A former Democratic National Committee spokesperson claimed on CNN Sunday that Iran does not pose a significant threat to the United States, while critiquing Donald Trump’s military actions.
Xochitl Hinojosa, a network commentator since 2022, argued that the president did not provide evidence of Iran’s risk prior to targeting three of its nuclear sites.
This statement sparked a sharp response from senior correspondent and CNN Republican member Scott Jennings, who quipped: ‘Are you suggesting that after 46 years of the Iranian regime harming Americans and repeatedly chanting “Death to America,” they might not have been serious?’
Just before, he couldn’t help but let out a laugh when Hinojosa expressed confusion about Trump not seeking congressional approval.
‘Normally, you would need congressional approval for something like this,’ Hinojosa, 40, said of the bombings. ‘And I know that my friend here is laughing a little bit.’
‘Yes, I am laughing,’ Jennings, 47, said.
After being interrupted by another panelist, Hinojosa proceeded to stammer through her argument.
‘In order for them – in order for the president to take action without congressional approval, he needed to show that there was a real, true threat to the United States,’ she said. ‘And that the strike would not cause escalation.
Xochitl Hinojosa (left), a former spokeswoman for the Democratic National Committee, declared on CNN Sunday that Iran was not a ‘true threat’ to the US – sparking some pushback from Senior Commentary Scott Jennings
The US attacked known nuclear facilities in Iran, including the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) in northeast of the city of Qom. The plant and its surroundings are seen before and after the strikes on June 22
‘So it’s unclear what type of legal advice Trump was getting,’ Hinojosa concluded, referring to the executive orders the conservative – seen here alongside VP J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Saturday – has levied against law firms
‘The problem with this is that normally you would have a group of lawyers from all across the agencies that actually would make these determinations.
‘Trump did away with that at the beginning of this administration.
‘So it’s unclear what type of legal advice Trump was getting.
‘The Department of Defense usually puts out a statement and says what the legality is of any strike that the president is taking without congressional action.
‘Here, we have not heard from DoD what is happening there.’
Hinojosa said that in the coming weeks, federal officials would need to produce ‘intelligence about how [Americans] were in direct threat and how the U.S. needed to respond without congressional approval.’
‘But, as of right now, I have not seen that,’ she added.
Jennings then expressed his confusion after sarcastically billing Iranian jihadists as ‘fiery, but mostly peaceful, Iranian butchers.’
Pictured: A huge cloud of smoke billows over Tehran following an Israeli strike Monday, after Trump’s strike roughly a day before. Iran has since vowed to respond
The back-and-forth came as pundits from both sides of the aisle continue to criticize the US attacks on the Iranian regime as unconstitutional. Iranian armed military forces are seen marching in a military demonstration this past April
US defense expert Rebeccah Heinrichs joined in to go to bat for Jennings, calling the attack ‘a clear opportunity, where American troops were going to be [in] the least amount of danger.’
‘So, you have the combination, as Scott said, of a direct threat on the part of the Iran regime, very close to having a weaponized nuclear capability,’ she explained.
‘To take that off the table brings greater peace and security to our troops deployed and to Americans here at home.’
The back-and-forth came as pundits from both sides of the aisle continue to criticize the US attacks.
Hinjosa joins lawmakers like New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie in slamming the move as unconstitutional since it was made without congressional approval.
