Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Issues Pardons To Fraud Convicts Linked To MAGA; Trump Aims To Cancel All Federal Funds For Harvard; Trump's War On Colleges Threatens Brain Drain In U.S.; CBS News Anchor Scott Pelley Delivers A Commencement Speech At Wake Forest University; Democrats Figure Out How They Lost Sporadic Voters. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 27, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, the olden age, why The butterfly effect of Donald Trump's war on colleges may bring America backwards.
Plus, as the White House insists power is not for sale, the president pardons tax cheat after his mother attends a million-dollar dinner.
Also, MAGA is mad at the 60 Minute man.
SCOTT PELLEY, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: Freedom of speech is under attack.
PHILLIP: But is Scott Pelley's message one that's debatable.
And you mad bro? Lost liberals are spending big bucks to figure out a culture dominated by dudes.
Live at the table, Marc Short ,Adrienne Elrod, Shermichael Singleton, Dan Koh, Tara Palmeri and Hadas Gold.
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. Is presidential power for sale? New evidence tonight that loyalty and cash pay dividends in the new Trump era less than three weeks after a Trump mega donor attended a million dollar MAGA dinner at Mar-a-Lago. She got exactly what she wanted, and that's a pardon for her son.
The New York Times reveals that a former nursing home executive who pleaded guilty to tax crimes explicitly highlighted his mother's loyalty to Trump in his bid for clemency. She was also linked to an effort to publicize Ashley Biden's diary in 2020. So, now, her son will be spared from an 18-month prison sentence and more than $4 million in restitution. The White House says he was a target of the Biden administration over his politics. But in addition to that tonight, the president has also pardoned a reality show, couple who were convicted of tax evasion and bank fraud and, surprise, their daughter is a MAGA supporter and an activist.
This is part of a pattern and it has been almost accelerating in part because Trump has put a huge loyalist in the pardon office. But this particular case, I mean, it's so interesting because this guy, I mean, allegedly according to what he was convicted of, this started, you know, maybe over a decade ago that he was skimming money that was supposed to be for employment taxes and using it to pay for a yacht and now a get-out-of-jail free card, Marc, just because he his mother raised money for Donald Trump. That just seems to be the swamp being filled, not drained.
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE: Well, look, Abby, I think probably on tonight's show I'll be defending a lot of the Trump administration policies. I have no interest in defending his pardon policy. I think it's been pretty gross. I think it even was, frankly, at the end of the first administration, we looked at the pardons that came out, there's a lot of coverage at that point about January 6th and the people that were pardoned were sort of ignored in that coverage.
But for the administration that I think prides itself on being tough on crime, the first administration, pardons are inexcusable. One of the big legislative accomplishments in theory was the get-out-of-jail free legislation he passed.
PHILLIP: Is this the First Step Act?
SHORT: Yes. And I think that now it's almost like he looked at what Biden did. I think that's what makes it difficult for Democrats to condemn it is because of how gross Biden's pardons were. But it's almost like he saw what Biden and said, hold my beer and I'm going to show you and go farther.
PHILLIP: I mean, okay, it was -- interestingly, I mean. I think you would get a lot of Democrats arguing the First Step Act was actually a good thing that Trump did in this first term.
SHORT: Sure, a lot of Democrats do argue about it.
PHILLIP: But what he is doing now is not the First Step Act.
DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CABINET SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN: Definitely. I think this is a larger --
TARA PALMERI, PODCAST HOST, THE TARA PALMERI SHOW: Yes.
KOH: It's a larger pattern of Donald Trump selling out the little guy in favor of the big guy. If you don't have the resources, he'll send you to CECOT without due process. But if you have resources, you'll get out of jail for free, right? If you're a minor who works hard, he'll cut the program at HHS that takes care of minors while standing on stage and saying that he's for minors, or he'll give a pardon to a reality T.V. star with resources instead of helping people who need a tax cut.
This is just part of a larger trend with Donald Trump, who will always do things for the wealthy, while also claiming he's for working class people, but doing absolutely nothing to back it up, as a matter of fact, undercutting them in the process.
PALMERI: I just think like what these people represent though, they're all sort of a part of the do Donald Trump narrative. He is pardoning reality stars who are being accused of white collar crimes. President Trump, who is the ultimate victim, namely of some white collar crimes, I mean, if he exonerates them and it makes him look better, it changes the narrative of his story, you know, tax evasion, these kind of crimes that aren't always as tangible.
[22:05:07]
SHORT: I don't know if they're all white collar crimes. I mean, the first big crime group he did was pardoning the people who beat up police.
PALMERI: No, but I mean these people in particular.
PHILLIP: But they have also like actually backed off of prosecuting white collar crimes.
PALMERI: Right.
PHILLIP: Not just pardoning them. I mean, but there's that and then there's also the MAGA of it all. The person who I was talking about who's in charge of the pardon is Ed Martin, who couldn't get confirmed as the D.C. attorney, now is in charge of pardons for whatever reason. He wrote on X, no MAGA left behind. And then he thanked Trump for pardoning Sheriff Jenkins, who is also another character sentenced to ten years in prison for taking tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to give random people law enforcement badges that they had not earned.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, Abby --
PHILLIP: This is what the MAGA thing is all about?
