Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
DHS Says, Trump is Justified to Suspend Constitutional Provision; Gabbard Fires Officials Who Contradicted Invasion Narrative; Bipartisan Backlash to GOP's Planned Medicaid Cuts. Trump Faces Backlash On Jet Gift From Qatar; HHS Secretary RFK Jr. Says Not To Listen To Him When It Comes To Healthcare. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 14, 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 ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, a victory at the border or a crisis? The White House tries to have it both ways.
REP. ERIC SWALWELL (D-CA): I have a bullshit detector.
PHILLIP: Plus, bipartisan backlash to MAGA's red pen to Medicaid.
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): It's taxing the poor to give to the rich.
PHILLIP: Also, Trump 2025.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Why wouldn't I accept a gift?
PHILLIP: Meet Trump 2016.
TRUMP: We have to get the money, foreign money out of our politicians' pockets.
PHILLIP: It's apparently his party and he'll fly if he wants to.
And the man who spent years telling people what they should be doing with their bodies declares, I don't think people should be taking a medical advice from me.
Live at the table, Mandela Barnes, Batya Ungar-Sargon, Hal Lambert and Julie Roginsky.
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, a tale of two borders. Is it the best of times or the worst of times? Well, if you ask the Trump administration, it's more like the latter. And the conditions are bad enough that it calls for suspending habeas corpus, a key constitutional right to due process.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ELI CRANE (R-AZ): Under oath, I believe that the Biden administration allowed an invasion into our country, is that correct?
KRISTI NOEM, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: That is correct.
CRANE: So, do you think it falls under the constitutional guidelines that I just read to you?
NOEM: Okay, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe it does.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, as a reminder, habeas corpus is the legal principle that lets people who believe that they are unlawfully detained or imprisoned challenge it in court and petition for release. The Constitution only allows habeas corpus to be suspended in cases of rebellion or an invasion that threatens public safety.
But if you talk to the Trump administration, that is actually not what is happening now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: We got the most secure border in history of this nation right now.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: America's borders are now secure because of President Trump.
HOMAN: The border is secure. President Trump's saving lives.
NOEM: Our country is secure and that we know who's coming into this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Joining us in our fifth seat at the table is CNN's Senior National Security Analyst Juliette Kayyem. She's a former DHS Assistant secretary and a Harvard professor.
The numbers tell the story, Juliette. Border encounters have plummeted almost to zero. You can look at the chart. And the last time I mentioned that on this show, people on -- conservatives on the internet lost their minds, but it is true. Border crossings are way down. The border is effectively closed.
So, under those circumstances, how can they still claim that there is an active invasion that warrants suspending a core constitutional right? JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: So, I mean, they haven't proved it yet, and I take Secretary of Homeland Security Noem at her word that she's not a constitutional scholar. I mean, so -- and then she answers the question.
I think what you're seeing is an administration that's trying to read the tea leaves out of Donald Trump who tends to throw things out here. But if you just look at the qualities of either invasion or insurrection, I think we can sort of put aside insurrection, that's not happening. I'm taking them at their word.
So, is this an invasion? That, under no circumstances, is an invasion, because, for one, they're saying that the border is secure. Two, it's the same numbers as it was, you know, years ago, is that nothing has changed within the homeland to justify that this would be a serious argument they can make.
And what they're losing is they're losing the court cases. I don't think this is an attack on immigrants. I think it's an attack on the fact that they've lost dozens and dozens of court cases regarding due process and regarding access to the courts. This is a challenge against the courts. It has nothing to do with immigration.
I will say, clearly, I'm not quite clear what Trump is going to do.
[22:05:02]
They will lose so bigly on this issue that it's like -- it's so careless. It's like I don't even get mad about it. It's a very silly way to treat leadership in times of national security. And then that's where people like me who don't get into the politics of it, it's just like -- it's like, yes, we're going to go through this motion because you want us to go through this motion, but no one can legitimately look an expert in the eye and say, this is an insurrection.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, they're going to take this to court, Hal, and if Juliette's right, they lose, they might lose big, but they're going to expend a lot of resources trying to go down this road when they could just simply put these folks before an administrative immigration court and deport them.
HAL LAMBERT, FOUNDER AND CEO, POINT BRIDGE CAPITAL: You know, I take issue, she said that nothing has changed since last time. No. There were probably 12 million people came in under Biden, okay? That was an invasion. So, the invasion happened and they're all here now.
And what's changed is that, you know, the courts have decided that under -- no other president did they ever say that you had to go through this process to deport people.
LAMBERT: Since Clinton was there.
PHILLIP: What?
LAMBERT: No, absolutely not.
PHILLIP: What are you talking about?
LAMBERT: Because Barack Obama deported 3 million people.
PHILLIP: Yes. You know how he did it? He deported --
LAMBERT: No, he did not go through a -- they sent them back as soon as they came over.
PHILLIP: Whoa. Hold on.
LAMBERT: That's exactly what happened.
PHILLIP: Right, okay. Border --
LAMBERT: so they didn't go through a court process.
PHILLIP: All right. Let's sort this out. Border encounters, you encounter someone at the border. You can, in some cases, send them back.
