Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Will There Be Political Fallout For J6 Pardons; Trump Calls For Full Release Of JFK, RFK, MLK Assassination Files. Four Israeli Female Hostages Returned To Israel As Part Of Ceasefire Deal. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired January 25, 2025 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: With me and the show on Instagram, TikTok X and BlueSky. If you missed a conversation or story, check out CNN.com/Victor-Blackwell-First-Of-All to watch anytime and you can listen to our show as a podcast wherever you get your podcast.

Thank you so much for joining me today. I will see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish starts right now.

[09:00:30]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: What a difference eight years makes. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia. Trump 45 took office as an outsider, unfamiliar with how to work the levers of power and surrounded by a team with whom he was largely unfamiliar. Trump 47, he hit the ground running, this time with an agenda and the support of loyalists who he knows well.

The trip to North Carolina and California yesterday to survey catastrophic weather capped a dizzying week that would have fatigued most younger than a 78-year-old commander in Chief. Future presidents will be expected to do likewise or risk being viewed as too passive. On Inauguration Day, presidential historian Tim Naftali noted here on CNN that the previous record for first day executive orders was set by President Biden. It was nine. Trump signed 26 on day one, he rescinded 78.

But apart from the pace of change, very few surprises actually. Think about it. Birthright citizenship, DEI only two genders, a pause on TikTok, a recommendation to end FEMA, withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement and WHO, elimination of the policy encouraging EV development, federal workers forced back to the workplace, border enforcement, a halt to the NIH grant making process, the threat of tariffs, renaming the Gulf of Mexico and Mount McKinley, pursuit of Panama and Greenland, even removal of security for John Bolton, Dr. Fauci and Mike Pompeo. You might not like these initiatives, but he told us he was going to do these things or they were in keeping with his campaign persona. Speed was the only surprise. I don't know how much of it holds up where he's acting by executive action and not with the authority of Congress. I note that a Reagan appointed judge has already stopped enforcement of the attempt to end birthright citizenship. There's plenty of controversy in each of these orders, but only one area where I see potential political peril for President Trump. The pardons. Here are the numbers. Let's do a comparison. Joe Biden in four years 8,064. Donald Trump in less than a week 1740. Barack Obama in eight years 1927.

George W. Bush in eight years 200.

Trump reportedly decided against a case by case review for the J6ers and literally said, effin, I'll take care of them all. That was a mistake. And according to the Wall Street Journal, it represented a change in his thinking, quote, "This is a rotten message from a president about political violence done on his behalf, and it's a bait and Switch. Asked about January 6 pardons in late November, Mr. Trump projected caution, quote, "I'm going to do a case by case, and if they were nonviolent, I think they've been greatly punished," he said." We're going to look at each individual case."

He told Sean Hannity this week that most of the J6ers were absolutely innocent. That's not true. Among those who pushed back against Trump, the very judges most involved in the cases. First, Judge Tanya Chutkan. She oversaw the 2020 election interference case.

She said the dismissal, quote, "cannot whitewash the blood, feces and terror that the mob left in its wake, and it cannot repair the jagged breach in America's sacred tradition of peacefully transitioning power. Then there's Judge Beryl Howell, who was the chief of the D.C. Circuit Court at the time of the riot. She said there was no national injustice here.

Trump also said that the J6ers had served a horribly long time. If the premise was that three and a half years behind bars was enough time, he should have led with that. But trying to claim innocence won't wash with anybody who looked at the videos objectively. And he runs the risk of having this decision dog him during his presidency.

Four reasons. First, it's just wrong on the merits. Second, the data suggests there will be recidivism. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, nearly 2/3 of violent offenders have been rearrested within eight years of their release. When you look at the historical data.

Third, consider the personalities involved. Enrique Tarrio and Stewart Rhodes, they're not going to go quietly into the night. Already each has been all over the media. Here's the Proud Boys leader last night right here on CNN.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ENRIQUE TARRIO, FORMER PROUD BOYS CHAIRMAN: I don't see as what I'd done anything wrong. I was improperly indicted. I see it -- I do see it as a miscarriage of justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP) [09:05:07]

SMERCONISH: And in the case of Rhodes, the Oath Keepers founder, accused of orchestrating the events of January 6, his first stop after prison, it was Capitol Hill. A judge had to issue an order yesterday to bar him from entering Washington, D.C. again.

