Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Tonight, Israel And Iran Continue To Intercept Each Other's Drones; President Trump Says Two-Week Iran Timeframe Is The Maximum; U.S. Military Assets In Middle East Amid Israel-Iran Conflict; Trump Administration Claims Victory After An Appeals Court Decision Lets Them Control Around 4000 National Guardsmen In Los Angeles; Vance Calls Senator Alex Padilla "Jose Padilla"; Lawmakers Speak Out And Demanding Action Following A Week of Political Violence and Threats. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 20, 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]
SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST: Good evening. I'm Sara Sidner in New York in for Abby Philip.
Breaking news for you tonight, the violence between Israel and Iran is showing no signs of slowing down, as both sides exchange new waves of attacks. But as the missiles rain down, the clock is ticking on President Trump's window for diplomacy as he weighs in on whether the U.S. will join Israel in striking Iran.
But today, the president suggested his decision could come at any moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're giving them a period of time, we're going to see what that period of time is. But I'm giving them a period of time and I would say two weeks would be the maximum.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Meantime, the U.S. and Iran remained locked in a standoff over I Iran's nuclear program after the country's foreign minister met with -- earlier for face-to-face talks. He told them Iran will only meet with the U.S. if Israel agrees to stop striking Iran. Trump says he will not ask Israel to do that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I think it's very hard to make that request right now. If somebody's winning, it's a little bit harder to do than if somebody's losing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Now to CNN Anchor Anderson Cooper, who is live in Tel Aviv. Anderson, we watched you this morning having to go into an underground bunker at a hotel. What has it been like for you on the ground this evening there?
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, that's gone on twice today people have fled into bunkers. It has been another day of night of airstrikes by Israel against targets in Iran and also strikes by Iranians pointing out against Israel. European and Iranian -- as the European and Iranian diplomats met in Geneva, air raid sirens went off twice today, once in the afternoon, and then about two hours ago, just before 3:00 A.M.
Tonight, we saw one building's roof on fire in Tel Aviv. There were nationwide alerts in Israel. And while there were no fatalities for this evening's strike, there were injuries in the afternoon strike in Haifa.
The IDF today said that they have destroyed as much as half of Iran's missile launchers and airstrikes continued against Iran into the night. The IDF saying they are targeting right now missile storage and launch infrastructure in Central Iran.
Now, Israel's foreign minister has expressed doubts about those diplomatic talks that occurred that you were just talking about in Europe today, in Geneva, as did President Trump expressing doubts, and many here are hoping that the United States will join an offensive operations against Iran's Fordow nuclear facility.
But, Sara, dawn breaks here in about an hour, and as you said, the fighting shows no sign of ending anytime soon.
SIDNER: You know, as this conflict is entering now its ninth day, what do Israelis talk to you about and think about what is happening here?
COOPER: Look, I think there's a lot of support for what Israel has been doing against Iran, certainly a lot of support among Israelis I talk to. They feel like this has been a long time coming. And certainly they feel that this is -- they echo the language that this is an existential threat. Many of them do. There's certainly a lot of frustration of, you know, day in, day out, going into bomb shelters, it becomes a real drag. But they have seen the degradation of the Iranian missile capabilities. Yes, there were two airstrikes today and people had to go into shelters. But as the IDF has said that they have eliminated half of the launchers, there's a lot of belief here that that will continue in this within two-week window, however long that may be.
There are plenty of other targets that the IDF, the Israeli Air Force is looking at and is trying to strike every night, missile launcher, storage facilities and the like, as people wait for President Trump to make a decision.
SIDNER: Yes. Anderson, thank you so much. Keep yourself safe. I know you know how to do that. You've been in that region for so long and so many times. I appreciate your time this afternoon.
All right, President Trump is taking direct aim at his director of National Intelligence, saying flat out that Tulsi Gabbard is wrong to claim Iran is not close to building a nuclear weapon. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community has said they have no evidence that they are at this point.
TRUMP: Well, then my intelligence community is wrong. Who in the intelligence community said that?
REPORTER: Your director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
TRUMP: She's wrong.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: And just a reminder, here's what Gabbard said under oath back in March.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: The I.C. continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khameini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:05:06]
SIDNER: The I.C. being the intelligence community. Gabbard is now putting back, blaming the media for taking her comments out of context to sow division with Donald Trump.
All right, let us start with you. You're just back from being in Israel. You got caught in this and had a difficult time getting out. When you look at what's happening between Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, what do you make of this back and forth that is happening? Is it something to really be paying attention to or is it a sideshow that doesn't matter to you?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it's a side show because the commander-in-chief believes what he believes, and he believes what is true, which is that they have made an enriched, unprecedented amounts of uranium. You wouldn't need that much if you weren't planning to build a nuclear weapon. And if they decided to build one, they'd be weeks away from doing it.
Plus, for 20 years, Donald Trump has been saying, we cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. So, you know, he has very clear-eyed views on this, very consistent views on it, and he knows that it's just not possible for us to have peace in the Middle East if Iran gets a nuclear weapon.
On top of that, if I could just comment on what Anderson said regarding Israeli resolve, I completely agree. That's what the sentiment is on the ground. Before the Iran war started, I was moving around the country meeting with people. The resolve among Israelis to defeat the Iranian terror proxies following October, the 7th is extremely high, even after all this time, and you throw on top of it now this war with Iran.
