Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump and Xi Face-to-Face for the First Time in Six Years; Trump and Xi Meet Face-to-Face in Middle of Tense Tariff War; Trump Offers Warm Greeting to Tough Negotiator Xi. DOJ Suspends Two Prosecutors for describing the January 6 Insurrection as a Mob of Rioters; Vice President Vance Mocks His Predecessor for Drinking Problems. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired October 29, 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]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
In just moments, a meeting that could potentially change the world, the leaders of the world's biggest economies will have their first face-to-face in years, one that could have global consequences for President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping. They're both in South Korea with their countries in the middle of a tense trade war. And a good meeting could mean a deal on trade. A bad one could mean the cost of many goods, from toys to electronics may skyrocket.
CNN's Kristen Holmes joins us now from South Korea. Kristen, you have some reporting that the expectations from this meeting have really shifted in the last few days. What are you learning?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Abby, it's night and day. When we left for this trip, we were hearing from White House officials saying that this was just a touch point, that these two leaders were going to sit down face-to-face, that there were no expectations about anything actually coming out of it.
And you can see that, by the way, that they prepared for this meeting. There is no pomp and circumstance like we saw in Alaska when he met with Putin. We know President Trump, no matter where he is, likes a big show. That is not, what you're seeing here. In addition to that, there's no press conference.
Now, we were told the Chinese president wouldn't agree to a press conference anyway, but it did seem as though they learned their lesson around what happened with the Putin-Trump summit getting out there, then having that be the press conference, and then almost being somewhat embarrassed.
Now, in addition to that, the fact that it was like that at one point, now we are hearing that they expect a deal to come out of this or at least a stronger framework for a deal to come out of this. Both sides sounds somewhat optimistic, much more so in the last couple of days. This is all because of those trade talks that we saw happening face- to-face on the sidelines in Malaysia, in which they believe that they came up with something that these two leaders can sign off on.
Now, of course, just to be very clear, nothing is done until it's done. And both of these leaders are known for their inconsistency at times. So, no one wants to get ahead of themselves, but they are feeling rather bullish and rather optimistic now going into this that they're going to have a deal on the other side.
PHILLIP: And just moments ago, before Trump walks into this meeting, he posted this on Truth Social. He said, he told the Pentagon to start testing nuclear bombs again. Why would that be something that he posts? He mentions, by the way, he name checks China and Russia in this post. Why would he post this just before going into this critical meeting?
HOLMES: Well, remember, President Trump wants to have all and any leverage that he possibly can in any single meeting. So, the idea that we are somebody who, as our strategy, the United States has engaged in not participating in nuclear testing now since 1992, he wants to push the limits on that, knowing what we know about these other two superpowers that they do have the capabilities and that they believe that they have been testing, or at least are trying to set up to test nuclear weapons. So, that's part of this.
The other part of this is that you have to understand the context larger when we look at this, particularly when it comes to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Putin has been touting a missile that he says the Kremlin has that is stronger than anything the west has. That in itself is enough to get President Trump riled up, particularly given where we are in this moment with the Ukraine war, President Trump frustrated with Putin all the way to the point of actually imposing sanctions on Russian oil companies.
So, this is him somewhat flexing at this point, especially going into the meeting to have that leverage with Xi, saying, this is what we're going to start doing now, but also on the world stage as a whole, as you have the Russian leader out there touting his nuclear weapons.
PHILLIP: It is a very curious strategy and we'll see if it has any effect on how he ends up out of this meeting.
Kristen Holmes, thank you and stand by for us because we are watching as you see there, that picture, we are waiting for President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping to come out potentially and meet with the press or be in the room with the press and we'll see if there are any comments that come out of that.
Meantime, our panel is here, our round table, as we wait for these two leaders.
Max Boot, I wonder what do you think is the state of American leverage in this trade war with China and, frankly, the global balance of power with China right now?
[22:05:02]
MAX BOOT, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: Well, I think the United States definitely has some leverage, in particular with our advanced A.I. chips, which China would clearly like to have. But I think Trump basically misjudged the entire situation, vis-a-vis China and the U.S., when he launched this trade war earlier this year. He seemed to imagine that China would fold, as have so many other U.S. trade partners, but instead, China is holding firm.
And what we have been discovering this year is that China has a lot of leverage over the United States, particularly with the fact that China controls roughly 90 percent of the world's supply of rare earth minerals, which are essential for manufacturing processes, for defense, for a lot of other things that the U.S. economy needs to function. And simply by holding back rare earth minerals, President Xi Jinping has the U.S. over a barrel. And that's the situation that Trump is now confronting and I think he's looking for a way to deescalate this trade war that he launched without losing too much face.