And finally, the J6ers will feel emboldened, and so too will those who support him. Jacob Ware, a Council on Foreign Relations research fellow said this, "This move is going to make combatting terrorism far more difficult, not just over the next four years as groups feel they have an ally in the White House, but beyond that as well."

No surprise then, that the largest police organization that supported Trump in all three of his elections released a statement saying "Crimes against law enforcement are not just attacks on individuals or public safety. They are attacks on society and they undermine the rule of law. Allowing those convicted of these crimes to be released early diminishes accountability and devalues the sacrifices made by courageous law enforcement officers and their families."

So, was it a week one misstep? Here's today's poll question at smerconish.com. Would Trump's January six pardons have been defensible if limited to participants who did not commit any acts of violence? Go vote at smerconish.com.

And now let's break it all down with David Urban, the GOP strategist and CNN senior political commentator who advised Trump in the campaigns of 2016 and 2020, and Paul Begala, CNN political commentator and former counselor to President Clinton.

Paul, I'm going to start with you. What's your answer to my poll question? If he had limited the pardons to the nonviolent, would it be defensible?

PAUL BEGALA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, he'd be more defensible, but let's face it, he is right now targeting nonviolent and violent criminal immigrants. The Laken Riley Act, which many Democrats voted for, was a good bill. It said, if you're here undocumented and you commit even a nonviolent crime, like burglary, like robbery, like theft, we're going to deport you. Democrats came and supported that. So why is Mr. Trump so tough on criminal immigrants and soft on criminal insurrectionists?

These people, this is a violent, I have to tell you, it was a horribly violent riot. They brought guns. They brought stun guns. They brought pepper spray, bear spray, and they attacked cops. You know, Michael Fanone of the Washington Metropolitan Police Department, they Tased him in the neck with a Taser, his own Taser, until his heart stopped.

These are Animals. These are violent animals, and Trump let them walk the streets, none of us are safe. And he ought to be held to account for it. I'm glad you're holding to account.

SMERCONISH: David, I'm giving him --

BEGALA: You're laughing at that, Urban? Come on.

SMERCONISH: -- props for effectiveness, for effectiveness this week, but you'd agree --

DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

SMERCONISH: -- he's going to rue the day that he cut slack to the violent J6ers.

URBAN: Yes. You know, Mike, you and I spoke about this already, I think actually on the Inauguration Day. I think if you put your hands on a police officer, right, you should go to jail. You should serve a jail term.

Your earlier piece, about three and a half years, I'm not quite sure what the time -- you know, how many people who assault a police officer, what time in jail you get. Is it two years? Is it three and a half years, five years? I think it is, you know, pretty red line. If you strike a police officer, if you touch a police officer, you go to jail. Republican, Democrat, White, Black, we cannot tolerate violence against police officers in any quarter.

SMERCONISH: OK, we have agreement --

URBAN: Now with Paul --

SMERCONISH: -- among the three of us.

URBAN: No, no. But -- yes, but real quickly.

SMERCONISH: Go ahead, David, finish your thought.

URBAN: Yes, but real quickly, I don't believe that everybody there that day, the 1,500 or 1,600 people charged were all -- you know, you can't paint them all with the same brush. There were some people that were incredibly violent --

SMERCONISH: I'm doing that.

URBAN: -- and struck police officers. Yes, no, exactly. And so, but Paul was. So I just want to make sure we make a distinction that there were some people there who I think were overly charged who were, you know, kind of the justice system did not play them fairly. And so I think that the pardons for those individuals are well deserved.

However, I think these other folks who hit police officers who were violent, listen, Pam Bondi and J.D. Vance both said the same thing, we're going to pardon the people --

SMERCONISH: Agreed.

URBAN: -- who should be pardoned --

SMERCONISH: Yes.

URBAN: -- and the people who struck police officers going to stay in jail. It's a pretty easy distinction.

SMERCONISH: Let me keep moving because I got a lot to cover with the two of you. Paul Begala, Ruth Marcus, no fan of the president, noted that he was ruthlessly effective this week. How are Democrats going to stop the momentum that Trump 47 has?

BEGALA: Well, by pointing out that he has one job, cut the cost of living. That's why he became president, despite the multiple felony convictions that he himself had. Maybe that's why he pardoned all those people, because felons like felons. He's got one job. He got to cut the cost of groceries, gas and rent.

