Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Twenty-Five Percent Canadian Steel & Aluminum Tariffs Set For Midnight; Trump: Hopefully Putin Will Agree To A Ceasefire Deal; DOJ Pardon Attorney Claims She Was Fired After Refusing To Restore Mel Gibson's Gun Rights. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 11, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And the AP is also reporting that the girl's mother is here as well, along with two family friends.
Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Randi Kaye, thanks so much.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
Recession reversal. President Trump now says he doesn't see one coming at all in the United States, despite not ruling one out 48 hours ago, as the President is shifting gears while turning the White House lawn into a showroom for Elon Musk's cars.
Also, there's a potential breakthrough overseas tonight, as Ukraine is agreeing to a U.S.-proposed ceasefire with Russia for 30 days. The U.S. says the ball is now in Moscow's court.
Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, who just returned from Ukraine, is here with me tonight.
And also, meet the Trump Justice Department official, formerly, who says she was fired for not helping restore Mel Gibson's gun rights.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
It's President Trump's economy, as he is the one calling the shots on the tariffs, and the one who was in the driver's seat, quite literally.
As the markets continued to plunge today, Trump emerged from the Oval Office, with Elon Musk by his side, and transformed the South Lawn of the White House into a Tesla car lot. At one point, the two men even hopped into a red model, as reporters stood nearby and shouted questions at the two of them.
But it was the abrupt U-turn before that, that the President made that rattled investors, yet again, who aren't really sure what's up, and what's down, and what tariffs that Trump has threatened will actually go into place. The day started with Trump threatening to double metal tariffs on Canada, then backing off at least 50 percent, before doing a 180 on his risk assessment of a recession.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARIA BARTIROMO, FOX BUSINESS ANCHOR: Are you expecting a recession this year?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I hate to predict things like that.
There are always periods of, it takes a little time. It takes a little time.
I think this country--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think there will be recession?
TRUMP: I don't see it at all. I think this country is going to boom.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That is the same President Trump, who within the span of 48 hours, went from potential doom, to boom, as he also dismissed concerns, this afternoon, about how investors are reacting to his tariff policies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'm very optimistic about the country, much more optimistic this way than if I did it the easy way.
REPORTER: Do you and your tariff policies right now bear any responsibility for the turmoil we're seeing this week?
TRUMP: No. I think that Biden gave us a horrible economy.
REPORTER: When you look at the market selling off, that didn't concern you?
TRUMP: Nope. Doesn't concern me.
REPORTER: And where do you see it going?
TRUMP: I think some -- some people are going to make great deals by buying stocks and bonds and all the things they're buying.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It's worth noting that the same president who said the market sell-off doesn't worry him, does have a long history of touting the stock market, when it suits him. But now, as we are seeing in his second term, Wall Street seems to be realizing that his tolerance for turmoil in the market seems to be much higher this time around. A lot of questions tonight, too, about what happened with Tesla and the showroom on the White House South Lawn. It's not unusual for a president to tout American companies, of course. What is unusual is who it was for, and why. His cost-cutting appointment, Elon Musk, facing backlash over those massive government cuts, and flagging Tesla sales, not to mention what happened yesterday, their own slipping stock price.
The President, who has previously panned electric cars, showed his support for Musk, by showcasing five of them at the White House, and what turned out to be a remarkable sales pitch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Because he's finding all sorts of terrible things that have taken place against our country, they want to penalize him in an economic sense, and I just think that's very unfair. So I just wanted to make a statement. I'm going to buy one.
This man is a great patriot, and you should cherish him. You should cherish him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Trump said he ended up choosing the red Tesla.
And when Musk was asked, by reporters, how long he intended to stay in his role, in the Trump White House, he said, quote, I'll stay as long as it's useful.
My lead source to start us off tonight is the Canadian Minister of Energy and Natural Resources, Jonathan Wilkinson.
And it's great to have you here, sir, tonight.
Because in your view and from your perspective, where do things stand tonight, when it comes to at least the steel and aluminum tariffs, and at what percentage they will be going into place, at midnight, tonight.
[21:05:00]
JONATHAN WILKINSON, CANADIAN MINISTER OF ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES: I think, you will understand when I say that there is a lot of uncertainty, even with respect to the steel and aluminum tariffs. The tariff conversation seems to change day by day. And the number of tariffs and whether they are additive to other tariffs, seems to change day by day.
My understanding is that the tariffs, the steel and aluminum tariffs, are to go in effect at midnight, tonight. And certainly, if in fact that is the case, Canada will need to respond.
But I will say, this whole tariff conversation is such a destructive conversation, from an economic perspective, between two countries that have been the envy of the world, in terms of our economic relationship that created jobs and economic opportunity for Americans and for Canadians. And I think it's a very sad statement that we have arrived at this place. We need to find a pathway back to a better conversation.
