Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Comey Uses Trump's Words In Push To Get Charges Dismissed; Demolition Begins To Replace East Wing With Trump's Ballroom; Louvre Remains Closed After Brazen Jewelry Heist. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired October 20, 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]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: You were in the White House. Just very quickly, how much did he talk about building stuff when he was there?
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, FORMER TRUMP WH COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: The ballroom was a real concern, because it is tough, when you want to do something large, you're going to have to expand to the outside, or open up doors. There isn't something that can really fit, if you want, 300, 400 people. So, this was a long-term concern.
The Rose Garden as well. I didn't think he was going to go full concrete. I thought maybe, like some lattices, something a little, I don't know, more garden-y.
BERMAN: You can play Four Square out there, even Nine Square--
FARAH GRIFFIN: Yes. True.
BERMAN: --if you have enough chalk.
Alyssa Farah Griffin, great to see you tonight. Thank you so much.
FARAH GRIFFIN: Good to see you. Thank you.
BERMAN: All right. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, James Comey is going on offense and launching an aggressive bid to get the charges against him thrown out.
I'm Kaitlan Collins, live on Capitol Hill. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, James Comey is hitting back at the Trump administration's criminal case against him. And the former FBI Director's biggest weapon appears to be the President's own words.
Comey's lawyers included a 60-page attachment in their legal filing today to get this case tossed. It's a list of all of these social media posts that you see right here, on your screen. Evidence, according to Comey's team that the President has a personal vendetta against him.
The President, of course, hasn't limited his comments on the FBI director, just to social media.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: What James Comey did was illegal.
And in the meantime, Comey and all these guys are walking around.
Where's Comey? Why -- where is Comey?
In the meantime, Comey walks around making book deals.
Why didn't Mueller investigate Comey?
Just think about Comey and these characters.
(CHEERING)
TRUMP: Think about Comey and the gang.
(CHEERING)
TRUMP: Drain the swamp.
(CHEERING)
TRUMP: Take Comey. Everybody hated Comey.
Comey lies and leaks. He's a liar and he's a leaker.
Comey is a liar and a leaker.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, James Comey has pleaded not guilty to these two counts of lying to Congress and obstruction that have been made against him.
The specifics of those charges are not addressed in today's motion. And instead, before they even get to that point, Comey is asking the judge to throw this case out, arguing, his attorneys say, that the former FBI Director was singled out because he has publicly criticized the President.
His lawyers are arguing this, saying, quote, "Objective evidence establishes that President Trump directed the prosecution of Mr. Comey in retaliation for Mr. Comey's public criticisms and to punish Mr. Comey because of personal spite."
My legal sources tonight on this are:
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tom Dupree.
And the former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the same district where Comey's case is being prosecuted, Gene Rossi.
And so Gene, let me start with you given that.
GENE ROSSI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Sure.
COLLINS: Because I think one question is, when you look through the argument that Comey and his attorneys are making here, do you expect this motion to be granted?
ROSSI: Well, what I do expect, Kaitlan, is this. To get a -- to get a hearing on the motion, whether it's vindictive or selective, you have to put some evidence forward. You have to put sort of a prima facie case or credible evidence that there is a basis for granting a selective or a vindictive prosecution. I think looking at this well- written brief, they've satisfied that hurdle.
And I got to go back to a judge in Tennessee, in the Abrego Garcia case, a couple weeks ago, who has granted a hearing on their motion regarding selective or vindictive prosecution.
If I were a prosecutor in EDVA, and I was for many years, I would be scared to death that my dirty laundry is going to be aired at any kind of hearing, even if the motion is denied. So, this is not a good day for the prosecution, because I do think this motion has legs.
COLLINS: Well, and when it comes to that, in terms of this motion, how rare would it be, if this was granted? Is that something that typically happens in these cases?
ROSSI: Here's the law on selective and vindictive. It's very rare to get this granted. There are a couple Supreme Court cases on both vindictive and selective. I teach a course on this.
But I will say this. If there's any case that is right for vindictive or selective? I could not think of a better fact pattern than the one involving Donald Trump. I saw a clip, Kaitlan, where he's talking about Comey in 2018. We're not talking a month ago. We're talking 2018. So, this animus has been like a volcano for almost eight years.
COLLINS: Yes. Tom, though, I asked President Trump recently in the Oval if he was worried that his own words in this situation would be able to basically provide fodder for Comey's defense here. He said he wasn't that concerned about that.
[21:05:00]
But I wonder if you're sitting inside the Justice Department, and you're looking at all these posts that they're citing here, in this motion today, do you think that it has merit as well?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, look, this would not be the first time that President Trump has tweeted things out that drive his lawyers crazy.
