Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Turns His Police Takeover in Streets of Washington; Democrats Enter Fight or Flight Mode in Redistricting War. Cracker Barrel Updates Its Logo; Trump No Longer Has To Pay $500 Million Fine In Civil Fraud Case. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired August 21, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, the director, producer, and star of the new Law and Order show shoots today's episode on the road.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're not playing games. We're going to make it safe and we're going to then go on to other places.
PHILLIP: Donald Trump takes a tour of his takeover.
Plus, as Texas redraws its map, blue states whip out their markers and stare down a fight or flight mode.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When they go low, you go to hell.
PHILLIP: Also, a court erases the half a billion dollar fine against Trump's business for fraud. Is this justice or another example of the MAGA king getting away with it?
And the crowd that likes to call complainers snowflakes loses their grits after Cracker Barrel changes its logo.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it too much to ask to just go get a fat stack of diabetes?
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Van Lathan, Caroline Downey, Amanda Berman, Pete Seat and Terry Moran.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about. Donald Trump just crossed over into the militarized zone. The president hit the streets of D.C. to take a tour of his takeover with hundreds of National Guard troops spread out across the city to fight crime. He thanked them for their service. He handed out burgers and pizza, and he warned that he plans to take his show on the road.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're not playing games. We're going to make it safe, and we're going to then go on to other places. But we're going to stay here for a while. We want to make this absolutely perfect.
Everybody's safe now. Everybody feels safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: He then told the story of an unnamed man who has apparently been in hiding and relying on DoorDash since COVID.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They said we couldn't do it. We'd go out and you'd see the stories. You'd read the stories, you'd see all of the things that are happening. And they said, we just -- we couldn't stand it, sir.
And now I take my wife and my kids to dinner. One of them said he's gone out four nights in a row and he hadn't gone out for four years.
PHILLIP: Sir, that's the tell there. That's the tell. I don't know who this guy is, but apparently this is where President Trump has this understanding of what's been going on in D.C.
But, Terry, tonight, Washingtonians hit the streets as well. There's a juxtaposition between what Trump is saying and what D.C. residents are saying with their protests and also saying in the polls that we've seen this week, almost 80 percent do not approve of what Trump is doing here.
TERRY MORAN, VETERAN JOURNALIST: They don't, they, they recognize a problem in parts of the city. I've been traveling around the city over the past few days for a piece I'm doing, and I was in Anacostia, east of the river, Congress Heights, where the most crime happens. They haven't seen a single federal officer. They call it a kabuki theater. They're like this is where most of the murders happen. It's a show. Other places, there are checkpoints going on. There have arrests, been arrests made. There have been outstanding warrants. They're executed on people and people are happy about that.
But what they don't like is the loss of control and the militarization, the sense that the checkpoints are discouraging parents from sending their kids to school. They're discouraging people to have from having families visits, especially if they're black and brown.
PHILLIP: Yes. I'm going to play a clip from one of the people that you spoke to Andria Thomas. She talked about exactly that. She's got family members in Virginia that she's worried about that bringing them into Washington in this particular moment. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ANDRIA THOMAS, WASHINGTON, D.C. RESIDENT: I'm not sure I'm comfortable asking them anymore to cross over into what honestly starts to feel like occupied territory. Because if they drive across the bridge and they're stopped by loud, aggressive, armed troops and asked where they're going or why they're here, or if they have I.D., my 80-year-old parents are going to be flustered.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MORAN: And what she's concerned about is that being flustered in that situation can trigger a response. Her mom is Vietnamese, her dad struggles with dementia, they're in their 80s. This is a brand new situation. That's the way it feels like to people on the D.C. streets.
VAN LATHAN, PODCAST CO-HOST, HIGHER LEARNING: I mean, how free can you feel if you're walking around and there are soldiers with military grade weapons patrolling the streets, waiting for you to make a mistake?
[22:05:05]
I think that Americans inherently are -- they reflexively crave freedom. I think that all of the people in D.C. that would admit that there are problems with the community there would like people who are serious about providing holistic answers to those problems. But if you ask them whether or not they would be willing to trade their freedom of movement for any amount of safety, most Americans would probably tell you, no. This is why --
PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN, BUSH ADMINISTRATION: This is such a fascinating conversation to me, because, for weeks, opponents of Donald Trump were dismissing that residents of D.C. and visitors to our nation's capital felt unsafe. No, look at the statistics, look at the numbers, some of which we know were manipulated and not accurate. But now look at the statistics of the last week, carjacking's down 83 percent, robberies down 46 percent, car thefts down 21 percent, as of last night, seven days without a murder in the District of Columbia.
This was a manmade disaster because D.C. was not doing what they needed to do to protect their citizens and make it a safe environment for people who live there and who visit there, and it took the president of the United States to act.
LATHAN: Can I ask you a question? Why do you trust the numbers?
SEAT: Why?
LATHAN: Yes.
SEAT: Well, did you trust the initial numbers?
