Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
U.S. Sending Most Advanced Aircraft Carrier To Caribbean; NY A.G. James Pleads Not Guilty In Mortgage Fraud Case; Jeffries Gives Mamdani Last-Minute Endorsement For NYC Mayor. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired October 24, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --before we go tonight, a thank you to a good friend of the show.
Johnny Silva who's been with CNN since 1989 is retiring. He was our Operations Manager, which basically means he did a lot of everything. He's been our technical rock. On 9/11, when CNN was located at 5 Penn Plaza, Johnny dragged cables up to the rooftop, so Aaron Brown could anchor from there live, for weeks. From New Year's Eve shows, to CNN Heroes, to everyday productions, he's done so much during his career here, and we will miss him.
Johnny is lucky. He'll be spending time with his seven grandkids. And he says, we're all welcome to join him at his family's home in Portugal, which sounds quite lovely, indeed.
Johnny, thank you. We will miss you.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: In what is a major escalation, the United States is now deploying its most advanced aircraft carrier yet to the Caribbean, as the White House is still targeting those alleged drug smugglers. What's the legal rationale behind all of this?
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
As we come on the air tonight, the most advanced aircraft carrier on the planet is heading to the Caribbean. The USS Gerald Ford is the largest warship ever built. And when it arrives, the Ford is going to be joining dozens of American military assets that's patrolling the region already. That's in addition to more than 4,000 U.S. sailors and marines.
As for the military strategy behind all of this? If you listen to the White House, it is the unambiguous call for the execution of alleged drug smugglers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, UNITED STATES HOMELAND SECURITY ADVISOR: These are terrorists, and they're going to be killed.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: We will find you. We will map your networks. We will hunt you down, and we will kill you.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: OK? We're going to kill them. You know, they're going to be like dead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was yesterday at the White House.
And the Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, announced a 10th strike, overnight, on a boat that he says was smuggling drugs. The administration has yet to offer evidence in support of that. But what we do know is that six people were killed, bringing the total to at least 43, since these strikes started, last month.
Congress has not yet made any kind of a declaration of war. Something that the President was questioned about yesterday, and argued he doesn't necessarily need.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, if you are declaring war against these cartels, and Congress is likely to approve of that process, why not just ask for a declaration of war?
TRUMP: Well, I don't think we're going to necessarily ask for a declaration of war. I think we're just going to kill people that are bringing drugs into our country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The USS Ford's orders to leave Europe for the Caribbean comes, as we are learning here, at CNN, that President Trump is considering escalating this fight, while not ruling out a diplomatic approach.
There is one official who was telling CNN, that plans are on the table to target cocaine facilities and drug trafficking routes inside Venezuela. Only, according to the United Nations, Venezuela is not a cocaine-producing country. Trump's own DEA doesn't mention Venezuela in its latest report on cocaine trafficking.
And cocaine is produced, that we know, in places like Colombia, which the President has described this way.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Colombia is a drug den. It's a drug den, and it has been for a long time. You got a lousy leader over there right now, bad guy, a thug. But they make cocaine at levels that we've never seen before, and they sell it back into this. And they're not going to get away with it much longer. We're not going to -- we're not going to put up with it much longer. Colombia is very bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The administration did take action against Colombia today, but not in the form of a deadly strike. The Treasury announced sanctions against Colombia's president, as well as his family, and the country's Interior minister.
My lead sources tonight are:
The retired Army Brigadier General, Mark Kimmitt.
And CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
And it's so great to have both of you here.
And General, I just want to start with you, because I just listed off a lot of military firepower and assets that are now going to be in this region.
BRIG. GEN. MARK KIMMITT (RET.), U.S. ARMY (RET.), FORMER ASST. SECY. OF STATE FOR POLITICAL-MILITARY AFFAIRS: Yes.
COLLINS: One, how significant is that for just the average person who may not realize. And two, what does it tell you about what this administration is at least potentially preparing to have in place?
KIMMITT: Well, I think what you're seeing there is what we call a carrier strike group. All those ships are basically part of that group that's there to support and defend that aircraft carrier. We have 12 carrier strike groups, probably six to eight of them can be on the water at any time.
The Navy has a worldwide responsibility. So as you can imagine, some are in the South China Sea. Some are in the Middle East. Some are in for maintenance and repair.
And for me, the message is, capability in the region, a clear sign of deterrence. And if deterrence fails, there's a capability to do what is ever necessary at the President's orders.
COLLINS: I mean, can you just tell us how significant? I mean, we're showing right now, just everything that's in the region. How much is that, in your view?
[21:05:00]
KIMMITT: Well, again, as I said, that entire grouping around the USS Ford is about roughly 1/12th of the combat power that we have in the form of naval aviation. Carrier strike group, we have 12, as I said. Probably six to eight are on the water at any time, the other ones are refitting.