But at the end of the day, I think this is actually a very difficult motion for Comey to win. The fact is, these types of motions are granted so exceedingly rarely, it would be very unusual -- and look, I'll grant, this is an unusual case. But it would be very unusual for a judge to throw an indictment out like this on the basis of vindictive or selective prosecution.
Particularly, if you're in the judge's shoes, you might think, Look, this case is so weak, there's no way a jury is ultimately going to convict. So it's not as though you have to somehow rescue Jim Comey from an adverse verdict. If you think that there's no evidence there, that the charges are ridiculous and unsupported? The jury will ultimately vindicate Jim Comey.
So, although I understand why Comey's team made this motion? It's an aggressive strategy. I totally get why they did it. I just don't think it has a very good chance of succeeding.
COLLINS: OK. So you two feel differently about where this is going to go. We'll see.
ROSSI: Well, I--
COLLINS: And Gene, the other argument--
ROSSI: Yes.
COLLINS: Well, Gene, I want to get -- tell me what you think about that.
ROSSI: Well, I want to say--
COLLINS: But also Gene, what do you think about this claim that Comey is also making, that Lindsey Halligan, who's the interim U.S. Attorney in this office and brought this case, they're arguing that her appointment is illegal.
ROSSI: Right. I just want to say, I agree with Tom, it's a tough, tough motion. But my point is, I think you've gotten over that hurdle to have a hearing where the dirty laundry is aired, so it may be a Pyrrhic victory if they defeat the motion.
Let's get to the appointment clause. I think the strongest argument that Mr. Comey has to his attorney, Mr. Fitzgerald, is that following the memo by Sam Alito, when he was at Main Justice, where Tom and I used to work, following that memo, her appointment ab initio is illegal. I think that's the best, the cleanest, the narrowest, the unappealable avenue for Mr. Comey to dismiss the indictment.
And I want to get to the Maryland prosecution of Mr. Bolton. Six attorneys signed that indictment, six career attorneys, including Kelly Hayes, who is a phenomenal U.S. Attorney.
Only one person signed it, and that was Lindsey Halligan. That is going to be the death knell for that indictment, if they follow the law and the appointments clause.
COLLINS: OK. So, you're basically saying that that that's the difference here. Look at the amount of signatures, and who it is that's signing it on this.
And Tom, when you look at this, the other thing that the Justice Department is arguing is that Patrick Fitzgerald should not be able to be representing Comey here. That's his attorney. They're saying there's a conflict of interest.
Is there strength to that, to get his attorney removed? Or do you think that that's -- I don't know. What do you think?
DUPREE: Yes, I think that's -- look, that's a tough one for the Justice Department to win on.
I have no doubt that Patrick Fitzgerald is, I think it's public record, has had involvement in some of Jim Comey's prior dealings and public statements and things like that. But I'm not sure I see a basis for actually disqualifying Fitzgerald from this case.
And look, I agree with Gene. I think that at the end of the day, Comey's best argument at this stage probably is taking a shot at the appointment process, through which Halligan has her current job.
There is pretty strong authority that you can't do what the Justice Department did here, which is to stack one interim appointment on top of another interim appointment. That would give the judge a pure legal basis to throw out this indictment. He wouldn't need to go anywhere near the politically turbulent waters of vindictive prosecution, or the merits of the case against Comey.
COLLINS: Yes.
DUPREE: But it would give him an avenue to dismiss this entire case on procedural legal grounds, at the outset.
COLLINS: Tom, can I get your legal insight on something else before I let you go? Because one thing that happened with the administration today. We've all been following what's been happening with the National Guard going to U.S. cities very closely. They got a win -- a win today in an appeals court. There was a three court -- a three- judge panel. They said that they can send National Guard troops into Portland.
Obviously, we've seen the National Guard blocked from other places, like Chicago. So, where does this actually leave us, in terms of where Trump can send them, where he can't, and how this is playing out in the courtroom?
DUPREE: Yes, this was a pretty significant win today for the Trump administration. The Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals, out in California that oversees Oregon, basically said Trump does have the right to deploy the troops in Portland.
[21:10:00]
The basis for the court's decision was they say -- essentially said, Trial judges shouldn't be second-guessing the determination of the President that he needed to bring the military, the National Guard, in, in this situation. That is a determination, in the view of the appellate court, for the President to make, and not one that a judge should be making on his or her own.
I think where this leaves us, though is that there are future battles to be fought. The first thing the challengers, the people in Oregon, are going to do is to try to get the full Ninth Circuit, or an en banc court, a larger group of judges on the Ninth Circuit to look at this. And I'm confident that whichever way that larger group of judges goes, this is bound for the United States Supreme Court--
ROSSI: Yes.