LAMBERT: So, they don't get due process.
PHILLIP: But from the interior of the country --
LAMBERT: So, they get due processed.
PHILLIP: When Barack Obama deported the number of people that, I think it was 1.9 million over two terms, that was done both at the border and in the interior through immigration enforcement, just regular, old immigration enforcement.
LAMBERT: But, wait, so just to be clear. What you're saying is that if someone's on the border of Texas, they're in Texas, they're in the United States, they're not duly processed.
PHILLIP: Trump has that same --
LAMBERT: But if they're further up, they're duly processed. I mean, I'm just trying to get clear.
PHILLIP: Trump has the same power that Biden did and that Obama did too if people are encountered at the border and they meet certain criteria to turn them back. He still has -- that's why there's no border process. We're talking about due process in the interior of the country.
LAMBERT: Okay. So, that's -- just to be clear, I get that, I understand interior, but those are two separate things, even though they're both in the United States. One gets due process and the other one doesn't.
PHILLIP: I'm talking about what she's talking about.
LAMBERT: And what I'm saying is the courts are not treating it the same way they did previously. They're saying Trump does not have the power to deport people. And how do you take -- how do you put 12 million people before an administrative judge?
PHILLIP: The reason (INAUDIBLE) back, Hal, is because that is not true.
LAMBERT: How do you put 12 million people before an administrative judge? You can't.
JULIE ROGINSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Yes, you can, because they're owed -- I'm sorry, with all due respect, they're owed due process like anybody else in American soil is owed due process. But here's the problem. The problem is that this is, of course, political. And that the reason that they're saying this, the reason that Stephen Miller is saying that they're going to suspend habeas corpus if the judges don't do what they want, the reason Steve Bannon said they're going to suspend habeas corpus if the judges don't do what they want, is because they're going to suspend habeas corpus.
KAYYEM: Yes.
ROGINSKY: And the judges are not going to be able to do anything about it because what can they possibly do? What army do they have to stop this? And so it doesn't matter what John Roberts says, belatedly said, happens to Betsy, I can't believe what I've unleashed with Trump versus United States. Now, Donald Trump appears to be lawless. What? You know, we have to get this back, too late, Mr. Chief Justice. But the problem here is that they have already signaled to us what they're going to do. And I believe that habeas corpus will be suspended right down the road here.
PHILLIP: I will say this, though. I mean, they have not defied the courts. There's a lot of rhetoric about this, but they have not actually done that. I think even they understand there are limits to this.
KAYYEM: There's a lot of enthusiasm for him. If you just look at -- if you just look at the numbers, and I would just want to be clear on the numbers issue, those numbers that you are saying, just because immigration enforcement's very complicated. And so those numbers that you're saying are actually sort of pretty consistent from administration to administration. There's not -- only you're panicking. I mean, that honestly. Like in crisis management and in disaster management, we don't really panic over a normal number. It's a big number. It seems like a big number to you. These numbers ebb and flow over administrations.
But what I think is clear is we're -- like habeas corpus applies to U.S. citizens. And I just want to be clear here about that. Like, as I said, again, this is not about immigrants. This is about the courts. And if we fight over immigration, it's just -- it's like we're looking at the butterfly over here. This is about the courts, it's about U.S. citizens, period. You don't have -- if you suspend habeas corpus, I can't prove I'm a U.S. citizen. I have two Y's in my last name. That's an Arab name. I can't prove it, right? I mean, so let's just be realistic about here. So, you can use the numbers of immigrants, it's ridiculous. It's about U.S. citizens. PHILLIP: I think it's interesting to note that the Trump administration itself, their national intelligence apparatus, produced a report saying that the United States was not being invaded by Venezuelan gang members, and you know what happened? Well, Tulsi Gabbard, the DNI, fired those officials, according to The Washington Post. They authored this assessment contradicting President Trump's legal rationale for deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members.
[22:10:05]
So, I don't know. I mean, it's like if the facts don't line up with the narrative, Batya, it feels like they just want to get rid of the people who give them the facts.
BATYA UNGAR-SARGON, AUTHOR, SECOND CLASS, HOW THE ELITES BETRAYED AMERICA'S WORKING MEN AND WOMEN: So, first of all, it's not how, who had a problem with 12 million illegal immigrants being basically welcomed in by the Biden administration. This was the issue that won Donald Trump the election. The American people are very upset about this.
PHILLIP: And the economy, but, yes.
UNGAR-SARGON: And Donald Trump is still up by 14 points on immigration, so he is winning this.
Now, you are right that Stephen Miller said they're looking into suspending habeas corpus, but as you pointed out very accurately and very nobly, Abby, they have not yet defied a court order because they are not going to do that.
Here's the thing that I think people are missing. Illegal immigrants have the same constitutional rights as citizens in criminal court. Immigration court is an administrative hearing. And when it comes to expedited removal, Abby, that's not about how close you are to the border. It's about whether you're within the two-year period of having crossed, at which you don't even have to get that hearing before a judge. That is what the Supreme Court rules in 2020.
PHILLIP: I think that this is very -- hold on. I think is actually a really good and I important point. You're pointing out that there are actually means that are completely legal for them to deport people who fall within certain guidelines without having to suspend parts of the Constitution.
