Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Kimmel Returns To Air Later Tonight As Boycott Expands; Disney+ Raises Its Prices In The Middle of Firestorm; Oklahoma To Force Turning Point Chapters At All High Schools; Turning Point Chapters Planned To Be Included In Oklahoma High Schools; Trump Says Ukraine Could Win War. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 23, 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 HOST (voice over): Tonight, lights, camera, factions. Jimmy Kimmel returns to the air in a divided America, but not everyone will be watching as the right's boycott intensifies.
Plus, while Donald Trump goes scorched earth to everyone on earth --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Your countries are going to hell.
PHILLIP: -- he delivers a major reversal on Russia and the fate of Ukraine.
Also, Oklahoma will soon require all high schools to have a Turning Points chapter, an effort by the state superintendent to, quote, fight back against liberal propaganda.
And --
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you sometimes just want to scream, I told you all so?
KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Sunny, nothing comes to mind.
PHILLIP: -- Kamala Harris may be settling scores, but does she admit why liberals lost the game?
Live at the table, Congressman James Clyburn, Brad Todd, Xochitl Hinojosa, and Hogan Gidley.
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 Washington. Let's get right to what America's talking about, the return of Jimmy Kimmel. Seven days ago, it'd be hard to believe that a Tuesday night episode of his show would be the talk of the town, but here we are. He's back on the air later tonight after ABC suspended him over what the network calls ill-timed Charlie Kirk remarks.
But, of course, it came after the Trump administration's threat to punish him or else. Critics blasted ABC for giving in, calling it McCarthyism. But as he returns to the air tonight, nearly a quarter of ABC stations won't see anything at all. The two local T.V. giants, Nexstar in Sinclair, are both preempting the show with a boycott. Now, combined, they own 70 stations across America, including cities like New Orleans, Seattle, St. Louis, Nashville, and right here in Washington, D.C.
But Kimmel is getting support from a Trump supporter, Joe Rogan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, HOST, THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE: First of all, I definitely don't think that the government should be involved ever in dictating what a comedian can or cannot say in a monologue. That's (BLEEP) crazy.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's crazy.
ROGAN: Now, the problem is the companies, if they're being pressured by the government, so if that's real, and if people on the right are like, yes, go get them, oh my God, you are crazy. You are crazy for supporting this, because this will be used on you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And that's an argument that we've heard not just from Joe Rogan, but a number of Republicans including Ted Cruz, Brad. I mean, do you think that right now where we are is, as it should be, that he was suspended for a time, Disney brought him back, he's going to address this tonight one way or another, and it just gets settled as any sort of, you know, maybe employment issue gets settled without the hand of the government involved?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I'm not for the hand of government dictating speech or people losing their job over speech, but we've been here for a while during the Biden administration. They pressured tech platforms to squelch news stories that were critical of their COVID response. They buried the Hunter Biden laptop story. New York Post lost their privileges on social media because of it. So, we've been in this spot for a while.
As for Jimmy Kimmel, the best thing he could do tonight is to come out and announce he's hired a few conservative joke writers so that his joke room won't be ideologically monolithic.
PHILLIP: Why? I mean, why does it matter what --
TODD: Because he has jokes --
PHILLIP: I mean, why does he have to -- why does it have to be like equal opportunity for jokes? I mean, why can't he just tell whatever -- TODD: Well, he can say whatever he wants, but the stations that carry him operate with a public interest obligation. They only get to hold those frequencies if they're working in the public interest. Their news programs on those stations have to give you equal time to both sides.
PHILLIP: But there's nothing to say that Jimmy Kimmel, even under this very vague public interest standard, has to give time to viewpoints that he doesn't want to give time to -- I mean, he is a comedian. He's a --
TODD: He surely is.
PHILLIP: Yes, he can do whatever he wants.
[22:05:00]
TODD: And when he ran The Man Show, there certainly were a lot of objectionable things he did on that show that a lot of other people wouldn't have liked. I thought maybe he was going to have to go back and do The Man Show if ABC kicked him off.
But I think the best thing he could do if he wants to bring the entire audience, make his audience bigger, not smaller, is to maybe be a little contrite tonight.
PHILLIP: What do you say? Congressman Clyburn, you know, the argument and Brad's bringing up something I've heard from a lot of conservatives today, partly because there was a letter from Google, parent company, Alphabet, that said that the Biden administration conducted repeated and sustained outreach and pressed the company to remove information around COVID that they thought was disinformation. So, they're alleging that in a new letter, even though they didn't do it at the time. What do you make of the argument that those two things are the same?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC): Well, I don't think they're the same, simply because Biden, if any of this took place, these weren't jokes. This wasn't a T.V. show. This was a pandemic. And we didn't need to have misinformation going out about this pandemic. There was enough coming from the president at the time. What, put Clorox in your veins? That's the kind of foolishness the Biden administration was trying to, let's just say, oppose.