DUPREE: --which is already currently considering that similar case from Chicago.
COLLINS: Yes.
Tom Dupree. Gene. Great to have both of you here as always.
And speaking of Oregon, my next source tonight here, as I'm on Capitol Hill this evening, as the government remains shut down, is Oregon senator, Jeff Merkley.
And it's great to have you here, Senator.
SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-OR): Glad to be with you.
COLLINS: You heard Elie's (ph) legal analysis about this being a win for the Trump administration.
One thing we heard today was a spokesperson for U.S. Northern Command saying that National Guard soldiers in Portland are not conducting any operational activities at this time.
What's your understanding of this impact that it has on this ruling and the impact on the National Guard in your state?
MERKLEY: Well, there is a second restraining order that is still in place that blocks them from being deployed. But the district judge said she may dissolve that, based on the finding of the circuit court. And so, that's the immediate action, that if she dissolves it, the troops could go on to the street.
But she has a hearing coming up on the 29th of October. Plus, we have the possibility of the 12-judge panel with the Ninth Circuit acting. And then we have the possibility of the Supreme Court ruling on the action coming out of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago. So, we have -- we have multiple court cases at multiple levels. But right now, as of this moment, they cannot go onto the street.
COLLINS: You told my colleague, Jake Tapper, that the administration, as you put it, was trying to fake a riot.
This majority opinion today said, Even if the President may exaggerate the extent of the problem on social media, this does not change that other facts provide a colorable basis and that Some of these protests have been peaceful, but many have turned violent, and protesters have threatened federal law enforcement officers and the building.
MERKLEY: Well, I--
COLLINS: I mean, that's what the judges say here.
MERKLEY: Well, what one of the judges said is that there's been no arrests in weeks. That's a pretty peaceful setting. The other two judges said, Well, let's go back two and a half months, to an earlier point in time, when there were more arrests. And they also said, Hey, it's the President. We should take into account his version of the world.
But let me point out, Title 10 does not have anything in it about deference to the President's opinion. Insurrection Act does have that, but Title 10 doesn't. It has a standard. Is there a rebellion? Is there an invasion? That's the standard, and that's what the judge has a responsibility to evaluate, based on the facts presented to the judge. And that's what -- that's what she did, and she said, There's no rebellion, there's no invasion, this is not authorized. And now, we'll have to see what the other courts say.
COLLINS: Yes, we obviously saw what they said today.
We are here on Capitol Hill tonight. I mean, this is a very strange government shutdown that has continued to drag on. It doesn't seem that much has changed. Senate Democrats voted again tonight to not pass that funding bill that Republicans have been putting up for a vote, and putting up for a vote, and putting up for a vote. It feels like shampoo bottle directions, at this point.
But a lot of people are caught in the middle of this. And so, I wonder, in terms of how long this strategy from you and your colleagues is going to go on, how long do you think that can last?
MERKLEY: Well, it's the Republican strategy of saying, We're not going to address this health care crisis. And just over the last few days, many states have put out their prices on health care for the next year on the exchange. It's more than doubling across the nation, on average. A lot of folks won't be able to afford insurance. Even a lot of folks who buy off the exchange are going to see double-digit increases in their premiums.
So, we're seeing a lot of family stress just in the next few weeks, and people looking forward to saying Yes. And that is before the whole, well, the big hit comes on Medicaid, which technically won't implement until -- implement until January 2027, but already, hospitals and clinics are starting to pull back their services, affecting everyone.
COLLINS: But some people might--
MERKLEY: So, this is a very big deal to health care.
COLLINS: Well, some people might look at this shutdown and say, OK, but that's not changing the cost of my premiums, because the government is shut down, and all these other people aren't getting paid or aren't allowed to go to work.
So, I think the question is, for Democrats, what is the strategy here? Are you just trying to wait out Republicans until they change?
MERKLEY: We have had so many Republicans come over to us and say, We know how hard this is hitting. And by the way, 75 percent of those folks affected? Those are in states Trump won. So, they're coming over and saying, We don't want this to happen to our constituents. This was a bad deal that we did. And we say, Well, go to your leadership and tell them to sit down and start negotiating.
[21:15:00]
I mean, they're out on vacation. They've been out -- there's no light in the top of that dome over there, because the House has been out on vacation for a month, refusing to discuss this major blow, this huge health care mess, hurting 20 million Americans initially, but even more when the Medicaid impact comes in. So we're saying, Look, look, you want our support for a spending bill? We've got to fix this health care mess.
COLLINS: Senate Republicans are planning to put a measure on the floor, this week, that would pay federal workers who are working, so they get paid during this shutdown. How will you vote on that, if they do?
