Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Texas Orders Arrests of Democrats Who Fled Over Gerrymandering; Netanyahu to Urge Full Conquest of Gaza in Perilous Moment; "NewsNight" Panelists Discuss Starvation Caused By Israel-Hamas War; Trump Fires Labor Statistics Chief. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired August 04, 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)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, standoff at the Alamo. Democrats go missing in Texas as Republicans try to redraw the political map, a move sparking contagion across the republic.
GOV. KATHY HOCHUL (D-NY): We are at war. The gloves are off, and I say bring it on.
BERMAN: Plus, perilous moments that would alter history as pressure mounts over famine and fighting, Israel may be on the brink of occupying all of Gaza.
Also, as we learn the cost of MAGA's mega bill is much higher, is Donald Trump suffering from premature exhilaration?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Trump administration is making the same mistake that the Biden administration made.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trying to convince America the economy is all good when it's not.
BERMAN: And the DOJ wants to move on from the Epstein case but move forward with the grand jury on the 2016 election.
Live at the table, Bakari Sellers. Batya Ungar-Sargon, Mike Leon and Brooke Goldstein.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN (on camera): All right. Good evening. I'm John Berman in New York in for Abby Philip.
Let's get right to what America is talking about, political war. So say liberals across the nation as Texas orders the arrests of Democrats who fled the state in protest over Republicans moving to redraw its political map mid-decade, which is extremely, extremely rare, allowing for the possible elimination of five Democratic seats. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GREG ABBOTT (R-TX): They're leaving and they've left because they're very un-Texan. Texans don't run from a fight.
I believe they have forfeited their seats in the state legislature because they're not doing the job they were elected to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: So, the state's attorney general says they will be swiftly arrested, punished, and face the full force of the law. But for Democratic governors from some of the biggest states in the country, this means the gloves are off.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOCHUL: All is fair in love and war. That's why I'm exploring with our leaders every option to redraw our state Congressional lines as soon as possible.
GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D-IL): All bets are off when the cult leader and you know, would-be dictator of the United States, tells Texas to midstream change the game, when they know that they're going to lose in 2026. All bets are off. Everything's got to be on the table.
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): This is existential. This is real life. Everything's on the line here. It's not a gross exaggeration. I feel that in my bones.
We're looking at three or four different pathways as it relates to the when and the how.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: All right. Joining us in our fifth seat at the table, Journalist and Historian Garrett Graff. He's the director of Cyber Initiatives at the Aspen Institute Digital, and the author of The Devil Reached Toward the Sky. I am holding a copy in my hands. I can't wait to read it as soon as this show is over.
Garrett, what's going on?
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He threw it in the trash.
BERMAN: It's in the trash. What's going on? Who's doing what to whom in Texas, Garrett?
GARRETT GRAFF, AUTHOR, THE DEVIL REACHED TOWARD THE SKY: So, I think that this is, in some ways, the blueprint for how democracy ends up getting lost in 2026. I have never believed that Donald Trump was going to do something like cancel the midterms. What the goal in these next couple of years is going to be is to shape in subtle ways who turns out to vote in 2026 and 2028 and change the electorate to ensure that the Republicans are able to lock in illegitimately majority power going forward. BERMAN: Is that what's at stake here, Batya?
BATYA UNGAR-SARGON, SECOND CLASS, HOW THE ELITES BETRAYED AMERICA'S WORKING MEN AND WOMEN: Well, first of all, gerrymandering is one of those things that everybody does. Like the idea that Donald Trump made this up is, I think, kind of insane. I don't think you really think that. I mean, you know --
GRAFF: And I definitely didn't say that.
UNGAR-SARGON: They fled to Illinois, which is one of the most, you know, gerrymandered states in the union.
I happen to love this story because I love the political theater of it all. I love that they absconded. I love that now there are arrest warrants out, I think that the American people don't care at all about this.
[22:05:02]
But what's most interesting to me about this is that these new five, you know, potential Republican-controlled districts are all majority Hispanic. The Republicans are leaning into the victories that Trump had with Hispanic voters in 2024 and saying, hey, we're going to bet on ourselves. We're going to bet that we're going to keep these voters, and we're going to try to get them into our coalition via these districts.
And it's amazing to me that the Democrats, instead of fighting for those voters, are just kind of running away and seeding the point that these Republican districts full of Hispanics are now going to go for Republicans eternally.
BERMAN: Bakari?
SELLERS: Yes, that ain't what happened. So, like I think that was a great like bastion of talking points, but that's not really what's happening. Gerrymandering, to your point, is as American as apple pie. Like I have always just said that Democrats actually do redistricting the correct way, Republicans do it the way they do it.
For a long period of time, for the past 20, 30, 40 years, you've had an unholy alliance between the Republican Party and the Congressional Black Caucus. And usually, it's state black caucus legislators who seed black members, or, excuse me, get as many black members from white Republicans as they can, and white Republicans give as many as they can, and it makes these competitive districts go away. It is the most unsexy thing in the American political spectrum. That's what happens.