But, clearly, at this point, I would say, while the U.S. does have some leverage, China has the upper hand, and therefore I'm really not sure how much in the way of concessions Trump is actually going to get, but he will certainly give some concession.
PHILLIP: And that's not even mentioning the soybeans.
BOOT: Yes.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We have learned that China can survive without U.S. soybeans and buy them from Argentina, which is coming at the same time that Donald Trump bailed out Argentina to the tune of $20 billion initially, maybe $40 billion, and soybean farmers in the United States are hurting.
PHILLIP: So, Batya, on the nuclear piece of it, do you -- is Trump trying to put a threat on the table to push Xi into negotiations and is this really the kind of ground that we ought to be fighting on, I mean, our nuclear arsenal, that that could, you know, decimate the entire globe? Is that really the right strategy here?
BATYA UNGAR-SARGON, ANCHOR AND HOST, BATYA! ON NEWSNATION: Well, I think it's farcical to suggest that China has the upper hand. Trump is going into this meeting with two, you know, brand new inked trade deals with South Korea and Japan. These are incredible deals that have within them, hundreds of billions of dollars committed to manufacturing here in the United States, an opening of the Japanese market to our cars and our products for the first time in history. So, he's going into this meeting knowing that he has made these amazing trade deals on behalf of the American people, and that is what the Chinese are going to be noticing.
Now, I wouldn't expect a huge thing to come out of this. I think that both sides want something very limited in the framework they're looking for. Trump wants the soybeans back in the Chinese market, and he also wants the fentanyl to stop coming out of China. He cares deeply about the overdose crisis in America. The Chinese want tariff relief. And I think what we're going to see is --
PHILLIP: Let me just pause you for a second. Let's listen to President Trump. He's right there on the stage.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Mr. President, the president of the People's Republic of China, Xi Jinping.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Good to meet you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: A great pleasure to see you again.
TRUMP: Good to see you again.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Me too.
TRUMP: And we're going to have a very successful meeting. I have no doubt.
But he's a very tough negotiator. That's not good.
We know each other well.
REPORTER: Mr. President, do you plan to sign a trade deal today?
TRUMP: It could be. I think we have. We'll have a great understanding. We have a great relationship. We've always had a great relationship.
Which way?
Thank you very much, everyone.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Wait, wait. Nobody else is going to the meeting.
PHILLIP: All right. That was President Trump taking a couple of questions there. The Chinese president said just about nothing. As they go into that meeting, President Trump says they're expecting a very successful meeting that, Xi is a tough negotiator. He also said that's not good. And they have a great relationship.
And, look, I mean, I do think he's always thought that he's had this special relationship with Xi Jinping, but, you know, it might be all smiles in that room, but the Chinese have been playing hardball with the United States. And as Batya was saying, there are a couple things the United States wants to get out of this. They want to stop the fentanyl from coming to the United States. They want China to buy more soybeans. They want China to delay export controls on those rare earth minerals that we want access to.
[22:10:02]
And, of course, there's that TikTok deal that needs to be finalized.
That's a lot of things on the agenda, and that's just a fraction of the many other things actually that the United States needs to deal with China on, and Xi Jinping has not really been that interested in playing the game that Trump is playing when it comes to tariffs. He has just been fighting right back. ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I think whether you like it or not, this is probably the first time in this trade war where two peers are facing off with one another. And the question is, who can approach this the most responsible and as the most strategic adviser. When I just watch that, nervous people chatter, strong people stay silent and clear on their mission.
And so, yes, Donald Trump is like a small top kind of guy, but the Chinese president didn't even blink. He was just like, let's go. Let's get this thing on the road.
PHILLIP: There might have been a language component.
ALLISON: There might have been a language component.
PHILLIP: Questions were coming from a lot of --
ALLISON: There might have been a language component and there wasn't even --
NAVARRO: Do you think Putin and him speak the same language?
ALLISON: But the other thing is stopping fentanyl coming into the country, yes, important. Getting soybean market back up because farmers are -- I actually -- like this should be one of those things where, as Americans, we need this deal to actually happen because Americans are suffering because of Trump's trade war right now. And so they have to figure out a way forward or farmers for generations could be devastated because of the impact that is happening right now on this one crop.
PHILLIP: And Trump knows that the levels of tariffs are just unsustainable right now. It's at about 30 percent on all goods coming in from China. Meanwhile, Chinese tariffs on the United States goods is at about 10 percent. He keeps upping the ante on the tariffs, and it's not changing anything in terms of this relationship.
KRISTIN DAVISON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, we'll see. We'll see tonight, right? If it changes this entire -- you know, I trust President Trump, Scott Bessent more than, you know, President Biden or anyone else in the past to actually get to a deal. It doesn't mean that it is done the first time tariffs are laid. I think it's been all part of a larger strategy.
