Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Putin Tells U.S. He'll Stop War In Exchange For Eastern Ukraine; Trump's Ceasefire-Or-Sanctions Deadline Hits For Putin; Perilous Moment, Israel Plots Gaza City Takeover; Trump Secretly Orders Military To Begin Taking Force Against Drug Cartels On Foreign Soil; California Retaliates Against Texas, Changing Its Political Map With A Big Move. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired August 08, 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)
JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, three years of bloodshed hits a pivotal point. Vladimir Putin reveals what he wants in exchange for ending his invasion of Ukraine. But will Donald Trump endorse it?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We have a shot at it.
DEAN: Plus, a moment that will alter history with Israel on the verge of taking over Gaza. Will they receive a green light from America?
STEVE BANNON, HOST, THE WAR ROOM: You want to kill the MAGA movement? Let's have American troops go over there.
DEAN: Also, the president who promised no more wars is reportedly telling the military to hit targets on foreign soil.
TRUMP: We have to protect our country. You know, we're playing a tough game.
DEAN: Sparking illegal and moral debate.
And Democrats vow to go nuclear in the fight over redistricting. Tonight, California triggers the first earthquake.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Ashley Allison, Jim Schultz and Josh Rogin.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN (on camera): I am Jessica Dean in for Abby Phillip for a special edition of NewsNight this summer. We're taking the show on some field trips this summer, spending our Fridays here at the Food Networks Kitchen in New York City. It's our sister company. We have a fabulous chef serving friends of the show. We're going to catch up with all of them later. But, first, breaking news in the years-long war between Russia and Ukraine, we're learning Vladimir Putin has told the United States he'll stop the war if Ukraine concedes major regions to Russia. And by major regions, he means Eastern Ukraine, which Russia currently controls, as well as Crimea, which Moscow illegally annexed a decade ago.
And the offer comes as President Trump's deadline arrives for Putin to agree to a ceasefire or face sanctions. The two are now scheduled to meet a week from tonight in Alaska. And so far, there are reportedly serious reservations from European officials on the offer, but the president, Donald Trump, seems open to it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: President Putin, I believe, wants to see peace and Zelenskyy wants to see peace.
Well, you're looking at territory that's been fought over for 3.5 years with, you know, a lot of Russians have died, a lot of Ukrainians have died. So, we're looking at that, but we're actually looking to get some back and some swapping. It's complicated.
There'll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: We have a great group here with us at the Food Network Kitchen tonight. Josh, I want to start first with you. Is this a win for Putin?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, WASHINGTON POST INTELLIGENCE: Not only is it a win for Putin, it's the Ukrainian people's worst nightmare. They're being subjected to a negotiation that they're not even a part of. And President Trump seems to think that Ukrainian towns are his to give away or to trade, but they're not. There are Ukrainian people living there, and there's a Ukrainian government that has sovereignty there.
And so, on one level, it's terrible because we're throwing the Ukrainians under the bus and playing right into Putin's hands. And on the other hand, it's terrible because it's not going to work. Because even if Trump strikes a deal with Putin to give away Ukrainian lands, Ukrainians are not going to go along with it. It's not going to happen. All it does is grant Putin the right to dictate U.S. policy and weaken the Ukrainians, which is going to get a lot of Ukrainians killed and the war is going to continue. So, it's a pretty much a disaster on all fronts and it's a pretty shameful episode in American diplomacy, in my opinion.
DEAN: Yes, Scott, I see you want to get in there. What?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, they haven't even met yet. And, you know, he's been trying for months to get a meeting like this scheduled to try to bring the killing to an end, which we should all hope and pray for, A. B, he's been pretty tough on the Russians lately.
ROGIN: Has he really?
JENNINGS: C, he's been in pretty close contact with Zelenskyy.
ROGIN: Tough on the Russians?
JENNINGS: And so the reality is this has to end at some point, and the only way it is ever going to end is if both parties feel like they won.
DEAN: Can I -- hang on.
JENNINGS: They're never going to send -- they're never going to -- the reality is you're never going to see Vladimir Putin take a knee and wave a white flag, and you don't want Zelenskyy to do that either. This has to end in a way where both parties feel like it was a negotiation that they can walk away from and tell their people we got out of this in the best possible way.
ROGIN: So, how does that (INAUDIBLE) with Trump meeting with Putin and not Zelenskyy and leaving Zelenskyy out of there?
JENNINGS: How do you know they're not in touch with Zelenskyy?
ROGIN: They're in touch, but he's not there.
[22:05:00]
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Remember, he disrespected him in the Oval Office when he met with them. And they might have --
ROGIN: Right, because they had long --
JENNINGS: They had several meetings since then.
ALLISON: My question is if Putin and Trump meet and Putin agrees, do you believe him? Do you think that he will hold a ceasefire, that he wouldn't say, okay, wink and nod, and then in a year or two, he would invade again? Do we actually trust Vladimir Putin to be a --
DEAN: Can I also point out -- can we also point out that -- listen, hang on. Putin -- the ICC has a warrant out for Putin's arrest. He is coming to America to meet with an American president. He doesn't have to do any -- there are no conditions we're aware of at this moment. Is that concerning?