And when that occurs, you have these districts that are 30, 40, 45, 55 percent African American, and you have these districts that are overwhelmingly white Republican districts and you cannot -- it's only one in a primary.
BROOKE GOLDSTEIN, HUMAN RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Nobody's drawing lines based on race and ethnicity anymore. Let's be honest, we have A.I.
SELLERS: No, that's not true. You're not being --
GOLDSTEIN: We have A.I. And just let me talk for a second, okay?
SELLERS: Nothing you just said was right.
GOLDSTEIN: I didn't say anything because you're interrupting me. There is a law in Texas and there's a law in most states that allows the House to physically compel people to be present for votes. And when the Democrats are running away from voting, what they're doing is running away from allowing the so-called gerrymandering to be challenged in a court of law. But there is a long history of challenges in Texas.
SELLERS: Go back to what you said, that it's not being long by --
GOLDSTEIN: And if they are accusing the Republicans of drawing lines based on race or ethnicity, a court will shut this down in a second.
SELLERS: Excuse me.
GOLDSTEIN: When you run away from voting, you are preventing this from being challenged in a court. It is that simple. It's the most anti- democratic thing that --
SELLERS: If you believe that there is a law, please tell me because we just had the Voting Rights Act gutted. So, please tell me what law, particularly in the south, prevents this from happening.
And I just want to just one bit of it, like I was in the General Assembly in South Carolina when we drew these lines. And so I've actually seen these lines being drawn. And what I'm absolutely telling you is places like Tim Scott's old South Carolina first district, right, where he seeded black voters to Jim Clyburn. That's exactly what he did. It made Jim Clyburn's district more African American. It made Tim Scott's district more white, so that people would vote for them. That is --
GOLDSTEIN: So, how do you change that? Do you change it by running away and delaying the process?
SELLERS: No.
(CROSSTALKS)
SELLERS: Not having independent, non-elected commissioners vote on it. There should not be --
GOLDSTEIN: But that's not what's happening. They're running away. They're literally fleeing to Illinois, which ironically is a sanctuary state. They're delaying the vote another 30 days. We've seen this happen in Texas before. It happened in 2021 when the Democrats were challenging the same type of voting laws, should we have drive-in, you know, voting polls and absentee ballots. They came back 30 days later, they were forced to vote and the bill passed. BERMAN: Let me -- I want Mike to jump in here, but before you get a piece of the action here, I feel like there's a little bit of a single entendre going on here, which is that everyone knows who's trying to do what here. Donald Trump wants five seats in Texas. He asked the Republicans to push forward, and the Republicans there basically admitted. Listen, to what State Rep. Harrison today said to our friend, Boris Sanchez. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE REP. BRIAN HARRISON (R-TX): Here's what I want to support. I want to make sure that elected Republicans in the state of Texas are doing everything we can to make sure that Congress, the United States Congress in the upcoming midterm elections does not fall into the hands of the radical --
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN ANCHOR: So, this is purely a political move.
Why not get rid of gerrymandering all together and actually put the power in the hands of voters to make the republic more efficient?
HARRISON: Well, I actually think we are trying to make the maps more representative.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: I mean, he basically just said he wants to do everything he can and make sure that Republicans are elected in Texas. So, as I said, a single entendre.
MIKE LEON, PODCAST HOST, CAN WE PLEASE TALK?: John, I'm Puerto Rican. When I don't know what I'm talking about, I shut up. That's why I seem to be quiet and watch you guys argue for a little bit. But now I am going to talk about something that I know you're tired of talking about it, because you've been up since 7:00 A.M. I saw you this morning on my flight talking about this. You interviewed Gene Wu?
[22:10:00]
You asked him, what's the move here, what's the play here? And he said some word salad. And then you said, that's not what I asked you. What is the move here?
So, to your point, Batya, there is a little bit of like a dance here where we know, yes, it's gamesmanship. So, we all know that elections have consequences and we all know that this is all part of it. So, when it happens in blue states, I don't want to hear you complaining, and it's happening in red states right now, and we can't complain, unfortunately. That's part of all of this.
There's a political theater in all of this. But the biggest thing I wanted to piggyback on what she said is that the American people that are watching this at home have no idea what the word gerrymandering means. You can look that up in Gallup polling. They don't know what these big political terms. Maybe our audience is a little bit more educated because it's 10:00 at night and they're like watching us and they've been watching you since 7:30. But a lot of people that are independent voters and some that are in that moderate of both lanes, they don't know what this word means. They see the theater of it. They see that Gavin Newsom's out there on the steps in Sacramento saying that he's going to do the same thing that they're doing in Texas. And they go, hey, that's the same thing. That's apples to apples.
UNGAR-SARGON: Yes. It's kind of funny that like half the Democrats are out here saying like the Republicans are cheating, and the other half are saying, wait a minute, we need to do it too. If you're going to do it, I'm going to do it too.
LEON: But Adam Kinzinger, before we came on with John King at 8:00, he said he was gerrymandered in his own district. That's why he lost his race. He said that he doesn't like Trump.
