Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump: "I'll Never Apologize" For War Driving Up Gas Prices; Mangione Pleads Guilty In Federal Case, Wants State Charges Dismissed; Trump Asks Supreme Court To Let Him Keep Building Ballroom. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired August 14, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Apparently, he told those investigators that he got the gun that night, they got in the car, they were looking for Tupac, they heard two women on the side of the street yelling, Tupac, Tupac. They pulled a U-turn, followed the car. Keffe D says he gave the gun into the back seat, and he says it was his nephew who actually pulled the trigger.
So, we've got 12 jurors, four alternates, 10 women, four men. Kicks off Monday.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Yes.
WATT: Anderson.
COOPER: Nick Watt, thanks very much.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: No apologies. President Trump shrugging off the higher gas prices sparked by his war with Iran.
I'm Boris Sanchez in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, we start with President Trump refusing to apologize for how the war with Iran has driven up gas prices.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So, for you to pay a tiny, little bit more for your gasoline. Just remember, you're doing it so that a very evil country cannot have -- a country, really, it's the number one state sponsor of terror in the world, we don't want to have them have a nuclear weapon. So remember that when you have to pay a little bit more. You're at $4. It's OK. I mean, it's -- I'm not -- I'm not -- I'll never apologize.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: President Trump there, talking about nuclear weapons, comes just a day after the Vice President said that keeping gas prices down was goal number one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Down today, and it's way down from the highs in the early days of the conflict. That's goal number one: keep oil and gas cheap for Americans all over our country.
WILL CAIN, FOX NEWS HOST: Right.
VANCE: And then, obviously, goal number two is ensure that Iran never gets a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: In between, the White House press secretary told reporters that the two goals are equally important, irrespective of their order.
The national average for a gallon of regular unleaded tonight is $4.07. The day the war began, it was $2.98. The latest CNN poll finds that 74 percent of Americans say the war has not been worth the cost.
Meantime, earlier today, the President brushed aside concerns being raised about how long some U.S. service members have been deployed and the conditions under which they're living, specifically those on board the USS Lincoln.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: The family members of U.S. service members are concerned about the c conditions on board the USS Lincoln.
TRUMP: Well, no, that ship is moving. No, they're not. That ship is moving right now, or very shortly, and it's being replaced with another very similar ship.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: The father of a sailor serving on the Lincoln told CNN that while his service member has reported positive conditions on board, there is significant mental stress associated with the long deployment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I want them to come home, and I -- all of us, as parents, have some questions about the length of time that it's taken and the distribution of military assets. Obviously, I -- humbly, I cannot speak to that because that I don't know anything about it. But we would love to see a situation where relief can come in a timely fashion.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: It's important to remember, sailors on board that carrier have not stepped foot on dry land this year, and yet this was the President's take.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Has the deployments gone on too long? Are you worried about the mental health concerns?
TRUMP: No. No, no. Not nearly long enough. Thank you everybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: My lead sources tonight include a pair of White House correspondents. From The New York Times, Zolan Kanno-Youngs, who is also a CNN Political Analyst. And Semafor's Shelby Talcott.
We're also joined by Marc Short, a former chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence.
Marc, let's start with you. This is not the first time that the President and Vice President have sent conflicting messages during this war. Why is it so hard for the administration to get on the same page when it comes to messaging?
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: Well, look, it's hard, I think that the media always honestly, Boris, wants to sow division, whether -- not just in this administration, but any division between the President and Vice President. But that's why it's all the more important to make sure you're on the same page, so you don't allow that to become a storyline.
I'm not so sure in this case it is big. I think the President has said we need to deter them from nuclear weapons. He's also talked about the importance of energy prices. And so, I'm not so sure this is much. But I think it is clear from the beginning of this conflict that Vice President Vance has made it known that he was opposed to it, and he's allowed that word to get out, and that does create, I think, a conflict and tension.
SANCHEZ: It's interesting, Shelby, that the President now says that Americans shouldn't be worried about paying a little bit extra, as he put it, at the pump, in exchange for Iran to not have a nuclear weapon.
Because earlier this year, he said that he wasn't considering Americans' financial situation in his negotiations with Tehran. Let's listen to that sound bite.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters, when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: He says that, and yet he also says he doesn't want to be Herbert Hoover and drive the world economy into a depression. So, what are your sources telling you about what his calculus is here? SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: I mean, he's very focused on the Iran war. And I think when you hear him make those comments, it comes from a position of feeling like he needs to defend his decision to get involved with Iran.