ROGIN: Yes, it's all very concerning.
JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: I think it's all good that they're meeting. I don't know why anybody at this table would say it's a bad thing that they're sitting down and having these discussions. If -- yes, there might be a -- well, they may have their opportunity, right? But for now, having President Trump and Vladimir Putin sitting down and having these discussions that could lead to peace in that region is a good thing. Now, right, Russia was the aggressor. We have to acknowledge that. Russia was the aggressor. And for that, should we be rewarding them with additional land? Well, in order to get, in order to get to peace, I'd say probably as long as you have some investment from Europe, you know, coming in and, you know, trying to protect the deal and I think they'll have to pay for it on their own. These European countries have to participate in this.
I think there has to be something in it for United States too, right? We've invested so much into Ukraine. We have to get something back out of it. That has to be something that guarantees that President Trump is going to be looking at American interest as it relates to that. So, if we could get to a point where the fighting stops and there is a deal to be had, I think it's a pretty good -- I think it's progress.
ROGIN: Yes. But the problem out of this is like to say that --
SCHULTZ: Well, they have to sit down in order to do that. For you to just say, well, he shouldn't be meeting with him, that is ludicrous.
ROGIN: I'm saying that the terms that we have been reported are so obviously lopsided on Putin's side that it means that we can easily predict that the negotiations are going to fail because we're going to force Ukrainians to do things that they're never going to do.
JENNINGS: But the terms are what he is saying he wants, of course, that's their opening bid. I'm sure, I mean --
ROGIN: Trump said, we're going to swap territories.
JENNNINGS: You heard the president say --
ROGIN: What is he talking about?
JENNINGS: You heard the president say, he has other things in mind, but I just think prejudging this as a failure a week before the meeting even happens is totally irresponsible.
ROGIN: No. It is accurate and it's actually very --
JENNIGS: What's the alternative? Just to let them go on for now?
ROGIN: No. The alternative is to support Ukrainians in their fight for sovereignty --
ALLISON: Okay. How about we do this? How about we play swap some characters in this scenario, right, and we pick somebody that you can often prejudge that might have done something terrible on October 7th and Donald Trump said he was going to sit down with them. When you prejudged that, yes, because Hamas is not a good actor in the end what happened to Israel on October 7th and Putin is not a good actor, and what happened to Ukraine? Different situations, but when you swap things, previous behaviors are an indicator of often how they will behave in the future. And Vladimir Putin, even in the short-term of Donald Trump's, has not even been a fair negotiator with the president right now. So, I think you're giving a lot of credit to someone who is not an ally of the United States, that has not acted in good favor and invaded Ukraine. I don't understand where this trust of, sure, I want the war to end too, but do I think Vladimir Putin is going to get us to liberty and freedom? No.
JENNINGS: Let me play this out, Ashley. So, you think we cannot negotiate with Putin? Who are we supposed to talk to? There's two parties in the world.
ROGIN: The Ukrainians are supposed to be negotiating with Russians.
JENNINGS: We are talking to Zelenskyy. They have been talking. We have been providing weapons to the Ukrainians. We cut a deal to do it through NATO, which was a good thing. We have the relationship channel open with the Ukrainians. In order to end this, there's no one else to talk to unless you want to invade Russia and overthrow the government. But I don't think anybody wants to do that. That's the only player on the field.
ROGIN: You're putting forth a straw man, like, oh, we shouldn't negotiate. No, what I'm saying is that we should negotiate skillfully, okay? That's --
(CROSSTALKS)
SCHULTZ: He still has sanctions. And you act like he's not willing to use them or threaten to use them.
ROGIN: He's threatening, but he's not actually using them. And to say that we're going to give up territory that doesn't belong to us -- by the way, all the people in those territories, they're human beings. They're called Ukrainians. They want to live there.
SCHULTZ: Well, the U Ukrainians still need to agree to it.
ROGIN: Yes, exactly.
SCHULTZ: So, they still need to agree to it. And, yes, we should be in the middle negotiating. We made a big investment there. And you just want us to keep throwing money at it, and then you think that the problem would go away. That's just not how it works.
ROGIN: And side with our friend --
DEAN: I do want to bring up -- I want to bring up two points. One --
ROGIN: Is that so crazy, decide with the good guys and not the bad guys? Is that impossible to say in 2025?
JENNINGS: We're not siding with anyone. We're trying to end a war between two parties.
ROGIN: No. Trump is obviously taking the Russian position.
JENNINGS: Was he siding with the Russians when he cut a deal with NATO to put more weapons into Ukraine? Didn't sound like it to me.
ROGIN: He was siding with the Russians when he pulled the Patriot systems that were (INAUDIBLE) for Ukraine out of Ukraine and more Ukrainians got killed. So, yes, sometimes not every day he sides with the Russians, but if he sides with them some days, that's still pretty bad, Scott.
[22:10:00]
That's a bad thing. We don't want that. We want him to decide --
JENNINGS: This has to end someday.
DEAN: Okay. I want to play -- hang on. Hang on. I want to play -- we're going to hang on. I want to play a clip of President Trump on Russia, on this whole subject. Let's listen to what he has said over the years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: You have to ask President Obama, because he was the one that let Crimea get away.