COLLINS: And Elie, obviously, one question here has been on what Congress knows?
We've heard some complaints. We're going to talk to someone in a moment about that, a Democrat who has more questions than, he says, answers from the administration.
They did provide Congress with this notice, earlier this month, about armed conflict with drug cartels. They've designated them as terrorist organizations. I wonder what you make of the legal authority so far that we've seen playing out with this.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: So, the first problem is the administration has been completely opaque about this. They have given contradictory statements, vague statements about the rationale.
But that letter that you're referring to, Kaitlan, is the clearest example we have so far. And in it, the administration really gives two main legal justifications to Congress.
The first one, they say, Well, we have formally designated these drug trafficking organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations.
Now, that has some legal significance. What it allows our government to do is to take law enforcement action, to prosecute, to arrest, even to impose economic sanctions. It does not mean you just get to kill people, however. That is not what an FTO, a Foreign Terrorist Organization designation means.
The second rationale--
COLLINS: Right, because--
HONIG: Yes.
COLLINS: Law enforcement is not just striking these people and killing everyone who's on board as to--
(CROSSTALK)
HONIG: It's military. Right. Exactly. A, it's military, and B, they're just killing them. That's completely different from what the actual designation is supposed to be.
COLLINS: Well, except for the two that they had to basically repatriate.
HONIG: Right, and send them back or bring them, you're right.
The second rationale in those letters is, This is self-defense, defense of American citizens and interests.
The problem is there has to be some degree of what we call imminence, meaning somebody is about to die, a bomb is about to go off. And I think there's a real question about whether an incoming drug boat -- I mean, look, drugs are dangerous, can be lethal. But is that the kind of imminent threat that ordinarily justifies military force? The answer is no, not ordinarily, but I suppose perhaps you could stretch the definition of it.
COLLINS: Yes, and the President argues he's saving American lives by stopping these boats.
I think one question, General, that we have is, what happens next here? Because one thing is clear, that we're hearing from several officials, here at CNN, is that the President is considering going after cocaine facilities, drug trafficking routes inside Venezuela.
So, when you look at that, and if it goes from striking these boats that are in the water to actually striking on land, how significant of an escalation is that, in your view?
KIMMITT: Yes, first of all, I'd make the point that regarding the imminent threat. Past administrations have used hundreds of drone strikes against terrorists abroad, that have not been considered imminent threats. So, I have some questions about whether -- using that legal argument.
It's important to note that most of the boats that have been attacked so far have been in international waters. Under that fact that they're part of and in international waters, they come under the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Seas. That is completely different than attacking a sovereign nation, which I think if you attack inside the countries in South America, that's a completely different situation.
But we also know that the President has strong authority, and significant backing, for any type of military actions that he considers to be a threat to the United States.
You talk about a declaration of war? Well, there hasn't been a declaration of war since 1941. And for years and years, we've been talking about the war on drugs. Well, maybe the war on drugs is now coming to a situation, where the President recognizes that there are 10 9/11 happening every 10 days through the death of American citizens from these drugs. So, it's a hard call, and I wouldn't want to be the one making it.
COLLINS: Yes, and I'm grateful for you, for putting that in perspective of just what this looks like, and how the decision-making process plays out there.
Because, Elie, I do think now that we have 10 strikes here, that we've seen, the White House confirming them. I mean, I remember the first one happened, and it was a whoa moment. And now, here we are. We're on the 10th one. But it feels like we're on the verge of potentially change -- that escalating to two being land strikes, as the President himself has made clear.
HONIG: And I want to see what Congress is going to do here. Because let's remember -- and I know you have a guest coming up from Congress -- Congress controls the war power. The President is the Commander-in- Chief, but Congress controls the war power.
[21:10:00]
And as your other guest, the military guest, just said, we used to issue declarations of war. Since the World War II, we've -- Congress has issued these authorizations of the use of military force. The last one they issued was in 2001 2002 after 9/11. And Presidents Obama, Biden and Trump 1, have all said, Well, we're relying on the one from back in '01 or '02. Is Congress going to let -- allow that to still be relied on 23, 24 years out? Or are they going to demand that the President come to them for that authorization? We'll see if they -- if they choose to stand up to him, or if they choose to just let this continue.
COLLINS: Yes, this is a question that has faced Republican and Democratic presidents.
HONIG: And they can approve him, by the way. They can grant him this. And that would really give him much more legal leeway if they do pass that authorization.
COLLINS: Yes, but could be a tough vote.
HONIG: Yes. For sure.
Elie Honig. Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt. Great to have both of you here tonight.
KIMMITT: Yes.
COLLINS: And as I mentioned, a member of Congress is here. The top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee wants a congressional hearing on these strikes. He's my next source tonight. Representative Adam Smith.