And honestly, I mean, everybody is suffering, and certainly Americans are suffering. I mean, $4 trillion has been wiped out of the stock market in a couple of weeks. That's not a good thing for the United States, and it's not a good thing for Canada.
COLLINS: How should we expect Canada to respond to those, what is said to be 25 percent aluminum and steel tariffs?
WILKINSON: I think you will see a response shortly if, in fact, the tariffs do come into place. I mean, of course, we would never respond if, in fact, the tariffs didn't come into place. And we would never have responded initially to the United States, if, in fact, there hadn't been the imposition of tariffs on Canada's best friend.
COLLINS: You still sound skeptical--
WILKINSON: And so, it's a very odd circumstance, I would--
COLLINS: You still sound skeptical tonight--
WILKINSON: Sorry.
COLLINS: --that these tariffs may even go into place. Is that -- am I understanding you correctly?
WILKINSON: Not sure I would say skeptical, but I would say that there's been a lot of lack of predictability with respect to what is going to happen versus what has been said is going to happen.
But, as I have said, this is something that is destructive for workers and businesses on both sides of the border. And there are far more thoughtful, constructive ways that we can actually pivot this conversation to something that can benefit both countries, including in the context of our mutual adversary, which is China.
I mean, Canada is very -- Canadians are very perplexed about how somehow the United States seems to now view Canada as an adversary. That's a very odd place, for Canada to be.
COLLINS: Do you feel like you know when the tariffs are actually happening? I mean, obviously, they say what time, what day. But until they're actually implemented, is the kind of sense in Canada to just wait and see what happens, given they've been threatened, and imposed, and then pulled back, and threatened again, as we've seen playing out just today with the Premier of Ontario?
WILKINSON: Yes, I mean, look, we're -- we don't want to provoke, we don't want to escalate. We actually want an outcome that actually can be a positive one, for the United States, for Americans, and for Canada and Canadians. So we will never go out there, and do something in the absence of action on the part of President Trump. So we will wait and see. And as you say, there have been a number of times where things have been said they were going to happen, and they haven't happened. So we will wait and see.
But, of course, if Canada is actually attacked, economically, we will have to respond. Canadians would expect their government to look to serve their interests. But as I say, that's not where we want to be. We want to actually work cooperatively with the United States of America--
COLLINS: Yes.
WILKINSON: --as we have for centuries.
COLLINS: The White House press secretary was asked during the press briefing, this afternoon, about how do they see Canada? Is it as an ally? How do they -- how do they view your country? This is what Karoline Leavitt had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: I wonder, does this administration still consider Canada to be a close ally of the United States?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Well, I think Canada is a neighbor. They are a partner. They have always been an ally. Perhaps they are becoming a competitor now.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What's your reaction to that comment?
WILKINSON: Even respond to that, I mean, I have no idea what she means by being a competitor.
I mean, we provide oil and gas. We provide uranium for nuclear power plants. We provide electricity to power Americans' homes. We work collaboratively on the auto sector, which reduces costs on both sides of the border. We're not interested in being a competitor to the United States. We actually want to be enabler for North America.
And that's just a very odd and strange comment, and I'm not sure what it is that she actually means to be saying.
COLLINS: Jonathan Wilkinson, it's a remarkable time for relations between the United States and Canada. Thank you for joining us tonight, and I appreciate your time.
WILKINSON: Thank you very much.
COLLINS: My political sources are also here, along with our White House insiders.
And Jeff Mason, you were on the South Lawn today, and we'll get to that moment shortly. But what do you make of what you hear from the Minister there in Canada, just on the fact that they don't always really know what's going to happen with the tariffs, what percentage they're going to be at, and whether or not they're actually going to go into effect.
[21:10:00]
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: I think he's speaking a little bit for the world when he says that, because that's true of everyone. That's true of people in the market, that's true of leaders in countries that are affected, and it's obviously true of Canada.
It's interesting that he also said that Canada is going to respond, given that the response that came from the Premier of Ontario, today, ended up really sort of jazzing up the markets as well. And then that was -- that was taken back. President Trump was delighted by that, and then he took back his threat of going up to 50 percent.
COLLINS: Yes.
Jonah, what do you just make of watching how this is playing out, and hearing from him?
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, CO-FOUNDER & EDITOR IN CHIEF, THE DISPATCH: I wrote a cover story for National Review, like 20 years ago, calling for the bombing of Canada.
I'm on Canada's side in this. I mean, it is -- it is -- and I was being tongue-in-cheek with the bombing of Canada thing. But still--
COLLINS: Thank you for clarifying.
GOLDBERG: Yes, I can--
MASON: Yes.
GOLDBERG: I can see the mail coming in, yes.
COLLINS: For all the Canadians watching.
GOLDBERG: No, but, look, I've been critical of Canada in all sorts of ways, all sorts -- for political reasons, for years and years and years. But they're entirely in the right in this.