[09:10:10]

And that should be the Democrat's mantra, groceries, gas, rent. So if you're making, like I'm about to, breakfast tacos for your kids this morning, OK, that bacon is 691 a pound. The eggs are 414 a carton. The milk is 410 a carton. The gas to get to the grocery store is 295 a gallon.

I logged all that down on Inauguration Day because that's the standard Democrats have to hold them to. My party -- Trump's genius is that he throws a lot of stuff at the wall, apparently his hamburgers and ketchup even. But we chase everything, we Democrats. We shouldn't be the donkey, we should be the largemouth bass. We chase every lure and then we're always surprised there's a hook in it rather than chase every nutty, bizarre Trump thing like the gulf of Trumpistan.

OK, fine, keep the main thing the main thing Democrats. Democrats exist to support the middle class. Trump got the votes of the middle class and he is already betraying them. Did you see any working men and women in the rotunda there in that room full of billionaires? Did you see any of the steelworkers in Michigan, hard working men and women who gave him that state or farmers in Wisconsin or steel workers in urban's home state in yours in Pennsylvania?

No. He -- so I think Democrats should talk about the betrayal of the middle class because Trump will not keep his most important promise. Cut the cost of groceries, gas and rent.

SMERCONISH: David, respond to that and talk about Trump 2.0 in comparison to the Trump of eight years ago. As I noted at the outset, this guy, this version hit the ground running unlike what happened before. Your turn.

URBAN: Yes, so Paul's correct, partially right. Trump was elected to fix two things, the woke and the broke, right? So people were tired of woke and they're tired of being broke. So what he's attacked initially is the woke, cutting out the DEI, no boys and girls, locker rooms, all the things, all the social issues which pushed all those Democrats, those former Democrats to become Republicans. They were fed up with it.

They know the difference. They know what's going on in America. They're tired of the wokeness, OK? So that's what he's addressing first. He will now attack the broke part, fixing the economy moving forward, unleashing American energy and the like.

And, Michael, to your point, the velocity, the velocity which this administration is traveling down this path is incredible. I mean, the amount of things that have been accomplished in these past few days is just overwhelming. And I'm not quite sure that any human being, let alone this president, can keep up with this pace. But that's what's needed because we have so much to fix in America. We have -- you know, the president's promise no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime, fixing the salt issue, right?

So just on the tax front, right? We've got a lot to do. Seal the border. I mean, there are so many things to do. We've been talking about this.

The Congress is trying to debate whether they do one bill, two reconciliation bills, try to get things done. There's so much the American public wants to see, they want to see accomplished --

SMERCONISH: I have to say --

URBAN: -- that he has to keep going.

SMERCONISH: I have to say, David, and this goes to Paul now, and he'll agree with me. There's just no olive branch. There's just no overture to the half the country that didn't support him.

Let me say this, I really liked seeing him in North Carolina. I liked even more seeing him in California and Governor Newsom being there to welcome him given their history. And just when I find myself, you know, cheering Trump's unity message in California and North Carolina, he can't help it. And he's got to throw in that he won North Carolina. And he's then in California got to throw in that he has a lot of support and he sees everything through the lens of, were you for me or were you against me, Paul?

I would have hoped -- obviously, you agree with this. I just would have hoped that he'd, you know, take the win and recognize you represent everybody now.

BEGALA: Well, here's -- let me put it in historical context, OK? I work for Bill Clinton. He only got 43 percent of the popular vote, but he became president. On Election Day he was at 43. You know where he was on inaugural day, 57.

He spent that transition reaching out to the center and to the right. George W. Bush, he came in with Bush v. Gore. People like me were having a fit. We were so upset. He got -- I looked it up, he got 48 percent of the popular vote.

By Inauguration Day it was at 57. He had gained nine points by the bipartisan outreach that he had in his transition his early days. Obama got 53. That's the best any Democrats done since LBJ. You know where he was on inaugural day? Sixty-seven.

Now Mr. Trump got 49 points. He got to be respective --

SMERCONISH: David Urban, you get the final --

BEGALA: -- he went from 49.8 down to 47. So he's already losing altitude. Democrats, don't be scared of this guy. He's already losing altitude.