MERKLEY: Well, I think I -- I hadn't thought about that. But my initial reaction, I would probably support it.
After all, it was Democrats who passed the last law that said, At the end of the shutdown, they will be paid.
And then President Trump came out and said, Well, I'm not sure I'm going to honor that law. We may not pay them when the furlough ends.
So, if we can lock in that they will be paid for the work they're doing, that's probably something I--
COLLINS: OK.
MERKLEY: --sounds to me initially, Yes, that's what I'd do.
COLLINS: So, you think you would pay -- you would vote yes on that.
We questioned Jim Jordan about the President's comments there, because it was a lot of Republicans who also voted for that.
But Tommy Tuberville, the Senator from Alabama, tonight said, he thinks if they pass that, it will take the pressure off the negotiations for the government shutdown to end. Do you think that that's true?
MERKLEY: Well, it could relieve some of the pressure. For example, with the folks who direct our airplanes across the country. When they stop showing up for work because they're not getting a paycheck, and they're protesting? That really has a huge impact across America. So, it could reduce the pressure.
But the key pressure is that folks are facing, 20 million people are facing, a doubling of the cost to their health care. They're not going to be able to afford it in many cases. And even when they can afford it, it means putting off other essential purposes or expenditures for their families. And so, this -- health care is a big deal.
One of the strategies of the Trump administration has been do three new outrageous things every day. At this moment, we are saying, we must fix this particular outrage on health care.
COLLINS: You said, Must. All right, Senator, we'll see what happens. Thank you so much for joining us, here tonight, on Capitol Hill.
MERKLEY: Thank you. Thank you.
COLLINS: You're here at work.
Also coming up here. A story you don't want to miss. Lindsey Halligan, she's interim U.S. attorney that we've been talking about. She spent a recent weekend texting with a reporter, then tried to claim that conversation was off the record. The reporter that she texted just published all of those messages. She's going to actually join me, right after this.
Also today, there was a major demolition project underway at the White House. Why an excavator was seen ripping apart the East Wing?
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, as James Comey's attorneys are arguing that Lindsey Halligan was improperly appointed to her role, Trump's handpicked U.S. Attorney in Virginia is attracting scrutiny for another reason.
Lindsey Halligan reportedly spent some 33 hours on and off, during a recent weekend, texting with a reporter, not in regards to Comey's case, but that of another one of the President's targets, New York Attorney General, Letitia James. It was reporting on that case that kickstarted this back and forth that you're about to see.
Let me explain. Anna Bower is a Senior Editor for the nonprofit publication, Lawfare. She recently posted about a New York Times story concerning the case that was being made against the New York Attorney General. And Halligan is the person, of course, who presented that case to the grand jury.
Less than an hour, after Bower posted about it, Halligan messaged her directly on the encrypted app, Signal, that reporters often use. And according to Bower, Lindsey Halligan wrote, quote, Anna, Lindsey Halligan here. You are reporting things that are simply not true. Thought you should have a heads up.
What followed that initial text was more than a day of texts, insisting that the reporting from The New York Times was inaccurate. Now, Bower hadn't reported that. But because she had repeated it online, Halligan was going back and forth with her on the merits of that reporting.
Then, after a few hours, Halligan wrote, By the way -- everything I ever sent you is off record. You're not a journalist so it's weird saying that but just letting you know.
Bower responded, quote, I'm sorry, but that's not how this works. You don't get to say that in retrospect.
She then, tonight, posted the entire text chain to Lawfare.
And Anna Bower is my source here tonight.
And thank you so much, Anna, for being here.
Because I'll tell you, I know a lot of Trump people who are sending this story around when they first saw it. I just wonder what was your reaction, when Lindsey Halligan first reached out to you.
ANNA BOWER, SENIOR EDITOR, LAWFARE: Yes, I was -- I was really surprised. And honestly, I was very curious to hear what she had to say.
For some background, Kaitlan, I did not have a pre-existing relationship with Lindsey Halligan, in terms of speaking to her as a reporter. We had met one time, many years previous, while I was reporting on Trump's criminal investigations and criminal cases. She was on that criminal defense team. But other than that, she was very much a stranger to me, essentially.
So, when I learned that she actually was texting me, or I suspected that it really was Lindsey Halligan, I was interested to hear what she had to say. I report on the cases that she is prosecuting. And so, I was curious.
But it seemed like mostly what she wanted to talk to me about was a tweet that I wrote that summarized The New York Times' reporting, concerning certain grand jury testimony in the Letitia James case.