Donald Trump quote -- by his own words, tore up NAFTA and replaced it with a beautiful, perfect trade agreement that was so much better than NAFTA. He now says that under the USMCJ, whatever that thing is, the new NAFTA, the trade agreement that he wrote, he's saying Canada's been ripping us off. Well, then whose fault is that? Because they've been utterly compliant with the trade treaty that Trump signed and bragged about for years.
This was wholly unnecessary. Canada is an ally. It is -- we have been -- we've spent decades integrating our economies into each other. And he's doing this all for potted, nonsensical economic notions that have been considered fringe and ridiculous for decades, and it just makes no sense whatsoever.
So, I just think this is an unforced error. It also puts the light of the idea that these guys had these plans ready to go, that they knew exactly what they were going to do, and hit the ground running, and just -- and fire on all cylinders.
The fact that they keep -- they can't go 24 hours without doing a 180, on what they're going to do, and when they're going to do it, shows they don't really have a plan, and it's an adhocracy.
COLLINS: But the White House's argument is, this is what Trump said he was going to do on the campaign trail, that he was going to be imposing these tariffs, maybe not -- and threatening higher numbers and then pulling it back. But they're arguing, this is what he promised, and this is what he said is going to happen, and maybe there's a little bit of a disruption, but they're essentially arguing that Americans will thank them later on this.
ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIR. FOR VP HARRIS: I mean, you try to explain that to a mother now that's paying $6 for egg, or me who paid $6 for a gallon of gas just a mile away from here. I mean, it's hard to explain to the American people today that somehow this is going to get better, and their situations are going to get better.
But what I find most disturbing about this is the intentionality behind it all. Donald Trump was warned, he saw in his first term, that his tariffs plan cost the American people $50 billion in higher cost. But yet, he's continuing to go down this path. To quote my friend here, it's nonsensical in some respects, other than the only thing I can make of it is that he's intentionally trying to hurt the pocketbooks of the American people and weaken the economy. And for what?
It's not clear to me that they have a plan, that there is no method to this particular madness. There is no explanation. Of course, he ran on it, but there was no explanation on the trail. So what the tariff, the economic -- his economic agenda, was going to do to the American people? How it's going to actually help him?
And we still not gotten an explanation yet from the President. All we get is him continuing to say that it's going to cause a little pain, with a slight chuckle, almost as though he's sort of, living for the pain of the American people. I just really can't make any sense of it.
COLLINS: Well, and to explain the fight with the Premier of Ontario, he was saying that they were going to basically supercharge what they're charging for electricity to Minnesota, Michigan and New York, and in terms of what that looks like.
That is why Trump then came out and said he was going to charge 50 percent instead of 25 percent. The Ontario then by -- the Premier then backed off of that, after speaking with the Commerce Secretary.
When Trump was asked about the threats, this is what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Canada should honestly become our 51st state. We wouldn't have a northern border problem. We wouldn't have a tariff problem.
But Canada would be great as our cherished 51st state. You wouldn't have to worry about borders. You wouldn't have to worry about anything.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, his argument for why these tariffs have been put in place is, The U.S. is being ripped off. It's been what the Terry -- the dairy tariff is. It's been fentanyl. I mean, there have been multiple different reasons and benchmarks for these Canadian officials who are, who are negotiating with the U.S.
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: I also think a part of it is exactly what he said just now. He's serious about wanting Canada to become a U.S. state, and I think that's sort of an aspect of this.
But I also think that we can anticipate that these -- this tariff drama is going to continue, particularly because of what you just said, what happened today, with Ontario backing down.
The Trump administration views that as a win, and views it as sort of backing up their argument that part of the reason to impose these tariffs is that it's a negotiating tool. And so, today's actions only are going to further the President, in pushing for more tariffs in the future.
[21:15:00]
ETIENNE: There's no compromise on fentanyl, right? I mean, there's -- they didn't make any compromises on fentanyl, and cutting the flow of fentanyl across the border.
COLLINS: But also--
ETIENNE: I mean, which he said was the reason why he was going down this path.
COLLINS: In terms of the market itself, and how Americans are reacting to this. I mean, look at what Mike Pence tweeted today, the former Vice President, obviously tweeted, the S&P in the first term versus what it looks like in the second term for Trump. I mean, that was a pretty remarkable sub-tweet from him.
GOLDBERG: It was. And it also points to the -- like, there were a lot of people who thought that the second Trump term would just -- the best-case scenario, it was the most likely scenario, was that it was just going to be a replay of the first administration.
But the first administration had people like Mike Pence, and a lot of other people, who constrained Trump into fairly normal guardrails about all--
ETIENNE: Members.
GOLDBERG: And the members, and Paul Ryan, and Mitch McConnell. There were a lot of people -- there were a lot of normy Republicans who kept him somewhat in between the 40-yard lines on big macro policy like that. They're all gone.
