the future of the deal. This as Vice President J.D. Vance says Rafah could be rebuilt in two to three
years.
GOLODRYGA: And Tropical Storm Melissa is crawling through the Caribbean and will likely strengthen into a major hurricane by the weekend. It has
already killed three people in Haiti and brought flooding to the Dominican Republic. But Jamaica is bracing for the brunt of the bad weather as the
storm's outer bands are already brushing the island. It's forecast to become a category four hurricane this weekend.
ASHER: All right, the White House is looking to boost its immigration crackdown with help from its military. The U.S. Navy has been tasked with
building more migrant detention centers. Sources say the Department of Security -- Department of Homeland Security, excuse me, is giving the Navy
$10 billion to help speed things up.
GOLODRYGA: Sources tell CNN, the goal is for the facilities to house as many as 10,000 people each, with construction possibly starting as soon as
next month, across six states. Our Priscilla Alvarez is following the latest details. She joins us from Washington with more. So, what are we
learning about this particular project Priscilla?
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Immigration Customs Enforcement received $45 billion from Congress this year to expand their immigrant
detention facilities. And what has been happening behind the scenes among Homeland Security officials is trying to strike these contracts and to do
so expeditiously.
What we have learned from sources and from reviewing these documents is that they are leaning on the Defense Department to funnel $10 billion to
more quickly set up these facilities. Now sources have described this to me as an unprecedented arrangement between the Department of Homeland Security
and the Defense Department, which has extensive experience with contracting.
And that is what the Department of Homeland Security is trying to leverage here. They see this as an opportunity, for example, to lessen competition
and to work with a narrow pool of eligible contractors who would presumably have more experience in this space of building these facilities, which are
likely given the speed here to be, soft sided facilities around the country.
Some states, according to sources, would include Louisiana, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Indiana, among others. And with construction set to start as
soon as next month, though contracting or the contracting process is still very much underway.
[11:35:00]
Now, experts say that this is perhaps expected when it comes to these quick turn projects, because the military is good at this. So, while the
Department of Homeland Security would be charged with it, they can funnel the money and use this and lean on this contracting mechanism to move more
expeditiously.
And that really gives us a preview into the way the administration is moving on these historic numbers of funds that were given to them earlier
this year, which is that they want to build out these facilities have 10,000 people each in them, as they can also try to ramp up these
immigration arrests with hopes of doing all of this very, very quickly.
GOLODRYGA: All right, Priscilla Alvarez, thank you so much. Well, the expansion of migrant detention centers comes as ICE is now facing fresh
criticism. The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security accusing ICE facilities in Louisiana and
Georgia of not providing proper medical care to more than a dozen pregnant women, including some who have miscarried. The DHS calls the claims
unsubstantiated and unverifiable.
ASHER: The Department released a statement saying that pregnant women receive regular prenatal visits, mental health services, nutritional
support and accommodations aligned with community standards of care. For more on this, let's bring in the Senior Counsel for the ACLU's National
Prison Project, Eunice Cho.
Eunice, thank you so much for being with us. I mean, this letter that the ACLU sent is really disturbing. It talks about pregnant women essentially
being shackled, some of them paced in solitary confinement, obviously restrained, not having access to adequate care, and sadly, some of them
actually suffered miscarriages. Just walk us through what your interviews with some of these pregnant migrants revealed.
EUNICE CHO, SENIOR COUNSEL, ACLU NATIONAL PRISON PROJECT: Well, thanks for having me today. We interviewed over a dozen women who've been held while
pregnant in immigration detention facilities because we began hearing of an unusual number of pregnant women who were being held in detention. And what
these women shared was horrifying.
These women shared incredibly traumatic experiences of horrific treatment by ICE. Pregnant women have been shackled and chained as they've been
bleeding and actively miscarrying. They have reported begging for things as basic as prenatal vitamins and being denied. They talked about not having
enough food or nutritious food to eat.
One woman who suffered a miscarriage, she developed a serious infection and was refused treatment, and did not get treatment until two months later,
when she was deported to her home country. As you can imagine, these women have been snatched from their families and their homes.
They're being held in detention centers thousands of miles away. And they're stricken not only with fear that will they'll be deported, away
from their children, their families, but they may also lose their pregnancies while being detained. And that certainly happened for a number
of the women we talked to.
GOLODRYGA: And as we noted in the intro, Eunice DHS is calling these allegations, quote, unsubstantiated and unverifiable, insisting that
pregnant women in detention are rare, less than 1/10 of 1 percent and that they do receive prenatal visits and nutritional support. Do you have any
documentation or medical records that contradict these statements from DHS?
CHO: Yes. And you know, just to note, this is what ICE always says when they're trying to blame the victims. The women we talked to came bravely
forward to share their stories. They have done so under pseudonym because of the very fear of retaliation by ICE against themselves and their
families.
And this is not an unfounded fear. We know plenty of people who have been retaliated against, placed in detention for speaking out against ICE. Our
team of lawyers interviewed these women and, in many cases, reviewed their medical records.
