Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump On Market Turmoil, Nope, Doesn't Concern Me; Trump Plays Car Salesman As Musk's Tesla Struggles; Trump Says, Any Attacks On Tesla Considered Domestic Terror; Layoffs Start At The Department Of Education; Black Lives Matter Art Is Disappearing. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired March 11, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, the White House or a Tesla dealership.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Number one, it's a great product, as good as it gets. I want to make a good deal here.
PHILLIP: The president and his billionaire buddy asks America to walk off the lot with new cars.
Plus, is Donald Trump tanking. The economy suffers another shaky day, raising questions about the president's plan, or if there is one.
Also, dismantling the Department of Education, DOE shutters its offices as layoffs wipe out half of its workforce.
And, friends in high places, a prosecutor gets a pink slip over her refusal to do what sounds like a presidential favor for a MAGA celeb.
Live at the table, Bakari Sellers, Scott Jennings, Ashley Allison, Kevin O'Leary and Van Lathan.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, no reservations tonight. The president is saying that he is unconcerned and unbothered by the market meltdown even as you are trying desperately not to look at your 401(k) right at this very moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, when you look at the market selling off, that didn't concern you?
TRUMP: Nope. REPORTER: And where do you see it going?
TRUMP: That doesn't concern me. I think some people are going to make great deals by buying stocks and bonds and all the things they're buying. I think we're going to have an economy that's a real economy, not a fake economy.
REPORTER: Do you and your tariff policies right now bear any responsibility for the turmoil we're seeing this week?
TRUMP: No. I think Biden gave us a horrible economy. He gave us horrible inflation. And I think the market was going to go very, very bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: That is a very different story than the one being told by investors or by economists or Canadians.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOUG FORD, ONTARIO, CANADA PREMIER: I just feel when it's at a fever pitch and we see the market tumbling over $4 trillion, inflation happening, uncertainty and consumer confidence is down.
It's not about backing down. It's about sitting around the table and negotiating a fair deal.
Because right now, no one likes uncertainty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Kevin, Trump's got your people very mad up there in Canada. This back and forth with Canada seems to be leading to the place that he could have gotten if he had just said, hey, Canada, let's sit down and renegotiate USMCA three weeks ago without, you know, dropping the stock market 10 percent.
KEVIN O'LEARY, CHAIRMAN, O'LEARY VENTURES AND SHARK TANK INVESTOR: Abby, you've been watching and listening to Trump for 12 years. Do you think he's going to change? You have to distinguish between the noise and the signal. The signal that Trump's put out multiple times is what an incredible economic union could be formed if we eradicated tariffs and joined the two economies. Not buying the country. Is it making Canadians Americans? Sovereignty is off the table.
PHILLIP: I don't want to rewrite the words that Trump himself has said out of his own mouth. He said two things. He believes in an economy that is powered by tariffs, he believes in tariffs, not that it's a negotiating tool, he wants the tariffs because he wants the money.
The second thing that he said is that, you know, who knows if this is real, but he keeps repeating it, he wants Canada to be the 51st state. So, why are you asking us to ignore what Trump is saying?
O'LEARY: Because you've been watching Trump for 12 years. PHILLIP: Yes, and I don't ignore what he says anymore because he tends to do the things that he says.
O'LEARY: You got to listen. You got to listen for the signal outside of the noise. He's bombastic. He says outrageous things, but from all that comes an interesting opportunity. In Canada, you've got the United States of America, the largest consumer market on Earth, and Canada, the richest country on Earth, with everything everybody needs every day.
You don't have to buy the country, and they're not selling their sovereignty, but if you get an economic union with no tariffs, and maybe a common currency, and maybe a common passport, and maybe something that could be done around making sure that everything is equalized, China will never catch up. And I think that's the opportunity.
So, even three hours ago, before I got here, Ford, who was talking about cutting off electricity, changed his mind. We're in a narrative of negotiation.
[22:05:01]
PHILLIP: Well, I think both sides backed down and they went to the negotiating table, which is frankly where they should have been in the first place.
O'LEARY: Abby, it's kumbaya.
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But it's not -- the problem with that is, one, I mean, when I have my good Republican friends at the table, the first thing they like to do is talk about the Biden economy. And I have to remember that if we had a sharp decline in the stock market under Joe Biden, then their hair would be on fire. It would be on Fox News 24/7. They would come in here and tell us that Joe Biden was asleep at the wheel. That's first.
The second thing is while Donald Trump has this uncertainty, and it's not just the uncertainty of the Trump administration, it's also the uncertainty of whether or not you're going to pass a C.R., which Mike Johnson was able to do today, is the uncertainty of what they're going to do next with tariffs, et cetera. But who gets lost in that? It's those people who have 401(k)s. It's those people who have retirements. I mean, it's those people who have money in the market to save for a rainy day. And so I got a great deal of respect for you, you know more about money than most, but to say that those people aren't being caught up in that whirlwind is just -- I mean, that is a fact. While we're gaming out what Donald Trump says, the fact is, the market lost his ass and it's Donald Trump's fault.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Do you think the market's going to go down forever?
SELLERS: Well, no, the markets go down and up.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. But last time we were here --
JENNINGS: So, you're saying that people have 401(k)s, you're saying they're having a meltdown. I mean, the market will go up and down, and it will go up, and over time, the United States stock market has done quite well. So, I mean, the president's been acknowledging he's expecting some short-term turbulence in the market, but I wouldn't measure the health of the stock market over a short period of time.
SELLERS: I'm actually measuring the health of the economy, one, especially over the last three or four weeks since he's been there.
