Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
DOJ Indicts Trump Adversary NY AG Letitia James; Noem Blames Dems For Shutdown In Video Playing At TSA Checkpoints; Judge Blocks Trump's Troop Deployment In Chicago, For Now. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired October 09, 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]
ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: --but Robert Roberson is not a free man. What this court ruling does is give his lawyers a chance to convince the court system to grant Robert Roberson a new trial. But that's a legal fight that will take months. It's not clear if that will even happen.
But this does give Robert Roberson the opportunity to think about the one thing that we asked him, What does he dream about most in his days, as he remains incarcerated here in Texas. And he thinks, he thinks often of being able to eat barbecue outside of prison, and then getting in a car and driving around the streets of his East Texas hometown, where he used to live.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Yes.
LAVANDERA: Anderson.
COOPER: Ed Lavandera, thanks very much.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: First, it was James Comey. Now, it's Letitia James. Another one of President Trump's political opponents was just indicted just weeks after he explicitly called for it.
I'm Kaitlan Collins, live from Capitol Hill. And this is a Special Edition of THE SOURCE.
And as we come on the air tonight, there is breaking news on several different fronts.
As Israel has formally approved that peace deal with Hamas, as CNN is learning that the U.S. is going to have hundreds of U.S. troops helping monitor the implementation of that deal.
And also tonight, in the fight over the U.S. military being deployed to American cities, a federal judge has just blocked, for now, the President's deployment of the National Guard to Chicago.
And also, this evening, two out of the three people that the President explicitly called on the Attorney General to prosecute, are now facing federal criminal charges, with the latest target being the New York Attorney General, Letitia James.
It was just 20 days ago that the President posted this on Truth Social, demanding that the Attorney General Pam Bondi do something about James, the former FBI Director James Comey, and Senator Adam Schiff of California.
The Wall Street Journal reported, last night, that Trump actually thought he was sending that message directly to Bondi, instead of posting it publicly for all of us to see. That mishap, revealing the President was directly telling his Attorney General, who he should -- believe should be indicted.
And of course, now tonight, James is facing charges of bank fraud and false statements to a financial institution. And just yesterday, we watched as James Comey pleaded not guilty, in his case. That defendant -- the defendant table is where the New York Attorney General will find herself, in just about two weeks from tonight.
But this evening, she also had this to say, moments after that grand jury handed down the indictment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: This is nothing more than a continuation of the President's desperate weaponization of our justice system. He is forcing federal law enforcement agencies to do his bidding, all because I did my job as the New York State Attorney General. These charges are baseless. And the President's own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Career prosecutors had objected to bringing this case against Letitia James.
And the former U.S. Attorney in the office that ultimately prosecuted her, it's the one that Trump put in that role, months ago, resigned, after he was facing pressure to bring this particular case. because he felt there wasn't enough evidence to do so.
He was replaced by Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump defense attorney, and insurance lawyer, who doesn't have prosecutorial experience. But she's now in charge of Virginia's Eastern District, and has been for just over two weeks. In those two weeks, of course, we've seen the indictment of James Comey and, now tonight, Letitia James.
The history of Trump and James goes back years, of course. She famously sued the President and his company for business fraud. But it's political comments that she made that Trump and his allies often point to.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES: It's important that everyone understand that the days of Donald Trump are coming to an end. And as the next attorney general of his home state--
(CHEERING)
JAMES: --I will be shining a bright light--
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
JAMES: --into every dark corner of his real estate dealings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, once she was elected, and after Michael Cohen testified, here on Capitol Hill, about the President's business dealings, James carried out her promise.
And on the campaign trail, the President made no secret of his own plan for revenge.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: In 2016, I declared, I am your voice. Today, I add, I am your warrior, I am your justice.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Then, as President, Trump has not only called for but cheered the indictment of his political rivals.
[21:05:00]
He also indicated that there could be more to come, as he noted to my colleague, Kevin Liptak, last month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's not a list, but I think there will be others. I mean, they're corrupt. These -- these were corrupt, radical left Democrats.
No, there will be others. Look, it was -- that's my opinion. They weaponized the Justice Department like nobody in history. What they've done is terrible. And so, I would -- I hope there are -- frankly, I hope there are others, because you can't let this happen to a country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: We begin tonight with top former prosecutors who are with us tonight. Elie Honig. Tom Dupree. And Gene Rossi.
As well as The Atlantic's David Frum, who is here on this major story.
And Elie, as this came out tonight. It all came together very quickly. As we heard, a grand jury was underway this afternoon. Then the indictment came down, and confirmation from the Eastern District of Virginia. The indictment is pretty short. It's only a couple of pages, if you read it.