It's all these yes-men, Peter -- like Peter Navarro and Howard Lutnick, who are literally saying, We can balance the budget, eliminate the deficit and get rid of the income tax with tariffs, which is innumerate nonsense.
And they want it both ways on this. They're saying it's a negotiating tool, as you point out, which is fine. They're saying it's for fentanyl. OK, well, that's something else. But they're also saying that, If we do the reciprocal tariffs, we'll force all these other countries to lower their tariffs, and then we'll lower our tariffs.
Well, which is it? We can't lower our tariffs, if we're going to replace the IRS by just paying -- having foreigners pay for it. It's the internal policy incoherence of the thing. It's both a floor wax and a dessert topping, is what they're trying to say.
And because they're rolling it out so haphazardly, a lot of the markets -- a lot of the market reaction isn't about tariffs, per se, it's not that big a part of the economy. It's the total amateurish uncertainty and the sort of glee with which they constantly change the argument and the plan that puts everybody -- freezes everybody, and says, I don't know what to do next, because I don't know what's going to happen next.
COLLINS: And as this is all happening, and we're watching the stock market slide today, Trump is on the South Lawn with Elon Musk.
Jeff, what were just your takeaways watching that where there were five different Teslas parked out there. Trump and Elon Musk, we have the pictures, got into one of them. Can you just tell us the highlights of being out there today?
MASON: For me, it was a moment of contrast, because I remember being up on the South Lawn for a car ride that President Biden did.
COLLINS: An electric Jeep, right?
MASON: Ding, ding, ding. It was an electric jeep. And his point then was to promote electric vehicles.
President Trump was out there today, ironically, promoting electric vehicles, while also acknowledging that he had done away with the electric vehicle mandate. He said that Elon Musk had never asked him for anything. And then he got in and out of cars. I mean, he got in and out of at least the one that he ended up deciding to buy.
It was -- I mean, it must have been a CEO's dream, in a way, you know, to have the one-on-one time with the President of the United States, and five cars just from your company. And it was also a reflection of the fact that President Trump feels that Elon Musk needs the help.
GOLDBERG: Well--
MASON: That he's not doing well, and that he needs the backing that only the President of the United States with that megaphone can give.
TALCOTT: And it's also -- it's a reflection of that. But it's also kind of a reflection of how behind Donald Trump is on with Elon Musk, despite these Cabinet officials, behind closed doors, fighting at times with Elon Musk. This was very publicly a display of Donald Trump being firmly behind Elon Musk.
GOLDBERG: That's right.
ETIENNE: Can I just say, it wasn't just Elon that won. It was also Donald Trump. I mean, the thing about Donald Trump is, he's consistent and he's transparent. Everything is for sale. He's pimping out the White House.
There's reports today in The New York Times that Elon has agreed to write $100 million check to his campaign. What does he get in return for that? An ad on the White House lawn for his Teslas. Elon wrote a check for $250 million to the election. What did he get for that? Access to secure data at the Treasury Department and at the IRS. So, that's what's really, I think, the larger thing that's at play, he's shamefully selling the White House.
COLLINS: It was certainly a remarkable scene.
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: Thank you all for being here on that.
Up next. We do have breaking news. Ukraine has just agreed to a 30-day ceasefire with Russia. Question is, how Russia will respond. This was proposed by the Trump administration.
Senator Mark Kelly just returned from Ukraine. Yes, the person that Elon Musk referred to as a traitor. We'll get his response right after this.
Plus, a Justice Department official fired for not letting Mel Gibson have a gun following his domestic violence conviction. That's what her account is of her firing. We're going to speak to her live, in a few moments.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: There are some fast-moving and potentially major developments, concerning the war in Ukraine, because after more than eight hours of talks, between the United States and Ukrainian officials, in Saudi Arabia, Ukraine has agreed to the terms for a 30- day ceasefire. Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, the National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz, and Ukrainian officials you can all see at the table. Not at the table, any officials from Russia.
And the world, including the American President, right now, is waiting to hear what Vladimir Putin is going to do.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think it's a big difference between the last visit you saw at the Oval office and so -- that's a total ceasefire, Ukraine has agreed to it, and hopefully Russia will agree to it. We're going to meet with them later on, today and tomorrow, and hopefully we'll be able to wipe out a deal.
[21:25:00]
But I think the ceasefire is very important. If we can get Russia to do it, that will be great. If we can't, we just keep going on and people are going to get killed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight just got back from Ukraine. The Democratic senator from Arizona, Mark Kelly, is here.
And Senator, it's great to have you.
As someone who just got back, and was on the ground, what are your takeaways about a 30-day ceasefire, and whether or not that is something that you think will be realistic?
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Well, it would be a really positive outcome from the meeting in Saudi Arabia.