He allowed Russia to take Crimea.
Biden, they didn't respect him. They didn't respect Obama. They respect me.
Crimea was given away by Barack Hussein Obama and by Biden. That's 11 or 12 years ago. That's a long time ago.
When you say Crimea, that was handed over during a president named Barack Hussein Obama. That was -- had nothing to do with me either.
Now, Russia attacked, but they shouldn't have let them attack because they wouldn't have attacked if you had people that knew what they were doing, Joe Biden is a very dumb man.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: So, okay, after all that criticism about giving away Crimea and allowing this to happen, now he might actually give that away if he gives into what Putin's asking for.
SCHULTZ: Good point. It depends what he gets out of it. And let's not forget how we got here. We got here from weakness, right? So, now he's been dealt the hand he's been dealt. And to say, well, now he's just giving it away, that's just not the case. This was given away long ago when a feckless Joe Biden was in office, and I do believe -- I don't believe that Russia would've attacked had Donald Trump not -- had Donald Trump been in office. And I think you look at Afghanistan, and that was the first step towards all of this.
ROGIN: We can't give away things that don't belong to us, okay? They belong to the Ukrainians. They're actual human beings who live there. And to say that they're going to live under Putin's rule because Donald Trump decided that we got to swap their territory is to condemn them to a fate where --
SCHULTZ: Yes, we're using American taxpayers, American resources.
ROGIN: Well, that's fine.
SCHULTZ: We have a right to be there and be part of that discussion. If you want to say that -- if you want to say, well, the Ukrainians can just figure it out on their own, well, if we actually said that, you'd be fighting on the other side of this saying we need --
ROGIN: No. I'm telling you what I'd be fighting for. I'd fighting --
SCHULTZ: You're speaking out both sides of your mouth.
ROGIN: No, I'm not. I'm saying something very simple, which is that the Ukrainians will keep fighting for their freedom and dignity, whether we help them or not, whether Trump tries to trade away their dignity or not. Because they don't want to live on their knees and they don't want to live under Putin's rule, and neither would you and neither would you. So, they'll fight forever to make sure that their families don't die (ph).
JENNINGS: Do you believe we shouldn't be trying to broker an end to this?
ROGIN: No. I think we should be doing it skillfully with a little bit of self-awareness and respect for the people who are the victims and not taking the side of the attackers.
ALLISON: Because we were also the --
ROGIN: It's pretty simple, actually, victims, attackers. We should be on the good side, not the bad side. And right now Trump, has put us on the wrong side of the Russian-Ukraine war. And that's a disgrace, Scott. And we should all be able to --
JENNINGS: We literally just cut a deal with NATO to put hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons in the hands of the Ukrainian. We're not on the Russian side. We are on the side of trying to get a peace agreement.
ROGIN: I'm not saying Trump has a consistent policy. It's very inconsistent. It can be confusing to people, even people like us. Nevertheless, this meeting in Alaska represents a capitulation to Putin's agenda, and the Ukrainians are not going to go along with it, so it's going to fail. And the European is not going to along. So, it's a lot of tempest for nothing.
DEAN: We got to leave it there, all right. Don't worry. We have more things to talk about, don't we? We have more time ahead.
Up next, we've got more breaking news, as satellite images tonight show Israeli forces building up near Gaza City, as Israel announces a takeover. Western leaders are blasting this decision. How will President Trump and the U.S. respond to what's sure to be a consequential move? We're going to be back in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
DEAN: Tonight, another dangerous moment in the world as Israel's on the verge of capturing Gaza, but will they receive the green light from Donald Trump? New satellite images tonight showing Israeli forces building up near Gaza City, despite western leaders speaking out against the plot, and, in fact, Germany tonight suspending arms exports to Israel.
So, the war is hitting a consequential point after months and months of starvation and indiscriminate bombing, Trump's allies back here at home are sounding the alarm.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BANNON: This Gaza situation has just metastasized over the last two years. And, man, if you start drawing American, you want to kill the MAGA movement, let's have American troops go over there as an occupational force because this will end in tears, sir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: Scott, I want to start first with you, just with this idea of what President Trump is going to do. Is he going to wholeheartedly give them the green light without any conditions? Where do you think he comes down on this?
JENNINGS: Well, first of all, literally, no one is talking about putting U.S. forces.
DEAN: Right, that's fair.
JENNINGS: I mean, I recognize -- we played this clip. It's not on the table, not being discussed. That's not the news. The news is that Israel is planning to go in there and finally, hopefully, completely eliminate Hamas and they don't want to hold it. They want to go there long enough to get rid of the terrorists and install a civilian government and leadership there that's livable for both the Palestinian people and for the Israelis.
[22:20:06]
There's no future for the Palestinians, and there's no future for the Israelis as long as Hamas still exists.
And so that's the plan. The Israeli war cabinet approved the plan today, and I hope they go in there and I hope it's fast, but I hope they do what they need to do. Because the situation -- if Hamas remains, that's not a tenable situation for Israel, and it shouldn't be really for us or anyone else in the Middle East.
DEAN: But, Josh, I think a question to all of that is to what end, and can you actually achieve what you are saying? Because so far, they have not been able to eliminate Hamas.
