Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump On James Comey Indictment, There Will Be Others; Trump Demands Microsoft Fire New Hire, An Ex-Biden Official; Violent ICE Incidents Escalate Tensions After Sniper Attack; Tensions Rise After Attack On ICE; Sinclair And Nexstar's Boycott Of Kimmel Ends; Secretary Hegseth Summons All Generals And Admirals. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 26, 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, the avenger-in-chief teases more to come after the indictment of James Comey.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: What they've done is terrible. I hope there -- frankly, I hope there are others.
PHILLIP: But will Donald Trump's live commentary doom the case before it begins?
Plus, a string of violent ice incidents escalates tensions after a deadly sniper attack.
Also --
JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST, JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE: (INAUDIBLE) our show for most of the country.
PHILLIP: That was fast. Sinclair ends its boycott of Jimmy Kimmel as (INAUDIBLE) the show a renewal.
And Pete Hegseth's surprise summit of generals and admirals first sparked concern, but now it appears it's all about the glamour shots.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Tiffany Cross, Joe Borelli, Chuck Rocha, and Temidayo Aganga-Williams.
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 Americans are talking about. Donald Trump's vengeance less than 24 hours after a grand jury indicted former FBI Director James Comey, the president is now suggesting that he's just getting warmed up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There's not a list, but I think there'll be others.
There'll be others. Look, it was -- that's my opinion. They weaponized the Justice Department like nobody in history. What they've done is terrible. And so I would -- I hope there -- frankly, I hope there are others, because you can't let this happen to a country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Well, tonight, Trump is making good on that promise, throwing another name into the crosshairs, Lisa Monaco, Microsoft's global affairs chief who used to work in the Biden administration. Trump called her a menace to national security and threatened Microsoft's government contracts.
Then a short time later, Trump showered praise on those who comply, giving thanks to the FBI, its director, Kash Patel, and the DOJ all for their work on the Comey indictment.
But notably absent from that list was his attorney general, Pam Bondi, who reportedly had concerns about charging him in the first place. In the meantime, in an interview with CNN earlier this year, Comey joked that he lives rent free in Trump's mind.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES COMEY, FORMER FBI DIRECTOR: I often joke I'm the relationship that Trump can't get over, wakes up in the middle of the night thinking about me and how I'm living my best life. I think it has some combination of, I really have had a happy, productive life since then, and that I spoke out about him, and that despite their absolute best efforts, they were never able to get me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: You know, that fact that Trump is now willing to prosecute Comey for the Hillary Clinton investigation, the very thing that maybe helped him become president, is perhaps one of the great ironies of this moment. But, you know, it's not just about Comey. It's about a lot of people inside the DOJ. I mean, just as we know we're coming on the air tonight, there's a report from CNN, the FBI fires the agency kneeling in an iconic photo during the George Floyd protests five years ago. They're reaching way into the past, Temidayo, to not prosecute not just top level officials, but just regular rank and file folks in the DOJ. What do you think this does to morale?
TEMIDAYO AGANGA-WILLIAMS, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: I think it absolutely destroys morale. I have friends who are still prosecutors and they're completely heartbroken. I'm, as a former prosecutor, completely heartbroken. This is not how the department should work. It's really shameful, honestly. And the vast majority of people who work in DOJ are good, honorable people who follow the law. I think what's happened here is a complete aberration from the law.
Just to set the stage here, it is not difficult to charge and indict people, generally speaking, in front of a grand jury. As a prosecutor, you're the only one in the room. You don't need a unanimous grand jury. It's really all your game. Here, to have so many people who have raised their hand and tried to intervene and stop this case moving forward, both hand chosen U.S. attorneys by the president, I think it tells how weak this case is, how problematic it is at its core, and why it shouldn't proceed. And I expect the judge is going to intervene and probably dismiss his indictment eventually.
PHILLIP: It also -- I mean, I think it was telling that Lindsey Halligan, the person who is not a prosecutor, who showed up here four or five days ago, was the one to sign the indictment, not any of the other people who would've supposedly investigated this. But Trump having his list of people and then it seems like the DOJ going through one by one and trying to find cases for them, does that concern you?
[22:05:01]
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Does that concern me, or does that sound familiar? Because I remember a time just a few years ago where the list had different names on it, names like Roger Stone, who was convicted and charged with basically lying to investigators, what Comey's being charged with now. You had Peter Navarro who went to jail for four months for basically not even showing up to a Congressional hearing, never mind lying to him. James Comey himself actually put Martha Stewart in jail, not for insider trading, not for insider trade, I am bringing her in because James Comey put her in jail, not for insider trading the underlying crime, but for lying to the SEC.
And now he is facing the same terms, right? He's facing the same standards that he imposed on other people. And if the chickens are coming home to roost, then that's fine with me.
PHILLIP: But whose list is that?
BORELLI: Whose list is what?
PHILLIP: Yes, you said that there's a, that there was a list, but whose list was it?