And so what they were asking is, let's not put out information that you know is not true. We had the same problem growing. Now what's going to happen with Tylenol now? No science anywhere supports what the president said today about Tylenol. All of the science is to the contrary. So, I can't -- I don't think he'll ought be trying to equate what happens to be an illness sweeping the world with somebody telling a joke on television.
PHILLIP: And I think on the other layer to it is that -- I mean, I read what Google put out, but nowhere do they allege that the Biden administration threatened them. They don't allege that at all. HOGAN GIDLEY, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: First of all, the collective anger over someone losing their job from the left was way more than someone who lost his life, first and foremost.
Second of all, I would argue, Congressman, you're absolutely right, it's more important to have an open and honest, fair, robust conversation, getting different viewpoints when you have a global pandemic that came in from China that was unforeseen, that was unprecedented, and no one ever thought possible.
On top of that, it's always the Republicans, it's always conservative views that get silenced, shadow bans, censored from these various algorithms. The glitches never cut the other way. The mess-ups in the coding never skew against Democrats. It's always conservative.
So, Jimmy Kimmel coming back to air, fine. It was a business decision made by the parent company when he clearly wasn't going to apologize. He wasn't going to say he lied, even though he clearly did. The facts were already out there that it was not a MAGA shooter. He tried to make it so. So, they have every right to kick him off the air, and they have every right to bring him back on.
And Brad and I are going to disagree here. I don't care how many jokes he tells about conservatives versus liberals. I don't care how many guests he has on, whether they be more conservatives or more liberals, the marketplace will decide his fate and his future. And if he can't get ratings as he can't now, chances are his days are short on ABC.
PHILLIP: Well, look, I think that's fair. The marketplace will decide. I mean, I don't know that it's true that he can't get ratings because everything is relative, right? Obviously, it's not what it once was, but nothing on television is what it once was. But he's on T.V. for a reason right now. And Jimmy Kimmel -- it's not just this late night show. He's also a factor in a lot of other things.
I mean, I do think -- let me just read for you what Brendan Carr, the FCC chairman, who kind of launched this whole thing, what he had to say. He said, Democrats keep digging themselves deeper and deeper in a hole on Kimmel. They simply can't stand that local T.V. stations for the first time in years stood up to a national programmer and chose to exercise their lawful right to preempt programming. We need to keep empowering local T.V. stations to serve their communities of license.
It'll be interesting for me to see what their communities say about not being able to watch probably one of the biggest television events of the last few months tonight.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. And, honestly, Brendan Carr, with his pressuring and causing, this could have been a business decision by Disney at the beginning, but Brendan Carr actually pressuring Disney by threatening them ended up making this a bigger story and, honestly, ended up being better for Kimmel at the end. I mean, at work, talking about it here, they may have preempted it in stations across the country, but the reality is that's going to get coverage. [22:10:01]
His ratings will be high. And this is probably going to be one of the most watched shows that he has had in quite some time.
TODD: 70 percent of the country, right.
HINOJOSA: But it'll be covered everywhere.
And, honestly, to be -- I mean, people get their information from social media these days. That is where a majority of the American people get it. They're not watching television the way that they used to.
And I also just want to point out that this, it's funny that he says this because he talks about the public interest and he talks about how, you know, they're doing this in order to ensure that the public is -- that there is a public interest. But the funny part about it, all this is about is Nexstar in this merger. And this is Nexstar trying to bend the knee to the Trump administration because they're worried about this merger and getting approval for this merger. And that's all that this is. This isn't about anything else. You don't have Gray T.V. and Hearst who are also the other affiliates at Carrie, the other ABC affiliates backing out of this in any way. This is Sinclair wants to -- will potentially have business in front of the Trump administration soon and Nexstar currently has business in front of --
TODD: But when Sinclair said that they want to see Jimmy Kimmel make a contribution to the Kirk family, that's pretty reasonable.
HINOJOSA: Yes, they're trying to --
TODD: They want an apology.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: But why is that -- I'm sorry, but why is that reasonable?
TODD: Because --
PHILLIP: Why should they dictate --
TODD: -- Sinclair owns the affiliates. Jimmy Kimmel for the affiliates?
PHILLIP: I get that. But why should they dictate that Jimmy Kimmel donate money anywhere?
TODD: They can dictate whatever they want. It's their station. They're on the hook to make the station profitable. And in the end, having strong local affiliates for, like Brendan Carr said, that's good. That's a nice tension. We have networks, we have affiliates, we have advertisers. All these things work together in the marketplace.
