Return to Transcripts main page
Anderson Cooper 360 Degrees
Trump Holds Rally In Kansas 15 Days To Midterms; NY Times Opinion Essay: "Even a Blue Wave Can't Stop Trump"; Trump On Zelenskyy: It's Time For Somebody Else To Negotiate; Wash Post: Trump Admin. Holds Up Patriot Missiles For Ukraine; U.S. Official: Trump Receptive To Meeting With Putin And Xi Over Ukraine War; Trump Says He Doesn't Know Who Ordered Restrictions To Ukraine's Use Of Starshield; Elon Musk Says He Will Give A SpaceX Share To "Every Kid In America; Tensions Flare At Court Hearing On Trump's D.C. Golf Course Renovation; CNN Questions AZ GOP Gov. Candidate Biggs On Voting Record. Aired 8-9p ET
Aired October 19, 2026 - 20:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(BEGIN VIDEO TAPE)
(PRIME MINISTER SEBASTIEN LECORNU speaking in foreign language.)
TRANSLATION: There is no way we will allow violent minorities to impose an agenda of violence and prevent us from holding this election.
MELISSA BELL, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT (voice over): The government is to hold talks this week with French political leaders to urge them to calm their rhetoric, even as it seeks to control its streets.
Melissa Bell, CNN, Paris.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: Thanks to Melissa Bell on the ground there and all of you for joining us as well. AC360 begins now.
[20:00:30]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, "ANDERSON COOPER: 360": Good evening, from the Newsroom. We are just about two weeks away now from Midterm elections and the President is in Kansas tonight, a deep red state, obviously, that he won by 16 points two years ago. A state that has not sent a Democrat to the Senate since 1932.
Interesting fact, back then, it was Republican Herbert Hoover in the White House, and he was presiding, of course, over the great depression.
Today, the economy is the number one issue for Kansas voters. The Senate race there is tied between Republican Roger Marshall and the Democrat, Adam Hamilton. In a recent poll of likely voters, the President was asked about that late today as he was departing the White House for Kansas.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Is it a bad sign for Republicans that you have to go campaign in Kansas today?
DONALD TRUMP (R) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: No, I tell you, I have a man named Roger, and you know him very well. Roger Marshall. He's a fantastic Senator. He's one of the best. It's a close race. It shouldn't be and as you know, I won by a tremendous amount, like 25 to 30 points. I won by a lot, Kansas, and they should be winning by a lot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Why a Republican in Kansas is not leading by a lot in the polls, it might have more to do with the President than the candidate himself. Were Marshall to lose, it would end the longest streak of a single party control of both Senate seats from a state in American history.
For the President, new polling about the economy is not likely to buoy expectations for election day, 75 percent of likely voters view the economy as not so good or poor, 70 percent disapprove of President Trump's handling of the economy.
Tonight's rally in Kansas marks the beginning of the President barnstorming the country in the sprint to election day, seven states in seven days. That's the plan. Tomorrow, North Carolina, followed by South Carolina, Iowa, Florida, Georgia, and finally, Michigan.
The President making his closing argument in the hopes of keeping the Senate in Republican control. Just before air, we learned he's also heading back to Texas next week to stump for Senate candidate Ken Paxton. CNN's Betsy Klein is in Park City, Kansas, tonight with the President.
So, for all the talk about how the polls may or may not be accurate this cycle, would the President be going to Kansas if the White House wasn't concerned that the GOP Senate seat there is a at risk?
BETSY KLEIN, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Well, Anderson, I think that's exactly the point. There is certainly some concern because President Trump is spending his time here just 15 days away from election day, making that push for Senator Roger Marshall, the Republican who is locked in what the President has conceded is a very tight race against the Democrat candidate, Adam Hamilton, who is a Megachurch pastor.
President Trump arrived about an hour late, has just started speaking, but he's already locked in making that case for Marshall, who he says is, "one of the best." And he is now talking over some protesters that have briefly interrupted his remarks. But the President has been framing Adam Hamilton, that Democrat as a radical left liberal.
Hamilton, meanwhile, we are seeing in those very tight polls has been able to peel off some Republican voters. But the President's appearance here really underscores how Republicans are now on the defense. And we are seeing these GOP aligned groups pour millions of dollars into bolstering Roger Marshall in his race here.
President Trump's strategy right now is to drive turnout among his MAGA base. They're not necessarily looking to find new voters or persuade Independents. They are looking to turn out the voters they've got. And I've actually talked to a number of undecided voters, both here at this rally, actually, as well as in the greater Wichita area. And it all comes down to this economic anxiety. They are feeling the pinch of gas prices, the price of high diesel, as well as the President's tariff policies.
I specifically spoke to a young woman named Haley Brozak. She was here from the Wichita suburbs, visiting with her young son for their first rally, and I asked her why she was undecided and what she was thinking about. She said 100 percent lowering the prices on everything is what's going to get her vote.