SINGLETON: The First Step Act, I think, was a good thing. I think we oversentenced too much in this country for nonviolent crimes. Tax evasion, I'm not saying it's a good thing, but you should be able to pay a fee for that and move on. In this particular case of the sheriff, I don't know anyone who was harmed by his act. I'm not saying that the act was okay, moral or ethical. I don't agree with it. But should be sentenced to ten years any more than the Chris Lee or the individual in Florida, pay your fine and move on.
This isn't a Ponzi scheme. They didn't murder anyone. They didn't rob anyone necessarily. So, I view this a little differently.
PHILLIP: I think that people would argue that when even white collar crimes is a form of cheating, and usually there are victims, there are people who are hurt by these --
SINGLETON: The Ponzi scheme, sure, but, Abby, in the case of Florida, the gentleman actually paid back the $10 million that he owed and the judge actually considered that, but decided to sentence him anyway.
PHILLIP: But -- Okay. We always talk about deterrence in crime here, right? Like is there no role for deterrence in white collar crime?
ADRIENNE ELROD, : Look, I think the bottom line is this, Abby, is that he rewards loyalty. And it doesn't matter, we can sit here and litigate all these cases, like, you know, were with the Chris Lee family, should they have been jailed or as long as they were, should they have been prosecuted the way they were? We can argue this, you know, as long as the day is long. But the ultimate thing is if you are loyal to Donald Trump, he will repay you. And that is what we're seeing play out.
And we're just at the beginning of this administration and he is doing pardons. He's issuing pardons. Dan, you worked in the White House. Issuing pardons far earlier than typical presidents do. I mean, you may see a couple pardons sprinkled traditionally among presidencies. But most of them come at the end because it is so politically perilous.
But Donald Trump says maybe he'll run for reelection, which of course he's not allowed to do by law. But I think he's looking at this as, I'm getting paid back and I'm going to reward people who have been loyal to me no matter what.
SHORT: And the Culpepper Sheriff is somebody -- Virginia's one of the few states that has a statewide election this year. Democrat-nominee Abigail Spanberger would jumped on that right away, and now the Republican ticket's going to have to defend it.
PHILLIP: I mean, I'm thinking still about what Shermichael just said. I mean, in a way, Trump is agreeing with you that white collar crime is not really crime, and just in general. And then on top of that, if you layer praise for Trump, that's a good reason to get a pardon. What kind of message does that send in this country?
PALMERI: It sends that what he did was not a serious crime. He was indicted for white collar crime. How does President Trump send that message by then pardoning anyone who has a similar crime?
SINGLETON: But, Abby, I think there's a distinct --
PALMERI: That he's a victim. That's what he's going to say.
SINGLETON: I think there's a distinct difference from, again, someone who's running a Ponzi scheme versus someone who's committing tax evasion. I think someone who's committing a Ponzi scheme, they're literally harming people in real time.
You should go to prison for that. But if you have the means to pay back the fine, I think we'd all agree, for the most part, if it's a non-violent offense and not -- I'm not just talking about these individuals. I'm talking, in general, shouldn't we put people in prison for non-violent offenses? I don't agree with that.
ELROD: But, Shermichael, this is where Trump is defying the court of law. He's making his own decisions. He's saying, you know what, I'm going to ignore the judges, I'm going to ignore the jury, and I'm going to decide what I want --
SINGLETON: Every presidential pardon people, Adrienne, you know this.
ELROD: I understand that. But the point is, he's doing it at a pace that is very rapidly considering where he is.
SINGLETON: So what? So what? Democrats don't like it, so what?
ELROD: Yes. But the bottom line is he's doing it in a way that is non- traditional, in a way that is, you know, his base may love it, but it's certainly not doing anything to affect the middle. And I think, again, he may not run for -- I mean, he can't run for reelection. He says he may, but he's not going to be able to.
SINGLETON: But would you agree that we shouldn't put non-violent offenders in prison? The Democrats typically advocated --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I'm fascinated by this. Because if someone, you know, went into a, store let's call it shoplifting.
SINGLETON: Sure.
PHILLIP: Should shoplifters be then just asked to do community service, maybe pay the money back and then let out? I mean, I literally think that's the opposite of what Republicans have been saying about people who -- you know, I mean, I don't know what their motivations are, but some people might be shoplifting food, literally, to eat.
I guess I'm just saying it feels like there's a different standard for rich --
SINGLETON: Well, there's not a different standard for me, Abby. I know where my ethos is and then --
[22:10:00]
PHILLIP: Everybody else, it's like tough luck.
SINGLETON: So, let's take your example and there are some young kids that are impoverished and they stole something from a store. I don't want these kids' lives completely ruined by some ridiculous judge --
PHILLIP: But that is not the Trump platform.
SINGLETON: -- sentencing them to 12 or 24 months in prison that -- Trump did that.
PALMERI: That's not law and order, right? PHILLIP: That's not the law and order platform that Donald Trump has been talking about.
SHORT: It's also a process. You can elect people to get laws off the books if you want. It's not something that I think you just decide we're going to have somebody granting broad pardons at the White House.
KOH: This guy was paying -- supposed to be paying Social Security and Medicare taxes and for his employees, his nurses, his doctors, and instead bought a $2 million yacht. I'm not really sure that something that we should let skirt. And, by the way, if conservatives are supposed to be the reputation of good fiscal stewards, to let $10 million of tax evasion go by, you do that over and over again, I'm not sure that's a party that really cares about the economy and making sure that revenues are exceeding costs.
