Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip

$3,500 iPhones? Trump Rattles Economy With Appeal Threat; Markets Sink After Trump Wakes Up And Threatens New Tariffs; Judge Blocks Trump's Ban on International Students To Harvard; Trump Administration Announces To Drop Investigations Into Several Major Police Departments Including Minneapolis; Crypto Dinner With Top Investors Hosted By Trump Blur The Line Between Ethics And The Presidency. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired May 23, 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)

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, Donald Trump asks Tim Cook, how do you like them Apples? The threat that could upend an American giant.

Plus, the President's crimson crusade is blocked for now, but will MAGA's vendetta against Harvard lead to a brain drain?

Also, just days before the anniversary of George Floyd's murder, big justice looks to erase accountability for the blue.

And the White House insisted Trump's crypto event wasn't a conflict of interest except the investors he hosted said, well, yes, we expect a favor.

Live at the table, Pete Seat, Melik Abdul, Jemele Hill, and Chuck Rocha.

Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER (on camera): Good evening. Thank you all for being here. I'm Sara Sidner in New York in for Abby Philip.

Let's get straight to what America is talking about. Prices could get, well, stupid if you need a new smart phone tonight. President Trump is reigniting his trade war, this time threatening to slap a 25 percent tariff on tech giant Apple if it refuses to make iPhones in the U.S. for U.S. customers. But the ultimatums didn't stop there.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Do you have the power to tear up one single company? And why would you want to hurt an American company in that way? DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It would be more. It would be also Samsung and anybody that makes that product. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Trump is also taking aim at the European Union, imposing a 50 percent tariff that's set to go into effect June 1st because he says negotiations are going nowhere.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I just said it's time that we play the game the way I know how to play the game. You know, nobody -- they've taken advantage of other people. I'm representing this country, and they're not going to do that any longer yet.

I'm not looking for a deal. I mean, we've set the deal. It's at 50 percent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Well, today's tariff turmoil once again seeing markets drop, the Dow, S&P 500 and the NASDAQ, you see it there, all closing in the red.

Joining us in our fifth seat is Natasha Sarin. She is the president of the Budget Lab at Yale and a former treasury official in the Biden administration.

I'm starting with Chuck Rocha, as I saw that chin drop to the table as soon as we were talking about these tariffs. What's on your mind?

CHUCK ROCHA, CO-HOST, THE LATINO VOTE PODCAST: Look, I was looking to see how much an iPhone cost, because I knew it cost a lot. I didn't realize it cost $1,200. Now, what --

SIDNER: Oh, that's what that was about.

ROCHA: And I wrote down some other numbers down here to say that if we were to make these things in America, that would go to $3,500. And I check that to see what's the wage in China to make an iPhone, and it's, wait for it, $3.63 cents an hour is what it cost in China to make. The minimum wage in California, I don't have to look that up, is $16.50.

The folks who like cheap iPhones are the folks that voted for Donald Trump. This is what's going to hurt him the most. The parties have switched and it embarrasses me every single day that a lot of working class folks who didn't go to college, like me, love them some Donald Trump, but they also love cheap stuff from China. This is where it's going to bite him.

SIDNER: All right. Melik, when you hear this and you see the markets react, and every time he opens his mouth about tariffs, somebody gets hurt. MELIK ABDUL, REPUBLICAN POLITICAL STRATEGIST: So, there is some good things that Donald Trump has done when it comes to tariffs. I think that the 10 percent baseline is a very good starting point. Apparently, there have been some issues with negotiations with the E.U. As someone who literally, as of today, just upgraded a new phone, I'm glad that I got -- I'm glad that I got this phone. Now, this was already $1,100. I can't imagine paying even more for that.

And I actually agree with Chuck here, and this is one of another one of those instances where you asked --

ROCHA: Can I have my phone real quick?

SIDNER: It's on tape, don't worry, we got it.

ABDUL: But you ask yourself whether or not this is one of those other instances where a more scalpel approach could work. I think that Donald Trump, in this case, he probably is doing a similar thing to what he did to China. He's trying to actually get them to the table, whether or not you have to threaten a 50 percent tariff is another story.

And I do agree, though, if we get to a point, and it doesn't matter if talking about phones or the price that we pay in the stores, if Trump voters are having to pay more, and then me, in being a Trump voter, we are going to have a problem because I want to pay as little as possible for quality merchandise.

[22:05:12]

So, I do think that it will be a problem if customers, if -- whether it's Trump, you know, supporters or not, if we have to pay more, wherever -- at whatever point that is, it will be a problem for Donald Trump.