BERMAN: Garrett?
GRAFF: But I think part of this is the Democrats are doing it in response to the Republicans doing something that is atypical. It is totally normal to redistrict. It is something that happens based on the census. And then, we sort of reapportion Congress, everyone redraws their districts and it's meant to be a process that occurs sort of traditionally in American politics on that once-a-decade schedule.
And for the Republicans to be trying to change the rules in the middle of a decade right now is the thing.
SELLERS: But it's not curious. And so let me just say this. If Republicans were going to march to a sweep in 2026, would you be trying to realign districts today? The answer is no. And so, yes, the answer is if you can't win the game as it's played right now, you just rig it, right? And so that's what's happening before our eyes.
And I think that is what -- like I get it, American public may not understand gerrymandering, right? They may not understand the word, they may not grasp how it's done every ten years or how it's done, but what they do realize is that the economy sucks, 11 million people are getting kicked off Medicaid, the things that they were -- the competency and consistency that they had previously is not there anymore and Republicans are losing, so now they're changing the game.
BERMAN: All right. We're going to take a quick break. Garrett Graff, thank you so much for joining us. This is the book, which I do, in fact, look forward to reading. Thank you very much.
SELLERS: Does it have pictures?
BERMAN: Oh, it's popup. It's a popup song (ph), which makes it good for me.
All right, next, Israel on the verge of a full takeover of Gaza as pressure mounts over the starvation crisis. Another special guest joins us to the table at this perilous moment.
Plus, Donald Trump's mega bill is now going to be more expensive than previously thought as he begins to fire the messengers about numbers he doesn't like. We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
BERMAN: All right. For weeks, months even, Israel has been under pressure over starvation in Gaza, civilian deaths in Gaza and indiscriminate bombings in Gaza. But tonight, Israel may be on the verge of a full takeover of Gaza. Just hours from now Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is said to be ordering a full conquest of the strip after talks with Hamas broke down. A source tells CNN the IDF objects to the move, but Israeli media cites, senior officials close to Netanyahu saying if the IDF chief of staff does not agree, he should resign.
Joining us at our fifth seat at the table is Peter Beinart, author of Being Jewish After Destruction of Gaza.
So, full occupation, Peter, what would that do? What would that change?
PETER BEINART, AUTHOR, BEING JEWISH AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF GAZA: I hope, but I also think this is a bluff. The Israeli people do not want this. I think what Netanyahu is trying to do is to trying to bluff and hope that will provide the ceasefire on terms that he wants. Because the full conquest of Gaza would be an utter catastrophe, a catastrophe for the Palestinians of Gaza who are already suffering immensely, and it would not save any hostages, it would actually put them in greater peril, and it would not destroy Hamas. Israel has been promising that it would destroy Hamas since October of 2023, and Hamas is still there.
So, this would be a catastrophe, but I suspect it won't happen. Thank God.
BERMAN: Brooke, would it?
GOLDSTEIN: Well, look, whether it happens or not, frankly, the truth is Israel should have never left Gaza. Because before 2005, we did not have a terrorist state, we had a booming economy, we had equality for the sexes. We didn't have gay being thrown off rooftops. But when Israel dragged every last man, woman, and child out of Gaza and exhumed the dead bodies, because they knew what Hamas would do with it, we had a terror state, and that's a big mistake. And the world is yet to admit that.
And the real question is why is the world preventing Gazans from leaving Gaza? Why are they insisting that they remain as human hostages for Hamas and as civilian human shields?
And the third point, really, is, are they refugees or are they not refugees? Because if Gaza's are Palestinian refugees, then Gaza is not their home and they should be relocated so that they're not used by Hamas as human shields. If they are, if Gaza is their home, then the entire premise upon which the whole is really Palestinian conflict is based and the right of return is false.
The only people being deliberately starved in Gaza are the hostages right now.
[22:20:03]
You look at Evyatar David. He looks like a concentration camp survivor who is forced to dig his own grave. When the body of Eden Yerushalmi after she was murdered was returned, she was 70 pounds. Contrast that to the pictures, these, I'll say, artistic pictures of children, most of them with, you know, diseases.
BEINART: Really, Brooke?
GOLDSTEIN: Yes, really.
BEINART: You're saying what --
(CROSSTALKS)
GOLDSTEIN: You never see picture of adults. And famine is not selective, Peter. You can't have a child who's starving and then the mother is overweight or the brother is fully fed.
BEINART: Look, the picture of Evyatar David was horrifying. Are we really debating whether people are starving in Gaza?
GOLDSTEIN: No, we're debating who's responsible.
BEINART: But it sounds like you're saying that these are made up pictures.
GOLDSTEIN: We're debating who is responsible for any food shortages in Gaza.
BEINART: Okay. So, let's acknowledge that there are people starving Gaza. You mentioned --
GOLDSTEIN: Okay. Is Hamas responsible?
BEINART: Why don't you -- I think you should let me finish because --
GOLDSTEIN: The way that you, let me finish last time. Does Hamas steal this food and use it as a food weapon?