I will say, I don't think we needed to be here with this reset. What happened last week, or two weeks ago now, in the Oval Office, put us in a really bad place from a negotiating standpoint. Giving away NATO membership, giving away territory before the negotiation started, is not where you want to be walking into a negotiation, and then cutting off weapons to the Ukrainians and cutting off their intelligence.
We spoke a lot about that when I was there, over the weekend, talking to F-16 pilots, talking to some military commanders, about the impact that that had. So that all was very unproductive.
Now we're back to a good place, and I hope that we can get the Russians to agree to this. Not -- we don't know if they will. But I think folks need to keep in mind that they have broken ceasefires before, and we're going to have to hold them to it.
COLLINS: Yes.
KELLY: So, there should be provisions in there for us to do that.
COLLINS: Does it help strengthen Ukraine's hand, which I know you've been worried about if -- since they did restart the sharing intelligence, and also the military weapons as well, and the military aid?
KELLY: Does it strengthen their hand? I think it does now. But they lost some -- something, over these days.
So right when we were -- when I was there, we talked about, I met with F-16 pilots, and they didn't have the overhead imagery that they need. They didn't have the entire picture of certain things that are very important when you're planning a strike, that was taken away from them.
There were -- because of intelligence that they did not have, it was harder for them to react to ballistic and cruise missile attacks. So those things have an impact. We don't know for sure if additional Ukrainians died because of this, but it is possible.
COLLINS: Yes.
The one thing with this happening in the movement here, and I know one thing you'd been concerned about, is Ukraine having to give up land. Secretary Rubio said that realistically, they do believe Ukraine will have to give up. It will go to pre-2014 borders, when Russia went into Crimea and illegally annexed it.
But on this situation, overall, Trump has argued that you have to at least talk to Putin to try to get to the table here. Do you believe that that is helpful, given there weren't conversations between Biden and President Putin, after Russia invaded?
KELLY: Well, of course, at some point you have to talk to him. But I always think we should want to negotiate from a position of strength, not weakness. Giving stuff up early just shows that we're weak.
I think the President thought he was showing some strength, when they were in the Oval Office, bullying Zelenskyy. That was not productive. That's not who we are as a country. This stuff should not be done in front of a camera.
But I think right -- where we are right now, I think Mike Waltz and Marco Rubio made some progress. Let's try to continue the progress. Let's not blow things up again. Let's not go back and -- and, I mean, who knows what could happen. But we don't need to stop the weapons support and the intelligence. That would be a mistake to go down that road again.
I mean, you see this with tariffs, right?
COLLINS: Yes.
KELLY: Bouncing back and forth all over the place? Let's be consistent.
COLLINS: Remarkable to hear you say, though, that you're at least hopeful about where these talks could go. We'll see, obviously, how Russia responds. When you got back from Ukraine, you posted about your trip, an incredibly lengthy thread that everyone should read, I think, just of what it was like on the ground.
KELLY: Yes.
COLLINS: Elon Musk responded by calling you a traitor.
KELLY: He did? When? Well that was--
COLLINS: You were a combat veteran.
KELLY: That was kind of my reaction.
COLLINS: I don't have to tell you that.
KELLY: When I was flying over Iraq, getting shot at, or flying in the space shuttle, never once for a second did I think somewhere down the road somebody's going to call me a traitor.
But Kaitlan, this isn't really about me. And what I'm really concerned--
COLLINS: And not just somebody.
KELLY: Oh, yes, I mean, it's a guy with a lot of power, a lot of influence, over this government. I think it says a lot about him, it says much more about him than it does about me.
But what really concerns me is veterans that he is firing without cause from the government. These are public servants. I had a disabled veteran in my office, the other day, that had recently received an excellent performance report, and three weeks later, Elon Musk fires him through an email because of poor performance. That's -- that's wrong. That's not fair. Fired him without cause. It has ruined his life. And there are 6,000 veterans just like him.
COLLINS: We also saw Todd Young and Lindsey Graham pushed back on what Elon Musk had to say, calling you a traitor. Are you surprised that you haven't heard from more Senate Republicans, more of your colleagues?
KELLY: I've heard from them. And then the Armed Services Committee in the -- in the anteroom today, we were--
COLLINS: What did they say to you?
[21:30:00]
KELLY: Well, we're kind of joking about it. People are -- I got to be careful what I say, in public, about what my Republican colleagues say. But we were -- we were talking about what he said about me, and it was -- it would have been interesting for you to watch, if you were in there.
COLLINS: Why? Because they were essentially-- KELLY: Well--
COLLINS: I mean, without naming them.
KELLY: We get -- we get along very well.
COLLINS: I'd love if you'd name them. But if.
KELLY: I've got very good relationships with my Republican colleagues. And I would say that they don't like this kind of behavior.
COLLINS: The Senate Republicans don't like Elon Musk calling you a traitor?
