Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Judge Demands Explanation After Trump Admin. Ignored Verbal Order; Trump Claims Biden's Pardons Are "Void" Because Of Autopen; CNN Poll: Democrats' Favorability Drops To Record Low. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 17, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: And Kayla Tausche joins us now.
So, what's next for the journalists who are stationed in the countries around the world?
KAYLA TAUSCHE, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: Well, Anderson, without staff and more clarity, these outlets have largely gone quiet.
Leaders from the National Press Club, and the Committee to Protect Journalists, are urging lawmakers to restore funding, and allow Voice of America, and its affiliates, to continue their mission. They're reporting in 49 languages, across 75 countries, in many cases, areas where free press is not welcome.
Jodie Ginsberg, the CEO of CPJ, tells me, there are at least five journalists, employed by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, who are currently imprisoned for their work. Their fates, unclear.
Anderson.
COOPER: Right. Kayla Tausche, thanks very much.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
An escalating showdown, as a federal judge grills the DOJ after they're accused of ignoring his court order, with government attorneys refusing to answer his questions at a testy hearing, this afternoon, with the White House arguing he doesn't have the power to question the President's authority.
There's also new fallout tonight, from President Trump's claim that pardons, that were issued in those final days by President Biden, are null and void, all because of how they were signed. A member of the January 6 committee, who've received one of those pardons, Congressman Jamie Raskin, is my source tonight.
And the new Chairman of the Kennedy Center is promising big changes, and also promising that Kennedy secrets will be revealed tomorrow. But the key question is, will they?
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, here in Washington, there's a tone of defiance, coming from the White House, as a federal judge is still waiting on answers from a Justice Department that doesn't seem eager to provide them, following that testy court hearing today.
Now, all of this started when President Trump invoked a rarely-used wartime law, called the Alien Enemies Act, to deport hundreds of alleged members of a Venezuelan gang from the United States to El Salvador.
Now, those deportation flights were carried out, on Saturday night, despite a federal judge telling the administration to turn the planes around, and return to the United States, as these legal issues were sorted out.
Judge Boasberg was back in court with Justice Department attorneys tonight.
And while no cameras were in the courtroom, the CNN team, who was, reports that it grew contentious, as the administration attorneys repeatedly stonewalled a clearly-perturbed judge, refusing to even answer basic questions from him, leading him, at one point, to place his hands on his hips, and shake his head, with his eyes closed.
At one point, he summed up the Justice Department's reasoning as, quote, "We don't care, we'll do what we want."
The Trump administration, on the other hand, is arguing it did not violate Judge Boasberg's order, since it was initially an oral directive, and thus, quote, Not enforceable. In plain English, they're saying that he said it out loud, but he has to write it down before it's real.
Now the timeline of all of this is crucial, and we've charted it out here for you. Because it was 05:00 p.m. Eastern, on Saturday afternoon. That is when the judge kicked off this initial hearing, over Trump's attempt to use these wartime powers to deport these alleged members of the Venezuelan gang. That was briefly adjourned, 22 minutes later, for the government to collect more information.
In that time, two removal flights took off, en route to El Salvador, which had agreed to take in these Venezuelan migrants, for about $6 million.
But after 06:45 p.m. the judge verbally told the Justice Department to turn around any planes that were carrying people being deported under the Alien Enemies Act. And the verbal order came after two flights had taken off, but before they had landed, and before a third flight had even taken off from the United States. Now, the written order from the judge came about 40 minutes after that.
I've been working to chase down the details on this timeline, when the administration got this information, when they found out what the order was, and that included, at today's press briefing, where we sought answers on where they draw the line between a judge's verbal order and a written one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You keep talking about the judge's written order, which hit the docket, Saturday night, at about 07:26 p.m. But he issued a verbal order before that, at about 06:45 p.m. and 06:48 p.m., based on the court hearing -- order from the bench.
Does the White House feel the need to comply with a verbal order from this judge?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Again, as I said, all of the planes subject to the written order of this judge departed U.S. soil, U.S. territory, before the judge's written order.
COLLINS: But what about the verbal order, which, of course, carries the same legal weight as a written order, and said for the planes to turn around if they were in the air?
LEAVITT: Well, there's actually questions about whether a verbal order carries the same weight as a legal order, as a written order, and our lawyers are determined to ask and answer those questions in court.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, verbal orders are typically given equal legal weight by lawyers as written directives. We've got some top legal fire-powers sitting by me for in a moment, on whether or not that's going to hold up in court.
[21:05:00]
The judge tonight, though, did indicate where he stood, at least, because when that hearing was coming to an end, Judge Boasberg said he would quickly issue a written order, memorializing everything that happened today, quote, "Since apparently my oral orders don't seem to carry much weight."
He now wants answers by noon tomorrow, on whether any of the migrants were removed after his order went into effect.