HINOJOSA: But the definition of strong local affiliate for conservatives is you have to end up covering the -- you have to end up ensuring coverage what the conservatives want. And I think that is the problem. The problem isn't about, you know, having strong local affiliates. The problem is ensuring that these local affiliates are covering the news or showing things how you want them to be shown. And that is the problem. And that is the problem.
TODD: Well, the market will decide that. The viewers will decide that.
PHILLIP: It also strikes me that Brendan Carr is also backtracking from where he was earlier in this week. I mean -- or last week. He was saying, oh, we have a role here. We're not done. We're going to do more. Now, he's like, oh, well local affiliates are going to do it. He seems to have gotten his hand slapped and maybe it's because other conservatives have come out and said, this is wrong.
CLYBURN: Absolutely. And I think that is very clear here, that this is about exerting power. This is not anything else but having power over the media and trying to dictate what's in the media and what's not. And we see it happening all across the board, not just with the media. I just read what they're doing in Oklahoma with the superintendent.
PHILLIP: Which we'll talk about a little bit later in the show.
CLYBURN: Okay, well, I'll wait for us to talk about that.
PHILLIP: Yes.
CLYBURN: But it's the same thing. Every facet of our being, this MAGA world is attempting to dictate that.
Now, I just happen to be a student of history. I've studied the history all of my life. And if you are telling me that the history of the media in this country was in support of liberal causes, you don't know the history that I know. And you are denying the history that exists in this country. And you happen to be from Arkansas. I'm from South Carolina. We know the media has never favored liberal causes in the south.
PHILLIP: All right. We got to leave it there. We'll have more to discuss on that front. He just brought up one of the stories we'll be talking about. The state of Oklahoma now forcing all high schools to have a chapter of Charlie Kirk's group, hear why. And how would conservatives react if this was a left wing group.
Plus, after Donald Trump essentially gives the middle finger to the U.N., he abruptly shifted his position on Russia and Ukraine.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Oklahoma tonight says it'll require a Turning Point chapter at every high school in the state. That, of course, is the group that Charlie Kirk founded. The state superintendent, who you might be familiar with, because he's no stranger to controversy, says that it's a move that's designed to fight the left.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RYAN WALTERS, OKLAHOMA SUPERINTENDENT: We have seen the outpouring from parents, teachers, and students that want to be engaged in a meaningful work going on at Turning Point.
For far too long, we have seen radical leftists with the teacher's union dominate classrooms and push woke indoctrination on our kids. What we're going to continue to do is make sure that our kids understand American greatness, engage in civic dialogue, and have that open discussion.
We will continue to do all that we can to make sure Oklahoma students have the best education possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And if that's not enough, here's what he wrote in a letter to parents. Whether your child attends a public school, private school, or is homeschooled, they now have the tools to start a chapter, make their voices heard. Our kids must get involved and active. Our fight starts now.
Xochitl, I don't even know where to begin, but this is real. This is actually happening in America.
HINOJOSA: Yes. And it's scary. I mean, what happened to Charlie Kirk was a tragedy, and I actually take offense saying that the left wasn't speaking out because I did, and so did a lot of other people, and Democrats did speak out that day and the days after. But I also -- I do not think that we should be forcing ideology on our children, especially in public schools.
[22:20:00]
After the shooting of Gabby Giffords, we were not forcing ideology in Arizona about guns. You know, after Minnesota State legislator was killed and her husband was killed in their home by an anti-abortion activist, we weren't going into Minnesota schools and trying to promote abortion in those schools.
So, there are things that happen and there are ways to honor Charlie Kirk's legacy. And I honestly think the best way to do that was that Erika Kirk was saying, was respect for the First Amendment, was things that she -- that Charlie lived by. This is not the respect for our public institutions and for amendment. This is forcing an ideology into our schools that I think is unacceptable.
PHILLIP: Hogan?
GIDLEY: Okay. Oklahoma itself obviously a very conservative place, all 77 counties went for Donald Trump. They most likely will embrace at least parts of this. In the wake of Charlie Kirk's death, I think it can't be overstated the importance, the impact he's had on youth across this country. While I'm well aware that the left is going to be quite upset that students dare hear a different side of an issue as opposed to the leftist indoctrination they've been getting now in public schools for decades, thanks to the teachers unions, this is a fight that they will have at the local level undoubtedly.
I would imagine, just for the sheer balance of the whole thing, this will end up being just fine. And I think students that want to opt in will opt in. Students that won't want to opt in won't opt in, and they'll do their own thing. But there are plenty of places to have robust, open, honest, debate. Starting them in high school is a great place for that to begin.