Whereas, when you hear the Vice President make his comments. There are people inside the administration who have been telling the President for months that they need to focus more on the economy. They need to sort of drive home their message of what they have done to help Americans.
And so, I think you're seeing that message get out through the Vice President, whereas the President is still largely concerned with defending his decision to get the country into what has become a longer conflict than I think he originally anticipated.
SANCHEZ: Defending that decision, Zolan, while also trying to define goals and shifting goals at that. Because we went from a four- to six- week conflict to now a five-month conflict. And initially finding some comprehensive deal on nuclear weapons to simply reopening the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war started.
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes.
SANCHEZ: Today, the President actually said that soon he would declare it a territory of the U.S. Let's play that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: And after we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Pretty soon, I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: Essentially, that's what it is. We have the blockade. No ships get through unless we want them to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: I want to get your thoughts, Marc Short. Because he chuckled during that sound bite.
But Zolan, what do you make of these comments?
KANNO-YOUNGS: Well, for one, I have no reporting that suggests that there's actual plans here or like any sort of meetings occurring to actually try to seize the Strait of Hormuz or make it a U.S. territory. This, in a way, reminds me that there are times when the President is facing criticism, backlash, pressure on a specific subject, and then he'll almost sort of toss out an idea to redirect attention.
Early last year, do you remember, when he was facing pressure on his agenda and he tossed out, You know, maybe we just take control of the Gaza Strip as well? We didn't see that come to fruition. There were no plans in place to do that. It was a half-baked idea that was tossed out and it redirected attention.
We know that Iran has used the closure of the Strait of Hormuz as a leverage here, and it's driven up -- it's driven up economic anxiety by driving up energy prices. The White House knows that. The President knows that as well. Here, rhetorically, he's trying to sort of flip the switch on that issue.
TALCOTT: And the President wants to, I think, ultimately get out of this conflict. I don't think that there is any scenario in which he is sort of crafting something, or -- nobody that I have spoken to has indicated to me that there is some sort of broader plan that would keep the U.S. in the region longer than they have to. Because, I think the President's tired of this.
SANCHEZ: There's no doubt that any scenario in which the U.S. takes over the Strait of Hormuz would require boots on the ground.
SHORT: Right.
SANCHEZ: You've seen this process play out firsthand when you served in the first Trump administration, Marc.
SHORT: Well--
SANCHEZ: Where does this come from?
SHORT: Well, look, let's keep in mind, he's speaking at a rally and he plays to his audience there, and so he's looking for a line that'll generate applause or whatnot. I think for the reasons that Shelby and Zolan have already said, he's in part trying to deflect from where this stands, the conflict stands now. But it's also, frankly, a terrible idea. I mean, for the reasons you said, you wouldn't want to put Americans there as targets for terrorists.
But something that Chris Wright has been speaking about is honestly an underwritten story. Is that, there's been so many new ways that energy has found its way out of the Middle East with new pipelines and new routes, and that's a remarkable story. And so, why would you want to actually own the Straits as we find more and more ways to get the energy out of the Middle East outside of the Straits of Hormuz.
SANCHEZ: I also wonder how you feel about the message that the President is putting out there on gas, specifically politically. Because I imagine that you know Democrats right now are splicing that sound bite about--
SHORT: Yes.
SANCHEZ: --It's OK to pay $4-plus for gas--
SHORT: Yes.
SANCHEZ: --for the midterms.
SHORT: Look, it's a hard message, Boris. I think I'm probably one of that 25 percent who believes that Iran has been a nemesis for 47 years and does pose a serious threat.
SANCHEZ: To be frank, the question was--
SHORT: But -- I mean--
SANCHEZ: --Is the war worth the cost so far?
SHORT: I understand -- I understand. And I--
SANCHEZ: You feel like it's been the worth the cost so far?
SHORT: Well, what I think is that -- is that the administration failed to explain it on the front end. They should have gone to the American people and said, Here's what the cost of this will likely be, and here's why we think it's important. Here's the long-term benefits of reducing the risk of energy prices in the Middle East if we're able to diminish Iran. Here's the benefits to long-term peace.
[21:10:00]
But I think they didn't do that. And instead, there's been so many mixed messages of whether this was to deny nuclear weapons, whether this was for regime change, whether this was for energy prices, whether this was to degrade their military capabilities, and I think that makes it more difficult to get your message across.
SANCHEZ: We have a counterpoint from Maria Cardona, who's just able to join us. She's a CNN Political Commentator and Democratic strategist.
Maria, I think you've been listening to the conversation. What's your response to Marc?
MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: If the administration listens to Marc, I think they would be in a much better position.
But the problem is that they could not get their act together from the get-go. And I think the reason that was is because Donald Trump doesn't go into these things with a plan, with a strategy, with a long-term vision of what he wants to accomplish and why.
He goes by the seat of his pants. He woke up one morning and said, I want to have regime change. Then he wakes up the next morning and say, No, I want Iran to not have a nuclear weapon. He wakes up the next morning and he says, No, you know what? I want to control the Straits of Hormuz. But regardless of what that reason is in that moment in time, he has been completely unable to explain to the American people, just like Marc said, what he should have done from the very beginning.
But the problem is, is I don't think that plan ever existed because the administration itself, from Marco Rubio, to Pete Hegseth, to Donald Trump himself, they never ever spoke from the same hymnal.
And so, the American people have absolutely no idea why we did this. It's not a war that anyone wanted, or that the American people feel anyone needed. And now, the only thing that they see is their prices are skyrocketing; that they're spending billions and billions of dollars on this war, while they cannot make ends meet, while the administration is ripping healthcare coverage from them and their families, while it is literally taking food out of the mouths of hungry children, and telling the American people, We can't afford to give you healthcare, we can't afford to give children who needed school lunches because, we have to fight this war in Iran.
It's not landing with the American people, and that's why the President has approval ratings in the toilet, and that's why Republicans are in such trouble going into the midterm elections.
SANCHEZ: Shelby, I want to ask you about the situation with the USS Lincoln and the administration's response.
Having covered the first Trump administration myself, I found it telling that the President was asked two questions while boarding Air Force One. Usually, he spends a long time out there answering questions. As soon as he was asked about the Lincoln, two questions, he walked right on the plane.
I think it's fair to say the administration sees this as a liability, and that's why you've seen some of the statements even put out by the acting Secretary of the Navy, Hung Cao.
TALCOTT: Yes, the administration is well aware of this scenario and how it is playing out on TV, and I think this is a prime example of something that the President doesn't like because it doesn't look good, right? I remember some of the images from the immigration drama. He doesn't like that stuff. He doesn't like when he turns on cable TV and sees sort of this chaos or negative news headlines.
But at the same time, having covered this administration and the President for several years now, I think it's the same thing as we were talking about earlier. He sees these kinds of questions as a broader criticism of the Iran conflict and his decision to move forward with it.
SANCHEZ: I wonder what you're hearing from--
KANNO-YOUNGS: Yes, and remember, like, this is connected to the Iran conflict. One of the reasons -- I mean, you have basically a logistics base in Bahrain that was hit in Iran's retaliation for this, that provided supplies to many of the sailors on ships like this as well, right? So, there is a core issue there. As far as the communication and sort of even that back and forth. It's one thing for the administration to sort of dismiss criticism from advocates, you know, questions from the media even. But just politically, the impact, also. There are on-record complaints from parents of service members, right? That's not as easy just to dismiss as a sort of bad news story here. But you are seeing that happen.
It's part of an overall sort of theme that we've seen from President Trump, when it comes to the Iran conflict, of trying to minimize the costs of this conflict, whether that be the economic costs, or that be the concerns of families of service members in this case.
TALCOTT: Or the munitions.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Or the munitions. Yes.
SANCHEZ: Zolan. Shelby. Marc. Maria. Thank you all for joining us.
SHORT: Thanks, Boris. Yes.
SANCHEZ: Appreciate the Friday night conversation.
Up next. Luigi Mangione pleading guilty. What he said in court today about killing an insurance executive, and what comes next for his state case.
And a new test for the Supreme Court. What President Trump is asking the justices to let him do after lower courts repeatedly told him, No. It involves a lot of gold.
Stay with us.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Tonight, a guilty plea in the federal case against Luigi Mangione, setting the stage for a larger legal battle to come.
Mangione stood before a federal judge today and admitted to shooting the UnitedHealthcare CEO, Brian Thompson, outside a New York City hotel in 2024. He stated matter-of-factly, I shot Mr. Thompson and he died. I knew what I was doing was illegal.
Mangione then pleaded guilty to federal stalking charges, apparently in an attempt to get his state murder charges dismissed on double jeopardy grounds.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, LUIGI MANGIONE'S DEFENSE ATTORNEY: New York law does not permit a person to be prosecuted and punished twice for the exact same crime.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
SANCHEZ: Mangione, of course, spoke in front of the Thompson's emotional family today. The story he told of enduring years of pain after a broken back is part of why he's drawn a controversial wave of public sympathy among some followers, as his story became a focal point for anti-corporate frustration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO: As Luigi explained in court today, he endured years of severe, debilitating pain following a broken back, while struggling to navigate our healthcare and health insurance systems.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: Ever since Mangione's arrest, this case has become a vehicle for people to make a point about healthcare, corporate power, politics, and more.