And as one official says tonight, these flights will continue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BORDER CZAR, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND FORMER ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: We're not stopping. I don't care what the judges think. I don't care what the left thinks. We're coming.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My lead source tonight is a former federal district court judge, appointed by a Republican president. Judge John E. Jones III is here with me.
And Judge Jones, it's great to have you.
Because you've issued verbal orders from the bench. Did you ever think that your words did not count until they were written down?
JOHN E. JONES III, RETIRED CHIEF JUDGE, U.S. MIDDLE DISTRICT COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, PRESIDENT, DICKINSON COLLEGE: I always knew that they counted, Kaitlan.
And your exchange with press secretary Leavitt was spot on. You were exactly right.
From a practical standpoint, what should have happened is that as soon as Judge Boasberg said that, I'm sure there, you had a squadron of attorneys from the Department of Justice, one of them should have gone into the hallway, gotten on the phone and said, Get those planes to turn around now.
You don't wait for the written order. So this is -- this is nothing more than subterfuge and quite disingenuous, I think, by the administration.
COLLINS: Well, and what the judge was asking today is, When do you believe my order went into effect, and when did these planes take off, and when did they land? But there weren't a lot of answers in court today. They were saying that, For national security reasons, they could not answer these questions.
If you're the judge in that case, what do you do if you're being stonewalled by the DOJ?
E. JONES III: Well, I think that Judge Boasberg, although he seems to be keeping a modicum of his sense of humor, is probably doing a slow- burn, at this point.
One of the worst things you can do, in federal court, obviously, but it bears stating, is to disregard a judge's order. That's just, you're going to get yourself in a world of trouble if you do that.
So, he ran the hearing as far as he could today. And now he's giving them a deadline of tomorrow, to get this information to him. He was getting name, rank and serial number from the attorneys, for no good reason, other than they just wouldn't give up the information.
As you characterized it earlier, this is a showdown. This is akin to inter-branch March Madness, if you will, where there will probably be sanctions against, I think, the government lawyers, if they don't deliver this information.
COLLINS: Yes, so what does happen, tomorrow, if they still don't turn over this info? I mean, they clearly, they're arguing that they were in the right, but they keep putting that emphasis on written order here, they're not giving those questions. I mean, what happens if at noon tomorrow, they don't provide the judge, with these answers? E. JONES III: Well, they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. I want to point that out, Kaitlan. Because I just heard Mr. Homan say, We don't care what the judges say. On the one hand they say, Well, we didn't violate the court order. On the other hand they say, Well, we don't care what the court order is, we're going to go ahead and do it anyway. I think that's entirely chilling.
Now, what he could do, tomorrow, is he can say, Look, I'm going to hold you in contempt, and you can purge or relieve yourself of that contempt by delivering this information, but I'm going to give you a little extra time to come up with it. He can go so far as to jail individuals, if they don't give over the information.
I mean, if it's truly classified information that would be eyes-only to the judge? Who, I remind you was a FISA court judge. This is a highly qualified judge, right, with a tremendous reputation. So, you can do it in camera, you can go into chambers, and take a look at it there.
But to just simply stonewall him and say, Well, we're not going to give it up just because? That's not availing, and it's not going to work.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, the administration, even hours before, tried to get him removed from overseeing this proceeding. That obviously didn't happen, because it still went forward. They tried to get the hearing today canceled.
If you're the judge, how do you--
E. JONES III: For no -- for--
COLLINS: --how do you view that?
E. JONES III: Well, he's not going to take that personally, Kaitlan.
But I mean, for no good reason, you get a judge knocked off a case because they have a conflict, something like that. This is, as I understand it, they said, Well, we just don't like the way he's handling the case, the way he's set up the process.
[21:10:00]
He went in on a Saturday, called his staff in, assembled that hearing, as fast as he could, on an emergent basis. The government knew that at issue, we had whether or not those flights could actually take off. And he knew in the middle of that hearing that he had a real problem. He's got a 225-year-old statute that's never been used for this purpose before. You stand down and you wait.
They're in custody. No matter how dangerous they may be, they're not going to leave custody. And there's no harm in preserving the status quo.
I think this was -- there's an element of kind of performative nature here, in what was done, to kind of show up and show everybody what they can do. But you're writing due process out of the equation.
In our system of justice, individuals have rights, no matter what they're accused of doing. We don't deport people based on classifications. And this is a broad-brush classification of these individuals, where you strip them of any due process rights whatsoever. It flies in the face of the rule of law.
COLLINS: Yes. And I think you make an important point there, about them already being detained.
Because he noted that, on Saturday, saying they weren't -- these people weren't a danger to the American public, because they were already detained by the federal government. They weren't going to be released.
We'll see how this plays out, tomorrow.
Judge Jones, as always, it's great to have your expertise.
E. JONES III: Great to be on, Kaitlan. Thank you.
COLLINS: I also have my legal sources here with me tonight. They both held high-ranking positions at the Justice Department, so the perfect people to talk to. Tom Dupree. And Shan Wu.
