Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Threatens To Cut More "Democrat Programs"; Smith: "Absolutely Ludicrous" That Politics Fueled Trump Process; Trump: Argentina Gets $20 Billion Bailout Only If Ally Is Re-Elected. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired October 14, 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]
KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN SENIOR CRIME AND JUSTICE REPORTER: --it was over the timing of the case. The prosecutors, they wanted to wait till later. But they have withdrawn that hesitation, and as of Saturday, sources were telling me, that they were at work, on this indictment. They would just need to take it through a grand jury.
But John, we have talked many times before, a court can be very unpredictable. So, we don't know exactly when and even if John Bolton would face class -- charges around the mishandling of classified records, as he's been investigated.
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: So stay tuned.
Katelyn Polantz, thank you very much.
That's all for us tonight. I'll see you in the morning.
"THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: As the government shutdown nears its 15th day, President Trump is issuing a new warning for Democrats from the White House tonight.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Good evening from Washington, where President Trump, who is fresh off his return from a whirlwind trip overseas, flew right back to a government shutdown, here at home, where he issued a threatening new deadline to Democrats.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The Democrats are getting killed on the shutdown, because we're closing up programs that are Democrat programs that we were opposed to. So we're being -- and they're never going to come back, in many cases.
And we're going to have a list of them on Friday, closing up some of the most egregious socialist, semi-communist -- probably not full communist, we're saving that for New York -- but semi-communist programs, and we're closing them up.
We're not closing up Republican programs, because we think they work.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: With threats like that as the backdrop, the White House appears to be wielding the chainsaw again, when it comes to deciding who to cut and where, also attempting to rescind some of those very terminations that they just issued.
The Trump administration revealed in a court filing today that 1,760 Health and Human Services employees got layoff notices, but 778 of those were actually errors, and those people were unfired.
The President's point man, on a lot of these cuts, is his Budget Director, Russ Vought, whom he has favorably compared to the Grim Reaper, and has been making clear that they are digging in for the long haul, as this government shutdown is dragging on.
Russ Vought's Office of Management and Budget wrote that it is Making every preparation to batten down the hatches and ride out the Democrats' intransigence. Pay the troops, pay law enforcement, continue the Reductions In Force and wait.
Those threats have yet to move Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill tonight. They've still been demanding an extension of health care subsidies, among other things.
Here's how the House Speaker Mike Johnson responded to that, when he was asked by my colleague, Manu Raju.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: At what point for the good of the country do you need to change your strategy to negotiate a deal with Democrats?
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): It's a great question. Manu asks, Why don't I change my strategy?
I don't have any strategy, Manu. I'm doing the right thing, the clearly obvious thing, the traditional thing. That's exactly what Chuck Schumer voted for in March of this year, and gave impassioned speeches, was the right and only thing. I don't have anything to negotiate.
I'm not playing his game, Manu. I cannot go in and say, Oh, gee, Chuck. What can I offer you?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Speaker Johnson there, saying he does not have a strategy when it comes to this shutdown.
And here's what the Democratic Leader in the House, Hakeem Jeffries, said, when he was asked about his party's strategy. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: Republicans have rejected the Democratic CR that includes all of your demands there. So, why not come up with a new approach? Put a new offer on the table to try to jumpstart something rather than dig into your position?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): We're open to sitting down, anytime, anyplace, with anyone, in terms of our Republican colleagues, either here at the Capitol--
RAJU: But why not put a new offer on the table?
JEFFRIES: --either here at the Capitol, or back in the Oval Office, to have a conversation about finding a bipartisan path forward. But there has to be a willingness, amongst Republicans, to actually have a conversation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And my lead source tonight is the Republican senator from Montana, Tim Sheehy.
And you heard Speaker -- you heard Speaker Johnson there, and then what Hakeem Jeffries said, in response, the Minority Leader.
When it comes to the White House strategy, as the President today was saying there're going to be more cuts to come to programs and layoffs. Is that something that you support?
SEN. TIM SHEEHY (R-MT): Well, listen, Kaitlan, I mean, this is unfortunate. Nobody wants the government not to function, especially folks like me who are new to government.
We come here. We want to get things done. We want to improve the nation. We want to fix problems that our constituents sent us here to fix. And obviously, what we're seeing now is a breakdown on that, and we see this time and again, over the past decades, as government shutdowns are the result of the inability of us to craft a commonsense way ahead.
[21:05:00]
Now, right now, what we're seeing, though, I think, is a little bit different than past shutdowns, albeit this is the first one I've personally been here for, is that this is a clean CR that, as Speaker Johnson said, was already supported by the Democrats, earlier this year. This has already been passed. And the appropriations process of this Congress, the 119th Congress, on both sides have said, We need to get back to regular order on our appropriations process.
As you well know, you've been doing this longer than I have, we long ago abandoned, not really through any declaration, just through natural drifting of momentum, we stopped using the appropriations process, which really was built into our system, 250 years ago. And that's led to these shutdowns, time and again, because we govern and budget by CR now.