UNGAR-SARGON: They're using them, Abby.
PHILLIP: It is totally possible. I agree. I agree with you. I think that they are using them. They can continue to use them. Why tease suspending a core part of the Constitution?
UNGAR-SARGON: I'll tell you why. I want to add too --
PHILLIP: Yes. Why?
UNGAR-SARGON: I'll tell you why. So, that Democrats will show up at immigration detention facilities and advocate on behalf of gang bangers.
PHILLIP: So, this is all just for --
UNGAR-SARGON: And you guys fall for it every single time. You fall for it every single time.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let me just let Mandela get a quick --
FMR. LT. GOV. MANDELA BARNES (D-WI): This isn't only the political argument. It is only just -- it is a rhetorical exercise.
UNGAR-SARGON: Of course.
BARNES: And the idea of suspending habeas corpus is, again, more than the immigration argument. It is the playbook for authoritarian regimes. This is -- we are -- I don't know why we're sitting and acting like we aren't on the cusp right now. We are in a very bad place in this country. And even the idea that it can be talked about so casually and receive little, no pushback from Congress should scare us all.
UNGAR-SARGON: So, here's my problem with that. There are actually American citizens, you know, black people, brown people who have not had due process in this country. And it absolutely enrages me to see Congress people out there advocating with such vigor and gusto on behalf of illegal immigrants, and they have nothing to say on that.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I think it's unfair to say that they're not pushing back on due process rights.
UNGAR-SARGON: When is the last time we stormed a prison on behalf of people --
PHILLIP: I mean, the issue --
ROGINSKY: I'm sorry --
BARNES: Who stormed a prison?
(CROSSTALKS)
ROGINSKY: Are you talking about Newark on Friday? Are you talking about what happened in Newark in Friday? I was there.
BARNES: Detention center.
ROGINSKY: Excuse me, I was there. Stop, stop, stop, I was there, okay? I went to Delaney Hall shortly after that whole event. And I can tell you exactly what transpired. Nobody stormed a prison. Three members of Congress showed up to do their congressional oversight, which they are allowed to do. The mayor of Newark did not storm anything. He was arrested by ICE agents without any kind of excuse for as to why they did it. Nobody stormed anything. I was there. I witnessed it. And I'm telling you right now that as a political ploy that unfortunately Kristi Noem is using is an excuse to go after duly elected members of Congress who now this administration is actually threatening to incarcerate for performing their congressional oversight. And including an 80-year-old -- I'm sorry, including an 80- year-old -- I was, including an 80-year-old cancer survivor member of Congress, a woman who was manhandled by ICE agents in masks. That is inexcusable.
UNGAR-SARGON: I want to get a point about why I think immigration is such an important issue. It's because we have a class divide in this country, and immigration really divides the elites from the working class people. Working class people --
BARNES: Can you explain that.
PHILLIP: Okay.
UNGAR-SARGON: I'm very happy to.
PHILLIP: We don't have time to get all the way into it. I just wanted to just suggest, though, Batya, I do think that there are certainly political figures who want to make this a class divide. But a lot of working class people are immigrants. A lot of working class Americans have immigrant relatives as well. I'm not so sure that this is about quite -- it's as simple as that.
UNGAR-SARGON: Let me make the argument and then you can tell me if you find it compelling.
PHILLIP: How about this, to be continued?
UNGAR-SARGON: Okay, fair enough.
PHILLIP: Okay? We will continue this on another day. I think it's an interesting conversation and I would like to have it at some point.
Juliette Kayyem, we appreciate you very much for joining us. Everyone else stick around for us.
Coming up next, is it Robin Hood in reverse?
[22:15:01]
Anger tonight from both sides of the aisle over a Republican plan that would lead to Medicaid cuts. Another special guest is going to join us at the table.
Plus, wait until you hear what 2016 Donald Trump thinks about 2025 Donald Trump accepting a luxury plane from a foreign nation.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: The third rail of American politics is at risk of being touched. MAGA Republicans are moving forward with Donald Trump's big, beautiful bill, and it includes indirect cuts to Medicaid. That's something that Republicans called everyone hysterical for suggesting was on the table, and something that Trump himself vowed never to touch.
[22:20:05]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUUMP: Save Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security without cuts.
We're not cutting Medicaid. We're not cutting Medicare and we're not cutting Social Security.
REPORTER: Can you guarantee that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security will not be touched?
TRUMP: Yes. I mean, I have said it so many times. You shouldn't be asking me that question.
We're not going to touch it. Now, we are going to look for fraud.
We are going to love and cherish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. We're not going to do anything with that.
Medicare, Medicaid, none of that stuff is going to be touched.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: What the bill would do is enforce work requirements for Medicaid and increase eligibility checks. Experts say those two actions alone would take away coverage from millions. And it's not just the liberals who are sounding the alarm. This is interesting. It's actually some of the most conservative Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HAWLEY: It is wrong to cut healthcare for the working poor.
My state is a Medicaid expansion state. Over 20 percent of Missourians, including hundreds of thousands of children are on Medicaid. And, Manu, they're not on Medicaid because they want to be, they're on Medicaid because they cannot afford health insurance in the private market.