Just look at the trip that President Trump has made. He's going into this conversation getting more rare earth mine minerals showing China. Look, we can sustain without you or, fine, come to the table. I think, to your point, the best thing that can happen out of this meeting is get the soybean market flowing again, handle fentanyl. That would be a huge win.
And both of these leaders need a win. President Trump needs to get a deal here and the Chinese president also needs to get a win to show his own country that he's strong, he can stand, you know, toe to the U.S. PHILLIP: All right. I'm going to hit pause on this conversation just one moment. We're getting close to seeing both leaders again. So, we'll stay here and watch that picture as we look to see when they come out.
I mean, Max -- all right, here we are. We've got the picture. Let's listen.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: China, that side.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep going. Keep going.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They're going by you as well.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep going, keep moving.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That's China, U.S. here.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You got it?
TRUMP: Well, thank you very much. It's a great honor to be with a friend of mine really for a long time now, if you think about it, the very, very distinguished and respected president of China and we will be having some discussions. I think we've already agreed to a lot of things and we'll agree to some more right now.
But President Xi is a great leader of a great country and I think we're going to have a fantastic relationship for a long period of time. And it's an honor to have you with us. Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: President Trump, it is a great pleasure for me as well to meet you, and it feels very warm seeing you again because it's been many years. Since your reelection, we have spoken on the phone three times, exchanged several letters and stayed in close contact.
[22:15:03]
And our joint guidance, China's relations have remained stable on the whole. Given our different national conditions, we do not always see eye to eye with these two leading economies of the world to have frictions now and then.
And in the face of winds, waves, and challenges, you and I at the helm of China-U.S. relations should stay the right course and ensure the steady sailing forward of the giant ship of China-U.S. relations. I always believe that China's development goes hand in hand with your vision to make America great again.
Our two countries are fully able to help each other succeed and prosper together. Over the years, I have stated in public many times that China and the United States should be partners and friends. This is what history has taught us and what reality demands.
A few days ago, in a latest round of consultation, our two economic and trade teams reached basic consensus on addressing our respective major concerns and made encouraging progress. This provided the necessary conditions for our meeting today. Mr. President, I'm ready to continue working with you to build a solid foundation for China- U.S. relations and create a sound atmosphere for the development of both countries.
Mr. President, you care a lot about world peace and you are very enthusiastic about settling various regional hotspot issues. I appreciate your great contribution to the recent conclusion of the Gaza ceasefire agreement. During your visit to Malaysia, you witnessed the signing of the joint declaration on peace along the Cambodia- Thailand border, to which you had provided input.
China's been helping our own way. Cambodia and Thailand properly settled their border disputes, and we have also been promoting peace talks to resolve other hotspot issues. The world today is confronted with many tough problems. China and U.S. can jointly shoulder our responsibility as major countries and work together to accomplish more great and concrete things for the good of our two countries and the whole world. I look forward to exchanging views with you on questions important for our two countries and the world. Thank you.
TRUMP: Thank you. Thank you very much. It's great to have you all. Thank you very much.
REPORTER: What is your plan? Why are you going to be doing more nuclear testing?
TRUMP: Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you very much.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, press, let's go.
PHILLIP: All right. As the press is being ushered out of the room, we just heard from President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping, the first time we've heard from Xi Jinping on this, and he called Trump a very -- he said he had a very warm feeling toward Trump. They are partners and friends. He wants the United States and China to be, and that's despite all of the back and forth. What did you make of that, and also as you heard there, President Trump ignoring a question about a Truth Social post he just put up just moments ago saying that we're going to start testing nuclear weapons again?
BOOT: I don't make too much out of it. It was just an exchange of niceties and polite nothings. But, I mean, it is kind of interesting to see the dynamic here is very different, obviously, than, for example, in the White House where he had President Zelenskyy in there a few weeks ago, and he basically conducted this massive press conference ahead of their meetings and expounding on all sorts of issues, including U.S.-Ukraine relations.
This is actually -- this is a much more tense meeting, much more consequential meeting, I think, from Trump's standpoint. And you see it as a meeting of equals, because Xi Jinping is one of the few people that Trump cannot really bully. He feels like he cannot necessarily dictate what Xi does. And so I think both men are probably going in to some extent on their best behavior. PHILLIP: But he is trying flattery. I mean --
BOOT: He's trying a little flattery. I don't think it's going to work on Xi Jinping.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I mean, Trump said -- he called him very distinguished and respected.
[22:20:00]
He called him a friend repeatedly.
BOOT: I mean, that kind of flattering, it works on Trump. I don't think it's going to work on Xi Jinping.
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, I think that's the point of the question I'm asking.