COLLINS: Yes.
SHEEHY: Continuing resolution. And the appropriations process is meant to head this off. This very issue we're seeing right now, that you and I are talking about, is meant to be dealt with in committee, so the 12 appropriations bills that move their way out of committee, that they move their way to a budget bill on the floor that allows these grievances to be aired in committees, the committees of jurisdiction.
So health care can be dealt with the Health Care Committee. And they can have these negotiations, and come up with a policy and a budget that meets the demands of all parties. And sometimes, of course, as you know, the parties don't agree, within the parties. There are certain members that want more health care subsidies, and one that want less, even within the Republican Party.
So, I think what all this is reminding us is we have to get back to the regular appropriations process, which is one of the top priorities that Leader Thune, I think, is doing a great job.
Right now, the fact is, this is a Schumer shutdown. It's a stupid Schumer shutdown. It's completely unnecessary. This CR is a clean extension for seven weeks, so we can continue to let the government function, while we have global threats everywhere. This is political optics. It's stupid, and it's unnecessary.
COLLINS: Well, and you mentioned that you weren't here for the last government shutdown when Trump was in office. I was covering Trump at that time at the White House. And one thing that's different from this shutdown than we've seen in any shutdown, the last 14 of them, we counted, since 1981, is cutting programs and laying off federal workers.
So, do you support the White House taking that unprecedented step here?
SHEEHY: Well, of course. I mean, what choice do they have? If they don't have the money to run the government--
COLLINS: Well, they don't have -- they don't have to--
SHEEHY: --what are they supposed to do?
COLLINS: You don't have to cut programs or lay off federal workers. It's literally never happened before in government shutdowns, in the last 14 of them.
SHEEHY: Well, I don't think that's it -- I mean, Bill Clinton laid off several -- I think he's laid off 600,000-plus government employees, during his tenure. A lot of that was during a shutdown he had under his watch as well.
COLLINS: Not during a government shutdown. As a result of the government shutdown, though. SHEEHY: Well, I mean, whether you attribute it to the government shutdown specifically, or the fact that people aren't getting paid and the force is leaving as a result. I mean, you can play the chicken and egg game and label it any which way you want.
But I think reduction in government force has happened during previous shutdowns. Whether it was part of a strategy for negotiation or whether it was a byproduct of the shutdown itself. I think either way, one way or other, it doesn't really matter.
The point is, the government should be open. There's no reason for it to be closed right now. And my hope is a handful of our Democrat colleagues come across the aisle and say, Listen, this isn't good for our armed forces. Yes, the troops are going to get paid. But that doesn't solve many of the other funding issues that, as you know, flow from that.
COLLINS: They're also cutting programs, though. One of them is one you've thrown your support behind. It's the Treasury Department's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund. You signed a letter with a bunch of other lawmakers supporting that earlier this year, and you were on the record with that.
The President says they're only cutting Democrat programs and Democrat stuff. But is that a Democrat fund that you supported?
SHEEHY: Well, like I said at the very beginning, none of us want this to be happening. But the President, as you know, as we just saw in the Middle East, he'll negotiate, and he'll use every tool in his toolbox to negotiate. And right now, he doesn't want a government shutdown. He said that from the beginning.
But there have to be consequences for bad behavior. This is bad behavior on the part of Chuck Schumer, the Democrats. Let's just call it what it is. They are holding the government hostage, because they want to bring back programs that the American public has expressed their will through the ballot box, This is the direction we want our government to go in.
Now they're saying, We're not going to allow you to let the government function. So unless you give us $1.5 trillion in money, for programs that the American people have largely now said they're no longer interested in supporting? To include health care for non-citizens, illegal immigrants, health care expansion programs for other countries, in some cases, from -- on an export basis. Unless you give us $1.5 trillion for that, we're going to keep the government closed. That's not negotiating in good faith.
COLLINS: OK. But well -- and it's not for people who are here illegally. It's people who have different legal status. People who were seeking asylum, refugees.
SHEEHY: Right.
COLLINS: We've gone through this with the House Speaker.
But I ask on the program's part, because one thing the Department of Energy--
SHEEHY: Yes, but saying Non-citizens is accurate, though. Saying Non- citizens is accurate.
COLLINS: But you said illegal--
SHEEHY: I think it's important.
COLLINS: You said people who are here illegally.
SHEEHY: Some of those people--
COLLINS: Those are -- those are different--
SHEEHY: --would be considered here illegally--
COLLINS: But those are different things. I mean, maybe you don't like Temporary Protected Status.
SHEEHY: Well, yes, so--
COLLINS: But you have legal -- you're an immigrant with legal status.
SHEEHY: But how many people -- no, we can't just move--
COLLINS: But the -- but--
SHEEHY: No, you can't just pave over that, because a lot of people come under asylum--
COLLINS: I'm not paving over--
SHEEHY: --claim asylum which are not actually asylum seekers. That system has been abused by--
COLLINS: But that's a legal--
SHEEHY: --fives of millions, tens of millions, potentially people. That's a lot of people.