And ICE has refused to provide more information that is very basic to oversight regarding their treatment of pregnant women. They have not even
provided information about the number of pregnant women detained to congressional inquiries.
ASHER: What sort of legal recourse does some of these women have? Especially, I mean, what breaks my heart the most out of all of this and
obviously it is very difficult to sort of listen to you share the plight of some of these pregnant women who have been held in detention facilities
with inadequate care?
But especially those who have suffered miscarriages while in detention, what sort of legal recourse do they have? Where is any kind of
accountability here?
CHO: Well, I think if this is why it's so important for us to emphasize that ICE's own policies actually bar the detention of pregnant women, and
federal regulations require the release of pregnant women from detention, which is why it is so heartbreaking that ICE and that these women have
suffered these experiences while detained.
And these are not the only women who are being detained and suffering these circumstances. This is really only the tip of the iceberg. You know, we are
asking that ICE identify and release all these pregnant, postpartum and nursing individuals from their custody.
[11:40:00]
These women could potentially pursue lawsuits, but it is very difficult for individuals in detention to be able to do all that. ICE makes it very
difficult for people to speak with counsel when they're in detention facilities, and oftentimes you're talking to people who don't have the
legal -- the resources to actually sue the government over these issues.
GOLODRYGA: You mentioned congressional inquiries. I know you've sent this letter not only to ICE leadership, but also to four Senate Committees.
We're now essentially one month into a government shutdown. Have you heard back from any of these committees?
CHO: We haven't heard actively back from ICE. We have heard of concern from members of Congress about this issue. They are interested in further
investigations. Members of Congress have already been inquiring about these issues to ICE in the past. And ICE has simply not provided the relevant
information or oversight necessary.
So, this is something that is an ongoing issue. We estimate there are many, many more women who are pregnant and being held in detention in these types
of conditions nationwide.
ASHER: Can you lay out clearly the exact kind of care you would want pregnant women to receive in these facilities?
CHO: Well, I think the thing that we would really want most is to make sure that pregnant women are not being held in detention in the first place.
Remember, ICE's own policies bar the detention of pregnant women, and federal regulations require the release of pregnant women from detention.
And it really isn't that detention conditions can be good enough to ensure the safety of pregnant women. But while ICE is actually trying to identify
and release all of pregnant women who are in custody, we believe that ICE needs to comply with its own standards with respect to the provision of
prenatal care, to abide by its own guidelines, to not chain and shackle and place into solitary confinement women who are pregnant.
To make sure that their medical needs are being met in a timely manner, and these stories clearly indicate that that is not happening.
ASHER: All right, Eunice Cho live for us. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
CHO: Thank you.
ASHER: All right, still to come here on "One World", the impact of Trump Administration cuts to USAID and how the most vulnerable right now are
being hurt. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[11:45:00]
GOLODRYGA: All right, we are going to go now outside the courtroom there in Virginia, where New York Attorney General Letitia James is speaking just
moments after she pleaded not guilty to bank fraud and false statement charges. She's coming outside now and speaking before a crowd cheering her
on. Let's listen in to what she says.
LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: I want to thank all of you. I want to -- so I want to thank all of you. I want to thank each and every one of you. I want to thank you for your prayers. I want to thank you
for your emails. I want to thank you for your support.
It has strengthened my spirit and has -- and it has anchored my soul. And so, I want to thank you. But this is not about me. This is about all of us.
And about a justice system which has been weaponized, a justice system which has been used as a tool of revenge.
This justice system, which has been used as a tool of revenge and a weapon against those individuals who simply did their job and who stood up for the
rule of law. A justice system which unfortunately is nothing being used as a vehicle of retribution.
But my faith is strong, and my faith is -- I have this belief in the justice system and the rule of law, and I have a job -- and I have a belief
in America and all of its individuals who have stood with me, not only in New York, but all across this nation. I've heard from just about every
jurisdiction in this nation who have said, stand up and be tall and never, ever cow down or back down or break or bend.
So, there is no fear today. No fear. No fear. No fear. No fear, because I believe that justice will rain down like water and righteousness like a
mighty stream. And I'm here to say that my work and my job and all that I do all throughout my public career, I've stood up for the rights of New
Yorkers and Americans, and I will not be deterred.
And I will not -- I will not be deterred. I will not be distracted. I will do my job each and every day, and that's why I'm headed back to New York,
because there's work to be done standing up for the rule of law. God bless you, and thank you all, and I appreciate you.
ASHER: New York Attorney General, Letitia James speaking there. It was -- she spoke very viscerally. She was very much talking about the fact that
this Justice Department has been weaponized against her. I mean, obviously a lot of people have said that she has been on Donald Trump's sort of
perceived quote, unquote enemies list after she secured a $450 million civil fraud case against him just last year.
Even though an appeals court actually tossed out the financial portion of that case, she talked about the fact that this justice -- this justice
system, has been weaponized, although she has received so much support from people across the country. And she thanked every single one
of them.