PHILLIP: But can I just say having Hogan, just to boil things down, first of all, do you agree or disagree with the decision to force every high school in Oklahoma to have a Turning Points USA chapter?
GIDLEY: Well, it depends on what they already forced them to do now.
PHILLIP: Okay. So unless they're forcing them to have Democrats, you know, of America chapter, I'm not aware of any mandate anywhere in this country to have some, a political organization on campus. You're okay with that?
GIDLEY: Again, at the local level, I am. Whatever they decide to do, they can do. That's what the beauty of this republic is.
HINOJOSA: But it's not deciding. Local jurisdictions aren't deciding. It is the state that is deciding for schools. And to be honest with you, I also take offense to this lefty ideology. teachers are underpaid. They are doing the best job that they can do.
GIDLEY: That's an non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with anything.
HINOJOSA: Yes, it does. You were attacking teachers.
GIDLEY: My mother was a public school teacher her entire life.
HINOJOSA: You were just saying leftist ideology of coming from the teachers. The statement says that --
GIDLEY: the teachers unions, absolutely.
TODD: We just have to look at the teachers' unions manifestos to see their --
GIDLEY: 100 percent words.
TODD: I'll answer your question. I don't think school, the state should mandate that there should be chapters of this or any other organization at schools. However, I do think local school boards should not be able to block it. Right now, first off, the organization's called Club America, that's the high school group, their purpose is to promote free thinking and engage in grassroots activism. That's pretty good. It's a 501 C3. It's a nonpartisan group. But, you know, we see a lot of places where high schools are blocking organizations like the Junior ROTC from coming in. We shouldn't have that either. Students should be able to organize in these good patriotic groups in their own schools and for they can learn things and organize optionally.
PHILLIP: I mean, I agree with that. I'm not aware I don't know what the deal is with schools blocking ROTC, but I'm also not aware of any schools blocking the creation of Turning Point chapters. I mean, it's just -- if students want to create a chapter, they can. Why on earth is the state getting involved and say --
TODD: In Mississippi, there's a controversy there right now that they may have tried to block a creation of it.
PHILLIP: Okay. Well, we'll look at --
CLYBURN: Who is they?
TODD: The school board, the school, the local education association.
PHILLIP: Well, look --
TODD: That's in the press in Mississippi.
PHILLIP: I mean, look, this is -- look, let me read this line again. Our kids must get involved and active. Our fight starts now. What fight? I mean, what is he talking about?
CLYBURN: Look I was a public school teacher. I started my professional career teaching the public schools. Nowhere have I ever seen anything like this taking place short of what happened post-Civil War. What has gone on in this country today is exactly what went on after reconstruction of this country. And that is what is being attempted here. On January 6th, I knew exactly what was taking place. And I started writing a book about it that is going to be released on November 11th.
Now, you probably aren't going to like the book because it's factual.
TODD: Will you sign it if I buy one?
CLYBURN: Yes. It is a factual book. It goes into exactly what was happening on January 6th.
[22:25:03]
It goes in exactly what Project 2025 is all about. Read the part on Project 2025 on education and see what's there. It is exactly what they're doing in Oklahoma today. And they're getting there instructions from somewhere up here. And this superintendent is carrying them out.
PHILLIP: Ryan Walters, I mean, he's been quite a character this year. He's been also been investigating Oklahoma school districts for allegedly not honoring Charlie Kirk's death.
I guess some of what's my question is about all of this is, are we just -- or not aren't we, are conservatives just suddenly okay with a state superintendent or anybody dictating how people should feel, what schools should honor, what clubs should exist, what clubs should not? I mean, is that just part of the ideology now?
TODD: Yes. One election official who is responsive to the primary voters of one state here, so let's don't put Ryan Walter's opinion onto everybody else.
I'll tell you one thing we do know though, is that when Melissa Hortman, the speaker of the Minnesota legislature was shot, there was a commemorative resolution and the Congress and every Republican voted for it. When Charlie Kirk was assassinated for his political beliefs, there were 58 Democrats who would not vote for resolution to honor him.
CLYBURN: And I was one of them.
TODD: Why do you think it was?
CLYBURN: I don't mind on anybody's life. I've got a problem with their legacy, and I know what the legacy of Kirk was. When I turn on my T.V. and I see someone telling me what an awful person Martin Luther King Jr. was, when I see somebody telling me if I get on an airplane and there's a black pilot, I begin to wonder is he qualified? What does that mean? Those are the words that came out of his mouth.
GIDLEY: That's not what he said.
CLYBURN: Yes, that is exactly what he said. I got the exact quote.