This has been 20 years in the making. They can't have a neighbor like this who believes that Israel should be completely and totally eradicated from the map, and that every Jewish person should be murdered. What they lived through on October the 7th, and what they lived through with the prospect of Iran having a nuclear weapon, it's just not livable. It's not possible. This can only end one way. Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. And if the people of Iran would take this opportunity, they should rise up and toss these butchers out and get themselves a new government.
SIDNER: Dan, what do you make of this, you know, the way that Donald Trump is basically saying, look I'm giving myself up to two weeks? That doesn't mean that it's going to be a full two weeks. It could be any moment now, for all we know. But do you think he's listening more to the MAGA megaphone holders who -- like Steve Bannon met with him and then after that he said, look, I'm going to give a two-week pause because Bannon has been very clear he is against going into Iran using U.S. military force over his, though, head of intelligence?
DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CABINET SECRETARY, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: Yes. I think it's a very simple question. Where should Americans go for evidence of the president's ability to manage this crisis effectively. Look at his foreign policy record. He promised that we would have peace in Russia and Ukraine within 24 hours. It's still going. He said he'd end the Gaza war and said he tweets out a video of him shirtless on the Gaza Strip. He said he'd end forever wars. They're still going. He said Vice President Harris would start World War III, he's on the brink of starting a much larger role. On top of that, he's ousted his intelligence director and instead, as you mentioned, relying on right wing media sources for his guidance.
And I wanted to point out one other thing amidst all of this, amidst a monumental decision to put military in harm's way, he calls a press conference about a flagpole on the south lawn. If President Biden had done that, every right wing media would be questioning his mental acuity. Now, there's only one person whose mental acuity we should be questioning.
JENNINGS: Are you for or against us keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon?
KOH: I'm absolutely against Iran getting a nuclear weapon.
JENNINGS: Okay, so you agree with Donald Trump then?
KOH: I agree that we need to prevent a nuclear weapon from Iran happening, and I think that we need thoughtful leadership internally, not a secretary of state who's moonlighting as a national security adviser.
JENNINGS: So, this is the government we have. This is the government that the American people elected. KOH: Do you feel confident that the entire operation is working well right now inside the White House?
JENNINGS: Yes, I think --
KOH: And the president is calling out his intelligence director when there is no national security adviser.
JENNINGS: Yes, there is. Marco Rubio is the national security adviser.
KOH: And secretary of state, do you think he's doing both jobs effectively?
JENNINGS: I think he's the most effective cabinet member that we have. Right now, this White House is clear-eyed about the threat. They are as close to Israel as you can be.
KOH: Clear-eyed would not mean that he is building flagpoles in the middle of this going golfing and --
JENNINGS: You're obsessed with this flagpole issue. What you should be obsessed with --
KOH: Yes. because I'm obsessed with --
JENNINGS: -- is the fact that we're on the brink here of remaking the Middle East, making western civilization safe and protecting our special ally, Israel. That's what you should be worried about.
KOH: I'm obsessed with a president making sure the military is not put in harm's way and I am also obsessed that when they come back there isn't a V.A. with 83,000 cuts that he's also proposed.
JENNINGS: I don't understands harm's way.
REECIE COLBERT, SIRIUSXM HOST, THE REECIE COLBERT SHOW: The last time we went into war based on faulty intelligence, there were no weapons of mass destruction. And so the fact that the intelligence community is being caught into question, we invest a hundred billion dollars a year into our intelligence community, that's no small amount. And so which one is it? Do they have the credibility or not?
A couple days ago or a couple weeks ago, that was a story. There was no question about this in terms of the intelligence community's ability to make this assessment until Israel attacked Iran.
[22:10:00]
And now all of a sudden the intelligence is completely wrong on this.
And so I want to understand that the intelligence community is credible and that we're driving that -- that credible evidence is driving our decisions and not politics and because Donald Trump is itching to go to war.
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: A couple of days before, Israel struck. The IAEA came out with a report saying that Iran is no longer living up to the terms of their nuclear non- proliferation agreement, right? So, we already have a non-Trump aligned, non-Trump-favorable institution saying essentially the same thing that there is a problem with Iran.
There is bipartisan consensus that they are enriching uranium to a point that there is no civilian use for. This is a regime that, since its very seminal moment in 1979, has taken Americans hostage. This is a regime that use its proxies to kill Americans on American bases overseas. This is a regime that use its proxies to harass American shipping, international shipping.
So, yes, I know you're upset about the flagpole, but big picture, I think this administration is doing the right thing, flag pole and all.
KOH: I'm upset that there seems to be complete discord within the administration. Marco Rubio tweeting out there was nothing to -- Marco Rubio tweeted out that they had nothing to do with Iran. Donald Trump saw on Fox News that Israel was getting too much credit. That was reported, and he decided to change his tune. That's what I'm concerned about.
SIDNER: Alex?