PHILLIP: All right. Coming up next for us, Donald Trump's war on colleges takes a new dramatic turn tonight, but are his actions leading to a brain drain?
Plus, MAGA is livid about a CBS anchor, Scott Pelley, in his graduation speech. Another special guest is going to join us at our table to discuss that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, President Trump is escalating his war against Harvard. Sources are telling CNN that the administration is now planning to pull the plug on all remaining federal contracts with the university to the tune of about a hundred million dollars.
This is just the latest swipe in Trump's ongoing feud with the school. He's already frozen more than $2 billion in research grants, and last week, the Homeland Security Department banned the school from enrolling international students. A federal judge paused that move.
But Harvard refuses to bend Trump's barrage of attacks. Here is its president responding today in an interview before plans for the new cuts came to light.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN GARBER, PRESIDENT, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: The federal government has the authority through the budgeting process to reallocate funds. But the question to ask is, what problem is he trying to solve by doing that?
Do you really want to cut back on research dollars? I'm less concerned about whether it goes to a trade school or if it goes to some other project, like working on highways. The real question is, how much value does the federal government get from its expenditures on research?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: What he is talking about there is what Donald Trump said today on Truth Social. He said, I'm considering taking $3 billion of grant money away from a very anti-Semitic Harvard and giving it to trade schools. I guess the question is, why is he so obsessed with Harvard?
SINGLETON: I think this is a political thing. I think you're literally shifting the narrative to force Democrats to have to defend elitism and wealthier individuals. So, it's a new deal. A working class people, individuals without a college degree were reliable Democratic voters. That absolutely shifted with Donald Trump, and I think he's attempting to submit that.
And so however these judges rule, I think that's less important. I think the real importance here is, politically, what narrative is the president trying to signal to the American people to put Democrats on the defensive to say, yes, we're protecting foreign students, we're protecting Harvard University, where 62 percent of Americans don't even have a college degree. I wouldn't want to be Democrats making that argument to the American people right now.
ELROD: But can I jump in here? I mean, here's the bottom line. I don't disagree with that. And I think, frankly, from a sheer tactical P.R. standpoint, it was smart of him. If he's going to do this against a university, it was smart to go after an elitist institution like Harvard.
However, at the end of the day, what we're seeing in polling, especially when you pull back the curtain and you realize, oh, wait a minute, there's a lot of NIH funding that goes through Harvard, there's a lot of research done on, you know, future medical sciences, like everything from breast cancer to, you know, Alzheimer's disease. When you actually look at all the research work that Harvard does, and you let voters know that, you see in polling that a majority of the American people have a problem with this.
And they also understand that if you go over after Harvard successfully, are you going to go after every other public institution? I mean, again, I think I understand what he was doing by going after Harvard, but I think at the end of the day, a lot of Americans, when we see this in polling, think he's going down a dangerous road and they have concerns with it.
KOH: Adrienne's absolutely right. Trump thinks that if he can get Harvard to bend the knee, that he can get any university to bend the knee. And let's play this out. That means that any academic institution would be under Trump's win. You're talking about banning bankruptcy courses in law to avoid the six --
SHORT: No, you're talking --
KOH: Wait, let me finish.
(CROSSTALKS)
SHORT: A black feminist for negotiation at the law school.
KOH: You're talking about banning environmental studies because he doesn't believe in it so it can give kickbacks to his oil buddies. You're talking about banning journalism in schools. This is where his endgame at. It's all about control now.
(CROSSTALKS)
KOH: A lot of the wild stuff that you thought that he wasn't going to do, he's doing now and you're trying to defend it.
SINGLETON: Dan, no one's proposing any (INAUDIBLE).
KOH: Not yet.
SINGLETON: They're teaching transgenderism. They're teaching black feminist negotiation. That's process.
KOH: Do you think feminism should be outlawed?
PHILLIP: My question would be, and let's -- just taking what you're saying, what's wrong with teaching those things?
SHORT: I agree with Shermichael. He's spot on this. The reality is that you have $53 billion endowment in Harvard. So, the average American is like, why are my tax dollars going to foster a school --
PHILLIP: But I guess what I'm asking is --
SHORT: That is also the president of the university is refusing to condone speech that says we're going to tolerate wrong genocide of Jews., Abby.
[22:20:03]
PHILLIP: Hold on. No, no. I'm not talking about --
SHORT: That is what she says on her testimony.
PHILLIP: I'm not talking about that particular. I'm talking about what you just raised here. What's wrong with people learning things about queer, gender identity that you disagree with?
SHORT: There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, Abby.
PHILLIP: So, then why would the question, why on earth would we live in a society in which the government could say, you cannot teach those things?
SHORT: They're not?
PHILLIP: I mean, I think that's the point -- and that's the question that's on the table.
SHORT: There are schools like Hillsdale College in Grove City. They're basically private institutions. Harvard could be private. It's got a $53 billion endowment. But if they want to take taxpayer dollars and they want to promote a woke agenda, as they have, and they want to make a campus an unsafe environment for Jew students --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let me play a little bit more from the --
PALMERI: You can't do that. It's like actually let's try to mind control young people that is -- that are -- (INAUDIBLE). Yes, because you're punishing them for their syllabus. If you won't even engage in conversations --
SHORT: Mind control?