I wonder, Elie, based on what you know, would you have brought this case?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: I would not have, Kaitlan, simply because the amounts are so minuscule here.
Now, if you look at the indictment, the core allegations, that Letitia James bought this home in Virginia, in 2023, and she certified that it would be her secondary residence. But in fact, the indictment alleges, she used it as an investment and rental property, which gave her a slightly lower mortgage loan interest rate.
But if you look at the numbers here. The total purchase amount of the home was $130,000-plus. The amount of the mortgage was just over $100,000. And the indictment says the total amount she profited was $18,000. Let me tell you, I have seen dozens upon dozens of federal mortgage fraud cases brought. I've never seen one for that low of a loss amount.
So, we'll see. We don't know, frankly, off the indictment, how strong the evidence is. But just that loss amount to me, shows me that something unusual is happening here, that they chose to indict this.
COLLINS: Well, and they had kind of been looking around at different homes. I mean, it wasn't even clear which one they were going to go after, in terms of this, where -- there was another one, where she bought with her niece, that was her primary residence. And then it came out, it was this home.
And so, Tom, when we look at this, that -- and the multiple homes. We saw Ed Martin, another top DOJ official, who was posing for pictures outside of James' Brooklyn home as well. It kind of raised the question of, you know, obviously they wanted to indict her for something, and they were looking at basically all of her properties, in order to get to this point where we are tonight.
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, and look, the Ed Martin maneuver of standing outside and haunting her house is not exactly subtle.
I mean, this is one of the least surprising indictments that we've seen. President Trump has been very vocal, both on the campaign trail and once he's taken office, that he was going to do whatever he could to see that Tish James was indicted. So today, I'm sure, is a happy day for him. One interesting thing is the charge that they are bringing appears to be based on a different property than the one that many of us thought it would be based on. A different property in Norfolk.
And to my mind, one critical fact or question here is whether after Tish James submitted that form, in which she checked the box saying that she intended to use the Norfolk as a primary residence, whether she corrected that error.
With regard to the other Norfolk property, at least, her lawyers have been saying, This was just an inadvertent mistake. As soon as she realized she made the mistake, she tried to fix it.
And so, my question is, does the same argument apply to this property too? Because that, if true, would go a long way toward a defense that this was an honest mistake, rather than attempt to commit a willful, intentional, fraudulent act.
COLLINS: Yes, I believe on that one, her attorney had turned over emails, where she said, This is not my primary residence, making that clear. Obviously, that was a few years ago.
And Gene, on this.
GENE ROSSI, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA: Yes.
COLLINS: Lindsey Halligan is the new attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia office. She's well-liked by a lot of people in the President's inner circle. But she doesn't have experience as a prosecutor until two weeks ago, now that she's been in this in this role.
You've prosecuted more than 110 federal cases?
ROSSI: Too many.
COLLINS: Would you want to argue this case?
ROSSI: Too many.
Kaitlan, let me tell you this, and maybe Tom and Elie will agree with me. This indictment is the classic example of indicting a ham sandwich. Because a prosecutor is the only one in the grand jury room. There's no defense attorney. It's 23 individuals. You only need 12 votes. And if you can't get an indictment returned, you might as well turn in your bar license.
Would I have indicted this case? Absolutely not.
And I agree with Elie on one point. The loss in this case is remarkably low. But I want to go before the loss. In a bank fraud case, in a false statement case, the intent is very high. You have to show willfulness.
[21:10:00] And Tom brought up a good point. If she told the banks or any officials that she was not using this as a primary residence? That is a huge red flag and loud gong in favor of the defendant.
So, this is a weak case at best, and it has vindictive prosecution written all over it.
COLLINS: So David Frum, notwithstanding anything that our former prosecutors just laid out, I think if you're looking at this tonight, and you're the third name on that list from President Trump's post, 20 days ago? James Comey, Letitia James and Adam Schiff. If you're the senator from California, are you preparing your own video response to a potential indictment?
DAVID FRUM, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: 50 years ago, President Nixon had more than a little too much to drink, called up his head of the IRS and said, I'd like to see some files, please, this is a list of the names of people I want to see files.
The head of the IRS called his boss, Secretary of the Treasury, George Shultz, and said, What do I do? President just asked me to do. This is completely illegal. What do I do?
And George Shultz replied, The first time the President of the United States asked you to do something illegal or improper, you didn't hear it. And the second time he asks you, you quit.
And so, my question is, why is there anyone still working in the Department of Justice today? This is not a story about Donald Trump alone. We know what Trump is. But Trump, in his first term, was just as reprehensible, as he is in his second term. But in his first term, there was person after person who stood up to him. In the second term, the Department of Justice is filled with people who are executing improper orders, who are indicting at the President's command.