BORELLI: Abby, I can make a meme video of Democrats saying, you know, no one is above the law, from the attorney general in this state to Democrats in the House.
PHILLIP: Okay. I guess what I'm asking is that you're making a comparison between Donald Trump, who literally names one by one the people that he wants to prosecute, and then you're suggesting that some nebulous they have a list, but I've never heard that list. I've never heard that list uttered by the former president, Joe Biden. Some of the people that you're complaining about were charged when Donald Trump was president. So, whose list is it?
BORELLI: I have no idea who's on the list. But if a grand jury --
PHILLIP: No, I mean, who does the list belong to?
BORELLI: I have no idea.
PHILLIP: That is the question.
BORELLI: But let's just go over the fact of what happened. A grand jury was impaneled in the Eastern District of Virginia, not exactly Trump country, and they looked at the evidence. And they came up with the fact that there was enough evidence to indict James Comey on the charges presented. Do you not have trust in the judicial system that a grand jury has the ability to weigh right and wrong?
PHILLIP: And, I mean, listen, the jury will decide, but, I mean, Donald Trump is making it very clear to the people who work for him. He is sending direct orders in public. He is thanking people for carrying out those orders. He's firing people who don't carry out those orders. I mean, what more sign do you need that Trump is directing this in public? He's not doing it in private. It's literally happening on the open.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It's almost like he got elected president. I mean, honestly, he has never made any secret nor have any of his people ever made any secret that they believe a great many injustices were committed against him. And, honestly, when you look back on it and you look back at the inspector general reports and you look back about everything that we know now that happened from the beginning of his first term all the way through now, there are some people that need to be held accountable.
I agree with Joe. If a grand jury says these things should be charged, that's part of the process. Now, there was another charge they declined on, so they obviously looked at it and made some decisions in the room. But the fact is Lindsey Halligan walked in there, gave them some evidence, they looked at all of it, they charged on two. And I know people who think they may not be done. There are people in our orbit who believe that maybe this is a holding matter and there's going to be a superseding indictment. And so there may be more information yet to come here.
But every Democrat in this country for years made no secret about the fact that they wanted Donald Trump and his people prosecuted, put in jail and prevented from running for reelection, and they opened this box and now they're living in it.
PHILLIP: Okay. The mystical they, so, in other words, you're okay with presidents from here on out directing who should be prosecuted in this country and who should not?
JENNINGS: I'm okay with the head of the executive branch expressing his opinion.
PHILLIP: You're okay with Presidents directing who should be prosecuted and who should not?
JENNINGS: I'm okay with the head of the executive branch --
PHILLIP: Because that is what is happening right now.
JENNINGS: -- expressing his opinion to the rest of the executive branch, absolutely.
PHILLIP: So --
JENNINGS: And I'm also okay with grand juries making decisions.
PHILLIP: And, listen, Joe Biden actually didn't do this, but had he done that, you would've been fine with it?
JENNINGS: Well, they certainly made political prosecutorial decisions. Every president does, every governor, every county attorney.
PHILLIP: Did he? Wait, hold on, did he?
JENNINGS: Every elected government --
PHILLIP: Scott, hold on. Wait. Let's go back to the first statement. Did President Biden make prosecutorial decisions? Did he do that?
JENNINGS: I said, every administration makes political decisions about who to prosecute and what priorities to go at.
PHILLIP: Yes, okay. But I'm asking about the president. Did President Biden make --
JENNINGS: Well, I don't know if he personally did much of anything.
PHILLIP: Did he direct prosecutions when he was president?
JENNINGS: Did he direct them?
PHILLIP: Yes.
JENNINGS: Oh, I think it's pretty clear he didn't have much to do with the governing of the country.
PHILLIP: So, the answer is no?
JENNINGS: But his administration made political choices.
PHILLIP: So, it's a no, yes?
JENNINGS: His administration made political choices.
PHILLIP: All right. So, look, it's -- clearly, you acknowledged President Trump -- President Biden didn't do any of the things that you're claiming that --
JENNINGS: His administration absolutely made political choices.
PHILLIP: But that wasn't the question that he had.
JENNINGS: Who's the head of the government? It's the president and the people that he had around him.
TIFFANY CROSS, AUTHOR, SAY IT LOUDER: But the president shouldn't be directing prosecutorial decisions, Scott. And I think you know that. It's such a disingenuous argument you guys are making, and it's not even political. It's just a frightening thing to normalize. It actually isn't. And I'd love the courtesy to finish my thought. It's just -- it's a frightening time that we're in, just our moral code to look at this and normalize what is happening.
[22:10:04]
We can focus on Comey, but we should also look that he's gone after the private sector. He's gone at other individuals, Tish James. He's gone after Lisa Cook. He has revoked Secret Service protection for Vice President Kamala Harris out of spite, I'm sorry?
BORELLI: Six months, that's what they get.
CROSS: His was intentional? I'm actually not giving outrage. I'm making a sound political point and I'd love to be able to finish my thought.