She said, everything is so expensive, gas, groceries. And she said that she wanted to hear Marshall explain, "How things are going to improve?"
We heard from Marshall briefly. He said that Republican vote means secure borders, strong military and lower taxes. We'll see if voters buy that -- Anderson.
COOPER: All right, Betsy Klein, thanks very much. Joining us now is CNN political commentator, "New York Daily News" columnist S.E. Cupp, former special adviser to President Obama, Van Jones and former Trump campaign adviser, David Urban.
So, S.E., Kansas voters say the economy number one issue. Do you think it makes sense that the President is there? Do you think it will make a difference?
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Trump always cuts both ways. He's a double-edged sword. There are certainly people who will want distance from Donald Trump. And we're seeing that not just in Kansas, but in races across the country where people like Mike Rogers and Susan Collins are trying to say, well, I didn't always agree with him. I've distanced myself on tariffs or the war.
But on the other hand, with these awful polling numbers and a terrible economic environment, sometimes Trump is the only reason why someone is going to go out and vote and they know that. And so, I think they're gambling with Trump and saying, well, we've got nothing else. We've got to hope that he can help turn out our base voters.
[20:05:40]
COOPER: David, the Kansas deep red President won it by 16 points. If that had, I mean, if that hadn't elected a Democratic Senator since 1932. And Hoover was in it. What does it say about the Republican Party tonight that the President feels the need to be there?
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, well, look, Anderson, you just had that approved/disapproved number up there on the board. That that's pretty significant, fortunately, as S.E. points out, with the folks in the MAGA crowd, right, those numbers are reversed.
The President's numbers are still in the high 80s approval with true blood, you know, MAGA supporters. And so, he's counting on rallying them, getting them to turn out. You've got to turn out the base. People probably aren't so enthusiastic to show up, but Trump shows up and bangs there like he's doing tonight. You're going to eke out a couple more points in a race that's going to be decided by a couple of points.
And so, he's not going to go to Maine. He may not be going to Michigan, but it will bear fruit. This this visit will bear some fruit. And by way of additional points on the ballots coming up here in the next few next few days and weeks. And as we tabulate them here before the third.
COOPER: Well, I mean, to David's point though, I mean, he's right about the polls among Republican diehard fans of the President.
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, you have to have a theory of the case, I guess, you know, if your theory is that what's missing now is more Trump. If we could just see more Trump and hear from more Trump, the least popular President in history. I mean, listen, it's a desperation play and it shows. The reality is you've got a candidate in Hamilton who's a high-quality candidate.
First of all, he's a fellow Methodist. So, I like that a lot. But look at how Hamilton is, how he's playing Trump coming. Any other Democrat would have been attacking Trump, saying Trump should stay out of here. Hamilton says, oh, please come, Mr. President. And if you like President Trump, you have a place in my coalition.
This is why this race is so hard. This is this is the opposite of a DSA candidate. This is a very smart guy. He's playing it down the middle and but if Donald Trump thinks that more Donald Trump is what's missing right now, we've got plenty of Donald Trump and he's at 30 percent.
COOPER: I mean, Hamilton --
URBAN: Hamilton used to be a Republican.
CUPP: Say that again, I'm sorry.
COOPER: That Hamilton does think it's going to hurt Marshall, Trump's visit.
CUPP: Well, I'm sure, he's hoping it will, when people, when Trump says, pretend I'm on the ballot and people reacting not just to Donald Trump and the economy and the war and stuff they didn't vote for, but also the chaos, the corruption.
Fox poll just showed that six in 10 voters -- a Fox poll said, six in 10 voters say corruption is their top issue, above inflation and healthcare and other things. That is a warning sign to Republicans, so I am sure Hamilton is thinking, yes, bring Trump and everything that comes with him. This is good for me. But it's also going to be good for Roger Marshall as well.
COOPER: David Urban, you're a good friend of David Axelrod said last week that a President Trump wanted to tank the election for his party. He wouldn't be doing anything different than what he is doing now. I know you'll disagree, but do you think there's any need for a course correction? The Presidents messaging over the next two weeks, or is this full steam ahead?
URBAN: You know, Anderson, I'd of course, corrected the message a while ago, but, so there is no he's burned the boats at this point, right. But, you know, I think I think the message should have been, look, I feel your pain. We're going to focus on this. We really get it. Affordability right. That should have been from the get go, right. Not redesigning the Potomac Golf Course. So, it's a little late --
JONES: Look, I agree, but I remember when George W. Bush was in the toilet and starting to swirl. He stayed off the campaign trail. He let Republicans get out there and make their own case. He let Republicans have their own opportunities to dominate a couple of headlines and stuff. He recognized that he was not popular and he stayed back.