NAVARRO: And we're used to seeing, we've now gotten used to world leaders who have learned the lesson that the way to Trump's heart is through flattery. And it doesn't seem like here he's going to get a crown or a jet or --
BOOTT: Or a Nobel Peace Prize.
PHILLIP: I mean, I have to say, I did note that he brought up Trump's contribution to exactly the resolution of the dispute between Cambodia and Thailand about their border. And he said, but also we were involved. So, you know, I mean, look, we don't want to read too many tea leaves here, but, clearly, Xi Jinping is not reciprocating in the overt, you know, flattery here that --
UNGAR-SARGON: But he did the same thing that everybody else did. He didn't say you deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but he brought up Gaza. He's also flattering Trump.
I have to push back on this idea that we got nothing out of the trade war. We've got $200 billion, some of that paid for SNAP benefits all through October. So, that money is actually going directly into the pockets of vulnerable Americans. Like to just say, we got nothing out of this --
BOOT: You're talking about tariff revenues. Is that what you're talking about?
UNGAR-SARGON: We got tariff revenues.
BOOT: Yes, we got tariff revenues, we also got higher prices. Americans are paying the cost of tariffs.
UNGAR-SARGON: Actually, no, consumer prices are not actually --
PHILLIP: Actually, yes. Hold on. Actually -- hold on. Actually, yes. Let me just play what the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, said about this literally today. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEROME POWELL, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: Higher tariffs are pushing up prices in some categories of goods resulting in higher overall inflation. A reasonable base case is that the effects on inflation will be relatively short-lived, a one-time shift in the price level, but it is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent, and that is a risk to be assessed and managed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Tariffs are contributing to inflation and Trump redistributing wealth in this country from people who are paying for goods, which if you're paying for goods coming from China, they're usually lower price goods. So, you're talking about people who are working class or lower on the economic spectrum to other parts of the economic system is just redistribution. That is all that it is.
UNGAR-SARGON: The vast majority of the tariffs have been paid by American corporations and foreign importers.
PHILLIP: Yes. But some have been paid --
UNGAR-SARGON: The vast majority.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, I'm going to acknowledge that --
UNGAR-SARGON: Consumer prices are up by less than 1 percent. You have $200 billion, that's more than 1 percent.
PHILLIP: Some of them have been paid by those corporations, but some are being borne by Americans. And even more so, the cost of tariffs, which is by some estimates, over a trillion dollars to American companies, is rippling down on those companies. When that -- when you apply that to companies and they are making less money, guess what they're going to do. They're going to raise prices or lay off workers.
UNGAR-SARGON: So, we keep hearing that and it keeps not happening.
PHILLIP: But hold on --
UNGAR-SARGON: I think, Abby, what actually happened was during the pandemic, these corporations raised prices by 15 percent, they never brought them down --
PHILLIP: Sure. But the Fed just today lowered their interest rates, saying that the unemployment picture was weakening.
ALLISON: So, it was the pandemic that was (INAUDIBLE), so not Biden?
PHILLIP: So, look, I mean, there's clearly an impact. And if there weren't an impact, then Trump wouldn't be over there trying to stop this trade war, because the trade war he knows cannot continue like this forever. DAVISON: Well, no, I mean to say that he's over there stopping it is acting like this wasn't something that he -- you know, we started the tariffs. I mean this, the whole -- that's what he ran on, to bring back manufacturing, to put American workers first.
Now, I don't think anyone at this table or anyone else could say, oh, I know exactly how to do that without any, you know, tariff or, you know, cost rising or anything like that. It's a long process. Looking at that table of everyone who's sitting there, I can't think of anyone else who would rather be sitting there than Trump, Secretary Rubio, Secretary Bessent. I mean, that's a really smart table.
And that is why the soybean farmers, who, yes, they have been going through a tough time now, will run through a brick wall for the president because they see him there fighting for them. And I think you just got a let him cook and --
BOOT: The soybean farmers were screwed by Trump's trade war. That's the reason why they're not selling soybeans.
PHILLIP: They're running out of business. What do you mean they're going to run through a brick wall --
DAVISON: Where are they going out of business?
PHILLIP: What do you mean they're going to run through a brick wall? They are literally saying that we are not going to be able to sustain getting zero purchases from China.
DAVISON: And when he comes out of the meeting tonight, today, this morning, with the deal fixed with a better deal --
BOOT: This is like the arsonist thing. I'm going to put out the fire that I started.
DAVISON: No. This is very elementary to think that you can just walk into, you know, a Chinese conference room and say, we need to, you know, increase our production. You need to stop, you know, taxing and doing this. We have to go through a process.
ALLISON: It's elementary to just do blanket tariffs on every country, which he did at the beginning.
