Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Signs Bill Directing DOJ to Release Epstein Files; Joe Rogan Mocks Trump for Referring to Epstein Files as Hoax; Bondi on Releasing the Epstein files, We Will Follow the Law. Delayed September Jobs Report Releases, No October Jobs Report Due to the Shutdown; Interim Attorney Never Saw the Final Indictment versus James Comey. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired November 19, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, signed, sealed, and delivered.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): Just released the damn files, period.
PHILLIP: But when and will we see all the Epstein files, growing concern about transparency and delays?
Plus, flying blind? A key economic report delayed. The president's approval numbers are dropping as Americans are fed up with high cost. And Trump wonders what all the fuss is about.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I mean, we're bringing prices down, but they came up with a new word, affordability.
PHILLIP: Also, nothing to see here, federal prosecutors make a stunning admission in court. Will it be enough to get former FBI Director James Comey's case thrown out?
Live at the table, Brad Todd, Leigh McGowan, Tezlyn Figaro, James Kirchik, Tara Palmeri, and Elie Honig.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Philip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about. It's official. The Epstein bill is now a law. President Trump announcing on Truth Social that he just signed the legislation and he's insisting that the release of the files will impact Democrats more than Republicans, that's despite the overwhelming support in Congress for the measure. He also again called it a hoax. So, what's next? The clock is now ticking for the Justice Department to actually release the files. They have 30 days to do so, according to the law, and 15 days to explain to Congress any redactions that they might make. There has been, though, some speculation that the DOJ may withhold some of these documents due to the new active investigations that Trump just called for last week into some Democrats who were mentioned in the Epstein emails.
Pam Bondi was asked about that possibility and she was noticeably vague. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Does the new investigation by the Southern District of New York U.S. attorney prevent the department from releasing all of the remaining files?
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: So, we have released 33,000 -- over 33,000 Epstein documents to the Hill, and we'll continue to follow the law.
REPORTER: What are you doing here over the next 30 days, as we understand it?
BONDI: We will continue to follow the law with maximum transparency.
REPORTER: Do you mean that you will provide all the files by 30 days?
BONDI: We will follow the law.
And, again, we will continue to follow the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Follow the law, she says. It's unclear exactly what that even means. But Congressman Thomas Massie, who spearheaded this legislation, says that his bill was crafted in a way that took those concerns into account.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): You can't have two or three ongoing investigations and claim that you're not going to release any of the Epstein files, because our bill, the law that she says she's going to follow, says that the exceptions for ongoing investigations have to be narrowly tailored to the investigation. They would have to jeopardize the investigation and they can only be temporary. So, she doesn't have carte blanche to withhold a whole tranche of files.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: All right. So, that's what the law says. However, Elie Honig, I do feel like this administration has, in many cases, repeatedly flouted laws passed by Congress, to be honest. Do you think that there would be a legitimate reason for them to make redactions? I think these are the concerns I hear. People are worried about redactions. They're worried about withholding of information. They're worried about them using these new cases. It's just an excuse to withhold large tranches of documents. Do you think any of those things are real concerns?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, there's a bright spotlight now on Pam Bondi because she's going to be the one who has decision-making authority discretion over what do we produce and what do we not produce. Now, the law provides basically two major categories that she can redact out. One is uncontroversial, victim identities, right? Everyone agrees we need to protect the privacy, the confidentiality of victims.
The more confident -- the more controversial category though is ongoing criminal investigations. That's going to be up to Pam Bondi. And, yes, just a few days ago, they suddenly announced after months of saying nothing to see here, actually, we're opening up some brand new criminal investigations. Unclear exactly what they are, unclear exactly how broad that redaction can be used.
[22:05:01]
And we just heard Representative Massie saying, well, we're going to make sure that she only uses it very narrowly, as she's supposed to do that by law. I respect that. I think that's a good approach. The problem is no one's going to know there.
PHILLIP: Yes.
HONIG: There's going to be no way to challenge it.
PHILLIP: We don't know what we don't know. That's the problem, Tara, with these Epstein files, is that we actually don't know what the universe is. And so they could say they're releasing it all and they may not be releasing it all.
TARA PALMERI, PODCAST HOST, THE TARA PALMERI SHOW: Right. And there's even an exception for national -- foreign national security. And so what does that mean, right? I mean, that could mean anything at all concerning the president. They might say, oh, that impacts our national security if it releases any information about the president that could be compromising. So, they can use that caveat. And as we know, the Department of Justice has never been that great at policing itself.
And so I don't know that you can really take Pam Bondi at her words when she was saying back in, I think, March, I've got the Epstein list on my desk, and then in July, there is no Epstein list. There are no third party perpetrators. Oh, wait, they are -- there are, but they're all Democrats. So, let's spend our time investigating them, reopen the files and everything else is blocked along.