The moment that Direct Message appeared, making it clear that Trump was ordering these prosecutions, everyone in the Department of Justice should have said, No, you've spoiled the case. Even if we had a good case, which we don't, even if we did? This is now improper. And if you press me to do it, I quit, because I will not be an instrument of personalized presidential power pretending to be justice, which is what all of this case is about.
And so, all the technicalities of bank, what are the intents? Those are all interesting, if this were a legitimate action to begin with. But it's an illegit -- it's condemned, tainted, damned at the source, and that's where we need to begin our understanding.
COLLINS: Yes, it obviously was clear that she was a target of Trump's, and it felt like they were looking for something, obviously searching for something, instead of basing it on the crime--
FRUM: And in free society--
COLLINS: --and then going after who was involved. FRUM: In a free society, that shouldn't happen. I mean, it's not -- we say, it's obvious. Well then why has someone signed it -- that is someone who is in default of their responsibilities. And that the people here who are in the spotlight are these creatures of the President's, who are carrying out his improper and illegal will.
COLLINS: Well, and Elie on that front. I can already hear what the White House is saying if they're watching this, saying, Well, she came after Trump, and she was unfair to him, and she unfairly targeted him, and said she was going to get him, and then once she was in office, she went after him.
Just to make sure everyone knows where you personally have stood on this. You have been critical of the Attorney General's decision to bring that case against Donald Trump. This is what you've said before.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: I have been skeptical of the Attorney General's case for a long time. I'm on record saying that. This is a huge win for Donald Trump, any way you cut it, and this is a stinging rebuke to the Attorney General, Letitia James.
How can you say there's no political angle to this? You can maybe say, The facts are there, but it's also political. That's Letitia James' own doing.
But the problem with the case is no one really got defrauded, because the banks, on the other end, the banks were making those loans? They decided, after doing their own diligence, We're going to make these loans. And they got repaid with interest.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But the thing is, here, Elie, is Trump's chief says, the justice was weaponized against us. But then that is exactly what he is doing with this, is he not?
HONIG: Oh, I think that's exactly right. Good montage, by the way. All of that has proven out to be true.
The case Letitia brought against Donald Trump, indisputably, was politically targeted. It backfired politically. It helped spur Donald Trump to the Republican nomination. It backfired legally. Just about a month ago, a New York Court of Appeals vacated most of the verdict. They threw out the dollar amount and made it down to zero.
However, this is a very important point, the fact that Letitia James targeted Donald Trump civilly, in no way vindicates or justifies Donald Trump now targeting Letitia James, criminally. It's a concept that a 6-year-old can understand. Two wrongs do not make a right.
And by the way, this whole back-and-forth is going to play to Letitia James' strategic advantage in the courtroom, because she is absolutely going to make a vindictive or selective prosecution case, and she can just introduce all this evidence of the history between them, and I think she's going to have very good motion to dismiss here, as a result.
COLLINS: Yes. And Gene, I've been talking to people around Trump. He's very happy with the fact that she was indicted today, and with this work.
ROSSI: Yes.
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: Notwithstanding all the arguments that we've heard about, whether or not it will stand up. I do wonder, when you look at that. I asked the President, the other day, directly in the Oval, if he was worried that his comments about James Comey was going to help lead to help his defense. He said, No.
But I mean, given the wealth of everything that he put out there, including a private message meant for Bondi, what do you make of that?
ROSSI: Well, I think the private message to Bondi, allegedly, actually hurts President Trump greatly, because a vindictive prosecution motion, Kaitlan, is hard. But if there's any case that reeks of vindictive prosecution? This is one of them.
I did want to add this. Erik Siebert, I worked with him for seven years. He's a career prosecutor. He was appointed to interim U.S. Attorney. He's a Republican. Trump appointee. He and several people below him, most of whom I'm good friends with, they recommended no indictment against Letitia James.
If a motion for vindictive prosecution is granted, in part? The defense team, A.G. James' defense team will have discovery. They can call witnesses, get documents. It is going to be a circus.
COLLINS: Could they call Erik Siebert?
ROSSI: But I got to say this about Donald Trump--
COLLINS: Could they call Erik Siebert--
ROSSI: Yes.
COLLINS: --to testify?
ROSSI: It depends on the discretion of the judge, if he grants discovery.
And the reason I say that is, in Nashville, about three or four days ago, last week, a judge granted discovery, in a vindictive prosecution case, involving Alberto -- Abrego Garcia.