And this whole idea of we're going to charge them now additional co- pays in order to access healthcare, I have to say that just sounds like a tax to me. So now we're taxing poor people when they're trying to get access to healthcare?
It's reverse class warfare is what it is. It's taxing the poor to give to the rich.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: John Prideaux, the U.S. editor at The Economist, is with us now at the table in our fifth seat. It is so fascinating. I mean, he has been very consistent over the last few weeks in raising the alarm about this. And he is right about. 44 percent of all the people enrolled in Medicaid are living in congressional districts that are represented by Republicans. It's 36.8 million people. Millions will be affected by this, no question about it.
And it's also something that I'm not sure -- I mean, I think you've done some reporting on this. They're going to get the results that they're hoping for, force people to work or say you're going to force people to work, kick them off the program. Will it produce more jobs for people?
JOHN PRIDEAUX, U.S. EDITOR, THE ECONOMIST: Right, Abby. So, Senator Hawley is part of this faction of the Republican Party that wants the party to be a more working class party, and so that's why you get the criticism from there. And the theory here is that the GOP can save some money in the gigantic budget bill. There are a lot of spending items in there and they want to claw some revenue back. They can save some money by adding work requirements to Medicaid.
And I think there's a view out there in the country that maybe a lot of people are not working and getting Medicaid, and that's not popular. Actually, that's not really true. About 70 million Americans are covered by Medicaid. And according to the CBO, at least by 2034, this bill would take health insurance away from 8 million people. So, you can see from the math there that like maybe, you know, 10 percent of the people currently covered by Medicaid are working age adults who are not in work.
So, the amount of money saved by adding work requirements is actually relatively small, and, you know, that's the theory. But then in practice there's a kind of real world experiment because the state of Arkansas put work requirements on Medicaid a couple of years ago, did this experiment. And what they found actually is the employment rate didn't go up much, but quite a few people lost their healthcare.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, Batya, working class people, I mean, is Josh Hawley, right that this is not the bargain that they voted for when they put Trump into the White House?
UNGAR-SARGON: I'm 100 percent with Hawley on this. I think that they should be leaving this stuff alone and raising taxes on the rich. I think that's totally consistent with what the president promised the American people. It's why people voted for him to represent working class people, and it's unbelievably popular, and Trump likes popular things. So, I think Hawley is 100 percent correct on this, and he's the future of the Republican Party. This is a working class party at this point, and he knows it.
PHILLIP: Hal?
LAMBERT: Well, I don't think, I don't think the American people voted for Trump to raise taxes. So, we all know there's a spending problem. That's the problem. And, you know, it's Medicaid, Medicare, and obviously Social Security are the big outlays. It's close to a trillion dollars in Medicaid, about $900 billion, I think, right now for about 72 million people, as was just said.
It really shows the failure of Obamacare. And Obamacare is so expensive, a family has to pay about $24,000 to be covered on Obamacare. You can't afford it. So, all this thing about Obama is going to solve the healthcare problem, everybody's moved over to Medicaid, it's moving towards socialized medicine for the entire country. That's the problem. And that's what they're trying to figure out how to fix. And when you have working age males that are, you know, on Medicaid, that's a real problem when you have 4 percent unemployment.
So, we have a pretty full employment economy. Wages are not as high as they need to be. A lot of that has to do with immigration problems and outsourcing of jobs. So, there's a whole gamut of issues around this. But when you have that many people that can work and pay, there needs to be -- something that needs to be done on the healthcare cost side of things, and that's a really hard problem that's happening.
PHILLIP: So, you kick people off Medicaid first and then you figure out the rest later?
[22:25:00]
I mean, I think that's the issue is that you kick them off and then what?
LAMBERT: Well, I don't think that's what they're saying.
PHILLIP: This is about -- I just want to remind people we're talking about healthcare here. So, access to medical care for people, a lot of them are children, a lot of them are elderly, a lot of -- most of -- all of them are poor, virtually. So, what then? I mean, you're saying basically to fix the affordability problem, we have to fix the healthcare problem. There's no attempt to do that. I just don't see how this works out.
LAMBERT: Well, it wasn't about kicking people off. As you said, it was about creating some work requirements that people can't just sit around working age, fully able people and just collect Medicaid and benefits. I mean, we've got to get off of that, you know, medicine that's been out there for a long time.
BARNES: So, what about the job seekers? What about the people who are looking for work? And as you mentioned, we're in a near full employment economy right now. Wisconsin has had historically high employment for the last several years now. So, there are people who still are in need of healthcare but cannot find a job.
The unfortunate reality is that with healthcare being tied to a person's employment, when you lose that job, you've lost your healthcare. What else can you rely on?
LAMBERT: The whole system's broken.
BARNES: And, look, I have been a long proponent of universal healthcare system, which would solve all of our problems, to be quite honest. And I don't know a whole bunch of arguments against it. If you look at the amount of money that people would be saving, consumers, that would ultimately be bankrolled by raising taxes on the wealthy, as you mentioned, thank you for that point, and what Josh Hawley also has advocated for.