And when you hear what the judge says there, about what this could mean. Because what the judge is really trying to determine here is if they ignored his order on purpose. That is really what is at the heart of why he wants to know, when the flights took off, and when they believe this actually came down.
Did they defy his order or not?
SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It seems like they did.
I mean, the timing and the circumstances are important, he's got to know that, to make his record for the case. But this distinction between verbal and non-verbal is just completely silly.
I mean, think about it. If I'm in court, I ask a question to witness. Objection. Judge just sustained. I just keep asking the questions because, Hey, you didn't write it down yet. That's just complete nonsense, to make that distinction.
COLLINS: So, that doesn't hold any weight, you don't think?
WU: Zero weight.
COLLINS: What about the argument that the White House is making, overall, and Stephen Miller, Trump's -- one of his top advisers, made this earlier, in terms of saying, This is a single unelected judge. He can't make the decision here. It's President Trump who was the authority to make this decision. Where does that power dynamic come down?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, look, normally, it would come down on the side of the judge.
But what the Trump administration is doing here is the legal authority they used for this Venezuelan removement was this old statute, that's been on the books for hundreds of years, is really only invoked in wartime. And the administration, in its defense, does have an argument that they have greater power to remove these individuals, using that power, than they would in kind of a normal immigration case.
And I think that's what's driving the White House's comments here, and why they're saying so strongly that they don't think the judge has any role to play here, because they're saying, We have a new law. We dusted it off. It hasn't been used. But it gives the President much greater authority.
Not saying it's going to carry the day, but I think that's where they're going.
COLLINS: But what did it say to you that they didn't let that play out, in terms of what -- typically, the recourse, on Saturday night, when he says, If these planes are in the air, turn them around. If they haven't taken off, don't let them take off yet.
You appeal that written order.
DUPREE: Absolutely. Yes. Look, I mean, we all have been in this situation as a Justice Department lawyer, where the judge gives you a ruling you don't like. And you resist it. You want to fight it. But you comply with it, and you appeal it to the higher court. You ask the court to reverse the lower court. That's how it works.
You don't just say, Well, you didn't write it down. We didn't hear what you said. That's not the way to go. There's nothing that gets a judge madder than if he or she thinks you're defying their orders.
COLLINS: Well, and this gets at this bigger question that's been at play here. Because it's the backdrop of, Trump has been in office for eight weeks now. The only resistance he's really faced is coming from the courts. And the White House has made clear their frustration with the courts and what they do.
It got to the point though, where Trump was asked, is there a point where he would not abide by a court order? This is what he said just last month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I always abide by the courts, and then I'll have to appeal it.
The answer is, I always abide by the courts. Always abide by them. And we'll appeal. But appeals take a long time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What does that say about their thinking, going into this hearing today? WU: I mean, their thinking is clearly, they want to expand the power of the Executive. Trump there is actually being kind of tricky, which is, Well we'll appeal it, appeals take a long time.
They actually don't have to tee it up to where they're literally defying the judge's order. That's why you see all this sort of like double-talk going on. They want to make it very messy, ambiguous, make the judge drill down to exactly what the timeline was. What did they actually disobey about it?
What really strikes me about this is that it's not the way the government litigates cases. This is very much like a private civil litigation. Fight every single point, make every single argument. It's not how the United States Department of Justice behaves in federal court.
COLLINS: Well, maybe until now.
[21:15:00]
But in court today, what the judge was talking out there on classified information. The attorney who was representing the DOJ was asked to explain why he believes this information can't be shared publicly, as the attorney was arguing.
And as he noted, Judge Boasberg has pretty good authority here.
And he said, quote, If you're saying it's classified and you can't show me, then you'll have to make a good showing why that is. I'd be interested to hear what that showing is. I mean, he's essentially saying, You're going to have to tell me why you can't tell me this.
DUPREE: Exactly. And look, I think any government lawyer's in a very difficult position, when you have to say to a judge, I can't answer your question, or I'm not going to answer your question. And we heard that again and again and again today. It was a constant refrain.
And what the judge is basically saying is, Look, you may actually have a legitimate national security reason why you can't answer these questions, but you have to tell me what it is.
And I think the judge has many tools at his disposal. He can go into a closed session. He can talk to people in chambers. There can be sealed filings. It doesn't have to be disclosed in the public record.
And the judge is basically saying, If you're going to play the national security card, you've got to give me an evidentiary basis for playing it.
COLLINS: I was reading the quotes, as it was going there. He said he could put the husher on, which, I assume is a silencer in the room to where--
DUPREE: Well, that's a big white noise. Yes.
COLLINS: Reporters in the room can't hear what they're saying? DUPREE: Yes. Yes. That's the husher.
COLLINS: Yes.
DUPREE: Yes.
COLLINS: Well, we'll see if they deploy that.