KELLY: There are a number of them that came up to me to talk to me about this. And yes, of course, they're not happy with this.
COLLINS: But they didn't say anything in public?
KELLY: I mean, this guy has a very powerful job in the United States government. He's got tremendous influence.
After the President, I don't think there's somebody with more influence, right now, over the federal government than Elon Musk. And he's wasting his time on Twitter, insulting people, insulting veterans, calling me a traitor, calling other people's names. Is this a serious person? I don't think he is. So why do you give him this influence?
And by the way, I think it's really important for the American people to know that the reason he's doing all this, the reason he's firing all these people, is so he can create some room, so when they give this big, giant tax cuts to billionaires, it doesn't add as much money to the deficit and the debt, as it would otherwise. That's why he's doing this.
COLLINS: Speaking of what's happening on Capitol Hill. At least eight senators, Democrats, are going to be needed to pass this funding bill that just passed the House tonight with House Republicans.
KELLY: Yes.
COLLINS: Are you going to vote yes on that?
KELLY: I'm deciding. It's, there aren't good options here.
COLLINS: Which way are you leaning?
KELLY: I'm not. So I haven't decided. Shutting down the government is bad. A CR, a year-long CR, ceding all this influence to the White House, this CR, that was done just by Republicans. Usually, this is done in a bipartisan way. A continuing resolution, we work together on it. This is just Republicans. This is gives -- gives more power to the White House. And by the way--
COLLINS: So, it will be hard to vote (ph) for it? KELLY: I haven't made a decision yet.
But, by the way, a CR is also bad in general for the Department of Defense. But shutting down the government is bad for so many people that are going to be laid off. And then, they're already shutting down parts of the government. So, if it shuts down, what is Elon Musk going to allow to open back up? That's a big concern of mine. How many more veterans is Elon, and this administration, going to fire? So there's not a good option here.
COLLINS: We'll see which one you decide.
Senator Mark Kelly, thank you for your time, and for your service.
KELLY: You will see.
COLLINS: Really appreciate you.
KELLY: Thank you.
COLLINS: My next source, no longer the Department of Justice Pardon Attorney. She says she was fired because she did not support a prominent backer of the President's getting his gun rights back, following a domestic violence conviction. That supporter is Mel Gibson. We'll tell you this story next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Last Friday night, the Justice Department abruptly fired the U.S. Pardon Attorney. That's the official who is tasked with helping presidents with their pardon power.
And tonight, Liz Oyer says she lost her job because she refused to recommend that Mel Gibson be allowed to buy a gun again. The actor, and a backer of the President's, lost that gun right after he pled no contest to a domestic violence charge, back in 2011.
Before Oyer was fired, she had been named to a working group within the Justice Department to determine whether people convicted of certain crimes should have their guns -- their gun rights, and their right to buy one, restored.
Under federal law, someone who is convicted of a crime, like domestic violence, even if it's a misdemeanor state charge, is prohibited from buying or owning a handgun.
And Liz Oyer is my source tonight.
And it's great to have you here.
You believe that you were -- you were fired because you did not recommend Mel Gibson have this ability restored. Why do you believe that? LIZ OYER, FIRED U.S. PARDON ATTORNEY: Well, I was not given any reason for my termination. But what I can tell you is that within hours of my decision not to do that, I was escorted out of my office by DOJ security officers.
COLLINS: And so, you essentially had been given, from what I read of your comments, there was a list of some 95 people that you had recommended. You got the list back, and it had nine people on the list? Was Mel Gibson on that list? How did this actually play out?
OYER: No, the list that I generated was based on the ordinary review that my office does, of individuals who are applying for presidential pardons, which includes an extensive background investigation, analogous to what you would need to undergo to get a top secret security clearance.
So those people, those 95 people, were people who had been extensively vetted, and all of them had in common that they had committed non- violent crimes. They had committed them decades and decades ago, and they had demonstrated exemplary character and conduct in the community in the years since, and that was verified by neighbors, friends and others. And Mel Gibson was not in that mix.
COLLINS: So how did Mel Gibson get brought into this?
OYER: So, I was asked to write a memo to the Attorney General, recommending that these nine individuals get this relief that she was interested in granting to some deserving Americans.
And when the memo came back to me, the comment was, Please add Mel Gibson to this recommendation.
COLLINS: Who asked you to add Mel Gibson?
OYER: An official in the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, who is running this project on the day-to-day, instructed me that Mel Gibson should be added to the memo.
COLLINS: Do you know the name of that person? Could you share it with us?
[21:40:00]
OYER: It's one of the Associate Deputy Attorney Generals. There are several in the office. And I don't want to call anyone out by name. But there is email traffic between me, and a number of individuals in the Deputy Attorney General's office, about this issue.