ALEX PLITSAS, SENIOR FELLOW, ATLANTIC COUNCIL: So, what we know to be fact at this point, politics aside, so the IAEA report came out and said that they found traces of nuclear material at undeclared locations, which is something that's been of concern in the United States for a while. The DNI testified in March. That's now several months ago going back. The U.S. intelligence community has assessed, I think, for quite some time the highly enriched uranium has been about 60 percent. That's days away for breakout to 90. It's a little different than actually getting to a weapon, which is what we're hearing now. So, there's clearly more in the background that's not been released yet.
And there does seem to be a little daylight with the Israelis who actually have a more aggressive picture. And from what we're hearing, the first night in the opening strikes, they took out 15 nuclear scientists to ensure that their knowledge as well as the technology were gone so they couldn't reconstitute the program the next day after sort of it happened.
So, it's clear that there's a threat, from what I'm told, the administration basically, you know, held the Israelis back. The strike was supposed to take place in the middle of May. And going back, it was the vice president of the DNI who had cautioned the president to consider negotiations. President Trump said, okay. They tried it for about 60 days. The Iranians will be giving us the runaround for the last two decades on this.
JENNINGS: That's the thing. Trump gave him 60 days. He told him back at the end of April. You got 60 days and they didn't want a deal. And they're not going to want a deal now. These conversations going on with the Europeans, it's all just a runaround. It's a stall tactic. They have no intention of being a peaceful country, death to America, death to Israel, killing Americans, proxies that they prop up and fund, killing Israelis and killing Jews every day, these people. And if a woman shows a strand of hair in Iran, they blind her the way they treat their own people. Do you think they're going to wake up when they say, you know what, we're going to be nice now? No possible way, none, zero.
COLBERT: Then why was the Trump administration scheduling negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal as of Sunday? Why wasn't all of the stuff that's happening right now the Trump administration's idea before Israel struck Iran? They had negotiations.
JENNINGS: They gave them in 60 days. They said in April, you have 60 days.
COLBERT: they had negotiations that were scheduled on Sunday that were canceled. What happened to that?
JENNINGS: Because they were at war.
BORELLI: You're more upset that they canceled the negotiations?
COLBERT: I'm upset that this --
BORELLI: Or that they enriched the uranium to the point that it could be days away from a breakout point?
COLBERT: I'm upset that this administration does not have the reins on anything. They are being led because at the bottom line is up, until this Sunday, they were willing to negotiate with Iran.
Now, I know to your point, Marco Rubio is nowhere to be found. It was Steve Witkoff who's taking the lead on these negotiations. So, maybe this is an indictment on their assessment of his ability to see these negotiations through.
JENNINGS: But what do you want to see happen? What is your preferred outcome?
COLBERT: I would like to see diplomacy. This administration is saying --
JENNINGS: With who? Iran?
COLBERT: This administration is the one that backed out of the JCPOA in 2017, and now they --
JENNINGS: That allowed them to enrich uranium.
COLBERT: Well, they were adhering to it, and so they backed out. Now, we don't have the leverage. Then this administration came in --
JENNINGS: We have leverage.
COLBERT: This administration came in and decided to engage in negotiations again.
JENNINGS: Again, what is your preferred outcome?
COLBERT: My preferred outcome is diplomacy.
JENNINGS: What? No, that's not an outcome. That's a process. What do you want to see happen it after your diplomacy or after what -- what is your preferred outcome, that Iran has or does not have a nuclear weapon?
COLBERT: Iran does not have nuclear weapons.
JENNINGS: Okay. So, you also agree with Donald Trump, good. We have agreed here. Everyone agrees with Donald Trump here.
SIDNER: I think that there has been a wide agreement, Democrats and Republicans have, throughout the week. We've been talking to them in the morning show, that I do. And every single person to a person has said they do not think that Iran should be able to have a nuclear weapon. This is both Democrats and Republicans.
BORELLI: But she mentioned Germany, she mentioned diplomacy. The German chancellor said, Israel is doing the dirty work for all of us. The mullah regime has brought death to all of us. So, I don't think there is this lack of diplomacy. I think you're actually seeing some of our allies and partners in alliance with the United States cheering on the work the Israelis are doing.
[22:15:04]
KOH: I think anytime you have a president calling out his head of National Intelligence on national T.V., you have a problem.
SIDNER: All right. Coming up, Alex, I'll give you the first word.
PLITSAS: No problem.
SIDNER: Next, we'll have more on where this conflict stands and what U.S. military moves might say about the president's thinking.
Plus, the administration is saying they'll send troops to any town that they don't think is controlling protests well enough. We will debate this ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
SIDNER: More now on President Trump's Middle East thought process. He says Iran has a maximum of two weeks for a diplomatic solution while he decides whether or not to involve U.S. military assets.
Alex Plitsas is here. He will give me a look at the magic wall with more on what we know.
Okay. First, give us a sense of exactly where this conflict stands, vis-a-vis the idea of trying to get rid of Iran's ability to enrich uranium and to go forward with its nuclear program. PLITSAS: Right, Sara. So, the overall goal seems to be to degrade, obviously, the nuclear program to the point where it's no longer considered an existential threat to Israel, and to the extent they'll take care of that. There's probably about four or five days left of bombing, in my estimation, based on the sites that have been hit. But in addition to that, they also took out senior military national security regime targets that were responsible for command and control for potential retaliatory strikes, as well as ballistic missile systems, because that's what they've used to fire at Israel.