COLLINS: OK. But that's a legal process. You can change the law if you don't like it. But my point is, they're not--
SHEEHY: No, but if they've abused the process and lied about it? That's illegal.
COLLINS: --people who have crossed the border, illegally.
SHEEHY: If they have falsely claimed asylum status, been given asylum status during an administration that chose to voluntarily show--
COLLINS: OK. You're getting off the topic. My point is people who are DACA--
SHEEHY: No, I think it's very much the topic. I mean.
COLLINS: --DACA recipients, Temporary Protected Status, refugees, these are the people who get -- who qualify for that.
[21:10:00]
But on the projects. The Department of Energy just canceled a billion dollars to the Pacific Northwest Hydrogen Hub. Part of that covers your state of Montana. And your Governor actually praised it when it was happening, saying it was going to create good-paying Montana jobs, and boost American-made energy.
They just yanked a billion dollars from that. So, is that taking away good-paying jobs in Montana?
SHEEHY: Of course it is. As I said, we want the government to be open. You should be saying this to Chuck Schumer, who's closing the government down. I'm agreeing, we should have the government open right now. This is an unnecessary shutdown.
COLLINS: But that -- you're acknowledging that what the Trump administration just pulled in funding is hurting your state?
SHEEHY: Having -- having troops not being able to fulfill their functions, having law enforcement officers, having air traffic controllers not be able to direct flights into our airports in Montana, hurts our state.
Not having federal employees attending, showing up to Farm Service Agency offices during cattle shipping season? That hurts our state. Not having Department of Transportation employees overseeing our highways, our bridges, our airways, our road -- our road construction efforts? All those things hurt -- are hurting every state.
So, this shutdown is not a good thing, and that's why we don't want it to continue. That's why we voted--
COLLINS: But on -- on the--
SHEEHY: That's why we've now voted eight times to reopen the government--
COLLINS: On--
SHEEHY: --and we've not been supported by our friends across the aisle.
COLLINS: Yes, we push--
SHEEHY: I think that's unfortunate.
COLLINS: --we push Democrats on their stance. We've had many of your colleagues on the show.
But on this Hub, specifically. I mean, that is the -- the Trump administration didn't have to make that decision. They decided to pull that one -- that billion dollars from your state. Do you disagree with that? SHEEHY: Well, I think the reality is we wouldn't be here if the government was still open. And now, we're going on week three of a pretty unnecessary shutdown.
COLLINS: Well actually, Chris Wright, the Energy Secretary, I asked him about that project, specifically. And he said, they would have done that even if the government wasn't shut down, that that was months in the making, even before the government shut down.
SHEEHY: Well, it's unfortunate we're still shut down. We shouldn't be.
COLLINS: On this issue overall. If you're a senator, and a Democrat's President next, and if you voted to approve funding for a program, and that President decides they don't like it and they want to pull it? Do you agree that they have that authority, if you think Trump has that authority right now?
SHEEHY: Well, the power of the purse has always lied with Congress. And, as I said, the appropriations process, unfortunately, only about 23 percent of what we spend right now really is discretionary. As you know, the mandatory spending has grown as a portion of our federal budget, massively, in the last 30-plus years.
The reality is we need to get the appropriations process back to where it should be, where the committees of jurisdiction between the House and the Senate negotiate and conference on these priorities, especially when we have a divided government. Right now, we don't. But especially when we have divided government. That negotiation, interconference and inside the committees is incredibly important.
And from my understanding, again, I've only been here a few months, but we've really lost the art of that ability to craft a budget negotiation process, that reflects the priorities of every congressional district, every senator for each state that it's a priority, and, of course, the White House and their priorities as the administration.
COLLINS: Do you feel like Democrats are--
SHEEHY: So, we need to get back to that.
COLLINS: --willing to negotiate, when you talk to your colleagues up on the Hill? Have you talked to Democrats who've said--
SHEEHY: I think they are. Listen, of course, we all get on the news, and we put on our jerseys, and we have to do what we have to do.
But I think the reality is, the vast majority of people on the Hill, on both sides, they do want the government to be open. They do want things to be functioning, and they want to get back to regular order, especially when it comes to the appropriations process.
Because especially, as lawmakers, when you represent, especially a rural district like mine? I mean, I have 600,000-plus voters, about a million residents in Montana. There're certain senators that have 25 million -- 30 million residents. So, for a state like ours, where we don't have a lot of population weight, to carry representation in the House, or electoral weight in a presidential election, the appropriations process is a way for rural states, like ours, to have a stronger voice.
COLLINS: Yes, I got to ask you, because you mentioned airport workers, TSA workers--
SHEEHY: Yes.
COLLINS: --who are not getting paid. They're not getting paychecks during this shutdown. They're supposed to get it when the government reopens, back pay.