JENNINGS: We brought up 401(k)s. I just wanted to answer that.
SELLERS: No, and I'm with you. But I can also -- I mean, that is a very true sentiment and actually there are going to be a lot of people who text me tomorrow and be like there ain't enough people who have money in the stock market. So, it's not an issue that trickles down. So, that could be another issue as well. But what I am saying is that the uncertainty this tariff this morning by the afternoon is off. That is not a way to govern.
VAN ALTHAN, PDOCAST CO-HOST, HIGHER LEARNING: Well, I mean, and to the point you guys are talking about that is directly controlled by the president. So, the market will be up. The market will be down. But the president and the way he's going about the tariffs, he's directly influencing the way the market is moving.
So, the question is not whether or not the market will stay up or down, but whether or not Donald Trump will get consistent on tariffs and his economic plan soon so that people don't have this uncertainty.
ALLISON: I also think, I'm looking at this from a different perspective for people who actually don't even have 401(k)s. There's a whole constituency of people who don't have retirement plans, don't have disposable income to buy stocks when they are down, because they just -- they are literally living paycheck to paycheck. And many of those individuals voted for Donald Trump. And I don't think -- you're right, man. What the president is saying is causing instability in the market.
Now, last week we were at this table and the market had dipped again or before twice last week and it was like well it's one day. Now, we're like three or four days in because of the language. So, I think there are some people who will benefit from probably people like Elon Musk, probably people who have the luxury to not just have a 401(k) but have some extra cash on the side to make the most when the market goes down and they can buy stocks. But then there is this whole set of people in Middle America, that working class person, that doesn't have that luxury and what is happening to them.
And prices are still high. I get it, it's been six weeks, but prices are still high. And the social safety net programs that they often use are at risk.
JENNINGS: Now one thing is true, eggs are down. Eggs are now cheaper than they were when Trump came in. Everybody's been whining about eggs.
ALLISON: So, killing the chicken for a buffet?
PHILLIP: I mean, maybe they're down a little bit, but they're still, A, not available, and, B, they still cost more than $5 a dozen. Okay.
But speaking of regular, everyday Americans you know, one of the things that's been going on, in addition to all of this uncertainty, is that the cuts continue to affect real people. Here is the agriculture secretary talking about a billion dollars in cuts to food banks and food programs that benefit United States' schools.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL HEMMER, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: USDA cancels $1 billion in local food purchasing for schools and food banks. How do you justify that?
BROOKE ROLLINS, AGRICULTURE SECRETARY: Well, listen, I think it's really important. And of course the left is doing what the left does. These were COVID era programs. These were additional funds.
Right now, from what we are viewing, that program was nonessential, that it was a new program and that it was an effort by the left to continue spending taxpayer dollars that were not necessary.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ALLISON: Man.
LATHAN: You guys. It is cynical out there when we're talking about kids eating and politics.
O'LEARY: It's not that was about.
LATHAN: So, it was funny. It's not, wasn't funny. During COVID, one of the main things that we all came together to do was to deal with the instability that kids who weren't in schools were going.
O'LEARY: We're not at COVID anymore.
LATHAN: I understand that. But if you think that child hunger is an issue of the past, and it's an issue now.
[22:10:00]
So, I just don't see how you make a case to the American people, the same American people have been struggling, according to the right, for a couple of years now that there is anything to be gained by cutting off food to --
O'LEARY: They're not in the program.
PHILLIP: That program is also one that --
O'LEARY: Well, I don't think we're cutting enough. I think we should -- PHILLIP: That program is also one that benefits not just the recipients, but also the farmers that are there to purchase from.
LATHAN: Absolutely.
PHILLIP: That's the main reason it's a DO -- Department of Agriculture.
O'LEARY: You know, this issue is not going to go away because it's very contentious. But when you cut in any organization, government or private, it's very demoralizing, it's traumatic, and it gets lots of ad press, as we're doing right now. But that's why you cut 20 percent more.
I think Elon's not cutting enough. Cut 20 percent more. Now, get your spreadsheet out, these are the names, whack everybody, and then 20 percent more, as we do in the private sector every day and have done for 100 years in private equity, and hire back when the organization gels. That way the demoralization only happens once. You don't want to cut multiple times.
SELLERS: But do you -- but in that -- let me just --
O'LEARY: More whacking, more whacking, more whacking, more whacking.
SELLERS: Let me just --- can I explain to you that this is when running --
O'LEARY: You don't need to explain it to me, I know how it works.
SELLERS: No, you don't because --
O'LEARY: Actually, I do. I've done it multiple times.
SELLERS: Yes, that's in the private sector. And you cannot run --
O'LEARY: This is worse than the price sector.
SELLERS: You cannot run everyday government the same way you run the --
O'LEARY: Fat dripping with waste --
SELLERS: I'm not talking about fat dripping with waste government. I told you in the south right now, in red states, do you know the number one cause -- can I finish my question? Do you know the number one cause for children underperforming in schools right now?
O'LEARY: Bad educator.
SELLERS: Hunger.
(CROSSTALKS)
O'LEARY: You're talking to the wrong guy. I actually -- SELLERS: That's my point of bringing that up to you. And so, yes, you had things like the free and reduced lunch program. You have the summer lunch program. You have programs that were expanded so kids could actually -- so I'm not arguing with you about your expertise in the private sector. But what I am saying is that a 20 percent cut or whack or whack or whack, you're cutting from Allendale Fairfax High School and Birmingham High School. You're cutting from places that really matter.
O'LEARY: You want to talk about high schools in America? That's what I did for 14 years.