LATHAN: Well, I did and I'm sure that those numbers are probably --
SEAT: So, you don't trust these because they're Trump numbers, right?
LATHAN: No, that's actually not what I said. I asked you why you trust them. I think those numbers are probably accurate, but I think that the numbers before were probably accurate.
SEAT: Yes, then you should celebrate these.
LATHAN: I think the numbers that also have said that over the past 30 years, we've seen unbelievable safety in America. We're talking about D.C. in 2025. You go back to D.C. in 1995, then you have almost 450 murders. Anyone right now who is telling you that you are living in the most unsafe time in American history, they're just lying. And it's just not true. It's statistically not true. And the question is not whether or not it's true or false, it's a lie. The question is actually why are they lying to you? And what I would ask you is, if you didn't believe the numbers that said crime was these crazy albatross to the cities, why do you believe the numbers then?
SEAT: I think the question is --
CAROLINE DOWNY, COLUMNIST, NATIONAL REVIEW: Can I just say that Pete is right, that there is a palpable increase in the quality of life in D.C. right now. It's like crime has evaporated almost over overnight. I know we all have friends there. I know that they feel a lot safer. I know we're hearing --
AMANDA BERMAN, CEO, ZIONESS MOVEMENT: I think it's been a week, people are not leaving their houses. There's a difference between police presence and a police state. And police presence, yes, makes people feel more safe and makes people be more safe. But police presence means community policing. It means trust, it means infrastructure. It means police, who actually are invested in the future of that community, not National Guardsmen who are dropped in from six other states who can only legally stay there for 30 days, and who are, by all accounts, they're for performative reasons.
Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are going around getting content. They have content creation teams joining law enforcement to (INAUDIBLE) these arrests.
PHILLIP: Let me play one thing. I mean, this is a Republican senator, Thom Tillis, talking about this issue. Just listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-ND): D.C. has a crime problem. The D.C. leadership has allowed the problem to get worse. They should be held accountable to that. But where do we stop? Do we honestly think that D.C. has the worst crime problem in the United States? No. It's got a crime problem. But where do we go from here? Do we go to Gary, Indiana, Detroit, pick some red state -- go to Memphis, a red state, it's got a crime problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Nobody's really disputing the problem, but what he's talking about is this really the right solution? And, yes, I mean, you can look at the numbers over a week, but this is a city. People live there 365 days a year. So, when all of this show is over, what happens in D.C.? DOWNEY: Well, but that's not correct that Democrats haven't been disputing that this is a problem, right? It'd be one thing to say -- it would be accurate to say that this is a temporary band aid solution that deserves a long-term solution, but Democrats aren't saying that. They're pretending like the problem doesn't exist. And also do we believe that they're prepared to implement the solution? Let's just look at the history of the D.C. Police Department.
PHILLIP: I don't know what evidence do you have that Democrats are saying that there's no crime in D.C.
SEAT: The last several weeks, they've been saying, oh, well, this is down 30 percent. This is down --
PHILLIP: Let's put our thinking caps on here for just a second. There's a difference between there is no crime and crime has been decreasing, which is a fact, okay? Even if you don't like the numbers, murders, okay, you're either dead or you're not dead, decreasing over the last couple of years. So, there's a difference between those two things. And I understand the rhetoric of it all, but no Democrat is saying that there's no crime in the city.
DOWNEY: Do you think D.C. safe? Do you think D.C. is genuinely safe?
LATHAN: Do but you understand --
(CROSSTALKS)
[22:10:00]
PHILLIP: Did I say that?
DOWNEY: Do you think the current D.C. Police Department is equipped to tackle this problem?
PHILLIP: Caroline, did say that D.C. is safe? Did I say that?
DOWNEY: Do you think they're tackling the --
PHILLIP: Just said, do you think D.C. is safe? I did not say that.
DOWNEY: I know. I'm glad. I'm glad you can see that.
PHILLIP: I lived there for a while. I used to own a home there. I understand the nature of crime in D.C. I understand the nature of crime outside of the mall.
DOWNEY: Do you think the local government is going to tackle it?
PHILLIP: That is not the issue.
DOWNEY: Do you think the government was going to tackle it?
PHILLIP: The question is, what is the solution? Is the solution a 30- day presence -- DOWNEY: Prolonged active policing, more cops on the beat, putting violent criminals in jail. Do you really believe that the Democrat- controlled --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: You're right. Hold on a second.
DOWNEY: Over the last several years, you guys, the D.C. police budget stagnated and 700 cops were taken out --
PHILLIP: You are correct, you're correct, that sustained policing, increased police on the streets, and increased police budget. All of those things would help. None of that is what's happening right now. That's the problem.
DORNWY: Were they going to do that? No, they weren't.
LATHAN: But do you see how you just reorient the conversation? What was said was, will say, was a fact. The fact is that whether or not you think safe is relative, I probably feel safe in places that you don't feel safe, right? Like safe is relative, but the fact is that the crime was going down, that there was a spike and the crime was going down.