DUPREE: Yes.
COLLINS: Tom Dupree. Shan Wu. Great to have you both. Judge Jones as well.
We're also following major breaking news, overseas tonight, as Israel says it has just resumed its strikes in Gaza, extensive ones. We are watching it closely. We'll take you live, next.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Breaking news tonight, as Israel says it's carrying out extensive strikes against Hamas, in Gaza, raising questions about the ceasefire there.
(VIDEO - EXTENSIVE STRIKES - GAZA CITY)
COLLINS: That's a live look inside Gaza City, as smoke could be seen rising.
With Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, accusing Hamas of, quote, Repeatedly refusing to release the remaining hostages, adding, quote, From now on, Israel will act out against Hamas with increasing military force.
CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins me live from Tel Aviv.
Jeremy, what can you tell us about what drove this decision, by Israel, to resume its strikes inside Gaza tonight?
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kaitlan, this appears to be the end of the ceasefire, as we have known it, for over a month and a half now, nearly two months at this point since the ceasefire came into effect. As Israel is carrying out what itself describes as extensive strikes throughout Gaza.
We have been hearing from reporters on the ground who work with us inside the Gaza Strip, saying that the heavy bombardment has been in southern, central, and northern Gaza, but particularly heavy in central Gaza, where Al-Awda Hospital alone is reporting at least 70 injuries. The Civil Defense spokesman for the Gaza Strip says that at least 15 people have been killed, including five children at this point.
As for what drove this decision, the Israeli Prime Minister says in a statement that it was Hamas' repeated refusal to reach an agreement, over the release of additional hostages. Including, just last week, when Steve Witkoff, the U.S. Special Envoy, flew to Doha, Qatar, and put forward a proposal on the table that would have seen an additional five living hostages released, a number of deceased hostages, in exchange for a month or a month and a half extension, approximately, of this current ceasefire agreement.
Hamas, for its part, has continued to insist that it wants to see the previous ceasefire agreement implemented, meaning, getting to phases two and three, which would ultimately lead to an end of the war in Gaza, and the withdrawal of all Israeli troops.
But this Israeli Government made repeatedly clear that it was not interested in engaging in those longer-term negotiations, and instead that it would seek an escalating ladder of pressure tactics.
And now, we have seen, after Israel blocked aid to Gaza, for the last two weeks, it is now conducting extensive airstrikes in the Gaza Strip, and making very clear in the statement from the Prime Minister's Office, tonight, that they intend to continue to escalate that military action.
So far, no word of Israeli troops going back on the ground, in major areas of the Gaza Strip. But certainly that could happen next.
Hamas, for its part, saying that, Israel has decided to unilaterally end this ceasefire, and calling on the United Nations to hold an urgent meeting on this matter.
Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll see if they do.
Jeremy Diamond, thank you for that reporting, and joining us very quickly here.
My next source on this breaking news. CNN Political and Foreign Affairs Analyst, Barak Ravid, who's also been reporting on what led to this.
Obviously, Barak, U.S. officials were trying to get an extension. You just heard Jeremy talking about that. What are you hearing from sources about why tonight?
BARAK RAVID, GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS, CNN POLITICAL & FOREIGN POLICY ANALYST: I think it was a combination of factors.
I think one of the factors was that the Israelis, at least, what I hear from Israeli officials, that they felt that the negotiations, over this extension of the ceasefire and another hostage release is not going anywhere.
Another reason Israeli officials mentioned is that they saw Hamas regrouping, and getting ready for possible attacks against Israel.
And there's also domestic political reasons. Because Netanyahu gave Hamas another two or three, even three, weeks of ceasefire, without getting anything in return. And there was more and more pressure from, within his own cabinet, to resume the war, and not to mention the fact that he just fired the head of the Shin Bet Intelligence Agency, yesterday.
So, I think when you add all those things together, you get to this specific timing.
COLLINS: Yes, of course, the firing in the Shin Bet was incredibly notable, as the backdrop here.
[21:25:00]
The other question, given how closely Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff, who's, to remind everyone he's the one who's been going to Russia, to meet with President Putin. He's also been going to Doha, and to Israel, to meet with officials there, on this war, this other war.
Do we know if Israel informed the White House that it was going to resume strikes in Gaza tonight?
RAVID: Yes, Three Israeli officials told me that Ron Dermer, Netanyahu's confidant, and Israeli military officials, notified in advance their U.S. counterparts, the White House, and the Pentagon, and CENTCOM, that this is coming. They explained the objectives of this move, of those airstrikes.
And I think that you mentioned that Mr. Witkoff is also the envoy for the Middle East, but also an envoy to Vladimir Putin. Donald Trump will speak tomorrow with Vladimir Putin. He was supposed to speak with him about the ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. I think that the ending of the ceasefire in Gaza will be a major issue in this call.