SIDNER: Now, Pete Seat, one of the things that you -- if you step back and look at what the Republican Party has been about or said they were about, is less government, less interference with businesses, that is not what's happening here. What's happening?

PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Well, I think President Trump genuinely wants the iPhone to be manufactured in the United States of America.

SIDNER: But he's telling the company what to do.

SEAT: Because it's an iconic product and he wants to be able to say, this is American-made. There's value in that. But, Chuck, you want to record this too, it pains my heart to say, I also agree with you.

JEMELE HILL, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Oh my God.

SIDNER: What is happening?

SEAT: No, I agree with the fact that a lot of people don't have any clue how much their iPhone costs. SIDNER: Yes.

SEAT: Because they trade in, they get that massive rebate, or they split the cost over months and months and months and months and don't realize that it's $1,200 bucks or $1,500 bucks.

And it's -- you know, the challenge with what President Trump wants to do, I mean, really either a tactic, whether it's the 25 percent tariff or bringing manufacturing to the United States, it's the same outcome. As you guys have said, the price will go up regardless. American labor is not cheap and there is a consequence to that that we're not talking about enough in this conversation and the entire tariff conversation.

NATASHA SARIN, PRESIDENT, THE BUDGET LAB AT YALE: And can I sort of add to that a little bit? Because the problem isn't just that the iPhone would be more expensive. It certainly would, but actually it is not possible to bring iPhone manufacturing to the United States. Our economy does not support it. We do not have the factories in place to do the work. We do not have workers. Howard Lutnick has said, you know, he wants all the iPhone screws to be screwed in by workers here in the United States. Who do you know that actually wants to screw in iPhone parts at a factory in the U.S.? American consumers want cheap iPhones, but they don't want these jobs, and why should they in a labor market that is as strong as our labor market is today?

SEAT: Well, can I just piggyback on that real quick, because The New York Times had an article today going through all the various reasons why manufacturing likely wouldn't come here, and they actually said, when it comes to those screws that Chinese laborers, particularly women, have smaller hands. Literally one of the reasons for why they would want to keep manufacturing there.

SARIN: And can I do one more piece on that since we're doing some numbers. So, we're in a situation where as of today with this 50 percent E.U. tariff, we have the highest tariff rates this country has seen since 1909. You said Trump voters aren't going to like when prices go up. The Budget Lab at Yale that I run, crunch the numbers this morning. As a result of these reciprocal tariffs, we're going to be in a situation where the average American family is going to pay $3,800 more each year for literally everything that they buy.

And I just don't quite understand how that is a tenable political proposition, especially in the light of an election in 2024 that, in meaningful ways, felt like it was about inflation and high prices.

HILL: You know, in this final season of America, I always often say is that like, this would be all very entertaining if I didn't actually live here and if real people weren't actually affected. But I need for all of those billionaires to step to the front of the class. Because what have we learned? Tim Cook gave a million dollars to Donald Trump. This is what it got you. Jeff Bezos gave money, all of them give money and the same thing keeps happening. As soon as he doesn't like something that you do, it's not buying you influence. It's not buying you a yes. It's not buying all the things that you allegedly gave money to him to get. So, once again, I need people to understand bullies keep bullying. They don't stop. You give them what they want, they only want more. It's a reason why they use the phrase, and I'm not calling Donald Trump this, don't negotiate with terrorists. It's a reason why they say that. It's because it once you cave in, it never ceases. And this is another example. So, part of me wants to laugh at Tim Cook's face because he is the one that gave the money to him. And now look at what you -- now look at what you brought on yourself.

SEAT: Well, here's my out of left field idea. He's met --President Trump has met with Tim Cook.

SIDNER: Wait, you say out of left field, not out of right field?

SEAT: It's just a phrase people use, Sara?

SIDNER: I'm just asking. Left field.

SEAT: It's a baseball -- anyway. So, President Trump has met with Tim Cook twice or three times in the last week in the Middle East and at the White House. Again, this is a crazy out of left, right field thought is perhaps Apple is moving something to the U.S. or maybe French-shoring it, near-shoring it to Central America, and Trump is throwing this out there in advance of an announcement so he can say, it's because of me.

[22:10:04]

SIDNER: Oh, he did it because of him.

HILL: Because then he can say, I won something.

SARIN: Maybe. But the reality is that they have already started on- shoring and French-shoring to countries that are not China in order to help deal with the national security risks. They're moving big parts of their production to India and Vietnam.

And so, if anything, the way these tariffs are being effectuated in this trade policy, this is like the 56th time or something that tariff policy has moved since President Trump took office, and I feel like that is making the markets unstable. But it's also a business environment that's really unstable. If you're Tim Cook trying to plan where exactly should you be doing your manufacturing, if not, not China.