But today, prosecutors pushed back on that idea, saying this case is about one thing: the law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMIE MCDONALD, U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: We live in a civilized society, governed by the rule of law. We debate, we disagree, we protest. We do not commit murder. No grievance, political belief, or ideological cause can ever justify murder. There can be no celebrity in assassination.
JESSICA TISCH, COMMISSIONER, NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPT.: And to those who idolize Luigi Mangione, I say this: violence is not a cause. Murder is not a message. And a killer is certainly not a hero.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SANCHEZ: CNN's Kara Scannell was in the courtroom today.
Kara, what was that like being there, as Mangione came face to face with Brian Thompson's family.
KARA SCANNELL, CNN REPORTER: Well, Boris, it was a somber moment because Brian Thompson's family has not made any public appearances since his murder in December 2024. This was the first time they showed up to any of the court proceedings in either the federal or the state case. And they were sitting in the front row, aligned together, as Luigi Mangione went through, as you've noted, his decision that ultimately led him to come to New York to shoot and murder Brian Thompson.
Mangione said that he did it, you know, as he explained because, of his severe back pain, and that was suggested to be a motive here. But he said he knew what he did was illegal. He did not say he knew what he did was wrong, and he did not express any remorse when he made his statement. He was calm. He was even-keeled, and he spoke very matter- of-factly. And when Mangione had made those comments about shooting Brian Thompson and saying he was -- he died. I saw emotion coming out from that row of family members. His widow was wiping tears from her eyes, clutching the arm of the woman next to her.
The people in that row, friends and family members, were just exchanging glances and holding on to each other, kind of in this weighty moment, where the reality of -- obviously, they've been living with what has happened, but the reality that now Mangione was pleading guilty and accepting responsibility for this was really a moment that was pretty poignant, Boris.
SANCHEZ: Kara Scannell, thank you so much for that.
And my legal sources are here now.
Retired New York State Supreme Court Justice, Jill Konviser.
And veteran criminal defense attorney, Joey Jackson.
Thank you both for sharing this evening with us.
Joey, what is the defensive strategy behind Mangione's switch to a guilty plea? He could still get life in prison for the federal stalking charges.
JOEY JACKSON, CNN LEGAL ANALYST, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Yes, he really could, and I think that that's a significant issue. And I know the strategy was, at least going into the trial in September, to void out the state trial, and by doing that, you actually plead guilty federally.
Because we know that there's the provision in the law, with respect to double jeopardy, that in the event that he pleads guilty to the federal offense, Boris, and it arises from the same transaction and occurrence, the same evil is attempting to be thwarted by the law, that is murder, I think they have a good basis for knocking out the state charge.
But quite frankly, I think he's got a bigger crisis in front of him, and that crisis relates to him taking an open plea. What does that mean? It means that ultimately the judge will make the determination. Jill can tell you, based upon her distinguished judicial career, the factors that the judge will consider when they do that. But the reality is, is that it will mean nothing in the event that that state case is thwarted and thrown out, and he goes into sentencing in December and he gets life. And so, I think that's the most immediate concern.
But I think they felt at this point he would throw himself on the sword, so to speak, make the pitch, make the play to thwart the state case, plead federally, get both of them out from under him, and then see what his chances are and the judge sentencing him to what I think will be likely a 30-year sentence. But it could, again, be life.
SANCHEZ: Judge, do you think the state case should still go to trial in September? Does this potentially trigger double jeopardy protections?
JILL KONVISER, RETIRED NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: I don't think it's a simple question. I think double jeopardy is extraordinarily complicated. It's a complicated legal premise.
[21:25:00]
I think that what Karen Friedman Agnifilo said, the defense lawyer for Mr. Mangione, at the beginning of your show, that the double jeopardy clause precludes people from being charged twice for the exact same crime is correct. But the question here isn't that. The question here is whether this is the exact crime.
So, a person can certainly be charged in state court and federal court, based on actions arising from the same criminal transaction, as long as the crimes that are charged in the two jurisdictions have different elements. And as Joey said, the statutes were drafted to protect different evils. In that sense, the D.A. does have an argument. It is not a ground ball. People think, Double jeopardy, that's it, one time. That's not the way it is.