BEINART: You just spoke for a long time. Let me say something. The Palestinians in Gaza are indeed refugees. It's true. Most -- they are the descendants, most of them, of families that were expelled from Israel in 1948. So, if Gaza is not habitable for them, because Israel has destroyed most of the schools, most of the churches, most of the mosques, most of the bakeries, most of the agriculture, most of the universities, then they should be allowed to return to the places from which they're from, which is not Burundi or Somalia or Rwanda. It's Israel, right? If you want to give them a place to go out of Gaza, allow them to go back to the places from which their families were expelled.
GOLDSTEIN: I think you have a problem with cause and effect. You like to blame Israel for everything. Israel did not destroy their hospitals, destroy their schools.
BEINART: No?
GOLDSTEIN: The schools and the hospitals that I've been to have been used as places for rocket depots and most of those hospitals are used as Hamas for their headquarters. Hamas is responsible. When you have your headquarters under a hospital and you shoot rockets into a civilian population --
BEINART: Brooke, where is Israel's military headquarters located?
GODLSTEIN: And you shoot --
BEINART: I have a question. Where is Israel -- (INAUDIBLE). Where is Israel's military located headquarters? Is it a remote area?
GOLDSTEIN: Israel has military headquarters.
BEINART: No, answer the question. Where is --
(CROSSTALKS)
BEINART: You didn't answer my question. Where is Israel's military? They are in down Tel Aviv.
GOLDSTEIN: They have headquarters in Tel Aviv, correct.
BEINART: Brooke, you got to let me finish. Israel's military headquarters is in downtown Tel Aviv, tight? Many of the apartment buildings in Tel Aviv house Israeli generals. Under international law, you don't have the right to destroy the schools around Israel's military headquarters or to destroy --
GOLDSTEIN: Israel does not shoot rockets from downtown Tel Aviv into civilian populations --
BEINART: Of course, Israel has its military infrastructure deeply embedded within the civilian infrastructure as well. And in international law, it would be a war crime to destroy a hospital or an apartment building in Tel Aviv because an Israeli general is there. Similarly, it is a violation of international law to destroy a hospital or university or school in Gaza just because you believe that there are Hamas --
GOLDSTEIN: It is a violation of international law to use civilians as human shields. Can we agree on that?
BEINART: Yes. And that is --
GOLDSTEIN: And do you support the temporary relocation of Gazans -- BEINART: No. And it is also a violation -- no, God forbid I do not. I don't want Palestinians expelled again. The Palestinians were expelled in 1948. You want to expel them again? That's a war crime, Brooke.
GOLDSTEIN: That's not what I said.
BERMAN: Hang on one sec. Hang on one sec.
BEINART: That's temporary? Do you think Israel's going to allow them back if they leave? Come on.
BERMAN: All right. I want to bring others into this discussion if you want to be part of this discussion. But the question at hand is, given where things are now, this stalemate, would things be better if Israel took over Gaza, a complete occupation?
SELLERS: No. I actually think this actually -- I think this issue is more nuanced than people give it credit for, and a lot of times we debate this issue on X or on Twitter. And you just saw these two individuals who are dug in, who believe with all their heart and all their might their particular points, and people try to debate this on Fox News or they try to debate it on X and they miss it in totality.
For example, Democrats, for -- what I would go with is Democrats have to be able to say that, you know, it's very difficult for Israel, and I'm a very pro-Israel Democrat, for Democrats to be able to simply say that Bibi Netanyahu, yes, he's an impediment to peace, but you also cannot negotiate with Hamas, who doesn't believe you have a right to exist.
Occupation is something that we can't stand for. Starving Gazans are something that we cannot stand for. However, we have to be able to say that we need to bring every hostage home. There shouldn't -- it shouldn't be that difficult for us to have this debate.
It's not that hard. It's huge for us to have this debate.
LEON: We're losing our humanity. There's a lot that Brooke said there. I don't have time to challenge it. I'm also not a Middle East relations guy.
[22:25:00]
This is not going to be Ben Affleck and Sam Stein on Real Time with Bill Maher arguing about that years ago.
Look, at the end of the day, I've been working with Project Unite Humanity, projectuh.org. They're helping with the relief efforts. My friend, Dr. Robert Lowry (ph), who went to the great school of Rutgers University here, this is something that's very personal to me, as I was telling you, all fair, that my niece is Palestinian, that lives out in Colorado.
But that doesn't absolve the fact that October 7th was horrific. That doesn't absolve the fact of what happened to those kibbutzes. That doesn't absolve the fact of that video that came out today of that person that looked like he was about 68 pounds or so walking through those tunnels, as well as the Palestinian children that look exactly like that human being. You should have the same level of ire for who's causing both.
I know that Hamas is a terrorist organization and how they came into power in 2007 and took over in that region even though they were duly elected at first. I know all of that. The west has already admitted that Hamas is a terrorist organization. If we're admitting that we can't negotiate with terrorists, we can't expect the terrorist to be on the up and up. It's Israel that has to do this.