LAMBERT: Well, raising taxes on the wealthy isn't going to pay for any of this type of thing. I mean, there's just not enough wealthy people to pay for everything.
BARNES: Well, there's --
PHILLIP: I guess what Hawley is also suggesting, and you can jump in on this, I mean, is essentially that Republicans want to give a lot of tax giveaways in this bill. Some of them are new, some of them are existing tax law, and they want to do that by paying for it, by cutting benefits for poor people. That's how he laid it out, okay?
I don't see how you -- if you're one of those poor people and you work really hard at a McDonald's and they're not providing health insurance and you have nowhere else to turn, you're paying your taxes, how do you not see this as sort of, you know, robbing Peter to pay Paul essentially?
ROGINSKY: You know, I've heard these complaints about Obamacare now from Republicans since Obamacare passed, and you had the opportunity to get rid of Obamacare and replace it with something else. And all I've heard about is, you know, repeal and replace, repeal and replace. You haven't repealed it because you have nothing to replace it with. So, let's start with that premise.
Second, you're absolutely right, what this is attempting to do is to take away healthcare from millions upon millions of Americans, and then you're going to say, well, we'll figure it out later, because that's effectively what you're suggesting. You're blaming this on Obamacare, you're blaming this on a whole host of issues, that you're in charge of everything now. You're in charge of the executive branch. You're in charge of both --
LAMBERT: We're 100 days.
ROGINSKY: Not just a hundred days. You were in charge under Donald Trump, right, the first time around. What did you do? You couldn't do it and you didn't do it because you're not --
LAMBERT: We need 60 votes. I mean, John McCain voted against it.
ROGINSKY: Well, you know what? Blame John McCain all you want, but the reality is you could have gotten rid of it, but you had no plan to replace it with. And all those people would've been thrown off of Obamacare, including Josh Hawley's state, which expanded Medicare under -- Medicaid, excuse me, under Obamacare.
So, you can talk about all you want. Where's your plan? You don't have a plan.
PHILLIP: So, John, let me ask you this. What happens, because this is a problem for Republicans right now, just among Republicans, people are not happy that they're not cutting enough spending, some people are unhappy that they're dipping into Medicaid, some people are unhappy about a bunch of other things, SALT, you know, state and local taxes. If they increase spending by like $4 trillion and only cut it by like one, what do you think is going to happen as a result of that?
PRIDEAUX: As you say, the projection is, you know, a $4 trillion increase in spending. You know, at some point, the U.S. government's ability to just carry on spending more than it brings in revenue and financing that difference through raising debt, at some point, you run into trouble with that.
Now, no, economists can say when that will be, but if you look at the debt to GDP ratio, it's increased a lot over the past ten years. And, you know, that's not a great way to run your economy. I mean, the deficit already is, I think, 6.9 percent of GDP at a time when the economy has been growing pretty strongly. Ideally, when things are good, you want to balance your budget and then save your firepower for when there's a pandemic or a global financial crisis or something you really need to borrow. So --
PHILLIP: But I think we're also a world in which I'm not sure --
PRIDEAUX: This is a two-party problem.
PHILLIP: Republicans used to talk about this a lot. They don't really much when Trump is in office, in particular. So, I think it's also worth noting that it is likely that that is going to be --
PRIDEAUX: And that is one of Donald Trump's political innovations, which I think, you know, is a big reason why he's been elected president twice, was that he kind of gave up on the entitlement reform part of the GOP platform, right? If you go back to 2012 and that election, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan got absolutely killed for suggesting that, you know, America needed to cut entitlements in a big way, and Donald Trump's kind of given up on all that stuff.
[22:30:01]
And that has allowed the GOP in part to appeal to more working class voters and you can just about make it work in the good times. But at some point, the bill will come due.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Yeah. It certainly will at some point. Coming up next for us, President Trump said only a stupid person wouldn't accept a new Air Force one from Qatar. Well, he should talk to Donald Trump from 2016. We're going to play the tape for you.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:06]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a $400 million flip flop? On the second day of his trip to The Middle East, questions continue to chase President Trump over his decision to accept a 747 as a gift from Qatar. Trump says that only a stupid person would refuse to accept such a gift. But back in 2016, Trump regularly criticized the Clinton Foundation
for accepting foreign contributions, including from, you guessed it, Qatar.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Saudi Arabia giving $25 million, Qatar, all of these countries. Do you talk about women and women's rights? So, these are people that push gays off business, off buildings. These are people that kill women and treat women horribly, and yet you take their money.
The Clinton Foundation accepted as much as $60 million from Middle Eastern countries that oppressed women, gays and people of different face. My goal is to keep foreign money out of American politics. Hillary Clinton's goal is to put the Oval Office up for sale to whatever country offers the highest price.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, what changed? A lot of foreign money is flowing.
HAL LAMBERT, MAGA ETF FOUNDER: Well, in fairness, the gift is actually to the State Department. So, it's not for President Trump.
PHILLIP: Oh, I thought it was to the Air Force.
LAMBERT: It's to the State Department.
PHILLIP: Okay, State Department. Got it.