So, I predict, with Judge Nachmanoff, and I've appeared before him, he's a friend, there's a basis for vindictive prosecution.
But I go back to grand jury. If they did not present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, because the defendant and the defense counsel aren't there? If they didn't present what Tom brought up, of exculpatory evidence, that helps A.G. James? Then that could be a basis for grand jury abuse and also vindictive prosecution.
COLLINS: Yes, and we'll see. She's going to I think -- her arraignment is October 24th. We'll obviously be watching that closely.
It is so great to have all of you here. To my legal experts, David Frum, thank you all so much for joining us tonight.
Up next here for us on the Hill. The Speaker of the House was actually just confronted on live television, by a military spouse, over the government shutdown. Yes, it is still underway. What Mike Johnson said in response, we'll show you.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, as Capitol Hill remains deadlocked over the government shutdown, the pain from this government shutdown is spreading far from here in Washington.
Air traffic control staffing shortages, across the country, are causing more flight delays. And the Trump administration says that any impact on travel is not their fault.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY: It is TSA's top priority to make sure that you have the most pleasant and efficient airport experience as possible, while we keep you safe.
However, Democrats in Congress refuse to fund the federal government, and because of this, many of our operations are impacted, and most of our TSA employees are working without pay.
We will continue to do all that we can to avoid delays that will impact your travel. And our hope is that Democrats will soon recognize the importance of opening the government.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That video is greeting travelers in airports, across the nation.
And it also comes as the shutdown pain is about to get very real for members of the U.S. military and their families. Next week, if this shutdown is still underway, on October 15th, active-duty military service members are going to miss a paycheck, something that hasn't happened on a large-scale in modern times.
The House Speaker, Mike Johnson, was actually confronted about that by a military spouse, on television today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SAMANTHA (ph), REPUBLICAN MILITARY SPOUSE: As a Republican, I'm very disappointed in my party, and I'm very disappointed in you, because you do have the power to call the House back. You did that -- or you refuse to do that just for a show. I am begging you to pass this legislation. My kids could die.
MIMI GEERGES, GUEST HOST, C-SPAN: All right, Samantha (ph).
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Samantha (ph), I'm so sorry to hear about your situation. The reason I've been so angry this week, and they've been calling me out on media, Johnson's angry, I am angry because of situations just like yours.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Joining me here tonight, on Capitol Hill, is the Democratic senator from Arizona, Ruben Gallego.
And thank you so much sir, for being here.
SEN. RUBEN GALLEGO (D-AZ): Hi, good evening.
COLLINS: Obviously, you're a veteran. You know how much that resonates. And I'm sure you can relate to the pain that woman was feeling there, in that conversation.
GALLEGO: To top it off (ph) the paycheck as an E4, E3, it's not easy.
COLLINS: Yes.
GALLEGO: It's awful.
COLLINS: And, as we sit here, Democrats, we've had many of your colleagues on, have argued, We're shutting down the -- The government is shut down for a good reason. We're fighting for these ACA subsidies.
But if military members start to miss a paycheck, do you think that they're going to hold Democrats responsible?
GALLEGO: I think they'd hold both of us responsible, Democrats and Republicans, without a doubt. And I hope, and there's certainly some conversation happening already, on Democrats and Republicans are trying to figure out if we can carve out at least our military families.
But what we're focusing on is that we know that we're going to be able to pay back our military families. It may be one paycheck later, and maybe two paychecks later, but they're going to get their full money back.
But what we're worried about is the fact that 24 million Americans are going to have their insurance premiums permanently reset. For a family of four in Arizona, that's almost $4,400 more, on top of what they're already paying right now. That's going to be not just for one month, two months. That's going to be for a whole year at a minimum, if they buy their insurance again, or permanently, if they have to continue paying for it. And so, we're trying to find a solution that keeps government open, funds the things that we feel jointly we should be funding, and at the same time, we have some certainty when it comes to these subsidies.
[21:25:00]
And look, we're willing to negotiate. We know we're not going to get everything we want. This is divided government. We're not going to get a 100 percent what we want. But the idea that the Republicans are willing to let the American public go into November 1st, when people have to start buying their insurance, without any idea how much they're going to end up having to pay, it's just not acceptable.
COLLINS: Well, they say they're willing to negotiate on that, once you reopen the government. Obviously no promises have been made.
But is this going to be solved before October 15th, or should military families be ready to miss a paycheck, you think?
GALLEGO: I think we're going to work as best as we can to make sure it's solved before October 15th. And certainly, we're going to work to make sure that we diminish the harm to our military families.