So, the federal -- the federal court -- the federal plea is to a stalking charge where there is no intent to kill. The federal -- the state murder charge requires an intent to kill. Those are different elements. They are different statutes.
And in terms of the evil, well, the federal statute is trying to stop the evil of the crime of stalking. It's an anti-stalking statute. The evil in state court is that we don't want people killing people. That's the argument the D.A. will make before Judge Carro after the motion that was filed by the defense today. Whether it goes the defense way or the prosecution way, will be up to Judge Carro, whom I have great confidence in.
But I don't think it's a ground ball. I don't think this is simple. I also agree with Joey Jackson that the amount of time he's facing on this open plea is problematic. Although a life term, just so we're clear, is outside the sentencing guidelines. So, if there is remorse, he's facing between 24 and 30 without mitigation. So, we will see. This is a very interesting case, and there are a lot of open legal questions.
SANCHEZ: Joey, on that thought about remorse, this was really the first time that we've heard Mangione describe the actions he took before the killing, and he said, quote, I emailed UnitedHealthcare leadership, posing as an investor at a firm managing over $50 billion in assets and requesting information about the conference -- This is the conference that Brian Thompson was attending -- Unlike my previous interactions with insurers, I received an immediate response within an hour.
What does him sharing those details and simply stating flatly, I knew what I did was illegal, tell you? Is that enough contrition for leniency from a judge?
JACKSON: Listen, I think it'll be up to the judge, and Jill's done this plenty of times, with regard to sentencing someone.
But when you look at the federal court. There are these sentencing guidelines. Now, guidelines are merely advisory; they don't direct the court what to do, but they provide guidance because you want some uniformity with respect to sentencing. But I mention that, Boris because, under the guidelines, if you accept responsibility, it's what's called a mitigating factor, meaning there's this point system, and it gives you a reduction of points, and therefore it gives you the 25 to 30 years.
But let's make it clear: even though he accepts responsibility, the federal government is going to be making plenty of arguments that we call aggravated factors: the aggravated factor of premeditation, the aggravated factor with regard to him knowing specifically what he was doing, lying in wait and doing it, the preparation, the planning, the -- everything they'll line up to say, Hey, go outside of the guidelines, Judge, and in going outside of it, keep him in jail for life.
And so, I think you're going to see a firefight, as it relates to prosecutors saying, Keep him in, go above the guideline range. Let's have respect for punishment, let's have respect for deterrence, so that there's not copycats. And by the way, Judge, prosecutors will say, He's irredeemable.
And then you'll have, of course, his defense say otherwise--
SANCHEZ: Yes.
JACKSON: --pointing to his background, his back, and everything else. And then it'll be up to a judge.
But final point, and that's this: I do agree with Jill with respect to the complexities with regard to, Hey OK, the state case is going to go away. But I will reiterate and close here, it will mean nothing if the state case goes away and he gets a sentence that is, of course, life. That would be a significant problem.
SANCHEZ: Judge, how big a factor is that that allocution, that acknowledgement of guilt, by Mangione in this case, but generally, when you're considering sentencing, how important is that moment? How do you weigh those factors when determining a sentence to give someone who's been convicted of a crime?
KONVISER: Well, Boris, that's a good question and a very hard one to answer. I will tell you, as I have told other people that sentencing is the hardest thing for a judge. It is the moment in time where mercy can certainly play a role. You're not following a mandate or necessarily a guideline or a rule of law, but it has to do with all the factors in front of you.
[21:30:00]
But Joey is right, when he says mitigation and aggravating factors are going to be discussed. But what's interesting about this case is that mitigation was already discussed. That was the basis of why the defense moved to ensure that they didn't end up with the death penalty. They created a whole mitigation package. So, Judge Garnett in federal court is well aware of what the mitigation is. So, I don't know there's going to be all that much more.
But when a defendant is before me and they are contrite, they've taken responsibility not just by saying it, but by sometimes showing it and truly expressing it? That does affect someone who is sentencing them. It certainly affects me. I expect it would affect Judge Garnett. The fact that he seems to be blaming a back injury might not, at the end of the day, be particularly persuasive.
SANCHEZ: Judge Jill Konviser. Joey Jackson. Appreciate the expertise. Thanks so much for joining us.
JACKSON: Thank you, Boris.
SANCHEZ: Of course.
KONVISER: Thank you, Boris.
SANCHEZ: Up next. President Trump now taking his goal of building a White House ballroom all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing the multi-million dollar project is necessary for his safety. My legal source joins me next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Tonight, President Trump is taking the fight over his White House ballroom all the way to the Supreme Court. The administration filed an emergency request today, asking the justices to step in and greenlight Trump's $400 million project, after lower courts repeatedly ruled that he needs approval from Congress before moving forward.