BORELLI: (INAUDIBLE) who are clearly set out to prosecute the president.
CROSS: Yes. But he's also gone after -- yes.
BORELLI: The situation has changed.
CROSS: Yes, you are doing a great job defending the president. But I'm talking about him going after universities, the private sector, all for his personal interest and gain or exercising this petulant decision-making because he's mad at somebody or mad at people. It's just not fair.
Furthermore, we in America, a lot of people sometimes, you know, kind of mock these Latin countries and call them banana republic, but when you look at how they're handling --
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: They prosecute their former leaders.
CROSS: No. What I want do is go back and forth.
BORELLI: This is when the precedent changed, okay? This is the moment when the precedent changed when Trump was arrested and getting mug shot. That's when the precedent changed, and it went out the window. And now if the president, right, wants to have his DOJ look at people who are charged by grand juries --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on. Okay. Hold on. Just let me just take one second, okay? That mug shot's from the case in Georgia.
BORELLI: Understood.
PHILLIP: Okay. Who directed that case to be --
BORELLI: The Georgia prosecutor and the case completely fell apart.
PHILLIP: Okay. So, who -- yes. But let me ask you again. Who directed that case to be carried out?
BORELLI: The case fell apart, just like the other cases fell apart, because the president was --
PHILLIP: Joe, that's another question I'm asking. Who did it? I mean, was it -- hold on a second. Who did it? Was it the president or was it a local prosecutor in Georgia? Okay, a local prosecutor in Georgia did that.
JENNINGS: Do you really think there's no connection between these Democrats?
PHILLIP: Hold on, good case, bad case, we can debate that. I think there were, there was a lot of debate about the merits of that case. And that case ended up in essentially nothing for a lot of different reasons, but in essentially nothing. But the desire to create this grand conspiracy around the prior administration when in this world, the current president is actually doing it all out in the open and there's zero outrage from you is a little surprising, Joe.
BORELLI: No, zero. Because, again, we have checks and balances, right? Article 2 of the Constitution, as Scott pointed out, gives the entire executive power to the president, not to the attorney general.
PHILLIP: So -- Okay. So, you're fine with, okay. So, you're fine with the president directing prosecutions. I just asked Scott back to you.
BORELLI: Directing policy, directing policy. The grand jury is the check and balance on that.
PHILLIP: Hold on. You are fine with the president directing who should be prosecuted, yes?
BORELLI: With the check and balance of a grand jury, yes, that's our justice.
PHILLIP: Yes, okay. You are fine -- are you okay with the president directing who should be fired at a company like Microsoft?
BORELLI: Were you okay with Tish James saying --
JENNINGS: He's not directing them. He said it was his opinion. He said, it's my opinion, and I quote.
AGANGA-WILLIAMS: But I do think there's a fundamental misunderstanding with how prosecutions work, right? And I don't think anyone's here has actually been in a grand jury. To call a grand jury a check and balance, it's just wrong, right? A prosecutor -- I've done lots of grand juries. You go in there. You are presenting the evidence by yourself. There is no counterargument there. There generally aren't witnesses. You come in there, you present the FBI agent. It's a government's view of the world. It is not difficult to get an indictment, so it's not a proper check. What is a check, a prosecutor is using their discretion to present cases they actually believe in, and not just a standard of probable cause, which is a lower standard for a grand jury, but eventually they believe a trial they'll be able to get to reasonable doubt. It is clear here that multiple career prosecutors, people who actually are trained in this, and think about this every single day, did not believe in this case. People were --
(CROSSTALKS)
CHUCK ROCHA, SUBSTACK, THE ROCHA REVOLUTION: Hang on just a second. If you were going to believe what you believe and what Scott was believing about what that there was political retribution because we went, or whoever went after Trump in the first election. I would agree that people probably did feel like certain people were being mean to their president if that's who their president was.
My point on this is that it works both ways, you all. If the American public sees this and sees what he's doing with Comey, every time you're going to get somebody else, I'm in charge of winning elections, Democrats are going to sprout wings and we're going to win two more in the midterms. Because folks in focus groups and everyone I'm talking about, sees what you're saying. They're making your case. But now they see it on the other side and it's pushing people to the Democratic side because they see that this ain't fair with one party is doing it or the other party is doing it. It's not fair either way.
BORELLI: I'm sorry, Chuck. I am still pissed about my friends, Michael Caputo, Roger Stone and the other ones who had their doors busted down at 6:00 A.M. by feds with long guns over the same crimes that now we're saying, oh, no --
CROSS: Are you mad about Mark Millie? Are you mad about John Bolton? Are you mad --
PHILLIP: (INAUDIBLE) when Donald Trump was president. All of those people were prosecuted when Donald Trump was president.
[22:15:02]
If you are saying --
BORELLI: But no one objected to the idea prosecuting them to the same crime.