But we are here to make sure that our families, all American families, especially 24 million Americans that buy the ACA don't have their insurance premiums doubled, starting November 1st.
COLLINS: On those health care subsidies. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was on with my colleagues, Wolf Blitzer and Pamela Brown, this morning.
I want you to listen to what she had to say about all this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I'm actually putting the blame on the Speaker, and Leader Thune, and the Senate. This should not be happening.
Many of my friends and even my own children are finding health insurance to be extremely unaffordable, and something that they are having to go without. So, I think this is an incredibly important issue. I think it is a crisis. I don't think it's something to wear political party team jerseys on. I think it's something that we have to address and fix.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you agree with Marjorie Taylor Greene?
GALLEGO: I mean, first, it's awful that her kids feel they have to go without health insurance. I probably -- she's probably in the same situation that I am. I'm the one who does the shopping for insurance in my family. I'm the one who does the budgeting, everything else like that. And I'm sure she helps her kids do that. So, she understands, like the premiums that her kids are about to pay are going to be massive.
It is a failure on Thune and Johnson, not necessarily because they're shutting down. But also, they just didn't even bring it up to their membership. They didn't bring up, Hey, we need to start negotiating to come out with a path out of this.
Johnson sent his team home, not necessarily just to put pressure on us, so he doesn't get pressure from his own members. He's barely going to win--
COLLINS: Well--
GALLEGO: --and he's probably going to lose the speakership, next year. But he's putting his members on a--
COLLINS: His--
GALLEGO: --on a plank that's not reversible.
COLLINS: And as you know, his argument is, Well they passed the CR in the House. It's on the Senate to pass it. That's what Senate Democrats keep voting down, which is why the government is shut down.
GALLEGO: But--
COLLINS: But a Democratic pollster responded to what Marjorie Taylor Greene said about that, and grocery prices, and said, Wow. When MTG does economic messaging better than the Democrats we should take notice. That's John Anzalone, who did polling for President Biden.
Is she doing messaging better than the Democrats are on this issue?
GALLEGO: Well, she's not doing better than me, but she's definitely doing better than a lot of Democrats.
But let's back up. I want to make sure we focus on something. They did a CR to November 21st. The problem with that is rates start going up, November 1st. Americans have to decide what to do with their insurance.
COLLINS: That's when open enrollment starts.
GALLEGO: Yes, that's when it starts.
The fact is, they purposely put that date off, so they could actually make their members make hard decisions, instead of actually trying to negotiate something before November 1st. So, they are absolutely advocating their negotiation power, their ability to fight for Americans to make sure they have affordable health care, by purposely putting that date, November 21st, and then saying, We're not coming back in. You know?
So, Marjorie Taylor Greene is right, right now. The Republican Party is absolutely essentially screwing their voters. And a lot of their voters, especially most people are people in red states, they're now going to have to pay for more insurance, because these guys have decided not to take any leadership, and try to keep these costs low for Americans.
COLLINS: You and Senator Kelly confronted Speaker Johnson, in the hallway, the other day.
For people who missed it, I'm not sure how they did, but this is that moment for everyone.
GALLEGO: Yes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GALLEGO: This is an excuse so she doesn't sign on to that.
JOHNSON: This is absurd.
GALLEGO: This is the longest time the House has--
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNSON: Do you want me to answer the question? If you ask a question--
(CROSSTALK)
GALLEGO: You did not answer yet to the question.
JOHNSON: OK.
GALLEGO: This, I'm telling (ph)--
(CROSSTALK)
JOHNSON: OK. You see, this is a publicity stunt.
You can look at that video. Play it back in slow mo. Watch Ruben Gallego's body language. He's folding his arms, he's very uncomfortable, because he's not telling you the truth. This doesn't have anything, whatsoever, to do with Epstein.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: He called it a publicity stunt. Was it a publicity stunt?
GALLEGO: No. Actually, he came out. We were trying to bring attention to one thing right now. For the longest time that we've known, in actually known recorded history, a person who had won a race, by a landslide, by the way, is still not being sworn in.
Meanwhile, just two weeks ago, a member from Virginia got sworn in, the day after the election, was called by the press, not by certification of anybody else. We had two members from Florida that were actually sworn in pro forma, while people were out of session.
But Adelita, who won by huge margins, is not being sworn in right now, nor is he going to actually call in the session of Congress, because he doesn't actually want to swear her in. Why? Because she will be the 218th vote to the discharge petition for Epstein.
The fact is, he has purposely changed the goalpost on when he's going to do this, and now he's trying to claim that there's some higher standard.
No, the standard is you're just trying to do a coverup.
COLLINS: Senator Ruben Gallego, thank you for joining us tonight.
