Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Former Intel Officials Under Investigation By Trump DOJ; GOP Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) Says, I Warned Trump Against Cuts to Medicaid; Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Becomes Top Dissenter In Trump Era; Mamdani's Allies Want To Primary NYC Dem Representatives. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired July 09, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, under investigation. Trump's DOJ targets former top intelligence official.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They're very dishonest people. I think they're crooked as hell.
PHILLIP: Is he making good on his promise to go after his political enemies?
And --
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I told the president, I really do believe it could be his Obamacare.
PHILLIP: -- before his no vote, a last chance warning to Trump about what his spending bill could do to his presidency.
Also, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson stands alone and says recent decisions will lead to executive lawlessness. Now, she's under attack from the far right.
Plus, Democrats divided, rising star Zohran Mamdani's allies want to primary the establishment.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): I have no idea what these people are talking about.
PHILLIP: Is the Democratic Party turning on itself?
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Xochitl Hinojosa, Shermichael Singleton, Ana Navarro and Congressman Ritchie Torres.
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, investigating the investigators. Donald Trump's Justice Department has launched a new probe into two of the president's perceived foes, former FBI Director James Comey and former CIA Director John Brennan. A source tells CNN it's over possible false statements made to Congress.
Just last week, the current CIA director, John Ratcliffe, released a review criticizing the investigation into Russian interference in 2016 and in that election. And you may remember, both Comey and Brennan oversaw that investigation. The review did not, however, dispute the core assessment that Putin did prefer Trump to then-Candidate Hillary Clinton. But Ratcliffe said it was, quote, conducted through an atypical and corrupt process.
Trump was asked about all of this today, and here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I know nothing about it other than what I read today. But I will tell you, I think they're very dishonest people. I think they're crooked as hell and maybe they have to pay a price for that. I believe they are truly bad people and dishonest people. So, whatever happens, happens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, it's not clear what stage this probe is in. The CIA hasn't commented, and neither has Comey, but Brennan said that he's in the dark and that no one has contacted him about what he's being investigated for. He also had this to say about the Trump administration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN BRENNAN, FORMER CIA DIRECTOR: And I think this is unfortunately a very sad and tragic example of the continued politicization of the intelligence community, of the national security process. And, quite frankly, I'm really shocked that, you know, individuals are willing to sacrifice their reputations, their credibility, their decency to continue to do Donald Trump's bidding on something that clearly is just politically based.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, this investigation, one of the interesting things about it, based on the reporting that we have, is that it's not even clear what really they're investigating. I mean by Ratcliffe's own acknowledgement, the conclusions are not being disputed of that report. And according to CNN, the CIA offered little context for Mr. Brennan's written remark, Mr. Brennan's testimony before the Senate is now seven years old, which appears to lie beyond the statute of limitations for such cases.
So, what do you think is going on here, Xochitl? XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I think that's right. There are two types of investigations. There's a preliminary investigation and then there's an investigation that is officially opened by the FBI and the Justice Department looking at potential charges. Here in this situation, it's unclear who made the decision. It's unclear whether it was made by career professionals or whether it was made by political appointees.
One thing that I will point out is in the last -- in the first Trump administration, the first Trump DOJ, Trump picked John Durham as special counsel, and he investigated this. He had about a six-year, more than that, seven-year investigation where he brought charges. They were acquitted in court.
[22:05:00]
There was an I.G. investigation. So, this issue has been looked at over and over and over and nowhere in his report, which was released when I was there under the Biden Justice Department, nowhere in his report does it say that Brennan and the former FBI director, Comey, potentially there is any wrongdoing whatsoever.
So, this is very suspicious to me, that all this is coming out now, especially on the heels of these Epstein files and the sort of embarrassment happening with --
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, I think there's almost like an attempt to even memory hold the Durham report, because that was the investigation that essentially Trump asked for and it did not turn up what he has been claiming.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. This one is a little opaque because we don't really know exactly what they're being looked at for. I know there's some sources saying it could be false statements, but we don't really have all the facts here. I do think it's pretty obvious that Brennan has been someone more than willing to weaponize his positions in government to politicize intelligence information.
PHILLIP: How?
JENNINGS: I mean, over the years he has been one of the most rabid, anti-Trump people out there saying things out loud that turned out not to be true.
PHILLIP: Okay, but how?
JENNINGS: Specifically related to Russia.
PHILLIP: Yes, but how? Because as we discussed the report that they issued --
JENNINGS: If you want to defend it, that's fine.
PHILLIP: Well, it's on a factual point because I think --
JENNINGS: It's not factual that Brennan hates Donald Trump and said Russia stole the election? I mean --
REP. RITCHIE TORRES (D-NY): (INAUDIBLE) weaponization?
JENNINGS: I mean --
TORRES: Criticism of weaponization?
TORRES: Again, like I said, we don't know what's going on in the investigation, but it's pretty clear that for a long time there have been people who have viewed, not just Brennan, but others who have held high ranking intelligence positions is more than willing to use those positions and the information that they have access to, to politically weaponize against the president.
TORRES: The central findings of the Intelligence Community remains undisputed. And from the moment Trump has entered the White House, he has been pathologically obsessed with weaponizing government against his political adversary. So, the targeting of John Brennan --
JENNINGS: Who's been targeted?
