CNN host ensnares GOP analyst in trap on ICE policy: 'You're by definition admitting'

CNN's Audie Cornish seemingly set a trap for a conservative panelist defending the legality of President Donald Trump's harsh immigration crackdown.

The panelists were debating the legality of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement directive authorizing officers to enter homes without judicial warrants, and The Daily Signal's Rob Bluey justified the government's actions.

"Well, I would say, numberone, it is a crime to enter thecountry illegally," Bluey began, "so that isthe basis for which theadministration is –"

"ICE officers say that," Cornish interrupted, "likethat's the crime."

"Sure," Bluey agreed, "and I would sayultimately it's going to be atough situation. We know that Stephen Miller at the White House is focused on a dailybasis on the number of peoplewho are being detained anddeported, right? I mean, so thisis, I think, going to continueto be an issue for maybe upuntil the midterm elections."

That's when Cornish laid the trap.

"Can I raise one thing foryou?" she asked. "Because this is a legalquestion. You're saying ifyou're going after the worst ofthe worst, you know what? Youprobably would be able to get ajudicial warrant because youwould have gone to a criminalcourt and said this personcommitted a crime. If you havean administrative warrant – holdon a second. If you have anadministrative warrant, you'reby definition admitting it'sadministrative. It's not theworst of the worst. So at acertain point, how does thisargument fall on deaf ears ofthe public that is subsumed withnot us, but their own socialmedia videos of what's happeningon the ground?"

"And you know," added Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, "that more thanhalf of the people that are herewithout documentation overstayedtheir visas, and that is not acriminal offense. Is thatcorrect?"

Cardona asked former federal prosecutor and ICE official Elliot Williams to weigh in, but Cornish interjected to finish her point.

"No, hold on one second," Cornish said. "Sothat's what I'm asking thepoint about worst of the worst. Does worst of the worst work if your administrative warrants weren't getting you through the door?"

Bluey sidestepped the legal argument and instead focused on the politics of the administration's policy.

"Again, I think politicallythe administration understoodthat that was the the best pathto take in 2025 because theyunderstood the polling you citedearlier would probably notsupport all of the efforts," Bluey said. "Ithink you now find yourself in asituation where Donald Trumpmade a promise to voters in the2024 campaign, and you're tryingto come to grips with howexactly –"

Williams then interrupted to make a legal analysis.

"Five seconds – we're talkingabout this a lot," Williams said. "You know,it's to your, to push back onyou a little bit, Maria. Theycan under the law remove thenannies and the dads and they'reempowered to do that. Theproblem, and this is what tiesinto what Rob is saying, that'sa huge political problem. Overtime, if people start seeingthese images, yeah, just becauseyou can do something and the lawallows it doesn't mean youought to."

Cornish then took another whack at Bluey's argument.

"So I'm just going to readone last thing," she said. "The Washington Post editorial board where theymake your point. Trump won the2024 election on promises topursue mass deportation. He'swithin his rights toaggressively enforce the laws, they agree, but they say 'theadministration sullies thatmandate every time it goes toofar, especially when it reachesbeyond its legal authority, andthe public has already soured onthe administration's crackdown.How long will it take before thepresident notices?'"

- YouTubeyoutu.be