And the request was made. And I responded that I was unable to fulfill the request, because I did not have enough information about Mr. Gibson to be able to recommend that, given his history of domestic violence, he should receive his gun rights back.
That's something that is a public safety question. It's very dangerous to mix people with history of domestic abuse and firearms. That substantially increases the likelihood of catastrophic outcomes, in domestic violence situations. And that was just not a recommendation that I could make lightly.
COLLINS: So how long between when you sent that response saying you could not, in good faith, recommend Mel Gibson, and the time you were fired?
OYER: It all unfolded very quickly. I was asked to add him to my recommendation, on Thursday evening. And I did not sleep at all, Thursday night, because I understood that the consequence of not fulfilling this request was likely that I would no longer even be in these conversations.
Dissent within the Department of Justice is just being aggressively silenced. People are afraid to speak up. They're afraid to object. I confided in a colleague who expressed the view that, yes is really the only acceptable answer to requests that are being made by Department leadership. And so, I understood that the consequences were potentially serious for my career at the Department of Justice.
And when I came into work, on Friday morning, I said to a colleague, I really think that Mel Gibson might be my downfall. And within hours of saying that, I was being escorted out of my office.
COLLINS: And you got this letter from -- with Todd Blanche's signature on it, saying that you were being terminated?
OYER: Yes. I've never met Mr. Blanche. But I received that letter with his signature saying I was being terminated.
COLLINS: So, we have a statement that we got from Todd Blanche, who's the Deputy Attorney General, for people who don't know. And in it they said, quote, "This former employee's version of events is false -- her decision to voice this erroneous accusation about her dismissal is in direct violation of her ethical duties as an attorney and is a shameful distraction from our own critical mission to prosecute violent crime, enforce our nation's immigration laws, and make America safe again."
What is your response to Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche?
OYER: Look, Kaitlan, it's terrifying that the number two official in the Department of Justice believes that my ethical duty is to keep silent about what is going on inside the Department of Justice.
My ethical duty, as a DOJ employee, is to uphold the laws of this country, to do justice, and to serve the people who I was appointed to serve. It is not to hide the fact that career employees, like myself, are being punished for expressing dissenting views, and for refusing to follow directions.
COLLINS: And so, when they're arguing that this is not the reason you were fired, is there any other reason that you believe you -- that would have led to your dismissal?
OYER: I was not provided any information about why I was fired. But I'm noting, as a factual matter, that I was fired within hours of informing the Deputy Attorney General's staff that I could not fulfill this request.
COLLINS: You worked as the Pardon Attorney. I mean, in this office, obviously, the President can decide this unilaterally, without consulting the Justice Department, who to pardon. Was your office consulted at all about the January 6 pardons that happened on his first day in office?
OYER: The job of my office is not to consult on those political high- profile cases, where presidents have made up their minds that they're going to pardon people. It's to make sure that average citizens are also able to get their cases in front of the President.
So, I didn't work on the January 6 pardons. I worked on trying to ensure that the President would grant clemency to other deserving people who don't have political connections or access to the White House through the front door.
COLLINS: And I think it's important to be clear. You were appointed in the Biden administration, April 2022. You're a former federal public defender. You've been critical of some of the Biden's that -- the pardons that President Biden did as well.
But on the January 6 ones, the Justice Department is now arguing that the January 6 pardons extend to crimes that happened after January 6th, for those individuals. Is that your understanding of how that pardon power works?
OYER: I think only the President knows what he meant, in the way those documents were written.
I will say that if my office had drafted those documents, it would have been very clear what they meant. We take great care to ensure that we write documents in a way that effectuates the intent of the President. And we were not involved in the drafting of those documents.
COLLINS: Can you just tell me what have the last -- Trump's been in office for seven weeks now. What have the last seven weeks been like, at the Justice Department, compared to what it was like the previous years that you worked there?
[21:45:00]
OYER: The last seven weeks have felt like two years. It's been incredibly stressful. Every single day is fraught with difficult decisions.
Every word that is uttered, whether in a meeting or in writing, is something that we are all scrutinizing carefully, or thinking very carefully, about how we choose our words. Because we know that if we say the wrong thing, we're not going to be in the next meeting. We're not going to have the opportunity to influence the agenda.
And I will say that what has really changed about the Department is that, instead of consulting the experts about what the right decision is, we're being told, Here's the decision that has been made by leadership, and now execute it. And frankly, it feels like the career employees are being used to legitimize some of these decisions that are being made for political reasons.
COLLINS: Wow. That's a remarkable statement.
Liz Oyer, thank you for your time tonight.
OYER: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: And for joining us to tell your story.
OYER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Appreciate your time.
Also, up next, as we return to the foreign policy developments, questions about Putin's next move is being closely watched, after Ukraine accepted that U.S. ceasefire proposed deal. A top aide to President Trump is now on his way to Moscow. We'll talk about more, next.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump and his team are negotiating, putting the -- are saying essentially that really what happens next is on Russia, after you saw Ukraine accept a 30-day ceasefire proposal from the United States.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I'll talk to Vladimir Putin, yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (inaudible).