So, to militarize the city and really put a lot of American citizens in a place where I know a whole bunch of people that feel more unsafe in D.C. now than they felt in D.C. a couple of weeks ago. So, whose safety are we really litigating?
DOWNEY: If that is their perception, that's unfortunate because their quality of life is going to get better.
LATHAN: How can you tell them that?
DOWNEY: It is.
LATHAN: But how can you tell them that?
DOWNEY: Carjack -- arbitrary carjackings and thuggery by street gangs, that's going to go down, because they are actually --
BERMAN: (INAUDIBLE) with the National Guard is unsustainable. So, it's not actually changing --
DOWNEY: I agree with you.
BERMAN: Okay. So, let's agree. Let's agree --
SEAT: So, hopefully, the D.C. Police will step up after they see that it works.
BERMAN: Hold on. The long-term solutions are very important, of course, right?
DOWNEY: Of course. BERMAN: Okay, we can all agree on that. Now, what are the long-term solutions? We agree that more police in general is a good thing, especially when they're well-trained police who care about the communities that they're operating in.
DOWNEY: Yes.
BERMAN: Also if Donald Trump genuinely wanted to tackle issues of public safety and crime in D.C., he would not be bragging that he has decreased FEMA's budget for D.C. since last year 44 percent. And if he actually wanted to deal with crime in D.C., there are proven things, proven policies that legislators can pass that invest in local communities.
DOWNEY: Yes, cops on the beat.
BERMAN: If you actually want to decrease crime, you invest in public education.
PHILLIP: I was just going to say, I mean, the Republican-led Congress slashed a billion dollars from D.C.'s budget.
MORAN: A billion dollars.
PHILLIP: That would've been money that went to hiring --
DOWNEY: Was it community policing. That's a euphemism for law enforcement without teeth.
PHILLIP: Listen, just straight up money, all of the money, okay, just a billion dollars that would've gone to all things, from schools to police, it just evaporated because Congress can. So, that is another place where if they wanted to fund more cops on the beat, they could do that. They actually have the power to do that right now.
MORAN: The other thing that I heard from a fellow in Anacostia who acknowledged, look, he said, if there are ten murders in your neighborhood and it goes down to eight, that is no reason for a party. So, he didn't like people saying crime is down, okay? He also said what he wanted to see the federal government do is, A, some of these troops are -- some of these show kabuki theater troops are nowhere near the worst part of town, and, second, guns. He said the guns flowing into D.C. that cause the killings are from, as he put it, red states, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia. They're from gun shows and flea markets. And why won't the federal government, it's a federal law, he said he knew what he was talking about, it's a federal law, why won't it be in enforce to save the children --
LATHAN: No. Hold on. Wait a second. Wait a second.
DOWNEY: Juvenile gangs, what are you going to do about them?
LATHAN: Wait a second though. They're --
DOWNEY: To talk about the gangs.
LATHAN: Yes.
DOWNEY: Okay. That's a --
LATHAN: Hold on. Wait a second. Absolutely, absolutely --
PHILLIP: I don't know why you're arguing about that, because the Trump administration is touting that they've taken illegal guns off the streets. They understand that that's problem.
LATHAN: So, a lot of times when you're talking to some of the folks on the right and you're trying to have good faith arguments and debates about them, and you say, hey, maybe one of the root problems of crime and violent crime everywhere is the easy access to guns and weapons that are made to kill people, and then they stop short. They stop short of saying, hey, the leading cause of death for kids is guns, let's talk about the guns.
So, I don't think that it's about safety at all. I think that it's actually about, in my opinion --
DOWNEY: Gun control.
LATHAN: -- how -- not gun control, but I think it's actually about who feels safe. And there are a lot of people that look like me that are walking around D.C. right now, and they just don't feel safe.
PHILLIP: All right, we got to leave it there, guys.
Coming up next for us, breaking news, both California and Texas are advancing their efforts to redraw the political maps as one Texas Democrat compares herself to a runaway slave and a Jew in the Holocaust.
[22:15:10]
Plus, Cracker Barrel's stock takes a nosedive after accusations of being woke. Why? Well, because they changed their logo. We'll debate that up ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, California takes its next steps to redistrict. Gavin Newsom signed a set of bills that sets up a special election in November, allowing voters to decide if the new maps will become official. Newsom's posture and his tone have become a focal point in the recent week, and his office has been trolling President Trump in his signature social media style.
[22:20:06]
He wrote in all caps and calling the maps the best maps ever made and he sarcastically called them better than Google and Apple Maps. He also added that today we will make maps great again.
He also did not pull any punches on a recent podcast. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): This is radical rigging of a midterm election.
So, I'm sorry. I know some people's sensibilities. I respect and appreciate that. But right now, with all due respect, we're walking down a damn different path. We're fighting fire with fire and going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: My, my how things have changed. He very recently, I feel like people almost forget, was hosting a lot of Republicans on that very podcast and trying to bridge, you know, that divide, Van. He's changed his tune. Do you like it?