PALMERI: It is, because you're nurturing all people.
SINGLETON: I mean, Tara, the current ideological leanings of Harvard and most Ivy League institutions are way to the left, progressively left, borderline Marxists left, in my opinion.
PALMERI: The Republican Party is the party of free speech, and you can't have a conversation about queer --
SHORT: So, there's a freedom of speech institution --
(CROSSTALKS)
SHORT: There's an organization called Fire. It ranks Harvard, they say the professors there feel is the most unsafe campus for them to speak out and give their own personal opinions. So, you talk about free speech and when to have that. That's not what's happened in Harvard. The professors themselves say they'll get punished if they speak out and say what they believe.
PHILLIP: What is the government's --
PALMERI: But that's not for the government -- that's not the government's role.
PHILLIP: The question is, what's the government's role? And I think the second question that's raised by Harvard's president. Let me -- because I'm going to play this bite, is when Trump says he's going to take away the funding, right, is he actually trying to get the result that he claims he's going to get? Because here is actually what the funding is. This is according to Harvard's president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GARBER: The research funding is given to universities and other research institutions to carry out work that the -- research work that the federal government designates as high priority work.
Shutting off that work does not help the country, even as it punishes Harvard. And it is hard to see the link between that and, say, anti- Semitism.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The reason he's saying that and I've tried to make this point because I think it's very important, just from a logical perspective, Harvard is getting research dollars to do research. That research is into things like cancer, heart disease, neurodegenerative diseases, obesity, infectious diseases, organ transplantation.
The research that then becomes the pharmaceutical giants that create billions of dollars worth of value in this economy comes from those institutions. And it's not charity.
SINGLETON: Well, we're not talking about --
PHILLIP: No, it's not charity. It's money that is being given to do certain things.
SINGLETON: We're not --
PHILLIP: So, if you want to make Harvard a more intellectually, you know, open place, you might want to try targeting those things as opposed to the dollars going to the nerds in the chemistry lab.
SINGLETON: Look the research is important. I'm not going to argue against that. But we're not talking about multiple universities and institutions. We're talking about one. We're talking about Harvard, which is not done a job of protecting its Jewish students. The institution has a $53.2 billion endowment, $9 billion of which is liquid. You mean to tell me you don't have enough money to take care of research? I don't buy that.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. You're not answering the point, okay? I take the concerns about anti-Semitism. That's very important.
SINGLETON: It's a real thing.
PHILLIP: Harvard knows it's important. They created a whole document that the government has then cribbed from to try to punish it. But my point is on the research front, if you take the money away, the research is going to stop. Harvard will continue to exist, but the research will stop.
SINGLETON: Did you read the article of that? I disagree with that. I disagree with that. Larry Summers, a former president of Harvard, said Harvard's endowment is large enough where the institution could tap into that money if it needed to. If Harvard decides not to do that, then that's hard --
(CROSSTALKS)
ELROD: The point is we are going down a dangerous precedent here.
SINGLETON: I understand the point.
ELROD: And, look, I think every single one of us at this table could go through every single collegiate institution in this country and find something that we have a problem with when it comes to their curriculum. But that does not mean that we are the jury here. That does not mean that Donald Trump and his administration should be policing every single thing that a university is doing.
And that is why a lot of Americans have a problem with the way that they'd approach Harvard, because they're looking at this and saying, well, what's next? And how is this going to affect, you know, my health research funding in my local area? Are they going to all of a sudden like, you know, get rid of 10 percent of the student body because they're cutting funds? Are they going affect my local community?
SINGLETON: Well, what can solve this is protecting Jewish students would easily solve this.
SHORT: Yes. (INAUDIBLE) public universities that would gladly accept these dollars are not hostile to Jewish students.
[22:25:04]
SINGLETON: Yes.
SHORT: There's plenty of places (CROSSTALKS).
PHILLIP: One quick thing for you, Marc. You mentioned Hillsdale College, just as an example, this more of a right-leaning college. The reason that Hillsdale College could be like, we can teach whatever we want, if they want to teach creationism, no one's, I guess, going to stop them. Although who knows what might happen in a Democratic administration. But they are also not doing the kind of research work that these large research institutions are doing that are in the public goods.
So, I mean, do you see the distinction here between those two things?
SHORT: (INAUDIBLE) of public institutions --
PHILLIP: Yes. But --
SHORT: -- that would gladly accept those research dollars?
PHILLIP: Yes. They are getting them.
SHORT: Who are not hostile to Jewish students the way Harvard has been?
PHILLIP: Yes. But what does the research dollars have to do with the way students treat each other on campus? It doesn't have anything to do with one another.
SHORT: I think it's been long established that when you're getting federal taxpayer dollars, that there are going to be strengths attached to that. It's been somewhere with other Democrat administrations and other schools too.
PHILLIP: And so what does the university want Harvard to do?
SHORT: Well, I think they probably want Harvard not to be hostile to Jewish students, a starting point.
PHILLIP: That's not what they've said.
KOH: As Larry Summers himself --
SHORT: Actually, I think it is what Trump has said.