TORRES: It's James --
JENNINGS: Who got indicted in this crazy, stupid case in New York?
TORRES: James Comey. I mean, John Durham did an investigation and found no evidence of wrongdoing, and he was appointed as a special counsel under the first Trump Administration by Bill Barr.
JENNINGS: But you don't know what's going here. This is opaque. You don't have the details.
TORRES: I'm judging by the rhetoric of the president. He's openly weaponizing government against his political adv adversaries.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: One of the ironic things about this is if you speak to most Democrats, there are no fans of Comey either.
TORRES: No, that's true.
NAVARRO: So, you know, a lot of Democrats probably think that Donald Trump, instead of investigating them, should be sending them food baskets and thanking Comey for helping him get elected in 2016.
I don't think the timing here is coincidental. I mean, these two guys, Comey and Brennan, say they have not been informed that they're being investigated. We don't know who made the decision. Look, it's happening in a week when there are serious questions about the FEMA response in Texas. It's happening in a week where we've seen that Donald Trump seems not to know what's going on in Ukraine, who paused the weapons, who didn't. You know, it's happening in a week when the base is pissed over the Epstein files. And, you know, this administration trying to erase what they've been campaigning on and talking about for years and years and years. The base is not accepting this. The base hates Comey and Brennan as well. And I think this is a bone to the base and a distraction.
With this administration, always look for what is the distraction value of what they're doing.
PHILLIP: It also could just be a bone to Donald Trump too, because his cabinet secretaries know that he wants these promises kept. But just to the point of whether we know or not, whether this investigation was politicized, back in 2020, there was a select committee on intelligence that looked into the 2016 Russia investigation. And according to that committee, it said, every witness interviewed by the committee stated that he or she sought no attempts to pressure or politicize the findings. Also on that committee that issued a bipartisan report on the Russian investigation was, one, Marco Rubio, who said, we interviewed over 200 witnesses and reviewed over 1 million pages of documents. No probe in this matter has been more exhaustive.
So, what exactly are we looking into here?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I don't know. I don't think any one of us at this table really know at this point. But I will say The New York Times wrote about this today, and I read their article, the Bulwark, and I never read the Bulwark, they even wrote about it, and they even stated that individuals who were working for Brennan at the time as it pertains to the dossier, including that in the overall assessment and analysis, they didn't agree with them. And they said, you're literally going to tank the entire analysis by including that.
PHILLIP: But they didn't include the --
SINGLETON: And I do raise the question, why include something that is factually inaccurate on a lot of levels? I mean, there's some politicization there.
PHILLIP: Shermichael, just to be clear, he did not include the actual dossier in the report to President Obama.
SINGLETON: No. He included kind of components of it then and the overall analysis.
PHILLIP: He included a summary of the information contained in the dossier.
SINGLETON: But why? Why?
PHILLIP: Because --
SINGLETON: when advisers made clear to him that the evidence in there should not have been issued at all.
PHILLIP: Listen, people make judgment calls about things and sometimes they get things wrong.
[22:10:01]
SINGLETON: That's a pretty, shoddy judgment call.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Sometimes they get -- I'm not saying he got it right.
SINGLETON: Okay.
PHILLIP: Sometimes they get things wrong. The question is, is it criminal? And does it warrant --
SINGLETON: I didn't say it was criminal.
PHILLIP: Does it warrant a referral to the FBI for investigation?
SINGLETON: Well, I don't know --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I mean, I don't know. He raised this. So --
SINGLETON: But the question about bringing politics and views about the president, I would point to that as an example and say, yes, this guy might have the political bias.
PHILLIP: But who cares about his views about the president? Is that illegal?
SINGLETON: I think it mattered at that particular time.
PHILLIP: Is that illegal?
SINGLETON: I didn't say it was illegal, but it mattered at that particular time.
PHILLIP: Wait. But is it illegal for people to have political views in this?
SINGLETON: Of course not.
JENNINGS: It would be if they used -- if they influenced their government jobs and their high ranking intelligence positions --
PHILLIP: All right. Well, let's walk through it step by step, okay? So, you're suggesting that his political views influenced how he investigated the Russia investigation.
SINGLETON: That's certainly possible.
PHILLIP: The Senate Intelligence -- the intelligence report said no witnesses said that political views influence the report, so there's that.
Secondly, Donald Trump thinks he doesn't -- Brennan hates him. Fine. Is that a crime?
JENNNINGS: to hate him? No, but it would -- it could -- I mean, look, again, we have no idea why this referral was made. It would be a crime if he lied to Congress. It would be a crime if he abused his position. It would be a crime if he leaked information that shouldn't be leaked. I mean, there's a number of potential avenues here, but the main issue is none of us know what the truth is.
PHILLIP: So, it could very well be maybe an investigation in search of a crime. Is that politicizing the Justice Department? Is that fair?
JENNINGS: Again, we have no idea that we have idea, like the reporting is not clear about why the referral would be.
HINOJOSA: But the false statements piece, this is what folks are saying, is that he's potentially being investigated for false statements.
One thing I want to point out on false statements to Congress is you had the DNI director, the CIA director, and others testified before Congress after Signal gate. Each one of them said that the information on Signal was not classified. You have so many intelligence officials all across this country, former intelligence officials who have said that it is clear that what they put on signal was classified.