And there's only one common denominator in these last 38 years in that entire region. His name is Benjamin Netanyahu. He's the one common denominator in all of this, from the PLA to --
SELLERS: The only thing I would disagree with you on is the fact that that is the only common denominator. Because, yes, you can't diminish the fact that Hamas does not believe Israel has a right to exist. And if we're going to sit here and have this conversation, we have to acknowledge that Israel does have a right to exist.
LEON: But they already exist.
SELLERS: But my only point is, and I hear you and I --
LEON: They do exist. We know that.
SELLERS: And I hear you. All I'm saying is that like I feel, for me, someone who simply says that Israel has to right the right to exist, and I believe Israel being an American value, but to watch those pictures of Palestinian children starving, it bothers me, right, to my core.
And I don't -- I just -- I can't empathize with these two.
(CROSSTALKS)
SELLERS: Can I put a bonus real quick? And all I'm saying is that there is a space for all of us to simply say that we want this to come to a peaceful resolution where there should not be a decision between inhumanity and cruelty. And I should be able to say that Benjamin Netanyahu is an impediment to peace and I should also be able to say that Hamas can go to hell. I should be able to say both of those.
GOLDSTEIN: Yes, but I --
BERMAN: So, hang on, hang on, Brooke. I'm going to talk. So, I will say this. President Trump has said that he sees starvation in Gaza and it bothers him. He says that the first lady, Melania Trump, sees starvation in Gaza and it bothers her. And the vice president of the United States, J.D. Vance, says he sees starvation in Gaza and it bothers him. If that's the baseline here, then what do you do? And I go back to the question, the original question, Batya, and you've jumped on any steps you want here, but occupation, reoccupation, full reoccupation of Gaza, what would that change? Would that free the hostages, for instance? UNGAR-SARGON: So, I was expecting to come in here like guns blazing, but I've been totally disarmed by Bakari, like legitimate to my core, like I'm so moved by everything that you said, like at a very, very deep level. So, thank you for that.
I will say, I think in the conversation, I agree with Peter. I don't think this is going to happen. And, in a way, I'm very bothered that we're talking about something that's obviously not going to happen, instead of the footage that came out of Evyatar David starving and digging his own grave.
And it seems to me that that was a ploy on Hamas' behalf to show that they control the media narrative, that they could get the media to talk about the horrific hunger conditions in Gaza, and then get the media not to talk about this starving young man, this innocent life who's literally being starved day-by-day because they control the mainstream liberal media.
And what they've done is they've made it such -- they've cut themselves out of the story. And so people don't -- there's a fundamental inability to blame Hamas. People will say, I condemn Hamas, but they never blame them because there's this view that the party with less power has zero moral responsibilities, and thus all the moral responsibility is on Israel. And I think we need to reject that kind of thinking because Hamas is to blame for this. And I say that despite having things that we all agree, Israel could have done much better and much differently.
BERMAN: I'm going to go to Peter, and then we'll take a break. Peter, go ahead.
BEINART: Hamas is 100 percent responsible for the horrific conditions they're holding Evyatar David in and for the people they killed on October 7th and for everyone they kidnapped, absolutely. But Hamas is not responsible for the fact that Israel cut off all food, water, and fuel to Gaza for almost three months this year. Israel has to take responsibility for its war crimes, just as Hamas has to take responsibility for it.
UNGAR-SARGON: I don't think they should have done that. But when they did do that, there was a store of four to six months worth of aid within --
BEINART: Well, evidently, not, evidently, not.
UNGAR-SARGON: It was poorly handled. I totally think it was poorly handled, but there was -- they believed that there was enough food there.
[22:30:04]
The distribution broke down --
SELLERS: I think frustration --
BEINART: Do you think Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Beng-Gvir, who are both of key positions key positions in this government really cared that much --
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: I don't care what they -- I don't think they matter. They're not. They're not. They don't matter at all.
(CROSSTALK)
BEINART: -- whether there was enough food? They are important people in this -- they matter a lot. I don't think this government cared very much about whether there was enough --
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: All right, Mike. You're going to have the last word here then we go to a break.
LEON: I mean, we're -- I just want to echo what a friend of mine who's a war correspondent for another network that I used to work at down the street, we're not going to mention them -- Fox News -- but he said this on Twitter, as he's done his reporting, "We're losing our humanity."
We're legitimately losing our humanity in all this argument. The images that you see on -- of one person that looks exactly like the other person that looks exactly like the other person -- it -- but Brooke, Brooke, it's too long to have a conversation about Hamas.
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: That's exactly happening in (inaudible). Hamas has been in power for so long. If we want peace -- the irony is I'm the only person at this table who has actually risked my life to advocate for Palestinian children.
I spent two years in and out of Jenin, Ramallah, Tulkarm and Nablus. I'm the one who interviewed Hamas first hand. I interviewed Islamic Jihad first hand. I sat with the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and they told me to my face that they want war. This is not about Hamas, this is about an ideology. And the ideology is --
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: -- and teach children in their schools, in their textbooks to revere death, to love death, not to love life. And they have used those -- those human shields -- this is what you get, a terrorist state and democracy fighting on asymmetric battlefield and a completely impossible place. Because how are they supposed to defeat Hamas when there's no food shortages but there is starvation. Because Hamas is using food as a weapon against the people.