ALLISON: I also was a high school teacher. Let me just say --
PHILLIP: Let me just say we have a whole discussion coming about schools. But one thing -- I want to let you in, Ashley, but I just want you to consider. The Department of Agriculture -- there was a great story this week about how the Department of Agriculture is a great place to cut from, because the biggest beneficiary of a lot of their programs and grants are huge, mega corporate farms that don't need it, that don't need it. But you don't get the headlines about those guys. Why? And it's partly because it's harder to cut those things and DOGE isn't doing it.
O'LEARY: You know, DOGE will get around to everything eventually. That's the whole point. DOGE is so contentious right now because of what they're doing.
PHILLIP: Why don't they start with the big stuff as opposed to food for kids in schools?
O'LEARY: Look, you can criticize where it goes first. They're going to focus their laser on cutting into every sector. And it's going to keep going and it's going to remain contentious.
ALLISON: I just feel like the human impact of this is always missed in these stories. I remember growing up going to the boys and girls club every day after school and it was free lunches or free after school meals that local programs provided that many of the kids in those programs, that was their dinner. If they did not eat there, they would not eat when they went home because they live low income schools.
I remember teaching at boys and girls high school where my students would come in early to get breakfast so that they could perform at grade level and be good students. Is the school system perfect? I know we're going to talk about it, but it was feeding kids early in the morning so they could come and pay attention because they wouldn't get it at home.
And then giving, free or reduced lunches, I know that when children are born and women, infants, and children, many -- the developmental phase of children, if they do not get proper nutrition when they're from utero to five years old, the likelihood that when they actually get into the schools, they can perform at grade level. This is a systemic cycle. And so to start, you could start with the big manufacturers, but you're not. You could start at the Pentagon, but you start with kids. That is a direct impact that affects Republicans and Democrats. And I don't think that's what people wanted.
PHILLIP: All right. Up next for us, a surreal scene playing out, Trump, the car salesman, with Elon Musk at the White House, and then, a big revelation comes out about Musk as well.
Plus, we have much more breaking news tonight on the Department of Education firing half of its workforce. What does that mean for children in the United States?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, something I'm sure none of you have ever seen before. This is the president using the bully pulpit, not to sell his agenda, but to sell cars.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This is a different panel than I've had. Everything's computer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, why would Trump and Musk always be closing even on the White House lawn? Well, look at Tesla stock. It is down and Musk admitted that even he needs the help.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LARRY KUDLOW, FOX BUSINESS HOST: You're giving up your other stuff. I mean, what do you, how are you running your other businesses?
ELON MUSK, DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY: With great difficulty.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Look, Teslas, they're cool cars, but the president is clearly trying to do his friend, political donor actually government employee, a pretty big favor here for his private business.
[22:20:00]
JENNINGS: It's hardly the first time we've had cars on the South Lawn, man. Here's a video of Joe Biden driving a Jeep Rubicon around the South Lawn. I mean, it's pretty common.
PHILLIP: And President Trump had did it before in his first term as well.
JENNINGS: It's pretty common for the president United States to boost American industries, American-made products and companies that are, you know, employing Americans. It's extremely common. He obviously has a close relationship with Elon, who, by the way, is I think unfairly under attack. And this company is unfairly under attack. You have these insane people all over the country chasing people down in their Teslas in New York City. I had a friend who tried to trade his Tesla in New York the other day, and there were protesters screaming at his children. These people are unhinged, and they deserve support from the government.
PHILLIP: But let's be clear, let's not squirt over the fact that Elon Musk spent $250 million to elect Donald Trump.
JENNINGS: So, you're against an American company?
SELLERS: No, that's not --
EJNNINGS: You don't want the government to support this man?
PHILLIP: He is a political donor, so it's not the limits of his relationship with the president.
SELLERS: There's a difference between saying that the big three should succeed or having a Jeep Rubicon on the front and then telling people that they need to come out and he was going to buy a Tesla or having five Teslas on the front or having a sheet of paper with the price tags on the Teslas, all while that same individual is saying things like we should cut Social Security.
ALLISON: Yes.
JENNINGS: That is false. That is completely false.
SELLERS: And, actually, you want to actually know what's completely --
PHILLIP: Wait, sorry. That's false, Scott?
SELLERS: He did not say --
PHILLIP: Who is he?
SELLERS: Elon Musk did not say --
PHILLIP: Yes, he did.
SELLERS: Oh no. Can I tell you what he said? Can I tell you what he said exactly?
JENNINGS: Totally false.
SELLERS: Because what he said was -- he said Social Security is a magnet for illegal immigration, right? So -- but can I --
PHILLIP: Scott was sitting right here at the table when we played the clip of Elon Musk saying that there's $500, $600 or $700 million in fraud in Social Security.
JENNINGS: Yes, there's a government report to that effect, the previous administration, generally. PHILLIP: No. He said, annually, that report said it was $150-something million dollars each year. That's not $600 million.
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: He said, Elon --
SELLERS: Because of the simple fact that, yes, I'm trying to make sure that Scott understands --
O'LEARY: Elon Musk did not execute any of these findings. He's finding them, he's showing them to you, you like it, you don't like it, there's nothing wrong with that.
LATHAN: Let me ask you guys a question. Does it look bad at a time when Americans are struggling to have the president hawking cars for the richest guy in the world because his political --
JENNINGS: Does it look bad for the president to support an American company that employs thousands of American workers?
LATHAN: No.
JENNINGS: I don't think it looks bad.
LATHAN: He's supporting Elon Musk.