PHILLIP: Let me just play how this is going with some of Trump's supporters, some of the people who, I think, backed him and helped him win reelection. This Epstein situation has driven a wedge. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIM DILLON, HOST, THE TIM DILLON SHOW: This is the end of the Trump administration. This is the beginning of the lame duck presidency. It's obvious to everyone, even his most ardent supporters show up to the White House, like Laura Ingraham, she's kind of shocked what the hell's going on.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Epstein files.
JOE ROGAN, HOST, THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE: I heard there's no files. I heard it's a hoax. And then all of a sudden he's going to release the files. Well, I thought there was no files.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Man.
ROGAN: He wants an investigation now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Listen --
ROGAN: Like what is going on?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Brad, how does Trump regain credibility?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, there's an old song from the 60s called Last Train to Clarksville, and I think this is the last train on Epstein. They have to take advantage of the mandate that Congress has sent them and dump it.
Discharge petition was the wrong way to do it. I don't think Congress should ever use a discharge petition. I don't think any speaker and either party should allow it. But that's passed now. He's chosen to sign the law. They need to do it. And the victims who have come forward and had the courage to push this far and to give them closure, it's time to do that.
And I think that'll allow the president to move on and talk about things in his agenda that he wants to talk about. This has dogged the administration since July. It's not if -- and dragging it out will not help them politically.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: Well, in all due respect, it's dogged the administration since July because they ran on releasing them, right? Like they said, hey, if you elect us, we will release this. We will get all these pedophiles, we'll get all these bad guys. And then as soon as they were elected, they were like, we're doing it. Here they are. Here are the binders. Here's what we're going. Actually, we don't have it. Actually, we do have it, but it's only going to be Democrats.
So, I don't even know why we have made it into this political football, because, ultimately, this isn't red team, blue team, right?
TODD: You're right. MCGOWAN: This is like the law. Who cares what their politics is? If you have an international cabal of pedophile men who are out there around the world, you want to bring them to justice no matter what their politics is.
So, I think this whole thing has been a convoluted shell game that the president has played with us and now he's releasing them, but that's right after he put out, you know, his potential investigations that might hold up the information that might be taken.
TODD: It didn't have to be a partisan thing, as the original whistleblower in the case noted in The New York Times today, five administrations ignored them, Democrat and Republican. So, it didn't have to become that. It's become that because of obfuscation and trying to be reject calls to put it out over because they don't want to be pushed around or I don't know what. But they can dump it now and start over.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, why? I think that's a good question. Why is it that Trump has made this, you know, his last stand, the thing that until this weekend he would not allow? I mean, I don't even know. Just put aside the implications about him, why is this such a big issue for him? Why does it make him so angry? Why does he send so many Truth Socials about it? Make it make sense?
JAMES KIRCHICK, GLOBAL REPORTER, AXEL SPRINGER: I have a suspicion that most of what we're going to see in these files are not going to be anything legally actionable, because the FBI already put out a memo over the summer saying that they looked through them and there's nothing that's legally actionable in these documents. And that came from Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, who spent how many years on podcasts saying that they were going to uncover this massive scandal.
PHILLIP: That's what they were trying to stop it from being released, which is now they're launching an investigation into Democrats.
KIRCHICK: I think most of what we're going to be seeing are conversations like the one between Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard, and Jeffrey Epstein, where he was asking him for dating advice. And, you know, Jeffrey Epstein is the last person I would be asking for dating advice.
MCGOWAN: So, you're saying that it's all going to come down to high- profile Democrats?
KIRCHICK: No, it's not what I'm saying.
PALMERI: What we saw was that those were emails from the estate, and maybe they are included as part of discovery, but what you're going to see is depositions from the victims, and if they are not redacted with the names of the perpetrators of the men that they are accusing.
[22:10:04]
You will also see photos, videos. You will see actual call logs, full flight logs. Like if you actually see the full files, it's not just going to be banter between bros. I mean, that might come up in discovery, but this is like this is a real, large piece of investigation, 330 gigabytes, right?
PHILLIP: If I can ask you a quick question and then I'll let you jump in, because taking a step back on all of this, and to Brad's point, five administrations have failed to act, right, so why? If there is all this evidence, which actually I think Tara is right, there's probably is, because there's the prospect that they could withhold some of these photos because they depict children, if that exists, why on Earth has no one but Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell been charged? What is going on here?
HONIG: That is exactly the question. And I think this is the number one question driving -- rightly driving the victims. It cannot possibly be true that the only two people to commit crimes here, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, this is a much larger ring than that.
And to your point, James, it is actually theoretically possible that more people could be charged if there is evidence, if there is will within DOJ to do it, something there's not been, as Tara correctly says, for a long time. If they can show that -- we're not going to names, but if some person was involved in moving a child, an underage person, across the state line for sexual purposes, the statute of limitations are generally out the window when it comes to federal, interstate sex trafficking of a minor. So, it's not impossible.
And you know, I --
PHILLIP: But is it -- are the lower -- I mean, I don't want to call it lower charge, but are there other things that are harder than that? Like if there are people who engaged in sexual acts with children but they didn't cross state lines, is that the hard thing to do?