And another thing. Donald Trump assumed office, when there was a ceasefire in Gaza. And I think now, there's a big risk that this resumed war, that could take between another six to 12 months, could hijack a lot of Donald Trump's foreign policy agenda. Because we all know how much this war took over international attention. There's no reason to think that it's not going to happen again.
COLLINS: That's a really good point, Barak Ravid. We'll see how it changes the White House's calculus. Thank you for that excellent breaking reporting tonight.
And of course, speaking of Trump, and what's been happening at the White House, you saw overnight, President Trump was claiming that some of the actions taken by President Biden, those pardons in his final day, were void because of how they were signed.
Up next. Hear what the White House (inaudible) today, and what the legal basis was as someone who got one of those pardons will join me right after this break.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Tonight, the White House seems to be trying to back away from President Trump's claim that President Biden's preemptive pardons, for members of the January 6 committee, and others, that he issued on the way out the door don't count.
It all started when the President posted overnight, saying that Biden's pardons are, quote, "Hereby declared VOID, VACANT, AND OF NO FURTHER FORCE OR EFFECT, because... they were done by Autopen."
If you don't know what the Autopen is, it's a machine that duplicates the President's signature using real ink for times, when the President is unable, just given the nature of the job, to sign it in-person. The signing is still at his direction. It's been used before Biden ever became president. We saw other presidents use it.
Trump further suggested, though, that Biden's aides used it without his knowledge. So there's no evidence of that, nor did the President offer any. And it's also unclear if the Autopen was even used in these cases. We've asked President Biden's team. We have not heard whether or not that was actually used here.
But of course, this comes from a President who pushes these ideas, and a White House that follows up with them by saying that he is just asking the questions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Have attorneys here at the White House told President Trump that he has the legal authority to undo a pardon, simply because it was signed by Autopen, as he said?
LEAVITT: The President was begging the question that I think a lot of journalists in this room should be asking, about whether or not the former President of the United States, who I think we can all finally agree was cognitively impaired. I know it took people some time to finally admit that, but we all know that to be true, as evidenced by his disastrous debate performance against President Trump during the campaign. I digress on that. But the President was raising the point that did the President even know about these pardons? Was his illegal signature used without his consent or knowledge?
And that's not just the President, or me, raising those questions, Kaitlan. According to The New York Post, there are Biden officials from the previous White House who've raised those questions, and wondered if the President was even consulted about his legally-binding signature being signed onto documents.
And so I think it's a question that everybody in this room should be looking into, because certainly that would propose perhaps criminal or illegal behavior, if staff members were signing the President of the United States' autograph without his consent.
COLLINS: But President Biden is on the record, talking about issuing preemptive pardons to these people.
LEAVITT: But was he aware of the -- of his signature being used on every single pardon? That's a question you should ask the Biden White House.
COLLINS: Is there any evidence on that that he wasn't aware of it?
LEAVITT: You're a reporter. You should find out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is Democratic congressman, Jamie Raskin, who was on the pardon list, because he was a member of the January 6 Select Committee.
But Congressman, you were also a former constitutional law professor. Is there any precedent for a President rescinding a pardon?
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): No, there's no precedent for that. And one president does not have the power to pardon, or to veto a pardon, or to rescind a pardon, or to modify a pardon in anyway.
I hadn't seen this exchange with you and the press secretary. But she said, Did President Biden sign every single one of those pardons?
[21:35:00]
Actually, it was a general pardon for anyone who was a member of the January 6 committee. And you'll recall, it wasn't that long ago, that Donald Trump was running around, talking about prosecuting our Chair, and Liz Cheney, and so on.
So, there was just one signature for everybody on the committee. That's the same way that Donald Trump pardoned nearly 1,600 insurrectionists, including hundreds of violent cop-assaulters, who attacked the police on January the 6th, with one signature for the whole group, on that executive order.
COLLINS: I mean, what was your reaction to seeing this post, overnight, and just this argument?
I mean, when I was talking to lawyers today, ahead of the briefing, about how this would even work, they were saying, Well, they'd have to prosecute someone who, or try to prosecute someone, who got a pardon, and then that person would have to be able to argue that the pardon prevents that prosecution from going forward in court. I mean, which would mean that they would have to open an investigation into you, or to Liz Cheney, or to any of these other people who got the preemptive pardons.
RASKIN: Which they already did in the last two years in the House Administration Committee, under this relentless investigation of Congressman Loudermilk, that went absolutely nowhere. They did a public report on it, which was completely devoid of any facts, or any contradiction of the statements that were made in the Select Committee bipartisan report that we issued, after a year and a half of our investigations.
And look, that's the bottom line, Kaitlan. They haven't laid a glove on anything that is in the report of the bipartisan committee. We had more than a 1,000 interviews with people. There's hundreds of pages in the report. There are hundreds and hundreds of footnotes there. Everything is scrupulously documented.