In the filing, the Solicitor General said the ballroom is already 65 percent done, arguing, quote, "Halting the Project will stall this vital construction, making this President -- the subject of recurrent assassination attempts -- much less safe, and risking future Presidents' safety."
The filing also included new renderings of the ballroom that show some stylistic changes, like the addition of two large gold presidential seals on the exterior, Corinthian columns adorned with lions' heads and leaves, and a proposed drone port on the top of the new East Wing.
My legal source on this tonight is former federal prosecutor, Shan Wu.
Shan, great to see you as always.
This is the first time any of Trump's renovation projects have landed before the Supreme Court. Do you think they're going to take this case up?
SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, what they're considering is whether to stay it, basically reversing the lower court's stay of it. Because this court, the supermajority of conservatives, leans so much towards deference to executive authority, I think there's a chance they will stay the injunction. They really shouldn't. They should let the course of the legal process take its course and let this filter up the way it's supposed to filter up. But this is, again, one of these emergency appeals--
SANCHEZ: Right.
WU: --which there have been dozens of them.
SANCHEZ: Trump is arguing that it's too late to stop construction with 65 percent of the project done, and that this is about ensuring the President's safety, given that there's this military installation several stories beneath the ground. How do you think that might sway justices if they wind up making a decision?
WU: Well, it's a very clever move by the Trump administration because, as we know, the Supreme Court talks about the sort of core powers of the presidency, and obviously national security, commander-in-chief, safety, very important. They've really sort of shifted the ground here. No pun intended.
SANCHEZ: Two.
WU: But originally, they're saying big ballroom construction here, and of course they went at it so fast, no one could do anything. I mean, people filed oppositions almost the next day to it. And now that they started so fast, they can say, Oh, it's too late. We've already done so much.
By shifting it away from the idea of changing the way the People's House looks, which Congress should be authorizing, to national security, it's very clever to argue that. I think it'll be much more appealing to the justices.
SANCHEZ: Does the Supreme Court set a precedent, if they let construction move forward, for future administrations to take any kind of steps, whether with construction or with something else, and then say, Well, the cat's out of the bag. It's kind of too late. You can't really stop it. Like, we can't talk about the legalities now because the concrete's already poured.
WU: I think it doesn't set a legal precedent in that sense.
SANCHEZ: Sure.
WU: But practically, the way this court has considered so many emergency appeals on a shadow docket, it does set a precedent for how future administrations are going to behave.
SANCHEZ: Shan Wu, thank you so much for joining us. Appreciate it.
WU: Thank you.
SANCHEZ: My Democratic source tonight is Congressman Greg Casar of Texas, who serves on the House Oversight Committee. Congressman, thank you so much for staying up late with us tonight.
What is your reaction to the President's appeal on this to the Supreme Court?
REP. GREG CASAR (D-TX): Donald Trump is committed to corruption, no matter the cost. He took these enormous, essentially bribes, from corporate America to build his ballroom. He didn't finish having the budget for it, so now he's trying to ask taxpayers for the rest. All when he promised to drain the swamp and bring down prices. Instead, his ballroom project here is an example of how Trump lied, of Trump's corruption, and basically how he will take your money, take corporations' money, all at the country's expense here.
SANCHEZ: The Solicitor General argues that this is a national security need for a president who, as you've seen, has been the target now of multiple assassination attempts. You don't buy that argument?
[21:40:00]
CASAR: I mean, Boris, if he wanted to make sure he took care of elected officials and himself and the national security of the country, he would be investing this money in our national security.
But instead, think about this: Donald Trump has dragged us into endless war with Iran, when he said that he wasn't going to be starting more wars. Donald Trump has depleted, as y'all at CNN just reported, 80 percent of key interceptor missiles in this needless war. Donald Trump has put our troops at risk on this endless deployment of the USS Lincoln.
And so, I mean, I'm sorry, I don't buy it that he's out there trying to protect our national security. And he's certainly not trying to protect the lives of elected officials, while he's out there pardoning January 6ers who tried to kill elected officials, both Democratic and Republican.
SANCHEZ: I do want to ask you about the ongoing conflict with Iran. You serve on the House Oversight Subcommittee on Military and Foreign Affairs.
The President said today that he plans to declare the Strait of Hormuz, a U.S. territory, saying, that would happen pretty soon after we finish defeating Iran. What do you make of those comments? We had a Republican on earlier, who was suggesting that he was at a rally, just trying to get an applause line. Do you think it's actually something he intends on trying?