HONIG: That is the trick. And I hate to say it, but it's the reality. If you can show somebody that sexually assaulted a child without that interstate element, it's not going to be federally chargeable. It would only be a state crime and harder to charge. So, yes, if we're talking just about somebody who sexually abused a child, we should know that. But what's going to make them federally chargeable is that crossing of a state line.
MCGOWAN: Can I ask the legal expert something?
PHILLIP: Can we hit pause on this? We're going to actually resume right at the other side of this break.
Next for us, Trump threatens to fire his treasury secretary if interest rates aren't cut, just as the White House says it won't be releasing key economic data from last month.
Plus, a Democrat avoids a censure after it was revealed that she was texting Jeffrey Epstein during a committee hearing. Why Republicans are accusing leaders in both parties now of shady backroom dealings to save her job, that's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: And we're back talking about the Epstein saga. Leigh, you had a question for --
MCGOWAN: Yes, I did. We were talking about the amount of administrations that had ignored this, and I was like, but did they because he was given a sweetheart deal back in the early 2000s, right?
TODD: In the state of Florida.
MCGOWAN: In the state of Florida. But still like they knew about him well, right? So, they've of sort of let it pass.
So, let me ask you then if we knew about him back then, that's not multiple administrations ignoring it, that's a couple administrations ignoring it since 2008, because two of them are Trump.
PALMERI: (INAUDIBLE) 1996, because that's when Maria Farmer called the FBI to report that she and her sister were molested by Jeffrey Epstein and the FBI did not actually investigate it. So, that goes back to the Clinton administration.
MCGOWAN: So, why do you think that the administrations were turning a blind eye to someone so obvious?
PALMERI: Well, I think that it had to do with the fact that Jeffrey Epstein was a valuable asset to our intelligence agencies. And I'm not just talking about like FBI, CIA. He was a part of one of the largest Ponzi schemes in history back in the 90s. It was called Financial Towers. His partner, Steven Hoffenberg, died in prison because of this. He spoke to prosecutors three times. He then helped them out on a Bear Stearns financial case that they were working on. He had access to very powerful people. He was likely a hyper fixer and continued to trade in information, and I think that they saw him as a valuable source ultimately and thought that he had more value to them. It's almost like a Whitey Bulger deal, seriously.
PHILLIP: And we got hints about that, his trading of information even going into more recent times, and this is what has gotten Democratic Representative Stacey Plaskett in trouble, that she was communicating with Jeffrey Epstein during Congressional hearings, and she and other Democrats were asked about this today. Here's what they had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: During the very high-profile, Michael Cohen, here in Stacey Plaskett was in direct communication with Jeffrey Epstein. Why are you okay with that?
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): In a bipartisan way, a bipartisan way, the resolution that was introduced targeting Stacey Plaskett was defeated. There was a dramatic overreach related to throwing her off her committees.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): However, ill-advised it may have been, she took a phone call from one of her constituents.
DEL. STACEY PLASKETT (D-VI): I think Jeffrey Epstein is a reprehensible person, absolutely disgusting. I believe that Jeffrey Epstein had information and I was going to get information to get at the truth.
PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: So, no regrets basically is what you're saying?
PLASKETT: I'm moving forward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: Okay. There's an important cutoff date here.
PALMERI: He wasn't just any constituent. He was a constituent who owned two islands, two islands --
HONIG: Also this is important --
PALMERI: -- in the Virgin Islands that she represents.
HNOIG: -- in 2008, Jeffrey Epstein got a sweetheart deal.
[22:20:03]
He was being investigated federally, Alexander Acosta, who then passed it over to the state where Jeffrey Epstein pled to soliciting a minor for prostitution. That's in 2008. So, Stacey Plaskett knew that when she's taking his phone calls in 2019, hard to wiggle out of that.
TODD: It's going to shock most Americans to know that the Virgin Islands has allowed a non-voting member of Congress that their tax dollars have to support. But it's not going to surprise him that Hakeem Jeffries doesn't have to spine to stand up and say she did something wrong. This is a -- it's crazy the hypocrisy we've seen about from House Democrats on this whole subject. They were not interested in this topic at all until they thought it would embarrass Donald Trump. And Hakeem Jeffries is going to go down in history as a pretty big coward over it.
PHILLIP: I think part of the story here today is now that the bill is signed, been signed, right, we're on the cusp of maybe seeing the Epstein files, but the real struggle will begin now because there are still a lot of powerful people who are probably in these files, a lot of reasons to not go after them, to investigate them. I don't know. It just feels like we're not even close to out of the woods here on this story.
PALMERI: It's such a big conspiracy. It is probably one of the biggest conspiracies of our lifetime.
PHILLIP: And when you say, conspiracy, I mean people will hear, oh, this is just some kind of like thing that people --
PALMERI: I don't mean -- I mean that so many people were conspiring together to make this happen. It was probably one of the largest sex trafficking operations that involved some of the most powerful people that run all the top institutions from academia to finance, to politics, heads of states, foreign dignitaries. It was so vast, and it also likely included corruption within our own government to give him that sweetheart deal and then understanding why. I mean, it is just so vast.