And that's what's so frustrating to them, because they would like to tell some sort of counternarrative. For a while, they were riding the Antifa horse. Then it was, really, The FBI did it. Then it was, No, Donald Trump tried to stop the whole thing. And none of those things worked, because none of them were true. There's no evidence for it.
But if they want to continue going down this road, and they're talking about forming a subcommittee, in our committee, and Judiciary, great? Because there's one person who knows more about it than anybody who hasn't testified. Donald Trump. Let's bring him in, and subject him to all of the questioning that the Judiciary committee members would like to ask. I think that would be a fruitful exercise, because he's never answered any questions about it.
COLLINS: I'm not sure that will happen. But, as we say, we'll see.
But in this moment overall, when it comes to taking on Trump, and this administration, this time around, your party is divided, to put it lightly, and to say the least. Do you have confidence in Chuck Schumer, in light of what's transpired over the last few days, as the leader of Democrats in the Senate?
RASKIN: I don't think we're divided at all. And I mean that seriously, Kaitlan. Everybody is working, as hard as we can, to defend constitutional democracy and freedom. In America, we are in the fight of our lives here.
And I think a lot of what has gotten us in trouble is that there are these tactical differences, like, how should people respond at the Joint Session? Or how do we respond to the continuing resolution, which I thought was an awful continuing resolution, but it -- because it continued to do damage against us, and it appeared to retroactively validate what DOGE had been doing. But in any event, there were arguments on both sides.
Our fault, I think, and this, I diffuse generally among all the Democrats in Congress, is that we didn't get together, between the House and the Senate. Rather, the House proceeded on one track, the Senate proceeded on another track, as if we're not fighting on the same side here, to defend democracy and freedom in America.
And we've got to get that together. I mean, speaking as a washed-up high school football quarterback, we need to have a gameplan, and we need to go in with actual plays that are coordinated, as opposed to, everybody do his or her own thing.
COLLINS: So what's that -- is that a yes or no on confidence, in Schumer himself?
RASKIN: I mean, I don't have a vote in that one. But put it this way, I have confidence in the ability of all of our leadership to get together to say we need to do a much better job coordinating. And if they don't want to do that, then they really should step off of the stage, and we should allow new leadership to come forward that will allow for cohesive and coherent responses at each of these tactical junctures.
COLLINS: Congressman Jamie Raskin, thank you for your time tonight.
RASKIN: You bet, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. President Trump's redo of the Oval Office has continued. He just made a new addition tonight. We'll take you behind- the-scenes with our reporting on what's underway. It's not the only place he's making changes.
Also, his visit to the Kennedy Center, this afternoon, the first time since taking over as the Chairman of the Board.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump revealing he's hung a copy of the Declaration of Independence inside the Oval Office. You can see it there, framed behind that blue curtains covering it.
We've reported extensively, over the last eight weeks, on Trump's efforts to dramatically reshape the federal government. But that Declaration of Independence is just the latest installment, in his effort, to also transform another historic aspect of the presidency, and that is the Oval Office.
Trump may be close to running out of wall space, as he has tripled the number of paintings that are hanging on the walls, most of them portraits of former Presidents.
And in keeping with Trump's style that he has had for decades, there's also a lot more gold inside the Oval. Several golden figurines, as you can see here, line the mantle.
And these golden medallions have been placed in front of the fireplace. You can see them when Trump is greeting a world leader, or a guest of honor, and they're seated in those two chairs. Off to the side, there are these golden eagles have been placed on those side tables.
And if you look closely, above the doors inside the Oval Office, the President had these golden cherubs shipped in from Mar-a-Lago.
[21:45:00]
Now, I've been in the Oval Office. I can tell you, it certainly still has that historic look that it has maintained for decades, as each president has the leeway to put up portraits that they like, or certain busts of historic figures. But it certainly has much more of the Trump stamp on it these days.
And as I'm also told that he's not stopping just inside the Oval. Work is expected to begin within weeks, on his plans to revamp the Rose Garden, paving over the grass, as we are expecting, and turning it into more of a patio-style seating area, much like the one where he holds court in Mar-a-Lago.
Now, the President, we are told, personally reviewed the plans for the Rose Garden recently, with White House curators. We'll expect that work to start soon.
As the President also says he is committed to overhauling another Washington institution, the Kennedy Center.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I hear the acoustics are fantastic in the center. So that's -- that's a big thing. They usually aren't in places. So, that's good.
I'll tell you what. Why don't you step back?
But if you're -- if you're ready, go ahead.
REPORTER: What other changes are you looking to make at the Kennedy Center?
TRUMP: We're going to make a lot of changes, including the seats, the decor, pretty much everything. Needs a lot of work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Trump toured the Performing Arts Center, for the first time, since he became the Chairman of the Board, that he appointed himself to. It's a group, after he purged all of the Biden-era appointees in favor of his own allies. That includes Fox News personalities, the country singer, Lee Greenwood, the second lady, Usha Vance, also the Attorney General, Pam Bondi.