[21:25:00]
And I think that's what really struck me as so surprising, is that, it's very much not often that you see a sitting United States Attorney who, unsolicited, reaches out to a reporter, to talk about something that relates to an ongoing prosecution, that relates to grand jury testimony, potentially. Because those -- those are the kinds of things that there's policies, there's laws that prohibit disclosure about that kind of information.
So, while I don't think it's very unusual to have a prosecutor reach out about that subject matter, I did find it really strange, and especially considering we didn't have a pre-existing reporter-source relationship.
COLLINS: Yes, because obviously reporters are trying to reach out to people all the time, talk to them, get context, obviously, to make sure reporting is accurate and fair.
But because you were contacted out of the blue, I mean, I imagine you were a little bit suspicious of whether it was even actually her at the beginning.
BOWER: Yes. And there were a few things that we did to confirm that it was actually her.
So one thing is, as I mentioned, we had previously met one time, several years before. She was able to answer questions that suggested to me it likely was Lindsey Halligan, because she was able to say where we first met and who she was with. And then, we later were able to obtain her phone number, which then connected to the existing conversation that we had.
And then finally, right before we went to publication, we reached out for comment through the Public Affairs Office at the Department of Justice. They confirmed that these were text messages with Lindsey Halligan.
And right before we were about to publish, she also additionally reached out to me again, and as you mentioned, claimed that our conversation was off the record.
Kaitlan, I would encourage people to read the text messages that we published, and they can decide for themselves. But Lindsey Halligan never once suggested that we were off the record. She had reached out to me.
You know, as well as I do, Kaitlan, in dealing with speaking to sources, that the way that it works is there's an agreement, there's a conversation that is had about it. And I never agreed to speak off the record. She never suggested it. I would have been happy to speak with her off the record, had she suggested it. But she did not do that here. So, I was very surprised when she suddenly suggested that things were off the record when they, in fact, were not.
COLLINS: Yes, generally, that's something you agree to before the proposed conversation takes place with someone who wants it to keep it off the record.
And you mentioned that you reached out to the Justice Department. They accused you of trying to tattletale on Lindsey Halligan tonight.
I just -- I want to read their statement in full, because they said, quote, "You clearly didn't get the response you wanted -- which was information handed over to you without having to dig into the facts of the case to craft a truthful story -- so you thought you'd "tattletale" to main justice. Lindsay [sic] Halligan was attempting to point you to facts, not gossip, but when clarifying that she would adhere to the rule of the law and not disclose Grand Jury information, you threaten to leak an entire conversation. Good luck ever getting anyone to talk to you when you publish their texts."
I mean, I read it. I don't think you're threatening to leak it. I just think it -- to your point, it wasn't on off-the-record conversation. BOWER: No, it wasn't. And look, I reached out. What I -- I didn't threaten anything. I reached out for comment because I was -- I'm a journalist who was publishing a story.
And I want to underscore here that why we thought that this was a newsworthy story, and why there's great public interest in this. Is, I'm a legal reporter. I cover the Justice Department. So does everyone in our organization. We're familiar with how things work, in terms of reporter and U.S. Attorney relationships, and reporter and prosecutor relationships.
When this exchange happened, it felt so out of the ordinary and so unusual that it felt like something that really should be published. Because, here you have someone who is already so highly scrutinized under such pressure with these very high-profile prosecutions, and already knows that anything that she does is going to be picked apart by defense counsel, any -- even the most minor misstep.
And yet, here she is, on the record, messaging with a reporter about an ongoing prosecution, which just does not really happen that much in terms of communications between reporters and prosecutors. And so, we found it to be really remarkable.
And over the past few days, we spoke to reporters who cover legal affairs, we spoke to former prosecutors. They have never quite seen an exchange like this, Kaitlan.
[21:30:00]
And so, I think that it was -- it felt -- it felt like something that we needed to publish, and we did. And there was nothing in terms of leaking anything. It was Lindsey Halligan who approached me. So, I think that that would be my response to that.
COLLINS: Anna Bower, thank you for joining us tonight.
And still ahead. We have new videos showing demolition beginning at the White House today. These pictures and what they have to do with that new ballroom that the President says he is building at the White House. And what he said today about his newest project. We're going to speak with it -- with our political sources, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, demolition crews have started tearing down parts of the East Wing at the White House, to begin building President Trump's long-desired ballroom. It's a vision that the President has previewed for months now, and he said construction would start as soon as possible.
The current renderings of the privately-funded ballroom are very much a reflection of Trump's style. Golden crystal chandeliers, gilded Corinthian columns, these gold floor lamps, checkered marble floor. The President lauded the 200-some-million-dollar project today, as he was hosting LSU and the LSU Shreveport championship baseball teams at the White House.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're building a ballroom. They've wanted a ballroom for a 150 years, and I'm giving that honor to this wonderful place.
