Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Two National Guardsmen Shot in D.C., Both in Critical Condition; Officials Say Guardsmen were Targeted in D.C. Shooting; Sources Say, Suspect in Shooting Identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal. Georgia Prosecutor Drops Final Pending Criminal Case Against Trump; Trump Lashes Out at "The New York Times Report". Aired 10-11p ET
Aired November 26, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: Good evening. I'm Erica Hill in New York in for Abby Philip, and we begin with breaking news tonight. Two West Virginia National Guardsmen shot in downtown Washington, D.C., just blocks from the White House. Both are in critical condition at this hour. Officials call this a targeted shooting by a lone gunman. The suspect is in custody, a source, however, telling CNN he is not cooperating with investigators.
In a new video statement released just moments ago, President Trump says the Department of Homeland Security is confident the suspect is a man who immigrated from Afghanistan in 2021, and the president also took that moment to double down on his immigration policies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: This heinous assault was an act of evil and act of hatred and an act of terror. It was a crime against our entire nation. It was a crime against humanity.
We're not going to put up with these kind of assaults on law and order by people who shouldn't even be in our country. We must now reexamine every single alien who has entered our country from Afghanistan under Biden. And we must take all necessary measures to ensure the removal of any alien from any country who does not belong here or add benefit to our country. If they can't love our country, we don't want them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Brian Todd is on the scene. So, Brian, I know you've also spoken with a number of eyewitnesses. What more are you learning?
BRIAN TODD, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erica, we can set the scene for you right now. We actually have a pretty good view of FBI agents processing the crime scene. I'm going to let our photojournalist, Albert Lutan, kind of zoom past me and up to the crime scene there. That's where those high intensity temporary lights are. That's pretty much where the crime scene is, just maybe 150 yards away from us.
You can see, at least we could see a moment ago, FBI agents processing the scene right there, going through some evidence, still a very heavy law enforcement presence around here. You've got FBI agents, ATF agents, Capitol -- excuse me, not Capitol Police, but Park Police, secret Service Police and Metropolitan Police, also just kind of still swarming the area, processing the scene here.
What I can tell you about the eyewitnesses that we talked to, one of them, a young man named Ryan Akid (ph), who is here visiting his family, he goes to Cornell University, he was at the Potbelly Sandwich shop just over to my right, your left, not far from here.
He was about 30 seconds out of the shop. He said about 30 seconds after he left the shop, he heard the gunshots. He turned to the scene over here. He saw a man on the ground on his stomach with his hands behind his back being held down by at least one person. He assumed that was the shooter. He said he also saw some people administering CPR to one of the victims as that's consistent with the account of a lady who told us that she also heard the shots and then looked over and saw people administering to one of the victims.
Our colleague, Evan Perez, has some really good reporting tonight on kind of the sequence of events citing law enforcement officials saying that a camera at the Farragut West Metro Station, which again is right over here behind me, that a camera at that station pretty much captured the entire sequence of events, saying that the gunman approached three National Guardsmen who did not see him until he started shooting at them, that he struck one of the National Guardsmen who was very close by and then struck another, according to those officials. The gunman then stood over one of the National Guardsmen who he had hit and was about to fire again when he was himself struck by a third Guardsman who fired at him and engaged him.
The suspect, according to sources, was taken away on a stretcher. We do know from FBI Director Kash Patel that the two National Guardsmen are in critical condition tonight. So, just a harrowing scene, which, by all accounts, from police and the Mayor, Muriel Bowser, who said this was a targeted attack, by every account, Erica, that we're hearing this was pretty much an ambush to National Guardsmen who never saw the gunman until he started shooting at them from very close range.
HILL: Brian, I really appreciate it and appreciate the updates. Thank you.
I want to bring in our panel now, John Miller, first to you. We are learning more about the suspect, including potentially an identification at this point. What more do we know?
JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, according to federal sources, his name is Rahmanullah Lakanwal. He is an Afghan national who came here in 2021 as part of Operation Allies Welcome, which really brought in about 88,000 people from 2021 with the fall of the Afghan government and the rush to get out people who had either worked with or assisted or family members of people who worked with the United States government on some level or the military.
[22:05:22] So, he is part of that group.
We are told that he applied, after being here since 2021, applied for asylum to remain in the United States in 2024. And we're told that that was approved in April of this year. So, we have some gaps in what's he been doing while he was here, what was the delay in his application for asylum, what were the steps that got them to the approval. But the experience of getting that many people through a vetting process, which I recall vividly because we had detectives from the NYPD assigned to the JTTF down at Fort Dix and other places working with that process.
And, you know, it was very hard with the condition of Afghani records, the uncertainty of dates of birth, the different names and family names and crossovers and records and the compartmentalized databases from so many agencies that were involved in that to get those people through, and that's going to become -- a piece of that's going to become a part of this investigation. A larger piece of that is going to become the discussion of politics to follow.
HILL: Which is, yes that that will inevitably come in, but we don't have to go there tonight, right? So, as we think about the fact that so now that there is a name, right, and we know a little bit more of the background, so came in 2021, applied for asylum '24 was actually granted asylum, I believe it was in April of this year, but earlier this year. The fact that there is all of that information though readily available, Jonathan, that is going to, in many ways, speed up this process, at least one aspect of the investigation.
JONATHAN WACKROW, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Well, it gives us a starting point, right, when he came into the United States, but it's really from the time that he was here to today, what are the characteristics of this individual? Does this person, you know, exhibit animus towards the U.S. government or members of the U.S. military? Are there issues, behavioral issues that have been identified?