SIDNER: You brought up India, and specifically Trump mentioned, not building factories in India, when he sent out his social media on this, saying that he was going to put tariffs of 25 percent onto Apple.

I do want to ask you, Chuck, when you sort of step back from all of this and you look at the bigger picture of all of this, how are businesses supposed to operate when this just keeps shifting every single day? This tactic we have seen before and Trump says, huge win, you know, China is now coming to the table, but, really, he capitulated. ROCHA: Long-term investment is really important for business communities and for workers because that's where the investment happens. But I'll also say electorally, and we don't give enough credit to Donald Trump, write that down somewhere --

HILL: Oh my gosh.

SIDNER: What is happening to me?

SEAT: This is quite a night.

ROCHA: Trade, as somebody who lost their job, I worked in a tire factory. A lot of you all know. That job went overseas where my daddy worked, where I worked, where six of my uncles worked and lots of my cousins. I know the trauma that happens in local communities when those jobs are outsourced in rural East Texas. So, there are parts of our economy where the scalpel approach on tariffs with steel, aluminum, car parts, gasoline, wood, our paper industry, we have unbuckled and sent to China, like that kind of thing could be brought back. Those kind of jobs could be here. And those jobs pay $20, $30 an hour and we're used to paying that for those. It's the small, cheap toys or the iPhones is where it really hurts folks.

SIDNER: All right. We are going to have a lot of other things to discuss, but that was a good discussion. A lot of strange things happening here on this Friday. Okay.

ABDUL: Lots of agreement, right?

SIDNER: Right? I don't mind it. Natasha Sarin, thank you so much for joining us and bringing your great expertise.

Everyone else stick at the table, because, next, scared and confused students and a school that isn't backing down. Now, a court is weighing in on Trump's ban on international students at Harvard. We dug up what Trump has said in the past on this subject. Hint, it doesn't match what he's saying now.

Plus, the Justice Department pulls back on police accountability just days before the anniversary of George Floyd's murder. Another special guest will join the table.

Those stories and more ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:15:00]

SIDNER: All right. Tonight, in Donald Trump's war on Harvard, Harvard is hit back using the power of the law. The result, a federal judge has temporarily paused the Trump administration's ban on international students today. Harvard called the government's actions clear retaliation, and viewpoint discrimination. And in her order, the judge agreed, the university would sustain immediate and irreparable injury if the government were able to proceed. Trump has demanded control over what Harvard can teach and who they can hire. Trump's assault on Harvard and international students looks nothing like what he had to say just last year.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: It's so sad when we lose people from Harvard, MIT, from the greatest schools.

Anybody graduates from a college, you go in there for two years or four years, if you graduate or you get a doctorate degree from a college, you should be able to stay in this country.

You have great companies and they have to be smart people. Not everybody can be less than smart. You need brilliant people. And we force the brilliant people, the people that graduate from college, the people that are number one in their class from the best colleges, you have to be able to recruit these people and keep the people.

It was such a big deal. Somebody graduates at the top of the class, they can't even make a deal with the company because they don't think they're going to be able to stay in the country. That is going to end on day one.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Well, all right. Joining us now in our fifth seat at the table is Attorney Stacey Schneider. She's an opinion contributor at U.S. News and World Report and a former Apprentice contestant.

All right, I'm going to start with you. What is happening here? We heard those words from Donald Trump, and I remember thinking, huh, that seems different than some of the rhetoric that he's used. And now we are looking at something completely different at Harvard.

Legally speaking, when you see what this judge has done, what goes on from here?

STACEY SCHNEIDER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: This judge put a temporary restraining order and temporary is the emphasis here because he's not going to stop at that. So, what the government has said is just to -- it's a retaliatory move by the Trump administration against Harvard. It's very obvious, to everybody involved, that they are no longer going to be able to enroll any foreign students because the Trump administration, through ICE and Homeland Security, is now saying that they're not going to allow Harvard, I'm going to use old fashioned words, to sponsor any foreign students immigration visas or student visas.

So, these students now, as a result of what Trump did, and it's temporarily restrained, and if they don't restore Harvard back to the position it was the day before, the students are going to have to matriculate at other American universities to be able to stay in the country, or, eventually, they're just going to have to leave.

It's a really serious situation, because for a U.S. president to be retaliating against a university in this method by looking for any sort of avenue to crack down on Harvard for not doing what the administration wants is really awful.

[22:20:16]

And it's very consistent with a Donald Trump of the old days because here you have this trophy property, real estate developer who wanted to acquire all these trophy properties, and now he's going after the trophy properties of the United States.