DAVISON: It's a process.
ALLISON: He did it without a plan. Let me finish. Let me finish. Let me finish. Why is he there then? Because he does not have a trade deal.
[22:25:00]
UNGAR-SARGON: Are you denying that he just got a trade deal with Japan and South Korea?
ALLISON: But I'm saying why is he in --
UNGAR-SARGON: Why is he in China?
BOOT: I'm denying that. He doesn't have a trade deal? He hasn't presented --
(CROSSTALKS)
ALLISON: I'm not saying he shouldn't talk. What I'm saying is -- you said it was elementary for us to think he would walk into a Chinese conference room and just say, let's go. What I'm saying is elementary on day one to put blanket tariffs out without a plan.
DAVISON: How do you know he doesn't have a plan?
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Everybody, hold on a second. Max, I want you to finish your thought about what you were saying about the frameworks that they announced this week.
BOOT: Yes. I mean, these are very vague framework agreements, which is what he keeps announcing around the world. It's very hard to know to what extent they're actually enforceable or what the details are because he's not presenting any trade treaties for ratification by the Senate. Instead, he's making these grand pronouncements. For example, he claims that, you know, Japan and South Korea are going to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in the U.S., but they keep disagreeing over the details of how that's actually going to happen. So, it's not clear what that actually translates into action.
The one thing that is clear is that our average tariff level has gone from about 2.4 percent when Trump took over to about 18 percent. And it's true that foreign corporations and U.S. corporations are eating some of that cost for now, but some of it is also being passed onto American consumers, as the Fed chairman just said.
NAVARRO: And you just mentioned the U.S. Senate, with some bipartisan support, just passed resolutions to end Trump's tariffs on Brazil, which were retribution for them sending Bolsonaro, his buddy, to trial, and on Canada. So, I think the US Senate has, you know, including some Republicans realize that this is not working.
But, you know, a lot of times when we talk about tariffs and the economic effect, we don't realize, or we don't talk enough about the immediate effects. So, it's been months of suffering for the soybean farmers. And a lot of those farmers don't have the margins, don't have the cushion, don't have the savings to be able to survive six months of not selling one bushel of soybeans to China. It went down to zero, from our biggest market to zero.
And so, you know, we talk about, oh, yes, they're going to walk -- go through brick walls for Trump, but they're at a brick wall right now and some of them don't have the money and they're going to go bankrupt.
PHILLIP: There may not be a later for some of these folks these folks, so that's part of the problem here. And, again, Trump wouldn't be over there if he wasn't trying to deescalate the trade situation with China, which so far has only been escalating over the last few months.
But next for us, is describing January 6th as a mob of rioters grounds for suspension? Well, that is exactly what happened to two prosecutors at the Department of Justice.
Plus J.D. Vance, the vice president, goes after Kamala Harris, suggesting that she was drinking on the job with no evidence.
[22:29:55]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, the Justice Department is suspending two prosecutors for accurately describing January 6th as a, quote, "mob of rioters."
(VIDEO PLAYING)
Carlos Valdivia and Samuel White were suspended just hours after submitting the sentencing for a man who was pardoned by Donald Trump back in January. Taylor Taranto is facing gun charges after he was detained near Barack Obama's home two years ago, he said on a livestream that he had a detonator and was searching for underground tunnels that led inside the Obama family home.
Two guns, hundreds of rounds of ammunition, and materials to make explosives were also found inside of his van. The original prosecutors in that case sought a sentence of 27 months, but their memo submitted yesterday was missing from the court docket as of this afternoon.
Now, tonight, you can see that the names of the prosecutors who posted this revised sentencing memo are different and noticeably missing from the new memo is that first paragraph, that one on the left, referencing Taranto's involvement in the Capitol attack. In fact, all references of January 6th are missing now from this document.
This is actually honestly hard to believe. Why?
KRISTIN DAVISON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Did they say why they were fired? I don't think they said we fired them because of the January 6th stuff.
PHILLIP: That's what the reporting says. And also they took off the case--
DAVISON: I think the reporter wrote a book on January 6th. They're probably trying to keep it going.
PHILLIP: No, I mean, every news outlet at this point has confirmed it. But they took them off the case, they put on new prosecutors, they resubmitted the memo, and they took out the paragraph about January 6th.
DAVISON: So I think there was a part in there where they were explicit, referring to President Trump, almost blaming him for the violence of January 6th in their original filing. I believe that was partly in there. And so these are individuals who, there's plenty of reasons to put this guy away. 27 counts.
They made it political for a reason, to make a statement. No one can disagree that it was a mob riot of the day.
Everyone here agrees with that. It was a terrible, dark day.