PHILLIP: But, Joe, hold on a second. If you are claiming that everything comes from the top, that every prosecution when Joe Biden was president, came from the White House, then why are you not applying that same standard to Donald Trump? He prosecuted your friends.
BORELLI: I'm not saying who did -- I'm not playing the blame game. I'm saying --
PHILLIP: But you are playing the blame game. BORELLI: I'm saying there was no outrage when the DOJ brought cases against people for the same crime.
PHILLIP: Why is the DOJ under Trump like suddenly a Democratic DOJ when, literally, they work for Donald Trump? Those are his U.S. attorneys. I mean, by your -- I know you're looking at me like this. I'm using his worldview, right?
CROSS: Yes.
PHILLIP: In his worldview, in the Article 2 worldview, everybody works for the president. The president has all the power. He can do whatever he wants. Why on Earth then were they prosecuted under a Donald Trump?
BORELLI: The grand jury found evidence, just like this case, right? I'm not questioning, like my friend, the sacrosanctness, I guess if that's a word, of the grand jury system.
I'm going to say this though. The only thing I haven't heard in all the media spin over the last 24 hours about the James Comey case was not one person has said, no, James Comey didn't do this. He didn't actually leak classified information.
PHILLIP: Yes, because we --
BORELLI: He didn't actually do it because he actually didn't do it. That's the problem. He actually did.
AGANGA-WILLIAMS: Well, just to be clear, the (INAUDIBLE) accusation of leaking classified information.
BORELLI: And then lying about it authorizing the person, yes, okay, I'm paraphrasing.
AGANGA-WILLIAMS: Just to put this in the frame. This is kind of a throwaway charge, but I don't think people are taking issue at the court whether or not he's guilty or not. There's lots of evidence, I think, so far to question whether he, in fact, is guilty or the support for these charges, but process matters, right? We have these checks in place because process matters.
When you mentioned Roger Stone, these same issues generalize, right? No one questioned the underlying evidence whether Roger Stone was guilty, and he had his day in court, like James Comey will. He went to trial, was convicted by a jury.
So, I think the process here, when you talk about the grand jury, it's problematic. I think that's a big point --
PHILLIP: Yes.
JENNINGS: But you admit that the grand jury did show some discretion in the room. They just -- there were three charges that were brought and they decided not to do one and they picked. So, they do exercise some judgment in the room, do they not? AGANGA-WILLIAMS: Yes, they do. But I think the fact that they weren't unable to get what's it called a true bill that they didn't get one charge is damning, right?
ROCHA: Is that where they all have to vote in the same?
AGANGA-WILLIAMS: Yes. That's why like the way this works in the real world, you go in there and you're expected every single time you come out with an indictment. That's how it's done across the country every single day. If you go in there and the fact that they couldn't convict a grand jury in all the charges, that's damning. That's not a good point. That shows that they're not doing the job properly.
JENNINGS: So, you're saying that this is a process that happens in our federal system like clockwork every day, people go and ask for charges and they get them?
AGANGA-WILLIAMS: Yes.
JENNINGS: So, it's not unusual?
AGANGA-WILLIAMS: It's not unusual at all.
JENNINGS: Okay.
AGANGA-WILLIAMS: Yes. But what is unusual is a high-profile case that should be thought out and prepared. Going in there and not getting a true bill on all three counts, that shows us a problem with the case.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, a conservative outlet publishes a column, quote, explicitly calling for violence after the murder of Charlie Kirk. We're going to discuss that.
Plus, more breaking news tonight, Sinclair and Nexstar are ending their boycott of Jimmy Kimmel's show, but did they get any of the things that they demanded?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, several violent incidents involving ICE are escalating tensions after the deadly sniper attack. The first involving an agent who shoved a mother at an immigration courthouse, and he's now been relieved of his current duties. Watch this video clip that went viral.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Just grab her. Just grab her, pull her away. Pull her away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The woman and her family are here lawfully and have open asylum claims, according to a New York congressman, but they were targeted by ICE regardless. The woman was rushed to the hospital for possible head trauma. And then there was another incident caught on video in Iowa involving the detention of a grocery store worker. CNN has reached out to ICE for comment.
Chuck this is with cameras rolling.
ROCHA: I think it's important that the part that you left out or we left out was saying that they were showing up at a courthouse to check in. They were going through the lawful process of going through the asylum. And then the wife, the woman that was thrown down today said, it was very touching for me, it's like, this is why I left Ecuador, is I didn't want to be beat up by the police, or the gang members there seeking freedom in our country, like we have said that we are supposed to be that country every day.
Let me also say this, because this has been sitting and you all know that this is a very personal matter for me and my team. My best friend, Denise, is TPS from El Salvador and she has been here, she is undocumented, TPS, temporary protective service. She's been here since she was four. So, she didn't come here. She was brought here by her family, and her family now are U.S. citizens. I asked her this week in D.C. about Social Security, because I was making sure of something. I said, you're paying Social security, right? Because she was saying she's being told to self-deport when TPS expires. And she said, yes, she goes, a matter of fact, I make so much money, I max out my Social Security. And I was like, well, will you ever get Social Security? And she said, no, I just pay into Social Security.