The idea of a President this unpopular, who thinks that the best thing he can do is get out there and soak up more air time, gobble up more attention, keep the focus on him.
He's the person that started this war. He's the person that put these tariffs on all these poor farmers. He's the person that's responsible for the diesel price being through the roof. All these poor truckers out there with Trump signs on their truck that are embarrassed because they came and fill up the truck. He's the reason for all that.
Another President would say, you know what? I'm going to be quiet and give my team the opportunity to make their own case and he just can't do it; he just won't do it.
[20:10:24]
URBAN; Yes, but Van, the theory of the case here is the turnout issue, right? This is, people will turn out when Donald Trump shows up and bangs and has rallies and shouts and screams, they'll turn out. And that may be the difference of a point or two, but that race may be decided by a point or two.
JONES: We'll see.
COOPER: David, S.E., Van, stick around. We're going to have more. Coming up as early voting is already underway in several states, Democrats are campaigning on a promise to be a check on the Trump administration should they gain majorities in Congress.
Jeff Toobin makes the argument in a new piece in "The New York Times" that, "even a blue wave can't stop Trump. Jeff, joins me next to explain.
And later, just how far will President Trump go as he increasingly turns his back on Ukraine, slams its President, Volodymyr Zelensky, all while giving Russia a pass.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Russia, frankly, has been fine on Ukraine. They haven't been doing much.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:15:27]
COOPER: Well, despite the President's sagging approval ratings, Democrats path to retaking the Senate was always an uphill climb. The most plausible path was to hold seats the Republicans had a chance to flip like Georgia and Michigan, then flip seats in states that had either voted blue at the Presidential level in 2024 came within a few points of doing so, like Maine and North Carolina. Then pick up two more seats in deep red states that the President won by ten points or more, states like Alaska, Ohio, Texas or Iowa.
Today, the path is still possible. But even if Democrats take back one or both Chambers of Congress, they could still face major challenges in providing a check on President Trumps wide ranging uses of executive power. Jeff Toobin is a former federal prosecutor an opinion writer for "The New York Times", and his new opinion piece is called "Even a Blue Wave can't Stop Trump." Jeffrey Toobin joins us now. So, why is that headline accurate?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Because the law is really skewed in favor of Presidents. Think about this, just a couple of years ago, a during the second two years of Donald Trump's first administration, Democrats controlled the House and they tried to engage in all sorts of oversight.
They issued subpoenas, they demanded witnesses, and Trump fought them every step of the way. And he tied up their requests in court for months and even years. When Trump refused to produce information about the census, it wasn't resolved until 33 months later, when Joe Biden was President.
When Democrats subpoenaed Trump's tax returns. It wasn't settled until 40 months later, when Biden was President. Trump has the ability to resist virtually any kind of oversight of The White House.
Now, Democrats can try to engage in oversight of companies that are doing business with Trump or his family. They may have better luck there, but the idea that they're going to be able to bring people in and cross-examine them, I think, is very much a long shot.
COOPER: How I mean, in recent years, how much has it shifted in favor of the executive branch? I mean, is it basically just in recent years?
TOOBIN: Well, it's always been skewed pretty much this way, but there's been a big development, which was in 2024, the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v United States, as I think most people know, that decision made it very difficult to prosecute presidents for any crimes they may have committed in office.
But what it also may do is make it even more difficult to investigate Presidents. It put -- Chief Justice Robert's opinion put off limits so much of what presidents do that you can be sure if subpoenas start coming, as they certainly will if Democrats win either House or the Senate. The White House will say, look, Trump v United States says we don't have to cooperate with this oversight and it's the same Supreme Court. They're likely to win, at least in the Supreme Court.
COOPER: So, what do you think Democrats should do?
TOOBIN: Well, I think there are two things. One is they still have the power of the purse on the budget, and they can try to limit the President, particularly on something like the war in Iran. But the problem there is, you know, the President has the veto when it comes to the to the budget.
The real issue here is the Senate. If the Democrats retake the Senate, they are in a position to stop all judicial confirmations and certainly stop any Supreme Court confirmations.
So, to me, the by far the biggest issue coming up on election day is whether the Democrats retake the senate because they can guarantee in the next two years that Donald Trump doesn't get a Supreme Court appointment. But beyond that, I think it's going to be a big challenge for the Democrats to accomplish much of anything.
COOPER: Jeff Toobin, thanks very much.
Back now with our political panel. S. E. Cupp, what do you think?
CUPP: Okay, so I understand that it is a function of the press to occasionally temper expectations and level set. That is an important thing to do, but I don't love the framing of this. Look, Jeffrey Toobin is obviously talking about the legislative obstacles that Democrats will face and the legal obstacles. And that is important, but it ignores all the political consequences of an election that could be momentous for Democrats.
For one, a lot of stuff that impacts your daily life happens at the state level would so please go out and vote no matter what.