SMERCONISH: David --

URBAN: Oh, yes.

SMERCONISH: -- can you whisper in his ear -- can you whisper in his ear --

URBAN: Yes, listen, so, Paul --

SMERCONISH: -- tell him he won?

URBAN: Yes, listen, so Michael, here's my take on this, right? So when Trump was inaugurated in 2017, the Washington Post ran an article that day when he was getting sworn in about impeaching Donald Trump. For the next two years we had Russiagate. The guy didn't get to rest because of a fake, made up BS story, it was investigated.

[09:15:10]

You had all these things. Now, Paul, you could do your violin. So -- and then you had four years --

BEGALA: Oh, yes, you'd feel sorry for him.

URBAN: -- of law fair against the guy.

BEGALA: I (inaudible) too.

URBAN: No, Paul, listen --

BEGALA: He's a pathetic figure.

URBAN: Listen, I'm just telling you the man has some right that have be a little POed, right, and say take a victory lap. And were you for me or were you against me? Because so many people have been against him for the past eight years. He looks around he looks to his friends, he remembers his friends and he wants to punish his enemies.

SMERCONISH: No, David, David, I'm fine with that.

URBAN: It's politics.

SMERCONISH: I'm fine with that.

URBAN: Yes, it's politics.

SMERCONISH: When he's seeking political -- but wait, when he's seeking political retribution, I get it. I'm a big boy. But when we're talking about like aid, it shouldn't matter whether this is a blue state or this is a red state. That's -- just saying.

URBAN: No.

SMERCONISH: I appreciate both of you.

URBAN: Yes, but, Michael --

SMERCONISH: You know that.

URBAN: -- but I don't think he was. He went to California. He stood there with Gavin Newsom. He was meeting people. He went out to the state.

He offered an olive branch. He said, listen, you should be able to have --

SMERCONISH: I know. But what should not --

URBAN: -- you should be cleaning up your house --

SMERCONISH: All right.

URBAN: -- sat down at a roundtable caring (inaudible).

SMERCONISH: What's it got to do with voter ID? By the way, I want voter ID. I think it's a good thing. Let's make it an ID that everybody has in their wallet. But I think -- but that's not a part of this conversation.

Anyway, I appreciate both of you. Thank you. I got a roll.

BEGALA: Thanks, Michael. Great to see you.

SMERCONISH: What are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I will -- I'll talk to you later, David. We'll settle this later. And Paul, too.

Promises made, promises kept says Country Bumpkin.

Yes, I mean, I watched, you know, some folks with their hair on fire this week, obviously not mine. And I'm like, where's the surprise? The surprise is the effectiveness with which he's executing his agenda in comparison to eight years ago.

Come on. I mean, nobody thought he was going to win eight years ago. He didn't think he was going to win eight years ago. Urban didn't even think he was going to win eight years ago.

Remember the Chris Christie transition file? They threw it out the window. And Christie wasn't even a part of the first administration. This time's different. This time's different.

I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. Answer today's poll question. Hat tip to my friend Peter Meltzer who helped me rework it. Would Trump's January 6 pardons have been defensible if limited to participants who did not commit any acts of violence? Up ahead, President Trump has set a new deadline to release all of the assassination files on JFK, RFK and MLK. Not all the families are on board. We'll hear from a National Archives board member what is left to declassify.

Please, when you're voting on the whole question of the day, sign up for the free newsletter. Jack Ohman drew this for us on Inauguration Day, which was also Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:22:00]

SMERCONISH: President Trump is calling for a plan within the next 13 days for the full release of President John F. Kennedy's assassination files and a plan within 43 days for the assassination records of Senator Robert F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. A source tells CNN that the King family wants to hold off on the public release of those documents until they have an opportunity to review them privately as a family.

Jack Schlossberg, JFK's grandson, also blasted Trump's executive order as a political prop and said that his grandfather's assassination was a tragedy, not a grand scheme. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump's nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, urged President Trump's inner circle to release more documents. He's been doing so for the last several months. Here's what he told me last year about his uncle's assassination.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT F. KENNEDY JR., (I) FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I think that my uncle was killed because of his opposition to the Vietnam War and his opposition to invading Cuba. And I think he was killed -- I mean, it's very well documented. The group of people within the CIA who are involved in his assassination, many of them have confessed. Many of those confessions were deathbed confessions.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: You can watch that whole interview on my YouTube channel. It's fascinating.