LAMBERT: And then ultimately would go to the -- to the Clinton or to the, to the Clinton.
UNKNOWN: Oh.
LAMBERT: To the Bush. To the Trump library.
PHILLIP: It's a little Freudian slip there.
(LAUGHTER)
LAMBERT: And so, it's technically not to President Trump. But I get the point. I get -- I get the whole gist of what you're saying. We'll see if the State Department approves accepting it or not. But of course, this all goes back to the fact that Boeing can't seem to build a plane, Air Force One, and it's way behind schedule, and he's flying on a 40-year-old plane. So, that's part of the issue, as well. The Qatar offered it to him, and he said, you know, that sounds like a good idea. We'll see how it plays out.
JULIE ROGINSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: I mean, A for effort. Listen. First of all, this plane will have to be stripped down to its foundation, which will take years and years and years. And if Donald Trump intends to leave the Oval Office in 2029, which I don't think he intends to -- LAMBERT: Yes, he does.
ROGINSKY: -- but if he does, in fact, well, according to Steve Bannon, actually, he's going to run and win a third term, so maybe not. But he will not be able to fly on this plane as president. So, are we going through this entire exercise? He could go to his library? I think we both know that it's not going to go just to his library, that it's going to go for his personal use regardless of what he says.
The bigger problem is that, of course, he also has a crypto fund and a meme coin. And unlike the Clinton Foundation, none of that money is disclosed. And we have no idea how much the state of -- The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, how much Qatar, how much the Russians, how much the Chinese, how much North Koreans, or anybody is putting in to world financial lenders in which he has a 80 percent stake. And that is a problem for this -- for our national security because we don't know.
These people are simply gifting him a plane, or they're gifting him a plane, plus a lot of money to the Trump organization. Plus a lot of money to his meme coin collection. Plus a lot of money to Melania's meme coin. Plus a lot of money to his crypto fund. All of that is not disclosed, so we don't actually know how much for sale Donald Trump really is. That's the problem.
PHILLIP: The meme coin thing is a big deal, because as someone put it today, there's no upper limit on meme coins because they -- they inherently have no value. You can basically say whatever you want about them and pour as much money as you want into them. And it -- in the meantime, it makes Trump and his family wealthy.
And by the way, a part of this is not just Trump and his family. Steve Witkoff's son is involved in this. So, there are a lot of people with official ties tied up in this effort to juice the Trump family pockets with money. I mean, this -- we've never seen anything like this before.
PRIDEAUX: I think that's right. I mean, the majority of the Trump family's wealth now is tied up in crypto rather than real estate. There's the company World Financial Liberty, Donald Trump Jr., Steve Witcoff's son have been, you know, zooming around, drumming up investment for that. I'm actually less worried by the plane. I understand the concerns about that. To me, the kind of pay to play issues are far bigger with -- with crypto.
PHILLIP: Correct.
PRIDEAUX: I mean, crypto -- it's amazing what's happened to this industry. It was started by people with libertarian ideas that you could create a new asset class that would be independent of government and divorce from politics. And it has become the ultimate swamp asset if you look at the way in which people are, you know, using crypto to do influence peddling in Washington. It's -- it's pretty alarming.
PHILLIP: And "The Economist" has an issue coming out tomorrow.
[22:40:00] PRIDEAUX: We do.
PHILLIP: On this, right? So -- so, everybody tune in for that. I just want to play --
PRIDEAUX: That's the cover.
PHILLIP: For -- for Batya. Oh, yeah. That's the cover. So, Batya, let me play for what Mike Johnson said, about all of these various issues around Trump, and, you know, the conflicts that might occur.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R) SPEAKER OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The reason they've -- many people refer to the Bidens as the Biden crime game is because they were doing all this stuff behind curtains, but in the back rooms, they were trying to conceal it. President Trump is doing is -- is out in the open. They're not trying to conceal anything.
UNKNOWN: But Mr. Speaker, the investment in the meme coin, those folks are not transparent. We do not know who those people are.
JOHNSON: I don't know anything about the meme coin thing. I don't -- I don't know. I can just tell you that, I mean, President Trump has had nothing to hide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, because it's happening out in the open, it's not a problem? I'm having a hard time following that argument.
BATYA UNGAR-SARGON, AUTHOR, "SECOND CLASS: HOW THE ELITES BETRAYED AMERICA'S WORKING MEN AND WOMEN": I don't like the plane. I disagree with you. I think it's a big deal. I don't think there's such a thing as a $400 million gift. It's a bribe. I don't think Donald Trump would do anything in exchange for it, but the Qataris certainly think they will get something out of it. I can admit that.
Can you all admit that what he just accomplished in Qatar and in Saudi Arabia attracting $2 trillion of investment into this country is a huge deal. And that what he accomplished in his speech, laying out a new world order based on peace through commerce and peace through strength, is a huge deal.
That these are gifts to The United States, the likes of it's very hard to imagine anybody else being able to do. Can we all, like, create a consensus here that the plane is bad and the trip has been amazing for The United States?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Listen. It is always great.