So, folks out there that are damning immigrants and all the things, this was a girl that came in when she was four years old, who's being told she should self-deport, who's never -- don't even speak this language of the country she came from.
[22:25:00]
PHILLIP: Yes. Scott?
JENNINGS: I think when you're having thousands or hundreds of thousands of encounters the way these federal law enforcement officers are, there are things that are going to happen. It's regrettable. I don't like these videos, and I think you said that the person had been suspended, which seems warranted.
But I think we have to internalize something here, and that is we have 10 -- over 10 million, maybe 20 million illegal immigrants in the country. The federal law enforcement agents who are dedicated to enforcing federal law are going to run into situations that probably are going to get out of hand. It is going to happen from time to time.
You want it to be minimal but it is likely going to happen, that in no way, shape, or form should negate the execution and the prosecution of federal laws. We have existing federal immigration laws, until the Congress changes them. If they ever do, they need to be executed by our federal law enforcement. And federal law enforcement do not deserve to have violence meted out upon them because they're simply showing up and doing their jobs. CROSS: We didn't see that though. And I just -- just my moral code is just broken to hear, we see a woman getting assaulted and their response is, well, it's going to happen sometimes. It's heartbreaking that this is where we are in the country. Right now, immigrants with no criminal record are the largest group in U.S. immigration detention. And where does that come from? Data from the United States government. This was supposed to be getting rid of criminals. That's not what's happening. It has all been a farce and a lie. And when I think about masked men coming to snatch people off the street, I just don't think it's a political debate. I think it's a question of our humanity.
Scott, you and I, there's no love loss here. We don't agree on a lot of things. If masked men came and dragged you off here right now, I would defend your humanity and say, that is not okay. You cannot snatch this person without due process. If we are not afforded just the basic rights of our human being, our human person, and we can look at something like that in a heartless way and shrug our shoulders and say, well, that's what happens, and then flip the narrative to its law enforcement, who is armed, who we are suggesting they are the people at danger and they are the people who are being set upon with violence.
It's a lie. I don't know what you all get out of promoting that kind of talking point, but I wonder years from now when you're faced with what did you do when authoritarianism rose in the U.S. and where did you stand, I hope this clip lives forever (ph).
PHILLIP: And one of the -- so one of the challenges, obviously, is that there has been violence directed at ICE. No question about that. I want to play another video. I believe we have it. This is a video that happened in Maryland also this week that was shocking to a lot of people, including the people who were on the other end of the camera Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Put the gun down. Put the gun down. Put the gun down. You're going to shoot me? (INAUDIBLE).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, there are legitimate concerns about the safety of ICE officers, but there are tactical decisions being made right now by DHS that have increased dramatically these types of interactions between federal law enforcement and just regular civilians. And targeting is a big part of it. There's often acclaim that a lot of things are being targeted, and sometimes they are, but a lot of times, sometimes they're just going in areas where there are immigrants and picking people up, and it's happening in the public for regular people to see.
AGANGA-WILLIAMS: The idea that comes to mind here is discretion. I think anytime you are in law enforcement, you're constantly exercising discretion, which means setting priorities about individuals and laws we want to enforce. So, Scott, you noted some laws being broken. That's true all the time. Folks are jaywalking in New York City, they're breaking laws.
The question for law enforcement is that how do you prioritize those people that are most dangerous that most impacts our quality of life, the most takeaway from our communities? And I think what we saw in prior administrations when I was in the AUSA (ph), and we focused on these crimes, we were thinking about people who were engaged in violence, people who were truly undercutting the quality of life for our fellow citizens. We were not thinking about people who were not committing crimes, people disrupting families, going to places where people are exercising their rights by seeking due process in courts. And I think that what I would call an abuse of discretion is where, from the legal perspective, I feel most a lack of ease.
ROCHA: When this thing started and when the Donald Trump first came into office, I think that when he went after criminals, hardened criminals that were immigrants, there were outstanding warrants, and they went and found those folks, and I think they deported them. And I think the pressure of -- after they got past that list, they're like, well, who else is out here? And they had this mandate by the executive branch to hit certain numbers because they are wanting to stop and I want the border to be safe and all the things.
[22:30:23]
But we have to figure out whether it's discretion or what it is of folks, 10 million, 20 million who ain't doing nothing wrong, who may have come here illegally seeking a better life. We should have a middle ground and its Congress' place to fix that. I know that is the truth beyond all, but there's a lot of innocent people that really want to do good things in America who are getting sucked up into this and it ain't right.
JENNINGS: Let me offer just a counter argument and that is this. We look the other way for years on federal immigration laws. We didn't really do that much about it. And what you're all suggesting is a policy choice which is to maybe enforce some but not all. I think I would suggest that when you start to open that door, well maybe if you come here, it might work out for you. That's when the border is no longer secure again because that's when people start showing up again.