ROGIN: That's exactly right. If occupying large parts of Gaza with Israeli troops could defeat Hamas, it would've worked by now, because that, they've tried it several times over the last two years. So, it's obvious to everyone who's been watching that this is not going to achieve the stated objective to eliminate Hamas because they tried it already many times.
So, what are they really doing? They're prolonging the war. Bibi is going to exacerbate the suffering, not just of the Palestinian people but also of the hostages, also of the Israeli reservists who have been strained for these two years. That's why millions of people in Israel, including the hostage families, are calling for an end to the war, a ceasefire, bring the hostages home, give food to the Palestinians. That's why people around the world are also saying that this is going to make the situation worse, not better, because it's been tried. And large occupations of Gaza have collateral damage and lots of innocent people will suffer and it won't achieve any of the objectives that Scott just stated.
So, why are they doing it? Make this make sense to me, okay?
DEAN: Well -- and I think too -- look, back to the question of President Trump and what -- how he might move forward with all of this, if you look at polling, 60 percent of Americans disapprove of Israel's military action in Gaza, 32 percent approve. And we see MAGA really -- the MAGA world, I mean, Steve Bannon obviously piece of that, but splitting on this. They're not -- I mean, Scott, you're shaking your head but Marjorie --
JENNINGS: The president's never had a higher approval rating among Republicans than he does right now. There is no split.
DEAN: That's not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is do Republicans support him on this issue?
JENNINGS: Yes.
DEAN: And do you think that they're supportive of continued support of a military intervention of the Americans supporting Israeli military action?
JENNINGS: Again, we are not there. It's Israel fighting the war.
DEAN: I understand. But it's money --
JENNINGS: Israel was attacked. Israel is defending itself. Israel is fighting the war. We support our ally.
DEAN: And President Trump campaigned on ending wars, is what I'm getting at.
JENNINGS: Yes. And the only way to end it, and the only way to get a ceasefire, you said, why doesn't Israel just agree to a ceasefire? Why doesn't Hamas just agree to a ceasefire? Why don't they just release the hostages? Why don't they do what they're supposed to do? Because they don't want it, Josh, and you know it. They don't want it. And it will never end until they are completely and totally cleaned out. That's the only way it ends.
ROGIN: Well, first of all, you're setting a goal that's impossible to achieve because Hamas is part of Palestinian society in all ways, in forms. So, you can't completely eliminate it. Now, you can steer them towards better governance, but that will require working with them, not killing them and telling them, yes, we're going to --
(CROSSTALKS)
ROGIN: And there is a ceasefire deal that's on the table, and we've had Ceasefires already, so we know it's achievable. And the Israeli people, including the hostage families, who you're scoffing at right now, Scott, believe that it's achievable.
JENNINGS: I've met with them. Believe me, I've met with them. I don't scoff at them.
ROGIN: Okay. So, did they tell you --
JENNINGS: I honor them here every night?
ROGIN: Because most of the ones that I've talked to are for ceasefire. They don't think it's impossible, like you just said. And there's a very simple way.
JENNINGS: How many ceasefires has Hamas walked away from?
ROGIN: And how many have they achieved? How many of Israel walked away from? I'm not saying it's --
JENNINGS: Why don't they release the hostages? Why can no one answer this question?
SCHULTZ: Hamas is a part of the Palestinian society, yes, they are part of Palestinian Society, you know, hiding out in churches, hiding out in schools, hiding out in healthcare facilities so that you have the tragedies that are occurring time and time again. Israel cannot sustain -- you know, Israelis can't sustain living 600 meters from people who literally want to slit their throats. And if the idea here is to go block by block through Gaza City and compress the Hamas to a point where they can eradicate most of them, then it might make sense. But --
ROGIN: But it didn't work the last time. The one thing that doesn't work --
SCHULTZ: Does that jeopardize the hostages any further? I think that's a question that needs to be answered and considered.
DEAN: I do think there have been real questions about the hostages that remain and if this puts them in further danger. I think there have been real (ph) from their families and from the defense, you know, group and people that work in the defense world in Israel are concerned about this may not work. JENNINGS: Go ahead.
ALLISON: I guess I have a question. It's like what is the endgame here? Because I've actually heard, I believe, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, there's not a desire for a two-state solution anymore, I've heard, after October 7th.
[22:25:01]
So, if that is actually the position, then Israel military forces going into Gaza actually --
DEAN: You're saying the desire from --
ALLISON: Well, I believe I've heard Scott say that after October 7th, that a two-state solution is off the table. Is that correct?
JENNINGS: There can't be a state run by Hamas. What Netanyahu has said today --
ALLISON: I'm not saying a state run by Hamas.
JENNINGS: What Netanyahu has said today is they would like to eliminate Hamas and turn the region over to an Arab-led occupation.
ALLISON: So, there could be a two-state solution?
JENNINGS: And a civilian-run government.
ALLISON: If a state is not run by Hamas, there could be a two-state solution.
JENNINGS: It cannot be Hamas. There can be no Hamas. That is their position.
ALLISON: There could be no Hamas, but can there be a Palestinian state?
JENNINGS: He said tonight, he said in an interview tonight, it was his hope that an Arab-led coalition would run Gaza.