And thank you sir for being here.
Because you heard what the President has had to say at the White House. If he came to Congress for authorization for these strikes, do you think you'd give it?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Not under this definition. This is just an enormous expansion of presidential power.
And it's absolutely true that the President's ability to carry out military strikes has been a subject of much debate for, gosh, over 200 years now, and certainly in the last several decades. But by and large, it's been fairly narrow. If you expand that to say, Anyone dealing drugs in the United States of America is subject to lethal U.S. military force? Then you are talking about an enormous expansion of presidential authority.
And then the explanation from the White House, as both of your guests have pointed out, I think, opaque is a generous word. It started out, they were talking about fentanyl. And then we pointed out that no fentanyl comes out of Venezuela. One thing we know for sure about these boat strikes is none of them had anything to do with fentanyl, just given on where -- given where they're at. And then we start hearing talk about regime change in Venezuela.
So, he's not even being very clear as to what the purpose of these strikes are. They've said that there are 24 different narco-terrorist organizations identified. It's tough to find that list. It's impossible to find a definition of who these people are.
So basically, what President Trump has said, I'm the president. I want to kill these people. I'm going to do it. And you don't get to ask questions.
And as we've tried to ask questions, the Pentagon, Intel services have provided no answers to Congress to date. So, that amount of power in the President that is unaccountable, not transparent, I think, is incredibly dangerous.
COLLINS: So you haven't gotten any answers from the Pentagon, the Director of National Intelligence, anyone like that?
SMITH: And we've asked. And by the way, this is somewhat bipartisan. I've spoken to Chairman Mike Rogers, good friend, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee, I work closely with. He hasn't gotten the answers either.
Now, we want to have a hearing, and we're supposed to set one up. That's complicated by the fact that Mike Johnson has decided to dissolve the United States House of Representatives for the time being, which I think is a gross abdication of responsibility and a whole series of issues, but certainly to exercise oversight.
So thus far, Pentagon, nobody has provided that level of detail, and you've been there with the media, trying to ask those -- or asking those questions as well, trying to get an answer. And those specifics are not there. So, I just don't think we should let the President kill whoever he wants without explanation.
COLLINS: Yes, I think that might have a fair bit of support.
And of course, you're talking about the fact that the House has not been in session now, I believe, since September 7 -- 19th, because of the government shutdown. They blame that on Democrats.
But speaking of the President coming to Congress. This was a big back and forth when we were inside the State Dining Room with the President yesterday. I want you to listen to what he said about notifying your body or seeking permission, if he does begin to go after land-based targets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We may go to the Senate, we may go to the, you know, Congress, and tell them about it. But I can't imagine they'd have any problem with it. I think, in fact, while we're here, I think it's a good idea, Pete. You go to Congress, you tell them about it. What are they going to do? Say, Gee, we don't want to stop drugs pouring in?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Does it sound to you like, from that answer, like the President is aware of the concerns that you say are bipartisan about his authority here?
SMITH: It sounds like he's aware of them. He's not terribly concerned about them.
I do want to correct one point. We are not, not in session, because of the government shutdown. We've had government shutdowns before. We have always been in session. In fact, when we have government shutdowns, we're in session more often than usual. We go through weekends, because it's a crisis that needs to be resolved. I think that distinction is really important. What Mike Johnson and the House have done--
COLLINS: Yes, I'm just saying that's the reason that Speaker Johnson is giving.
SMITH: Well, but it doesn't make any sense, because you can be in session while the government is shut down. So, it just doesn't make any sense.
And we can't have Congress not in session, not doing its job, in my opinion. You can have an argument about, Oh, it's the Democrats' fault for the shutdown. Whatever. We can have that argument. But whatever your position on that is, to say that the solution to it is to basically dissolve the United States House of Representatives, I strongly disagree with.
But it doesn't sound to me like Trump takes--
COLLINS: Yes, I take your point.
SMITH: That it doesn't sound to me like Trump takes Congress very seriously. Yes, yes, yes, maybe we'll ask. Maybe we won't.
[21:15:00]
But that's why we need accountability in this. And if our position is, once you establish that drugs are a problem in the U.S., which is true now, and it's been true for decades, then the President can kill whoever he wants to kill? No, I would not sign up for that. I would want a lot greater specificity.
Who are we targeting, and for how long, and what's it going to cost? Let's say we do this for two or three years and we kill hundreds, maybe thousands of people. Do you think we'll wake up the day after that, and people will no longer be trying to sell drugs in the U.S.? I don't, because this is really very much a demand problem, as much as it is a supply problem.