And so if you're going to talk about weaponization and politicization of the Justice Department and you're going to start prosecuting people for false statements, again, I don't know what happened here, but what I know is that Tulsi Gabbard lied before Congress by saying that she did not -- that that was not classified information.
SINGLETON: Well, he wasn't prosecuted. But, yes, they're not being -- there's no charges.
HINOJOSA: They're investigating it. Are they investigating Tulsi Gabbard for potentially -- are they investigating Tulsi Gabbard?
SINGLETON: This is all conjecture and hyperbole.
HINOJOSA: No, it's not. It's --
SINGLETON: Oh, yes, it is. It absolutely is.
HINOJOSA: I will tell you right now, you don't understand --
SINGLETON: And I know the people on the left, this makes you guys happy and excited about this for politicizing it.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on, guys, guys, one at a time, one at a time. Shermichael, let's just do it one at a time so we can hear --
HINOJOSA: There have been career professionals who have quit all across the Justice Department because it is being politicized. They are dropping charges from Mayor Adams. They're doing things like investigating people that Trump doesn't like.
SINGLETON: Is that not the purview of the Justice Department (INAUDIBLE)? HINOJOSA: Not when it's at the direction -- not when it's at the direction of the White House.
SINGLETON: But they have that right to do so.
HINOJOSA: No, they do not. Not criminal --
SINGLETON: Hold on. Then the judge did not to dismiss the case.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Shermichael, let me just ask you a question, just since she brought up Mayor Adams. Maybe let's concede it is within their power to do it. The question is not whether they can do it. The question is whether they should do it because --
SINGLETON: In the case of Mayor Adams --
PHILLIP: Hold on. Let me finish my question. Hold on. The accusation here is that Trump is claiming that other people are politicizing the Justice Department. Meanwhile, he is using the Justice Department to coerce --
SINGLETON: We don't know if this directly came from the president. So, you're saying --
PHILLIP: The Justice Department is dropping charges against someone on the condition -- this was Eric Adams, I'm talking about Eric Adams. There were charges.
SINGLETON: Sure.
PHILLIP: Yes, right, there were charges. Dropping those charges allegedly on the condition that he cooperate with them on immigration. Well, the proof is Tom Homan.
SINGLETON: We have no --
PHILLIP: Tom Homan's going on national television and saying essentially you're going to help us out here, right? That was on national television. I'm just saying -- I'm just asking you, does that not appear to be a politicization?
SINGLETON: No. To me, it does not. No, it certainly.
NAVARRO: And at the same time that they are threatening people, like Gavin Newsom for doing his job, and Karen Bass, the mayor of L.A., for showing up and doing her job that they are prosecuting and trying, investigating members of Congress for showing up and wanting to see what's going on in the immigration detention centers.
Look, this is another clear message by Trump and his administration, the minions that do his bidding in that administration, including Pam Bondi, that if you speak out against him, if you whistle blow against him, you run the threat of being investigating, being persecuted and being threatened.
PHILLIP: All right, we got to leave it here for this conversation. Up next for us though, Senator Thom Tillis' exclusive interview with CNN, hear how he compared President Trump's big, beautiful bill to something else that passed and became a political problem for the party in charge.
[22:15:06]
Plus, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is the newest member of the Supreme Court, but she is not holding back from court critiques. We will discuss her dissents, just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, Republican Thom Tillis is speaking out. In an exclusive interview with Jake Tapper, the North Carolina senator who bucked his own party and voted against Donald Trump's bill last week, reveals the stark warning that he gave the president directly about the political consequences.
[22:20:01]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TILLIS: I told the president, I really do believe it could be his Obamacare.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Because of the promise that he made that was not true, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctors.
TILLIS: Yes. And now it's like if you like Medicaid and you're eligible, you can keep it. That's fundamentally untrue because the funding mechanisms are probably going to take people who are eligible for it off of it over time, or it's going to create an enormous, unfunded mandate on the states in a timeframe that they can't absorb.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Clear as day. You can't be more crystal clear than that. He looked at the bill. He decided to give up his seat. He voted against it because he says it just does not work and people will lose coverage.
JENNINGS: Yes. I don't know why he decided to quit over a disagreement. People disagree all the time. I mean, it's okay to disagree with the president of your party or the president of another party. Politicians don't always have to agree. It seems like he's throwing a bit of a fit.
NAVARRO: You don't think Donald Trump would've primaried him? You don't think Donald Trump would've --
PHILLIP: Wait. Did I miss him? Did we not miss the part where Donald Trump essentially --
JENNINGS: But it seems like a pretty big fit to like, you know, completely quit what you're doing over one disagreement. HINOJOSA: Well, he was going to lose either way. He was either going to lose because he was getting primaried or he was going to lose because he voted for the bill and it's so unpopular and it would kick people off in their healthcare.
JENNINGS: It's not really, it's not unpopular.
HINOJOSA: It's very unpopular.
JENNINGS: I think his political --
HINOJOSA: It's underwater even by Fox News poll.