PHILLIP: Let me just read the part you're referring to. Here's what it says.
"The next day, on June 29th, 2023, then-former President Donald Trump published on a social media platform the purported address of former President Barack Obama. Taranto reposted the address on the same platform and thereafter started live-streaming from his van on his YouTube channel.
[22:35:06]
Taranto broadcast footage of himself as he drove through the Calorama neighborhood in Washington, etc., etc."
The new text says, "The next day, on June 29th, 2023, Taranto broadcast footage of himself as he drove through the Calorama neighborhood in Washington, D.C."
So the earlier text is just a recitation of facts. It happens to mention Donald Trump. Because the address that he used in order to go and stalk the Obamas was posted by Trump.
It is relevant.
ASHLEY ALLISON, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST AND CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But is it a fireball offense? Okay, let's say you put a paragraph in.
DAVISON: Maybe it's bad morning. We're making big assumptions here on why they were fired.
ALLISON: Whoa. I don't think they're big assumptions.
PHILLIP: I think it's more like common sense.
ALLISON: Yes, it's like, just call it what it is.
DAVISON: It's kind of like common sense for me to think they included Trump in their filing because they were trying to make a political point.
PHILLIP: Why would they be trying to make a political point when Trump was the person who put the address on the platform?
DAVISON: What does it have to do?
PHILLIP: Hold on. Taranto reposted the address on the same platform and then after that, he started a livestream from his van broadcasting footage of him circling the house. DAVISON: Was the reposting what he's being charged with? Because he
reposted it.
So what relevance does it have? Would we say he Googled it?
ALLISON: It's a fact pattern.
DAVISON: Okay, so there was a fact pattern. He had Googled it.
But did they ask? Did they check?
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SR. POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We don't know.
DAVISON: We're making assumptions.
NAVARRO: Well, we know that he reposted.
PHILLIP: But Kristen, I'm confused. What is your beef with this? That we should omit the fact that Trump did a thing factually?
DAVISON: No, my beef with this is that we're making assumptions about a report because you want it to be a story today.
PHILLIP: If they had made up that fact, I could understand being upset about it. But it's just a thing that actually happened in the world.
NAVARRO: And let me tell you something. As somebody who has been the recipient of Trump attack tweets, Trump has attacked me by tweet.
DAVISON: Me too.
NAVARRO: When Trump, well, join the club. When Trump posts about you, it's like the gates of hell open up and every little demon goes through them and comes out against you and comes out and attacks you.
And so I do think this is relevant. Look, the bigger point here is that Trump and his administration, all his followers and minions, or many of his followers and minions, want to erase January 6th, want to convince us that what we saw with our own eyes is not what we saw with our own eyes. They want to convince us that it wasn't a violent riot, they want to convince us that it was sightseeing at the Capitol and all sorts of descriptions that some Republicans have used to describe that day.
They don't want to admit that it was what Mike Pence knows it was.
PHILLIP: And for the purposes of sentencing, Batya, I mean, it seems logical that if you're a prosecutor and you're trying to argue to a judge, this guy is somebody who shouldn't be out on the street. He's dangerous.
Wouldn't it be relevant to include the other instance in which he was engaged in violent acts? I ask that, but also at the same time, the fact that Trump pardoned him does make it so that it is harder to include that information. And is that right in your mind? BATYA UNGAR-SARGON, ANCHOR AND HOST OF "BATYA" ON NEWSNATION: I read
four articles. The four that I read from mainstream media said, we don't know why they were fired, but if they were fired for omitting that paragraph, that is bad. That's not good.
So I'm not 100 percent sure that's true, but I understand why it seems like that's probably true. And if that is true, that's bad. Yes, I think they shouldn't have been fired.
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, look, the pardons are sort of the original sin here. In a lot of these cases, it's not the first time that we've seen these former January 6th, now pardoned individuals going out there and committing acts of violence.
And that is something that we have to now live with as a country because these were blanket pardons. They were just given a clean slate.
NAVARRO: Having not accepting the election result and the loss was the original sin. Then as a result of that, instigating January 6th was a further sin. January 6th itself was a furtherance of the sin, the pardon was the cherry on top.
DAVISON: Well, I think there are a lot of Republicans who don't agree with the pardons. But it wasn't a surprise.
I mean, Trump literally campaigned on it. Everyone knew it was coming, no one should be surprised. There are a lot of people who don't agree that those people should be pardoned, I don't think they should have been pardoned, a lot of people don't.
But my issue here is that this person should be in jail for a number of reasons, for hurting police officers, for threatening. There are so many reasons why this person needs to be put away.
My problem here is that including a political point of view. I don't know if they should have been fired or not. I don't know why they were fired, as we just said.
But tainting it with politics, to me, ruined the overall...