And remember the assets we're committing here. You talked about the aircraft carrier, the B-2s -- sorry, B-52s, everything we're sending down there. This is enormously expensive. How long do we intend to engage in this? And then if we go violating the sovereignty of how many ever countries, if we take that step? Now, we're alienating potential allies, countries all -- it is a huge thing to do that the President is doing, I think, entirely too casually.
COLLINS: Yes, and it moves the carrier from the Middle East or by Europe, and it is real questions about the foreign policy of where they're putting their attention now. Can I ask you, speaking of the government shutdown, though. Because one part of this that hits really hard is that the military doesn't get paid during a government shutdown.
And the Pentagon confirmed today that they got a $130 million donation that they plan to use. It is from an anonymous friend of the President's, as he described it yesterday. He didn't say who this person was. And this is to pay members of the military as this shutdown is going to go on.
And we had questions about the donor's identity, and if they have ties to foreign entities or interests. A White House spokesperson referred us to the Pentagon and Treasury. The Pentagon then referred us back to the White House. The Treasury did not respond immediately when we asked for comment. As--
SMITH: Yes. Been there, by the way. But yes, yes.
COLLINS: And what was -- I mean, but what is your thought -- are you -- what are your questions about that? And are you OK with it? Because it does mean that some members of the military will get paid when typically they would not.
SMITH: It's not going to begin to cover the cost of paying the military to begin with. No, I'm not OK with it.
I think we have a system of government. We have a representative democracy, and we should work through that system of government. Once we privatize it, that takes the power out of the hands of the people.
And look, we should be in and negotiating. I think we should pass bills to pay the military. We could do that, if Mike Johnson had us in session, but he doesn't. And that's what's really troubling about this, is the flat refusal to negotiate. I've used this line many times, but President Trump will negotiate with Hamas, but he won't negotiate with Democrats?
And the thing is, that's the problem with the filibuster in the Senate. You need Democratic votes. And you're asking us to just vote for the Republican budget. And then you said, We're not going to negotiate, we're not going to talk about it.
And we've done, in past shutdowns, we voted to fund the military. We voted to fund a variety of different things during the course of the shutdown. We ought to be in session, working, doing our job, and trying to find a way out of this, and to mitigate the damage, in the meantime.
COLLINS: Congressman Adam Smith, always appreciate your time, and thank you for joining us here tonight.
SMITH: Thanks, Kaitlan. I appreciate it.
COLLINS: Up next. We have this new video of the demolition that happened at the East Wing of the White House today. But also, you just have to wait to hear who showed up at the site of where they took the rubble today. It may not be that surprising.
Also, it was a defying day in court for one of the President's biggest adversaries. The New York Attorney General, Letitia James. What she said after pleading not guilty outside of court.
And also tonight, after insinuations from Andrew Cuomo, New York mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani, is defending his faith in an emotional speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ZOHRAN MAMDANI, (D) NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: There are 12 days remaining until Election Day. I will be a Muslim man in New York City each of those 12 days, and every day that follows after that. I will not change who I am, how I eat, or the faith that I am proud to call my own.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: New York Attorney General Letitia James pleaded not guilty when she appeared in federal court today.
Then moments later, on the steps of the Virginia federal courthouse, she slammed President Trump's Justice Department for bringing the charges against her in the first place.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LETITIA JAMES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK: This is not about me.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
JAMES: This is about all of us.
CROWD: Yes.
JAMES: And about a justice system which has been weaponized.
CROWD: Yes.
JAMES: A justice system which has been a -- been used as a tool of revenge.
So there is no fear today. No fear.
CROWD: No fear.
JAMES: No fear.
CROWD: No fear. JAMES: No fear.
CROWD: No fear.
JAMES: No fear.
CROWD: No fear.
JAMES: Because I believe that justice will rain down like water.
CROWD: Yes.
JAMES: And righteousness like a mighty stream.
CROWD: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: James' legal representation is now teaming up with that of former FBI Director James Comey's, to throw out both of their cases here, going up against President Trump's appointment of the handpicked prosecutor who brought these indictments. That's the interim U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan.
Letitia James' attorneys are arguing that Halligan lacked the power to present this case to the grand jury or even sign this indictment, and she cannot continue to supervise this prosecution. This court must reject the executive branch's brazen attempt to sidestep the constitutional and statutory limitations on the appointment of U.S. attorneys.
My legal sources are joining me here tonight.
[21:25:00]
Former Assistant U.S. Attorney for the same district where James' case is being prosecuted. Gene Rossi is here.
And also CNN Legal Analyst, Elliot Williams.
And Gene, I just wonder, given--
GENE ROSSI, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes.
COLLINS: --James' trial has now been set for January 26th. I wonder, first off, what you make of this effort, in a joint way from Letitia James and James Comey, to take down Lindsey Halligan's appointment, basically.