There is a message that is being displayed by the DHS Secretary, Kristi Noem, at some airports. Some of them are actually refusing to air it. But this is the message that she put out there.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTI NOEM, UNITED STATES 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.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: There's a couple airports, several, that say they're not going to play that, because they believe it is against the law, and violates the Hatch Act, which doesn't allow political statements.
SHEEHY: Yes, like Portland and Oregon?
COLLINS: Do you--
SHEEHY: Big surprise.
COLLINS: Do you think it -- what state?
SHEEHY: Like Portland and Oregon?
COLLINS: Well, some -- you know, it's interesting you say that.
SHEEHY: Yes.
COLLINS: Because airports in your home state are not playing it, including Bozeman Yellowstone International Airport. And that's because Brian Springer, who is the -- Springer, who is the President and Chief Executive Officer, says that he believes it violates their advertising policies.
SHEEHY: Unfortunately, what she's saying is accurate. I mean, right now, we have voted, now, eight times. Reopen the government. It's a clean CR. Let's keep things going. Let's have this negotiation that the Democrats are demanding, a $1.5 trillion negotiation.
[21:15:00]
What Speaker Johnson and John Thune are saying is, OK, let's have that negotiation in the appropriations process to pass an appropriations bill. Right now, let's keep the government open while we have that negotiation.
So, what she's saying is factually accurate. Obviously, if certain airports are deciding not to play it, that's their choice. But I think the reality of what she's saying, she's pretty concise in stating the truth, which is the Democrats are, in fact, refusing to fund the government.
COLLINS: Senator Tim Sheehy, thank you for your time tonight, as always.
SHEEHY: Yes, good to see you.
COLLINS: And of course, speaking of the shutdown. You can join me here tomorrow night. I'm going to moderate CNN's Town Hall with Independent Senator Bernie Sanders, and Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. They're going to take questions on this shutdown, as this gridlock, as you just heard from our conversation, is still here on Capitol Hill. You can watch that here, tomorrow night, 09:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.
Up next for us, though. There are rare remarks from the former Special Counsel, Jack Smith. Lot of you probably don't even know what his voice sounds like. What he said about those cases where he indicted President Trump. My legal and political sources are here next.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the former counsel -- Special Counsel, Jack Smith, is speaking publicly for the first time, since bringing those two federal indictments against President Trump, and of course, resigning from his role after Trump won reelection.
In an interview posted online today, Smith defended his charges against the President, and criticized what he says has become of the Department of Justice.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACK SMITH, FORMER JUSTICE DEPT. SPECIAL COUNSEL: The idea that politics would play a role in big cases like this, it's absolutely ludicrous, and it's totally contrary to my experience as a prosecutor.
If there's rules in the department about how to bring a case? Follow those rules. You can't say, I want this outcome, let me throw the rules out. That's why, frankly, you see all these conflicts between the career apolitical prosecutors I worked with, because they're being asked to do things that they think are wrong. And because they're not political people, they're not going to do them. And I think that explains why you've seen the resignations, you've seen people leave the department. It's not because they're enemies of one administration or the next. They've worked through decades for different administrations. It's just they've been doing things apolitically, forever, and when they're told, No, you got to get this outcome no matter what? That is so contrary to how we're all raised, as prosecutors.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My sources tonight include:
The former Republican Congressman, Adam Kinzinger.
And CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig, who is a former federal prosecutor.
Elie, I mean, it's weird for some of us to even hear Jack Smith's voice. I mean, no one really heard from him publicly, obviously, during these investigations, and during the attempts to try President Trump. I wonder what you made of what he said in these rare public remarks.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: Well, I completely agree with what Jack Smith said in the second part there, about career prosecutors upholding the integrity of the Justice Department and rule of law.
I disagree with Jack Smith's blessing of his own conduct, where he said it's ridiculous to think that he ever acted politically. Because, the objective facts show us that Jack Smith was hell-bent on rushing his case against Donald Trump to get it tried before the 2024 election, which is inherently political.
I'll give you a quick example. The average case in the federal court in D.C., where Jack Smith charged Donald Trump on January 6, takes two years and a little more, to get to trial. That's according to the court's own data.
Jack Smith originally demanded that Donald Trump go to trial in less than one quarter of that time, five months, in a case that involved 13 million pages of discovery. There's no possible way Donald Trump could have defended himself in that amount of time. Now, he didn't get his way because the Supreme Court intervened.
But if we then jump ahead to October, a month before the election, the case is back in the District Court. At that point, it was time for motions. Now, ordinarily, the defendant goes first. That's Donald Trump. That would have been before the election. Then the prosecutor responds. That would have been after.
Jack Smith asked the judge to reverse that, something I've never seen before, which the judge says was procedurally irregular, and then let him do it. And then Jack Smith proceeds to file a quadruple length brief that he drops weeks before the election. So look, there is a perfectly valid that Jack Smith should have been pushing hard to try this case before the election. But let's not gloss over the fact that he absolutely was doing that. And that's inherently political.