KOH: Look, as Larry Summers himself pointed out, Donald Trump has dined frequently on multiple occasions with Holocaust deniers. I'm not sure that Donald Trump is really using anti -- he is using anti -- I believe he's using anti-Semitism as a pretext to push his own agenda, and, candidly, that's insulting.
PHILLIP: All right. We got to leave it there. Tara Palmeri, thank you very much for joining us. Everyone else stay with us.
Up next, another special guest who's going to join us as MAGA slams 60 Minutes Anchor Scott Pelley for his comments. We're going to debate. Is he actually right?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PELLEY: Insidious fear is reaching the fear to speak in America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:31:35]
PHILLIP: Tonight, MAGA World is lashing out after veteran CBS News anchor Scott Pelley delivered what they believed to be an anti-Trump commencement speech at Wake Forest University.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT PELLEY, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: Our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack. Universities are under attack. Freedom of speech is under attack, and insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts. The fear to speak in America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Pelley did not mention Trump by name, but those words drew the ire of the MAGA faithful and Fox News host Laura Ingraham. She called the speech laughable and conservative podcaster Scott Adams described it as angry and unhinged.
Joining us in our fifth seat is CNN media correspondent, Hadas Gold. Hadas, the reason that this is notable is, of course, we know what Trump is doing when it comes to CBS.
HADAS GOLD, CNN MEDIA CORRESPONDENT: Yeah.
PHILLIP: And the idea that CBS journalists are being silenced in the Trump era so that their, you know, parent co can make a few bucks. It is so notable coming from him considering that he's still there.
GOLD: I mean, not successfully silencing because "60 Minutes" to their credit is still continuing to do hard-hitting journalism on the Trump administration and on the many topics that "60 Minutes" covers despite pressure that they are facing from Paramount as Paramount seeks to have this deal.
But I think it was notable to see the sort of divide online. Either people thought Scott Pelley was unhinged or they were applauding him because, honestly, lately, not a lot of people are standing up for journalists. Like, when was the last time you really heard somebody fighting for free speech and for journalists?
I think a lot of reporters lately are feeling as though they're worried who's going to be the next corporate owner to capitulate to the Trump administration. We saw ABC settle. We're all expecting CBS to settle sometime soon, and people at "The Washington Post" are fearful over what's happened to the opinion section there.
And I think for a lot of reporters out there, it's nice to hear somebody be so fired up over the defense of reporting, of defensive journalism, and over the defense of seeking the truth. And honestly, if you have a problem with what Scott Pelley was saying, sit down and actually read the speech and tell me, do you really have an issue with what he's arguing for?
PHILLIP: I mean, it -- it's like they say, you know, a hit dog will holler. I mean, conservatives are very triggered by this, but maybe it's because it rings true? I don't know.
MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT PENCE: Look, I mean, I started the show criticizing the president, I'm comfortable doing that. But I also think that 90 percent of commensurate speakers are liberals. I'm not sure that journalists are in a press class right now.
I feel like, my wife is a Wake Forest alum and she was irritated when she saw it, too. Feeling like, can't you give a commencing speak and giving people something encouraging as opposed to having to bring politics into it?
GOLD: There's definitely a conversation to be had over how the media can and should, you know, learn from the past and -- and change maybe the reporting and maybe we should, you know there's things to say about changing, but to attack what Scott probably was saying and the arguments he's making, I mean, there is these are very American arguments, and it's true. People are afraid to speak up. I'm a reporter. I'm calling people all the time.
[22:35:00]
Even just experts, professors, and universities, they don't want to be on the record. They are so afraid to even give a comment about something that might be unrelated to someone.
PHILLIP: And it's kind of a continuation of the conversation we were having in the previous block because, really, what he's talking about is the fear that's seeping in because if you speak about things that are disfavored by this administration, it's not just that they're going to be mad at you. They're going to try to use the government to punish you. And I think that's what he's talking about when he says there's fear of speaking in this country.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. I don't know many people who are afraid of giving their thoughts if I'm going to be honest with you.
PHILLIP: I do.
ADRIENNE ELROD, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER & SENIOR SPOKESPERSON, HARRIS 2024 CAMPAIGN: Same. Add me to the list.
PHILLIP: I know a lot of people --
SINGLETON: And the media -- you know, look.
PHILLIP: -- in business, in media, in universities.
SINGLETON: The media has a serious problem right now. And I'm not certain how many people would have -- even saw that speech if it were not for social media. Maybe you're a great show, Abby. Maybe you can go work for MSNBC when CBS is sold. The reality is that media has a problem.
Most Americans, it's not just Republicans, it's a whole lot of Democrats who do not generally trust people in the press. And the media created this. And instead of trying to fix it, they continue to, in my personal opinion, not all, because there are a lot of great journalists. You're a great journalist. I presume you're a great journalist, I don't know you.
But there are many. But there are a whole lot of them that are biased. Most of them are not objective in my personal opinion, most of them do lean to the political left, and I think that's pretty accurate to make the argument.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But is that really what conservatives want? Objective journalists?
SINGLETON: Like, it's what I want as a conservative. It's what I want.
PHILLIP: Where are the objective journalists on the right? I mean, you have people on the right who have their opinions, who wear them on their sleeves.
SINGLETON: Sure.
PHILLIP: And I don't ever hear you complaining about that.