We'll have the most beautiful ballroom in the country.
So you'll have drinks, cocktails, everything on this floor, and then they'll say, Welcome to Dinner. You walk into the ballroom, Mr. Senators, and you're going to see a ballroom the likes of which I don't think will -- I don't think it will be topped.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My political sources are joining me tonight. CNN Political Commentators, Karen Finney and Scott Jennings.
And Scott, obviously the President said today that he thinks every President has dreamt about having a ballroom at the White House. I'm not sure that's totally true. But he has wanted one since Obama was in office. There was -- there was a word at the time that he wanted to help spearhead building one, back then. I wonder what you make of this.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO MITCH MCCONNELL: Well, it's certainly Donald Trump. I mean, he is all about hospitality. That's his business. And this is going to give us a place in the White House to do the biggest and best hospitality we've ever done.
I will say, I don't think it's super unusual for the White House to undergo massive construction projects. I mean, all the way back to Thomas Jefferson putting in the colonnades, or Theodore Roosevelt putting in the West Wing, or FDR putting in the East Wing, Nixon putting in the press briefing room over top, the swimming pool, the fence going up, Clinton closing Pennsylvania Avenue. I mean, you go on and on and on. The White House is typically under construction, either in small ways or in large ways.
The most significant cosmetic reconstruction was probably Harry Truman, when they gutted the White House, but he also, you'll remember, added the Truman Balcony, which changed the image of the south side of the White House.
So, I think this is another in a long line of improvements. It's a historic building, but it's a living building, and it's reflective of the people who live there. And I think future presidents will enjoy having a space where, you know you could have all the senators, or heads of state, or, frankly, it's a public space, they'll be able to put more people than ever inside the White House. It's pretty cool.
COLLINS: Yes, Truman is actually to live in the presidential guest house, the Blair House for some time. But that was because, I mean, the White House was kind of unlivable like that -- it was unstable to the point where they shouldn't be living there at that point.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISER, HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN: Yes.
COLLINS: But Karen, what are -- what are your thoughts?
FINNEY: Well, as I mentioned on this program, a couple weeks ago, I think it's fairly grotesque to begin construction, just the optics of beginning construction, on a grand ballroom at a time when the government is shut down, inflation is still high, costs are still high.
We saw new economic indicators coming out today actually showing that middle- and lower-income Americans are falling behind in car payments, which is an early indicator. So, I think it's -- even if you believe that this was a good idea, I would say the timing is horrible.
And look, personally, it was a little shocking to see those images, having worked in the White House. I mean, there's so much beauty and history in the East Wing. So, it's sad to see that huge hole there.
And I would just mention that some of the other things -- you know, the changes that Scott mentioned, those were additions. This is a subtraction, I guess, than an addition. But it really changes, I think, in many ways, what the People's House is supposed to be about, which is not necessarily a grand ballroom with crystal chandeliers, but it's about the American people. So, again, I just also think the construction timing is really just gross.
COLLINS: Scott, the other thing that everyone's been talking about this, over the weekend, you couldn't really miss the "No Kings" protests that were playing out. Organizers say that nearly 7 million people were taking part at more than 2,700 events across the country. Obviously, the White House was paying attention to this as well. It was very hyped up.
The President posted this AI-generated video, at one point, depicting him wearing a crown, and flying a fighter jet that dumped human waste over protesters.
It's something that was a big topic here on Capitol Hill today, at least, and Speaker Johnson was asked about it, and this is what he had to say.
[21:40:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): The President uses social media to make a point. You can argue, he's probably the most effective person who's ever used social media for that. He is -- he is using satire to make a point.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Do you think it's making a point, Scott?
JENNINGS: Well, yes, he was making a point. I mean, why shouldn't the President--
COLLINS: And what's the point?
JENNINGS: Why shouldn't the President use a made-up video to respond to a rally that has a made-up reason? I mean, it's a non-existent reason. We don't have a monarchy in this country. We have a presidency, won by Donald Trump, who won the popular vote, who won the Electoral College, who won all the swing states. We have a democracy. People voted, and they elected the President. And the only thing they're mad about is that he is lawfully executing the Office of the Presidency and enforcing laws that have been on the books for a long time.
So, he made up a video. They made up a reason to have a rally. And I think it was kind of funny, to be honest with you.
FINNEY: No, it was--
COLLINS: Karen?
FINNEY: It was absolutely disgusting, and it is -- it is in line with so many things that the President has said, where he talks about anybody who disagrees with him or didn't vote for him as the enemy. And in my lifetime, I've never seen that in a president.