But, two, to imagine a blue wave, imagine Democrats take control. That is a political case against MAGA, against Trump, against Republicans, two years before a Presidential election that might convince influencers to break with the President, that might convince Republican lawmakers to break with the President, that might give permission for voters to say, I'm going to reconsider what I've been doing. That might convince rank and file civil servants at places like the DOJ, from just deciding to rubber stamp everything Trump is doing.
So, I get what Jeff is saying, and that's important. But please go out and vote. There are implications for this election beyond just what Democrats will be able to exact on Trump in terms of retribution.
[20:20:57] JONES: I agree a hundred percent. If Trump blows four tires and loses
the House, loses the Senate, loses states that haven't gone blue since the founding of the Republic, he's a weaker President. He's a less scary dude, and then they start spraying people with subpoenas. They might be able to drag it out. But I tell you what, you pick up a couple subpoenas from a hostile, angry Congress. You start thinking, maybe I want to do the next shady deal.
Maybe I maybe I'm going to leave a few bucks on the table. Maybe I'm not going to answer that phone call. It will be a big moment in American politics if there is a blue wave of the size that people are hoping for. And yes, you know, President, he's a wily guy. He'll do all kinds of stuff. He'll twist, he'll turn, he's got Supreme Court in his back pocket. But this is a big deal. And I'm not as sanguine as Jeffrey Toobin.
COOPER: David, how do you interpret it?
URBAN; Yeah, look, I'm with Jeffrey, the law is the law. Like Trump or not, you're going to be seeing exactly what Jeff laid out. The President is going to twist and turn. He's going to extend things. The subpoenas are going to get -- they may be enforced the first time since the teapot dome scandal.
You may have the House sergeant-of-arms going out and arresting people, because I doubt that the Department of Justice will enforce any of these. So, there's a lot to be done in oversight. But whether or not they're going to exact any toll from the administration is yet to be seen.
I think Jeffrey points out, correctly, that companies will face robust oversight. Some of the family members and people doing business with the Trumps and Trump administration will face robust oversight. That will be a big deterrence. I don't think that you're going to see, look, and Van knows better than I, but if the Democrats in the House try to impeach the President, I don't think that will be successful. Was in the past two times. So, it puts him in a tough spot. And if they do take the Senate, I submit it's even going to be tougher in 2028 because people expect things.
If the Democrats take the House, that's great. They're going to have a great big platform to conduct messaging and they'll pass a lot of bills, and they'll go to the Senate and die. If they take the Senate, then there's going to be talk of getting rid of the filibuster that'll, you know, packing the court. It'll create a whole bunch of controversy, which will then make it much, much tougher for Democrats to win in 2028.
COOPER: How do you think the President will react to being a lame duck or being called the lame duck?
CUPP: Petulantly, you know, Trump doesn't get, like he doesn't learn lessons, right? When he loses or -- he just fights it, he says it's rigged, he says it's fake and he actually gets more brazen. So, I think he'll act petulantly and lash out. And I actually think the biggest consequence will be for whomever gets the nomination for the Republican side, because they will be running while Trump is President.
Imagine J.D. Vance running while Trump is President. J.D. Vance trying to take credit for things. Trump going out saying, you didn't do that, I did it. I mean, you can just imagine the headache Trump will be for anyone running while he is still President.
COOPER: S. E. Cupp, thanks very much, Van Jones. David Urban, as well.
Up next, a U.S. official says Mr. Trump is receptive to a possible joint meeting with Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping to discuss to discuss the Ukraine War without Ukrainian President Zelenskyy.
Plus, Elon Musk says President Trump would ultimately be responsible for slowing down his satellite service for the Ukrainian military. The President told CNN he doesn't know who did it, but would like to find out.
Kara Swisher joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:29:00]
COOPER: The rift between the Trump administration and Ukraine deepening, tonight, President Trump says it's time for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to get someone else to negotiate the end of the war with Russia. And he is complimenting Russia.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Russia frankly, has been fine on Ukraine. They haven't been doing much.
Zelenskyy is a man that should have had this war settled a long time ago. If he would have listened to me, he would have made a much better deal a long time ago, and he'd have a million people living from his side.
And to be honest, I don't think, I think it's time for somebody else to negotiate on behalf of Ukraine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: Well, this comes as a U.S. official says the President would be receptive to a possible meeting with Russia's Vladimir Putin and China's Xi Jinping about the war in Ukraine without Ukraine's President. The official says the talks were proposed by Vladimir Putin earlier this month.
Meanwhile, President Zelenskyy says once again his country got no warning from its partners about incoming attacks last night. Several civilian targets were hit in Ukraine. Want to warn you a photo we're about to show after one strike is disturbing.
This is a blurred photo of one of the victims after a strike in the Kharkiv region. Zelenskyy says a one-year-old girl named Angelina was killed in her stroller.