ALLISON: Do you think there should be a Palestinian state?
JENNINGS: I mean, to be clear, I don't know what that means.
ROGIN: Hamas is a terrorist organization and shouldn't be running Gaza, but the idea that some Arab countries are going to deploy their own troops to run Gaza is also not going to work because they don't want to do it. All of the Arab countries, including the ones that are even friends with Israel have said that's not okay. They're not going to do it.
So, again, you can put forth these ideas, but if they're not matching with the reality of what can actually happen in Gaza, then we're all just lying to ourselves. DEAN: Does it give -- is there any pause around, just getting back at this for a second, that the IDF is concerned about this, that you are sending these soldiers back in, as you mentioned, these reservists? I mean, it's hard on them.
JENNINGS: Absolutely. I was there recently. I talked to a lot of people who had -- were in the IDF, had just been serving, had been in rotation. It's been incredibly hard on them. It's been incredibly hard on their families. This has been really, really hard on Israeli society, but so was October the 7th.
I'll tell you the thing that I learned when I was over there from the most liberal Israelis that I met, to the most conservative, the people who love Netanyahu, to the people who hate him. The resolve among the people of Israel to not live next to these terrorists anymore is really, really high.
And you asked earlier, does this put the hostages in danger? Hamas puts the hostages in danger. We showed the video of these starving hostages one time. They're in danger already.
DEAN: We have. We have. On my show, we sure did. We did.
ALLISON: I think that, but a couple things can be true at the same time and think what happened on October 7th is horrific since the day it happened. And we'll continue to say it as long as I have breath. I also think what's happening to Palestinians right now is horrific, that children starving. I don't think anyone wants to see that.
I want to know what the desired outcome is, because actions actually require a desired outcome. And if the resolve is to eliminate a state for Palestinians to live, not Hamas governed, then, okay, let's like discuss and negotiate. But I actually want to know what the desired outcome is of military forces going into that.
And I hear what you saying. You say to me, I don't know what that means. I think it's pretty obvious what it means. And so that is the big question mark I have is what is the intention of them doing it? Sure, it could be to eradicate Hamas. But if Hamas is eradicated, then what?
DEAN: I do think that the big question around this is what happens the day after, and no one can quite answer that just yet.
Okay, everyone stay with us.
Up next, also new tonight, the president has reportedly told the U.S. military to begin targeting drug cartels on foreign soil, which experts warn could be dangerous legally and morally. We're going to debate it.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) DEAN: Welcome back. It's our summer Friday edition of the show and we're at the Food Network kitchen in New York with friends of the program and a fantastic chef with a surprise treat that is coming up.
But first, breaking tonight, "The New York Times" reporting President Trump has secretly ordered the military to begin taking force against drug cartels on foreign soil. The targets across Latin America include those the U.S. considers terrorists. Now, this would be a first, putting the military into the fight instead of law enforcement.
But "The Times" says the order raises legal issues including what happens if civilians are killed or whether striking cartels would be counted as murder. It also risks conflicts with nations including Mexico which has already rejected American strikes on its soil. Jim, I want to start first with you. Legally, what are your thoughts on this?
JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL CONTRIBUTOR: So, there's a bill that was introduced by Senator -- a bipartisan bill by Senator Kelly and Senator McCormick on this specific issue saying that where they've been declared terrorist organizations, we can use military strikes. It is not settled law whether this is something we can do. They're probably working on opinions from DOJ to that effect. But in the event --but from a policy perspective, I agree with 100 percent.
Fentanyl killed 100,000 Americans last year. We are under attack by terrorist organizations, which are the cartels. Secretary Rubio, within days of the administration starting, declared them terrorist organizations. He did the right thing, and I think we should be at using military force to attack cartels.
DEAN: Josh?
JOSH ROGIN, LEAD GLOBAL SECURITY ANALYST, "WASHINGTON POST" INTELLIGENCE: I mean when the only time tool you want to use is a hammer then every problem looks like a nail, but the military is actually not the best way to do law enforcement and it's definitely not the best way to do drug interdiction.
I mean, sure, we sent the military into, get Noriega, but that was a long time ago and that's a very specific case. What do you think they're going to do? Raid the fentanyl chemical component factories?
[22:35:01]
Is that really good use of our men and women who have dedicated their lives to join the --
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: They're not trained for that. Okay, so we're going to drone strike who? The fentanyl people, I mean, the --
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: Okay, well, you know what's going to happen, that we have collateral damage and we're going to kill innocent people, and that's going to ruin our relationships with these countries. So, there's a lot of things to think about when you start using the U.S. military to do things that they weren't trained to do that's not their mission, and we're just going to barrel into it sight unseen. A lot of things could go wrong. So, you know, I'm all for --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: It's not sight unseen. There's intelligence, there's all kinds. You know, we'll have intelligence agencies getting us intelligence, military strike --
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: It's not -- we have very highly trained, very highly special military.
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: Can we go back -- can we go back to the legal point for just a second? Because it's not settled, as you know. So, what -- it seems like gray area? Is that an appropriate way to categorize it at this point?
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: Or is it illegal?
SCHULTZ: Belt suspenders approach from the -- from the Senate bipartisan bill which, you know, two military guys push forward.