CASAR: I mean, every Republican congressman tries -- when they're asked about something Donald Trump says, they said, Oh, it was just a rally, or Oh, he didn't really mean it.
This guy is President of the United States, and he's out here saying, We will win the war in Iran here in the next few days and take over the Strait of Hormuz. He said, first of all, that we're going to stay out of wars. Then he got us in this war. Then Trump said it was going to be just a few days long. Here we are, six months later, and Trump and Pete Hegseth are saying they could occupy the Strait, quote- unquote, Indefinitely, a forever war.
I mean, Donald Trump lies at every chance he gets, and we know that about Trump. He's been doing that since he was screwing us on ugly hotels and bad golf courses. But what's really disappointing is folks like Republican Congresspeople not standing up to him, even if they're in tough districts.
Guys like Gabe Evans in Colorado, or Mike Lawler in New York, or David Valadao in California, and these very close districts, keep on apologizing for this endless war, keep saying, Donald Trump said something other than what he said, and they're just too scared to stand up to him and say what's clear: We need to end this war, bring down these ridiculous gas prices, and bring our service members home.
SANCHEZ: President Trump also dismissed claims that families of service members aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln are concerned about a growing mental health crisis on board--
CASAR: I mean, Boris, how does he do that? The families have spoken.
SANCHEZ: Well, they are--
CASAR: It's happening.
SANCHEZ: They are very concerned about conditions aboard the aircraft carrier. Despite reports that there have been several attempts by crew members to jump overboard, the President says that that's simply not the case.
Generally, I wonder how you and other lawmakers are working to get answers about what is really happening.
CASAR: I serve on the House Oversight Committee, where we're supposed to look for the truth, and the President can't invent a new truth. He can't say that families aren't concerned. I have literally parents of service members on that ship reaching out to me, have been reaching out for months, and Donald Trump says those parents don't exist?
And then, now that we point out this is the longest, a record-breaking deployment for the USS Lincoln. Donald Trump goes out there and says, It should be out there longer? And we're not just getting reports of. We know that our service members are risking taking their own lives because of conditions on this ship.
So, on the Oversight Committee, we are asking hard questions. We're launching an investigation. I'm glad that there are senators who are talking about going to the ship, and I hope that we get those service members home ASAP.
But even once we bring the ship back, there has to be accountability. So, if Democrats retake the House, which I believe we will, we can't just forget about this. We can't forget about this disrespect and danger to our own service members. We need to hold folks accountable for what's happened on the USS Lincoln. SANCHEZ: Congressman Greg Casar, we have to leave the conversation there. Always appreciate hearing your perspective. Thanks for joining us.
CASAR: Thank you, Boris.
SANCHEZ: Of course.
Up next. From the major win for establishment Democrats to a surprise departure at the White House, Kaitlan takes us behind the scenes in Washington this week.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: An Air Force One switcheroo. And the President's most vocal defender making a surprise departure. Here's a look at what Kaitlan saw behind the scenes this week in Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: How are we?
ON SCREEN TEXT: Monday, August 10.
TRUMP: Large amounts, like vats, of vaccine, are currently pumped into your child's body.
COLLINS: The President signed an executive order today, in the Oval Office, demanding that states recommend fewer immunizations over a longer period of time.
Do you believe that there's any science behind these recommendations?
[21:50:00]
DR. PAUL OFFIT, MEMBER, FDA VACCINE ADVISORY COMMITTEE: No.
They have this fixed, immutable belief that the Measles- Mumps-Rubella Vaccine causes harm when it doesn't.
You can't be more irresponsible than to cast doubt on a measles- containing vaccine right now.
COLLINS: We're following this breaking news tonight, as The Washington Post reports on a stunning and secret operation to protect President Trump amid an Iranian assassination threat, last month.
While the President boarded Air Force One, he then secretly was shuttled onto a smaller military aircraft using an airport catering truck.
Were you shocked, as you were reporting on this?
DAN LAMOTHE, NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: Candidly, this was a surreal story to cover.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Tuesday, August 11.
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT AND ANCHOR: Kaitlan, what are you hearing right now about what's happening behind the scenes?
COLLINS: Presumably, every time that we have been on Air Force One, the President has also been on the plane, and obviously that was not the case in this dynamic. We've seen lawmakers, including all the way up to Chuck Schumer, demanding briefings in response to that. But it's also raised questions about the methods that were used here.
Thanks, y'all.