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: All right. Here's what we're going to do. Bakari Sellers, you got 10 seconds and then we'll go on a break. SELLERS: I don't even need 10 seconds. What I wish is that we did not make this a political football. And what's happened since 2008, since the election of Barack Obama, we've made this Democrat and Republican. This isn't about, you know, how do we have peace here? It's not about the images that we see. It's about who can make Bibi Netanyahu or whatever, and right and left. And this cannot be that if we're going to find a place where we can coexist. I mean --
BERMAN: All right.
SELLERS: Pardon me for being just naive.
BERMAN: Well, not naive. I'm not sure there's much reason for optimism. Though. Peter, thank you for being with us tonight. I appreciate it.
Next, we're learning tonight that the President's mega bill is going to cost a lot more. So, is he making the same mistake as President Biden did? Plus, the DOJ wants everyone to forget Jeffrey Epstein. So, they're now asking a grand jury to consider a conspiracy surrounding Barack Obama.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:37:12]
BERMAN: All right, tonight, did Trump steal the wrong play from the Biden playbook? Karl Rove thinks so.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KARL ROVE, FORMER SENIOR ADVISOR: The Trump administration is making the same mistake that the Biden administration made, which was to basically, you know, remember we had Bidenomics is working?
UNKNOWN: Right.
ROVE: Well, now we have the golden age of American prosperity is returned and Americans are not feeling that. Better to say we're working hard to put America on the right road rather than declaring premature victory. And I think that's a big mistake for the White House and is likely to come back and bite them in the midterm elections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: So, Batya, what about that Karl Rove?
(LAUGHTER)
UNGAR-SARGON: You know, firing this person is not my favorite thing that the President has done, but I sort of disagree with Karl Rove. I do think that there are certain economic factors that are actually extremely positive, you know, and in firing her, he made it seem like the economy was struggling a lot more than it is. I just want to read one piece of information, I think it's really
telling. So, over the last four months, 1.8 million native-born Americans got a job, and 1.5 million foreign-born workers lost a job. And we know that a million of those or somewhere around them at least were illegal migrants who exited the workforce and self-deported.
This is a huge, huge win for the President. This is exactly what an "America First" economy should look like. It turns out the whole idea that there are jobs Americans won't do is a myth. There are jobs Americans won't do for that money. And having this illegal cast underwriting our entire economy, getting rid of that, that should be progressive cause.
BERMAN: All right, two points. You know where all that data comes from that you just cited? The Bureau of Labor Statistics.
UNGAR-SARGON: Yes, indeed. The woman he just fired. He doesn't believe in that data. That data is all rigged. That data is all rigged.
UNGAR-SARGON: Indeed, I started by saying, John, if you recall, in that long ago time, five minutes ago.
BERMAN: And the other thing is, you know, the data which I happen to find accurate, particularly as they revise it over time, that has a lot to do with the unemployment rate. It absolutely affects the denominator of the unemployment rate which has stayed very stable. The jobs created number -- a little bit different how it impacts that. And in fact, you know, the sort of flat-lining of the jobs added here is something a little bit different than that, in a bit of a problem here. You were trying to jump in.
LEON: Yeah, because I wanted you to name her name. What's her name? Everybody, what's her name? Right? Exactly, because nobody should know that. It's Erika McEntarfer. Nobody should know who the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is, as I was telling you off air and I'll bring it over here. It's a spoke and a wheel and this is the problem with President Trump. He has gutted different agencies and he has gotten rid of career people that don't have an R and D next to their name -- these are --everybody. So, calm down.
SELLERS: This is the second time. They're getting more --
[22:40:00]
(CROSSTALK)
LEON: That's right. I know, they got to pay me every time I mention them. So, but this is what he's done to these agencies were -- these are career people that put the political association right there before they sign in, and then they do their job, and they report on their job. Two plus two is four. It's math.
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: But let's stay -- let's stay on the economy. Let's stay on the economy for a second here because he's out there. Because this is -- Trump is making this the Trump economy. It's got his name on it now. Does he want that?
SELLERS: But the only thing that anybody's able to say are that there are more migrants eliminated from the economy, right? That's the only thing people have to add. GDP growth is down. Inflation is up. Unemployment is up. Jobs added, down. We've seen that. Consumer confidence, down.
UNGAR-SARGON: Jobs added wasn't down. They revised it down.
UNKNOWN: It went up in July.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: It was down in May and June. It was down in May and June.
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: The number of jobs added is very, very low.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: Let me just finish because I actually did some research. Retail sales, down. The trade deficit, what we've been talking about, up. Price of gas, up. Price of eggs, up. We've started to see the price of goods go up.
Listen, this is what Americans want. And I've said this till I'm blue in the face, and I wish that Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries actually heard me. They want competency and they want consistency. We already know we're not getting that out of Donald Trump.