TRUMP: I want to get -- look, that's the other, it takes two to tango, as they say, right?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
TRUMP: So hopefully he'll also agree. And I really think that would be 75 percent of the way. The rest is getting it documented and, you know, negotiating land positions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The administration continuing all of its efforts to seal the deal. That includes a trip that is being made by President Trump's Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, who is going to Moscow this week.
CNN's National Security Analyst, and the former Deputy Director of National Intelligence who spent many days in the Oval Office with Trump, Beth Sanner is here.
When it comes to, you know, Witkoff is going to Moscow with a very high responsibility. He was going anyway, but now that they've accepted this.
BETH SANNER, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Right. Right.
COLLINS: What do you think Putin is going to do? Is he going to accepted a ceasefire deal?
SANNER: My crystal ball is right here, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Do you still get to keep it, after leaving--
SANNER: I do.
COLLINS: --the DNI?
SANNER: I think Putin is in a tough spot, right? And so, this is really very, very interesting. And I actually think that I am more hopeful than not, for once. I'm not Debbie Downer on this, completely, because I think Putin does not want to piss off President Trump. That didn't go so well for Zelenskyy. There already have been warnings now. So, I think it's interesting.
It shows to me also that with President Trump, you might have a relationship with him. But if he wants something, or he feels like something is fair, then he's going to make that demand of you. And so, now, it truly is the first test we've had of Russia. Are they serious or not?
COLLINS: Because if they reject this, I mean, it kind of puts Trump in a corner, to a degree, in terms of, well, Ukraine accepted the terms of the deal, but Russia would be the one saying no to him?
SANNER: Right. But it also puts Putin in a bind as well, potentially, depending on how Trump responds. So, this is the real dilemma here for them.
And with Trump, I think that he will have to play hardball, if Putin says no. He has to. He can't -- I don't think that we can do -- see -- what he did with Ukraine, and not see a similar thing with Russia.
COLLINS: Yes.
SANNER: I mean, people will literally just erupt.
COLLINS: Yes. And I should note, this comes as what you heard from Senator Mark Kelly. He was saying that even if Russia does agree, they've broken a lot of ceasefires before.
SANNER: Yes.
COLLINS: And how do you know if you can trust a ceasefire, even if it's just for 30 days?
SANNER: Well, you can't. Exactly. You can't.
So like, so if Putin agrees? And he might try to drag it out a little bit, it might not happen this week, you know? It might take some time. But even if he agrees, that doesn't mean he won't use the 30 days to reset, refit and get ready to go again. You cannot trust the Russians on this. They're very--
COLLINS: That would also give Ukraine 30 days to kind of take that--
SANNER: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, they obviously don't have the same kind of weaponry, and back-power that Russia does, but they would still also have that 30-day period.
SANNER: Exactly. And they need to rotate out some troops that have been on the frontlines for a long time, and are really tired. And that movement, that refresh of troops from the frontline out, is very difficult and very hard in the midst of things.
So, I still am not very hopeful about this going to a full peace settlement, very quickly, if at all. But--
COLLINS: Why not? Because Trump was arguing today that if Russia agrees, he thinks they're 75 percent of the way there already.
SANNER: Yes. Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, that is obviously putting this quite far down the road, potentially.
SANNER: I would say 5 percent of the way there. Because Putin's demands have not changed, and they are fundamentally opposed to everything that would preserve this as a lasting peace, which today, Waltz and Rubio supported.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll see what they decide.
Beth Sanner, as always, great to have you. Thank you so much.
Up next here for us, why the police were seen blocking the doors, at the Department of Education, today, in just Washington, and what that means for what happens, there tomorrow?
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Breaking news, this evening, as the Department of Education has started cutting nearly half of its workforce.
Security guards, at the headquarters, here in Washington, were seen locking the doors, this afternoon, after a memo to all employees said that the building would be closed, tonight and tomorrow, for what they said were, quote, security reasons.
We're also learning that hundreds of workers were laid off, this evening, as part of this plan to cut the workforce of more than 4,000 people, by half. Those remaining were told to take their laptops and to vacate the building, until Thursday, as they're awaiting a looming executive order that CNN reported on, last week, and still has yet to be signed by the President, directing the Education Secretary, Linda McMahon, to start the process of dismantling the department altogether.
[22:00:00]
This is what she said when she was asked about tonight's move.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LINDA MCMAHON, EDUCATION SECRETARY: Yes, actually it is, because that was the President's mandate. This directive to me, clearly, is to shut down the Department of Education.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Certainly shutting it down for the next 48 hours.
We're going to monitor this very closely, and that executive order.
Thank you all so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