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: Did they pass the bill?
SCHULTZ: But I think that we're going to have to rely upon the office of legal counsel opinion from Department of Justice, and that's what we have to do.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Look, that's what they -- you raised the Panama issue. Bill Barr wrote that memo when we went into Panama. We'll expect the same thing out of this DOJ.
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: I mean, Trump can get his office a legal counsel to write a paper that says anything that he wants to do is legal.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: If they say they can do it, we should.
ROGIN: Yeah, but that's not -- I don't think that -- I don't think that they should just -- the Trump administration should be able to just write the law out of whole cloth and then say, look, it's legal. But even if you put that aside, there's international implications to using your military to kill people in other countries that we ought to think through, okay? Because --
SCHULTZ: Designated terrorist organizations.
ROGIN: Yeah, but is everything a terrorist organization now? I mean, drug cartel --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: You don't think the drug cartel is killing 100,000 Americans per year?
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: We're expanding the definition of terrorist organization beyond any usefulness, and that has real complications for our diplomatic relations, if you care about that kind of thing.
If you care about how our interactions with other governments and other countries progress based on the fact that they don't want us killing people on their soil without telling them, then you might want to think that through before you start droning people and sending the U.S. military to raid fentanyl factories or whatever it is that they've got cooked up, because it could get pretty ugly pretty fast.
DEAN: I want to play something from Secretary of State Marco Rubio on this issue of labeling cartels as terrorists. This is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEC. MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE, ACTING NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: It allows us to now target what they're operating and to use other elements of American power, intelligence agencies, the Department of Defense, whatever, to target these groups if we have an opportunity to do it. We have to start treating them as armed terrorist organizations, not simply drug dealing organizations.
DEAN: Scott?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, the President has, I think for many years, expressed the idea that we should be thinking of using the military to fight this war against these, I believe they're terrorist organizations, as Jim said. I mean, so many hundreds of thousands of Americans have died. We've had an invasion of illegal immigration and we've also had an invasion of drugs.
You know, are we going to hurt somebody's feelings? I mean, I'm a little more worried about the hurt feelings of the American families who've lost all these hundreds of thousands of people to this fentanyl and other terrible drugs. Now, to the point about diplomatic relations, what would be best is if Mexico would work with the United States to help take these people out as quickly and as fast as possible.
It's not good for them to be warehousing these people and doing nothing about it. And it's not good for us to have it coming into the country. So, could there be a situation where we work together to take these people out? That would be a good thing. So --
ROGIN: You're saying that the Mexican government hasn't been trying to fight the drug cartels for 50 years?
JENNINGS: Trying and failing? I mean --
ROGIN: You're saying that like --
JENNINGS: -- they're failing.
ROGIN: -- we haven't been working with them for 50 years?
JENNINGS: They're failing. It's a failure.
ROGIN: It's a --
JENNINGS: Go talk to any American family who's been to a funeral over this.
ROGIN: Yeah, but --
JENNINGS: They failed.
ROGIN: Isn't Trump the master of giving you the wrong answer to the right questions? Like we have a problem with our cooperation with Mexico, so let's just trash our cooperation with Mexico.
JENNINGS: Should we just do what we're doing for another 50 years?
(CROSSTALK)
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, do we think this is --
(CROSSTALK)
ROGIN: That's another Scott Jennings straw man. You're all straw men. It's just like, should we do nothing? Should we do everything?
JENNINGS: So, but you're all weakness. Let's just keep doing what we're doing. And let's kill untold numbers of Americans. Sure.
ALLISON: Nobody wants that. Nobody wants that at this table.
JENNINGS: Some people do.
ALLISON: No. Nobody wants that. Nobody at this table wants that. And that's disingenuous to say that. okay? That is disingenuous. Is there nothing in between? Maybe what we're doing right now is not working, but doing a drone strike, do you think that's like where we are right now? Is there nothing in between from the six months of the Trump presidency? Is there any other type of negotiation? Do you maybe think that this is what he's doing to get Mexico to the table? I'm surprised I didn't hear that. I mean, there has to be something else, perhaps, than just always just
saying, our military is going to take these folks out. I do worry about the collateral consequences if innocent victims are killed in a drone strike. I think none of us want fentanyl in there.
I thought that's what the terrorists were supposed to be doing. I thought that was why Trump was closing the border. I feel like the escalation is just so extreme with this administration.
[22:40:01]
The problem should stop. Is this the best solution? I would like to try some other things first.
DEAN: All right. More breaking news tonight. California is retaliating against Texas, changing its political map with a big move. But Gavin Newsom just ordered in what he calls an unprecedented emergency.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
DEAN: We have breaking news tonight -- it's a dramatic new turn in the war over America's political map. California is going to hold a special election over redistricting and whether to redraw its map like Texas is doing. Its governor Gavin Newsom calls the election, quote, "emergency measures in an unprecedented situation". Now remember, Democrats have vowed to go nuclear after Texas will look to eliminate five Democratic seats ahead of the midterms at the President's urging.