JENNINGS: Who do you think builds the cars, brother?
LATHAN: Elon Musk builds the cars?
JENNINGS: No, the workers of the United States of America where they build the -- I mean, they're building cars.
LATHAN: What I'm telling you right now is the way I look at that.
JENNINGS: He's not the only person that works there.
LATHAN: I look at the president doing a favor for another one of his rich home boy.
JENNINGS: So, you don't like this company because you don't like Elon Musk that you support --
LATHAN: I have a Tesla.
JENNINGS: I know, but you're mad that he's supporting the company, because you don't like the political --
ALLISON: Perhaps the White House can bring Ford next week.
JENNINGS: Fine.
ALLISON: And then Chevy. Because when --
JENNINGS: They're routinely at the White House. And, in fact, during the Biden administration, they were at the White House and he excluded Elon Musk.
ALLISON: Yes, and that's why --
LAHTAN: How about some small businesses? How about Brooklyn Tea or a small black business --
ALLISON: Well, apparently, Donald Trump needs a car.
PHILLIP: Let me play what Trump also said about what you were talking about, Scott, the vandalism, the criminal activity that's been going on around Teslas. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: He talks about some of the violence that's been going on around the country at dealerships. Some say they should be labeled domestic terrorists.
TRUMP: I will do that. I'll do it. I'm going to stop them. We catch anybody doing it because they're harming a great American company. When you do that, those people are going to go through a big problem when we catch them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
O'LEARY: Is he wrong? Are they not vandalizing a great American company? Is Tesla not a great American company?
PHILLIP: I mean, I didn't say he was -- I didn't say he was wrong.
O'LEARY: So, Elon put himself under -- he's like an ant under a microscope. He's doing something that's been so needed for so long. He's just simply saying, look at what I found here. Look at what I found here. Look at the waste. Look at the fraud. Look at -- and you're doing a terrible job.
PHILLIP: I think the thing about that clip --
O'LEARY: You don't have to do anything about it, but he's pointing it out. This guy --
LATHAN: First of all, we should say this.
O'LEARY: He's a hero. He's a freaking hero.
LATHAN: We should say this, yes. The animus that surrounds Elon Musk doesn't just have to do with Tesla. It has to do with some of the things that Elon Musk does on social media, some of the ways Twitter is being run. Like the eroding of Elon Musk's reputation has to do with a lot of things.
O'LEARY: It's his reputation. He's doing it and he's a hero for --
PHILLIP: Hold on. The point of that clip, Kevin and Van, was also that Trump seemed to agree that there should be domestic terror charges for people who were -- JENNINGS: Why are they singling out Teslas? I mean, why? Because Elon Musk supports Donald Trump. These people are chasing Tesla owners. They might chase you someday.
PHILLIP: So, you agree on the domestic terrorism?
LATHAN: Purchased in 2019.
JENNINGS: I don't know. Look, they are -- Elon Musk currently holds a position of trust in our government. He is a top adviser to the president of the United States.
[22:25:01]
And there's clearly a bunch of people out there who are targeting him and his products specifically. If that's not terrorism, I'm not sure what is. They are terrorizing people who bought an Elon Musk's product.
O'LEARY: Let me disclose something I think I should say. My son works for Elon in Fremont. He goes to a gauntlet of protesters every day to do his job. It's outrageous.
ALLISON: That's America. I think that's okay.
O'LEARY: It's not okay.
ALLISON: No, let me clarify. I do not think when you disagree with somebody's political views that violence or destruction of property is the way to go. I'll say that. I've said that before on issues that I agree with, on issues I disagree with. There's a different way. But when you decide to take -- go into the public forefront to work in government, you do expose yourself to -- we have a First Amendment for the reason. You go through -- people protests. I don't think that people should not be able to protest because you think Elon Musk is a hero and your son works there. I think that if you don't agree with him, go ahead.
O'LEARY: I just want to disclose it. I'm proud of that he's finding the waste, the dripping fat.
ALLISON: I don't think that's what he's doing, though. Okay, I don't think that's what's happening.
JENNINGS: But you have to admit, there's a (INAUDIBLE) protesting in the more violent acts?
ALLISON: Yes, it's not acceptable.
PHILLIP: I mean, I think that's the point that Ashley is making, is that he takes this job. And it's not just -- okay, as Van pointed out, it's not just DOGE. Elon Musk is a target because he's pushed, frankly, the Great Replacement Theory on social media, which people consider to be a white supremacist theory. He's done a lot of controversial things in his life.
LATHAN: There's been Nazism on his --
O'LEARY: Look, he's a controversial guy. He takes he heat every day.
PHILLIP: So, it's not just the DOGE.
O'LEARY: Why don't we form a committee tonight saying, DOGE plus 20 percent? Join me in saying we're not whacking enough. Let's whack more. Come on.
PHILLIP: Okay.
O'LEARY: We're saving your money. It's your taxpayer money. Whack-a- tola (ph).
LATHAN: What I would say is every time you whack something -- you look at it, you come from the private sector, right? You look at it as whack, saving money, CEO, all kinds. I think of the American lives.
O'LEARY: I'm saving jobs.
LATHAN: I think of hungry kids. I think of people that aren't getting essential services. I think of the people that I grew up with in Baton Rouge who need a social safety net because of years and years of --
O'LEARY: Do you really think Elon's running around saying, let's starve children? That's not what he's doing.
LATHAN: It doesn't matter if he's trying to do it.
ALLISON: He's doing it.
LATHAN: It matters if it happens.
O'LEARY: He's finding waste in government.