JENNINGS: I think his political analysis is wrong. I don't think it's unpopular at all to try to reform an entitlement program to save it for the people who need it, to keep illegal aliens from getting welfare benefits they shouldn't be getting, to encourage people to go to work. I don't think these things should be shied away from --
TORRES: None of that is true. First of all, I think Medicaid --
JENNINGS: It's exactly true. It's exactly what's in the bill.
TORRES: Federal law prohibits undocumented immigrants.
JENNINGS: Then why are 1.4 million on it?
TORRES: That's a figment of your imagination.
(CROSSTALKS)
TORRES: Let me explain the facts to you.
JENNINGS: It's in the CBO documents.
TORRES: I'll explain the facts to you.
JENNINGS: Is it or not?
TORRES: Let me explain. It's not actually.
JENNINGS: You are lying.
TORRES: No, that is not -- it is not true.
PHILLIP: Okay, hang on. Hang on a second.
(CROSSTALKS)
TORRES: So, Medicaid is --
PHILLIP: Hold on, guys.
NAVARRO: You're talking about state programs.
TORRES: Medicaid is the most popular program after Social Security and Medicare. So, a trillion dollar cut to Medicaid, which is what Republicans just did, is not only bad morals and bad economics, it's bad politics. Medicaid is actually more popular than you, Scott Jennings. It has 70 percent approval rating among Republicans.
JENNINGS: How do you know what my approval rating is?
TORRES: More than 80 percent among independents, more than 90 percent among Democrats. It's political suicide for Republicans to gut Medicaid.
JENNINGS: I think it's political suicide to come on as a member of Congress and lie about what the --
PHILLIP: Okay.
TORRES: The majority of people who benefit from Medicaid are senior citizens and those with disabilities. All Medicaid funding goes toward the elderly, the disabled children, and working adults.
JENNINGS: That's who it's for.
TORRES: And that's --
JENNINGS: It's not for illegals.
TORRES: And those are the people who --
PHILLIP: Scott, just to disentangle this, the federal law prohibits undocumented people from getting Medicaid. That is the law.
JENNINGS: But they're on it.
PHILLIP: Okay. Not the federally funded part of Medicaid. States have their own funding mechanisms and some of them have chosen to expand it to include everyone. There's a difference here. Now, you don't like to acknowledge the difference, but that difference does exist. So --
SINGLETON: No, I disagree with that. I mean, that funding -- a lot of that funding comes from the federal government, the bulk of it.
Number two, in terms of emergency services --
PHILLIP: No. Okay, Shermichael, hold on a second. Hold on, Shermichael, let me just make sure we're on the same page now. I want to just be clear about what you're saying, okay? What you're saying is that states --
SINGLETON: The state programs --
PHILLIP: Hold on, let me finish, that states are using essentially a budgetary gimmick.
SINGLETON: Yes.
PHILLIP: That's how Republicans see it. To use federal -- however you want to describe it, use federal money to cover certain populations that gives them savings that they can then use to cover larger populations. Maybe that is what is happening in some states, but I just want to acknowledge that's what you're referring to, so people are not confused.
SINGLETON: Correct, yes, that's what I'm saying. And even in terms of emergency services that's covered by Medicaid. So, you're right in terms of the federal law, but, Congressman, in terms of emergency services, that's a lot of money that American taxpayers --
TORRES: Federal law requires every hospital, every healthcare provider to provide emergency services to those who need it.
SINGLETON: Yes, and Republicans won't --
TORRES: And so states have concluded it's actually more cost effective to provide preventative care than to have them overcrowd an emergency room.
JENNINGS: That's a great position for your party to give free healthcare to every illegal immigrant. That's a great position for your party. What you're saying is it's better to do it that way.
TORRES: Almost all the program benefits senior citizens and the disabled.
JENNINGS: You just said it was better to hand illegal healthcare.
TORRES: We're referring to state funds, not federal funds.
NAVARRO: Every point that Scott makes has to include the term illegal immigrant. You know, that's kind of a --
JENNINGS: Well, it's kind of a big issue, is it not? It's one of the reasons Donald Trump got a elected.
NAVARRO: A lot of documented immigrants are probably not even going to show up for emergency care because they are scared to be arrested there, to be arrested as they're giving birth.
And, you know, going back to Tillis, I kind of find it very sad that in order to speak bluntly and honestly and give an interview like he did today to Jake Tapper, he's got to have announced that he's not running again, right, that you can't have that kind of dissent from Congress, from Republicans in Congress and in the Senate under Donald Trump.
[22:25:13]
That, to me, is incredibly sad.
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, he talked about the conversation over text that he had with the president after Trump threatened to primary him. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TILLIS: I told the president that he's clearly got the votes that I will try and work to get something done in the House. He didn't need my vote. And that I would be respectful and quiet and try to do my work on the House side. And then I got that that text that I texted him or I saw the -- I'd never read it, but I saw like the first sentence. I told the president in another text, I said, now it's time to start looking for my replacement because I don't deal with that kind of bullshit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, yes, I don't think this is a question of Tillis not being able or willing to disagree. I think he's essentially saying he was pushed out by the president.
HINOJOSA: He was absolutely pushed out, and they were threatening other people that were debating whether or not they were going to vote with the president. This is a way that Trump works. And at the end of the day, he heard from his constituents, he knew that this was going to be a very unpopular bill. And now, I mean, he had to either walk the plank or not and he wasn't going to walk the plank. And so, you know, he decided to end up voting against it. I think --
NAVARRO: He walked the plank earlier with Hegseth.