Tonight, there's this new headline in "The Washington Post" "Trump administration holds up patriot missiles for Ukraine. According to this article, the administration has not "approved the transfer of patriot interceptor missiles. Ukraine needs to protect itself from Russian attacks."
"The Washington Post" also reports that a U.S. official and other sources say at least some of the patriot missiles are from countries friendly to Ukraine that require Defense Secretary Hegseth to approve the handoff.
[20:30:44]
Joining us now, Connecticut Democratic Senator Chris Murphy. He's a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
So, Senator, I'm wondering -- first of all, what's your reaction to the new Washington Post reporting on the Patriots?
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D-CT), FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE: Well, I think you have to see all of this as part of a pattern. Zelenskyy has said this out loud, but it seems pretty obvious that Trump has decided he's going to put Ukraine in a position where they may be pressured to capitulate.
You've got the decision on diesel sanctions that he's going to allow Russia to sell diesel on the world market which helps them fund the war. He just announced he's not going to implement any of the congressional sanctions that were authorized just a week ago. The new news tonight that he is slow walking, we're not selling any additional interceptors to Ukraine and Starshield being down.
This is a pattern of behavior over the course of about a week that looks to be a strategy, a strategy to put Russia in the most powerful position possible in order to gain a settlement, a ceasefire that is on Russia's terms. It's just absolutely devastating. There's no reason for it.
Frankly, Ukraine was making really important gains on the battlefield over the course of the last year, notwithstanding Trump's refusal to help. And I guess Putin has called in a favor using whatever leverage he has over the President. And you're seeing the results of that in this series of decisions.
COOPER: Yes, Zelenskyy said in an interview with Bloomberg that he believes Trump is trying to push Ukraine to surrender, saying, quote, "I believe steps have been taken to convince Ukraine to capitulate." It is remarkable. To your point, I mean, Ukraine was doing well on the battlefield and their innovations in drone technology.
I mean, they were helping, you know, Middle Eastern countries with drone technology a couple of months ago. Some of your Republican colleagues in the Senate have criticized the decision by the President to buy diesel fuel from Russia, waive the sanctions in this bill that was named for the late Lindsey Graham. He dismissed those concerns. What is your response to the argument that he doesn't want to do anything that will drive Russia away from the bargaining table? That's the argument he's making.
I think we just lost your IFB. Can you hear me? Senator Murphy, can you hear me?
We're going to take a quick break. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:37:15]
COOPER: Back now with Democratic senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy, he's a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Sorry about the IFB problem.
I wanted to ask you about, do you know anything about what is going on with this Starlink, Starshield problem that Ukraine seems to be having? Because the President's been all over the place. He said he'd like to find out, you know, who's behind it or what's going on with it. But he also indicated previously that the White House didn't do anything. He didn't think Elon Musk did either.
MURPHY: As you know, we're not in Washington, so I haven't received any classified brief here. But I know enough about this technology to know that it's really unlikely that this could have come down without the White House knowing about it, and maybe without direct authorization from the White House.
And again, going back to our previous conversation, you have to put this in context, right. Maybe if Trump was supporting Ukraine in every other way and Starshield came down, you could chalk it up to an error. But it happening at the same time as the dropping of the sanctions on Russia, of the suspension of interceptor sales, this proposal to work out a settlement with Putin, Xi, without Zelenskyy, it all seems very clear what's happening.
The squeeze is coming on Zelenskyy to try to wind this war up. And the question now is why, right? Is Trump getting something out of this personally? Is his family getting something out of this personally? That's probably the explanation. But the Starshield debacle is probably something that could not happen without Donald Trump knowing about it and potentially authorizing it.
COOPER: You really believe there may be some personal motivation for the President or members of his family?
MURPHY: Oh, absolutely. And there's open reporting on this. When the Russians have come to the United States, I think most recently they came to Miami to meet with Jared Kushner and other members of the Trump national security team. They put on the table business deals, right? The way that the Russians think this thing is going to wrap up is that Trump is going to sell Ukraine out in exchange for Trump essentially getting access to all sorts of Russian business arrangements that he can hand out to his friends. And that's all Trump cares about, is getting rich and his friends getting rich. This isn't me sort of engaged in wild conjecture, this has been pretty widely reported that the Russians are offering them business deals, and that is causing Trump to seriously consider selling out Ukraine.
Now, he also, you know, likes a fight between a dictatorship and a democracy. He's always going to weigh in on the side of the dictatorship. But I think this is basically just about Trump getting rich.
COOPER: Do you think there's been -- I mean, obviously, there's been, you know, a lot of aggression by President Trump towards Zelenskyy from going back to that Oval Office meeting. Do you think it's personal beyond the business stuff?