We can disagree. That is the whole point of America and of our democracy, that we can have peaceful disagreements. I mean, one of the hallmarks of what you saw, over the weekend, I mean, people, most of the people, had funny signs. You have those blow-up costume like animal figures and people were dancing. I mean, the organizers went to great lengths to say to people, This is about democracy. This is about coming out, making our voices heard.
We've seen this in polls for months. People across the political spectrum are not happy with the way Donald Trump is leading this country. We are far past -- far enough past the election that he is accountable. And that's the other message that, I think, what he -- this so-called satire sends, which is, it's not OK to hold your president to account. If you disagree, you're allowed to go to the streets, you're allowed to say how you feel.
And the last thing I'll say is this. There is absolutely no comparison to what we saw, over the weekend, which was peaceful and was about democracy and loving our country, and what we saw on January 6th, at the President's behest, which was about tearing down our country, our democracy, and an election that was lawfully committed.
COLLINS: Well, Scott, to the point that you're making, Scott, you're saying that this isn't -- you know, the reason isn't legitimate here, because, obviously, Trump was elected, last November.
There was something interesting, I thought that Senator Ted Cruz took away, though, from what we saw this weekend. Listen to what he said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. TED CRUZ (R-TX): Unquestionably, we should take political peril seriously.
There is a lot of energy, there is a lot of anger on the left. And elections can be dangerous when one side is mobilized, is angry. I'll tell you, in terms of fundraising, the Democrats are raising a lot more money because their radicals hate Trump so much. And look, angry, energized voters show up to vote.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, these protests were massive. Does he have a point there, in terms of energy that is being felt by voters and the ones who show up to vote?
JENNINGS: Yes, look, he's right to worry about every election. He's right to worry about the political opposition. And there is obviously energy in opposing Donald Trump. Of course, there was energy in opposing him last year, and he won the election.
One of the things the Republican Party has yet to prove that it can figure out is how to get people, who vote for Trump, to turn out in midterm elections. That is a concern rolling for the Republican Party. So, of course, you take nothing for granted in politics.
I would point out though they would have had a better use of their time, this weekend, knocking on doors in Virginia or New Jersey, than marching around the mall or whatever, in crazy cat costumes, this weekend. But, but that's how they chose to -- that's how they chose to use their time.
But Ted Cruz, and every Republican, knows you take nothing for granted, and the next election could bring peril, and Republicans have to look at what the Democrats are doing and say, We're not going to let them have more energy than us.
FINNEY: So, wait--
JENNINGS: I mean, that's a truism for every election.
FINNEY: So, Scott, you're saying that Americans who decide they want to take to the streets, and make their voices heard, because they feel like their president is not listening to them, and frankly, in some instances, has said, we're the enemy, simply because we disagree with him, you're saying, that's not a good use of time?
You're criticizing these people who went out to be Americans and say they love their country, and want their president to listen to them, that's not a good use of time? That's outrageous.
JENNINGS: Well, no, I mean normal people were spending time with their family and watching college football. I don't care how they spend their time. If they want to go out-- FINNEY: Oh, families actually came -- turned out, actually, together.
JENNINGS: If they want to go out and to -- if they want to go out and protest? Be my guest. They're welcome to do it. And I don't -- I don't really care whether they do it or not.
[21:45:00]
But I just happen to think if I were Democrats, I would rather have directed that energy into the campaigns that are going on this year, instead of marching around the way they did. But listen, you guys spend your time however you want. It's a free country, not a monarchy.
COLLINS: Karen?
FINNEY: Well, and yet the President, himself, has sort of waffled back and forth. They say, I'm a king. I'm not a king.
But yet, how has he behaved? Time and time again, we are seeing him consolidating power, we are seeing him ignoring the co-equal branches of government.
He has essentially neutered Congress, and Republicans in Congress are fecklessly allowing him to just do whatever he wants. Right now, we could be reopening the government if the President would step up and say, Let's -- everybody, come together and let's figure out this solution.
He keeps talking about -- you know, he keeps consolidating power. That is what a king does. And he goes after his political enemies. That is what a monarch does. That -- he is now trying to silence the media. That is what you see in an autocracy.
COLLINS: Yes.
Karen Finney. Scott Jennings. As always, a great debate. Thank you both for being here.
FINNEY: Thanks.
JENNINGS: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: There is a manhunt that is still underway tonight, overseas, after there was a brazen robbery that is being called the heist of the century.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the priceless jewelry stolen from the Louvre, during a brazen robbery in broad daylight, has yet to be recovered. It's what some are dubbing the heist of the century, where robbers managed to steal eight artifacts in the moment -- just mere minutes. They were actually in and out of this Paris Museum in just four minutes, and the entire operation took just seven minutes total. Police say that they used this truck-mounted ladder to enter the Apollo gallery section through a window on the second floor. You can see in this cell phone video here, the thieves in action, breaking into two high security display cases.