HINOJOSA: He did walk the plank earlier in the year with Hegseth. That is right.
And what I will say about this is that it's going to be a long three years for Trump if he is trying to pass legislation to advance his agenda and the Republican Party and the American people are not on his side. And this is just an example of how there is not a place for moderate Republicans in this party. And it'll be interesting to see what happens in the next --
TORRES: If the bill is popular, why are the cuts largely delayed until after the midterm election? And if the bill surgically targets fraud, waste, and abuse, why is it necessary to set up a $50 billion stabilization fund for rural hospitals? Like the lies of the Republican Party has collapsed --
PHILLIP: I think both of those are very good questions, Shermichael. If the bill is popular, is doing what Scott says and is just cleaning it up, why are Republicans delaying this so that they don't face the consequences?
SINGLETON: Well, I think there's a complicated operation --
PHILLIP: And why are they why did they give out to rural members basically a cushion so that they didn't feel as much of the impact of this bill as other places of the country?
SINGLETON: Well, look, I think, operationally speaking, you have to give states the opportunity to adjust and plan for this.
PHILLIP: That's true. SINGLETON: That makes all the strategic sense in the world for anybody who would pass such a massive piece of legislation. You can't pass it and say you got six months to figure this out. States have to make adjustments. They have to recalculate their annual budgets. And so I think that's why you needed to give states the appropriate time to adjust.
As it pertains to the $50 billion for rural hospitals, you certainly don't want to negatively impact communities that are going to rely on this.
Now, Congressman, you raised a point about -- I was going to address that. You raised a point about urban areas. That also shouldn't be forgotten. I actually don't disagree with that. I think if there are pockets of the country and populations that we could protect, I think most conservatives, generally speaking, will say, okay, let's figure out an economic mechanism.
TORRES: (INAUDIBLE) targets fraud, waste, and abuse, then why would it be necessary to set up a $50 billion fund for rural hospitals? Something does not add up here, unless Republicans are lying about the bill.
NAVARRO: If these Medicaid provisions are so popular and so wonderful and only target undocumented aliens, why did it require exempting Alaska from the provisions in order to buy Lisa Murkowski's vote on this bill.
JENNINGS: It's not just illegal aliens. It also includes work requirements for people who choose not to work. Again, according to the CBO, which you deny the existence of, apparently, almost --
TORRES: I'm well aware. Republicans deny it. Republicans called for the abolition of the CBO.
JENNINGS: Well, you're denying it tonight. Almost 5 million people --
NAVARRO: I heard you argue against the CBO until you are blue in the face.
JENNINGS: Almost 5 million people who choose not to work will be false (ph).
TORRES: That is like a figment of your imagination.
JENNINGS: It's literally right here.
TORRES: They're not -- the percentage of people who choose not to work is less than 1 percent of --
JENNINGS: It's not a percentage. I'm giving --
TORRES: The non-work population is mostly students or caregivers. You're misrepresenting the nature of that possibility.
PHILLIP: We got to leave it there. JENNINGS: So, the Republicans want to encourage people to work. You want to encourage people to be government (INAUDIBLE).
PHILLIP: We got to leave things here.
TORRES: especially the caregivers are working much harder than you are.
PHILLIP: Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is back in the spotlight with plenty of pushback for the president's legal wins and now the party has -- the Republican Party has plenty of criticism for her.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
PHILLIP: With the Supreme Court handing Donald Trump another victory this week, the Court's most junior member, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, has again come into focus. Justice Jackson was the sole dissent in a decision to allow the Trump administration to carry out mass firings at federal agencies on Tuesday.
And in her dissent, she offered a rare rebuke of her colleagues, writing, "For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President's wrecking ball," she wrote, "In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate, but also hubristic and senseless."
[22:35:01]
Since joining the Court in 2022, Jackson has positioned herself as unafraid to speak clearly about her concerns, even if it means rushing up against the Court's longstanding traditions of decorum.
Now, this has made her kind of unique for someone who's pretty new to the Court. But Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat, wrote this about how she's not leaning into collegiality for the sake of it. He says, "She's begun looking at patterns and noticing what types of parties tend to win and which tend to lose. She has noticed procedural discrepancies."
"She's begun looking at interests and motives and connections. She's begun to point out behind the curtain at what collegiality obscures."
"If the Emperor has no clothes and chooses to walk down Main Street of the city, it may very well be in decorus to call him out as being buck naked. But the real wrong in this scenario is in the naked parade down Main Street, not in calling out that nakedness."
REP. RITCHIE TORRES (D-NY): I disagree with the premise that it's a violation of decorum. I feel like some of the greatest opinions in American history have been dissents, whether you think of Justice John Harlan Marshall's dissent in Plessy versus Ferguson, you think of Robert Jackson's dissent in Korematsu. Like there's a long and glorious tradition, a passionate dissent. Scalia was a famous dissenter on the judicial right. She's emerging as
the conscience of the Supreme Court. And I feel she's making legitimate points, and I'll make this one point, which is the Court should be more strategic about when it intervenes in cases.