I mean, just tonight, we found out that the head of the Des Moines Iowa public schools has an existing deportation order, is somehow running the school system in Des Moines as an illegal immigrant. We have a problem in this country and it's not just my opinion, it was the opinion of the American people last November and I think If you start to, well, you're okay, you're not -- showing any leniency in a moment of crisis will be an encouragement to get right back to the crisis. That's our view.
ROCHA: I get that.
BORELLI: Wait, Scott, expanding on your point. Reuters just had a poll out two days ago that polled Americans on which party has a better plan for immigration. This was in the field five days ago. So this is being polled in real time as these controversies and these outraged talking heads are ranting and raving over Trump policy. It turns out that Republicans are viewed by the Reuters poll takers 20 points higher than Democrats.
So despite all the outrage, despite all the hullabaloo, it just still is that Republicans are doing a better job according to the American public and the last administration that you pointed out have failed on it. They lost in 2024 and they're still losing on the issue today.
PHILLIP: You know, I mean, I think that that's one way of looking at that particular poll number. I mean, I don't think anybody is saying that voters are flocking to Democrats on a whole host of issues. The Democratic Party is deeply unpopular, but it is also --
ROCHA: -- as a Democrat, you're exactly right.
PHILLIP: Yeah. It is also true though that immigration is now among the issues that Donald Trump is underwater on. It used to be the thing that he was most -- one of the things that he was most trusted on. It used to be the thing that he campaigned on and that he probably won on, frankly. And now, more voters say they disapprove of his handling of this issue than approve of it. So that is also true. I mean --
BORELLI: Reuters had Republicans 20 points from 1925.
PHILLIP: Yeah, yeah, but -- I know, but you see the difference between the two things, right?
BORELLI: I do see it.
PHILLIP: Just because they don't like Democrats on an issue doesn't mean that they do actually like what Trump is doing on immigration.
JENNINGS: No. The poll --
PHILLIP: I mean, the poll --
JENNINGS: The poll is between the two parties, and in '26 and '28 --
PHILLIP: Yeah. Hold on a second --
JENNINGS: They'll be choosing between the two parties.
PHILLIP: Yeah, but I'm talking about Donald Trump and his actions as president. And I do think that when we ask voters about that specific issue, more of them, it's about 55 percent of the country, say they disapprove. His approval rating with Hispanic voters has just collapsed completely.
ROCHA: It has. There's not a -- that's a national poll. I'm not saying the poll is not right, but this midterm election will be held in a handful of congressional seats and a few Senate races. And in the 35 marginal congressional seats, there are 15 of those, this is where I live every day, that have 35 percent or more Latinos.
And we've seen in focus groups and studies that we've done there, two things that are alarming to me, and one thing that's very alarming should be to the world is that they are really disgusted with what they're seeing from Donald Trump, but we Democrats haven't got their support yet. But they have left the Republican Party because of two things.
One, process hadn't went down and they feel an anxiety. And these are marginal Latino voters. I'm being very specific about very specific congressional seats, but it's this anxiety in the community is what's really the undertow.
PHILLIP: I'm actually -- I think a lot of people in a way we're surprised that they suspended this officer in that first video with the woman. I think it's because it -- maybe it offended a lot of people's consciousness. But I've also seen a lot of conservatives tonight saying he needs to be reinstated immediately that they believe that DHS has given in to attacks against ICE officers.
And I also should note that the language that they use is he's being relieved of his current duties as we conduct a full investigation. He hasn't been fired for that conduct. So, I mean, what do you think is ultimately going to happen?
[22:34:57]
CROSS: I think it's even sad that this conversation alone shifted into politics. The fact that people are cheering for this guy who we saw on camera assault a woman, a mother who was here legally, who wasn't doing anything wrong. And we're talking about polls, poll numbers and we're talking about how people feel about Democrats or Republicans and not just the sheer humanity of these people.
I think it draws a very clear contrast of the people who are saying this is okay and that he is our champion and yes, reinstate this and let's normalize this behavior. It's a slippery slope and because, look, I come from a community who has been on the receiving end of people who have been targeted, charged, abused, beaten and murdered by authority figures, particularly in law enforcement. So it frightens me that we can look at this and conflate it with poll numbers and politics and act like people cheering him on is just a part of our American fabric. It is, but I had hoped -- I had better hopes, higher hopes.
JENNINGS: He does deserve an investigation because he's a federal employee and making a knee-jerk reaction, I'm reminded of during the Biden administration when the whole hoax came up about the guys on the horses at the border and they were accused of whipping people coming across the border. It turned out to be completely false. But in that moment, the knee jerk reaction from the White House was from the president himself. These people will be held accountable. And it turns out --
PHILLIP: But based on what you saw there, I mean --
JENNINGS: -- so, does he not deserve?