GIDLEY: It's not in context at all what he was talking about. It was a conversation about affirmative action. You know that, Congressman. This has been well-litigated and well-debated --
CLYBURN: Everything about black people is about affirmative action. And so what's wrong with affirmative action?
GIDLEY: No.
CLYBURN: Look, you're telling me that when I came out of college and couldn't get a job that was because I was not qualified?
GIDLEY: That's not what I'm saying.
CLYBURN: But what are you saying?
GIDLEY: What I'm saying is, Charlie Kirk was very clear, if these companies openly say that they have to somehow fill a quota of people, whether it be a race or gender, not based on merit but based on their race or gender, the obvious should be clear to everyone, which is that person then qualified? That's an obvious question. Because of the bar that the corporation itself set up by saying publicly, we're going to do this type of DEI hiring, then you have to wonder, is it because of their race or their gender?
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hogan, why would you don't have to wonder --
CLYBURN: You don't have to be wondering about anything at all.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, why would you have to wonder that? The only reason you would wonder that is if you're inclined to believe that nobody can be qualified if they are black and brown going into this role.
GIDLEY: No, and that's exactly the point also.
PHILLIP: But here's one other thing that I think is just a factual dispute with what you're describing. You are suggesting that the standards are lower for people of color filling these roles when there is absolutely --
GIDLEY: The exact opposite.
PHILLIP: -- no evidence?
GIDLEY: The exact opposite.
PHILLIP: No, but that's what you said.
GIDLEY: No it isn't.
PHILLIP: Hold on, Hogan. You said that they are only getting these jobs because of their race or gender.
GIDLEY: That's not what I said.
PHILLIP: And not because they're qualified.
GIDLEY: Not what I said.
PHILLIP: So, are they qualified or not?
GIDLEY: That's not what I said.
PHILLIP: Are they qualified or not?
GIDLEY: What I said was --
PHILLIP: Is a pilot sitting in a -- hold on, Hogan. Is a pilot sitting on an airplane, flying a plane, whether he's black or white, or a woman or gay or lesbian, are they -- if they are sitting in that seat and they meet the FAA requirements for being in that seat, are they qualified?
GIDLEY: If they're qualified, I sure hope so.
PHILLIP: Are they -- but you don't believe that they're qualified because of what?
GIDLEY: That's not what I said. What I said was, if the criteria was their race or gender, then how am I to know the qualification is there. PHILLIP: That is a factual error that you are making.
GIDLEY: We had a president of the United States in Joe Biden who came out and said --
PHILLIP: Hogan, you're changing -- I don't want you to change the subject because you are making --
GIDLEY: -- he wanted a woman of color to be the vice president. So, when I noticed if that's what he said, that's not my fault. Joe Biden said it.
PHILLIP: You were in the White House when Donald Trump said he was going to put a woman on the Supreme Court and then he picked Amy Coney Barrett. Is she not qualified?
GIDLEY: She is extremely qualified.
PHILLIP: Okay. So, why is qualified but Ketanji Brown Jackson is not?
GIDLEY: He talked about the qualification as well. What I'm saying is, in that clear directive from Joe Biden, in the clear directive from those companies, they're saying we are filling the quota.
PHILLIP: Let me ask -- I'm going to ask you again because I think you have another opportunity to really think this through.
[22:30:00]
Donald Trump said, I am going to pick a woman to go on the Supreme Court. Oh, you know what? Let me ask -- let me give you --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: George H.W. Bush said, I am going to pick a black man to fill a role on the Supreme Court. Are those people unqualified?
GIDLEY: I want always the most qualified people to hold those jobs.
PHILLIP: Are they qualified or not?
GIDLEY: It depends on their qualification.
PHILLIP: It wasn't a quota or not?
GIDLEY: It's always a quota when you base it on race or gender.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Because Ketanji Brown Jackson --
GIDLEY: If you base it on qualification, if the person is black or a woman or whatever, it doesn't matter.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hogan, Hogan, I really, listen.
(CROSSTALK)
GIDLEY: That's the point.
PHILLIP: Let me just ask you a direct question.
(CROSSTALK)
GIDLEY: It's the ultimate meritocracy.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Is it okay for Donald Trump to have DEI quotas or not?
GIDLEY: It's not okay for anyone to have DEI quotas.
PHILLIP: So then, why did he have a DEI quota, by your definition, for Amy Coney Barrett?
GIDLEY: He didn't. He said that was one of the selections. People said he should fill it with a woman.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: He -- okay. He said he was going to fill it with a woman and he did.
UNKNOWN: He did not only interview women for the job.
GIDLEY: Correct.
PHILLIP: Okay.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Joe Biden didn't interview men -- black women for the job?