He went on the board of the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., another trophy property, and now Harvard, an institution from 1636, that has 5,800 patents issued to its faculty and 52 Nobel Prize winners from its faculty, Trump is slashing and burning Harvard University by doing this.

SIDNER: Pete, I do wonder, what does handicapping the world's sort of wealthiest university and one of the world's most well-known universities who -- I mean, people come to America to go to Harvard, the best and brightest around the world. What does that do for America's competitiveness to sort of say, we don't want these students anymore?

SEAT: Well, as I said last night, talking about this topic, Harvard made its bed in how they handled the rise of anti-Semitism on their campus. But I do want to talk briefly about what happened today with this judge, because imagine a judicial system that moved this swiftly for regular Americans or just Americans, quite frankly, four hours, not even four hours from when Harvard filed that lawsuit to when the judge issued the restraining order and then set two hearings for next week.

There are defendants and plaintiffs in this country that wait literal years. Harvard has to wait about five days.

ROCHA: You need to check on one of them legal lists they have in the magazines that show the law schools, Harvard's number one. That's probably the judge --

(CROSSTALKS)

ROCHA: Let me say what I'll say about Harvard when I -- to continue the Chuck Rocha saga here, when I left that plant, when it shut down, I went to work at the International and they realized I didn't have a formal education. And I should have some basic understanding of things, like the law and social movement. So, they sent me to Harvard to an executive program.

And I remember there in counting for the first time in my life, hey, seed plow boy, foreign students. I never met a foreign student. I'd never stepped foot on foreign land. And something that stood with me when I was reading this today is that how much they love this country and how much they would tell me stories of what it's like in their country where they can't speak up, where they have no freedoms, and how great it was that they were having this opportunity.

It was many years ago, I didn't see any anti-Semitism. I'm not saying that that's not somewhere right now. But these people loved America more than a lot of my friends back home because we took it for granted. I'll put it on myself because I didn't understand all the freedoms that I had until they, a foreign student, told me how lucky I was.

SCHNEIDER: You know, can I say something though? And I really do agree with you. I mean, that was swift justice, you know, to have this happen so quickly. Harvard, it's not the same place anymore when you were there. I mean, Harvard's not completely without fault here. They made -- even, they've admitted they've made mistakes. And I think that's an understatement to allow the anti-Semitism that proliferated on that campus, where one of the students, he just settled a lawsuit with them, Shabbos Kestenbaum. I met him and I heard his story. He had to attend classes with bodyguards at Harvard. He was threatened. He was prevented from going to class, that he's not the only student.

And for the federal government to step in and monitor Harvard or admonish Harvard, I'm okay with that. That should be done. If black students were prevented from going to class, if black students were being threatened on campus and shunned and spit on and all these things that are going on, the federal government would step in. It's just the manner and method by which the Trump administration steps into things which we see in everything they do. There may be good intentions in the beginning, but it always spirals into this ridiculous overplay of power.

HILL: And to be honest though, that is a reality also for black students who are on a lot of campuses. I went to a predominantly white institution. I went to Michigan State. I told this story last night. The first time I was ever called an N word was at Michigan State. And the Ku Klux Klan used to come there and recruit. I didn't see the federal government anywhere, all right?

And so this is not to -- I don't want to play the Oppression Olympics, but what I am saying is that I understand that Harvard did not do its best or as much as they could have to stand up for the Jewish students on campus facing this reality.

But the overstep here feels vengeful. It doesn't feel like -- it feels like they're using anti-Semitism as a cover to punish Harvard for God knows what. I don't know, for their existence, I don't know if Barron Trump just didn't get in. I don't know what it is, like why. And because of that, it's unfortunately going to set a bad precedent for other places. Like what if they don't like something that's happening at other institutions?

SCHNEIDER: Yes. But it sort of diminishes the anti-Semitism because it was so extreme. You're having -- it's one thing about having protesters on campus who engage in free speech and support -- if they want to support a terrorist organization, that's part of the First Amendment free speech.

[22:25:08]

When you actually take that to an extra step, this is going on now. I mean, I know you weren't in college in yesterday, and you do look very young and I know that. HILL: I appreciate that.

SCHNEIDER: But right now, to have students be in fear for their lives, to not be able to enter a building on campus, that they're paying tuition too to go to, it's just way too out of control what's going on with these students. Nobody should feel that way on campus.

And for Harvard to be this crown gem of the United States in terms of education and faculty, not to educate their students, not to implement programs, not to punish any students, for doing this to other students. You want to protest, go ahead and protest. But do not block your fellow students from entering their classrooms. Do not push them around.