PHILLIP: But do you think that, I mean, based on what you saw in that video, and I've seen the whole thing. I'm sure you have, because it's everywhere. Do you think that that is the kind of behavior that we should expect from law enforcement in a situation like that? JENNINGS: I think you definitely want to minimize any situation where
law enforcement officers are put in this position where they're having violent interactions with people.
PHILLIP: I mean, she was not having a violent interaction with him. You know what I'm saying? Like, so, I mean, I'm asking you --
JENNINGS: You want to minimize the amount of physical --
PHILLIP: Is that -- if that's like --
JENNINGS: -- altercation, absolutely.
PHILLIP: -- if this is the kind of thing that's happening when there are cameras rolling, does it concern you at all?
JENNINGS: Yes, of course, it's concerning. But as I said at the beginning, I think when you're having hundreds of thousands of interactions with the public, things are going to happen and then their supervisor should take action and people can be suspended, investigations can occur. It sounds to me like they're actually following the proper personnel process here to take action on a situation that may not should have occurred.
PHILLIP: All right, Temidayo Aganga-Williams, thank you very much. We appreciate you being here. Next for us, the conservative station owners boycotting Jimmy Kimmel are backing down. We'll debate.
Plus, we finally know why Pete Hegseth called a surprise summit for the nation's generals that sparked concern.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:40:00]
PHILLIP: The Jimmy Kimmel blackout is now completely over. Both Nexstar and Sinclair are backing down and allowing the late night show to return to their ABC affiliate stations. The television groups had yanked Kimmel from the air earlier this month after the comedian made comments in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's murder. In separate statements tonight, both Nexstar and Sinclair cited their commitment to free speech and said that their decisions were made independent of any government influence.
I predicted this days ago that they would have to end this because money, and also like, you know, I mean, they do have contracts, so that's part of it, but it's kind of an L.
ROCHA: I wrote down a Mexican proverb because you just kind of hit on it. A Mexican proverb that says, no peso, no say so. And that's exactly why they went back on the air.
PHILLIP: That is not a Mexican proverb.
ROCHA: It's a Rocha Mexican proverb. But anyway, it's about the money and nothing more than that. Just about the money. No peso, no say so. BORELLI: Look, it's a pretty bad day to be an authoritarian, I guess.
Like Trump's like the worst fascist ever. He couldn't even keep Jimmy Kimmel off the air. I'm saying that because it obviously was never true from the beginning, like that this was some authoritarian pressure from the government to keep Jimmy Kimmel off. You want to know the truth --
CROSS: I mean, it's not like they didn't try though.
BORELLI: Hod on, but you mentioned money. You mentioned money, right? So Jimmy Kimmel in August had a Nielsen rating of .35. So you do the math on that, right? It's about 450,000, 460,000 households watching, right? There are more people --
PHILLIP: No, no, no.
BORELLI: -- wait, there are more people --
PHILLIP: No, no, no.
BORELLI: -- more people in the Charlie Kirk Memorial Stadium than there are who watch the entire Mountain Time Zone.
PHILLIP: Joe, that's actually not -- that's not how -- it was not -- he does not have a viewership of 400 something thousand people.
BORELLI: Households.
PHILLIP: It's not.
BORELLI: Less than .35. That's what --
PHILLIP: No, but that's not the number, okay. That's not what his nightly rating is on.
BORELLI: "The New York Post." I blame the "New York Post."
PHILLIP: Okay, but here's the thing -- here's the thing. You were saying that... uh This was not an attempt by Trump and, you know, Brendan Carr to influence it. I thought it was interesting that today, even after this, Trump seemed to give Brendan Carr a pat on the back, you know, sending him a nice tweet and Brendan Carr responding back in kind.
I mean, I don't know why Trump would want to pat Brendan Carr on the back if Brendan Carr is not doing things that Trump wants him to do when it comes to people that Trump has said he hates like Jimmy Kimmel.
BORELLI: I don't even know how to answer that so I'm just going go back to what I said in beginning.
PHILLIP: I mean --
BORELLI: Like this was never a fascist authoritarian thing.
PHILLIP: I didn't call it any of those things.
BORELLI: No, no, but other people did. Not you.
PHILLIP: I just said that Brendan Carr issued a very clear threat saying there are licenses we have control over and if they don't --
[22:45:01]
ROCHA: There is an easy way or the hard way.
BORELLI: He needs to do this.
PHILLIP: Easy way or the hard way. It was super clear. It was really straight forward.
CROSS: You don't know how to answer (inaudible) no answer.
BORELLI: No, I won't because the FCC license were about the potential of him lying about public information. Put that aside for moment. This was a case which has happened dozens of times where an anchor or a talking head or in this case a late night host says something fundamentally ridiculously stupid and untrue and gets suspended for a period of time.
That has happened and every -- it makes news all the time, but because it's Trump, we have to politicize everything and take it deeper and call it fascism --
PHILLIP: Wait a second.
BORELLI: -- call it authoritarianism which is really wasn't.