COLLINS: Adam Kinzinger, I wonder what you make of that, and also what Elie has to say about it.
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (R-IL): Yes, Elie, I love you, man. But dude, I mean, come on.
So, here's the whole situation. They knew -- Jack Smith knew, because Donald Trump had been saying it, that basically he was going to do exactly what he did, throw this out. He also knew that Donald Trump was known to stall. This is -- that's been Donald Trump's whole legal thing from, basically since he was born. He tries to stall, stall, stall. So, it makes sense for Jack Smith to move forward.
Also, keep in mind, there had been an investigation by the January 6 Committee. It wasn't until a year later, basically, once we actually showed that we had evidence, that the Justice Department started on this. So, they actually had -- were able to start with a head start.
Now I knew -- I believe, that Jack Smith probably didn't think that he was going to be able to get this done on his timeline. But it makes sense to try to push a timeline, so that you can reduce the amount of time that Donald Trump is going to try to stall, like he always does.
In saying that there is politics and that is feeding into the narrative that the prosecution itself was political? And I know you don't mean that. Because it wasn't. Donald Trump hugely violated the law. And plus, when you look at things, like the top-secret situation, they gave him a year, a year, to comply with that, and he didn't comply.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: Well, and Elie on that front, on the classified documents, I mean, he was asked to basically compare the Robert Hur investigation, the one into President Biden's classified documents with Trump's at the time. And he was basically saying, there was so much evidence that he had about obstruction on Trump's behalf, in terms of returning those documents.
HONIG: Oh, I totally agree with that. I think there were big differences between the Biden and Trump classified documents case, and I think they justified a charge against Trump, but not Joe Biden.
To Adam's point, I actually think we agree on quite a bit. I mean, I agree with Adam that Jack Smith, of course, was trying to push the pace and get this case tried before the 2024 election. But that's inherently political. Every Democrat in the world was rooting for Jack Smith to get that done. Every Republican was rooting for him not.
And the thing is, that's obviously what Jack Smith was doing. Why did he never admit it? Why did -- to this day, does he refuse to admit that he was thinking about the election, when he obviously, to any observer, was doing that?
I would prefer him be honest and say what Adam just said. Of course, I was trying to get this case tried before the 2024 election. I had good reasons for it. But he maintains this boy-scout veneer that is simply belied by the facts.
COLLINS: He was also harshly critical of how the DOJ is running now. What he was saying there at the end, he was talking about the career prosecutors who are having issues right now. He referenced the James Comey indictment and what that's looked like.
Adam, Katelyn Polantz, here at CNN, is reporting on the next person we think could be indicted. And that is John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Advisor, the former Ambassador.
And Katelyn Polantz says that on the DOJ's investigation, they are centering it around notes that he was making to himself in an AOL email account, writing summaries of his activities, kind of like diary entries, when he was serving as the National Security Advisor.
I just wonder what your perspective is, of that, since we've seen criticism of the Letitia James indictment, and the James Comey indictment.
KINZINGER: Yes. I mean, look, this is clearly in my mind this was -- this was kicked off because Donald Trump doesn't like John Bolton. Now, let's use this. So, if Donald Trump liked John Bolton, right, would he be being prosecuted right now? Well, here -- that's a good question.
Because you look at, for instance, a Florida Congressman that had the charges dropped by the DOJ, like against -- that there was some violence against his girlfriend. It seems like the Republicans always get a pass on this, and the people that Donald Trump doesn't like don't get a pass.
So, yes, I don't know. I mean, all of these cases, we're going to have to see what the evidence is. But I think there's no doubt -- I mean, I could argue it, but I think every American, if you put them on CIA truth serum, would say, Yes, of course, that is political. Of course, when Donald Trump accidentally puts a DM out and says, like, Go after James Comey, go after Letitia James, all my -- all my enemies. And then all of a sudden, it magically happens a week later? I think there's no doubt.
And unfortunately, this is destroying people's faith in the DOJ. The Republicans, I believe, were destroying the faith in the DOJ, when the Democrats had it, by claiming everything was political. And now they're actually destroying the faith in the DOJ by making everything political.
COLLINS: Well, Elie, what do you make about that? Because also, I just want to note, for people who might have missed it, Michael Cohen was on the show Friday night, and he basically predicted that all of these people are going to get convicted. He thinks that Tish James is going to be convicted. He thinks that James Comey is going to be convicted. He didn't say about Bolton, necessarily, but he did predict that he might be one of the next ones.
HONIG: I'm going to respectfully dissent from my fellow, I guess, disbarred attorney, Michael Cohen.
I do not think Letitia James will be convicted. I do not think Jim Comey will be convicted. I agree with Adam. Those are obviously retributive prosecutions. They may well get those cases thrown out based on malicious prosecution before they ever get to a jury.