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: It is always great when, when there is, I guess, investment in The United States. That is fine. But -- but I really do not want to skirt the issue here, here, which is that when, an Abu Dhabi investment firm or and or the Saudi, Sovereign Wealth Fund decides to pour billions of dollars into a company that exists only because Donald Trump is president and can juice the value of it. Does that concern you?
UNGAR-SARGON: But Donald Trump doesn't have anything to do with it. It's his family.
PHILLIP: Oh. So --
UNGAR-SARGON: So, are you saying his family should then not be allowed to do business for the length of time Biden's working?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: That's actually not even the case either because Trump is about to do a dinner with people who have invested in his meme coin. Essentially, he is the, the carrot for people who are investing in his meme coin. And he is doing that as a sitting United States President.
UNGAR-SARGON: You and I know that for $150,000, any president would sit down and have a meal with any donor. We all know that that is true.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay. We are talking about millions of dollars invested in crypto currency that he and his family are benefitting from.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: But this is a status quo that we accept -
(CROSSTALK)
ROGINSKY: Can I just jump in? Other presidents have -- other -- other presidents have done this for the DNC or the RNC or for their political defense. They have not what president -- what president in the White House has done it for themselves?
(CROSSTALK)
MANDELA BARNES (D) FORMER WISCONSIN LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR: Yeah. Like, the point that your organization is fully integrated into the White House.
UNGAR-SARGON: Who?
BARNES: What you said is you mentioned his family --
UNGAR-SARGON: But the standard that you're saying is that --
BARNES: Jared Kushner is an ambassador right now somehow. ROGINSKY: His father.
PHILLIP: Jared Kushner's father.
BARNES: Sorry. Just excuse me. Jared Kushner's father.
UNGAR-SARGON: But wait.
PHILLIP: What is the analog? I mean, what is the -- who else has done this? Who else has - done -- has basically said, invest in my family's business and I will have the president sit down with you, and the I, the president, will benefit from -- from this. Who else has done that?
UNGAR-SARGON: Joe Biden? Really? Like, what?
PHILLIP: Oh, oh. Okay. All right. I think we're getting somewhere here. I think we're getting somewhere here. I guess I'm just wondering if it's bad for Joe Biden to do it, let's say Joe Biden did that. If it's bad for him to do it, why is it okay?
UNGAR-SARGON: Did you have a problem with it when Joe Biden's doing it?
PHILLIP: Listen, all I said -- all I said with the Biden situation is the Republicans had four years to come up with the proof. They struggled to do that despite money investigations, despite a special counsel. But if you believe that this is a problem, which I think it's fine to believe that, why can't you just say that it's problem for Trump?
UNGAR-SARGON: Oh, because I'm saying that it is something that the American people, including everybody at this table, accepts when it's happening on their side and then doesn't accept when it's happening on the other side.
PHILLIP: Okay, so what about you?
LAMBERT: Going to --
PHILLIP: Does that apply to you?
UNGAR-SARGON: What do you mean?
PHILLIP: I mean, are you one of those Americans who -- you're -- you're mad about it when it happens to the other guy, but not when it happens to you?
UNGAR-SARGON: No. I think that, you know, politicians have a certain level of corruption across the board. Like, that's kind of the name of the game.
BARNES: So you are mad about what Donald Trump is doing right now?
UNGAR-SARGON: I don't think that what he's doing is any worse than anything we all accepted as normal under the Biden administration.
BARNES: But are you -- are you mad about it? Sorry. I --
UNGAR-SARGON: I said I'm very mad about the plane.
BARNES: But what about the meme coin?
UNGAR-SARGON: No, I'm not mad about the meme coin.
BARNES: And this is -- and this is exactly -- and even if you look at the meme coin, this is exactly why Donald Trump is going after ActBlue to use a deflection from his real corruption that's taken place by letting any sort of foreign investor put money directly into his pocket.
(CROSSTALK)
[22:45:03]
(CROSSTALK)
BARNES: Not even campaign contribution.
PHILLIP: I just want John to talk to me about the scale real quick. Yeah. I think that's the real issue here. I mean, it's trillions of dollars.
PRIDEAUX: Yeah, the reason the crypto is worse than the plane is that the federal government is directly involved in regulating cryptocurrencies. And so, there are laws that can be changed that will benefit crypto and Donald Trump's family wealth, is tied up in that.
The numbers are very large, so the UAE sovereign wealth fund just invested $2 billion in Binance, which is a crypto exchange, and they did that using the Trump stablecoin, which is called 1 USD. That overnight propelled it from being a pretty obscure stablecoin. I know these terms are kind of weird, but a pretty obscure stablecoin to one of the biggest in the world. So, the numbers here are -- are really big.
LAMBERT: You mean, like, the congressional members that regulate industry and trade on the stocks that they regulated?
(CROSSTALK)
ROGINSKY: Can I -- can I --
(CROSSTALK)
PRIDEAUX: Well, how did this -- how did this --
(CROSSTALK)
LAMBERT: How many members of Congress are worth $50 million and nothing going in?
PHILLIP: Right. Like, that's a -- that is a real issue. The scale that we are discussing -- PRIDEAUX: The scale is now is absolutely not in the same
stratosphere.