SIDNER: So, let me just jump in here just really quickly, because I guess the big question is, why are you punishing all international students when this student body is made up of a lot of American students as well who took part in those protests?

And I do want to add one more thing. The United States sold more educational services to the rest of the world than they sold natural gas. This is a huge money maker for the United States. You look at this and how much money they have sort of -- the United States has sort of exported or, if you will, imported, to have students come and take part in our educational system. And as Chuck said, it actually is to sell the American dream abroad as well.

So, Melik, how do you square this going after Harvard?

ABDUL: So, I think, and I am among -- you know, amongst the panelists here, I'm the less smart one. Is that what Donald Trump said? I'm the less smart one here.

(CROSSTALKS)

ABDUL: So, there are valid concerns, and then you guys have raised this, there are valid concerns with how Harvard has handled the anti- Semitism issue. I think Claudine Gay probably is the biggest example of that in her hearing. So, there is a valid role for the federal government.

Me, one of the things that attracted me to being a, you know, embracing conservatism and becoming a Republican is this idea of small government. For me, what the Donald Trump administration has been doing when it comes to Harvard, this is aside from the anti-Semitism issue. This is trying to control the curriculum, trying to control the hiring, and at this point, controlling your enrollment, for me, that is very big government. That is not the small government conservatism that I actually embrace.

And so I don't like what the administration is doing here because it's hard to argue that it's not retaliation.

SIDNER: And that's what Harvard is arguing in court.

ABDUL: Well, it's hard to argue that it's not retaliatory. HILL: It would be a different thing if the government stepped in and say, okay, here are some ways that we can help you deal with this problem.

SCHNEIDER: Exactly.

HILL: That would be a totally different scenario and well within their reach. But, again, this comes with the trust factor and the things we've already come out of this administration, like you brought out, like if this were a hostile environment for black students, I got to be honest, I don't think the Trump administration would intervene.

SIDNER: Well, let's talk about that, because they do things like consent decrees when it comes to police reform.

And coming up, we're going to talk about this. The Justice Department suddenly pulls back on police reform and accountability just before the anniversary of George Floyd's murder. Is this a statement being made by the administration or something else? We'll debate it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:33:09]

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: This Sunday marks five years since the murder of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis Police Officer Derek Chauvin. The world watched the tragedy unfold as bystander video showed Floyd begging for his life with Chauvin kneeling on his neck for more than nine minutes. Floyd's death sparked national outrage -- international outrage even, and prompted police reforms in Minneapolis to prevent this from ever happening again.

But this week, the Trump administration announced it will end federal oversight of those reforms and that it will drop investigations into several major police departments, including Minneapolis. Earlier today, I spoke with Philonise Floyd, the brother of George Floyd. Here's what he had to say.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PHILONISE FLOYD, BROTHER OF GEORGE FLOYD: He sat on my brother's neck like my brother was a piece of animal or something like that that was out there. He just did what he wanted to do, and you can see it in his eyes that he didn't care. And so many people seen that. And the fact still stands that we need people to hold police accountable. That's the bottom line.

I understand police, they have to do their job, but also you have to have respect for others. And at the end of the day, it's not just my family. You got to think about Breonna Taylor. You got to think about Ahmaud Arbery. You got to think about, Eric Garner. You got to think about Stephon Clark -- Stephon Clark. You got to think about so much because just being around all these families, I don't want to be a part of this.

You know, I think about Tyre Nichols every day. I think about what his mother is going through. I think about what happened to any individual who lost their loved one due to this. I'm going to constantly think about that because there's a lot of people who wake up every day and don't know what's going to go on in the world that we live in today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[22:35:00]

SIDNER: Stacy, I -- I want to talk to you about this because you're the attorney at the table. You know, when you look at this, I guess what people are looking at here is saying, well, who then watches the watchers? Because the federal government had put a consent decree that was agreed upon by the police department there.

I've spoken to the mayor. The mayor says, look, we are going forward with the forms. The police department's going forward with the reforms. But in in some cases, with the federal government sort of backing off, sort of says to the police department, you do you.

STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE TRIAL ATTORNEY: Yeah. The Trump Justice Department's saying, we're not going to go forward with these anymore, even though these are court approved agreements to monitor police departments all over the country who were under investigation, or who -- who were or that were allegedly engaged in misconduct -- police misconduct.

So, what's the harm of keeping the oversight in place? It's -- it's absurd to withdraw it at this point. I don't really see any reason why the government would need to back away from this other than to make a veiled statement that I'm going to side on the police's side, it's -- it's not a good message to the public.

And the Trump administration is arguing that this isn't necessary anymore, and these consent decrees are monitored by these outside third parties and these people who are monitoring it are anti-police and we don't want those kind of people around.