And the cover-up that continues to this day --
KIRCHICK: Why is that a single person other than the two, Epstein and Ghislaine, that a single person has been con accused and had a legal case about this? Not a single person. There was French guy who killed himself.
MCGOWAN: He had the Alan Dershowitz thing where he said he kept his underwear on during his massages. There's been --
KIRCHICK: Giuffre lied about him. She lied about him.
PALMERI: That's according to Alan Dershowitz.
KIRCHICK: No, she admitted -- there was a count -- there was a defamation lawsuit.
MCGOWAN: I don't know why you're defending an international sex ring. It seems so weird.
KIRCHICK: Because there's no evidence of it yet. That's all.
PALMERI: There's no evidence?
MCGOWAN: What do you mean there's no evidence?
(CROSSTALKS)
KIRCHICK: There's evidence of Jeffrey Epstein being a pedophile. There has not been evidence yet of an international sex ring.
MCGOWAN: Why did Prince Andrew --
PALMERI: The FBI has said there is --
MCGOWAN: That's an international incident.
KIRCHICK: So, just him. That's all -- that's the only person who's had any repercussions about this.
MCGOWAN: I don't know why you're doing this. I literally don't understand --
KIRCHICK: Because I believe in facts. And we've been waiting until the facts went out.
(CROSSTALKS)
MCGOWAN: When the FBI said that there were a thousand victims, do you believe them when the FBI said that there were a thousand victims?
KIRCHICK: If the FBI is saying that, then I have no reason to disagree. But is that an international sex trafficking?
PALMERI: Well, we know from the flight logs that they moved young girls from one place to another.
KIRCHICK: But were were they serving other men other than Epstein?
PALMERI: Yes. We know that they moved Virginia Roberts from where she was in Florida over to the U.K. where she serviced Andrew.
KIRCHICK: Right.
PALMERI: So, that would make it an international --
KIRCHICK: So, is that the only --
PALMERI: No, there are many others.
KIRCHICK: Who's the men? Who are the men?
PHILLIP: Are you really suggesting that this is not as vast as --
KIRCHICK: Yes, as the media is making it out to be and as opportunistic politicians are making it out to be, yes.
PHILLIP: Do you think a thousand victims --
MCGOWAN: What about Jess Staley?
PHILLIP: -- one of the most globally powerful and wealthy men, and you really think that this was just a sort of mom and pop type of operation?
KIRCHICK: I think Jeffrey Epstein was a horrendous pedophile. I think prince -- sorry, former Prince Andrew is guilty of this as well. I have yet to see -- there isn't. There has not been a legally adjudicated case against anyone else. That hasn't happened yet.
MCGOWAN: Well, I think they're covering it up, right? That's what we've just had a vote on.
KIRCHICK: Okay. Look, I'll be the first person to say on this show or anywhere else if these files prove that there isn't an international sex ring with other men, but you can bring evidence against in a court of law, I'll be the first to admit, yes, there's an international sex trafficking --
PHILLIP: I'll just say that I think Jamie's not wrong in the sense that we don't have the actual evidence yet. However, I do think that there is a lot to suggest that there's a lot that's being --
KIRCHICK: Sure.
PHILLIP: And, Elie, I mean, for the DOJ, I think part of the biggest problem that we have now is to your point earlier in the previous segment, which is that DOJ can be transparent, sure, but they can also not be transparent and we may never know. It just -- that's a very unsatisfying thing for people to realize is that there's no backstop here. There's nobody forcing justice to happen.
HONIG: I think it's really important that we be clear on this point. DOJ and Pam Bondi can withhold essentially whatever they want under this law, the way it is framed. They can say they're investigating, they may might actually be investigating. And so if the idea here is to reassure the American public, you're going to have all the information, you're going to have all the answers.
[22:25:01]
I don't think this bill accomplishes that.
Does it move the ball forward? Does it give us more than we had before? Sure. But is anyone going to be able to say with any degree of confidence other than top DOJ officials, this is all? No.
PHILLIP: Should they have created some kind of independent commission to look through this stuff rather than placing it inside the executive branch.
PALMERI: They've already started redacting it.
TODD: (INAUDIBLE) in the executive branch for two decades.
PHILLIP: Well, no. That's what I'm saying, like taking it out of the executive branch and creating some kind of in independent entity of experts to go through it and decide what gets released. I mean, I feel like that might be a better -- might have been a better way to do this than just saying, well, Trump administration release --
PALMERI: Yes. I mean, they should have, but like --
HONIG: Who would have the credibility for that? I'm not sure.
PALMERI: So, Bloomberg reported back in August that when they put in a freedom of information request for Epstein files, that they found that they came back with President Trump's name redacted, according to three sources of the hundreds of pages that they're already redacting them, right?