For more on everything that is happening inside the White House, my deeply-sourced White House insiders tonight are joining me.
Reuters' Jeff Mason.
And Semafor's Shelby Talcott.
Jeff, what did you make? I don't even know if Trump had ever been to the Kennedy Center before. He says he's never seen a show there, certainly. But this is something that clearly is important to him, and that he is taking the time to do, as well as everything else we've been reporting on.
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, REUTERS: Yes, and he was asked about that today. Why are you making time to come to the Kennedy Center when you've got so many other things on your plate?
And he basically answered in the way that you just said, that he thinks it's important. He wants the country to be represented well, and the Kennedy Center and Washington, D.C., are sort of the representation of that. But it's another example of an institution that he is tearing down, and taking over. And by installing himself, by installing Ric Grenell, and even talking about the decor. I mean, he's sort of using a little bit of his real estate prowess, but also his desire to have an institution bend to him there as well.
COLLINS: Yes. Were you with Trump today, as he was touring this? What stood out to you when you were there? I mean, this tour started kind of in the basement underground of the Kennedy Center. He was talking about changes that need to be made, structurally, to it that are long overdone. What stood out to you on the trip today?
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: I thought what was most notable -- well, first of all, when he stood, in that image you just saw, kind of standing at the top, and--
COLLINS: And he told Stephen Miller and Sergio Gor, I believe, to get back.
TALCOTT: Yes. Yes.
MASON: Step back.
TALCOTT: He told them to move back for the picture, and this was kind of reminiscent of one of his favorite plays, of course.
COLLINS: He do that (ph).
TALCOTT: But what I also thought was notable was when I asked him about, What changes are you planning to make? And he said, essentially, everything.
I think -- I think the overarching theme was that this is not just about the Kennedy Center, but it is sort of part of the President's overarching goal, this administration to A, install loyalists, and B, focus on, you know, he talked a lot about the -- bureaucracy and waste, which, of course, he has talked about a lot when it comes to DOGE.
So that was all kind of really notable to me. It all kind of ties back to everything he's focusing on in this administration.
MASON: One other little piece of color. Before the Board meeting that he held on the stage of the Opera House today, his portrait was installed on the wall at the Kennedy Center, along with the portraits of Melania Trump, the Vice President, and Usha Vance. That is very unusual.
It's an institution that is meant to sort of lift up John F. Kennedy. It's not a department, like you walk into the Defense Department, you'll see the pictures of the President and the Secretary of Defense.
Now it's been added to the Kennedy Center as well.
COLLINS: That's really interesting. And that is a good point. Because typically, yes, Labor Department, Justice-- MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: --you go in and use you do see the portraits of the Attorney General--
MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: --or whoever is leading that, or President Trump.
But also, while Trump was there today, Karoline Leavitt came over to him. We saw them talking on camera. And then he came over to the camera and announced that they are -- he says -- because I think we have to wait to see what's actually going to be in there -- release 80,000 pages of unredacted JFK files tomorrow, the files about the investigation into President Kennedy's assassination.
This always seems to be a thing where they say presidents or figures, certainly on the right, this has been a big cause, to release these, that the information is coming out. Do we actually expect anything new, though?
[21:50:00]
TALCOTT: That's the big question. I asked him, if he had read the pages. He said, he had heard of them. He hadn't read all 80,000 pages, but he had sort of been briefed on them. And I asked if there was anything interesting, and he said, it will be very interesting, but didn't elaborate in any way.
So, I think we have to see. He does claim that these are going to not -- these are not going to be redacted. But it's been a lot of years. I think there's a lot of questions, over whether there's actually anything in these files that are extremely notable, or will really change the game when it comes to this story.
I also think something to watch, of course, is, how is he going to reveal these? Because of, of course, the debacle a few weeks ago, with the Epstein Files.
COLLINS: Where they released it, and there was nothing new, and it enraged MAGA, actually it became a huge fight with them.
Jeff Mason. Shelby Talcott. Great to have you both here after being at the White House today.
Up next. The Senate's top Democrat, as we were just talking with Jamie Raskin about, he was just forced to postpone his book tour, as there was huge fury, within his own party, over how he voted on the shutdown and staving one off. My political sources are here, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:55:00]
COLLINS: Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, tonight, is facing intense backlash from fellow Democrats. He's even had to postpone a scheduled tour to promote his new book, with aides citing security concerns for the reason for the postponement. Protests had been planned around the stops, after he had voted, last week, to avert a government shutdown by supporting a Trump-backed spending bill.
The larger Democratic frustration, though, is showing up in the latest CNN poll. The party's favorability rating stands at a record low of 29 percent among the American public overall. Now that was before all of this, before Schumer paved the way for the passage of the Republican- led spending bill, and exposed what are clearly giant cracks inside his own party.