Now, as for John Bolton, I'm not going to make any predictions, because there are indicators that that case is different, that that case may have originated, or escalated, during the Biden administration. We are seeing career prosecutors, like we saw Jack Smith talk about in the beginning, who are supporting this case, according to reporting from Katelyn Polantz and others. We saw two different federal judges approve the search warrants on John Bolton.
So, I'm going to keep my powder dry on John Bolton for now. But I do not believe that Jim Comey or Letitia James will be convicted.
COLLINS: Former Congressman, Adam Kinzinger. Elie Honig. Thank you both tonight for joining.
Up next here for us. The President has offered a $20 billion bailout to another country. Their world leader was at the White House today. Why the President said he's doing that, what it's tied to, and those other notable comments from the Cabinet Room today. We'll talk about it with my White House insiders.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: After returning to the White House, early this morning, from the Middle East, President Trump hosted the President, Javier Milei of Argentina, whose country he recently agreed to bail out to the tune of $20 billion, and today explicitly conditioned that bailout on Milei's success.
The President took questions from reporters on the room -- in the room, on many other topics during that sit-down. That brings me to my White House insiders who are here tonight.
Shelby Talcott is Semafor's White House correspondent.
And Michael Scherer is a Staff Writer at The Atlantic.
And Shelby, first off, he basically said, this bailout does come with strings attached to it.
I want everyone to just listen to what he just said, when it comes to him winning his legislative elections, this month, and whether or not the U.S. benefits from this.
[21:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What's the benefit for United States in helping this way Argentina?
TRUMP: Just helping a great philosophy take over a great country.
If the president doesn't win, I know the person that he'd be running against, I believe, probably, we probably have the person, a person is extremely far left, and a philosophy that got Argentina into this problem in the first place. So, we would not be generous with Argentina, if that happened. If he loses, we are not going to be generous with Argentina.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, that was pretty blunt, as he put it. And also, basically was asked, Is this very America First, to bail out Argentina for this much money?
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes, and that's something, actually, there are conservatives who are raising that question, Trump supporters, who are wondering, Why we're doing it. And so, there is a little bit of a split within the MAGA movement about that.
But it's also notable, because it's kind of indicative, that exchange with how Trump operates, I think, especially this time around, where you see him, not just in this case, but I'm thinking of with the universities, with the various cities across the country, sort of threatening to withhold some of these funds, if he doesn't get the outcome that he wants.
And you're seeing him do this, across the board, on a whole array of things, not just with Argentina, but also with a whole host of other -- of other issues. Whether it is, getting universities to agree to some of his demands to get rid of DEI, or whether it is convincing cities to up their anti-crime efforts, he's doing this across the board.
COLLINS: Yes, and the Argentina thing may not have gotten a ton of attention, just from generally across the country, but it actually is a huge deal, and actually kind of becoming a crisis point inside the Cabinet. Because the United States is bailing out Argentina, who is selling discounted soybeans to China, who is not buying any soybeans from the United States right now.
MICHAEL SCHERER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: And best, it had to be clear in that press conference that those are disconnected issues. They don't want to combine those issues because they want to bail out Milei.
And the irony here is that Milei was up here in the U.S., during the transition, talking about his economic success. He was held up as this sort of conservative economic theory working. And here, the President's admitting it's not working. He needs, again, Argentina to come to the U.S., hat in hand for money. The other thing he did in that press conference, he started using the World Cup as leverage, talking about, If Boston doesn't shape up, we might move World Cup games. I mean, I think, you know, the President was very clear--
COLLINS: And he's really close with and he was -- like, he's very close with them, so he could actually potentially make that happen.
SCHERER: He could potentially. I mean, I don't think they'd be happy with it. They've already sold the tickets. So, it would be rather complicated to move a World Cup--
TALCOTT: Yes.
SCHERER: --or a series of World Cup games.
But no, the President's -- the whole presidency at this point, is the President looking for new ways to have leverage over other people, and sort of ways of expanding his power. And this is another incident of that.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, and we saw that today, when he talked about Zohran Mamdani in New York.
SCHERER: That's right.
COLLINS: We had Mamdani on the show last week. He's the Dem candidate for mayor in New York City. Obviously, it would be a critical position if he wins. He was critical of Trump, last week, because it just came after the New York Attorney General had been indicted.
Today, Trump actually attacked Mamdani, and said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: He's a communist. He's down and dirty.
I was always very generous with New York, even when you had opposition there, but I was always very generous. But I wouldn't be generous to a communist guy that's going to take the money and throw it out the window, because you're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, and we're not going to let somebody get into office and squander the taxpayer money from this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, that's a pretty explicit threat. But it does raise the question of how Mamdani, and we asked him about this last week, how he'll handle that if he does win.
TALCOTT: Yes, it's, I think, an open question. But I also think that the administration, and particularly Trump's focus on Mamdani is really notable, because when I talk to Republicans, just writ large, they're saying -- they're assuming Mamdani is going to win, and they're saying, When Mamdani wins, he is going to become sort of the figurehead that they're going to use against -- to argue against progressive policies.