MCGOWAN: Well, there's no way that Trump would've agreed to release them if he thought it was going to incriminate him, right? So, there's just -- there's no way. His name has already been redacted.
TODD: There's very low chance that he would be incriminated, or else his political opponent, Joe Biden, would have released it during the campaign.
MCGOWAN: I don't why you keep saying that. That's not actually true.
PALMERI: I don't think that's true, because I think that it would've made a lot of Joe Biden's associates look bad as well. Joe Biden was very, very separate from his own Justice Department.
TODD: You will never convince me that career prosecutors, who, in their own emails, said they would do anything to take down Donald Trump would not have also released files that they thought would take him down.
PALMERI: This story brings down the old guard of the Democratic Party.
HONIG: Let me give you a little inside DOJ here. First of all, very, all of this is so unusual. You would never open up your files like this, but now there's a law passed because of political will and so be it. Also, we're going to be seeing a lot of names and there's going to be debates just like this. Did this person do wrong? Did this person commit crimes? Should this person be investigated? Get ready. This is going to be a conversation we're going to have a lot over the next month or two.
PHILLIP: All right. Coming up for us, affordability is the new A word in the White House, and Americans' high anxiety about affordability are taking a toll on the president's approval rating. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
PHILLP: Finally, the long-delayed September jobs report will come out tomorrow, but don't expect to see one for October. That's because the Labor Department is scrapping it over the government shutdown and instead that data will be rolled into November.
The jobs report is a key economic survey and without it we can't really see the full picture of where the United States' economy has been and so here's the snapshot we can see.
New polling shows that Trump's approval rating has plunged to the lowest of his second term and it's even worse when it comes to his handling of the economy. And despite all of that, Trump is playing it cool.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Every leader is saying the United States were the hottest country in the world, we're going to keep it that way too.
I would never say a thing like that because I want to be very modest. I always want to be modest, as modest as I can. They say this has been the best nine months that any president has ever had.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Always want to be modest.
Tezlyn is back at the table with us. So I am actually flabbergasted that this administration that ran on lowering prices has only discovered in November that this is something that voters want to hear about and want action on.
TEZLYN FIGARO, PODCAST HOST, "STRAIGHT SHOT, NO CHASER", BLACK EFFECT NETWORK: Well it's time. You know we talked about this on last week that now the conversation is going to switch to affordability. Democrats have an opportunity here to talk about how the prices have not went down, how the stuff is steady rising, and what is their plan.
Winning in November, they won on affordability all over the country and my question I keep asking over and over Abby, what are they doing for the midterms? What benches are they building?
PHILLIP: The Democrats?
FIGARO: Absolutely. What are the Democrats doing to tackle this messaging? Because Trump is absolutely going to flip it his way.
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean well you know it's actually interesting because Democrats have an advantage right now on this.
There's a Fox poll today showing that two things. One, that voters trust Democrats more than Republicans on affordability, on raising wages, on creating jobs. Okay?
And then when you ask voters how this has the economy doing, 25 percent say excellent or good, 76 percent say fair or poor. Brad, how can this be?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well there are three things Republican has to succeed on in order to win. Number one is foreign affairs. President Trump, as Harry Enten pointed out on CNN's air this morning, has one of the highest approval ratings on foreign affairs any President in recent memories had.
Number two is the border. Republicans have to be seen as secure on the border. He can do that.
It is seen as strong in that. So is the economy. He simply has to get right on the economy over the next 11 months.
It has to be the administration's focus. He has to explain what he's doing and why. He's brought down the cost of prescription drugs, cars, and fuel, that's a good place to start.
He needs to explain that and explain what he's doing to fix the rest of it.
PHILLIP: He's rolling back the tariffs that he put in place.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, "POLITICS GIRL": He put in a ton of tariffs in place and then he's walking his tariffs back and saying he's lowering prices. I think he would think we would have to, we would have to be so stupid to see that I fix the thing that I broke is a problem. I think even the most right-wing, well as someone that honestly lives on prescription drugs, then the problem becomes health care.
Because I know that my prescriptions are extraordinarily expensive, but that's with the Affordable Care Act.
[22:35:01]
And my Affordable Care Act is going from $3,700 a month to $4,300 a month.
TODD: Because it's poorly designed.
MCGOWAN: No.
TODD: Because it's driving out competition.
MCGOWAN: Sure. You could say it's poorly designed.
TODD: It created wealth for insurance companies and PBNs.
MCGOWAN: Okay, my point is your side of the aisle knows that the prices are bad.
They knew that the job numbers were bad in the summer, so they fired the girl that gave us the numbers. They knew that the job numbers were bad in August, so they hired a yes-man to do it. Then they didn't release them for October because the job numbers are terrible.
And they know that the economy is terrible because they're on Fox News saying, by the way, for Christmas this year, you don't need to buy gifts for anyone over 18 or anyone under three.
PHILLIP: Let me play that sound bite.
MCGOWAN: Do you have that?