TODD: He -- Joe Biden said he, as he went in his search process, his shortlist would be all women of color. And they were.
PHILLIP: Listen.
HINOJOSA: And they were qualified.
CLYBURN: That's not true.
HINOJOSA: They were qualified.
TODD: We're taking issues with the press.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Brad, Brad, I just think it's -- you guys are -- you guys are misleading. I don't want to -- I'm not going to -- I'm not going to say you're lying. I'm just going to say you're misleading about what Donald Trump said the day after, you know, Justice Ginsburg died. He said he was going to pick a woman to replace her. He said that, okay? I'm not paraphrasing. That is what he said.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: Well, by that standard, he should not have issued that criteria.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, okay. All right, one more thing. Justice Thomas, who I'm sure you love. You love him, right?
GIDLEY: Sure.
PHILLIP: He was chosen to replace a black Supreme Court justice in part because he was a black man. Who is more qualified in terms of actual experience to be on the court, him or Ketanji Brown Jackson? Do you know?
GIDLEY: I don't know of any of them.
PHILLIP: Okay. Well, I've checked. I've checked. She served as a federal judge for way longer. He actually didn't before she was put on the Supreme --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: No. False. He was -- he was on the D.C. Court of Appeals, the second highest --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, okay. Well, she served -- she served -- yes, yes.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: He was on there for -- he was on there for a very brief period of time. She will serve as a judge for --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: We have never considered any nominee for Supreme Court --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. I am not --
TODD: -- who was on the D.C. Court of Appeals to be unqualified for the Supreme Court. Never. Never, ever has that been said.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. I am not suggesting -- I am not suggesting --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: You're saying Clarence Thomas was not qualified?
PHILLIP: I'm not -- actually, no, I am not.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: You just said he was not qualified.
PHILLIP: I am not suggesting that he's unqualified at all.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: You did.
PHILLIP: I am saying that he is qualified just the way that Ketanji Brown Jackson's qualified, just the way that Amy Coney Barrett's qualified.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: No, you said that he was less qualified than Ketanji Brown Jackson. No, that's what you said.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: No, no. I'm asking you -- I'm saying about comparing their resumes. If you want to compare their resumes --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: You said he was less qualified --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: One of the things that Charlie Kirk said was that Amy Coney - was that Ketanji Brown Jackson, you know, if she said that she was affirmative action pack and what she is saying is that she didn't have the brain processing power to get that job without replacing a white man.
TODD: Look.
PHILLIP: But I'm -- but I'm asking you, if you objectively look at her resume, is that a factual statement?
TODD: Oh, she's qualified for the Supreme Court. Of course.
PHILLIP: Okay. So then, let's leave it at that because I just think that --
TODD: She's not very good at her job but she's qualified.
PHILLIP: Okay. Let's leave it at that because we want to make a lot of broad statements about who's qualified and who's not.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Say that again.
CLYBURN: That's what he said.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
CLYBURN: That she, Ketanji, was a diversity hire?
TODD: I want to go back to -- this all started when we were talking about whether or not Democrats should have voted to honor Charlie Kirk's life. And Congressman, I respect you. You are a living legend. I deeply respect your motives. However, I think that this is a question of whether we honor people who gave their life to public service. I didn't agree with Charlie Kirk on everything.
CLYBURN: Okay.
TODD: But he gave his life to public service.
PHILLIP: I'll let you have a last word on this. Go ahead.
CLYBURN: Let me just say this. His life is one thing, his legacy is another. Now, I honor everybody's life but when you tell me that that was a diversity hire, when you tell me you're going to give thought to whether not a black pilot is qualified, something else is going on in your head and that's a legacy that I will never vote to honor. So, if they're ticking legacy off, which we asked them to do, and just honor his life, you got my vote. But his legacy, I know what my fathers inherited from the legacy of the South.
PHILLIP: All right. Thank you everyone for that discussion. Next for us, President Trump's remarkable reversal on Ukraine. After his airing of grievances at the U.N.'s General Assembly and a day of hijinks, we will discuss what this could all mean. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:39:39]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a sharp reversal from Donald Trump on Ukraine. The President now says that Ukraine could get back all of its land against Russia after months of saying that President Zelenskyy doesn't have the cards. On social media, Trump called Russia "a paper tiger", says Vladimir Putin's economy is in big trouble. And Trump met with Zelenskyy on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly today after admonishing world leaders.
[22:40:03]
But Zelenskyy is calling that conversation a huge success.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: Are you surprised to hear that?
VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE: A little bit. I was -- very positive signals from the side that Trump and America will be with us to the end of the war. I think he understands for today that we can't just swap territories. It's not fair. It's not real.