SINGLETON: I'm not against a journalist giving an opinion, Abby.
PHILLIP: Right. So --
SINGLETON: But journalists always like to make the argument that there's these objective arbiters of the truth.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, yeah. So, I guess my --
SINGLETON: As I often hear them saying, I don't know if that's true.
PHILLIP: I'm not objecting to your idea that there's been a loss of trust. But -- but I do think that you can't have this conversation without also noting that this particular administration, which is what the speech was about --
SINGLETON: Sure.
PHILLIP: -- and this president. They get mad when you point out things that are actually factually true. Like Donald Trump lost the last election. Like, there is no white genocide happening in South Africa. They get mad about those things and call you biased for just stating facts.
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: Well, I don't get mad at I mean, I'm a conservative. I'm here -- not to presidents. I don't get mad by those things.
PHILLIP: It's hard then to say that, oh, it's just the journalists who are the problem and not the people who are lying to --
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: Well, most people in the country, Abby.
PHILLIP: I don't know. I mean --
DAN KOH, FORMER WH DEPUTY CABINET SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN: It's not just about journalism under attack. It's the underlying things about journalism that's so important. Fact-checking is currently under attack. In -- on Twitter, you can tweet whatever you want, and it gets millions of views, and you're lucky hours or days later to get a community note.
Mark Zuckerberg celebrated firing his fact-checkers. That's the environment we live in, so we need good journalists on the left and the right --
SINGLETON: I agree with that.
KOH: -- who have a commitment to the truth, and that's what's the problem. This has been reported. The entire editorial board of "The Washington Post" was told that they can only write on certain issues. You have people on "The View" being told that they need to back off criticizing Trump. That's the problem. Without good journalism, what -- what used to be believed by Jeff
Bezos of democracy dying in darkness, that's what happens. And we need to fight for journalists to make sure that that is upheld, that the fact-checking and the truth is upheld.
ELROD: And can -- can I say something really cool to align that, too? I -- look. I understand that, like, sure, your wife, Wake Forest alum, I went to TCU, I probably would have been a little frustrated if my commencement speaker was being so politically tilted in one direction.
But even today, that was the only way that Scott Pelley was going to get this kind of attention. And I think when you are working in a very crowded, complex media environment, and you're trying to break through on a really important issue, I mean, we're talking about it because he gave this --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay.
ELROD: He said it's not a center to commencement.
PHILLIP: Since you brought up the politicization of commencement speeches, the president gave a commencement speech on Saturday, and let me just play a little bit of what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: There will be no more critical race theory or transgender for everybody forced onto our brave men and women in uniform -- he ended up getting a divorce, found a new wife. Could you say a trophy wife? I guess we can say a trophy wife. The job of the U.S. Armed Forces is not to host drag shows, to transform foreign cultures, but to spread democracy to everybody around the world at the point of a gun.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: You're irritated about that too? Marc?
UNKNOWN: What --
SHORT: I don't think that was his best speech. I don't think that's the right one to get it, West Point. I-- I concur with that.
PHILLIP: With the MAGA hat and everything.
SHORT: But I also think if you're going to suggest in any way there's a balance of commencement speakers, there's not. There's simply not. And so, and like I don't -- I don't accept the point that Scott Pelley didn't have another platform to make those points. I mean, of course, he could have -- need to go to Wake Forest University Commencement --
ELROD: Do that in n YouTube and how many people are going to talk about that?
SHORT: I think he -- I think he's got a platform --
PHILLIP: I guess I -- can I just raise one other thing?
[22:40:00]
Why does there need to be a balance of commencement speeches? Why can't people just have their views --
SINGLETON: Well, at a minimum --
PHILLIP: -- and say them?
SINGLETON: Well, you know what --
PHILLIP: I mean, why is it that we have to have, like, DEI for, you know, ideological views, but you can't have DEI for anything else in this country?
SINGLETON: You know what then, I would say for every major news company in this country, have your journalists go on air and say, look, I vote for Democrats, I give the Democrats, and I'm going to report the news.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well, here's the thing. I mean, listen. I think that conservatives --
SINGLETON: So, at least as a as a viewer, I can say, well, I don't want to listen to this Democrat versus them lying pretending that they're deceptive. But we're not.
PHILLIP: -- conservatives consume partisan news all the time.
SINGLETON: Sure.
PHILLIP: The question is who punishes them for their viewpoints? I think that's the question.
SINGLETON: Well, social media companies for years shadow banned conservative voices.
PHILLIP: Okay.
SINGLETON: They could not make a list --
PHILLIP: Okay.
SINGLETON: -- of how conservatives have been shadow-banned --
PHILLIP: Okay.
SINGLETON: -- on social media for years, even journalists.
PHILLIP: And so -- and the -- and the idea is that we don't want that to happen. SINGLETON: Of course.
PHILLIP: We don't want the government to do that. So then, why the silence when Trump does it? I think that's the part I don't understand.
SINGLETON: Well, it's not -- it's not silence, at least for me. I can only speak for myself. What I'm simply saying is that in my experience, many individuals that I have encountered in the press, lean to the left. Their views are of the left. The way they view reporting in general is because of their world view. It's not objective at all. And to pretend that they're these objective arbiters to me is just lies to the American people and that's not fair.