Joining me now is Brad Meltzer. He's an Emmy nominated "New York Times" bestselling author, board member of the National Archives, and co-author of a new book called "The JFK Conspiracy: The Secret Plot to Kill Kennedy and Why It Failed." By the way, the book debuted number three on the "New York Times" bestseller list for nonfiction.

Brad, nice to see you again. Why have so few heard of the attempt on JFK's life that you write about? It was a dynamite attack from the trunk of a car. Explain.

BRAD MELTZER, CO-AUTHOR, "THE JFK CONSPIRACY": And truly a dynamite attack. Seven sticks of dynamite tried to kill him. Why don't you know the story? Because just as it was about to break out of Florida, which is where it happened, two planes crashed over New York City. Everyone on board died, except for one young boy, the sole survivor.

And America became obsessed with this boy. Did he live? Did he die? And it knocked this JFK story off the front page and became a footnote to history until my friend Josh Mensch and I said that would be a good idea for a book.

SMERCONISH: So, I want people to read the book, but give me the short answer. Any connection between the person, in this case, Pavlick, and Lee Harvey Oswald?

MELTZER: No. Richard Pavlik is a lone wolf. And you know, when you go -- when you talk to the Secret Service, they'll tell you that presidential assassins fall into two categories, hunters and howlers. A howler makes a lot of noise, says, I'm coming to kill you but they rarely do anything.

But a hunter doesn't say a word. They're the ones who tend to pull the trigger. And if you look at the four men who have killed presidents successfully, from Lincoln to JFK, all four of them are hunters. And Pavlick thinks he's a hunter, but he's a bit of a howler.

SMERCONISH: OK, you're an author, you're a historian, you love history, and you're a board member at the National Archives, what might we learn if these documents are finally released?

[09:25:04]

MELTZER: They're going to be released. I mean, they're coming. What you're going to see is it's the last 1 percent. And boy, does that sound tantalizing, right? The last 1 percent of the JFK files.

But personally, I talked to someone who has read -- I think, just about everything that's been released. There aren't that many people who have. And according to him, he said, you know, this is not going to be anything about the nuts and bolts or the mechanics of the actual crime. What I think you're going to see are intelligence and military gathering techniques, and that's why people didn't want them there. And, you know, it could be sources, it could be people who are secretly working for us, people who might even be living today.

That's what we're protecting. I think we want to believe, of course, that the grand conspiracy is there and that's why that 1 percent's been hidden.

SMERCONISH: I love Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed: Beyond the Warren Commission Report." I think it's the definitive book on this subject. I know you're familiar with it. Posner is of a mindset that we might learn how much the CIA knew of Oswald's instability if we see these records. Your thoughts?

MELTZER: Listen, I think Posner wrote one of the great books, of course. And I think he's right. I think that's the question, right? There are silly questions that, you know, we're not going to get the answers to because Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald. When that happened, we lost our best source. However, the key question is, what was Lee Harvey Oswald doing in Russia all those years? What did the CIA know? What did they know in terms of him and what's going on? That's the one that -- if you said to me what I'm looking for, that's what I want to see. But again, if you're looking for the smoking gun, I don't think that's what's hitting the box.

I hope that's the case and I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think that's what's going to be in there.

SMERCONISH: Brad Meltzer, the new book, "The JFK Conspiracy." Thank you so much for being here and good luck with it.

MELTZER: Thank you, sir.

SMERCONISH: Via social media, from the world of X, I believe. What do we have?

The truth about JFK has been kept from we the People for 60 years. Well past the time for truth. Jack.

I don't think so. I mean, I had as a poll question on my website yesterday, I was -- I forget how I worded it, but I was asking people about JFK, RFK, and MLK, whether they thought that in each there was a lone gunman, Sirhan Sirhan, James Earl Ray, Lee Harvey Oswald. I'm fascinated by all of these cases. I've spent so much time reading about all of them. I'm of the opinion that in each instance, although there remain unanswered questions, we know who did it and they acted alone.

Having said that, I want to see everything. I want to read it all. And I'm hopeful at long last, we're going to see whatever remains.

I hope to remind you to go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. Would Trump's January 6th pardons have been defensible if limited to participants who did not commit any acts of violence?