GALLEGO: Gracias to you.
[21:30:00]
COLLINS: And up next here for us. A federal judge, as I noted, has just temporarily blocked the President from sending the National Guard to the State of Illinois, saying that the government's assessments of what's going on there are, quote, "Unreliable."
I'll speak to the Lieutenant Governor, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: Late tonight, a federal judge blocked President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Illinois, for now, with the district's court judge saying that she had seen no credible evidence that scenes like this are actually a rebellion, and said that the administration's assessment on the protests happening on the ground outside an ICE facility, there are, quote, "Unreliable."
The judge's order blocks the President from sending in troops for the next 14 days, despite the fact that a 100 Guard members were at that suburban facility today.
My next source tonight is the Lieutenant Governor of Illinois, Juliana Stratton.
And it's great to have you here, and thank you so much.
Because I think one question people have is, what does happen to those 100 Guard members that were already deployed to the Broadview ICE facility?
LT. GOV. JULIANA STRATTON, (D) ILLINOIS: Well, what we imagine would happen is that they have to decide whether or not they're going to follow the judge's ruling. The judge made it very clear that there was no credibility, from the Trump administration, that this was, to me, in so many ways, as I've been saying, a manufactured crisis.
And so, if they decide to stay? They can enjoy our fair city, which, by the way, although Donald Trump says that this city was in chaos, and we knew that that was not the truth? We just were voted the best big city in America for the ninth year in a row. So, they can enjoy our fair city, but they certainly cannot be activated. The judge made it clear what we have always said, that they cannot be deployed. Donald Trump wanted to make a military presence normalized, and we said, It was wrong, it's illegal. And the judge has backed that up.
COLLINS: So, have you seen any changes on the ground? Have you been -- has anyone reported any changes to you in their posture, since this ruling came down a couple of hours ago?
STRATTON: I haven't heard anything about a change in posture in the last couple of hours. Of course, the ruling just came out recently. But what I can say is that it backed up what we have said all along, that we did not need the National Guard here.
And remember, this is a president who is federalizing the National Guard, sending troops here from Texas, California, and troops from Illinois. And we have a Commander-in-Chief here, Governor JB Pritzker, who has said, from the very beginning, We don't want troops. We've all stood together as Illinoisans and said, This is not something that's necessary. There's no crisis, and as the judge said, there's no rebellion.
And so, what we expect to see is we're going to continue doing the work that we need to do to protect our people. Because, as you'll recall, the ICE agents are still here, terrorizing our communities, ripping families apart, zip-tying women and children, and we still are seeing that sort of action taking place.
COLLINS: So obviously, this ruling was on the National Guard, though. You mentioned ICE. We have not seen the State of Illinois suing when it comes to the over -- the authority of ICE in your state. Is that something that you plan to do?
STRATTON: Well, look, we've always followed the law, here in Illinois. We follow the law. We follow the Constitution. And when it comes to protecting our people, we've always said that we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.
But right now, what we are telling people is to know their rights. We're telling them to record the actions that they are seeing with ICE agents, which, as we know, have caused so much fear in our communities, and is having an impact not just on individual families, but on our business communities, and certainly in our Latino and other immigrant communities.
We just saw the actions that took place over this past weekend, where we're seeing journalists that have been hit with pepper spray, a pepper ball that was hitting a pastor in his head. I mean, these are the kinds of scenes that we are seeing.
So, we're just telling people to make sure that they are aware of their rights. We're going to make sure that people can videotape what they are seeing. And certainly, people are protesting peacefully and raising their voices. And we'll continue to do everything that we can to protect our people. COLLINS: What would you say to someone who said, who looks at the protests that are happening outside the facility, and what's happening out there, and says, What's wrong with the National Guard coming in and helping out state police, local law enforcement in this matter? Whether that be someone who lives in Illinois, in Chicago. What would you say to that person?
STRATTON: Well, I think that the judge said it best, when the judge spoke about how this was adding fuel to the fire that was created by the Trump administration.
Remember, we didn't have a crisis. We did not have a need for the National Guard. We didn't have any kind of emergency here. And this is not about public safety.
And so, what they did was they said -- they painted this picture of Chicago. They sent these ICE agents to aggressively patrol our streets and terrorize our communities. And then, when people protested, which it's understandable why they did, they say, Oh, look, there's a crisis, and now we need to send the National Guard.
[21:40:00]
So, for anyone who would say that? This is where the Donald Trump administration, first of all, brought the matches, they set it on fire, and then they now want to send the National Guard. And that's just pouring gasoline on this fire.