JENNINGS: This passionate speech is why no one ever cuts the government. I mean, everybody says they want to do it until somebody tries and then we get all the speeches and all the -- no one will ever do it.
ALLISON: I'm not saying -- you said this last night. It's not -- there are other places you could start to cut the government. You could start at the defense, but we're not. We're starting at --
JENNINGS: Like the only thing you want to cut? You said that last night.
ALLISON: No. I said --
LATHAN: It hasn't passed an audit. I mean, these other places have been audited by an inspector general.
ALLISON: Why start at the smallest little thing? Why start at the smallest little thing?
PHILLIP: Hey, look -- LATHAN: Why start with the kids? Why start with the kids?
PHILLIP: This Trump Defense Department is asking for more money, not less money.
JENNINGS: We need it.
PHILLIP: Okay. So -- okay. So, if you want to start by cutting the Defense Department, clearly, that is not happening in this Trump administration.
Coming up next, Trump begins gutting the department that he wants eliminated as he fires half of the workforce of the Department of Education tonight.
Plus, a DOJ official says that she was fired for refusing an order involving Mel Gibson.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:32:53]
PHILLIP: A first step and a rude reality for thousands of Department of Education employees, layoffs for the agency started tonight, and that's about half of the Department's workforce is now gone. The Secretary says that the rest of the workforce is likely to follow soon.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA INGRAHAM, FOX NEWS HOST: Is this the first step on the road to a total shutdown?
LINDA MCMAHON, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION: Yes. Actually, it is because that was the President's, mandate, this directive to me. What we did today was to take the -- the first step of-- of eliminating what I think is -- is bureaucratic bloat.
We wanted to make sure that we kept all of the right people, the good people to make sure that the outward facing programs, the -- the grants, the appropriations that come from Congress, all of that are being met, and none of that's going to fall through the cracks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, Trump did, in fact, promise this Bakari, and now he's following through. What do you think the impact's going to be?
SELLERS: I mean, I think that one of the things people fail to understand is actually how our public schools in this country are funded. People don't understand that we have a three-legged school stool in the way that we fund our schools. You get -- you have your local tax dollars, your federal tax dollars and your state tax dollars.
And so, when you make drastic cuts to the federal government, we're talking about your title programs, we're talking about your lunch programs, we're talking about the programs that affect your, your kids who have extraordinary or special needs. We're talking about all of those things that are going to be affected by draconian cuts, such as this.
If we want to go in and say that, look, and I think all of us could agree around the table that we're not preparing our kids for a twenty first century global economy. If we want it to start from that premise and sorry to you, I'm not picking on you.
But to use your words instead of whack, whack -- if we wanted to start from that premise and figure out how we can better educate our children, there are ways to do it other than draconian cuts. And I think in places like Mississippi, places like Arkansas, places like the great Commonwealth of Kentucky, South Carolina, North Carolina, they're going to fill these cuts a lot.
O'LEARY: May I respond?
SELLERS: Please. I mean, it's an open show.
O'LEARY: As an individual who worked in the education system for 14 years, there's a 10,000 high schools in America. Majority of them are New York, Florida, Texas and California. Our Reading and Math scores are the worst in the G7 and the G20 in terms of how many dollars we spend to advance our children.
[22:35:01]
SELLERS: OK.
O'LEARY: Why? Unions. Unions that keep mediocre teachers in place in every high school in America when we should be firing them. You want to talk about WACC as our theme tonight's show?
(CROSSTALK)
O'LEARY: I would like to fire teachers - wait, wait. And I'd like to pay a lot more to the teachers that advance Math and Reading scores that push our system forward against every G7 to 20-country. We have broken the system long ago through unions. And this is very unpredictable.
ALLISON: But what are those types actually -- impact --
(CROSSTALK)
O'LEARY: But what it means is -- the lowest paid person in in America that deserves a lot more money is a great teacher.
ALLISON: I agree. I was a former teacher.
O'LEARY: Can't in the system of unions in America, we keep mediocrity festively. We're destroying the education system.
SELLERS: Can I just, respectfully, let me just tell you how misguided your statement is?
O'LEARY: Not at all.
SELLERS: But, I mean, I'm just going to point out the fact that --
O'LEARY: Thank goodness I'm here.
SELLERS: But you're wrong. And let me tell you why.
O'LEARY: I'm a hundred percent right.
SELLERS: No, I want to tell you why you're wrong. Because the bottom 10 states that are underperforming, those states that I'm talking about in the South, let's take South Carolina for example, or Mississippi. You want to tell me one thing they don't have? One thing they don't have, strong teacher unions. So, there is no direct correlation.
O'LEARY: Weak teacher unions? But they have unions.
SELLERS: Or barely any of them have unions.
O'LEARY: Yeah.
SELLERS: But that's not the reason these places are failing.
O'LEARY: So, finally --
SELLERS: When was the last time --
O'LEARY: If you look at 10 teachers, four of them are great. I want to double their salary.
SELLERS: There's no question. I agree with you.
O'LEARY: So, why don't you just get out of here?
SELLERS: Now what happens if you have a quarter of shame where kids go to school and their heating and air don't work, where their infrastructure's falling apart, where they have to drink unclean water, or they can't just leave hunger?
O'LEARY: Send them to the states. That's what -- that's what --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: Fix the problem I just -- I just laid out to you.
O'LEARY: Well, you got to fix the unions first because we do both agree, bad teachers destroy advancement of children.
ALLISON: So, I have a question. Are you saying that the cuts to the Department of Education that happens right now are going to impact the unions?