PHILLIP: We would not even be talking about Trump if Trump's FCC chairman has not gotten involved in it.
ROCHA: This is true.
BORELLI: Abby, the only thing we'd be talking about is Trump, ever.
PHILLIP: But in addition to that, in addition to that, none of their demands were met. Sinclair had asked for all kinds of things. They said he should issue an apology --
CROSS: Yeah.
PHILLIP: -- he should donate money to Turning Point and to the Kirk family. None of that happened.
CROSS: Yeah.
PHILLIP: This was a clear back down.
CROSS: Yeah, of course it was. And I think what's most important for viewers to know is Sinclair Broadcasting owns 187 stations in 86 markets. When they buy a station, their coverage shifts drastically to the right and they present it under the guise of news and under brands that you might think are trustworthy like ABC or CBS or NBC.
In 2020, they promoted stories that Dr. Fauci invented the coronavirus. In 2022, I believe they were promoting videos that said that President Biden at the time soiled himself, just blatant lies. And this is a broadcast company that's reaching a lot of people. They promoted stories about immigration and lied about crime rates with no actual journalism or reporting.
And as local journalism continues to be on the decline, they have a greater influence outside of this Jimmy Kimmel episode with his entertainment, but just in terms of how people are getting news and information, they are a dangerous entity themselves. So of course when it came down to the dollar they went back down, but I think the larger issue is having this kind of disinformation and misinformation constantly pumped into our American society.
JENNINGS: Yeah, I think the exact same thing about the late night host to be honest. I think this is a --
CROSS: It's not news.
JENNINGS: I think this is -- it is. They actually have -- they are bonafide.
CROSS: Jimmy Kimmel is not a journalist and his show is not news and it doesn't come out of a news (inaudible).
JENNINGS: I will educate you. They have a designation from the FCC as bonafide news programs which gives them latitude to do what they do. Maybe they should look at it.
CROSS: He should not be considered news.
JENNINGS: But I think this is a strategic retreat from -- if they weren't considered news then they wouldn't be able to bring on exclusively democratic guests. They would have to play by the fair, well -- but anyway.
CROSS: I don't know the FCC. I'm just saying I agree -- if you're saying he shouldn't be considered news, I agree with you. He's not a journalist.
JENNINGS: I think it's a strategic retreat. When's Kimmel's contract up? End of the year?
PHILLIP: Next year.
JENNINGS: Yeah, next year. So, obviously they're backing down now and maybe they decided it wasn't worth the fight today and maybe they think he'll be gone soon enough so, strategically --
PHILLIP: I mean, I don't think they're going to have much say so in Kimmel's contract especially since this whole thing orchestrated a massive ratings bump for Kimmel. I mean, he's probably in the best position he's ever been in his career, frankly, at this moment in time. ROCHA: When you want to pass (ph) somebody on a football team, and after they win the Super Bowl, I promise you.
PHILLIP: Yeah. All right, everybody thank you very much for being here. Next, what was U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan doing in the Trump administration before seeking Comey's indictment? The comedians at "Have I Got News for You" take a look.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:00]
PHILLIP: The comedians of "Have I Got News for You" are back and they have some thoughts on President Trump's new interim prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, and her role in helping, let's say, the Smithsonian Museum.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ROY WOOD, JR., COMEDIAN: Pam had Trump's former personal attorney, Lindsey Halligan, sworn in as an interim U.S. attorney just to prosecute James Comey. What do we know about new interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan?
LEWIS BLACK, COMEDIAN: She's never prosecuted anybody. I've done more.
AMBER RUFFIN, COMEDIAN: Well, if she was never a prosecutor, what was her job?
WOOD, JR.: For starters, her most recent job was, "restoring truth and sanity to American history by addressing the overemphasis on slavery at the Smithsonian Institution.
(LAUGHTER)
WOOD, JR.: Let's find out more about it, Amber. Here's Lindsay explaining her last trip to the museum.
LINDSEY HALLIGAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT: What I saw when I was going through the museums personally was an over-emphasis on slavery and I think there should be more of an over-emphasis on how far we've come since slavery.
(LAUGHTER)
RUFFIN: Oh, yay! So like the bad part about slavery was the slaves. There's too many slaves in slavery, you know what I mean? Shane's cute. It's fun. The slaves, ugh.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP: You can catch the all new episode tomorrow at 9:00 p.m. right here on CNN. And coming up, why did Pete Hegseth call a surprise meeting for
America's generals? We have some new details on what it's all about. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, new details are emerging about Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's mysterious meeting with hundreds of the nation's top generals and admirals next week. Sources tell CNN that the rare gathering will resemble a pep rally where Hegseth is going to deliver a speech about the importance of what he calls the warrior ethos, as well as new readiness, fitness, and grooming standards for officers.
As one defense official put it, it's about getting the horses in the stable and whipping them into shape. And the guys with the stars on their shoulders make for a better audience from an optics standpoint.
[22:59:58]
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media, X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