So, if we take a look, which is your main question right on the nuclear sites here, right? So, what we've seen is we've seen strikes, right? So, we've seen over here at enrichment facilities here, heavy water reactor here. There's a nuclear plant here on this side for power, and then there's more facilities that are kind of scattered around the map. The big question right now is what happens to the deep-buried facility at Fordow, the enrichment site.
SIDNER: When it comes to Fordow, in your estimation, Israel does or does not have the capability to try and make serious damage to that facility, which is heavily fortified.
PLITSAS: And it's a great question and that's the one that everybody's sort of looking at right now.
There's only so many options. And when we're discussing this, by the way, we're not putting troops at risk. These are all speculated scenarios, so this is just for everybody at home, if you're wondering, that's what we're looking at here.
So this is the deep-buried facility. And speaking to the Iranians in having a weaponization program, they built this to withstand a conventional weapon strike. This was built under mountains, hardened concrete, and everything else, speaking to intentions, right? So, what we see here is you've got main tunnel entrances on these sides, right? And then you've got the centrifuges under the mountain here, which is covering.
So, there's really only two options for the Israelis and potentially a combination. So, it would be heavy conventional bombing, which would be less than what we could do because they don't have the bunker busters, the B-2s, which we'll cover in a minute. but they would potentially be able to collapse the air shafts or the buildings. The other option, what would be called heroic means, which would be a ground raid into the facility. They've already done that previously in Syria, about 200 kilometers north of the border. They went and successfully rendered safe in that mission. That is a very dangerous one here. As you can tell, there's only a couple entrances and then any guns inside, that's where they're going to be pointed.
SIDNER: Right. And Syria is far closer. This is a much different scenario where it's, you know, a thousand miles away as opposed to a few hundred.
PLITSAS: Yes. The only thing is now that after the last week or so, the Israelis have both air superiority and air dominance because they've taken out the integrated air defense systems on the ground that can shoot missiles up and their fighter jets are not going anywhere, and those that have been hit or out of there. So, they can basically fly in. The question becomes, what about reinforcements in the area? The Israelis would be able to take care of that from the air. This is very much a viable opportunity. That's the reason sort of they're waiting.
What it tells me though is if they haven't done it yet. Whatever the options are not as good as what the U.S. can bring or else they would've done it already. They're waiting to see if we're going to get involved.
SIDNER: That is a very good point. And speaking of the U.S., tell us where U.S. military assets are and are going and what that means for this fight in the region.
PLITSAS: Sure, great point. So, there's permanent large bases, which you'll see sort of depicted here in red, which are U.S. only. So, we've got, you know, Al-Udeid in Doha, Al-Dhafra. We've got major bases in Kuwait, stuff further away in Turkey and whatnot. And then you'll see the black dots that are here. And those are joint bases, particularly the ones of concern for where people have been speculating they might hit. Again, we talked about this the other night, Baghdad, Kurdistan up here along the Kurdish-controlled areas in Syria along the border, which is of concern.
But the U.S. flex flexed assets in. So we have fighter jets that originally were in the U.K. the other day that have now been flexed in the region into Jordan. We've got fighters across the region at different bases that are there. We have two aircraft carrier battle groups, one that was there, one that was brought in from the Pacific. And then very shortly, I think next week, what we're going to have is we will find ourselves with an additional carrier battle group, which will be just about here in the Western Mediterranean. And then that can flex into give General Kurilla its uncommon additional capabilities, should he need it. So, massive amount of firepower has been brought in, air defense systems to protect U.S. troops.
It's clear that the president's giving a two-week window maximum, as he said today. I don't think the Israelis can withstand these ballistic missile attacks for that long, to be honest, because they're getting through in the multiple warheads. If he does decide to pull the trigger, if the president determines that's the right policy, we have the firepower to take it out and we have the firepower to defend U.S. troops and the regime would be a very, very poor decision-making if they decide to attack the U.S.
SIDNER: The big worry obviously for Americans, for the American military is retaliation. Iran says it's going to be able to retaliate in a major way if the United States joins. What would that look like? What would they strike? I mean, you've got the Strait of Hormuz there, which is extremely important to the world when it comes to what a quarter of the world's oil goes through that strait.
PLITSAS: Right. So, in terms of oil and closing off the straits, as you're mentioning, the Straits of Hormuz, right over here, and you've got the ability to control, it's sort of a strategic choke point.
[22:25:01]
There's two shipping lanes that go through there. If they were to put Littoral mines in the water, like water mines or something else, or try to close it with ships, you have to worry about obviously the operators with the ships, but then also the insurance companies with riders on the boats. Are they going to let the boats through? How long do you have to wait till the water's clear? How's a whole bunch of dynamics there? But it doesn't help them from a financial perspective. It just kind of causes chaos and, quite frankly, would piss off all the neighboring countries because that's the main -- you know, economic mainstay.
But likely targets would be U.S. in Iraq and Syria potentially. And then you could theoretically hit in the region. The U.S. has pulled the ships out of our ports in Bahrain, you know, for the -- or the fleet space out of. We've also moved fighter jets that was widely reported out of non-hardened bunkers in the area to make sure that they're safe.