O'LEARY: I would rather the dollars that are put into running the government --
ALLISON: I know, but you started talking about something else, but we're talking about the cuts to the Department of Education. I don't think those are directly --
O'LEARY: No, no. You're cutting out the federal mandate and giving it to the state.
JENNINGS: They're cutting the bureaucracy.
O'LEARY: Yes.
JENNINGS: I don't think they're cutting the money. They want to send the money directly to the states.
O'LEARY: That's it.
JENNINGS: Respectfully, if this bureaucracy that is in place now at the federal and state level, no matter what state you're talking about, we're doing such a bang up job, we wouldn't have these terrible reading scores. We wouldn't have these terrible Math and Science scores.
Something is broken and there's one more issue that no one's talking about, and that is the issue of truancy. We've got 30 plus percent truancy rates in some places. Not only can these kids not read, we cannot even find them. I would not disagree --
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: -- Kamala Harris.
SELLERS: Exactly. I would not disagree with either of you all on the fact that we are not preparing our children well enough.
O'LEARY: But you want the state to (inaudible).
SELLERS: Absolutely not. And let me tell you why. I want there to be oversight. I don't necessarily want there to be a blow to bureaucracy, but I -- what I do want is every -- every child in this country to have an opportunity to succeed regardless, and -- and let me just tell you the biggest problem we have in this country because you said unions.
I will push back on you and say that the greatest problem we have is the fact that children are punished in this country because of the ZIP code that they're born into. And until you can find me some --
O'LEARY: Parity issue (ph).
ALLISON: No. It's not.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Actually, I mean --
ALLISON: -- no ZIP code.
UNKNOWN: You get solved with school choice.
PHILLIP: Hang on a second, Kevin. I mean, I'm a
UNKNOWN: The problem is that every choice wouldn't be it.
PHILLIP: What Bakari is saying, OK. Let's say that you get rid of the bureaucracy at the Department of Education. How do you ensure that kids are actually being educated and that they're not just being moved out --
O'LEARY: You think at the state level --
PHILLIP: No, no.
O'LEARY: -- they hate kids -- they hate children?
PHILLIP: No, no, that they're not just being --
ALLISON: You think at the federal level they hate kids?
PHILLIP: -- that they're not just being moved out of the public school system because it's easier --
ALLISON: Yeah.
PHILLIP: -- to move them out than to educate them.
O'LEARY: The one thing about education you can't deny is the Reading and Math scores. Unfortunately, that is the metric by which we test.
PHILLIP: But do you understand my question?
O'LEARY: No. I get it. It's not dealing with the issue.
PHILLIP: Those performing kids and you just take them out of the system, guess what those Reading and Math scores are going to do? They're going to go up. So, how do you prevent school failure?
O'LEARY: For them to go up, you need great teachers.
ALLISON: Well, I think there's also a concept of teaching to the test, which actually doesn't create critical thinking skills to prepare people to go out and be thriving adults. You can actually have a student go through college and or go through high school or go through, grade school
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: --and let me -- let me finish. Let me finish. Thank you. And just be taught to the test. And so you literally-- you know why? I know because I had an experience. I will never forget. I was a teacher. I will never forget. We were going to take our regions, and I would -- we were really wanting to make sure our scores. So, we were we were teaching to the test. The same night, I went home
and watched the episode on the wire and they talked the exact same thing because they were teaching to the test. We were not preparing my students.
O'LEARY: What percentage of your colleagues when you were a teacher, you know sucked? How many?
ALLISON: I think -- I come from a family of educators. My grandmother is an educator. My aunt was a superintendent. My sister is a teacher. I think teaching is one of the hardest professions.
O'LEARY: I agree.
ALLISON: And I think when you wake up every day and you say, I am going to take care of other people's children and try and advance them --
O'LEARY: You're not answering my question.
SELLERS: I will tell you this.
ALLISON: I don't think -- I don't think every -- no, no.
[22:40:00]
Because I think that it is so easy.
O'LEARY: They're all just great.
ALLISON: I think it is so easy for people to be so disrespectful to teachers. It is a hard profession.
O'LEARY: You're not answering the question.
ALLISON: In every single profession, there are people who are good and there are people who could be better.
O'LEARY: Out of 10, how many sucked? How many out of 10?
PHILLIP: All right, let me ask a question --
ALLISON: One, maybe.
PHILLIP: Let say that, you know, everybody agrees. We're not where we need to be as a country. What's wrong with trying to do something completely different? What's wrong with -- with not just continuing what we've been doing that hasn't been working?
VAN LATHAN, PODCAST CO-HOST, "HIGHER LEARNING": I mean, for me, I think there's more investment that's needed. I think we need to invest into early head start. I think the one of the hugest indicators on how a kid is going to perform in school later on in their scholastic career is how early they get what they need.
So, I think there needs to be more investment into early head start, more investment to other things that deal with some of the outside factors that keep kids from excelling in the classroom.
SELLERS: And the point that you brought up is really good because I -- I want to -- go ahead.
JENNINGS: Well, just in over the last 50 years in this country, the amount of money we spend on education has gone this way, but test scores have gone this way. It's not the money.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: I agree with Kevin a little bit tonight because what we're talking about is, one, because of the simple fact that he -- he's talking about creating more teachers. And so, Kevin's going out on his limb and saying that we need to make sure that we're investing in these HBCUs, in these community colleges
LATHAN: Yeah.
SELLERS: And these technical colleges to make sure that we're putting and investing and making sure that people actually go to school to come out with these degrees to be teachers, and so I applaud you for that. I also think it's really easy for people to pile on teachers.