[20:40:08]
MURPHY: I don't know. I mean, obviously, he's been all over the map in how he talks about Zelenskyy. Sometimes it feels like it's the last person in the room. But, no, I think when it comes down to it, in this second presidency, everything for the President is about getting rich.
And there is clearly a way for him or his friends to get rich off of the end of this war on Putin's terms. So, no, I don't necessarily think that this in the end is a personal grievance with Zelenskyy. I just think it's about a president who sees another --
COOPER: Yes.
MURPHY: -- way to make himself even more fabulously rich.
COOPER: Senator Murphy, I appreciate your time. Thank you.
President Trump today continued to sidestep questions about who is restricting Ukraine's use of Elon Musk's Starshield service. We just talked about with the senator the military counterpart to SpaceX's Starlink satellite network.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Have you investigated at all who slowed down or interrupted the Starlink in Ukraine? Who ordered that interruption?
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know who it was, but I'd like to find out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: So, as we talked about, this comes after President Zelenskyy complained that Ukraine's access to some military systems running on Starlink or Starshield were being disrupted, making it difficult for the nation to defend itself against attacks.
Just last week, the President said he isn't behind the slowdown, that he didn't think Elon Musk was responsible either. Elon Musk posted this last week saying, "Starshield systems are owned and controlled by the U.S. government. Any limits on speed or usage are decided by the U.S. military and ultimately the President of the United States."
Joining me now is CNN Contributor and Tech Journalist Kara Swisher. Kara, President Trump says he doesn't know who ordered the disruption of Starshield service to Ukraine's military. Musk -- Elon Musk has previously said that only the U.S. government and the President has the power to place limits on Ukraine's usage.
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.
COOPER: The administration is casting doubt it's been slowed down, which Ukraine over the weekend said it was. I mean, this is emblematic of just how linked this administration is to Musk and would appear someone is not telling the truth on a massive scale with lives hanging in the balance.
SWISHER: It would appear. Yes. I don't think he's telling the truth. I mean, obviously, someone knows how it happened. And I would tend to believe the Ukrainians over Musk or Trump at any time. I mean, they were basically trying to pass the hot potato back and forth when things blew up in them, so to speak.
And so, you know, they got a lot, they got decried by Republicans, Democrats across the globe, and neither of them wanted to blame. And so they just finger pointed each other, which takes the focus off either. It wasn't me. No, it was you. It wasn't me.
You know, come on, stop it. This is just kind of ridiculous that we play these games with these people.
COOPER: I mean, it's also happening at a time when the President, who often says, you know, things that others might not say out loud, is saying he no longer, you know, he does not really trust Zelenskyy.
SWISHER: Yes.
COOPER: I mean, he's gone he's gone further right now and seems like he would have talks with Xi and Putin over the future of Ukraine.
SWISHER: Without Zelenskyy there, which is incredible, like it's an incredible idea to do some -- to slice up dominion, essentially. It feels like we're back in another century, essentially. And one of the things that sort of is difficult to sort of square is that if he didn't know, why didn't he know?
And who else did it if he didn't? I mean, to me, I'm sure Elon said, hey, let's really screw with them and turn it off. But you have to turn it off and they did like -- that -- so there's some reporting on that. But certainly they all knew it was happening in real time.
And now because that's not working, they're going to say it didn't actually happen. You know, don't believe your lying eyes is essentially that this is a typical tactic of both Musk and Trump. So to me, again, I believe the Ukrainians and what happened here. COOPER: Yes. Trump is saying he wants to get to the bottom of it, which you'd think he could have done by now, given it's been days.
SWISHER: Yes.
COOPER: But it's interesting because, I mean, the idea that the world's first trillionaire is at or near the center of the biggest and deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II is remarkable. And --
SWISHER: Yes.
COOPER: -- as AI takes over the battlefield more and more, these tech oligarchs will increasingly have outside roles in the future of nation states.
SWISHER: Well, you're preaching with the choir. This is something I've said for a long time. These unaccountable people are governing our country way before DOGE, before all of this. And they're standing at the inauguration. Why were they standing in front of elected officials in the cabinet? I don't know.
Why? Why were they there? Because they're, you know, they're essentially pigs at the trough and not just not just getting sweet, sweet contracts for themselves, but no regulation, self-policing, whatever that means, of a very serious technology. This is something I've talked about for a long, long, long time. And I think people are just beginning to realize it is, what is this man who has never been elected, is the richest person in the world, making foreign policy?
And listen, when the Ukrainian came up to me many years ago and said, can I ask Elon to stop geofencing Crimea, I didn't know what to say. I was shocked that he had any kind of power to do so.
[20:45:07]
COOPER: What do you think is behind Musk announcing he'll give a SpaceX share to every American child? SpaceX closed at just $148 a share today. That'd be $10.8 billion all in. I mean, is this because Anthropic pledged 5 percent of its shares to a public benefit fund?