LATHAN: Yes, he doesn't have a choice. If the power grab in Texas is so obvious and it's, they telegraphed it to such a degree, the only choice is to mitigate the damage they could do with governors in other states doing it. There's no choice. Like there's not anyone who's going to get an argument from me that gerrymandering and the way that these states have been gerrymandering is oftentimes undemocratic, but in this case, with this obvious of a power grab at this like important of a time, the only way to deal with it is to add more seats where you can. There's nothing else that they can do.
DOWNEY: Redistricting is an inherently political enterprise. To pretend otherwise is silly. Democrats do it, Republicans do it, and I think it's odd that we're basically defending the Democrats when they're doing it in California, but slamming the Texas GOP for doing it. Because what was ironic about the fact that the Texas Democrats went to Illinois in that P.R. stunt was the fact that J.B. Pritzker actually signed a law years back that allowed redistricting that favored Democrats and heavily penalized Republicans.
LATHAN: When did they do the redistricting?
DOWNEY: A few years ago. It was part of a law.
LATHAN: When do they redistrict? Are we talking about the redistricting at the beginning of the decade? Are we talking about it in the middle of it? Because what we're seeing right now is -- and, look, just keep it to the facts, what we're seeing right now is this redistricting being done specifically to affect the outcome of the election or next year so Trump doesn't actually have to run --
SEAT: But if you're opposed to gerrymandering, it's gerrymandering no matter when it takes place.
(CROSSTALKS)
LATHAN: I'm about to go crazy. The gerrymandering that's happening in the Democratic states is to offset the numbers that would be lost. It's not as if this is what I like about it, and this is what I like about it. I am very happy that Democrats or people on the left have stopped becoming martyrs for morality. Look, get down there and fight for people. Fight for them.
SEAT: When they go low, we go lower. But let me point this out. This is what I hear from Republicans. You can argue it's the chicken and the egg, but a lot of Republicans say that Texas is actually responding to years of bare-knuckled redistricting shenanigans that Democrats have executed across this country. Look at the existing map in California, 52 Congressional districts, only nine are Republican. Look at Illinois. The Democrat governor, J.B. Pritzker, as you mentioned, he himself, he signed the bill and said on Colbert's show, the map looks like it was drawn by a kindergartner. Massachusetts doesn't have a single Republican member.
PHILLIP: Okay. To your point, look at North Carolina, 50-47 state, it's almost evenly divided. Democrats have four seats, Republicans have ten. Look at Florida, 56-43 state, used to be a swing state. Democrats have eight seats. Republicans have 20 seats.
So, I only say this to say I don't think that there are any victims really in this redistricting fight.
SEAT: So, I don't think that's the right way to look at it.
PHILLIP: No. I mean, my point is that the idea that Republicans are only doing this because Democrats did it first is really not based in reality at all. I think you could say both parties have done it when they've had the opportunity. But I'm not sure that it was the Democrats that started this or anything like that.
BERMAN: Governor Newsom put a trigger in the California legislation that says very clearly that the California redistricting won't happen if Texas doesn't happen. Democratic states that have done redistricting, to your point, on the decade when the census is supposed to happen, have created independent commissions that they now have to undo in order to even play this game, whereas Republicans in states --
SEATS: It's arguable that there's any such thing that exists.
BERMAN: Okay. Well, in New York, it has been was litigated extensively.
PHILLIP: Amanda, should they --
BERMAN: Because it was actually aggressively worked on to make sure that it wasn't --
PHILLIP: Should Democrats just abandon their opposition to gerrymandering at this point?
[22:25:00]
Because if they're just going to -- if everybody is just going to do it, then maybe just do it as opposed to --
BERMAN: I think the fact that there is legislation and not one Republican has signed on to, federal legislation that would end gerrymandering and not one Republican has signed on to it --
MORAN: That's what be needed to do.
DOWNEY: The answer to your question is, yes, because California is already heavily gerrymandered. Illinois, deep blue state, already heavily gerrymandered --
MORAN: Florida, North Carolina, other states, the other way.
PHILLIP: Yes. But, I mean, Texas, Florida, North Carolina, most of the southern states, heavily gerrymandered. I guess my point is that there is no argument that Republicans have not been gerrymandering. They have definitely been gerrymandering.
SEAT: No one suggested that.
PHILLIP: But I guess the point is that nobody is unilaterally disarming it.
MORAN: But here's the salient fact we haven't mentioned is that this was done at the behest of Donald Trump. And Donald -- this is part of a campaign by Trump to control the next elections, in his own words, may I quote, he says, the states are merely an agent for the federal government in counting and tabulating votes. They must do what the federal government, as represented by the president of the United States, tells them. He's trying to take over the election system so that --
(CROSSTALKS)
LATHAN: And all of this stuff, where are my small government Republicans? You have the king of the country right there saying it in plain English, you know why he's doing it rather than obfuscate and try to act like we are all too stupid to read Truth Social. Why don't we just deal --
(CROSSTALKS)
SEAT: I'm telling you what Republicans are saying.
DOWNEY: I would love to go there.