TARA PALMERI, PODCAST HOST, "THE TARA PALMERI SHOW": Oh my god, stop.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JADE WARSHAW, CO-HOST, "THE RAMSEY SHOW": Remember, adults don't need gifts, okay? Focus on the people in your life who are age 3-18. Grandma doesn't need slippers. If they don't live by you, don't get them a gift.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
If you want to talk about killing Christmas, like they are literally priming their audience for not having enough money to buy presents. So you tell me you think the economy is good.
PHILLIPS: Don't get your grandma those slippers. She's got a slippers for.
FIGARO: I have a question. When you brought up health care being poorly designed, what's the plan? Because right now my aunt is watching right now, Ella Figueroa, who was in the hospital just this week for pneumonia. She cleaned those same hospital floors and literally could not get help and assistance at Baptist Hospital in Oklahoma City. So I want to know, since it's poorly designed, what is going to be the
plan when millions of people lose their health care because they cannot afford it in January?
TODD: We're talking about subsidies that were designed during COVID to compensate insurance companies for the excess losses they were taking due to COVID care, which no one could have foreseen. Everyone agreed to do that. Then Joe Biden extended them temporarily twice when COVID was not a thing.
The money goes straight to the insurance companies. United Healthcare last year made $14.4 billion of profit.
PHILLIP: Pardon me, but I don't think that's what she's asking.
TODD: Yes, I'm telling you how that affordable care is poorly designed is driving up premiums on everyone.
PHILLIP: I think the question is that one of the biggest pieces of affordability.
MCGOWAN: So when are you starting?
PHILLIP: Right, so what's the plan?
TODD: As soon as Democrats are ready, we will scrap it and start over.
MCGOWAN: You are in charge of the government in all levels.
TODD: No, it takes 60 people to pass something in the U.S. Senate.
MCGOWAN: Yes, but what do you want to pass? What have you presented?
TODD: You need that. We need more competition in the insurance industry. President Trump's doing more pressure on.
FIGARO: So what happens in January?
MCGOWAN: There you go. What happens in January?
TODD: The insurance companies should not pass this cost on to the American consumers. They're holding the government hostage. United Healthcare makes $14 billion a year in profit, Centene makes $3 billion a year in profit, and they're demanding the taxpayers keep that profit level up.
Democrats should work with Republicans to scrap the ACA and lower this corporate welfare insurance.
PALMERI: OK, don't you think it's a little weird that if this is such a huge issue in which Americans could die, they could die, and will die, that the President is hanging out with MBS and going to a McDonald's and traveling all around the world. You said that international affairs are why Americans vote.
TODD: The public says he's doing a great job on international affairs. PALMERI: No one goes out and votes because of international affairs.
They go out and vote because of affordability, and they go out because of healthcare.
TODD: Listen, they don't vote for the Democrats because of it, but Republicans have to be stronger on foreign affairs.
PHILLIP: I think that Tara is totally right about that. It has been more than a decade since international affairs has been a driving force.
TODD: But Joe Biden's poll numbers started dropping because of Kabul. We know that's when it started.
PHILLIP: Yes, but he lost the election because of domestic affairs.
TODD: His slide began on Kabul.
PHILLIP: As you said, as you just said, the economy and the border. That is why he lost the election.
JAMES KIRCHICK, GLOBAL REPORTER, AXEL SPRINGER: It might not be politically smart for him to be doing these foreign affairs initiatives and meeting with MBS, but look, he's the president of the United States. He has to do this.
Saudi Arabia is a very important strategic partner of the United States. He has to engage in these things. There's a lot going on in the world.
MCGOWAN: You know what he didn't have to do, though? He didn't have to make excuses for the Saudi Arabian leader who dropped up and killed a journalist.
PHILLIP: What Tara is asking, though, is where is Trump when it comes to using the levers of government that he controls to make a big swing on the things that really matter to Americans?
TODD: He lowers taxes for every taxpayer in America.
PHILLIP: Hold on.
MCGOWAN: And he raised costs.
PHILLIP: If that were enough.
TODD: You said he had to do something.
PHILLIP: Hey, Brad, if that were enough, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We're having this conversation because Americans think that the economy is not going well.
TODD: Can you imagine what they would think if their taxes went up on January 1st?
PHILLIP: And on top of that, Donald Trump has been running on repealing and replacing Obamacare since he came down that escalator. Where is the replacement?
KIRCHICK: I can't speak to that. But I can say that I think the reason why he hasn't done a big swing on the economy, his big swing was tariffs. And it's failed.
Clearly it's failed. The effective tariff rate in the United States right now, I just found this out today, it's ten times what it was last year. Ten times.
Those costs are all passed on to the consumers. I think, as we know, Donald Trump, despite being a modest man, he has trouble admitting when he's wrong about something.
[22:40:02]
And it's going to be very difficult for him to admit that he was wrong on this signature initiative of his. I mean, he's been calling himself a tariff man for a decade.
PHILLIP: Not just a decade, many decades.