The Court has been increasingly intervening through what is known as the shadow docket. And the problem with the shadow docket is that the opinions that come from that docket are often unsigned, unexplained, do not go through the full judicial process of a full oral argument, a full briefing. And she's saying that the Court should -- should stop short circuiting the process through the shadow docket. That strikes me as a common sense reasonable expectation.
PHILLIP: To your point about the dissent, I mean, Sheldon Whitehouse has also pointed out that Justice Harlan, the loan dissent in Plessy versus Ferguson, he was right in that case, and -- and he was known to be a dissenter, sometimes a little dissenter in quite a key cases before the Court. So, that -- the fact of dissent, I mean, regardless of what you think about whether she was right or wrong, I mean, the fact of her dissenting says nothing about her rightness or wrongness, necessarily, when you look at history.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, but the dissenting does not make you right or wrong, but look at what her colleagues are saying. I mean, even Kagan in writing about this eight to one decision was like, this isn't even -- you're commenting on things that aren't even before the Court right now. Amy Coney Barrett in her majority opinion on the previous case where she had to dress down Jackson.
I mean, Jackson apparently has a fundamental disagreement with the rest of the Court about what the role of the Supreme Court justice is. I mean, she said it -- she said in an interview, I really enjoy giving my opinions on issues. Well, that's different than judging the law and people from the ideological right. And the ideological left on the Court have had to put her in her place a couple of times here in this term. And I would guess internally it's causing internal issues at the Supreme Court.
PHILLIP: I don't know if putting her in her place is --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Illegally. That's what they're doing in these --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: No, no. I mean, this is a court, and they disagree. They disagree all the time.
UNKNOWN: Disagreement.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, FORMER DOJ PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR: Absolutely.
PHILLIP: That's a normal function of the Court.
JENNINGS: But it's not just the right. I'm saying it's Kagan in this case and the H01 case.
PHILLIP: Yeah, it doesn't matter. I mean, liberals disagree with liberals, conservatives disagree with conservatives.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: There were moments when --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: That is a normal part of --
JENNINGS: Again, dissenting is not a problem. It's apparently her misunderstanding of what the job is --
UNKNOWN: There's no misunderstanding.
JENNINGS: -- or even what the issues are before the Court.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: It's not -- it's not a misunderstanding. She is essentially saying is that the administration cannot use the Supreme Court to save them on every possible case. And what is happening is that the administration, as soon as they get an adverse decision from a lower court, they go to the Supreme Court, just like the congressman was saying, and says, don't rule on the merits. We -- because they don't want to argue --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: This was eight to one.
HINOJOSA: Hold on.
JENNINGS: It's eight to one.
HINOJOSA: It was not on the merits. What they were saying is that -- what they go off and say on a lot of these cases, especially immigration cases, they're like, let's support all of these people. The administration go -- and then the courts say, no, no, no, you can't do that. We need to go ahead and hear this. Please hit the pause button. Trump administration, they take it to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, therefore says, actually, Trump administration, you can do what you want without it being heard in the Court. And that is the problem. It's a fundamental problem with the Supreme Court.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah.
HINOJOSA: The administration is using the Court as their political -
UNKNOWN: She's protecting the integrity of the judicial process.
NAVARRO: And also, listen, nobody puts baby in the corner and nobody puts Ketanji in her place. She is a Supreme Court justice.
JENNINGS: Kagan did.
NAVARRO: No, that's not putting her in her place. That's called disagreement. That's called dissenting. We don't call it --
UNKNOWN: But disagreement is illegal on this country.
NAVARRO: Well --
JENNINGS: You read it and tell me how you interpret it because --
NAVARRO: Oh, I did.
JENNINGS: It's pretty raw.
NAVARRO: Yeah, well --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: It's called a disagreement in the Supreme Court which is perfectly okay. And if you're expecting a melanated girl from South Florida to shut up and play nice and not ruffle feathers and not -
JENNINGS: I'm not expecting anything, It's Kagan's writing.
NAVARRO: Well, you seem to have an issue with it.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Oh my God. You're now agreeing with Elena Kagan?
JENNINGS: On this. Yes.
TORRES: She makes a valid point that that the Court should first determine the legality of the executive order before allowing the President to implement a mass firing that could do irreparable damage to the lives and livelihoods.
[22:40:10]
TORRES: Because whether the President is wrong on the law, he has done irreparable harm to thousands of people who have lost their jobs. That's a fair point. It's a common sense point.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: One of the other elements of all of this when we talk about Justice Brown Jackson is that on the right, some -- many conservatives now are saying, like Charlie Kirk, she's a diversity hire. She's only there because she's a black woman.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah, I reject that. I often read her writings. I think the woman's quite -- quite brilliant. I just absolutely disagree with her philosophically speaking in terms of interpretation of the Constitution and laws. And this particular ruling, I think, there was a reason she was a sole individual. I understand -- I understood the critique based upon my understanding
of her previous writings. I think her conclusion was incorrect, which is why the two other liberals on the Court ruled with the conservatives, comparatively speaking to the justice -- to the justice. So, I think on this -- this particular issue and broadly speaking, she's certainly carving her own lane. She's written as much as everyone on the Court with the exception of Justice Thomas.
PHILLIP: She's, yeah, she's the second most prolific opinion maker on the Court.