And the police are very happy about this because they believe the consent decrees are making relations difficult with the local population because it's putting a stigma on the police department that they're, you know, corrupt and they need to be monitored. But what's the point of not keeping a monitor on something that's -- that's moving along?

So, there's extra oversight, that as long as the police are behaving, what's the difference if somebody's watching over them or not? Everything is working properly. Why not have a little extra protection considering all of the incidents that have been occurring across the country over these past few years involving alleged police misconduct.

SIDNER: Chuck, what's the message? What is the message being said?

ROCHA: I'm not a lawyer, but I have hired a lot of lawyers. I'll tell you this for a fact, is that we should mention that with this going on that black voters, Latino voters voted Democratic. But Donald Trump performed better with those two demographics than any Republican in history.

SIDNER: Yeah.

ROCHA: And there's a reason for that. There's a lot of frustration in the community. But this, a couple with lots of other things of, in my opinion, erasing black history from lots of things in our history as always a total. Political consultants like me, you can say it's right or wrong. But I will use this to try to get some of our black voters and immigrant voters, and children of immigrants back voting this way because he voted for him not because of this.

They were frustrated about economic needs and other things, right? But this draws a clear line in my business which is just about contrast to sometimes we do it to a fault and we do it too much. We should look for a lot more things that bring us together but this is something that's really different. Yeah.

ABDUL: So, I'll say that this is something that I reported on this. I've been reporting on this for years on the issue of consent decrees.

ABDUL: The Republican Party and conservatives, well before Donald Trump, have been against consent decrees. If you go and look at the number of consent decrees around the country, most people when they think of consent decrees, they think of police.

Well, consent decrees are actually, with the local governments, with cities and everything, they're agreed upon and I think the overwhelming majority of them are not dealing, like the consent decrees aren't dealing with police. If Democrats, and this is something that I've talked about, and in fact, if you guys want to watch, go and watch, Jemele's podcast, we did a podcast --

HILL: Yes. My YouTube channel. Yeah.

ABDUL: -- couple weeks ago.

HILL: We did.

ABDUL: And I just want to point this out now, while you're right that some cities are going to continue to do exactly what they wanted -- what they do as far as reforms, if the Democrats were serious about police reform, they would have voted in favor or allowed the Justice Act, which was the Republicans component to police reform in June of 2020, which was introduced by Tim Scott.

It had the support of every single senator, Republican senator in Congress. If Democrats had allowed those reforms to go to the floor for a vote, we may actually have a police reform package, but they filibustered it. They filibustered that bill on the -- and one of the state --

(CROSSTALK)

HILL: You know when we argued about it, you know why.

(CROSSTALK) ABDUL: And that bill was -- was --

HILL: Qualified Immunity.

ABDUL: Qualified Immunity.

HILL: Correct.

ABDUL: But there was -- that's kind of a big one.

HILL: Yeah, it is.

ABDUL: But let me tell you why it wasn't -- why it was less important. If you go and look at the actual bills, the Justice Act and the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act, those bills overlap by about 75 to 80 percent. So, what the resistance said is because we could not get consent decrees, it doesn't matter that we agree on 75 percent of things.

We couldn't get that one thing and they decided to table the bill. We could have had police reforms if the Democrats had decided to play ball with them.

HILL: But what -- what they didn't want was something that looked cosmetic. And unfortunately, what we see with this rollback from this administration just falls in line with a lot of things that we saw post George Floyd.

[22:40:01]

A lot of companies, a lot of celebrities, people putting up the black squares, all that, all that jazz knew it was performative then.

MELIK: Virtue signaling.

HILL: Yes, it was, because at the end of the day, if you really want this change to be lasting, to be permanent, to be something that forces us to reimagine how we police in this country and whether or not there should be different layers of accountability, then you stick to your guns. So, from this administration, I'm -- I'm not surprised at all.

The worry though is, as you said, you know, what's the harm? The other thing is, these things, I think they send a message to the public when you have them in place, consent decrees, it allows the public to regain that trust. Like, let's be honest from --

SCHNEIDER: That somebody is watching.

HILL: That somebody is watching, 2020, especially, was a bad year in terms of policing and what, between Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, all of that. It was a continued thing. And if you're the police, what you do want is to reestablish public trust. The best way to do that is to tell people, hey, we're willing to hold ourselves accountable.

You as a police officer, you have a lot of power. You want to hold everybody else accountable, but you don't want anybody else holding you accountable. That to me is a scary prospect, especially when you have people with that much power.

SCHNEIDER: Right.

HILL: So -- so to me, it would have helped their reputation to keep this in place.