SWISHER: No, because this will solidify SpaceX's shares. If everyone gets a share, that means they can't sell them for five years, I think. That means everyone has an interest in SpaceX doing well. This is a gift to Elon Musk, not to the children of America.
If you really wanted to help the children of America, you'd give away $10.5 billion, like, say, MacKenzie Scott, but that's only a third of what she gave away in one year. You know, if he really cared, we would tax these people at the correct rates that everyone else has to pay, like myself.
And I don't know what taxes you pay, but I know it's a whole lot more percentage-wise than these guys. And so, like, look, give the kids the $140, $148, and let them decide. If you're so into the free markets, give them the money and let them do what they want. I don't mind these Trump accounts, this cash. I do mind that they're forced to buy into the stock market, which supports -- they should do anything they want if they want to give away this money. But one share of SpaceX only helps Elon Musk and nobody else.
COOPER: Kara Swisher, thanks very much.
SWISHER: Thanks a lot.
COOPER: Up next, President Trump's latest makeover project in Washington led to a showdown today with a federal judge. Details next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[20:50:39]
COOPER: One of President Trump's projects in Washington is facing more pushback and became the focus of a contentious hearing in federal court today. This comes after the President released plans over the weekend to transform a public golf course into a championship-level venue. It was after hundreds of trees were removed from the course, a move the judge said she was furious about at a previous hearing.
With more on the controversy, here's Sunlen Serfaty.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TRUMP: We're going to basically build a better gold course.
SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In open defiance of a federal judge, President Trump is escalating the fight over this 300-acre D.C. golf course managed by the federal government.
TRUMP: You could call it a renovation. It should be very simple and it's something that the Department of the Interior is allowed to do, absolutely. All they want to do is fix up their property.
SERFATY (voice-over): Abruptly announcing he is officially closing the public course, starting construction to turn it into a championship- style course instead, and going after the judge overseeing a court battle over his plan, calling the judge, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, in the case a crazed lunatic. All this as government lawyers filed a formal motion to disqualify her from the case, saying she cannot serve as an impartial arbiter of the issues, calling her behavior egregious after the judge said she was furious that the administration may have defied her orders.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: This is not the White House, it is not behind locked doors, and we can fight for this land and we are going to.
SERFATY (voice-over): A federal lawsuit brought by the D.C. Preservation League and local golfers is seeking to halt the renovations, arguing it would take away a public and affordable place to play golf in the nation's capital. The President has argued the course is dilapidated and unsafe.
TRUMP: It's been allowed to get run down, it's bad, dangerous, dirty, lousy, and it's going to be one of the great courts.
SERFATY (voice-over): The President's quest to take over the course is keeping with his efforts to remake D.C. in his style and liking.
TRUMP: Washington was one of the worst places in this country, now it's one of the best.
SERFATY (voice-over): However, Judge Reyes has been adamant that no work should go forward until the legal battle plays out. The government has continually assured the federal judge that any plans are still conceptual and nothing has been finalized. Even while the President and his entourage visited the site in June, and the interior secretary released preliminary plans for the course makeover.
Then, with very little warning this month, the Trump administration cut down nearly 500 trees at the site in a single weekend, saying it was part of a maintenance plan. Over the weekend, a picture on social media posted by Trump's outgoing press secretary showed a blurred out map of the golf course on the President's desk, sparking speculation the plan was further along than they said.
And on Sunday, the President formally released the plan himself, the federal judge saying today she doesn't know who to believe.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SERFATY (on-camera): And it was a marathon hearing today going for over seven hours long, and it really illuminated these two separate narratives coming from the part of the Trump administration. On one hand, you have Department of Justice lawyers who argued that cutting down these trees essentially was just routine maintenance, had nothing to do with the broader plans to renovate this golf course, which of course is blocked by a court order.
And then you have President Trump, on the other hand, saying that this golf course will be closed next month and plans to renovate it will start in his words immediately. And we saw the judge in this case really openly struggle with that, essentially trying to square that circle. She said at one point there's no universe in which all of this coincidentally happened at the same time.
Anderson?
COOPER: We're now in the elections just 15 days away. Republican Congressman Andy Biggs is facing off against incumbent Democrat Katie Hobbs in the Arizona race for governor. Some critics are demanding answers for Biggs' legislative record in Washington. And as a state lawmaker, particularly on issues of protecting women, children and rape victims.
CNN Senior Investigative Correspondent Kyung Lah went to Arizona to ask Congressman Biggs about his voting history.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KYUNG LAH, CNN SENIOR INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In the desert just north of Tucson --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Welcome to Cowboy Church.
Let's hear it, Biggs, Biggs, Biggs, Biggs.
[20:55:01]
LAH (voice-over): A political revival at this church for Arizona Republican candidate for governor Andy Biggs.
ANDY BIGGS (R), ARIZONA GOVERNOR CANDIDATE: Are you ready to turn Arizona red again?