SINGLETON: I think it's important to read and understand people who philosophically disagree with you to understand their ideology and their interpretation of the Constitution. It's important in this context. Again, I don't disagree with her at all. But in terms of her intellectual faculties and capabilities, I mean, the woman's bright. She's doing the right -- I mean, I don't agree, but she is bright.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yeah, she's also -- she's also -- when you look at her qualifications on paper, she is more qualified than --
UNKNOWN: Charlie Kirk.
PHILLIP: Well, certainly, than Charlie Kirk.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But then Justice Clarence Thomas, when he was put on the Court by George H.W. Bush, she has much more time on the bench as a judge and many more qualifications.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It is amazing -- so, it is amazing to me that when the disagreement suddenly becomes a racist attack on somebody who is on the Court.
NAVARRO: But I guess it doesn't apply to Clarence Thomas because they agree with his decisions? That's cherry picking diversity, isn't it?
TORRES: Why exactly is she wrong? I don't understand why --
(CROSSTALK)
TORRES: Because she's the sole dissenter?
SINGLETON: No, no, that's not why. I think the other justices are correct in stating that the executive has a sole right and discretion on this particular issue in terms of limiting or shrinking the sides and scope of government by firing individuals. I actually agree with that.
TORRES: They haven't decided the question.
SINGLETON: I do not -- I don't agree --
TORRES: They need to cite that question. It was procedural. It's not substantive --
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: Well, but procedural in terms of does the Executive have the authority to do so?
TORRES: They need to cite that question.
SINGLETON: And procedurally, they did.
TORRES: That's a substantive question.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: I will say on the substance, I mean, if the administration continues to go to the Supreme Court and gets these rulings, I think it is a -- but I think it is a fundamental problem with the way that Trump acts. Trump believes that he should act and whatever he does, regardless of what the Court says, should go into effect. And that is what this is leading to and it's a big problem.
(CROSSTALK)
SINGLETON: But the court has ruled against the president single-toss on some major cases Some major cases.
PHILLIP: All right, we have to leave --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We got to leave it here.
NAVARRO: And also cherry picks which judicial decisions he follows and which he doesn't because, you know, in the El Salvador case he chose to ignore it.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone, stay with us. Up next for us, left-wing allies of New York City's mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani have some plans to build on his surprise win. They want to primary some Democratic lawmakers including one such lawmaker right here, Congressman Torres. We'll get his response. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:48:12]
PHILLIP: Tonight, the midterms may have just gotten a little bit harder for some New York House Democrats. Looking to capitalize on Zohran Mamdani's meteoric ascent in New York City, some of his allies are now threatening to primary some Democratic incumbents in next year's election. CNN asked Mamdani if he'd stop those potential challenges, and his press secretary said that he was declining to comment. So, who ended up making that list? Well, there's House Minority Leader
Hakeem Jeffries. Representatives Yvette Clark, Dan Goldman, Jerry Nadler, and yes, Richie Torres, who is with us at the table tonight. So, what do you think?
TORRES: I'm honored. I think it's fair to say that my colleagues in the New York Congressional Delegation and I, we do not care about the Democratic Socialist America. We're focused on defeating congressional Republicans in the midterms and making Hakeem Jeffries the Speaker of the House and reversing the catastrophic consequences of the Republican Reconciliation Bill. We could care less about Mickey Mouse primary challenges.
NAVARRO: Now, I want to ask you this. How the hell does the first openly gay Afro-Puerto Rican congressperson from the Bronx, end up being establishment? What -- what does establishment mean these days in the Democratic Party?
TORRES: For me, the lesson learned from Mamdani's victory is that there is no Democratic establishment.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: What do you mean by that? What do you mean by that?
JENNINGS: You mean, are you being honest when you say you don't know why they're targeting you? You know why they're targeting you.
(CROSSTALK)
TORRES: Oh, no, I'm not -- I know why they're targeting --
JENNINGS: But you know why they're targeting you.
TORRES: But I don't -- I don't care that they're targeting me.
JENNINGS: So, why don't you say it? You know why they're targeting you.
TORRES: I think they're targeting me because I'm pro-Israel.
JENNINGS: That's 100 percent correct.
TORRES: That's the issue.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, are you saying they're targeting you and all of these other individuals - we've got Clark, Hakeem Jeffries --
(CROSSTALK)
TORRES: I think I have -- I am specifically targeted because of my position on Israel.
(CROSSTALK) JENNINGS: And by the way he's been courageous on this issue and he's had a backbone and he stood up to the waco radicals in his party on this, and he deserves all the credit the world for it.
[22:50:04]
But that's why he's on the list, because these people have a burning hatred for Israel. It's one of their main pieces of their platform and that's why they put them on the list and it's terrible.
PHILLIP: So, look, when Democrats have been asking, oh what did we learn from Mamdani's victory, what's your answer to that?
TORRES: For me, it says more about media than ideology. Like the race between Cuomo and Mamdani was not just a collision of ideologies and personalities, but it was a collision of the old world of media and the new world of media. Like we have to recognize there's a generation of young voters who are no longer watching television.
They watch Instagram reels. They watch YouTube shorts. They watch TikTok. And we have to meet voters where they are and we have to adapt to this brave new world of alternative media. That to me is my greatest takeaway.