ROSSI: Well, when you file a motion, and Elliot, I hope, agrees with this, you always try to file a strong one. And this motion is very strong, in my view. And the reason is this. It doesn't involve a lot of facts, disputed or otherwise. It's just legal argument. And it's a kill shot, really. If this motion is granted, for either Comey's indictment or Letitia James' indictment, it says that Lindsey Halligan, when she signed those indictments and presented them to the grand jury, she didn't have the legal power to do that. I can't think of a better motion to dismiss an indictment than saying, The prosecutor has no power.
And the 120 days -- and I got to go back. I got to thank Sam Alito. Sam Alito wrote a memo in the 1980s when he was a high official at DOJ, where Elliot and I used to work. He wrote a memo saying, you only get one bite at the 120 apple.
With Erik Siebert, who was a phenomenal pick? Phenomenal. I overlapped with him. When he was removed or fired, they only get one interim U.S. Attorney, he had already finished his 120 days. So, Lindsey Halligan, I think very unqualified, she presented the indictment, signed it. They couldn't get a prosecutor to even sign it for her. That says a lot.
But that would be my first motion.
And the other motion's, everybody's been talking about, vindictive, selective and whatnot.
COLLINS: Well but Gene--
ROSSI: Those are good motions. They should be filed.
COLLINS: Can you -- can you explain to me--
ROSSI: But this one's the best.
COLLINS: --what you mean? You're saying they only get one bite at the apple. You're saying they cannot put in another--
ROSSI: Yes.
COLLINS: --another interim U.S. Attorney after Lindsey Halligan?
ROSSI: Yes, Kaitlan, great question.
Under the statute, you have one opportunity to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for 120 days. But Congress doesn't want you to just stack on a second, a third and a fourth. If a person finishes the 120 days, it then goes to the judges. And that is why judges Jamar Walker and Judge Nachmanoff have kicked it to the chief judge of the Fourth Circuit. Because after the 120 days expires, this is the Alito memo, the courts appoint the U.S. Attorney.
COLLINS: OK.
ROSSI: Not President Trump.
And that's what's happened here. It's -- Kaitlan, it's very confusing.
COLLINS: No, I think--
ROSSI: I have to think about it about 15 times.
COLLINS: I actually think it makes a lot of sense, though, the way you just put it there, in terms of what the stakes of this are. And obviously, we see why this U.S. Attorney matters so much to President Trump.
And Elliot, on that front. I do wonder, though. OK, so say that they're successful here. Is there a way that that actually works in Halligan's favor, if these cases are as weak as people are arguing, when they look at this here, where the judge says, her appointment was illegal or it's not right, and then these cases get thrown out, and she gets to say, Well, I did try to indict them, it was the judges. And that's how it ends.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, maybe, but that's a dangerous road to go down as a prosecutor.
Because if her appointment is deemed unlawful? It's not just that these cases get thrown out. Everything that she touches or touched in the office could be in legal jeopardy. Because of the fact that she's the U.S. Attorney for the office, and either signing things or approving things officially on behalf of the office, every defendant in the Eastern District of Virginia can say, Wait a second, Your Honor. Your Honors. My case ought to be thrown out too, because of the invalidity of the person put at the top.
Regardless of Lindsey Halligan's qualifications for the job, whatever they might be. Presidents play with fire. And this is getting along with the points that Gene was making. They play with fire when being fast and loose with the appointment rules. They are quite clear. And they risk invalidating everything the office does by improperly putting someone in the office.
And to Gene's point, what the goal of that law is seeking to do is prevent a president from, every 119 days, putting in someone who couldn't get confirmed by the Senate, who shouldn't be there in the first place, but is just a handpicked person by the President. That's why these were put in place so long ago.
ROSSI: Can I--
COLLINS: Yes.
ROSSI: Can I just supplement--
COLLINS: Yes, go ahead, Gene.
[21:30:00]
ROSSI: Can I supplement a great point that Elliot just brought up? Elliot knows this. There's a concept called the fruit of the poisonous tree, and Elliot just brought that up. If she doesn't have the power to touch an indictment, to oversee an indictment, to present an indictment? Everything that she touched, she's a poisonous tree, so everything she touched, the fruit is poisonous. It has to go away. It's a total disaster what's going on. COLLINS: And then what does it mean after that? I mean, what would happen? I mean, just what would the state of the U.S. Attorney's office look like, given we've already seen a lot of people either be fired or leave?
ROSSI: Well, I've said this--
WILLIAMS: Well--
ROSSI: --the last couple weeks. The EDVA is my temple, my synagogue, my mosque and my church. It's sacred ground. And what they did to EDVA, in a figurative sense, is almost like what they did to the East Wing. They're tearing it down. And it just breaks my heart.
COLLINS: Elliot, what do you -- what do you think?