We're back here now. This is an interesting development in what they're going to try to do in California. Actually, the Democrats seem to be trying to say, look, we're going to do this in a -- in a better way, in a more equitable way. We're taking it to the voters. But at the end of the day, is it all kind of the same if you're on both sides, if you're trying to move all these seats around?
ALLISON: I think it's a response, it's reaction to an action. So, if this wasn't happening in Texas, I don't think California would be even having this conversation. Look, what is happening in Texas is, ;let's just call it what it is. It's a power grab. And if you're in politics and that's why you want to play politics, then see who wins. If Texas does it, let California do it.
Like, the rules are no longer the same. They've been thrown out and so it is not fair to say one group of people have to follow the rules and one group of people don't. So, by Hochul and Pritzker, and Gavin Newsom said if Texas stops, we'll stop, but I don't see Texas stopping.
DEAN: I want to play with the governor -- what Governor Newsom said, that he's, again, insisting they're doing it a different way. This is what he said earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D) CALIFORNIA: We tried to play by a higher set of standards and rules with our independent redistricting and we believe in that. And we are not talking about eliminating that commission. We're talking about emergency measures to respond to what's happening in Texas, and we will nullify what happens in Texas.
We will pick up five seats with the consent of the people. We're doing it on temporary basis. We're doing it in a fully transparent way. And we're doing it by asking the people of the state of California for their consent.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
DEAN: Now, just a reminder. Earlier this week, the President said on Tuesday that he believes -- these are his words. "We are entitled to five more seats. " Is that right?
JENNINGS: Well, they certainly think they can pick up five more seats there and there may be a couple of other states that redistrict there where you could squeeze a couple of more seats out. Look, in California Republicans get about 40 percent of the vote and they have about 17 percent of the congressional seats right now. So, to say what they're doing is equitable or what they already have is equitable is simply not accurate. It's not accurate in Illinois.
It's not accurate in these -- the governors of these blue states that seem to be most upset about this are the ones that have the most gerrymandered states already. I saw the governor of Massachusetts saying she might have to redraw her maps. It's already 9-0 in Massachusetts. And so, you said actions and reactions. I'll just submit that the first action wasn't Texas. The first action was all these myriad blue states over the years that have redistricted their --
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: No.
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: Okay, hang on. On that note, I want to bring this map up. This is the redistricting report card from Princeton University's gerrymandering project. And you'll see on there, green is good. And then we go down, A, all the way down to D. Look, California, better than average with bias. New York State, another blue state, gets a -- gets a good -- so does Massachusetts, I believe. It's a tiny map from here.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: It's literally nine nothing. There's not a single Republic --
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: I'm not -- gerrymandering project. I'm just telling you -- ALLISON: South Carolina, Texas --
JENNINGS: I imagine Princeton believes that nine nothing is good. I agree with that.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: South Carolina, Texas, Florida. What kind of states are those, Scott?
JENNINGS: Florida and Texas and Ohio are far more equitable.
ALLISON: No, they were red on that map.
JENNINGS: I don't care what Princeton -- you all are assuming I give a rip what these people think. I'm just telling you --
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: We know.
JENNINGS: -- what's gerrymandered and what isn't.
JENNINGS: I don't care.
ALLISON: Well, the court actually thinks Alabama is gerrymandered, that's why they actually just gave the two new congressional seats that actually lean more Democratic. Like, gerrymandering is something that has happened in this country. It's why people in the civil rights community have fought against it. What they're doing right now is gerrymandering in Texas on racial lines.
If you don't want gerrymandering to happen, then tell Abbott to stop. Tell Trump to stop. Nobody deserves five more seats. The census happens, redistricting committees. Texas actually tried to do somewhat equitable and now halfway through the cycle, after both parties agreed on the maps, they're trying to change the rules.
That's what you call a power grab because what he's doing right now is unpopular. There's no surprises is happening halfway through his election and the midterm election. He needs five seats because the margin of victory in the House is so slim. Those five seats would most likely lean Republican and have him keep his trifecta. Without those five seats, the House is up for play. That's a power grab.
DEAN: Yeah. Jim, you have experience with redistricting. What do you think about all this?
SCHULTZ: So, we saw in Pennsylvania, 2018 Democratic Supreme Court throughout the map midterm and drew its own map, Supreme Court did, and it's elected Democratic Supreme Court, '22, they picked a map of 34 maps.
[22:50:00]
Democratic Supreme Court picks Marc Elias, the famed Democratic lawyer, the map that he was representing in a constituent seal. So, this isn't the first time we've seen it, it's not the last time we're going to see it. Democrats are doing it. Republicans are doing it. Texas is following the law.
Democrats are running away and not doing their jobs. I think that, you know, Attorney General Paxton has every right to file what he calls a -- what is called a "quo warranto" proceeding, which is to remove someone in office when they don't show up to do their jobs. Governor Abbott has every right to, you know, continue to hold special sessions until they show back up again. So, we'll see what plays out.
DEAN: I guess the question, though, is do the American people like this on either side?
ALLISON: It's a waste of time.
ROGIN: I think people are sick and tired of politicians trying to game the system rather than compete for their votes on the issues. And you know, our politics are no longer about what's right, they're about what you can get away with. And I think both parties are guilty of that to a large degree, and I think it's very corrosive to our -- the confidence of democracy.