NAVARRO: People always talk about, you know, people talk often about how wonderful Mamdani is and how popular his -- his policy positions are. Nobody seems to mention that Andrew Cuomo was a severely damaged candidate with what, 12, 13 sexual harassment allegations against him, who had to resign in shame, who's got, what, a scandal regarding --
(CROSSTALK)
TORRES: A different Democrat could have won. Like there was a universe of voters who could not vote for either Mamdani or Cuomo.
NAVARRO: It doesn't mean that Mamdani did not run an incredibly good and effective campaign.
TORRES: I acknowledge your point on the, about Israel, but Mamdani did not run on Israel. He did not even run on defund the police. In fact, he ran away from it. He ran on affordability. And the fact is there is a generation of young voters who are struggling with the crushing cost of housing and higher education and healthcare, and who want to hear candidates speak to their anxieties about the affordability crisis.
And so, that to me is the greatest lesson learned is that we as Democrats have to create an agenda that speaks to the affordability crisis.
PHILLIP: Why is it that when Democrats and maybe Republicans, as well, want to usher in change rather than going after the opposite party, they start to eat their own? I mean, David Hogg was raked over the coals for a very similar threat to incumbent Democrats. I mean, that seems like just, I mean, dare I say a little lazy because it's easier to go after somebody in your own party rather than actually fight against the thing that is the exact opposite of what you stand for.
HINOJOSA: Yeah, I agree. It's not productive. And I think that on the message, especially what you just said, we should all be focused on taking on Republicans. And I think that's why David Hogg, in his messaging about standing up another organization to primary potential incumbents was problematic.
And it's also, if you're going to be part of the DNC, DNC's entire role is to elect Democrats. It is not to primary them. That, know, if you want to pick candidates, go to the D.S. and the D-Trip and they do some of that work. But the DNC raises money for state parties and that's not what David Hogg instead was a distraction.
I think all of this is a distraction, to be honest with you. The fact that we're arguing about this whenever Andrew Cuomo is highly flawed, the only title change that Hakeem Jeffries is going to get is to Speaker. And that is because of the 17 million people that were cut off their health care.
And I think that if Democrats continue with that message and continue with you know, doing everything to help the American people and provide more for them and how Donald Trump is rising costs for Americans, then I think that we will be successful in this.
NAVARRO: But it should be a wake-up call to incumbents that they have to work their asses off.
HINOJOSA: Yes.
NAVARRO: They have to be in touch with their base. Listen, we saw this happen with AOC and Joe Crowley.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: What does that mean for him? To be in touch with his base.
NAVARRO: We saw this happen.
JENNINGS: What does that mean for him, though?
NAVARRO: That means --
JENNINGS: The only way to satisfy him would be --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: No. It means that nobody who's elected -- listen, we saw this happen on the Republican side to Cantor in Virginia where, you know, they think that because they're elected they can coast. I'm not talking about Ritchie. I'm talking about a lot of other people. So, what I'm saying is it is a wake-up call. This happened to Joe Crowley with AOC.
You know, people who think because they're elected and they've got the advantages of incumbency, they can coast and not work hard, not put in the sweat, not run good, effective campaigns are in for wake up calls. JENNINGS: You're describing older elected officials. He's young, he's new, he's only committed one sin in the eyes of these radicals and that's to support Israel. So, to get in touch with the base here would mean to give in to this nonsensical free Palestine --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: I'm not saying that, Scott.
JENNINGS: That's all he can do.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: He shouldn't do it and he's not going to do it.
PHILLIP: I mean, look. I just want to point out, I mean, I --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: It's Mamdani's base.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Nobody is saying that.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: That is not Mamdani's --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: It's Mamdani's base.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. Hold on.
TORRES: The majority - but -- Mark Levine who ran -- who won the Comptroller's right was elected by the same electorate as -- as he is Jewish, he's an advocate against anti-Semitism, he's pro-Israel. So, the decisive issue in the mayoral election was not Israel, it was affordability.
JENNINGS: Now, we're talking about the activists who are calling for your primary.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: What I was going to say Scott was that I -- I mean, I have not seen that as a rationale.
[22:55:01]
And I'm not saying that it's not part of the rationale, I just don't know. So, I just want to be clear that you're saying that that's what it is. You're suggesting perhaps it's that and other things. TORRES: There's no question about that --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yeah, but look, mean there's a list of people here and not everybody is being primaried for the same reason, or threatened, I should say. One of the things that the co-chair of New York City's Democratic Socialist of America chapter says about Hakeem Jeffries is that, "His leadership has left a vacuum that organizations like DSA are filling. I think that is more important right now. To me, it often seems like he is the one picking the fight with the left, and I think he should focus on fighting the right." That's the --
TORRES: So, I just find this so offensive. We have a two-party system. It is a binary choice between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, between Team Jeffries and Team Trump. And if you're undercutting the Democratic leader in his own backyard, you're doing the bidding of Donald Trump. That's what they're doing.
PHILLIP: Shermichael?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right, we got to go. Sorry, guys, we got to go. Sorry, I was going to invite you, but I got to go.
SINGLETON: No, no, it's okay.
PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much for joining. Thanks for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me anytime on social media. In the meantime, "Laura Coates Live" is starting right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