SCHNEIDER: And he also -- I was just going to say really quickly -- and Trump ran on law and order. So, what's wrong with a little order in police departments that are not in great shape? So, you know, to me -- to me, this is another veiled political message of just going against one side of the country in support of -- of these messages.

HILL: Well --

SCHNEIDER: And then it's all veiled.

HILL: And -- and then the bad optics of doing this right after this Ashley Babbitt settlement.

UNKNOWN: Right.

SEAT: But what you call rolling back, the administration sees as standing with their supporters. I mean, go back to the campaign.

HILL: Except for the face that's caught on the camera.

SEAT: You had a flood of police associations that endorsed Donald Trump. You had the FOP. You had associations in Michigan and Milwaukee, battleground states. You had the Police Benevolent Association right here in New York, which, far as we know, had never endorsed a candidate for President of The United States.

And the way they see it, I -- you write down numbers. I write down long quotes. I won't read out your buyer's name, but essentially the executive director of the FOP said that consent decrees don't make any material positive difference in the relationship between police and communities. This is what they were looking for, and Donald Trump is responding to that.

SCHNEIDER: But that might just be a talking point because having somebody monitor a situation as drastic as, you know, police departments, not complying with proper arrest procedures, or not -- not carrying out their job in a safe manner with the public. All these things that have gone on, it doesn't happen all the time.

There are some bad apples. There are great police officers, and of course we should be supporting them. But there's just no harm in continuing monitoring something and making sure things stay on track because it went so badly off track.

SIDNER: Also, the public feels that they have somewhere to go if they feel like the system is breaking down and so that is one of the things that consent decrees do. Maybe they don't make huge changes, but it does give the public a sense that they have somewhere to complain, not to the department itself, which they don't at that time trust.

All right, Stacy Schneider, thank you so much for your expertise. Everyone else, stay here. Hold on to your hats, especially yours, Chuck. The White House insists that President Trump attended an event for his meme coins investors on his personal time and that he couldn't be influenced. Maybe they should have talked to the investors because they're talking. We'll explain next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:48:22]

SIDNER: New details tonight from that crypto dinner the president hosted with top investors blurring the line between ethics and the presidency. A reminder, the White House denied that he's using the office to line his pockets. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The President is abiding by all conflict of interest laws that are applicable to the President.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Even some of the investors say they're looking for something in return. A Korean crypto executive who was there told "The New York Times" this. "It's kind of a fundraiser for Trump, and he'll always be good to his sponsors." Now, Leavitt also said this before that event.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: I have also addressed the dinner tonight. The President is attending it in his personal time. It is not a White House dinner.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SIDNER: Well, look at this video from one of the crypto guests. You see that seal there? That's the presidential seal. It's hard to argue that doesn't look like an official event. All right. Chuck, you're over here chuckling, so we're going to start with you chuckling Chuck over here in the hat.

ROCHA: I got a couple of things.

SIDNER: Okay.

ROCHA: The first thing was is for those of you on the internets, I'm not Van Lathan. I'm Chuck Rocha, number one.

(LAUGHTER)

ROCHA: Second thing is -- is I remember back when we used to all lose our mind because in the first administration we were like, Donald Trump is hosting that in his golf course. And then he's having folks stay in his hotel room. And we literally would let our -- light our hair on fire if we had some air, but we were going crazy.

Now, he's literally like, if you want to come and talk to me, you got to pay me in my Bitcoin and we can have a conversation, which is crazy. Last point and I'll stop, is Don Junior actually admitted and said, look, we're going to take heed either way we go.

[22:50:00]

We might as well just lean into this thing and do it out here in the open. That was his words, not mine. I paraphrased.

(CROSSTALK)

SIDNER: Pete, how do you get away from the idea that even in polling, the American people are seeing corruption here? They're just -- they are very much against what they're seeing with us.

SEAT: Because it looks problematic. The optics are horrendous. And you know, the President said in his remarks, in his personal time, which I don't have personal time. I just have to run for president to get on this. But he said in his remarks that crypto is common sense or something to that effect. And I will quote myself from last evening sitting in this very chair around this time, crypto is a sitting in this very chair around this time, crypto is a scam.

It is a scam. It is a get rich quick scheme. And that's why those people wanted to be in that room. They wanted to try and influence the administration for the government to legitimize the scam so they can realize a return on investment.

But I do want to point out, they didn't get to actually interact with him. And that is in CNN's reporting that they did not shake his hand, they didn't talk to him. It sounds like he just went up to the podium, gave remarks, and peaced out.