The judge said, that's not something that should happen. And I'm grateful for the ruling that came out. It's only temporary. But please know, we will continue to stand up, and we will continue to fight.
COLLINS: Lieutenant Governor Stratton, thank you for joining us and for your time tonight.
STRATTON: Thank you.
COLLINS: Also my legal source is here with me tonight. Elliot Williams is a former federal prosecutor and CNN's now Legal Analyst.
And Elliot, what do you make of what the Lieutenant Governor had to say there?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: It's certainly she has concerns with ICE carrying out its enforcement mission in the State of Illinois. And look, it's a lawful agency carrying out functions that the President said the President intended to carry out.
Now, the manner in which that's happening may make people in Illinois uncomfortable. But we should be careful here, when recognizing that ICE is performing a critical government function, that being interior enforcement. Now, how that gets carried out, and the humanity with which it gets carried out, is a different thing. But the notion, or at least even the suggestion, that ICE shouldn't be there at all just doesn't comport with the law. COLLINS: Yes, and that's the question over, what happens next, Elliot, because -- Elliot, because if this is 14 days, what happens when those 14 days are up?
WILLIAMS: Right. There's a lot of questions, Kaitlan, just -- for instance, and you asked the Lieutenant Governor this.
What happens to these National Guard people who are in the State of Illinois right now, without lawful authority? I guess they can stay as tourists. It's a beautiful part of the country, this time of year. But why are they there, and what can they do? That's the first question.
Now, what these temporary restraining orders do is give the court and the parties more time to more properly brief the issue up, and really assess the question of -- you know, the full finding of what happens at the end of the case. And so, yes, there will be more litigation here. But we're in sort of a holding period until that happens.
COLLINS: Yes, and we'll see, obviously, what happens next. Obviously, the administration is hoping to change this.
Elliot Williams, always great to have your legal expertise. Thank you.
WILLIAMS: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: And up next. Of course, a major story that we are following here, as the U.S. is planning to have troops, U.S. forces, in the Middle East, when it comes to monitoring the implementation of the ceasefire plan that has now been agreed to and passed by the Israeli cabinet. An update, right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: We have breaking news tonight, as Israel's government has passed that U.S.-brokered ceasefire deal that is expected to see Hamas release all hostages within 72 hours from now. Israeli officials tell CNN, that brings a ceasefire into immediate effect, and within the next day, Israeli military forces, inside Gaza, are expected to pull back.
A source tells CNN tonight that the U.S. is planning to have 200 troops in the region, help provide oversight of this peace plan. Though I should note, one official cautioned that means -- that doesn't mean any U.S. troops are intended to actually go into Gaza.
This does come as Israel's parliament is lit up in red, this evening, red, white and blue, as you can see here. That's for President Trump's expected visit, this weekend.
His son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, have already been in the region for days. They were in Jerusalem tonight, meeting with Israeli officials. Both of them played key roles in facilitating the deal that President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailed today. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We ended the war in Gaza, and really, on a much bigger basis, created peace. And I think it's going to be a lasting peace, hopefully an everlasting peace. Peace in the Middle East. We secured the release of all of the remaining hostages, and they should be released on Monday or Tuesday.
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: At some point very soon, we are going to see 20 living human beings emerge from the darkness into the light for the first time in two years.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: For hostage families, Monday cannot come soon enough, after anxiously waiting more than two years for their loved ones to come home.
And Palestinians in war-torn Gaza have also welcomed this news, even as the situation on the ground hasn't changed yet. Food, water, medicine, all still hard to get, as aid officials are hoping that this ceasefire will finally allow enough supplies to go in and to alleviate the hunger there.
My source tonight is Hani Almadhoun, who is the Senior Director of Philanthropy at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency USA, and also the Co-founder of the Gaza Soup Kitchen.
And Hani, we have talked so many times, over the last two years. You've been on the show multiple -- multiple times. And for everyone who doesn't know, this is really personal for you. You lost your brother who was killed in Gaza, delivering aid. You had so much family there. How are you feeling tonight?
HANI ALMADHOUN, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF PHILANTHROPY, UNRWA USA, CO- FOUNDER, GAZA SOUP KITCHEN: I think this is the first time that you and I talk, and I feel I want to wake up in a new day. I feel like there is no longer a dark cloud over my heart, over my mind, thinking about the safety of my family. This is the first day when I feel I'll go to bed, waking up, knowing I still have my brother, Mahmoud (ph) still alive in Gaza and unharmed.
[21:50:00]
And this is a big deal. This is, you know, we could be sucked into the details, and some of it is that realism will kick in soon. But I'm just happy that the family I have left and alive in Gaza will remain so tomorrow. And it's exciting. I do not deny that. This is -- this should have ended a long time ago. But we're happy that we are seeing an end to this nightmare, or what some experts call, genocide.