BERMAN: At the same that he is calling for this Texas redistricting, he is also calling to eliminate mail-in ballot. He is also calling for a mid-decade census.
MORAN: For a federal takeover of the election.
(CROSSTALKS)
BERMAN: The president cannot constitutionally change mail-in ballots.
But there's something that's really, really important and interesting to be said, which is that this whole Texas thing is a real gamble. They're relying on the fact that Hispanic voters will stay with Trump as they did. 50 percent of Hispanic voters were with Trump last fall. A new CBS poll that came out in mid-July is fascinating. It says that he now only has 33 percent of Hispanic voters, that 63 percent of Hispanic voters now say that he is mishandling immigration in a manner that's too tough. 56 percent say he's targeting non-dangerous individuals rather than focusing on criminals. 64 percent of respondents believe that Hispanic people are subject to more immigration and deportation searches than other groups. And of those, 78 percent consider such treatment unfair. And one more thing, which is that only 36 percent of Hispanic voters approve of Trump's handling inflation. I'm sorry.
PHILLIP: All right. We got to leave it there.
Next for us, a company has updated its logo and suddenly has become a target of the right. Why Cracker Barrel, of all places, is accused of being woke, and why today's political climate is making CEOs crazy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it too much to ask to just go get a fat stack of diabetes get served by lady named Mod (ph), smoking two packs a day?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
PHILLIP: On the all-time list of weirdest culture wars, this one's got a rank pretty high. And for one company -- an iconic company, the price that it is paying is also very high. Here's the bottom line, at least we think. Cracker Barrel has updated its logo. You see it right there. The redesigned logo and decor, whether you love it or hate it, is changed. It's pretty standard for companies to update from time to time, but not according to MAGA.
The right is now calling the chain woke and the stock price fell off a cliff today over it. Some of them are upset that they took away Uncle Herschel. The President's son asked, what the F is wrong with them? One MAGA account with nearly four million followers said that the CEO should face charges for this crime against humanity. And a MAGA podcaster took it one step further.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENNY JOHNSON, "THE BENNY SHOW" HOST: And got rid of the Cracker and the Barrel. They erased the white guy sitting outside of the Cracker Barrel store. White people are about to riot. It's getting sticky because the CEO of Cracker Barrel is as woke as they come. She's destroying a great American brand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I don't know if this is satire or what, like, but yeah, I guess they got rid of the "Cracker", his words, and the "Barrel" at the same time, and so now it's about to be Civil War Part two in the country. Make it make sense.
PETE SEAT, FORMER W.H. SPOKESMAN BUSH ADMINISTRATION: First off, I think it's wrong to paint this as MAGA world is outraged. Sure, there are people in that sphere that are --
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: -- but I've seen a lot of folks who have no allegiance or alliance to MAGA that have complained about this. And why? It's because there's a resistance to change, specifically a resistance to changing things that aren't broken. And Cracker Barrel works because Cracker Barrel is consistent. When you go on a road trip you know that you're going to get good food at a good price at the next exit and you can go in and you have the kitchen decor it makes you feel like you're at home or in grandma's living room. That's what people want.
[22:35:00]
They don't want bland, boring cookie cutter minimalist places that feel like fill in the blank fusion restaurant.
PHILLIP: Pete, I believe you, you know?
SEAT: Thank you.
PHILLIP: I believe that you --
SEAT: Thank you.
PHILLIP: -- believe that.
SEAT: Did you all get that? You believe me.
PHILLIP: But I have to point out there are two main things. One, Cracker Barrel has not been doing well. That's -- I hate to break it to you. But long before all of this, going all the way back to, from my look at this graphic, July 2021 or thereabouts, the stock has been in decline, okay? So, this is a brand that's been in trouble for some time.
But then on top of that, listen, I'm not -- it's not just me saying it's MAGA, okay? Here's Byron Donalds, a sitting Republican congressman. He says, "In college, I worked at Cracker Barrel in Tallahassee. I even gave my life to Christ in their parking lot. Their logo was iconic. Their unique restaurants were a fixture of American culture. No one asked for this woke rebrand. It's time to make Cracker Barrel great again.
PHILLIP: Not a woke rebrand?
CAROLINE DOWNEY, "NATIONAL REVIEW" COLUMNIST: Not everything is woke. I think we're abusing the term a little bit too much where it's losing its meaning and that's really important because some things actually are awoke and we felt like it is. However, in this case from a marketing perspective, if revenues are declining, you got to switch it up, you got to implement a new strategy. But who at that roundtable was thinking to themselves, yes, let's go
back to the minimalism of five years ago that is sterile and bland and neutered. And let's rob this iconic timeless company of all its character and charm and fun history and country vibes.
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: That's not super smart.
PHILLIP: Yeah, I'm with you.
DOWNEY: Maximalism is the moment. And also Gen Z? Gen Z -- we love Cracker Barrel.
PHILLIP: There's a lot of like -- there's a lot of like bad corporate decision making happening.