We don't have competency out of Donald Trump. I'm sure we don't have consistency out of Donald Trump. But we're not getting that out of Democrats, either. And so, while the economic metrics are what they are, the economy is going to hell in a hand basket quickly. She had to go to page seven of the talking points to find a plus, and that's not even a plus.
(CROSSTALK)
LEON: And the market wants stability. And the market wants stability. Go ahead, Brooke. I'll let you --
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: Okay. So, we have this quarter million revision which is actually a big one, right? So, I can see why people are angry and they're shouting conspiracy theories.
BERMAN: Over two months. It's quarter million over two months.
GOLDSTEIN: Okay, but I agree with Karl Rove that the messaging could have been handled a bit differently. It's the same thing, you when I tell my children a little bit of pain for a little bit of gain. And if you actually look at the numbers, the job growth, which is in the tens of thousands per month, is almost exactly the same as it was during the last couple of months of the Biden administration.
So, while right before the election, we had a spike, it's now exactly the same. Now, if you think about the tariffs that we have, that is a pretty good thing that the tariffs haven't hurt the economy the way that everybody is saying that they would hurt the economy.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: That's not true,
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: And once we have a stable policy and we have consistency and we have predictability, I think you're going to see that boom.
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: Are you going to be psyched for 19,000 jobs, 14,000 jobs added a month in perpetuity? Because if that's helping the economy, that's not the kind of people like.
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: No, but it's the same -- not in perpetuity.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: Are you guys not psyched that he raised a hundred billion dollars in tariffs? Five percent of our --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: Oh, oh. I've been waiting on this. Thank you. I got this one. I got this one. And I didn't do economics.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: When I talk, you always accuse me of using talking points. When you talk, I always say thank you, Bakari, for finding common ground.
SELLERS: Yeah, yeah, but I got this I got this one.
UNGAR-SARGON: Does that not bother you? Do you not think that that's like --
SELLERS: Because I've been studying econ. I've been studying econ for this show. Do you know who's responsible for the dollars we've raised?
UNGAR-SARGON: The tariffs.
SELLERS: Yeah, yeah, no, no. Who is responsible for the tariffs -- you just gave the statistics about the amount of money we made --
UNGAR-SARGON: Yes, $108 million.
SELLERS: Who is responsible for it? Who's paying it?
UNGAR-SARGON: So, it's been a combination of three things.
SELLERS: No, no. Come on, talk to me.
UNGAR-SARGON: Yes, it is. It's been a combination of foreign government --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: Yea, talk to me. Talk to me.
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: -- foreign countries. A combination of the corporation --
SELLERS: Almost there. Almost there. Come on. And who else?
UNKNOWN: Last one.
SELLERS: Last one.
UNGAR-SARGON: There have been a few companies that have --
SELLERS: No, no.
UNGAR-SARGON: Yes.
SELLERS: Like the Americans spend their -- come on. The American -- the American - who pays the tariffs?
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: -- which we know because inflation has not risen significantly and so obviously, it is being paid by somebody else. We know that foreign governments and corporations have eaten the vast majority of the tariffs.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: And I will -- I will quote my good friend, the great liberal Eric Erickson who goes out on the limb and simply says that --
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: The fact that if conservatives say it doesn't make it true, Bakari.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: I've been saying that my entire life, actually. But you've been agreeing with -- Erickson even pointed to the fact that the fact we've raised all this money from tariffs comes from the American individual who's spending --
(CROSSTALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: That is false. The fact that Eric Erickson said it doesn't make it true, Bakari. It is false. The vast majority of the tariffs have been paid by foreign governments and corporations --
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: Go ahead, Mike.
LEON: On the industry sectors, hospitality and leisure is down with respect to travel.
[22:45:01]
And then, look, I have a coffee sponsor, Fresh Roasted Coffee, Best Tasting Coffee, but they're down. I'm sorry, I got to drop them.
(CROSSTALK)
LEON: Look how much they pay on tariffs for their exports. You can't grow coffee in America. You know that, John.
BERMAN: I've been trying.
LEON: So they're paying all these tariffs from Brazil, these South American countries. So, you mentioned those are two industries right there that are impacted by --
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: Right, before you sell turtle wax, next we're going to take a break here. Is MAGA about to get its wish? The Attorney General who's under fire over the Epstein case is now moving to put the Obama administration in front of a grand jury. We have another special guest to join us at the table. A whole lot of New Jersey coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:21]
BERMAN: So, tonight, if the Epstein files won't suffice, how about a serving of an Obama grand jury? The Attorney General ordering prosecutors to start a grand jury investigation into the Obama administration, alleging officials made up intelligence about Russia's links to the 2016 election. Remember, a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed this and found no conspiracy.
John Durham, the special counsel appointed by Trump, also reviewed this for three years and found no conspiracy. But of course, it's also worth noting that Pam Bondi has been under fire for weeks now by the right and the left trying to close the book on Jeffrey Epstein.