My political sources are:
The former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, Karen Finney.
And Republican strategist, Doug Heye.
This poll was taken before those 10 senators voted to--
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.
COLLINS: --keep the government funded and stave off a shutdown.
What do you make of just how Democrats are responding to Chuck Schumer? Do you think it's warranted?
FINNEY: I do. And look, I mean, I've never heard people this angry. And it's not just frustrated or upset. People are angry. But I think it's not just about the substance of where we ended up. It's the way we got there.
It's the lack of, I think, particularly on the heels of what happened with Al Green, where people felt like, Why are we, 10 people, voting with the Republicans, instead of standing up to the Republicans and saying, We are not going to be lectured to by a party that is going to put in power a convicted felon, right? Like, we've had moments where we could have made more powerful statements.
And I think people felt like, Where's the strategy between the House and the Senate? So, the House did one thing and the Senate did the other. Where was the -- did we try to get anything for our votes? Did we try to make anything a little bit better?
And then, sort of, why do we then have 10 members, some of whom, quite frankly, are in very safe -- two (ph) are not running again. Others are in safe seats. Why were there so many who were so willing to go along with this?
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, and for Republicans, how you're -- I wonder how you're viewing this, in terms of, I talked about that number before the fight even happened.
DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Yes. COLLINS: The last few days have played out.
Republicans, they're at 36 percent favorability. They had just kind of been more unpopular for a while overall, if you look at the past numbers here. But what do you make of what you're seeing right now on the contrast here?
HEYE: Yes, well, one, Washington is not popular. Hasn't been for a long time. The cratering that we've seen with Democrats, though, because is pretty, pretty interesting, given how fast this has happened, and that that Chuck Schumer hasn't been involved.
So if we're having this conversation a week ago, Karen is probably yelling at me that Republicans aren't having enough town halls. Now, Chuck Schumer is canceling his book events because of safety concerns. Probably his emotional safety is project number one on that.
FINNEY: Oh.
HEYE: And we're also learning that Democrats have their own Freedom Caucus. You have to fight. What's the strategy? Doesn't matter. You have to fight. And this is what Chuck Schumer is learning, as his people are -- as his own people are going against him. And we saw today, a liberal activist group called Indivisible, calling for Chuck Schumer to step down. The Democratic Party is divided.
FINNEY: Well, OK, couple things. That was good. You earned your pay there. But a couple--
COLLINS: We're all here for free.
FINNEY: Exactly.
But a couple of things about that. I mean, part of what we're seeing is people, yes, they're angry at Washington. But also, I think the pace with which the change has been coming, and the things that have been coming at people, out of this White House, I think that's part of why people are frustrated, and want Democrats to stand up.
And we've seen a real shift from not that long after the election, polls were looking at people saying, We want you to -- we want you guys to try to work together. Let's see what we can get done. I thought--
COLLINS: Work together on DOGE.
FINNEY: Well--
COLLINS: That's not the case anymore.
FINNEY: No, on getting things done for the American people.
Now, I think people have realized, Oh, wait a second, that's an illusion. Now we've just got to protect everything we can, because Trump is taking away our rights so fast. DOGE is calamitous, in terms of the impact on this country. And the fact that in our own poll, it showed people saying, We want you to stand up and fight it more? I think that flip is really interesting as well.
HEYE: I think Democrats also not only misplayed their hand, but severely underestimated House Republicans.
COLLINS: But--
HEYE: It was sort of gospel in the Democratic Party, some of the Republicans, that Republicans wouldn't be able to get things through. House Republicans got it through, because Mike Johnson was so underestimated. He did a fantastic job, this week--
FINNEY: Well--
HEYE: --in getting that vote through.
FINNEY: It doesn't hurt when you have Elon Musk and a Super PAC that says, If you step out of line, we're going to primary you, we're going to take you out. That doesn't hurt. If we had that--
HEYE: I mean--
COLLINS: Which would cost him essentially--
FINNEY: --I suspect.
[22:00:00]
HEYE: Primary politics play a role here? I mean, we're talking about whether or not Chuck Schumer is going to get primaried.
FINNEY: $60 (ph) million into Wisconsin?
COLLINS: Yes. It would essentially--
HEYE: Senator AOC?
FINNEY: Just saying.
COLLINS: It would essentially cost him--
HEYE: And all this, by the way, is to defend--
COLLINS: No--
HEYE: --the filibuster. The Democrats who had campaigned and are now upset.
COLLINS: It would essentially cost Elon Musk nothing.
But I do want to say, before we go, there was a dinner here in Washington, this weekend.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: Governor Wes Moore, of Maryland spoke. And he was asked -- he said, People keep asking me, he was joking, to be the leader of the resistance. And he said, Mitch McConnell is already doing a really good job at that with President Trump.
OK. On that note, Karen Finney, Doug Heye, thank you so much.
Thank you all so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" is up next.