ALLISON: Yes.
SELLERS: Jobs that other people wouldn't take for $30,000 a year because, you know, teachers now have to not only go to work at your elementary school, but they work at Cracker Barrel, too. Like, they have other jobs.
O'LEARY: That's horrible.
ALLISON: It is.
SELLERS: It is horrible.
ALLISON: They have roommates.
PHILLIP: And they also they also need master's degrees.
ALLISON: Yes.
PHILLIP: And, you know, advanced degrees. So these are not people just rolling out --
O'LEARY: These are underpaid pieces.
SELLERS: Does anyone believe in school choice at this table?
JENNINGS: No. I do. Why not?
SELLERS: The problem is that you have to make every school a good choice and school choice works in metropolitan areas where you have things like transportation. But in the rural places, you know, if all -- if you have a hundred miles and you have four schools with all schools -- JENNINGS: But we track -- we track a lot of urban kids in bad school.
SELLERS: And the problem with that is that this, if you go to school choice, and I talk to Roland Martin and others about this all the time, you'll have something like white flight after you had after Brown v Board. But instead of white flight, you'll have the people who can't afford to leave that school will leave, and it will cause a drain at those schools.
JENNINGS: I think -- I think we ought to give scholarships to the poorest kids to get them out of the worst schools, as well.
SELLERS: Is it going to -- is it going to have transportation or just the schools?
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: But will they have transportation? We can't let it get transportation.
PHILLIP: School choice issue tonight on this show, but it's a good discussion for another time. Coming up next, a Justice Department official says she was fired because she refused to restore the gun rights of a MAGA fan, Mel Gibson. We'll discuss that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:36]
PHILLIP: Tonight, she claims that she lost her job because of Mel Gibson. The Justice Department's top pardon attorney is now out of work. Why? Well, she says it's because she refused to yield to pressure to restore the actor's right to own firearms. Here's the story.
Elizabeth Oyer was asked to work up a list of candidates, former convicts, to have their firearm rights restored. She did it, coming up with 95 recommendations and that was whittled down to five by advisors to the deputy attorney general.
Then she got this ask, add Mel Gibson to the memo. Oyer hesitated because of the celebrity's previous domestic violence plea. And then she got a call asking if her position was flexible. She said no. The next day, she was fired.
Now, Oyer was, just on CNN in the last hour talking about this experience, and --and basically, just to explain to you what her job is, she is not there to do political pardons or anything like that. She is there for the regular person who has paid their penance.
They've written in letters from their friends and their neighbors saying they will never do this again. It's an arduous process. She likened it to getting a top secret security clearance. They want to put Mel Gibson on this list because he's the president's friend.
O'LEARY: That's what she claims. So, I -- I watched the interview. I just happened to see it, just before I got here. Why does she say who told her to do that? Why is it then this happened and then this kind of happened and this sort of happened and I'm here on TV talking about it? If you're going to make a claim like that, show me the email. Make the claim, tell me who told you to do that, disclose it and be transparent.
PHILLIP: She provided the title of the person who said --
O'LEARY: She's fired now so why doesn't she --
PHILLIP: What I'm wondering is, why does that matter? Why does it change what she's alleging happened?
O'LEARY: Because we find out the truth.
PHILLIP: So if, OK, let's say she's telling the truth.
O'LEARY: Well, how about she isn't?
PHILLIP: Isn't it acceptable?
O'LEARY: How about she isn't? How would she make the shit (ph) up?
PHILLIP: Sounds like you just don't want to -- you don't want to address the facts and stuff.
LATHAN: Isn't it a very bizarre specific lie to make up?
O'LEARY: Why not just disclose the truth?
SELLERS: But I don't think that -- I don't I think we're blurring the whole thing. I mean, the question is, do you think people who have been convicted or plead guilty of domestic violence deserve their gun rights back? Which is a whole another legitimate question you can have of whether or not it's the timing or whether or not how long ago it was or the gravity of the situation or the underlying facts.
ALLISON: Yeah.
SELLERS: Because you have a lot of people in this country, myself included, who say that the answer should be no, but there could be a constitutional argument along the lines of the second amendment.
[22:50:03]
And how much time has been between that says that Mel Gibson may deserve -- so, that is like --
PHILLIP: Actually, there is a process. I just want to underscore here. There is a process.
SELLERS: Ma'am, that part two.
PHILLIP: Right? And -- and she underwent that process for 95 other individuals, and it's an arduous process. Mel Gibson didn't go through any process at all. LATHAN: So, it -- first of all, I was working in celebrity news when
the whole Mel Gibson, Oksana thing was happening. He terrorized her. It was a cycle of vicious domestic abuse. Lee also coupled with some of the most aggressive and disgusting harassment you've ever seen.
O'LEARY: I'm glad you're an expert.
LATHAN: And, yeah, I'm the celebrity expert. Ask me about the Kardashians next. So, I'm saying if you were around there and you knew that she was in fear of her life and she definitely didn't know --
O'LEARY: What does that have to do with this?
LATHAN: It has to do with something that has to do with the fact that --
PHILLIP: This is the domestic violence allegation.
LATHAN: This is what matters.
PHILLIP: From getting out.
SELLERS: Yeah. In The United States, if in most the federal law prohibits one from owning a firearm.
O'LEARY: I got it. But this woman has made claims without any -- putting any accreditation to it.
JENNINGS: And the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanch, says this is not -- he disputes the account. I think we need to learn more about this. I think you raise an interesting point about second amendment argument on how much time has elapsed. You raise an interesting argument about the facts of the case.