AMANDA BERMAN, CEO, ZIONESS MOVEMENT: Right.
UNKNOWN: But isn't that capitalism?
PHILLIP: Right. Aren't they allowed to make mistakes?
DOWNEY: And the markets will decide. And the market will decide.
BERMAN: Companies to be able to make their own decisions about their strategy. They're offering their brand, you know, evolving to meet their consumers' needs. And by the way, the four cracker barrels that actually already underwent this transformation of the new branding apparently are doing very well and are meeting earnings.
PHILLIP: So, to your point, let me play what the CEO said because she kind of spoke to that. Let's listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JULIE FELSS MASINO, CEO, CRACKER BARREL: I think what's important is that we are listening to our guests. We're doing this all for them. What they've said is they love the new seating. We're adding in booths, making the chairs more comfortable. But what's important is things that people love about Cracker Barrel, the soul of Cracker Barrel is not changing.
The rocking chairs are still there. The fireplace is there. The peg game. All the things that make Cracker Barrel, Cracker Barrel. The vintage decor, it's still there and it's working. The results affirm that we're headed in the right direction.
MICHAEL STRAHAN, ABC "GOOD MORNING AMERICA" NEWS ANCHOR: What if all the customers are coming at you hard enough about the look of the restaurant, they want to go back to the old way? Would you do it?
MASINO: Honestly, the feedback's been overwhelmingly positive that people like what we're doing.
(END VIDEO CLIP) TERRY MORAN, VETERAN JOURNALIST: She's woke. You see, not everybody in MAGA is part of this. Well, welcome to what it feels like to have been a moderate Democrat for like the last 10 years when anything the most lunatic person on the left said was assigned to absolutely everyone on the other side. But I would --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But this is -- I have to say, the President's son, okay?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: That's not just like a lunatic on the right.
(CROSSTALK)
VAN LATHAN, "HIGHER LEARNING" PODCAST HOST: You know what's funny about that is he lying. He don't know nothing about Cracker Barrel. He did not grow up with Cracker Barrel. He has no clue. They're not dipping the crackers into caviar. He don't know nothing about what he's talking about. He has no clue.
There's a lot of people -- this is the thing that annoys me about this the most. It's like, stop giving them stuff to cry about. Like, I get it. Like, this whole thing, I understand that the want is to continue to move and all of this, but now we get to get stuck on another meaningless culture war, when there's real stuff that's actually going on.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But can I ask you, on a serious note, and I'm sorry to have interrupted you, Terry.
MORAN: It's all right.
PHILLIP: But on a serious note, the undercurrent of a lot of this is that this is a company that no longer has a policy of not hiring LGBTQ people, that has tried to create a workplace environment that is welcoming to all of its employees. And for that reason, people like right-wing activist Robbie Starbuck are saying that they are woke.
There is an undercurrent that if you acknowledge the existence and perhaps the humanity of people, who are LGBTQ or whatever, then suddenly you become woke and suddenly you become entitled to this kind of backlash.
MORAN: This is a weird fringe on both sides. Most people just want breakfast. You know, I mean, they really don't want to fight about who's -- and they're live and let live. We are -- we are fair-minded, decent people who are mostly live and let live. You go into it, you see somebody who's maybe different from you at the Cracker Barrel. You're not going to storm out.
LATHAN: No, it's fine.
MORAN: How dare they have somebody who's saying that.
(CROSSTALK)
LATHAN: I actually --
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: But they don't want pandering. And I will say the reaction to this is --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But a lot of this is --
(CROSSTALK)
LATHAN: Hold on, hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
LATHAN: I actually disagree with --
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: They're basically saying that we are going to overtly progressive in our posture --
(CROSSTALK)
MORAN: But we're overtly -- if somebody's qualified, they hire.
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: And that's a corporate decision that they are allowed to make. People don't want to go eat there. They don't have to, but to attack the company to do this cancel culture thing, which I thought the right opposed cancel culture.
[22:40:03]
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: I thought they opposed -- well, supposedly, right? I thought they opposed grievance politics. I thought they opposed victimization. I thought they opposed all of these binaries. But now, all of a sudden, they don't like this company because it's too woke and they want to cancel the company.
LATHAN: By the way, I -- a couple things. Number one, I actually -- actually don't agree that it's just the fringe of the right. I think the President and other people, they run on these culture war issues.
UNKNOWN: Right.
LATHAN: They took Sydney Sweeney and the entire discourse around Sydney Sweeney and blew it up when they needed a lifeline from everybody's laser-focused on other things. I think that the culture war- issues right now are actually steroids to the people that want to use the "changing of America" and the perceived changing of America as ammunition to ram through all of these policies. I think that there's a definite through line between this right here and --
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: I think most -- as someone who lives in the midwest --
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: You don't think most Americans just want a normal revolution? You don't think most Americans just want normal, because what Cracker Barrel had before --
(CROSSTALK)
LATHAN: What's normal?
MORAN: But what's abnormal?
LATHAN: What's normal? What's normal?
MORAN: I don't get -- hiring gay people is abnormal?