So, the Iranians have ballistic missiles. The Israelis have taken out somewhere around half to two thirds of the launchers, which is why they're having trouble getting them off. But there's probably 1,500 to 2,000 missiles left at that point. And they could be holding some in reserve, not only for a counterstrike, but more importantly regime survival. Because at the end of the day, that's all the authoritarians care about. They want to survive.
SIDNER: And there's also the proxies, although they've been very badly damaged as well, that could strike in some of these other parts of the region as well.
PLITSAS: Certainly. That's a brilliant point. You have the Houthis down there in Yemen who are still firing missiles, though there's in agreement with the U.S. You have militias in Iraq and Syria that are the PMF, which is the umbrella group, serves as the ground force to go after ISIS, which the U.S. used as part as ground forces provided support. Now, they're quasi integrated in the Iraqi military, which is bizarre.
Hezbollah has been severely degraded. They may have some capability left. That's why your mainstay is really ballistic missile threat, some drones and attacks on U.S. base in Iraq and Syria. But I'm being told from contacts that if the Iranians were to make that decision, the response from the U.S. would be overwhelming. The president doesn't want regime change. He's made it clear. Nobody wants to see nation and state building. They can't have a nuclear weapon. If they decide to make that mistake, it's going to be a very big one.
SIDNER: Wow. Alex Plitsas, thank you so much for running us through that.
All right, coming up next, the White House cheering a decision to return control of California's National Guardsman to President Trump. Is this just the beginning of using the forces in other states? We will debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:31:46]
SIDNER: Tonight, the Trump administration is claiming victory after an Appeals Court decision that lets them control around 4000 National Guardsmen in Los Angeles. The President federalized the guardsmen in the face of protests and unrest in Los Angeles around ICE raids. Vice President Vance visited marines near Los Angeles and praised the decision.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Ninth circuit said very clearly is when the President makes a determination that you've got to send in certain federal officials to protect people, that determination was legitimate, and the President's going to do it again if he has to.
But hopefully, it won't be necessary. We don't want to send these great Marines to cities like Los Angeles. We only do it if we have to -- to protect federal property and to protect the lives of our great law enforcement folks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Joining our fifth seat, Dave Aronberg is with us now. He's a former U.S. state attorney for Palm Beach County in the State of Florida. I will begin with you since you are just joining us, putting you on the hot seat. Now that -- that President Donald Trump has -- has won this court battle so far, he has control of the California National Guard. Do you see this as something that he will now use elsewhere because of this win and because of what happened in Los Angeles?
DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER U.S. STATE ATTORNEY, PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL: I do, until the Supreme Court says otherwise. I was a little surprised by the ruling because they're giving great deference to the President, and there's, like, Katie bar the door. I mean, what's to stop President Trump from doing it in every other city, especially Democratic cities.
And before we think, well, this was just political, the three judge panel was comprised of two judges appointed by Trump and one appointed by Joe Biden.
SIDNER: Yeah.
ARONBERG: So, that's what surprised me about it, and it does give the chief executive, the President, a lot more power than he had just a couple days ago.
SIDNER: Reecie, I see you shaking your head.
COLBERT: Yeah. The cavalry is not coming from the courts. You know, they -- this -- all of the courts have seemed to want to give a lot of deference to President Trump even though if you give him an inch, he takes a mile, and that's what's concerning about this. He's already articulated that he plans to send the National Guard into other cities, and there was no reason for it.
Look. I grew up in L.A. I was there for the riding king riots. The LAPD is not shy about cracking down on anything. And so, the idea that the National Guard and -- and hundreds of Marines need to be in Los Angeles, Mayor Bass has already lifted the -- the curfew on downtown, is ridiculous.
SIDNER: Go ahead, Dan.
KOH: No, I used to work with governor mayors in the White House, and I think the larger concern here is the antagonistic approach this administration is taking with local elected officials.
We have a lot of attention on governor Newsom and Mayor Bass, but a lot of things that aren't getting attention, like in Saint Louis, it took five days for FEMA to get on the scene with people dying and people losing their homes with tornadoes. He's talking about closing FEMA entirely.
Just to put it in perspective, the entire budget of Louisiana was 18 billion when Katrina hit. The government got in and put 72 billion in.
So, the notion that we would get rid of FEMA is absurd. And so, what makes me most concerned about all this is when the first major hurricane hits, are they going to be by the side of the elected officials? Are they going to take the same rigid stance? If it's the latter, we're in deep trouble.
BORELLI: I don't know if FEMA has anything to do with this, but I did see some poll numbers on the use of National Guard, in L.A.
Harvard Harris poll came out. A majority of Americans believe that Trump should use the National Guard in this incident. A majority of Americans also believe that the President should have the authority to use the National Guard and federalize the National Guard when the -- there's a threat to federal property, federal agents.
[22:35:04]
So, the American people are with President Trump.
KOH: Who makes that decision? Who makes that decision?
BORELLI: I'm giving you a poll number, which is --
KOH: But -- but - yes -- yes. Yes. In a rational world. But who is making the decision whether someone is -- is presenting it the way you do it?
BORELLI: Well, thankfully, the President does, and we elect him through the electoral college as you're aware.
KOH: Do you trust the President's ability to do it?