GOLODRYGA: Yeah, a really impassioned speech there by the Attorney General. I mean, we can't overstate just how rare the situation is in and of itself,
but also unusual to be making a statement like this after a court hearing there where she pleaded not guilty to the charges of mortgage fraud against
her.
[11:50:00]
Let's bring back in our guest Gene Rossi, who is a Former Federal Prosecutor. Gene, we do know this is an Attorney General that tends to
speak to the public from time to time, not the scene that we saw after Former FBI Director James Comey also pleaded not guilty a few weeks ago.
But the two share one common theme, and that is that they are both perceived as political foes of President Trump's. What did you make of the
comments we heard there from the Attorney General?
ROSSI: Well, what I want to say to Zain and you Bianna, is this. Behind her was the courthouse, and it's great to give the speech. Her remarks were
very powerful, very emotional, very visceral. And I get all that. But at the end of the day, what's going to happen for the public is going to occur
inside that courtroom, the Walter Hoffman building, who is the father of the rocket docket?
But a lot of people aren't saying anything about who our judge is. I know this judge very well. Jamal Walker, how do I know him? I worked with him
for several years. I helped train him when he started off as a prosecutor. The worst judge that they could possibly have, if I were the Justice
Department prosecutors, is Judge Walker.
But what strikes me the most, and this distinguishes it from Jim Comey's indictment, is that the loss amount Zain and Bianna went from 19,000 and
now we understand it's about $1,400. There has never, ever been a bankruptcy fraud case in my lifetime, in my knowledge, where you're going
after somebody criminally for $1,400. They're making a mountain out of a molehill.
And I didn't feel this way an hour and a half ago when you interviewed me. But this is one of the weakest, one of the weakest mortgage fraud cases I
have ever seen. And what makes it even worse is the two-line prosecutors that were investigating it, including Beth, you see with whom I worked.
They said there's nothing there. So, the Department of Justice is coming to a fork in the road where are they going to act on retribution and anger on
the part of the president, or they are going to do the right thing? And that's get to what I said an hour and a half ago, when you have your three
personal attorneys heading the department, you have a litigation, legal train wreck.
And it's very sad that is occurring in the home where I worked for 20 years, the Eastern District of Virginia. Very sad.
ASHER: I mean, as you point out, it's such a nominal amount, $1,350 that she disclosed on her 2020 --
ROSSI: A crumb.
ASHER: -- a crumb a 2020, tax return. And there's no evidence at this point in time that she used that money or that she charged her relatives for the
property in question. But the indictment does allege that she committed bank fraud and that she made false statements to a financial institution.
Just talk to us about the evidence here that the government is going to have to prove.
ROSSI: Sure. Zain, that's a fantastic question. When you go -- when you prosecute a case, we all know the evidence has to be beyond a reasonable
doubt. And one of the key things in a fraud case, a bank fraud case, is you have to show that the defendant Ms. James, Attorney General James,
willfully, intentionally and not negligently or by mistake, wanted to defraud the federal government to get that loan. A lone, it saved her about
$15 to $50 a month.
You have to show they intentionally, intentionally, willfully did that. There is absolutely no evidence, from what I hear and from what I read that
she intentionally did that. And you have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't a civil case 51 percent. This is the big enchilada, and
they don't have it.
And I'm putting aside. Zain I'm putting aside and Bianna I'm putting aside the vindictive motion of the selective that Halligan doesn't have the
power. I'm putting all that aside. The case is a disaster in terms of evidence.
GOLODRYGA: So, Gene, just explain to our viewers. We know that the probability of getting a grand jury to indict from prosecutors bringing a
case before them is relatively high. But for those at home saying, OK, well, this was a grand jury of her peers that perhaps thought otherwise.
What do you say to them?
[11:55:00]
ROSSI: Oh, that's a great question. There's that saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich. Here we have a sandwich, but it's two pieces of
bread, some mayonnaise and mustard. There isn't any ham. And why do they say that about a grand jury?
And a lot of people don't realize this. A grand jury is 16 to 23 citizens of the Eastern District of Virginia. When the prosecutor goes in and
presents the evidence there's no defendant who's watching. The public isn't watching. There's no defense attorney watching. There's really no judge.
It's a playground, arguably, for the prosecutor, and you only get one side of the coin. You know, when I used to do closing arguments and openings in
criminal cases as a prosecutor, I used to say trials are like pancakes. There's always two sides to the story. When a grand jury hears evidence,
they're only hearing the prosecutor's side.
ASHER: Right.
ROSSI: And that's a tremendous benefit. That's why they have that joke about the ham sandwich.
GOLODRYGA: Well, from pancakes to ham sandwiches, you've made us realize it is lunchtime and time to end this hour of "One World". Former Federal
Prosecutor, Gene Rossi, thank you.
ASHER: Thank you, Gene. All right, stay with us. We'll have much more "One World" after the short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
END