I'm working hard to have a good binary choice about which there will be division pertaining to those pardons. Hopefully, you'll go vote.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my opening commentary. And we're live in Tel-Aviv. Early this morning, Hamas releasing four female Israeli soldiers as part of the ceasefire deal. For every Israeli soldier, 50 Palestinian prisoners released, too. Is 200 to four a fair deal?

We'll dig into that.

When you vote at smerconish.com with a poll question, sign up for the newsletter. You'll get the work of great illustrators, political cartoonists, including Scott Stantis.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:32:57] SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the social media platforms. Make sure you react to the program as it's in progress. I don't see what's coming. Love to see your reaction.

Rich says, Trump is not extending olive branches. He will make Democrats beg and bend a knee to get anything. Hasn't anyone learned? Historical norms have -- are gone.

Yes. I mean, Rich, you're right in that regard. That is the way that he comports himself. I guess, I haven't spoken here on my own program on CNN since the inaugural address. I just thought that there would be something in that inaugural address that was going to be outreach to the half the country that didn't vote for him. And I would give this reminder to Rich, to the president and to everybody else -- thank you for this transition, because there's something I want to say. There was a story within the last week from Gallup, the result of their most recent polling -- do we have that headline? Can you put -- yes, there it is. OK.

So, this is a headline from Gallup, January 16th. And this is their, you know, annual look at party identification. And when they say GOP holds edge in party identification, the edge is 46 to 45. And that's the headline. That's literally the headline that they put on the story.

So, I read the story and here's what I found. Wait a minute. When you ask Americans, do you identify as a D, or an R, or an I? Shazam. Forty-three percent, a plurality say, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a Republican. I am an independent.

Can you show the actual graph from Gallup to show how they presented it, Catherine? Yes, there it is. A little harder to see. In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent? And for 2024, the year of the election just ended, 43 percent of this country say, I'm an I.

And I have the -- throw it back on me because I want to -- I want to make a point about this. I have the utmost respect for Gallup as a polling organization, but I don't like this because they asked, initially, are you a D, an R, or an I?

[09:35:01]

And you get 43 percent who say, I'm independent. And then it's as if they say, yes, but you don't really mean it. Which way do you lean?

I take people at their first response. And as I have said here for the entire decade that I've had the privilege of hosting this program, you know, if only the independents would recognize the strength in their number. And I have to say, if only the media would realize that 43 percent of the country is independent and not Republican and not Democratic, and maybe pay a little more attention to the plurality who are not at either of these polar extremes. I'm Michael Smerconish, and I approve this message.

Still to come, the ceasefire plays out. Four Israeli hostages reunited with their families back in Israel, all soldiers, but civilians were supposed to be released first. What does that mean for the deal?

Keep voting on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Would Trump's January 6 pardons have been defensible if limited to participants who did not commit any acts of violence?

Subscribe to the newsletter while you're there. You know why? You'll get the work, the exclusive work, of some prize-winning editorial cartoonists. Check out Pittsburgh's Rob Rogers. Love that.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:29]

SMERCONISH: Four female Israeli hostages reuniting with their families after being released by Hamas this morning as part of the ceasefire deal. All four being treated at a hospital near Tel Aviv. This coming after 15 long months of captivity.

As part of the deal, Israel agreed to exchange 50 prisoners for every female soldier freed by Hamas. Israel's prison service confirmed this morning that it had released 200 Palestinian prisoners.

Joining me now is CNN Jerusalem correspondent Jeremy Diamond, who is in Tel Aviv. Jeremy, tell us more about the four. I've heard them described as spotters or lookouts on 10-7.

JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Yes, that's right. They were what is known as field observers posted along the Gaza border at a military base where they were watching what was happening inside of the Gaza Strip. And in fact, it has been reported that they were among those field observers who raised alarms internally within the military saying, hey, look, it seems like Hamas is preparing some kind of a major attack.

Those warnings, of course, were ultimately ignored by the Israeli security establishment. And we know, of course, what happened next on October 7th. And what also happened beyond the attack itself was that these four women, who were released today, four Israeli soldiers, among several other observers who were taken on that day, they were taken captive inside the Gaza Strip, where they have remained for the last 15 months.