WILLIAMS: You know, I did not work in the Eastern District of Virginia, like Gene did. I will say, however, I will also know that this is the district in the United States where the Pentagon is, and it gets a tremendous number of national security cases, and cases involving terrorists that were routed to land at Dulles airport because of the expertise in that office.
We're spending a lot of time talking about a couple of cases here, but forgetting that this very important office in the United States is being run by someone who's never been a prosecutor before, and what does it mean for national security or public safety cases in this district, more than any other in the United States, more than, quite frankly, even the Southern District of New York, just based on where the EDVA is.
So, I do take quite seriously this idea that if the leadership of that office is improper, it's just not great for--
COLLINS: Yes.
WILLIAMS: --prosecutions across the country,
COLLINS: And it's Gene's synagogue.
Gene. Elliot. Great to have both of you here tonight. Thank you.
ROSSI: Hayyim (ph).
COLLINS: Thank you for joining me.
ROSSI: Good to see you, Elliot.
COLLINS: Up next here. Speaking of the demolition at the White House, at the East Wing. It got the attention of a very well-known official from Trump's first term, who was at the site where they have taken the rubble. And why they took it there. We're going to show you everything we saw today, right after this.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: With the White House East Wing now demolished ahead of the construction of President Trump's new ballroom, the leftover dirt and debris from the project was now being dumped today, at a place the President has been quite familiar with, a golf course.
We saw trucks on the historic East Potomac Golf Links, in Washington today, dumping fill dirt from the White House grounds there. Construction workers were seen setting up fencing around the fresh mounds.
And the activity got a lot of attention, obviously, from nearby golfers, and also apparently the former White House press secretary, Sean Spicer, who, of course, everyone remembers from his six-month stint during Trump's first term. He tried to approach the site on the course, and a construction worker told him that he could not be there, and that it was actually a restricted area.
I want to bring you my political source tonight. Republican congressman, Mike Lawler of New York.
And no, Congressman, I won't ask you what your thoughts are on Sean Spicer being at the golf course today.
But I do think there are questions about the donations and who's paying for this ballroom. Because yesterday, you saw the White House release a list. It's a bunch of big corporations, Amazon, Apple, Google, Palantir that are part of this. A lot of them have big contracts with the federal government. Do you have any concerns about that?
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): No, not really.
I think when you look back historically, when Jackie Kennedy renovated the White House, for instance, she solicited private donations in support of those renovations. That is not new. And frankly, I think it is better to use private donations to fund this than taxpayer money.
I think, obviously, as you look at the White House historically, there have been numerous renovations, going back well over a 100 years. From Teddy Roosevelt to FDR, who expanded the East Wing, including putting the emergency bunker underneath that, when he was president. To obviously Jackie Kennedy and John F. Kennedy renovating. To Harry Truman, who built the Truman Balcony and gut renovated the entire residence. To Richard Nixon who built a bowling alley and built the White House Press Briefing Room in which you serve.
So look, this has happened historically. Anybody who has ever visited the White House, knows it's not just a historical building and in many respects, a museum, but also a working office. And certainly, having been to many events at the White House, there is a need for a ballroom, and I think people would recognize that, certainly when you're talking about hosting large-scale events.
COLLINS: OK--
LAWLER: The State Room and the East Room--
COLLINS: So--
LAWLER: --do not actually fit the requisite number of people. So, from my vantage point--
COLLINS: OK. So you don't have concerns with who's--
LAWLER: --if the President is soliciting private donations to do this? I don't have a problem with it.
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: You don't have concerns with these big corporations that are fronting the cost for this. And obviously, we've seen that change. We'll see--
LAWLER: It's being -- it's being publicly--
COLLINS: --what that looks like, by the end of it.
LAWLER: Yes, look, it's--
COLLINS: And--
LAWLER: It's being publicly disclosed. And I think obviously it should be, it should be transparent. Anybody that is supporting this renovation effort, that should be disclosed to the American public.
COLLINS: OK. And there's a lot of news happening, here in New York today. I'm sure you saw this.
The Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries endorsed the Democratic nominee here for mayor, in New York City, Zohran Mamdani. He said, in doing so, which obviously everyone had been wondering when this was coming, he described the stakes as existential. He said, We have a clear obligation to push back against the national nightmare being visited on the American people by Republican extremism.
Do you think Hakeem Jeffries' endorsement here will make a difference in this race?
LAWLER: No, I don't think it will make a difference. I think this is a political calculation by Hakeem Jeffries, who is concerned about facing a primary next year by Chi Osse, a New York City Councilman who supports Zohran Mamdani. Zohran won Hakeem's district with about 70 percent in the Democratic primary. And I think this is all about self- preservation.
But what's fascinating about his comment is he's talking about radical extremism. He is endorsing the most radically extreme candidate for mayor in the history of the United States of America, in the largest city.