BORELLI: I do. And, actually, a majority of Americans in the same Harvard Harris poll agree with me and not you. And you guys use the term protest, and I think that's a little absurd. We didn't see a protest. We have protests all over the world. Not all of those are getting the National Guard response.
The protesters there were interfering with the lawful actions of a federal agency. They were trying to interfere with ICE raids, and they were destroying property and threatening agents. That's a -- a line that I am glad that President Trump did not allow people across.
(CROSSTALK)
COLBERT: That's what fellows --
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Let me -- let me just quickly say because I was there, and have covered protests for decades, that there were protesters who were peaceful. They were there --
BORELLI: Sure.
SIDNER: -- in the in the daytime. A large --a large number --
BORELLI: But we're talking about a mass of people.
SIDNER: Right.
BORELLI: And some of them were not well-behaved.
SIDNER: Right. There was a large number that were mostly in the daytime. At night, things did change, and -- and there were people who were destroying things, setting cars on fire, et cetera. But there is a distinction.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: So, people who just walked by the Capitol on January 6th, should they not have been prosecuted?
SIDNER: What did you say?
BORELLI: People who were just walking by the Capitol on January 6th in the crowd, should they have not been prosecuted? Because I think we can't have a double standard there. I respect that there are peaceful -- peaceful people in the protest in L.A., but there was a heck of a lot of people doing a heck of a lot of damage and a heck of a lot of inappropriate things. And the mayor did not act. The governor did not act. In fact, the same poll has -- a different poll around it. But the police -- the lowest thing they've ever been.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Yeah. Police though did say they had it under control. They were very clear about that. And the LAPD, as you heard, they are not shy, when it comes to jumping -- yeah.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: The mayor had a -- the mayor had to issue a curfew the next night because --
SIDNER: Yeah.
BORELLI: -- clearly, they didn't have it under control. She wouldn't have had to issue a curfew the next night if they had it under control. I'm sorry. That's how we deal with things in New York City and --
SIDNER: Well, that's part of the way that they deal with these protests.
(CROSSTALK)
ARONBERG: Well, well, maybe President Trump will pardon those violent rioters in the streets, in Los Angeles. But, you know, this is the fight he wants. The thing -- you're right about the polls. This is the battle he wants to fight because it's a winner for him. Immigration, public safety, he doesn't want to talk about Elon Musk and tariffs.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: -- by the way. Public safety is a winner for all of us.
SIDNER: Hold on a second. Let me -- you -- you mentioned the polls, and I do want to get to one of the polls that we do have here. The Reuters Ipsos poll taken after the Los Angeles protest shows that people think Trump has gone too far when it comes to arrest of immigrants.
If you take a look at this poll, it is -- 49 percent think he has gone too far, 40 percent disagree. So, there is starting to -- you are starting to see a break in how people feel about the way in which, this administration is going after immigrants which has caused these protests. So, that -- that should just be mentioned.
KOH: I think -- I think it is a load of BS to suggest that he is doing this because he wanted to keep L.A. residents safe. He's doing this because he sees a great political opportunity in trying to usurp the power of Governor Newsom and Mayor Bass, and he is stirring the pot hoping that the protesters overextend themselves so that he can take a victory lap. Guess what? No one --
BORELLI: If you want to talk about politicians speaking, you know, political victories, it's people like Senator Padilla, Brad Lander here in New York, Zohran Mamdani. Going up to --
(CROSSTALK)
KOH: So, so, Senator Padilla clearly identifies himself, and then was tackled by FBI.
BORELLI: -- so that they get arrested. That's sort of the playbook --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: -- Scuffle with a cop, you get arrested. Then you do the whole sympathy thing. The guy just got arrested by the cops.
SIDNER: All right. I do want to talk about that. You did have Democrats, several of them. I think at least five have been arrested in some form or another. Some of them detained, some of them arrested. You did have, Senator Alex Padilla who showed up unexpectedly at a press conference. He went in. He confronted Secretary Kristi Noem and then was arrested. Vance, while in California, said this about that arrest.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: Well, I was hoping Jose Padilla would be here to ask a question, but unfortunately, I guess he decided not to show up because there wasn't the theater, and that's all it is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: He said Jose Padilla. Now, Jose Padilla is someone who was arrested and convicted of terrorism. Is that a smart thing to do right now for trying to be serious about what's going on? He made a mistake with a relatively new senator in the United States Senate. I don't think that was -- you really think it was a mistake?
BORELLI: I do.
SIDNER: Newsom does not believe it was.
BORELLI: Whatever. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The biggest story here is that the Vice President is correct in what the senator was trying to do. The senator tried to get in front of cameras. This is the playbook. We see this whether it's Democrats invading town halls, whether it's Democrats here in New York trying to get, you know, handcuffed by ICE.
You saw the front page of "The Daily News" just two days ago. The comptroller, was -- was taking a page out of Mayor Baraka in Newark's playbook. If you recall, Mayor Baraka was not doing too well in the polls. He interfered with some ICE agents. Suddenly, he finishes number -- number two in in the Democratic primary.
SIDNER: Reecie, is this how you see it? Is this -- is this sort of theater, or is this something that you -- you believe that these Democrats really truly believe in and willing to put their bodies sort of on the line between ICE and -- and immigrants?