TRUMP: It's only up to Secret Service. They wanted me to go on a different flight, a different plane. But I do what they say.
REPORTER: Were you worried about a shoulder-fired missile?
TRUMP: You know my attitude? Whatever.
COLLINS: His response is, Whatever, and he just does what the Secret Service tells him.
But The New York Times is saying that U.S. intelligence knew there was a specific threat of a surface-to-air missile against Air Force One, and someone in the vicinity of the NATO summit had been spotted with a shoulder-fired missile.
What do you make of that, Barbara?
BARBARA STARR, FORMER CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: If it was not safe for the President to be on that flight, how was it safe for the media to be on that flight and to be lied to.
ANN COMPTON, FORMER ABC NEWS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I think it's rather brilliant to have gotten him through the plane and out through a catering truck.
COLLINS: Thank you both for joining us.
COMPTON: See you around the hood.
COLLINS: You are a queen.
COMPTON: Ah.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Wednesday, August 12.
COLLINS: Reporters have traveled with presidents to other dangerous places, including war zones, before. But the difference here is that they knew about it on those trips. For this trip, those who were flying on board that primary plane, Air Force One, they were effectively serving as an unwitting decoy.
Stephen, were you aware the President wasn't on Air Force One on the flight back from Turkey?
Stephen, did you know that you were on the plane that the President was not on?
My lead source tonight is last night's surprise winner, David Crowley, who is now the Democratic nominee for governor of Wisconsin.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
Why do you think you won last night?
DAVID CROWLEY, (D) WISCONSIN GOVERNOR NOMINEE: I think I won last night because we have stark contrast related to what we're going to do and how I'm the best candidate to ultimately defeat Tom Tiffany, this upcoming November.
COLLINS: I mean, I have to ask, where do you stand on Thanksgiving?
CROWLEY: I like Thanksgiving. My favorite dish is dressing.
COLLINS: OK.
What's up, stranger?
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: How are you?
COLLINS: Tonight, a White House departure is set to leave President Trump without one of his most vocal defenders.
Karoline Leavitt will step down from her role as the press secretary at the end of the month.
KINZINGER: I think it takes a toll, having to defend this president all the time.
I think it is going to be a big hit for the Trump administration. I don't know who they replace her with.
COLLINS: Hi. How are you?
GRAM SLATTERY, REUTERS WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good to see you.
COLLINS: When you're boarding Air Force One, did it feel like anything was off at the time?
SLATTERY: We were told to close our window panes. And that was the first time that had ever happened, that immediately caught all of our attention. We thought perhaps, you know, perhaps there's some classified defense technology they're hiding. Obviously, what they were trying to hide was President Trump and some aides going into a catering van.
COLLINS: You rock. Thank you so much. It was great to have you.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Thursday, August 13.
COLLINS: How are we?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Good. How are you?
COLLINS: Perfect.
I think it was five days after the President was taken secretly on that catering truck, at the Turkish airport, he was saying that Iran has no capabilities, it can't do anything, that the United States is in complete control.
ALEX WARD, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER: If the President is so confident that the Iranians can't do anything to the U.S., then why does he have to hide?
COLLINS: Hello, Harry.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: What's going on?
COLLINS: One thing that has stood out to me, as we've been watching these numbers, and who's winning these primaries, is just the turnout period from Democrats.
ENTEN: It's been absolutely bonkers huge.
COLLINS: Harry, safe travels.
ENTEN: Going to try my best.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Clear.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SANCHEZ: Up next. The Source Code. We're giving you a number at the center of a story in the news, and then, can you guess the story? Tonight's Source Code, 25. We'll be right back with the answer.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SANCHEZ: Tonight's Source Code is 25, as in up to 25 inches of rain that could hit parts of Hawaii as the islands brace for a potential hurricane this weekend. What is now Tropical Storm Lala could make landfall as a hurricane on the Big Island tomorrow. Hurricane landfalls in Hawaii are rare. The last one was in 1992.
The storm is already packing 65 mile an hour winds. Lala could also push one to three feet of storm surge water above normally dry ground. Even a small wobble in the track could make a huge difference in where the worst conditions are though. Forecasters say that Lala could bring life-threatening flash floods, mudslides, and dangerous surf as well.
[22:00:00]
Gas stations and grocery stores are already packed as residents are stocking up. Governor Josh Green has declared a statewide emergency, clearing the way for the National Guard and emergency funding, before conditions there deteriorate.
Our best to the folks in Hawaii as Lala is set to bear down on them.
Hey, thank you so much for joining us tonight. "CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts a few seconds early. Appreciate you.