This is a person who is a self-avowed socialist, who is talking about seizing the means of production, banning private property ownership, defunding the police, legalizing prostitution, shutting down prisons, freezing the rent, free bussing, government-run grocery stores and raising taxes by $9 billion. The American people now know that Hakeem Jeffries supports this radical agenda.
And every member of Congress, especially those in New York, should be on the record today, whether or not they agree with Hakeem Jeffries, and Kathy Hochul, that Zohran Mamdani, an avowed socialist who engages in Marxist theory, who refused to denounce Globalize the intifada? Who just two weeks ago raised money for UNRWA, that Congress has defunded because of its involvement in the October 7th terrorist attack that not only killed innocent Israelis, but killed Americans and New Yorkers? And who said he would arrest Bibi Netanyahu, but has no opinion on whether Hamas should lay down its arms? That is who Hakeem Jeffries thinks should be leading the financial capital of the world and the largest city in America? Voters should vote accordingly, moving forward.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, there's a lot there.
But on the taxes. We've talked to Zohran Mamdani about this, even before he won. That he really can't do that without Kathy Hochul. And she said she's not going there.
But can I -- one thing he has run on. You mentioned the grocery stores.
LAWLER: Kathy Hochul -- excuse me, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: We've seen that--
LAWLER: Kaitlan, hold on one second. Kathy Hochul also said that she wouldn't implement congestion pricing. And then right after the election, last year, implemented congestion pricing, raising taxes on New Yorkers who commute into New York City--
COLLINS: Yes, I'm just saying it would have go through -- I'm just saying--
LAWLER: --by $5,000 on an annual basis.
COLLINS: But you get my point, right?
LAWLER: So, I don't really care what Kathy Hochul has to say.
COLLINS: My point, Congressman--
LAWLER: No, no, no, no. Zohran Mamdani is--
COLLINS: Well I can't make the point if you won't let me make the point.
LAWLER: --advocating to raise taxes by $9 billion.
COLLINS: OK. But my point is that it--
LAWLER: He's trying to raise taxes by $9 billion. COLLINS: --it's not just up to him solely. That it's a whole state legislature vote, and it's up to the governor.
But one thing that you mentioned, the grocery run -- grocery stores.
LAWLER: But they've endorsed him. They've endorsed him. And that's what he's advocating for.
COLLINS: He has run on lowering food prices. That's been a big thing for him, affordability, during this campaign. You mentioned the rent freeze. That is also something that President Trump ran on, and vowed to do when he was taking office.
We saw new data today that grocery prices are actually not way down, as the President has been describing them. They're up. And I wonder if you're worried that Zohran Mamdani's success on a platform like that brings attention to the fact that that is not something that the White House has been able to make good on, since Trump has been in office.
LAWLER: Well, first of all, government-run grocery stores don't work. In Kansas City, they just shut them down because they didn't actually have food.
COLLINS: That wasn't my question though.
LAWLER: Well, excuse me, let me answer the question. The fact is, that's what he's advocating for. You're saying that his policy is going to reduce grocery prices. It's not. Because his policy is going to lead to a grocery store--
COLLINS: That's not what I said either.
LAWLER: --it's going to lead to a grocery store that doesn't actually have food, Kaitlan.
In terms of overall costs in this country. The fact is, inflation is down. The fact is that prices are coming down. And the fact is that the economy is growing, OK? GDP at 3.9 percent is up significantly from the Biden administration.
And the fact is, we passed a tax bill that will actually reduce taxes for nearly every American in this country. Including, by the way, in New York, the average New Yorker getting a $4,000 tax cut, under the Working Families Tax Cut bill.
[21:45:00]
So, we are reducing prices, we are reducing costs, and we are putting money back in the pockets of hard-working Americans.
What Zohran Mamdani is advocating for, Kaitlan, is to raise taxes by $9 billion, in the highest taxed state in America. And if you think that policy is going to work? It is not.
COLLINS: Right, but my point was drawing attention to the affordability-- LAWLER: It is going to lead to a mass exodus from New York.
COLLINS: My point was drawing attention to the affordability of groceries and what that looks like. It actually -- average grocery prices in September were 2.7 percent higher than they were the year prior, and 1.4 percent higher than they were when Trump took office.
But let me ask you, because you wrote a letter to the House Speaker Mike Johnson, amid this government shutdown, something you and I have talked about multiple times, about addressing health care once the government is reopened. You praised how he's handled this.
We had Speaker Johnson here on the show the other night, and I asked him, If the government reopened tomorrow, would Republicans have a plan on health care? This is what he told me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: If the government reopened tonight, would Republicans have a plan to address the Obamacare subsidies?