PHILLIP: I -- listen, I agree with you. I think that that idea of objectivity needs to be fully scrutinized.
SINGLETON: Sure.
PHILLIP: I don't even know that it really applies, but to -- you were the one who said you wanted journalists to be objective. Not -- not me.
SINGLETON: Yeah. No. That's --
PHILLIP: I'm just saying --
SINGLETON: It's important.
PHILLIP: You are the one who said you want them to be objective, but that only seems to apply to people that you think are on the left.
(CROSSTALK)
SHORT: Well, a second ago, Abby, you said --
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: No. No. No.
(CROSSTALK)
SHORT: -- that would be balanced. It commenced because you don't think we should strive to get balanced?
PHILLIP: No. I think that people should have their viewpoints, and they should be able to say them.
SHORT: Sure.
PHILLIP: And it doesn't matter where their viewpoints fall on the --
(CROSSTALK)
SHORT: And university should try find a balance and find them on both sides. ELROD: I mean, but what are you going to do have, like, all the universities come together and say half of you guys are going to have a democratic speaker and half of you guys are like, yeah.
(CROSSTALK)
ELROD: -- speak because only appreciate your viewpoints.
(CROSSTALK)
SHORT: Are you going to argue -- are you going to argue that the commences speeches across the country right now are really balanced?
ELROD: I'm not -- I don't know Marc, how many are Democrats or Republicans. What I can say is I think if you were invited to a -- by a public institution or a private college, whatever, to give it a commencement address, you were invited because they want you to say what you want to say to inspire the students.
And I think Scott Pelley made a very -- gave a very important message, a warning to this next generation of, you know, budding, you know, journalists or whatever these students end up doing to make sure they understand what's at stake, and they use their voice effectively to exercise the --
(CROSSTALK)
SHORT: I learn more when there's diversity of opinions. We only gain from one side --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We all agree on that. We do learn more from a diversity --
SHORT: Yeah.
PHILLIP: -- of opinions.
UNKNOWN: That's what I said.
PHILLIP: But quite a few people on the right these days do not like that D-word, the diversity word. Coming up next, does it take $20 million to learn how to speak bro? Liberals are desperate to find out. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:39]
PHILLIP: How much would you pay to try to understand young men? Well, for Democrats, the answer is at least $20 million. "The New York Times" got a hold of a Democratic strategy to rebuild its dwindling support from young men. The effort promises investment to, quote, "-- study the syntax, language, and content that gains attention and virality in these spaces." That would include buying ads and video games and shifting away from a
moralizing tone. No. This is not your sociology class. This is, I guess, politics for the Democratic Party. I mean, this is amazing.
ELROD: I think they could have paid each one of us this table, like, they could have split the $20 million into all of us, and we could tell you. Look, the bottom line is this. I mean, obviously, Democrats are doing a lot of research to try to figure out, you know, how we lost young men. We call these sporadic voters.
A lot of young men turned out for the first time in this presidential election and voted for Trump, and we were not necessarily tracking all of those men who are going to come out, college students, namely. Black MAGA hats became very popular among not just, SEC schools, but Ivy League schools across the country.
So, I do think there is research that needs to be done there. But the bottom line is, again, I'm happy to sit down in a focus group and tell you what's wrong and what's right with men.
PHILLIP: And, Hadas, they were -- there was a report last week that they were looking for their, you know, Joe Rogan.
GOLD: Oh, yeah.
PHILLIP: They're trying to kind of crack this media code. We were kind of talking about this in the break. Like, the ideological right, it wins.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
PHILLIP: By far.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
PHILLIP: When it comes to media, these days, the mainstream media is the podcasters.
GOLD: Yeah.
PHILLIP: And Democrats want to get in on that.
GOLD: But the only way that you can get in on it is authenticity. And the reason that Joe Rogan is who he is and why he's so trusted is because he's been building up this fan base for two decades and then sort of slowly seeped into this sort of more MAGA universe.
I saw some idea out there saying, you know, what the Democrat should do is they should create some sort of, like, sleeper podcast where they just -- they help fund the podcasters, let them do whatever they want, really build up that base. It has nothing to do with politics. And then in a few years, sort of seep in the politics there just like they did with Joe Rogan.
But, again, the only way that that works is through authenticity, and you're not going to make it work by building up these funds and in any way being connected to a political party because the political parties, especially Democrats right now --
ELROD: Right.
GOLD: -- don't exactly have a good brand people want to be attached to.
KOH: Yeah, yeah, the Democrats don't need syntax.
[22:50:00]
They need a spine, okay? And consistently, the polls show that they don't know -- people don't know what Democrats stand for, and that they want us to fight back. And I think part of that is taking opinions that may not be popular with the entire party. But look, these elected officials, especially in D.C. are so reliant on research firms and all this stuff --
PHILLIP: Right.
KOH: -- that's so disconnected from people.
PHILLIP: It's kind of a racket, to be honest.
KOH: It is ridiculous. They should be in the communities talking in the grocery stores, at the train stations. They shouldn't be doing town halls where everyone comes to them. They should be going to the Little League game openings.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
KOH: They should be hearing what people have to say. And if it's not in line with the party line of Democrats, that's okay. People want authenticity.
(CROSSTALK)
ELROD: We have to meet voters where they are and that is exactly what --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Marc and Shermichael -- which one -- who wants to take?