PHILLIP: Hold on, let me ask you a question. I'm assuming that, just like we're assuming--
NAVARRO: To me, it tells me that this guy is so unstable that at seeing a post by Trump, he gets triggered to the point where he's being charged with it.
[22:40:05]
PHILLIP: But that's not all. This part about January 6th being a mob that was engaged in violence is also omitted.
DAVISON: Which it was.
PHILLIP: But that was also omitted from the documents, from the memo. Should that have been omitted? Should that be relevant information for the judge to see?
DAVISON: Well, I think if it is tied to directly his violent acts, then yes, of course. That's not -- I don't think that's what we're fighting about here.
PHILLIP: First of all, we're not fighting. But second of all, what I'm asking you is take the firings out of it for a second. They resubmitted this memo, and they took out the parts of that document that would have offended President Trump because he doesn't like it called a mob.
He doesn't think January 6th was wrong. That's why he pardoned all these individuals. Is it okay in your mind for that reason?
Because Trump doesn't like it. It comes out of the document, and then it's not part of the record as they're trying to put this very dangerous person behind bars.
DAVISON: If that's the reason they give for omitting it, then of course that's right.
PHILLIP: What other reason is there?
DAVISON: So here's the thing. You're making these assumptions, just like how I'm assuming that those (inaudible) as the news organization asked why they've been omitted.
PHILLIP: They did not comment on that part of it. They said, we don't comment on personnel decisions. We want to make it clear we take violence and threats of violence very seriously. They did not address the fact that the memo was edited to remove references to January 6th.
DAVISON: I think most Americans agree that January 6th was a terrible, dark day. I think most Americans would agree that this man is dangerous and needs to be in jail. I think most Americans are also tired with tables like this being obsessed with going back and forth about what someone says about January 6th and has nothing--
ALLISON: I agree. It was a riot. It was an insurrection.
They tried to overthrow the government. I think we all just said we all agree on that. That's not a back and forth.
This is the second time literally in 10 days I've been at this table and we're talking about a January 6th person being pardoned who was saying violent things, whether against Hakeem Jeffries or against Barack Obama.
There is a pattern here and so it's not a back and forth. It's just the fact of the matter.
DAVISON: We would include instances where violent offenders have cashless bail, get released early, and go and commit more crimes. Illegal immigrants--
ALLISON: We talk about them too, trust me. DAVISON: I would love to do the tally on it. We should count it up.
PHILLIP: The President pardoned these people, A. and B, every time that things like this happen it puts it right back on the agenda because the attempt at erasure is relevant. We ought to be able to say that this was a riot, that it actually happened and not have the government trying to pretend like it didn't.
That is problematic.
It's not our fault that the government is trying to erase the record of what happened on January 6th. I'm not responsible for that.
NAVARRO: And it's not the first time that we see DOJ and the government taking retribution against people who don't exactly stick to the hymn that they want them to sing.
We saw it with James Comey's daughter. What's her name? Maureen?
When she was fired. There have been punitive firings because of politics.
PHILLIP: Alright, next for us, J.D. Vance was asked what exactly does a Vice President do? And instead of answering that question he mocked his predecessor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I kind of wish that I could sleep until 1:00, take a couple of phone calls and then hit the bottle after that which I think was the Kamala Harris approach to being Vice President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, Vice President Vance is insulting his predecessor not for her policies or for anything to do with the Biden administration but with a smear claiming that she has a drinking problem.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: I'm envious of Kamala Harris. The reason why I've been able to do a lot is because the President trusts me and he's empowered me with a lot of responsibilities and it's made the job a lot of fun. As much as I joke about I kind of wish that I could sleep until 1:00, take a couple of phone calls and then hit the bottle after that which I think was the Kamala Harris approach to being Vice President.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: This is really I want to be shocked, but it's not the first time he's said it. To say that someone has a drinking problem just because you or whoever else made that up is wild to me but that would come out of the mouth of a sitting Vice President.
ALLISON: Yes, he called her basically garbage on the campaign trail so I'm not surprised. What does J.D. Vance do all day? What is he actually doing? I don't know what he does as Vice President.
DAVISON: Not on podcast.
ALLISON: Yes, he seems to be on a press tour so maybe he should keep her name out of his mouth.
PHILLIP: You okay with that?
DAVISON: I think everyone needs to Democrats, I really want you guys to have a comeback and start winning again. You got to relax and not take everything so seriously. I think that's why J.D. is a lot more popular than Harris and anyone else.
ALLISON: This is a joke.
DAVISON: It's a joke.