LAH (voice-over): But before Arizona voters can answer that question, critics are pushing Biggs to answer for his legislative past. Five different times as an Arizona state lawmaker, Biggs blocked or voted no on state bills aimed at protecting women, children and rape victims.
And then last year in Washington, as a member of the House Oversight Committee, Biggs voted no in directing the DOJ to release the Epstein files. He eventually flipped and voted for the Epstein Files Transparency Act months later, after Trump told Republicans to vote for it.
LAH: What does that handful of votes add up to in your mind?
BARRETT MARSON, ARIZONA REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: That tells me he is unfit to serve in a higher office. As governor of this state, no, that is disqualifying.
LAH (voice-over): Barrett Marson is talking about the top of the ticket for his own party. He's a registered Republican and political consultant and worked in the GOP legislature when Biggs served in the statehouse.
MARSON: Back in 2005, there was a bill that created the crime of spousal rape. Several East Valley legislators, including Andy Biggs, were vehemently opposed to it. They were enough to kill the bill.
LAH (voice-over): In his 14 years in state office, Biggs voted against a bill requiring sex offenders from other states to re-register in Arizona, objected in committee to a bill that would boost criminal penalties for child sex traffickers, and didn't advance to the Senate floor a bill that cut the backlog of rape kits.
But gripping the current Arizona election is the political fallout involving the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The FLDS was a reclusive sect led by Warren Jeffs, who was sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting two girls. Jeffs claimed they were his spiritual wives. He was captured on the run after landing on the FBI's most wanted list for systemic child abuse and forced underage marriage.
MARSON: These were 12, 13-year-old girls who were being married off to old men. And that was, you know, the life that they had. And they could not do anything about it.
LAH: What did Andy Biggs do?
MARSON: He blocked a bill that would have helped decertify the police department, which was part of the FLDS structure that kept men, women in line. And when presented with a bipartisan bill, Andy Biggs decided not only to not support it, but as Senate president, he was able to hold the bill. He was able to put it in his drawer and it never saw the light of day. And I think that is unconscionable.
LAH (voice-over): In 2017, four years after Biggs killed that bill, a judge found that the police department turned a blind eye to church misconduct and ordered reforms.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One, two, three.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Vote for this man.
LAH: Is he going to take couple of questions?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, but up to him.
LAH: Hi, Congressman. I'm Kyung Lah from CNN.
BIGGS: Hi, how are you doing?
LAH: Do you have just like couple minutes?
LAH (voice-over): We caught up with Biggs as he met with supporters. I expected he'd want to spend the most time talking about his Arizona record, but it was Epstein that got him going.
LAH: I spoke with a couple of different Republicans who are concerned about your legislative votes.
BIGGS: That stuff we answered 10 years ago on everything you mentioned except for the Epstein stuff. And the Epstein stuff, can you define the Epstein files? I'm a lawyer. I wanted them to define Epstein files.
LAH (voice-over): A member of the hardline Conservative House Freedom Caucus, Biggs emphasized he fought the Biden administration to release the Epstein files. But under President Trump, Biggs did initially vote no on releasing the files.
Then months later, flipped. He says, I'm ignoring his record.
LAH: Well, I guess it's the political question.
BIGGS: What you did is you've ignored what I did, which was standing up trying to help the Epstein files. You ignore my position on pro- helping women and children, fighting against human trafficking, fighting against sex trafficking. You ignore any of that stuff.
When I get in front of people and I talk about my bills like CSAFE, my bills that have dealt and protected women and children, my past as a prosecutor, they say, oh, my gosh, we've been misled.
LAH (voice-over): CSAFE is a bill aimed at protecting children from predators online, introduced by Biggs in Congress last year after he announced his candidacy for Arizona governor.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Andy Biggs could have protected children. Instead, he protected pedophiles.
LAH (voice-over): Biggs's Democratic opponent is rolling out the attacks online, on the airwaves.
GOV. KATIE HOBBS (D), ARIZONA: Arizona has had the largest voice in that discussion.
LAH (voice-over): And in interviews. Governor Katie Hobbs is the incumbent.
HOBBS: Arizonans deserve answers for his record. There's a pattern there, and I think he owes Arizonans an answer.
LAH (voice-over): Betting Biggs's past will keep her in office for this next term.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LAH (on-camera): We reached out to the Biggs campaign after our interview, listing every single one of the bills mentioned in our story. We specifically wanted to offer Biggs the opportunity to share his reasoning for his votes or his political moves. We did not hear back from the campaign. Anderson?
COOPER: Kyung Lah, thanks.
You can stream this show live or watch any CNN program on demand anytime on any screen or mobile device. All you need is an All Access subscription. Scan the QR code on your screen or go to CNN.com/Watch to learn more.
That's it for us. The news continues right here on CNN.