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: I'm loving this. I think -- I think --
PHILLIP: They're like, I'll just sit back.
SHORT: Yeah. No. I think you all should spend more than $20 million on this vote.
(LAUGHTER) GOLD: Yeah. The money should be spent on get on for Democrats getting out the vote. And you can look at people like Ruben Gallego in my home state of Arizona, really outperform Democrats and look at what people like him are doing and it's authenticity. At town halls, he's cursing, you know. He is going against sort of the democratic line, and that should be okay if you want --
PHILLIP: But -- but okay. But here's the thing. They're going to have to -- you alluded to this. They're going to have to get rid of some sacred cows, okay? This is going to be the hard part. Everybody talks about authenticity until the rubber meets the road and they have to actually take positions that the activist, you know, consultant class base does not want them to take.
SINGLETON: I don't think they will. I mean, for Democrats to effectively target men of every color, they are going to have to drastically change some of their positions, especially some of the cultural stuff. I don't think that's going to happen, Dan. I think you guys have moved so far to the left -- many. I know you're from the South.
Dan, you seem to be more reasonable than most. But for the most part -- for the most part, a lot of you guys don't make room for guys to express their views in an open way about a lot of issues.
PHILLIP: Okay, so Dan, do you have any ideas of what Democrats would need to start to rethink in order to move this needle?
KOH: First and foremost, I think one of the mistakes Democrats made in this cycle is that we assumed it was certain demographics, and speaking to certain demographics would mean victory when in reality, people want a good economic message that applies to working class people. They want reasonable solutions.
I think we need to do better on the border, for example. We need to be more thoughtful about that. I think we need to be talking about how people have upward mobility, and it's saying, you know what? It's okay to attain wealth as long as it's done fairly. That's what Ruben Gallego has been so vocal about. These positions aren't popular with a lot of the party, but it's what people are to the point of putting people where they are, it's where people are, it's where we need to be, as well.
PHILLIP: All right. Hadas Gold, thank you very much for being here. Everyone else, stand by. Next, the panel is going to give us their nightcaps. They're - they'll tell us what they think they should be -- should be fined inspired by a bold decision involving airlines. We'll explain. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:57:30]
PHILLIP: We're back, and it's time for the "NewsNightcap", airplane fine edition. "The Washington Post"reports that Turkey will find passengers who stand up before the plane stops taxiing or who crowd the aisles. So, you each have 30 seconds to tell us what other activities should be fined. Marc, you're up first.
SHORT: Well, I'd -- I'd preface it by saying I really don't like the nanny state, don't like the notion of the -- a lot of the fines regardless. But if there was one thing, Abby, for me, I - I hate all the bicyclists in the middle of the city. The people who claim that you treat us like a vehicle, treat us like we're like a car, yet they go through every red light, cut in and out of traffic, and it cause a lot of accidents and never get fined.
PHILLIP: That -- that's actually very true. You want to be treated like a car accident?
SHORT: Exactly.
PHILLIP: Okay. Go ahead.
KOH: Don't ghost people. You know, if someone's waiting on you, it's better to say, no, I can't help you, or maybe I'll get back to you later, but just ghosting is just not good practice.
ELROD: I'm going to stick to the whole air -- airport topic that we're talking about here. I have two things. Number one, if you are in Zone 7 or 8 and you're boarding a flight, don't hover around Zone 1 to 4. Just, like, get out of the way until the first four zones go through. Number two, do not stand on the walking escalator in the sense that you're taking up the entire walk walking escalator.
PHILLIP: Those are all fineable. Those are all very fineable, and I'm totally down with what torque you're doing.
SINGLETON: I'm with you on that, Adrienne.
PHILLIP: Yeah. I think a lot of -- there are a lot of airplane offenses that I would fine people for.
ELROD: Yes.
PHILLIP: Including maybe even clapping.
SINGLETON: Really?
PHILLIP: When you land. Yeah. I just --
SINGLETON: That's a fun community, Abby.
PHILLIP: And also don't put your bag at the front of the plane when you're sitting at the back of the plane.
UNKNOWN: Yeah. That's --
PHILLIP: Okay? Fineable offense.
SINGLETON: So -- so, I hate every time I'm leaving my house in my neighborhood, I got to go into a main street, and there's Uber drivers who will wait for five freaking minutes for someone to get in the car, and I have to go to Target to buy something for my wife or for my daughters, and my wife's calling, where are you babe? Why are you taking so long? Yeah, I was stuck behind a freaking Uber driver who didn't care that there was anybody else behind them. That drives me nuts. You should be fined for it.
PHILLIP: Uber etiquette.
SINGLETON: Yes.
PHILLIP: There's a lot going on there.
SINGLETON: Yes. It is. It is.
PHILLIP: I mean, I would fine Uber drivers for other things, including driving slowly when you can drive a little faster. That's just a thing.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much. And a quick note for you. Don't miss the CNN film "Prime Minister". The Sundance award winning documentary is going to give us an intimate view inside the life of groundbreaking former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. It is in theaters on June 13th, and there are special AMC preview screenings on June 8th featuring a live Q and A with former Prime Minister Ardern, which I will be moderating.
[23:00:00]
You can find tickets on sale at primeminister.doc.com. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media -- X, Instagram and TikTok. In the meantime, "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