I am now at Beilinson Hospital, which is where those four soldiers have been brought to and where they are finally reuniting with their families and undergoing initial medical and psychological evaluations. We have already seen some of the videos of these very emotional reunions between these four soldiers and their parents -- embracing their parents at a military base not far from the Gaza border, where they had their initial meet up, and then they were taken in helicopters to this very hospital where additional family members, including their siblings, for example, have been waiting for them.

This is, of course, a moment that Israelis have been waiting for for over 15 months now, and we have seen these celebrations taking place at Hostage Square in Tel Aviv and elsewhere as well. Inside of Gaza today was also a day of anticipation, Michael. And that's because on day seven of this ceasefire agreement, Israel was meant to move its troops from the Netzarim corridor separating northern Gaza from the rest of the strip and allow Palestinians to freely return to northern Gaza.

But that process is currently being held up. The Israelis are saying that they will not allow Palestinians to move to northern Gaza because of Hamas not releasing Arbel Yehud, a female civilian hostage who they expected to be released today. She is believed to be held not by Hamas but by a Hamas ally, Palestinian Islamic jihad, inside of the Gaza Strip.

And Israel says that because Hamas did not release her today until they get some kind of an understanding of when and where she will be released until her release can be arranged, they said in a statement, they will not allow people in Gaza to return to the northern part of the strip.

And so, we have already been seeing enormous crowds of people at that Netzarim corridor hoping to get back to their homes or what remains of their homes in northern Gaza, not being able to get through right now. So, that is very much still a developing situation, Michael, that we are also keeping an eye on.

SMERCONISH: Jeremy Diamond, stay safe in Tel Aviv and thank you for that report. The current deal is intended to halt fighting in Gaza for a six-week period. In addition to the release of dozens of Israeli hostages, it's also supposed to free up 2,000 Palestinian prisoners.

The first exchange was made up of primarily women and children who were arrested in Gaza during the war. However, some included in the upcoming exchanges raised concerns. For example, there are more than 10 Palestinians currently serving life sentences. According to Haaretz, among those slated to be released, a man who was sentenced to 48 life terms for his role in two terror bombings on a Jerusalem bus line in 1996, in which 45 people were killed.

In court, he declared, quote, "the struggle against our people, against you will never end. On the contrary, we will stand firm and determined until you leave our land." At the time, the military prosecutor described him as a mass murderer standing before the court today.

Another three being let go are responsible for five bombings across Israel, which killed 35 and wounded hundreds. And then there's one who is a member of Hamas' military ring, convicted of carrying out a 2003 bus attack, killing 23.

[09:45:07]

If all goes according to the plan, Hamas will have released 33 of the remaining Israeli hostages by the end of the ceasefire. But how high will the price of those 2,000 Palestinian prisoners be? In 2011, Israel and Hamas agreed to exchange one captured Israeli soldier for 1,027 Palestinian prisoners. Yahya Sinwar, the mastermind behind the 10-7 attack, was among them. Joining me now is former Israeli ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren. Mr. Ambassador, nice to see you again. I celebrate the release of the hostages. But what happened to the idea of not negotiating with terrorists?

MICHAEL OREN, FORMER ISRAELI AMBASSADOR TO THE U.S.: Good morning, Michael. You're absolutely right. That idea actually went out the window back in the 1980s. Nineteen eighty-five we had -- Israel first exchanged large numbers of prison terrorists for Israeli soldiers who had fallen captive in Lebanon. So, there's a long history to this approach. But I think Israelis are just about had it.

There's discussions now about activating death penalty against terrorists in Israel. Israel had a death penalty. It was only used once, back in 1961, against Adolf Eichmann, one of the architects of the final solution, a nazi. But now people are saying, listen, as long as we have these terrorists in jail and they've killed, in many cases, dozens of Israelis, that's actually going to be an incentive to hostage taking.

I know some of the families of people killed by these terrorists, and they are devastated, Michael. It is a tremendous price to pay. So, the joy of seeing these four young women reunited with their family, and it is great joy, there's not a there's not a dry eye in the Israeli house, is really tempered and mitigated by this notion that these terrorists are going free and justice will not be served for many dozens of Israeli families.

SMERCONISH: I think the number is 110 who are serving life sentences. So, from Hamas' perspective, they slaughtered 1,200 people. They held 200 captives then used them to barter the release of this large number of individuals who are literally coming out of prison. It's hard not to see. Again, I celebrate the release today but it's hard not to see this as rewarding, that horrific conduct.