One of the things I'm wondering about is this is a situation where whether you love the case or you hate the case, whatever, the bureaucracy was asked to do something by the somebody. She won't say who.
O'LEARY: We get we don't get to know them.
JENNINGS: And the bureaucracy wouldn't do it. And now she doesn't work there anymore. And so --
ALLISON: Well, no, no. I think she --
PHILLIP: Before we move on here because I -- you both are doing something really clever, which is not addressing the actual facts of this situation.
O'LEARY: What is the fact?
PHILLIP: No, seriously. You're -- you're dealing with a case where Mel Gibson who, again, did not go through any sort of -- there's a -- there's an arduous process here that you have to go through to prove that you will unlikely do this again. I just want to just play, what Elizabeth Oyer says is going on at the Justice Department in her own words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ELIZABETH OYER, FIRED U.S. PARDON ATTORNEY: Understood that the consequence of not fulfilling this request was likely that I would no longer even be in these conversations. Dissent within the Department of Justice is just being aggressively silenced.
People are afraid to speak up. They're afraid to object. I confided in a colleague who expressed the view that yes is really the only acceptable answer to requests that are being made by department leadership.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ALLISON: Can I ask a question? What would have --
PHILLIP: She makes a point that it's a safety issue?
ALLISON: Yes.
PHILLIP: When you're talking about domestic violence abusers --
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
PHILLIP: When you give them guns back, they are much more likely to be able to drive.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: That's what you're trying to find for a case of two pieces of the same.
JENNINGS: I'm not (inaudible) the details of the case.
ALLISON: Yes, right. So the details of the case are the details of the case. But there's, like, something else happening. Mel Gibson is Donald Trump's friend. I - he -- he campaigned for him. Let's just flip the script. Let's rewind the tape for six months ago.
JENNINGS: To December.
ALLISON: And Joe Biden, right?
JENNINGS: Let's rewind it till December OR January.
ALLISON: OK. And Joe Biden get -- has somebody that --
JENNINGS: Maybe had the same name?
ALLISON: Yeah, right? And -- and would you be okay with that if somebody was fired because the -- that person wouldn't want to pardon, say, his family member or his son? I don't -- I don't actually remember those being your talking points when that happened six months ago. JENNINGS: I'm just saying -- I'm just saying, you guys are you guys
are upset about one pardon issue. We just live through -- we just live through a lot of --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: I may be too far in the weeds.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: I may be too far in the weeds but what I - what I think she was trying to do and what I applaud her doing is, like, protecting women in the country. And that's something and, yeah, everybody can take a little bit out of everything.
O'LEARY: Seven degrees of separation from what --
LATHAN: No, he's not. He was charged with domestic violence.
O'LEARY: I got it but --
SELLERS: You know, and people --
O'LEARY: I just want to know --
LATHAN: Over the -- over the last -- older than that.
SELLERS: The reason that that matters is because we know in this country and just because we have and we talked about other G7 countries. You know what we have more of in the United States and other G7 countries, instances of domestic violence.
And we also know that those instances of domestic violence, they exacerbate. So, each time, starts with verbal abuse, then some slight physical abuse, and then there's a weapon in the house. And so that is one of the reasons that we're --
ALLISON: Do you think it's a coincidence?
O'LEARY: Who told you to do this?
ALLISON: The deputy attorney -- one of the deputy attorney generals.
SELLERS: You knew that -
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: And she --
O'LEARY: Todd Brandt (ph).
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: She called it earlier.
(CROSSTALK) ALLISON: And he got fired.
PHILLIP: Guys, guys, one (inaudible) at a time.
LATHAN: I'll say this also. Just, to me, this also speaks to a troubling trend --
ALLISON: Yes.
LATHAN: -- from the Trump administration. We're talking the Mel Gibson's, the Andrew Tates of the world, the people that the administration seems to be willing to do favors.
JENNINGS: What did they do? What did they do for --
LATHAN: They got no they got no John Legends? You all have any nice guys to, like, just be on your side and we can all go.
ALLISON: Is it just a coincidence?
JENNINGS: Our nice guys, our nice guys, you chase their cars up and down the street. Aren't you a passionate advocate for, by the way, for people getting redemption and second chances in the criminal justice system?
PHILLIP: Yeah.
ALLISON: But due process. Due process.
LATHAN: I am not a passionate advocate for Mel Gibson.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
[22:55:02]
And Scott, Scott, you're right. You're right.
JENNINGS: He doesn't have the right politics. Is that it?
PHILLIP: The reason Elizabeth Oyer has this job is --
JENNINGS: He doesn't have the right politics. Is that it?
PHILLIP: --Scott, Scott --
LATHAN: Hold on. Hold on. Scott, last night, we were talking about anti-Semitism and the scourge of anti-Semitism and how destabilizing --
SELLERS: I don't know where we were.
LATHAN: We went down the most virulent anti-Semitism.
O'LEARY: Wait a second. What does that have to do with it?
LATHAN: We're talking about Mel Gibson. PHILLIP: Mel Gibson has a --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: --remarks --
ALLISON: Do we just make this -- do you think it's a coincidence that she said no and she got fired for --
PHILLIP: Guys, we got to go. Thank you very much joining us tonight? Coming up next, it became a D.C. landmark in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement, but after threats from Republican lawmakers, it is now gone. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:00:18]
PHILLIP: The Black Lives Matter art that became part of D.C. after the summer of 2020 is disappearing. Today, it became a casualty of the President's push to strip what he calls DEI from the country after a Republican lawmaker threatened to withhold funds from D.C.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