PRIDEAUX: And Republicans were correct to be upset that Hunter Biden was on the board of Burisma, has paid a lot of money for this. That was right. This is that, like, a hundred x, and partisanship has just broken people's brains, to your point. And so, when your own side does it, you defend it. But this is on a scale that we haven't seen before.
PHILLIP: All right, we got to -- we got to leave it there. John Prideaux, thank you very much for joining us. Everyone else, don't go anywhere. Next, RFK Junior, the nation's, top health chief also has a lot of things to say about avoiding vaccines and taking vitamins to treat viruses, but now he's saying, don't take my medical advice.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:51:23]
PHILLIP: Tonight, an interesting new message from the man in charge of the nation's health. When it comes to health care, don't listen to me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES SECRETARY: I would say is my opinions about vaccines are irrelevant. I don't want to be able to seem like I'm being evasive. But I don't think people should be taking advice, medical advice, from me.
UNKNOWN: Right, no I got that. And I'm not asking you to give them medical advice, but would you vaccinate your child for measles?
KENNEDY JR.: If I answer that question directly, that will seem like I'm giving advice to other people and I don't want to be doing that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Kennedy has talked very publicly about nutrition and health care for decades. And while he may not straight up tell Americans what to do with their bodies, the way he touts certain issues seems to green light things that are not just controversial, but also untrue and sometimes dangerous like this tweet from last year.
Kennedy railed against the FDA suppression of psychedelics, stem cell treatments, and raw milk, just to name a few, but all three have major risks associated with them according to the FDA and the CDC. Not to mention, he's told people that if they get the Metazoles, they could just take cod liver oil and vitamin A, which led to people coming into hospitals with vitamin A over overdoses and toxicity. My question is since when?
BARNES: Yeah. Last time I was here, it was suggested that we give RFK the benefit of the doubt. He doesn't even want the benefit of the doubt. He said --
PHILLIP: Was that -- Batya, was that you?
BARNES: No, no.
UNGAR-SARGO: No, I won't say that.
BARNES: It was -- it was my former counterpart from California.
PHILLIP: Oh, yes.
BARNES: But he doesn't even want the benefit of that. Don't take medical advice from me. He asked for this job specifically to give Americans, quack science, to give them medical advice that has been untested, unproven, and things that are, as you mentioned, outright dangerous that will lead to even more deaths, more hospitalizations and more spread of disease.
I mean, it is all coming home to roost. Like, we've known this man has been a danger, a -- a threat to not just, you know, national health, but a -- a threat to the future of this country.
PHILLIP: Why won't he just say yes? Like, should you vaccinate your kids for measles? Just say yes.
BARNES: It's an easy yes. Should be.
PHILLIP: Or like, it wasn't even like should you. It was like, would you do it for your own children? That seems like a fairly reasonable question to ask someone.
LAMBERT: Let's step back a minute. I mean, Robert Kennedy, Jr. was side by side with Trump during the campaign. His views have been the same. The American people voted them into office, voted Trump into office who put Robert Kennedy in charge of -- of the health carrier. So, it this was known in advance, so all this is not a surprise.
What he's saying is he's getting a lot of flack. He's saying I'm not going to give some individual person medical advice. But what he said all from the very beginning was, we don't have any trials for vaccines. They grow through the system. They come out. They're not --
(CROSSTALK)
BARNES: He was he was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to give the American people medical advice.
PHILLIP: We absolutely do have trials for vaccines.
LAMBERT: Not -- not real ones.
PHILLIP: What are you talking about?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: No, okay?
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: What are you talking about? There are trials for vaccines. The MMR vaccine is safe, and it prevents measles. Period.
LAMBERT: Well, okay.
PHILLIP: So, and he knows that because guess what?
LAMBERT: That's one vaccine. There's 70 something vaccines we're giving now.
PHILLIP: His kids, Hal, are vaccinated.
LAMBERT: And he's -- and he also said he wished he hadn't done all the vaccines.
PHILLIP: He is vaccinated.
LAMBERT: We all went through a period of time, but he didn't get 72 vaccines. We didn't grow up with that.
PHILLIP: Okay.
(CROSSTALK)
LAMBERT: Over the time, from an infant to 18 years old, you can get up to 70 vaccines at that point. That's -- that's how many we're going out by now.
BARNES: Or which ones wouldn't you get?
LAMBERT: Which ones -- how about --
BARNES: Which ones would you get?
LAMBERT: You know what? I never got a chicken pox vaccine. You know?
PHILLIP: Nobody - go -- go ahead.
LAMBERT: The chicken pox is a vaccine right now that you can take.
ROGINSKY: My concern is less about his medical advice and about what he's doing with HSS. And the problem is, HHS. Sorry. What he's doing is effectively gutting the agencies of experts. He's firing people at the CDC. He's firing people at the NIH. He's cutting all sorts of studies on life saving medical science. And my concern is not so much what he says. My concern is what he does, and what he's doing is running this country into the ground medically.
PHILLIP: All right, we got to go. Everyone, thank you very much. Coming up next, singer Cassie Ventura on the witness stand as jurors were shown sexually explicit images from so called freak offs. Laura Coates was at the Diddy trial all day today. She will have all of the details right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