KIRCHICK: There's many decades. It's very consistent about it.
PHILLIP: Yes, we do have to leave it there, though. In a remarkable case of nothing to see here, the full James Comey grand jury never actually saw the final indictment against him, and the judge is appalled.
But will this be enough to get that case tossed out? We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:08]
PHILLIP: Tonight, if a grand jury is unable to review the final version of an indictment, should that indictment be thrown out? It's a question that is facing a judge in not just any trial, but the trial of former FBI Director James Comey, who's been accused of lying to Congress.
Today, Lindsay Halligan, Trump's handpicked prosecutor in that case, admitted that only the foreperson and one other juror saw Comey's final indictment. The judge did not give away whether he viewed that issue as a procedural or a fatal error, but experts say it may play to Comey's defense. Now, earlier this week, a magistrate judge accused Halligan of a disturbing pattern of investigative missteps that may rise to the level of government misconduct.
Elie Honig is back just in the nick of time to explain this fiasco, it seems, that is unfolding. I mean, it seems to me that maybe this is just a procedural thing, but it certainly speaks to incompetence.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Well, we've seen a series of errors here by Lindsay Halligan. When you put a rookie prosecutor in charge of a major complex case, you're going to get rookie mistakes. So let me explain what exactly happened today because it's a little complicated.
It's not as if she went and forged an indictment. Let's make that clear. What happened is she brought a three-count proposed indictment into the grand jury.
The grand jury voted no on count one, but yes on counts two and three. Then, and this is where it gets dicey, Lindsay Halligan or somebody goes back to the office types up a new indictment that eliminates count one, which the grand jury rejected, and essentially just renumbers and moves up counts two and three, makes them counts one and two.
So she didn't add any new substance or any new language, but what she should have done, what an experienced prosecutor would have done, and remember, she's only been a prosecutor since September, anyone would have known, then you just tell the grand jury, hang on, folks, I'll be back in 20 minutes. I'm going to have you vote on the new indictment. You go print it out, you bring it in, they all vote on it, and you're done.
Instead, what she did is she just had two of the grand jurors, the foreperson and the deputy, say, yes, that's it. And so now the judge is trying to figure out, well, does this mean I have to dismiss?
And the case was sort of mixed on this, but a key point is she didn't add or change the substance. That said, it is technically true that the grand jury did not actually vote on the indictment that Jim Comey might be tried on.
PHILLIP: What continues to be striking to me is that the administration that keeps talking about merit-based whatever, keeps putting people who are not qualified into jobs, and then they make egregious mistakes, and then we are supposed to just ignore it as if it's not happening.
FIGARO: Well, the reason why this is also, even though you did a great job of explaining that, but the American people heard him say, I'm going after my enemies at any cost.
So what they're translating is that this was just a made-up thing, going after Comey, it was never any real issues. So that's how they're processing that now the rule of law has been muddied.
Now they can't trust the justice system. Now they can't really say, was it a mistake or was it not a mistake? Who really did what?
And so I would ask your opinion. Does that give a solid motion to dismiss? Does that play into it as well?
HONIG: There are two categories of problems here. One is just straight-up competence, incompetence. Separately, yes, there are pending motions that were actually the main thing that was supposed to be argued today for vindictive and selective prosecution, meaning essentially Jim Comey was picked out for political reasons or because of personal animus of Donald Trump for prosecution. Now people bring those motions all the time and they almost always
lose them, but I think Jim Comey, look, I'm not a Comey fan. You know this.
I've criticized Jim Comey. Actually, you're right. Everyone unites around that.
But I think he has about as strong a vindictive and selective prosecution case as anyone's ever seen because just look at the Truth Social post from September 20th. I mean, that is exhibit A. And the other thing is Comey attaches to his memo a 59-page appendix saying here's all the bad blood between me and Trump both ways. So don't be shocked if this case gets thrown out before trial on either of those bases.
PHILLIP: And it's not just going to be Comey. There are other cases that Trump has sort of ordered up. And just this weekend he re-truthed this image of a bunch of faces and a bunch of names of people who worked in the Biden administration, in the Obama administration, in his administration. And he has James Comey X'd out, implying that all the others are next, never mind that some of the people are misidentified in this image.
But if you are then going to have to try cases against, you know, whoever, whether it's Clapper or Brennan. And then their lawyer goes into the judge and says, the fix is in.
This has been a predetermined case. I mean, how do you get out of that? Because the President keeps doing it.
TODD: Well, that's a question for Elie. But I can tell you politically, this is a trap for Donald Trump because he cares a lot about it and no one else does.
[22:50:07]
MCGOWAN: A trap that he set for himself?
TODD: And it's a trap because he's very passionate about settling the score with what he believes, with some merit, that people who went after him in an untoward way. And so the job of the President is to look after what the people are angry about and what the people care about, not what you as the President are angry about.
And I think it's a distraction to his ability to do his job every day in a way that the public expects him to do. And the longer this Comey case drags on, the more of a distraction it will be.