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Yes. Yes. Yes, we do. We have proposals to--
COLLINS: You would have a plan tonight?
JOHNSON: Yes, we could have that ready immediately.
COLLINS: OK. But a proposal's different than a plan.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you believe the Republicans would have that ready immediately?
LAWLER: Well, first of all, I and a number of my colleagues signed on to legislation to extend the Affordable Care Act subsidy by a year. That is something that I brought to Leader Jeffries just two weeks ago, and he rejected because, by the way, this has never been about health care. This has been about appeasing their far-left base.
But the fundamental point is that these health care subsidies that are slated to expire were put in place under Joe Biden's administration. The Democrats slated them to expire at the end of this year. I and a number of my colleagues are happy to extend them to ensure that we don't see a health care spike.
But there's a fundamental problem here, which is that under Obamacare, over the last 15 years, health care premiums have risen dramatically, across the country. And the only way Democrats seem to suggest that you keep them low is by using taxpayer money to subsidize them.
We have to look at this in totality, and that requires working in a bipartisan way to do that. And there are a number of bills to address various aspects of health care, including, by the way, PBM Reform, which we had at the goal line at the end of the last Congress. We should pass that this Congress. That's something we should do. I have legislation, for instance--
COLLINS: Yes.
LAWLER: --to increase the number of doctors in this country by increasing the waiver from 30 to 100 for those here on a student visa. There is more we can do, across the spectrum, to address the cost of health care in this country.
I support extending the ACA subsidy by one year. But that alone is not going to solve the fundamental health care crisis in this country, which, by the way, was created by the Affordable Care Act, and the fact that it has not reduced health care costs in this country, it has skyrocketed them.
COLLINS: Congressman Mike Lawler, we will see how and if Congress resolve this. Thanks for your time tonight.
LAWLER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next here for us. You're going to want to see this behind the scenes look at a historic week at the White House.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: The demolition of the East Wing of the White House, week four of the government shutdown, and President Trump's $230 million request from his own Justice Department.
Here's a look behind the scenes at our week in Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TRUMP: Did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you're paying yourself in damages?
ON SCREEN TEXT: Monday, October 20.
COLLINS: Construction is now underway at the White House for President Trump's ballroom. He announced a few months ago that he was planning to build one at the White House. This is being funded by private donations, not by taxpayer money. It's expected to cost some $200 million to $250 million.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Tuesday, October 21.
COLLINS: When was the last time you spoke with Senator Schumer?
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): I talk to Chuck on a somewhat regular basis.
And if he's got something else to offer up, we're prepared to have that conversation. But open up the government first.
COLLINS: Hold on. Hold on. Let the cameras go first. The New York Times is reporting that your legal team is seeking $230 million from your own Justice Department.
TRUMP: I don't even talk to them about it. All I know is that they would owe me a lot of money.
And it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself. But I was damaged very greatly. And any money that I would get, I would give to charity.
COLLINS: Now, the President said he would donate any kind of settlement that he got from his own Justice Department to charity. But it's worth noting, as The New York Times reports, that would presumably be taxpayer money.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Wednesday, October 22.
COLLINS: Secretary, Warren sent you a letter asking about the Argentina bailout, why this is happening during the government shutdown. You said it's justified as an essential purpose. Can you explain your thinking on that?
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: Well, here we are today. I'm at work. The government is shut down.
The Argentinian government is open and they are running. So, we were able to negotiate with them.
TRUMP: In order to do it properly, we had to take down the existing structure.
The way it was shown, it looked like we were touching the White House. We don't touch the White House.
I've shown this to everybody that would listen.
COLLINS: If the government reopened tonight, would Republicans have a plan to address the Obamacare subsidies?
JOHNSON: Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, we do. We have--
COLLINS: You would have a plan tonight?
[21:55:00]
JOHNSON: Yes, we could have that ready immediately.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Thursday, October 23.
COLLINS: Today, you pardoned the founder of Binance.
He has involvement in your own family's crypto business.
TRUMP: The recent one? Yes, the -- are you talking about the crypto person?
COLLINS: Yes.
TRUMP: I don't believe I have ever met him. But I've been told that what he did is not even a crime. That he was persecuted by the Biden administration.
COLLINS: The reason the pardon matters is it means that they can now allow Binance to operate in the United States again, potentially benefiting a company that has ties to the President's family's crypto firm, which is World Liberty Financial.
The Wall Street Journal estimated that WLF has added more than $5 billion in paper wealth, to the Trump family fortune, surpassing actually the President's real estate assets.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COLLINS: We'll be right back, after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: This Sunday, CNN is going to go inside a story that we followed all week here on THE SOURCE. That stunning heist at the Louvre in Paris. Don't miss "The Heist: The Louvre's Stolen Crown Jewels," this Sunday. It's going to air 08:00 p.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