But it's a good day, and I'm -- this is really one of the bitter conversations and bitter days for me, just talking to my mom, knowing that she no longer has to look at the roof of the room, and think, Which side of this roof, when it collapses, will hurt me more. And now she's going to get a good night's sleep, and that's important, you know? This home is where your mom is, and my mom is feeling good. She's very hopeful.
COLLINS: Yes.
ALMADHOUN: She's also grieving the loss, the two kids, the two children she buried, the four grandkids. But she remains hopeful.
And I tell our allies to remember, this is about the Palestinians in Gaza, their grief, and their happiness is worth something.
COLLINS: Is this the first time in two years that you felt that kind of relief?
ALMADHOUN: A 100 percent. I feel energetic (ph), I feel tomorrow is going to be a better day than yesterday. And we're Palestinians. We're self-molded realists. But this is really different feel, because it feels the U.S. administration has finally decided in this situation, and it says a lot.
I wish, I wish the President would meet with some Palestinians or Palestinian Americans. The U.S. evacuated some Palestinians from Gaza. We're worthy of his time, you know? We vote too. And I just see, and you know this, they're giving time, rightfully so, to the hostages and their families. But I feel the Palestinians remain invisible.
But again, I do not want to ruin this moment. I hope I am not wrong. I hope I'm not going to have to say, Oh, I messed up. But I just take my emotion from my mom. She was feeling upbeat. And I got -- I got a smile in my face when you reached out to talk, and I said, This is great.
COLLINS: That makes me so happy.
I mean, what did your mom have to say and just how she feels about this moment.
ALMADHOUN: She's happy. She knows that she still have two brothers -- two kids left, two boys, and she's -- she gave the kids big jars of peach, industrial size, the canned peaches today. Some of those things that she's been helping. She's really been distracting herself with humanitarian relief. She's a makeshift humanitarian. She delivers bundles. Yesterday, it was hygiene kits. And it keeps her busy, it's distract her. But also, we get a lot of good pictures from her doing this work.
But she's alone, to her thoughts, I feel she thinks about the losses, my brother, Chef Mahmoud (ph), and my brother Majed (ph). But this is about family. We understand, we do not want to be alone at this moment. And many Palestinians are feeling optimistic. And I am, too. But we also have work to do. We're not going to be like napping anytime soon.
We're going to continue to make sure that more Americans come to Gaza. Not necessarily troops. I want American engineers, journalists, professors, to come help us out. America owns a lot of what's going on in Gaza right now, and we owe the Palestinians some remedy to what the situation we've contributed with -- with weapons-- COLLINS: Yes.
ALMADHOUN: --and what have you.
COLLINS: I can only imagine -- I can't actually imagine, what a bittersweet moment this is, for people like you and your mom.
And Hani Almadhoun, after having so many conversations about the crisis in Gaza, the aid that people needed so desperately, it's really nice to have you on tonight. So, thank you for joining.
ALMADHOUN: Thank you for having me.
COLLINS: And of course, we'll continue to follow that agreement, and as it is implemented in the coming days. They're going to be absolutely critical.
And as we look at the larger aspect of that deal, it has been no secret that the President wants the Nobel Peace Prize, certainly for his efforts in this. The announcement is actually coming about the winner, tomorrow morning, first thing here in the United States. What we know about it? Next.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: In just a couple of hours from now, at 05:00 a.m. Eastern tomorrow, the Nobel Peace Prize winner is set to be announced. And in the wake of President Trump's brokered ceasefire deal in Gaza, his allies are making a last-second push for the President to get the prestigious award.
The Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, shared that President Trump should undoubtedly receive the Nobel Peace Prize.
And the Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, from his official government account, shared this endorsement, alongside an AI-generated image.
As President Trump made his own pitch in the Oval Office today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I don't know what they're going to do, really. But I know this, that nobody in history has solved eight wars in a period of nine months. And I've stopped eight wars. So, that's never happened before. But they'll have to do what they do. Whatever they do is, is fine.
Obama got a prize. He didn't even know what he got -- he got elected, and they gave it to Obama for doing absolutely nothing but destroying our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:00:00] COLLINS: As the President alluded to there, just four U.S. presidents have ever gotten this award. The most recent was President Obama in 2009.
Whether or not Trump gets the prize, it's going to come down to five Norwegians, who are appointed by their country's parliament, and deliberated on this decision for months. We'll find out at 05:00 a.m. Eastern.
Thanks so much for joining us here tonight on Capitol Hill.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