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: I don't know what the average American is.
LATHAN: Well, what's the average American?
DOWNEY: To strip a logo that didn't need to be changed.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But we don't know why they changed the logo. I don't understand. I mean, the assumption here is that they took the white guy off the logo, but maybe they just changed the logo and simplified it. I don't know. I mean, we just actually don't --
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: They said they went through multiple rebrands and had five different logos.
DOWNEY: Which is weird.
BERMAN: People don't have to like the logo and maybe they'll change it back. But like, it's --
PHILLIP: Pete, you were saying?
SEAT: Well, I just wanted to say, as someone who actually lives in the Midwest, in the heartland of America, I have a lot of friends who are watching tonight. When they saw the intro, and we were going to talk about Cracker Barrel, my phone blew up and they said, I am so angry, I hope you express that anger.
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: They're actually, yeah, they're in touch with what people are talking about and upset with.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Are they, have they gone to Cracker Barrel in the last year?
SEAT: I haven't asked them. I'm sure they have.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I think that this should be very important because I do think that there are a lot of people who are going to get angry about these things, but they're not stepping foot in a Cracker Barrel, okay?
BERMAN: So, you think this rebrand is going to get people in the door?
PHILLIP: I'm not saying that. I'm just saying the CEO is saying that it has been positively received by people who are actually coming in --
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: Perhaps she is misguided.
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: I don't think so.
LATHAN: This rebrand is buying Cracker Barrel publicity that they could not have dreamed of. Not --
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: And a falling stock price.
LATHAN: What the consumer does after that? I know, I'm probably going check it out, say that all the way, I say "Brother Barrel". I say put a "Brother" on the side and just go all the way to really get people talking. If this gets under your skin, let's go more. Let's go crazy with it.
PHILLIP: All right.
DOWNEY: We'll find out in the numbers, won't we? We'll find out in their next --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We'll end on that note. All right, everybody, next for us, an appeals court in New York says that President Trump no longer has to pay a fine of nearly $500 million in his civil fraud case. Is that justice or just a free pass? We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:39]
PHILLIP: Tonight, Donald Trump is claiming total victory after a New York appeals court tossed out a nearly $500 million civil fraud penalty against him. The court's decision was not unanimous and it still leaves room for Trump to appeal, and it also leaves him liable for fraud.
But in the majority opinion, the judges called the fine excessive, saying that it violated the Eighth Amendment. In a lengthy social media post, Trump called the trial a political witch hunt and took aim at New York Attorney General Letitia James and the Biden administration. James has vowed to appeal the ruling, as well.
This is as close to a clean win on something like this as you can get because that massive ruling was enormous and it would have been devastating, I think, even to the Trump businesses. But the court was pretty clear that they just think the money, period. They didn't reduce it. They just said no fine at all.
LATHAN: Interesting. I'll be honest with you guys. I don't have a lot for you here. But what I will say is I think it's very interesting that the President used the Eighth Amendment here to -- that his lawyers used the Eighth Amendment to get this, you know, decision in the way that they wanted it to when we've seen in other cases, maybe things like the Fourteenth Amendment that, you know, guarantee a solid due process, really not be considered by the President in the way that he goes about, you know, completing some of his agenda.
DOWNEY: The court used cruel and unusual punishment because it's not always used in physical cases.
(CROSSTALK)
LATHAN: Excessive fines. Excessive fines.
DOWNEY: Yes, well, but yes, cruel and unusual punishment can be used to mean in like excessive, obscene, like financial penalties, which in this case, $500 million -- was, and the court agreed. It's not that the court doesn't think that he's not liable for fraud, or that there shouldn't be fine at all because there are still restrictions on Trump's businesses. He's still going to suffer even without this fine.
What the court said is that this penalty was disproportionate -- wildly disproportionate to the wrong done because there were no victims. There were no victims of this wrong. Even Trump's business partners, they did their due diligence and they still went into business with Trump because they made money.
And Letitia James was so hell bent on bankrupting Trump that she actually did mental gymnastics. She brought in a banking expert to do testimony to claim that somehow the banks that Trump did business with might have lost out on some accrued interest, which is another load of baloney because the banks did due diligence and they still went into business with Trump, as well.
[22:50:09]
There were no victims. That's why 500 million was absurd and insane and cruel and unusual punishment.
LATHAN: So, 8th Amendment, so, Constitution for me, but not for the (inaudible). So, I mean, what I'm talking about is, I've seen this administration since they've been in, talking about the fact that the rule of law doesn't really matter, we'll do what we want to do. And it's convenient to use it when it -- when it -
MORAN: I would just say this is -- this is the price of lawfare. This was a bogus case and I think he could well win altogether at the court -- at the Court of Appeals, the highest court in New York. This was if he had not been president United States, his name hadn't been Donald Trump, they wouldn't have brought it. This is a case about a New York real estate developer who inflated the value of his assets in order to get better terms from the bank.
DOWNEY: Alvin Bragg -- Alvin Bragg didn't even bring it.