COLBERT: Well, first of all, these people are -- are exercising their oversight authority. They're not usurping authority that they don't have. It's actually the administration that is usurping their authority. But I'm not going to let you just pivot completely away from this Jose Padilla mess. This is -- Senator Alex Padilla served in the U.S. senate with J.D. Vance. J.D. Vance, as the vice president, is the president of the senate. So, he knows very well what Alex Padilla's name is.
So, it's disgraceful that he would sit up there and make fun of, make a joke, or make light of it, especially when he has children. Some of them have more ethnic names and some of them don't. He has a wife that has an ethnic name. I don't think that he would appreciate, and he shouldn't be modeling for them, his own family, the normalization of just picking a random ethnic name to apply to a person, particularly a U.S. senator.
So, that is disgraceful, and it shows his immaturity is why he has shipped across the nation in a time of crisis where you would think he would be huddled up in the situation room or in some of these discussions about where The United States is going to go with this military conflict instead of doing these little petty school -- schoolyard taunts. And so, it's -- it's immature. It's small, and it really reveals more about him than it does about any Democrat.
JENNINGS: This entire thing could not be working out better for Trump. I mean, the Democratic Party, since he has come back into office, has put all of their time, all of their energy, all of their, whatever they can muster into fighting for illegal immigrants, keeping them in the country, keeping Trump from deporting them.
And so, time and again, we get into these situations where Trump is doing something completely lawful and within his authority, such as sending the National Guard to control a riot, and he's doing it for the purpose of controlling a situation to keep other American citizens safe and Democrats continue to step on this rake, continue to die on this hill that is a huge political loser for them.
And it's getting worse. These stunts, you know, trying to get yourself arrested, lunging at cabinet secretaries. You know, you've got a judge in Wisconsin, you know, trying to help sneak illegal aliens out the back of the courthouse. Democrats across the country spending all of their time and energy on illegal aliens, and Donald Trump spending all of his time and energy on trying to enforce the laws of the land, complete winner, and he's well within right to do it.
ARONBERG: Did he really lunge at Kristi Noem?
SIDNER: No.
JENNINGS: Yes. Did you watch it? Of course he did. He comes barging into a press conference, running up to a stage. I mean, what -- what is the security supposed to do? What are they supposed to do?
(CROSSTALK)
COLBERT: There is an 800 percent increase in deporting people who do not have a criminal record -- an 800 percent increase.
JENNINGS: I think three quarters of people they've deported --
COLBERT: That is -- that is not --
(CROSSTALK) SIDNER: We're going to -- we're going to stop here. We have so much more to talk about, and we have more time, so don't get upset yet. Dave Aronberg, thank you so much for your expertise.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Jeez, I'm just wrong for that. You can -- you can talk to me about it later. Coming up, lawmakers from both parties are speaking out in the wake of the devastating violence in Minnesota and more and more political threats. They say they just do not feel safe anymore. We'll discuss what they're calling for -- coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:41]
SIDNER: Tonight, lawmakers across the country are speaking out and demanding action following a week of political violence and threats against lawmakers. In New York, bomb threats were made against one of the city's mayoral candidates. In Texas, a man was arrested for threatening lawmakers. Another man was charged for the attempted kidnapping of the mayor of Memphis.
A former coast guard officer was arrested for making threats against President Trump. In Georgia, a 25-year-old was charged for threatening sexual violence against two senators. And, of course, last Sunday in Minnesota, where a suspected gunman shot and killed State Representative Melissa Hortman and her husband and wounded two others.
But wait. It doesn't end there. Today, Republican Congressman Max Miller says he feared for his life after a man waving a Palestinian flag ran him off the road on his way to work. Here's his chilling 911 call.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MAX MILLER (R-OH): "I was just driving to work, and I was cut off by a man in a Tesla who held up a Palestinian flag to me and then rolled down his window and said that I'm going to cut your throat and your daughter's. And he said, you're a dirty Jew. I'm going to (BEEP) kill you all, and I know who you are and where you live."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: A terrifying prospect there. Joining us at the table now is Felipe Rodriguez. I will start with you. Are we at a crisis point here where this violence is just ratcheting up and ratcheting up to a boiling point?
FELIPE RODRIGUEZ, RETIRED NYPD SERGEANT: I do, at this point, I think it's only going to get worse. It's going to be harder for law enforcement to actually investigate some of these crimes because they're at the level that the case is just becoming so burdensome and the resources are so little, you know.
Every police department at this point is in a crisis. We don't have enough officers, and we just see this violence ramping up more and more. So, at what point are we going to break up -- reach our breaking point? I don't know yet, but we're almost there.
SIDNER: Scott, you were just saying something I think is -- is really important to be said. A lot of people assume that everyone that is in the senate, everyone that is in the House of Representatives has some sort of detail with them. You just imagine that's the case. What is the truth?
JENNINGS: If they don't, rank and file members of Congress do not have security. The leadership levels do have some security, but the average member has nothing. Most state legislators at every state, they have nothing. I mean, the vast majority of elected officials in this country have little to no security whatsoever.