BAIER: So, you think his position has changed?
ZELENSKYY: Yes, I think so. And God bless.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: He understands it, at least for today. How long will this last, Congressman?
CLYBURN: Not long. I think we'll see a reversal from Mr. Trump very soon. I just don't believe he is sincere about honoring the previous health territory. I just think that we're in for a war that will not come to an end anytime soon.
PHILLIP: I thought it was super interesting. Let me play what Rubio said, like literally hours before Trump said what he said on - in that social post. Here's what Rubio said about how this war is going to end.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: The President has worked on it tirelessly, has invested a tremendous amount of his own time, energy, and the highest levels of our government. We have had meetings in Turkey, meetings in Saudi Arabia, meetings in Alaska, countless phone calls, doing everything possible to bring this conflict to a resolution and to an end. A war that cannot end militarily. It will end at a negotiating table. That's where this war will end.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I mean, both things actually can be true to a degree, so there's that. But I mean, his tone in that comment did not seem to envision what Trump would later say, which is that he believes that Russia is on the back foot and is going to actually lose on the military battlefield.
TODD: Well, Trump's trying to make sure Putin knows that he can't -- he can't -- he does -- intends to put him on his back foot if he can work with Europe to do it. What I want to know is, I've been for Ukraine all along. I hope Democrats who have criticized Donald Trump on this now, we'll back him up. This is what they've wanted him to say.
They've wanted him to declare that we're with Ukraine. We want to reclaim their territory. This would be a great time for the country to come together and for many Republicans and Democrats to both argue that it's time to push back on Russia.
HINOJOSA: Well, I think that we would have praised him if he would have done this a long time ago, but he rolled out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin. He was played by him. He didn't get anything from that negotiation. He said that he was going to end this war as soon as he got into office. And if anything, Russia has only gained strength in this matter. And the way that he has berated Ukraine in the Oval Office, I mean,
time and time again, he has taken Vladimir Putin's side or has rolled out the red carpet, or has done everything that he has wanted -- that Vladimir Putin has wanted him to do.
And so, I think for Democrats, while I want to be hopeful, I really, really do. And if he can put an end to this war, I will praise him. And I'm sure many other Democrats will praise him because it needs to end. But the reality is that there's this whiplash all of the time with Trump. And I think our allies feel it, too. They don't -- they are seeing what Trump is doing and they don't know what to believe anymore. And that is the problem.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: But the question is, can Democrats ever stand with Donald Trump when he does a thing they wouldn't --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: We will -- we will stand with Donald Trump when he ends the war. We absolutely will stand with Donald Trump if he will only end the war.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: That's my question. Will Republicans stand with him?
GIDLEY: Let's just take a little student of history here. Let's remember the reason we're in this in the first place is because Joe Biden said if Vladimir Putin were to do a minor incursion, everything would be just fine. So, we're in this because of Joe Biden's policies --
(CROSSTALK)
GIDLEY: -- not to mention the fact that the reason Ukraine was able to thwart Russia's initial attacks is because it was Donald Trump that gave them weapons as opposed to blankets and pillows like Barack Obama. But now we're in a spot where just in the last several days we've had Russian MiGs go into Estonia. We've had drones go over Poland -- Denmark.
This is a real problem and I think Donald Trump's patience is wearing extremely thin. What you're seeing is him basically telling the world, I'm sick of this. And the Congressman pointing out that Donald Trump may change his mind and he may.
I will end the bet because of this pressure and these statements. It might be Vladimir Putin who changes his mind first, because when he sees the threat of a unified world, including potentially some of the NATO assets, as well, as Donald Trump said today would be well within its rights to shoot these drones and planes down, that changes things quite significantly on the global stage.
[22:45:05] PHILLIP: I mean, I think you make a good point that things have really escalated and I don't think we fully appreciate how much it has. But wouldn't you also have to acknowledge that Donald Trump rolling out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin and basically giving him a kind of hero's welcome in Alaska did not deter anything. In fact, it only has led to pretty unprecedented steps by Putin, incursions into actual Europe that he was not doing before.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean, if Joe Biden -- if this had happened under Joe Biden, you would be saying that it was a sign that he was --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: I don't think those things are related at all. In fact, the same -- the same --no, I'll tell you what the sign of strength was. It's when he slapped a huge tariff on India, which is buying up Russian oil at a rate it never has before. The way to go after Vladimir Putin --
PHILLIP: That hasn't deterred Putin from doing anything.
TODD: The only way you stop Putin in the end is you drive the price of oil down near $50 a barrel where Russian fields can't make a profit. You have to drive his customer base and drive his price of oil down near $50. That's the only way. You can't take him out through democratic means.