PHILLIP: I just want to note, I mean, listen, I think that there are lot of lawyers who agree with you on that. But I do want to note that this is what our CNN's right says four judges agreed that the lower state court correctly found Trump and the other defendants liable for fraud and agreed that James had the right to bring the civil action.
Quote, "We agree with the Supreme Court that the attorney general acted well within our lawful power in bringing this action, and that she vindicated a public interest in doing so." So, even while they thought that the punishment -- the fine, specifically was excessive, four of the judges believed that they should have brought the case.
One disagreed and I think we should -- we should acknowledge that. But one thing about Trump is that he does complain quite a lot that he is, you know, the victim here. But he's won quite a lot in some of these cases -- 2020 election obstruction case dropped. Mishandling classified documents, dismissed. Georgia election subversion case halted. New York hush money case, unconditional discharge for felony -- for a felony case and now this. So, he's doing just fine for somebody who is the victim.
SEAT: So, you're correct that one of the judges believe that it should be thrown out altogether, two thought that it should be retried. But since they couldn't come to an agreement, a majority of them to either retry or throw it out, obviously, that didn't happen. One of the judges wrote in his opinion that because of that, it's clear that the ruling should not stand.
I think this is humiliating for the attorney general. It may still exist on paper right now that she got a win, but three of the judges think it either should have been retried or thrown out altogether, and that's bad for her.
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: That's -- and by the way, I should say that's not going to happen. I mean, there's no way this --
(CROSSTALK)
MORAN: The litany of cases that you just went through --
PHILLIP: Yeah.
MORAN: So, the futility of the Democratic effort to find some prosecutor somewhere, some jury somewhere that would keep Donald Trump pout of the White House rather than coming up with good politics that would win votes and persuade people --
(CROSSTALK)
MORAN: And they hope that they prosecute their way to victory.
PHILLIP: We got to leave it there. Next for us, the panel is going to give us their nightcaps and we are going to start some culture wars in here. But first, the programming note for you. On Sunday. Nick Watt is going to dive into the high stakes world of sports betting for a look at the real costs. That's the whole story with Anderson Cooper. It is Sunday at 10 P.M. on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:57:58]
PHILLIP: We're back and it's time for the "NewsNight" cap. Bring your own culture war edition. Earlier, we talked about Cracker Barrel's rebrand and how some are pouncing on it as a sign of wokeness. So now, you each have a few seconds to tell us what change would you make to start your own culture war? Caroline, you're up first.
DOWNEY: Mine's kind of broad, but eliminate all social media. It's banned. Nobody can use it. You can only send letters through pigeons or old-fashioned ways.
SEAT: Very Cracker Barrel-y.
PHILLIP: I'm with it. I think we need to back off social media culture. Excuse me. Go ahead.
BERMAN: I would ban all automated customer service, but now in hindsight after that decision, I think I would ban all customer service in the form of class action litigation because the person that I become and that everyone I know becomes when they're on a customer service phone line, on hold getting hung up on, it's really truly the worst version of all of us.
PHILLIP: True.
MORAN: I would end online gambling. I'd end all gambling, as a matter of fact. The America I grew up in was America where there was no such thing as a fast buck or free lunch. That ethos should be returned. Maybe Vegas, but certainly not sports and not gambling.
PHILLIP: Now, we're getting spicy with the culture wars. That's --
(CROSSTALK)
LATHAN: I want to have an actual culture war. I'm going to make -- I'm going to get people riled up. So, I'm going take James Bond and make him black, but I'm going make him Ray J. Ray J. You guys know Ray J? You all know Ray J. You all seen him with Kim. So, Ray J is going to be James Bond. And after that, that's going to set social media on fire, man.
PHILLIP: Why Ray J?
LATHAN: Because Ray J is an underrated legend. Shout out to Vince Staples for putting that out there. And I think he is the type of person that if we made him James Bond, the character would get under the right skin so much. Ray J.
PHILLIP: A black James Bond is an automatic culture war.
LATHAN: Yeah, absolutely.
PHILLIP: Period.
BERMAN: We talked about doing that.
PHILLIP: Literally. Yeah, actually.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yeah, it kind of doesn't matter who it is but it will be automatic.
(CROSSTALK)
LATHAN: Yeah.
PHILLIP: All right, Pete.
SEAT: I've long been an advocate of this idea, and hopefully the platform of "NewsNight" will finally bring it to critical mass.
[23:00:00]
There should be a wall between Indiana and Illinois, and Illinois should pay for it.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: Okay. All right. Are you going to paint --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Are you going to paint --
DOWNEY: Western idea --
PHILLIP: Are you going to paint the wall black so that when it gets hot, you know, you can't, that's --apparently this is floated about the actual --
SEAT: Well, again, they pay for it. As long as Illinois pays for it --
PHILLIP: Yeah.
SEAT: -- we'll do whatever.
PHILLIP: All right. Well, okay. All right. You heard that, Illinois. Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me, actually, on social media -- X, Instagram and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