ABDUL: I -- I can imagine that they probably, if it was offered, they probably had to pay about 10 or 15,000 to even take a picture with the President because, you know, that's how much these things typically cost. I am and I'll co-sign, Pete here. I am uncomfortable with this, and you've seen a lot of other Republicans and conservatives who've spoken out against this.

And because for many of us, we watch what happened during the Biden administration, and many of us talked about the connections that Hunter Biden had making, you know, 60 -- $80,000 a month for something that he had no experience in. So, it would be hypocritical for me to say, look at Hunter, look at Hunter, and not talk about this.

There is this whole idea of the emoluments clause, D.C.'s Former Attorney General sued Donald Trump. This was back in -- I can't -- maybe 2018 over his hotel in D.C. So, this has kind of been something that Donald Trump, because of his -- his business investments, this has been something difficult for them to detangle.

They're saying that it's above board. If it's above board, I mean fine. I don't have a problem with it if it's above board, but it does give you a little ick factor.

SIDNER: Well, you know, there's all these dinner guests that are talking to "The New York Times" and --and to others saying --

(CROSSTALK)

UNKNOWN: They won't.

SIDNER: -- we do expect.

ABDUL: And let me just say -- and just so our audience will know, anybody who donates any significant amount of money to any politician --

SIDNER: Right.

ABDUL: Wants access.

SIDNER: Right. Yeah.

ABDUL: So.

HILL: It's a -- it's a big problem in our political -- in our political atmosphere, regardless on both sides, right?

ROCHA: You got to make sure you can pay your consultants, but please go ahead.

HILL: But here's the thing though, is that even though they may not have a direct one to one with Donald Trump, the fact that he now is personally invested in crypto is why they know that he is going to look out for them. So, the -- the one piece of it is buying the influence. The other piece of it is that he's perfect -- personally profiting from this meme coin that he has.

I don't even understand how crypto works, but I know the -- the person I listen to is Warren Buffett. Warren Buffett said crypto was a scam. I'm like, all right, Warren. Whatever you say, you're much richer than me and you've been living in the same house for 30 years.

SIDNER: But there is a lot of money to be made if you know how to work the system. So, a lot of people have gotten rich off of crypto, in whatever way they have done it. Donald Trump looks like he's trying to get rich right now in this way with his meme coin. We will see. Next, the panel gives us their night caps.

They tell us the best advice they've ever gotten inspired by graduating students in a certain little amphibious wonder.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:58:28]

SIDNER: We're back and it is time for the "NewsNightcap", good advice edition inspired by my conversation with one distinguished commencement speaker, Kermit the Frog. You -- you each have a few seconds to tell us what is the best advice you've received from anywhere, anywhere you choose. Pete, you're up.

SEAT: I don't know if this is great advice because it really only applies to me, but the last year of my senior year at Lake Central High School in Saint John, Indiana, Ralph Holden, who was a psychology teacher, he said I have some parting words before the final bell. He looked right at me and he said, Pete Seat, don't ever change your name. It's going to take you places. I haven't changed my name.

SIDNER: Okay.

HILL: Look at you now.

SIDNER: That was some good advice, and easy. You didn't have to do anything for it. You just kept it.

SEAT: It was easy.

SIDNER: All right.

HILL: The best advice I ever -- ever received, and I remember it mostly because it came from one of the most despicable people I've ever met in my life, and no, I won't say who it is.

SIDNER: Wow.

HILL: That being said, they gave me a great piece of advice which is the best revenge is success. And it always stayed with me because a lot of times we get caught up in the feeling slighted and feeling like we're not running the right race, comparing our success. And I was like no, the best revenge is when you're successful. That's the best way to tell people I told you so.

SIDNER: Chuck?

ROCHA: I will tell you this that, my papa only had a third grade education. His name was Charlie Bussell and he raised me and he told me always put his tools back. It's something I stick with today. But he also said because he lived through the great depression, he said, are you saving your money? And so he'd say, save your money, show up on time and chew with your mouth closed.

[23:00:00]

Three things that stick with me today, and he was also a U.S. Veteran and I want to think about him on Memorial Day weekend.

SIDNER: That is beautiful.

ABDUL: I thank him for his service. So, best advice that I got, it was that when you turn 30, everything goes downhill from there.

(LAUGHTER)

ABDUL: So -- so the weight gain, and everything.

SIDNER: That was the warning. ABDUL: And everything.

HILL: Yeah.

ABDUL: Well, see, it was advice. Somebody told me that you need to be mindful because you eat a whole lot. So once you get 30, you need to be mindful. And so, for all of my friends who, you know, joke with me because I'll eat a salad for a whole week, well, it's -- the reason why is because I'm over 30.

SIDNER: That's why you're slender and they're not. Everyone, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. And thank you for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.