And so, it's really notable that Trump himself is highlighting Mamdani so often, because I think it's going to end up being sort of the way forward for the Republican Party. I think you can expect to see Republicans, across the board, use him, and he's going to be really elevated to this national spotlight.
COLLINS: I mean, Trump attacking him is interesting, because obviously he could use him as a foil, because he is a Democratic socialist, self-described. But it's not really clear how that's -- what that's going to look like.
SCHERER: What it'll look like -- I mean, there'll be federal forces sent. You'll have the ICE raids, who haven't really been making much of a spectacle in New York up to this point, move up to New York. I mean, the President was very clear, I think, there.
[21:40:00]
Everyone thinks Mamdani is going to win at this point. I mean, it would -- you need an act of God or something to bring Cuomo back at this point. And I think the President is champing at the bit. I mean, it's another place, where he can demonstrate this fight, going into the midterms next year, and he can call Mamdani a communist.
Mamdani is not a communist. I mean, we should say that every time he says it. He's not a communist. That's not his position. He's a member of the Democratic socialists. But he's also been meeting with business leaders, in New York, in recent weeks. He's making peace with the business community. I mean, it's going to be a very progressive mayoralty there, but -- but--
COLLINS: Well, and he also highlights a lot of issues that Trump ran on, that people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, right now, are saying have not been solved--
SCHERER: Right.
COLLINS: --which is the cost of living, cost of groceries, cost of rent. I mean, obviously, he has different ways that he wants to address it, but he is drawing attention--
SCHERER: That's right.
COLLINS: --to those issues.
SCHERER: No and -- and we know what the Republican playbook will be here. We don't know, whether Chuck Schumer, or the Democratic Leader in the House, is going to embrace Mamdani, because Democrats have to figure out what their position is. Because this, you know, Trump will make this a midterm issue, going into next year.
COLLINS: Did you see Hakeem Jeffries on with Dana Bash today? Because she asked him about Mamdani, and he pointed to Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger as being the future of the Democratic Party.
SCHERER: Yes, they can't answer the question, I mean. And that's been going on for weeks, and it's going to become a problem after he wins.
COLLINS: It was a really telling answer.
Michael Scherer. Shelby Talcott. Great to have you all's insights here.
Up next for us. There are new comments today from that meeting that you just saw at the White House. The Defense Secretary, and the President weighed in, as press organizations are widely rejecting his new rules for reporters at the Pentagon. What that means? We're going to speak to the one and only longtime Pentagon correspondent for CNN, Barbara Starr.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, major news organizations are outright rejecting an ultimatum from the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, when it comes to coverage of the Pentagon. Given the choice of signing on to a set of restrictive and vaguely-worded rules, or losing physical access to the building, virtually every major outlet is refusing to sign tonight.
That includes CNN, Reuters, the Associated Press, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, Newsmax, and many others. Even Hegseth's own former employer, Fox News, said it too will not sign on to these new rules before tonight's deadline.
In fact, there is only one media outlet that has accepted these terms that we know of. One America News.
According to the new set of rules, soliciting information from Pentagon officials would, quote, "Not be considered protected activity" under the First Amendment, and while journalists found in possession of classified national security information or controlled unclassified documents should discuss those materials with the Pentagon Press Office prior to publication.
In a joint statement from CNN, Fox News, ABC, CBS and NBC, all the outlets said that these new rules would, quote, put restrictions on journalists' ability to keep the nation and the world informed of important national security issues. The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections.
Yet the President and Hegseth doubled down, earlier at the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think it's sort of -- it bothers me to have soldiers, and even, you know, high-ranking generals, walking around with you guys on their sleeve.
PETE HEGSETH, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF WAR: If they sign on to the credentialing, they're not going to try to get soldiers to break the law by giving classified information. So it's commonsense stuff, Mr. President, we're trying to make sure national security is respected, and we're proud of the policy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is Barbara Starr, who spent more than 20 years as CNN's Pentagon correspondent, and was a Board Member of the Pentagon Press Association, and is truly one of the best reporters I know.
And Barbara, I just -- as someone who covered the Pentagon as extensively and deeply as you did, and was so respected by those you covered. What would the implications be if news organizations had signed on to this, do you think?
BARBARA STARR, FORMER CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, it puts them all at risk of prosecution.
What Hegseth is talking about is you cannot solicit, if you will, information from a source, whether it's classified or not classified, unless you have permission. Which means, you can't go around in the Pentagon, and do your job, which is reporting, talking to people, doing what thousands of reporters do in this country, every day.
He seems to deliberately continue to press the case that reporters are trying to get classified information out of the military. It's not been my experience, and I dare say not those of most of my Pentagon colleagues, that that is the case.
Classified information is behind locked doors in the Pentagon. We have -- reporters have no access to it. And just talking to somebody is not soliciting classified information. It's just not the way it works.