MCGOWAN: I think there's absolutely no thought for the public here at all. I think it is Donald Trump's will being used through public funds and public industry to take his hits on his people.
PHILLIP: I think you guys are saying the same thing.
MCGOWAN: Absolutely. But we're talking about what he should be working on. TODD: To be fair, the public's money was used to attack Donald Trump
for political reasons, too.
HONIG: I like that way of carrying it. I think you're right, it's a trap of his own making. I mean, he's having a temper tantrum.
And look, I agree. Some of the prosecutions and civil suits against him were outrageous. I criticized them at the time, I think that's been borne out in history. I think the Fani Willis case was ridiculous.
I think my friend Alvin Bragg's case was an outrage. I don't think necessarily federal cases were.
KIRCHICK: With the help of a DOJ prosecutor.
HONIG: Yes. Letitia James also was ridiculous, that lawsuit. I said it would get thrown out, it's largely got thrown out.
But to lash out this way, to go down this list of political enemies, A, it's going to backfire in court. B, as you said, Brad, it does not serve the American public in any way. It's a misuse of prosecutorial power.
PHILLIP: Jamie, a quick last word from you.
KIRCHICK: I think we should remember John Bolton. Because the John Bolton case, there might be some merit to that.
HONIG: That's a good case.
KIRCHICK: I haven't looked into it. But that's an interesting example where it's sort of in the middle of the Venn diagram where it's absolutely vindictive and personal. But there might be a legitimate reason to be prosecuting him.
PHILLIP: It makes it very hard when there are those situations that may be legitimate. When you're also doing vindictive prosecutions, people have reason to doubt the whole kitten caboodle. Elie, thank you very much for joining us as always.
Next for us, the panel is going to give us their nightcaps, auction edition. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Going Sold. Last night, the second most expensive painting sold at auction and went for more than $230 million. A lush portrait of a woman by Gustav Klimt seen here, and an 18-carat functional gold toilet drew over $12 million.
And so for tonight's nightcap, if money was not an object, what would you bid high dollars for? Jamie, you're up first.
KIRCHICK: I said, I say, that it would probably be any kind of writing implement from Mark Twain, whether a pen or a typewriter. He's one of my favorite writers. He's really one of America's greatest writers.
And I actually looked into this before I came on, and Mark Twain did have a typewriter, but he actually really didn't like using it. And he wrote a very funny letter to the maker of the typewriter, which you can find online, where he complains about all the problems he has with the typewriter.
PHILLIP: Fair enough. Yes. Typewriters kind of sucked.
I mean, compared to what we have now. But anyway, go ahead.
FIGARO: Mine is really weird because I'm cheap and I don't buy anything at all. Like, I absolutely don't want to buy anything at all.
But when I had to think about it, you know, I would say I'm in law school. I am obsessed with the O.J. Simpson trial. I grew up watching that case.
I watch it, like, pretty much every other night, the original trial. Abby's looking at me like, wow. So if I could like every--
PHILLIP: I was like, this is taking a turn.
FIGARO: Yes, so if I could buy the trial notes, I've had a chance to meet Carl Douglas, but the trial notes on the strategy and what they talk about from the state and the defense and all of the evidence, I would just buy that.
TODD: My mom would bid with you on that.
PHILLIP: Get this lady a law degree. That's real dedication, actually. Wow.
All right, Tara.
PALMERI: Mine is much more vapid. I would buy Marie Antoinette's jewelry, all of it, and just wear it around the house.
PHILLIP: Is it good? Have you seen it?
PALMERI: I just feel like really regal.
Yes, I mean, the diamonds are massive. And they think that she had the Hope diamond one time. Yes, so it's like, yes, she was a rich lady, you know?
PHILLIP: And really didn't care what you thought about her.
PALMERI: Yes, just be completely absurd. And also, you know, it's obviously incredible to have that.
PHILLIP: Yes. All right. MCGOWAN: I'm terrible at this game. My son likes to play this game all
the time.
If you had this money from the lottery, what would you do? And I'm like, I'd buy a house, because I'm never going to be able to buy a house in this stupid country.
And I'd pay for my health insurance. And I'd, like, do all this boring stuff.
Yes, sure, if it's a fun game, I would buy a Rothko, right? But I need a wall to put it on. So being an American, we can't really have fun anymore with this game, because we really just need money for health care and housing and education.
How boring am I?
PHILLIP: All right.
TODD: We need bourbon, too. I'm from Appalachia, so I would pick the very best bourbon ever made, Pappy Van Winkle's 23-year-old bourbon.
I'd share it with you all, too.
PHILLIP: Okay. Bourbon is actually not a bad idea.
Yes, I'm kind of with you on buying a house. Sometimes I'd buy, like, a really nice house in Italy somewhere on a hill where no one can find me, and I would just sit there and drink wine.
[23:00:05]
All right, everybody, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight," you can catch me anytime on your favorite social media: X, Instagram and on TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