The robbers stole a jewelry set featuring 24 sapphires, 1,083 diamonds, two diamond brooches and a jeweled head piece that was made of 212 pearls, and 1,998 diamonds. They also got an emerald necklace and an earring set that were a wedding gift from Napoleon to his second wife. The thieves also tried to steal another crown, but they dropped it outside when they fled the scene on motorcycles.
My source tonight is CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst, and the former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.
Andy, I think everyone has been trolling the Louvre today, over their security, or lack of, and the fact that this could happen in what is obviously supposed to be one of the most secure buildings in the world.
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Yes, clearly, Kaitlan, it's a -- it's a disgrace for the security team at the Louvre, and I'm sure, they'll be doing a lot of work going forward to make up for this.
But the interesting thing to me is how the series of security failures tells us something about the heist. It wasn't just one failure.
It was a failure to spot the truck that pulled up alongside the building and deployed that ladder without any authorization whatsoever. There was a failure to see the -- to see the thieves going up that ladder, and literally cutting their way through a window to get into the building. There was a failure of the security personnel to interact with and stop the thieves, while they're in process, and a failure to stop them going right out the same way they came in.
The odds that all four of those security failures would line up in favor of the thieves is so remote that it raises the prospect, I believe, and this is purely speculation, that there may have been someone feeding them information--
COLLINS: Yes.
MCCABE: --about the capacity of the security response.
COLLINS: Because basically you see it--
MCCABE: And I think that's probably something that investigators are looking at.
COLLINS: You see it as it's just so unlikely that they'd be able to accomplish something, this sophisticated, so quickly, that you believe potentially they did have some kind of information.
MCCABE: That's right. So they got unbelievably lucky with four separate moments in their theft that they could have and should have been stopped by security. The odds of that luck stringing its way across four separate moments is so remote, that I think it raises the prospect that someone inside the museum, or someone with intimate knowledge of the security capacity and response protocols, may have been assisting them in some capacity.
COLLINS: Well, and obviously, I'm sure investigators are obviously looking into that, questioning everyone there, including all the Security team.
I do think one question that has been unanswered tonight is, what's the likelihood that they ever recover the stuff that was stolen? Obviously, there was a crown that was dropped outside as they were trying to get away on motorcycles. Do you think they'll ever be able to find all the other pieces that are being described as priceless?
MCCABE: I think it's really unlikely for a couple of reasons.
First, if they are as sophisticated and perfectly planned as it seems they were today, then they probably had some pre-existing plan to offload the loot. And if you are one of the people that was associated with or part of that team of thieves, the last place you want to be is anywhere near that stolen property after the theft.
So it's likely, I think, that they've already handed those things off to someone else, and those folks are probably responsible for dismantling those items, and then disposing of the -- of the truly valuable jewels and things like that. And if that's the case, we'll never see them again.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, it just seems like a movie-generated headline here.
Andy McCabe, always great to have your expertise on this. Thank you.
MCCABE: Thanks.
COLLINS: Up next here for us. One of President Trump's nominees to lead a key government watchdog agency is now in serious doubt, after new reporting on racist text messages that he allegedly sent. Wait till you see what the Republican Majority Leader had to say about this.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Here on Capitol Hill tonight, there's a growing number of Senate Republicans who are opposed, now, to President Trump's pick to lead the Office of the Special Counsel.
That's after Politico reported that the nominee, Paul Ingrassia sent openly racist texts in a group chat with fellow Republicans. That includes, last January, when he texted, according to this Politico report, quote, MLK Jr. was the 1960s George Floyd and his "holiday" should be ended and tossed into the seventh circle of hell where it belongs. One participant responded to that saying, quote, "Jesus Christ."
[22:00:00]
Despite facing pushback at times, Ingrassia would not only stand by his texts. He went even further, at one point, saying, I do have a Nazi streak in me from time to time, quote, "I will admit it."
This is coming from the person who, as a reminder, is nominated to oversee an agency that investigates whistleblower complaints and claims of discrimination. His attorney told Politico, in response to their reporting, that the texts could have been manipulated, and would not say whether or not they are authentic.
His confirmation hearing is actually set for this Thursday, here on Capitol Hill. But look at what the Senate Majority Leader told CNN tonight, saying that his nomination, quote, is "Not going to pass." It is yet to be pulled by the White House. We'll see what happens next there. An update on that story for you tonight.
Thanks so much for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts now.