And as far as reviewing the information before it's published, he's getting into -- I'll leave it to attorneys or lawyers -- but he's getting into the world of violating the First Amendment. And that is violating the oath of office.
COLLINS: Well, and--
STARR: All those folks take -- you know, take that oath to defend the Constitution.
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: Right. And it's talking about going to the Press Office before publication. That is what outlets do already. When you're writing a story, or you're about to report something, you obviously reach out for comment. But the way it was worded, and I read the agreement today, was pretty open to interpretation.
But another part of this is where reporters can go and where they can't, which was already quite restricted at the Pentagon. But I want you to listen to what Secretary Hegseth said about how these new rules would affect that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) HEGSETH: Maybe the policy should look like the White House, or other military installations, where you have to wear a badge that identifies that you're press, or you can't just roam anywhere you want. It used to be, Mr. President, the press could go anywhere, pretty much anywhere in the Pentagon, the most classified area in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Is that true?
STARR: No, absolutely not, and he knows it, and he should be telling the President the truth.
Reporters, first of all, have worn badges identifying themselves, just like you do at the White House, the State Department, Capitol Hill, for decades. So, that has been taken care of.
Going anywhere they want? Absolutely not. Several months ago, Hegseth further restricted where reporters could even walk in the Pentagon. But prior to that? No. They go where they have business to conduct. They go to Starbucks to get coffee in the morning. But they don't go into classified areas, and they don't go chasing people down in the hallway.
Let me make a point about that, however. Over the years I covered the Pentagon, we often, all of us, ran into the Secretary of Defense or the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the hallway, and they would come to the press area to have a chat, you know? Hey, what's going on? What are you guys working on? What's up? There was very much this ongoing communication.
What Hegseth is about to lose, I don't think he even comprehends. He's about to lose the ability to have communication with millions of Americans who read blogs, read newspapers, tune into TV, to get military news, to find out what's going on, to find out how their tax money is being spent, what the troops are up to, how military families are doing, how women and minorities are doing in the military.
He's going to be -- have a tough time really communicating. And that's very different than President Trump. As you know, Kaitlan, Mr. Trump likes to talk to the media every day that he's in office. Hegseth almost never talks to the media.
And I think, behind the scenes, the big question that's being whispered about more and more is, What is Hegseth afraid of? If he's afraid of leaks? Go after those he believes are leaking. If he's afraid of not showing the President how tough he is? Well, he probably needs to start by telling the truth about what's really going on with the media, and the Pentagon, and going from there.
I think he's about to potentially run into a buzzsaw of trouble, because reporters are going to continue to report, whether they're inside the building or not.
COLLINS: Well-said. Barbara Starr, one of the best, thank you for joining us tonight. It is so great to have you back here on CNN. STARR: Thank you, Kaitlan. Thanks.
COLLINS: Up next. There was quite a scene on Capitol Hill tonight, as frustrated House Democrats marched outside House Speaker Mike Johnson's office. They are demanding he swear in that new House Democrat who, so far, he has not.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(VIDEO - DEMOCRATS CHANTING "SWEAR HER IN")
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(VIDEO - DEMOCRATS CHANTING "SWEAR HER IN")
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It was quite a scene on Capitol Hill tonight, as you see this group of House Democrats marching to Speaker Mike Johnson's office, rallying around Arizona Congresswoman-elect Adelita Grijalva. That is the issue. They want her to be just a Congresswoman and have her sworn in.
The Speaker did not appear to be there. But that did not stop Grijalva, who was elected three weeks ago, from criticizing the delay in swearing her in. As she hinted, it was related to a potential vote to compel the full release of the Jeffrey Epstein files.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ADELITA GRIJALVA (D), U.S. REPRESENTATIVE-ELECT: If I were a Republican, I would have already been sworn in.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: That's right.
GRIJALVA: And that is not acceptable.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What are they afraid of?
GRIJALVA: They're -- they're afraid of me signing and being the 218th signee--
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: 218th.
GRIJALVA: Yes. And I think that that's important.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Now, once Grijalva is sworn in, she is expected to be the 218th vote, the final one needed to compel that vote when it comes to the Epstein documents.
Earlier today, the Speaker, Mike Johnson, who has been asked about this multiple times, denied that the delay has anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein. He said, instead, because the House has not been in full session since the government shutdown, that he believes that she should have quote, All the pomp and circumstance that everybody else does.
Grijalva is making clear tonight that it's not her priority. She says the Arizona Attorney General is now getting involved, on behalf of her constituents, because she calls this a case of taxation without representation.
I should note, the Speaker, as we pointed out, to Jim Jordan, last week, swore in two Republican Congressmen, earlier this year, during what is happening right now. It's called a pro forma session. We'll see if that changes.
[22:00:00]
And again, don't forget, join me here tomorrow night. I'm going to be moderating CNN's Town Hall with Independent Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. They're going to take questions on the government shutdown. What questions do voters have, as this gridlock is not going anywhere on Capitol Hill. You can watch that 09:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