OREN: Absolutely. And not just that Israel has the military means to destroy Hamas, but it can't do that as long as Hamas is still retaining now something in the order of 90 hostages, we hope 50 of them are still alive. We don't know. But it makes defending the country very, very difficult.

Remember, there was upwards of 100,000 Israelis who fled their homes in the south. Many of them have not returned because they're not convinced that Hamas is destroyed. So, it's just -- it's even a matter of basic, fundamental homeland security. We will not be able to have a sovereign state as long as this practice continues.

SMERCONISH: And on the question of whether they've been destroyed, Mr. Ambassador, with the trained eye of an old advance man, I looked at that handoff ceremony today, and what I saw were Hamas members in military fatigues and anti-Israeli banners, one referencing Zionism. I saw elaborate electronic equipment recording the whole spectacle. It looked like an organization that was viable, at least as presented through that eye. Your thought?

OREN: My thoughts are there are many -- many thoughts about what's going to happen to the day after Gaza. Whether, in the words of the previous administration, the Biden administration, the Palestinian authority and the West Bank should be brought to Gaza and given responsibility for Gaza. Israel -- the Israeli government prefers an international force with a large inter-Arab contingent to it.

At the end of the day, the people left in Gaza are the people with the guns, and that's Hamas. And you bring somebody from Ramallah to Gaza to run, I don't know, even the sewer system, the electrical system, he's going to get knocked off by Hamas very, very quickly. And that's what has happened in the past.

So unfortunately, because of this current situation, I think that Israel is going to have to maintain a long-term security presence in Gaza. Though the reconstruction of the strip could be in the hands of other entities, particularly the United Arab Emirates or other Gulf states. But at the end of the day, as long as Hamas is carrying those guns, and you see them carrying those guns, Israel is going to have to defend itself against that threat.

SMERCONISH: And Reuters has a story that says that they've recruited Hamas, 10 to 15,000 fighters, since this war began. Mr. Ambassador, I wish we had more time. Thank you so much. Fingers crossed for peace.

Checking in on your social media comments. From the world of X, now known as -- well, Twitter now known as X.

The idea that one Israeli is worth 50 Palestinians in these swaps is insulting to everyone.

I mean, I need to know more. We did the best that we could to give you an encapsulation of who some of them are. But I mean, the fact that Sinwar was once one of those released in a prior negotiation is cause for alarm, right?

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Would Trump's January 6 pardons have been defensible if limited to participants who did not commit any acts of violence?

[09:50:05]

Be sure to sign up for the newsletter when you're there. You're going to love it. Steve Breen drew this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

So, there's the voting thus far on today's poll question. Interesting. I must say I'm surprised by that. Thirty-six thousand two hundred and eighty-one have voted thus far. Would Trump's January 6 pardons have been defensible if limited to participants who did not commit any acts of violence? And a majority, 56 percent, say, yes, that would have been defensible.

I agree. I'm in that category. I'm often in the minority on my own polls. Here are some of the social media reaction that has come in during the course of the program. He said initially, he was going to do that on a case-by-case basis. Michael, you're worse than the Democrats that don't understand how much of us view January 6. Where was the justice in Portland, the riot at the White House, all the BLM abuse of the police?

[09:55:03]

Mark -- Mark, why can't we walk and chew gum at the same time? Why, in your analysis, is it an either or? Why must we always say, well, what about this? What about that?

Why can't it be both? Why can't we be condemning of any violence in Portland against the cops? I was. And also, at the same time be condemning of violence against law enforcement at the Capitol on January 6th or capable of doing both.

One more. I think I've got time. The complete lack of self-awareness of Smerconish and pundits outrage over J6 pardons, while at the same time showing a graphic of Biden with 8,000 pardons is so on brand. Keep up the good work at CNN.

Linda, if your point is to say that Smerconish, that would be me, should have been critical of the number of pardons and to whom pardons were handed out by President Biden, you're barking up the wrong tree, because I certainly have done that here and on radio every day. He never, especially at 22 minutes before walking out of office, should have pardoned five family members. I'm with Axe, who said on a podcast this week, he, Biden, ended up doing Trump a favor. So, again, I agree with you. See you.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)