He's a very large country. We will never overwhelm him militarily. You have to shut off the oil spigot. And Donald Trump has done a lot more to do that than Joe Biden did. Joe Biden authorized the Nord Stream two pipeline into Germany that gave the Russians a brand new market.
PHILLIP: Look, I think the oil is a problem, but I think you also have to --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: It's the problem.
PHILLIP: -- acknowledge that the deterrence hasn't worked. Does Putin seem deterred to you?
TODD: Well, look, a lot of Presidents have tried and failed a lot of ways to keep Vladimir Putin in check. And this one is going to end up being no different. But the real way to do it is to drive the price of oil down to $50 a barrel.
PHILLIP: All right, Justin, Donald Trump has now responded to Jimmy Kimmel's return and has issued a big threat against ABC. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:51:20] PHILLIP: Just in, President Trump moments ago responded to Jimmy Kimmel's return to ABC, saying in part that "the White House was told by ABC that his show was canceled", and adding, "I think we're going to have to test ABC out on this. Let's see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 million." Okay so, so much for private action. Brad?
TODD: Well, again, I think Jimmy Kimmel should come out tonight and declare this war over and pick, decide that he'd like to make his show a little bit more balanced. I think that might be better for all of us. The President's not going to get $16 million out of Jimmy Kimmel for a bad joke, even as tasteless as it was.
And in the end, the public interest obligation is on the local station. It's not on the producers of the Jimmy Kimmel show. They only have maybe a moral obligation to be balanced. So, I would not see that this lawsuit is going to go anywhere.
PHILLIP: Trump doesn't seem to think he doesn't have a role here. Hogan?
GIDLEY: Well, again, it wasn't because of a bad joke. It was because Jimmy Kimmel lied about something that was egregious and provably false. We knew the shooter at that point wasn't a MAGA advocate, but he said so anyway. That's part of it. He tells bad jokes every night. That's nothing new. This was a lie, a flat-out lie. It was egregious and grotesque.
"The Hollywood Reporter" which of course is a liberal outlet, also pointed to the fact that in this whole saga, it was the parent company that was quite concerned about the money they were losing on Jimmy Kimmel and how the affiliates said they didn't want him on air anymore.
What Donald Trump just Truth posted, of course, that will most assuredly be litigated in court. What I'm most interested in tonight is how the public litigates the return of Jimmy Kimmel and how he decides to basically address what kicked him off the air for the last several days.
HINOJOSA: Well, but I think that Jimmy -- I don't think Jimmy Kimmel is going to back down in any way. He has Republicans speaking out against what has happened to him, like Joe Rogan and Ted Cruz. He has had Democrats and ultimately he now has Disney having his back.
Disney put him back on the air. And so, I don't think that Jimmy Kimmel here -- he could have sued. He could have not come back. Instead, he is coming back today and I think he's going -- he has a reputation to uphold. And I think he probably is going to stand his ground.
On the Donald Trump Truth social, I would say if I were his lawyers, I would take away his Truth social. He has done so many things over the last week that have hurt either investigations, or now if he files a lawsuit that I'm not sure that lawsuit will go anywhere after that Truth. And so, I don't think he does himself any favors. But I think Jimmy Kimmel is going to stick to his --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: He clearly feels empowered, Congressman. I mean, he is holding up the $16 million settlement as proof that he can get any amount of money out of anyone that he wants. And then even the part where he says the White House was told by ABC that his show was canceled, I'm not sure that's true, but it seems to suggest that he thinks that they have to clear with him what they put on TV.
CLYBURN: Well, that's exactly what it suggests. I mean, it's more than suggestion, that's what he's saying. He's made that very clear. And he's been filing lawsuits against everybody all over the place. And I don't -- there's no surprise that he's doing this. And he thinks that the courts are going to eventually rule his waiver and he's getting about 85 percent of what he's addicted to get.
[22:55:00]
PHILLIP: He is but on this issue, I think the court has already been pretty clear about whether the government can weigh in on -- or to influence private companies through threats and Donald Trump writing this is as clear cut. I mean, I don't think there's any example in history that is more clear cut than this in terms of his attempt to intimidate these private corporations.
(CROSSTALK)
GIDLEY: Except for the Biden administration that actually did it.
PHILLIP: But no, actually, they did not.
(CROSSTALK)
GIDLEY: They actually worked with those companies, suppressed in silence.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. They communicated with the companies, but there's no evidence that there were threats involved. Everyone, we got to go. Thank you very much. We're hearing now from audience members about what Jimmy Kimmel said inside the studio in his monologue tonight. We'll tell you about it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