[22:50:03]
JENNINGS: And so, you know, when they go out in public, they're as exposed as -- as anybody else, and as we've seen, you know, there are crazy people out there who are willing to do terrible things. I -- I wonder if the -- the punishment for this, you know, has to be severe. Like, there has to be a deterrence here, and you've got people taking action against elected officials right now. Maybe they're thinking, well, it won't be that bad on the back end.
I think some examples need to be made right now of people, whether it's the Max Miller case or whatever. And it's not just elected officials, it's other political violence, too. I mean, you had the Jewish ladies attacked in Colorado. You had the diplomats murdered in Washington, D.C., particularly on this free Palestine, you know, outfit, which is increasingly violent. We're going to have to make some examples of people. This is unacceptable.
SIDNER: Mick, do you -- have to also remember what happened in Minnesota? A man who had a hit list, basically, but police were saying, of the Democrats that he may have intended to take out after being accused of shooting two sets, senator and, speaker. I mean, when you consider that, it is terrifying. I do want to, Reecie, I want to ask you something. When you look at this, and all of you consider this, there is so much vitriol in politics.
COLBERT: Yeah.
SIDNER: And it's not just coming from the folks who vote.
COLBERT: Right.
SIDNER: It is coming from the top on down.
COLBERT: Yeah.
SIDNER: Are they to, in some ways, to blame for how this is -- is sort of happening in our society because the vitriol keeps going, and it's -- it's kept going even after, the -- this horrible assassination.
COLBERT: Absolutely. I think that this should be non-partisan. I won't even say bipartisan. Political violence is unconscionable. And this is personal to me because I'm married to an elected official, a local, commissioner, and, you know, we don't have anybody to protect our home except for he's the man of the house, of course.
But, you know, I would like to see really loud, unequivocal condemnation for this, not jokes about who's a leftist or -- or even a MAGA person, like what senator Mike Lee did, and he had to be shamed into deleting a tweet. It was unconscionable.
And so, when -- when this kind of -- of activity is normalized because it's a way to own the other side and how violent they are, then it's dangerous for all parties involved. I think it should not happen, period. We need to bring the temperature down, and we should be having policy debates.
We should be having -- when we talk about protests, there were five million people who non-violently protested, but there was violence against those protesters that was ideological. So, we have to get to a point where people are not disillusioned, disaffected, or radicalized by the politics in this country, and we put people first.
SIDNER: What -- go ahead.
KOH: The reality here is that the President needs to set an example for the nation, set an example for leadership, and, unfortunately, what we're seeing is quite the opposite. After what happened in Minnesota, he could have called Governor Walz and asked how everybody is in Minnesota. Instead, he mocked Governor Walz and said, why would I call him?
This is a President who pardoned the January 6th insurrectionists, who's allowing masked men to take mothers from their children and to tackle taco vendors in the middle of the day. I think when people are seeing that kind of behavior or they're seeing their own government say things like, Senator Padilla didn't identify himself, when the video they shared, he clearly identifies himself.
People are losing faith in their government, they're losing faith in their leadership, and it's causing much more of this unrest than is necessary.
SIDNER: Is it too late? I mean, when you go look online, what do you see?
BORELLI: Well, I think this is a-- a problem with -- with the proliferation of online media that, you know, years ago, you wouldn't even know who your state senator was. But now you do because you follow them on Twitter. You -- you see their stream of conscious life. You see their thoughts firsthand, and you develop either a love or hate, and it's very real.
But I'll point to an incident. You know, long before, Eric Adams was sort of affiliated with Trump for other reasons, it last summer in 2024, he invited me right after the Butler shooting to stand with him as the Republican leader, with him and Reverend Sharpton, Reverend A. F. Bernard, and a whole bunch of different Muslim leaders and -- and, Asian leaders, interfaith leaders of every race and dialect.
And it was the right thing to do. And we stood there, and they stood there as Democrats, prominent Democrats, and denounced what happened. And it was the right thing to do and that's one of the things that I took with me when I left office, as a very proud moment. And I think people should, as you pointed out, take the higher road in these incidents.
We're enemies, right? But we're -- we're not, right? We're adversaries. We're not enemies that that -- that should go to at each other's throat. We're people who want to see each other lose elections at best. That's what has to remain the focus of our political rhetoric. It's I want to beat you. I want to beat you bad in the election.
UNKNOWN: On the field.
BORELLI: On the field. But that's where it ends.
SIDNER: You're adversaries, but you're all Americans and need to come together. Great way to end the segment. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. Felipe, thank you for coming on this evening. Coming up, President Trump says Iran has a maximum of two weeks to find diplomatic solution before he decides on U.S. military involvement. More on that ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:59:39]
SIDNER: President Trump posting a surprise announcement on Truth Social tonight saying there may be an agreement with Harvard University, adding they have acted extremely appropriately during these negotiations and appear to be committed to doing what is right. Sources telling CNN an agreement could potentially resolve outstanding legal battles between the administration and the university.
[23:00:00]
This comes on the same day that a federal judge indefinitely blocked the Trump administration from revoking Harvard's ability to have international students attend the school while the cases work their way through the courts.
And that does it for myself and for the crew. Thank you so much for watching "NewsNight". We will see you tomorrow morning at 10 A.M. with our conversation show "Table for Five." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