And I live in the District of Columbia, by the way, where we have zero senators and zero voting representatives, 700,000 people, taxation without any representation --
ALLISON: Yes, yes.
ROGIN: -- D.C. statehood now. That's what I say.
JENNINGS: I strongly disagree.
DEAN: I'm shocked by that. All right, up next, the panel is going to give us their nightcaps. They'll tell us what they changed at the White House, inspired by a renovation reveal this week. And Chef Liza is coming over with some real nightcaps for all of us. Don't go anywhere, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:56:09]
DEAN: We're back and it is Friday night. That means we're here with Liza Zeneski, the supervising culinary producer at Food Network. Chef Liza, thanks so much. This looks amazing. What are we looking at here?
LIZA ZENESKI, SUPERVISING CULINARY PRODUCER, FOOD NETWORK: Thank you. Thanks for being here tonight. This is our Shrimp Ceviche Tostados. I think it's a perfect summer bite. It's super fresh, light, zesty. I hope you guys enjoy.
DEAN: I love it. It's really -- it looks so, so good. And then there's a little drink to go with it, too.
ZENESKI: Yeah, we made some margaritas just going along with the theme of the night.
DEAN: It's a perfect summer meal.
ZENESKI: Yeah, perfect combination.
DEAN: Cheers to everyone here. And you, at home, can scan the Q.R. code on the screen of the Shrimp Ceviche Tostados recipe. So, do that now. And while you're doing that, we're going to go on to our nightcap.
The White House revealed its new patio style rose garden this week and you could say it's receiving mixed reviews, a lot of mixed reviews on the internet. So, each of you have 30 seconds to tell us what renovation you would want at the White House. Chef Liza, we'll let you start first. You cooked all day.
ZENESKI: No pressure. I'm going to say a wood burning kitchen fireplace. I've always dreamt of one, what you see all over Italy and France. Fireplace where you can cook anything from pizza to a whole leg of lamb to vegetables. That's my dream. That would be the first renovation I would do.
DEAN: Sounds pretty great.
ALLISON: Yeah.
DEAN: That's pretty good. Jim?
SCHULTZ: We all know from last week I'm a big golfer. I'd say a golf simulator, and we can load on some of the best golf courses around the world. And I think we know which courses this administration would pick.
DEAN: You do. Josh.
ROGIN: Well, if anyone's been to the White House, you know that there are tons of great musicians who come through, but there's not really a good venue for them to really shine. So, I envision a real acoustically sound, you know, music venue inside the White House that would bring people in. I think music heals the soul. It brings people together. And you would really make the White House into a music destination venue. That's my dream.
DEAN: I mean, that sounds pretty good. And there have been concerts there before --
ALLISON: Yeah.
ROGIN: Yeah.
DEAN: -- but this would be acoustically correct.
ROGIN: Exactly.
DEAN: Which is a nice -- a nice addition. Ashley. ALLISON: I'm going to say an animal menagerie. And the way you
populate, said menagerie, is when people come for state dinners, maybe they bring an animal from their region. Now, granted --
(CROSSTALK)
DEAN: Oh wow, you've really put some thought into this.
ALLISON: I don't know if like polar bears will survive in Washington D.C. So, nothing that would cause harm to the animals.
DEAN: Of course.
ALLISON: And they would need to be treated with proper dignity and care, but let's have something like a petting zoo.
DEAN: Okay. And like, would we reciprocate, would we give American animals or --
ALLISON: If they had a menagerie, they need to have some place if they want them, you know, maybe.
DEAN: Okay.
ALLISON: They could have the New York rats. Yeah, we'll give them those.
DEAN: Scott.
JENNINGS: I love the idea of foreign heads of state showing up at the White House with animal gifts.
ALLISON: Like the pandas. Like the pandas.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I mean, literally like on a leash like, here.
ALLISON: A golden dream.
JENNINGS: I mean, it could be a recipe for a polarity. I love it. So, I actually had a couple of ideas. I love baseball, and it's still America's pastime. I would love to put in a batting cage at the White House, because I think it would be cool for people to take batting practice on the South Lawn.
DEAN: It's a very American sport. Yeah.
JENNINGS: But also on the animal theme, I think chicken coops on the South Lawn would be amazing. Throw a few chickens back there. Backyard chicken farming is becoming more popular. I think a lot of rural Americans would appreciate that, as well, so --
DEAN: And you could have fresh eggs, I guess.
JENNINGS: Every day. The president could go out, grab the eggs. DEAN: And he wouldn't have to worry about the price of eggs.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Give them to the -- give them to the chef and cook them up down there. It would be amazing. No, no, let me just tell you, from, as an experienced chicken farmer, every time I make an omelet, it's like $500. Like, it's not, it's not free to keep the chickens.
[23:00:01[
UNKNOWN: Egg prices did not go down.
ALLISON: Right.
JENNINGS: Well --
DEAN: Save that for Monday's show.
(LAUGHTER)
DEAN: Listen, thanks to all of you for being here on a Friday night. Thanks for the wonderful food. It's wonderful. Thank you for watching "NewsNight". Don't miss our weekend conversation show. It's tomorrow morning. That's "Table for Five". We'll see you then. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