Joining us now at the table, CNN's senior legal analyst, Elie Honig. He is a former federal prosecutor. So, Eli, a grand jury investigation into what? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, so that's my question. I
know I'm here to answer questions. What's the crime? I mean, what's even the potential crime? I -- can -- can -- seriously, I mean, I'm not trying to be confrontational here. Can anyone at this table even articulate what the potential crime might be?
GOLDSTEIN: Any election interference, manufactured intelligence --
(CROSSTALK)
GOLDSTEIN: -- of voter rights.
HONIG: That's -- not a crime. Not a crime. You're all for two.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: Not a crime.
GOLDSTEIN: Obstruction of justice, statements.
(CROSSTALK)
HONIG: Okay, what -- you've said a crime now. What is obstruction of justice?
GOLDSTEIN: Anything the grand jury says it is like.
HONIG: No. And to that point, let me further stay with this.
GOLDSTEIN: But most of these crimes have a statue of limitations of five years.
HONIG: There you go. That's where I was going next.
GOLDSTEIN: So, that's the problem, right?
HONIG: I mean, this is ancient history legally, right? The statue of limitations in almost every federal crime is five years. This stuff was nine years ago.
GOLDSTEIN: This is an ongoing conspiracy and so that could --
HONIG: Sure, if there's an ongoing conspiracy that stretches into five years ago, then you would not have a statue of limitations problem. The crimes that Tulsi Gabbard has articulated, I don't know if she's a lawyer, she's definitely not at the Justice Department, are what treason and sedition. That means trying to overthrow the government and waging war against the United States. We are so far out over the edge here with this.
And look, you can convene a grand jury as a prosecutor. If you're investigating, the bar is low. But there's not no bar there. You have to have a reasonable good faith belief that what you're investigating could lead to the discovery of a prosecutable crime. I just do not see it at all. BERMAN: Two lawyers here, right? Let me ask you, if you were to be
called before the grand jury, if you were in the Obama administration, these people, what do you do? Do you answer the questions? Do you take the fifth?
SELLERS: I mean, think the first thing is -- I mean, the first is and the difficulty with all these people who are going to be called before the grand jury is you have to go out and expend the funds and the resources and the energy to get a lawyer. Call me. I mean, I took the bar, I'm still, I'm pretty good at this. Call me -- Pete Strom (ph) -- we're there.
But, you know, I think that's, number one, the difficulty with this. And yes it's -- nothing is going to come from this. Nothing is going to come from -- I will tell you what this is though. And let's just call it what it is. This is a distraction from the Epstein files. I mean, anybody who says it's not that is not paying attention.
And all of my law and order Republican friends, Nancy Mace who's running for governor of South Carolina on a platform that I'm going to end child abuse and pedophilia and everything else, I agree with those things. But call out Donald Trump, you know? Call out the fact that, you know, we're doing this, we're doing this investigation. I'm going way off topic, but we're doing this investigation. But Ms. Maxwell, who is a convicted sex offender, got a sweetheart deal to go to a minimum security prison in Texas, walking around with Elizabeth Holmes.
UNKNOWN: What about that?
UNGAR-SARGON: Wait, can I ask you guys something on this topic, though? Like it's not exactly a legal question. It's more, guess, like a moral question because I agree with you, the evidence of there being, like crimes committed. I'm not sure that there is any.
But let's say John Brennan did purposely alter these reports to implicate Donald Trump in a conspiracy with Russia that was false and he knew that he was doing that. And it did. Russiagate did undermine the President's first administration. Do you think that's bad? And if so, like what recompense are the people who were hurt by that his voters owed? How do we respond to that?
HONIG: So, I'll answer legally and morally. if John Brennan or any person altered intelligence, that is morally wrong and a crime. The problem is going to be though if we're talking about falsification of documents, obstruction, perjury, et cetera. That's going to be long. That's going to be expired five years ago.
But look, John Durham did bring a couple of perjury investigations. He failed on two of them. The jury acquitted. There was one, though, FBI lawyer who altered an email and pled guilty to obstruction or altering a document. So, if that's the proof, that's a big deal and we do need to know that. And if it's too old, but it could be a crime.
BERMAN: But he worked hard.
[22:55:00]
John Durham worked hard.
HONIG: For years.
BERMAN: He worked hard on this.
LEON: John, this is perfect because I wrote here, call Elie later to ask him about Pam Bondi stuff. So, he's right here. So, it's perfect. I was just going to ask him anyway.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: How many answers you've been running? Do I need to get my phone number?
BERMAN: All right, guys. Thank you all very much. We'll be back in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: We have a quick programming note for you.
[23:00:00]
Don't miss the all new CNN original series "American Prince JFK Jr." It dives into the remarkable life of John F. Kennedy Junior and his lasting legacy. It premieres Saturday at 9 P.M. right here on CNN.
That's it for us tonight here. I will say I'm back tomorrow morning in just a few hours from now, 7 A.M. on CNN News Central. Be sure to watch. And in the meantime, I turn you over to "Laura Coates Live" which starts right now.