[22:50:00]
PHILLIP: If somebody joked about you, and said, oh my gosh, she's drinking every single night she's got a drinking problem, you would be like okay, let me call the lawyer up and file a defamation lawsuit. You really would be okay with the vice president of the United States claiming repeatedly in public that you have a drinking problem.
Let me just play what he said earlier this year about the same thing. It goes even beyond just that insinuation that he made in that interview. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VINCE COGLIANESE, HOST, "VINCE" PODCAST: You talked earlier about the role of the vice president and how it's different with each presidency. How are you doing the job differently than Kamala did it?
VANCE (on three phone): Well, I don't have four shots of vodka before every meeting. That's one way I think that Kamala really tried to bring herself into the role is these word salads and I think that I would need the help of a lot of alcohol to answer a question the way that Kamala Harris answered questions.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: What are we doing here, Batya? I mean, let's just for a second just talk about decency. Are we done with that now?
UNGAR-SARGON: I'm kind of with Kristen. I thought it was funny.
PHILLIP: How is that funny?
UNGAR-SARGON: You know, I gave him a really hard time two weeks ago because he excused the young Republican chat which included the n-word and praise of Hitler and that is the kind of thing that is not funny. It needs to be condemned. We talked about it here.
This to me is just, I don't know, I just thought it was hilarious.
DAVISON: Democrats said that he had an--
PHILLIP: Alcohol in a couch is funny.
NAVARRO: And we thought that--
UNGAR-SARGON: He's making fun of her word salad.
PHILLIP: He said in that interview that she hits the bottle every afternoon. He said in another interview she has four shots of vodka before every meeting.
Look, I just think it's a question of basic decency. There are people who are alcoholics. But to then just smear somebody who was the Vice President, whether you like her policies or not.
NAVARRO: This was a narrative that they ran with Republicans during the campaign trying to paint Kamala in that light. I feel that it's stupid and sophomoric and there's no evidence to that unlike the evidence that there is of the drinking problem that the Secretary of Defense had for which there is plenty of.
But I also think, look, we're getting too used to this and normalizing behavior that is simply beneath the office regardless of who holds the office. There's behavior that is simply beneath the office of the vice president or the U.S. president and we shouldn't accept that or normalize it or laugh it off.
UNGAR-SARGON: Can I ask what you thought of AOC's attack on Riley Gaines this week where she said if you put this much fight into your swimming you wouldn't have come in fifth. Did you think that that was funny or did that violate your sense of decency as well?
DAVISON: Didn't she also make fun of one of the male she said someone was short. I feel like she's gone after similar.
PHILLIP: You're talking about Jasmine Crockett.
DAVISON: There's been some crude jokes there. Just like how Gavin Newsom who essentially just launched his presidential campaign tweets pictures of couches at J.D.
I don't like the humor, women typically don't like the humor. But that's the podcast culture.
PHILLIP: The couch thing is also incredibly stupid. I've said that before. I think it is beneath the dignity of our politics to engage in that kind of thing. So that's not anything. DAVISON: I wouldn't sit here and say--
NAVARRO: Hold on, because unlike with Kamala Harris for whom there is no evidence that she has a drinking problem with Pete Hegseth when he was under confirmation there was several reports of him having had a drinking problem.
PHILLIP: J.D. Vance is running for president presumptively.
NAVARRO: Has somebody told Trump? I thought Trump was running for 2028.
PHILLIP: Is this what he thinks is going to do it in the podcast circuit?
DAVISON: I don't know, Gavin's doing it. And he just launched. This is literally what Gavin Newsom is doing.
NAVARRO: What was funny to me was J.D. Vance saying that he's going to run with Marco Rubio as Vice President. I'm wondering what Marco Rubio is feeling. Who's going to be on top?
PHILLIP: He's over there in China right now while J.D. Vance is back here on podcast.
Thank you very much for being here.
Right now President Trump is in the middle of that high stakes meeting with the Chinese president Xi Jinping. CNN is there and we are live. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: We are 29 days into a government shutdown and John Thune, the highest ranking Senate Republican is usually and unusually pretty level headed but today his frustration really came through on the Senate floor erupting at Democrats trying to fund food stamps before they expire.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD), SENATE MAJORITY LEADER: Stamp recipients shouldn't go without food. People should be getting paid in this country.
We've tried to do that 13 times, you voted no 13 times. This isn't a political game, these are real people's lives we're talking about. And you all just figured out 29 days in that there might be some consequences.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[23:00:10]
PHILLIP: Now despite the anger that you saw there on the Senate floor, Thune did signal that he may be willing to engage with moderate Democrats soon. We'll see what it does to end this shutdown.
Now before we go, just a reminder for you, you can stream "NewsNight" wherever you want right on your CNN app. Just scan the Q.R. code below or go to cnn.com/watch for more on this new experience.
And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight," "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