Again, it's not normal for somebody just to show up in Washington, D.C., and kill a member of the military service, right? So, there is something that -- there were actions that happened beforehand that led up to this.
And I think as the investigators start working backwards, they're going to start finding these different clues in the facts about this individual because, you know, behavior runs on a continuum. So, with shooting somebody at the farthest end of that continuum, and that's what happened today. But what was missed beforehand, what was missed from that previous screening, that initial screening, what happened his entire time here? Has he ever, you know, had interactions with law enforcement? Has he ever had any behavioral indicators that would show that he could cause harm to another person? Did someone know something in advance?
When you think about if this is a targeted attack, what we've seen time and time again is that there are missed red flags where people, you know, know something. They're like, oh, that person had, you know, harbored a lot of grievance and constantly ideated on violence and thought about going against the military. If that doesn't come out, then this is the consequence.
DONTE MILLS, NATIONAL TRIAL ATTORNEY: And it's -- if I can just jump in, it's a little weird when you look at the situation as an attorney. When I deal with immigration, people fight hard to get here and seek an asylum. That's a difficult process. We don't know what the delay was or what caused the delay, but he was granted asylum. Usually, that's a celebration. It means that you're here, you can now be comfortable and be relaxed knowing you're going to be allowed to stay in this country. So, to fight for that and then be granted that, and then take this kind of act, which is -- this is an assault on the nation, when you attack our military, it's a bizarre response when he was allowed to stay here.
HILL: It raises a lot of questions and it makes you wonder, you know, what was in that, not only the vetting process, but what happened within that asylum application, what was happening in those interviews. That information surely will be gone over. We can't forget, though, the fact that there are two National Guardsmen tonight who are in critical condition, who were there, who we know from officials believe this was absolutely targeted. What does that say about the safety of the National Guard troops who are still in Washington, D.C., tonight?
PAUL RIECKHOFF, FOUNDER AND CEO, INDEPENDENT VETERANS OF AMERICA: They're not safe anywhere. And I think that's the painful truth that all of us know, is that American troops are not safe anywhere overseas or here in America. And my heart goes directly to those two National Guardsmen, to their families, to their unit, to the state, and to all the other families of National Guardsmen that are watching television right now worried about their loved ones that are deployed somewhere across America or across the world.
I think that this is a very radioactive environment in this country and around the world, and every single man and woman that puts a uniform on is at risk.
[22:10:02]
And this is a reminder of that. I mean, many folks are going to enjoy their Thanksgiving dinner tomorrow, and these folks are going to be away from their families and there are going to be two open seats for sure that are missing those loved ones. And I think it's a reminder that there is no safe space for our troops right now.
And it's a time for unity. It's a time to grieve. It's a time to support, it's a time for accountability. And I hope we cannot point blame on anyone except the assailant and put the politics aside, at least for a little while.
HILL: And also important to maybe give thanks, especially on this Thanksgiving Eve, right, for the other National Guardsmen who was there, who was able to jump in, in that moment.
KRISTEN ROUSE, U.S. ARMY VETERAN: It's a just a tragic reminder that every time you utilize the military, whether we think of it abroad but clearly here at home too. But whenever you deploy the military, they're at risk, whether it's operating really, you know, potentially deadly equipment or something like this, this absolute tragedy that happened. You know, the Clausewitz quote is, you know, war is politics by other means. It's -- really, it's the uniform is politics extended into the public space, yes.
And, unfortunately, two West Virginia National Guard soldiers who had nothing to do with this person, with -- that they did not ask to be deployed in this way, and at their military members, by and large, want to be left out of the politics.
HILL: Yes.
ROUSE: But here they are and representing, you know, with the American flag on their shoulder representing politics.
MILLS: They're heroes.
HILL: It's true.
MILLS: But there's families that's going to be -- those two families are going to be sitting at home saying, should they have been there in the first place? That's a question that we have to bring up.
HILL: It is a question and it's definitely one we'll discuss, especially because we have the president now calling for an additional 500 National Guard troops. He wants an additional 500 to be sent into Washington, D.C., following today's shooting.
This, of course, comes on the heels of a federal judge just last week finding that the initial deployment itself of those troops back in August to Washington was actually illegal, the administration also filing on that today.
Plus, the last criminal case against Donald Trump was just dismissed. Was it warranted? We'll debate that ahead as well.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
HILL: More now on the breaking news tonight, sources telling CNN the suspect in the shooting in Washington, D.C., that left two National Guard members in critical condition at this hour, that man has been identified as Rahmanullah Lakanwal. We are told that he immigrated to the United States from Afghanistan in 2021, that he had applied for asylum in 2024, and the Trump administration granted that asylum in April of this year. Sources telling CNN he is still not cooperating with investigators at this hour.
Looking at where things stand, there are going to be a lot of questions, as we were just discussing at the top of the hour, about what was known about him when he came in, what was learned during the asylum process, that's all going to be to come. When we look at where things stand in terms of these two National Guard members who are now in critical condition, there are questions about legally what will continue in the district, in the city of Washington, D.C., with the president saying he wants 500 additional troops, but also filed an emergency. Sorry, this is a long question, but for background, right?
So, we know that last week, the judge said, hey, this deployment, initially, I think this was illegal. I'm going to give you three weeks to figure it out, right, and to appeal if you would like to the administration, but we need everybody out all these National Guard troops out by December 11th, I believe it was. So, the administration filing this emergency today saying we want to keep them in, and the president saying, I want 500 more troops. How much does that sort of muddy the waters illegally given everything that we saw today?
MILLS: Well, I think the president is going and his administration is going to use this incident to further their calls of having these Guardsmen on the street. The issue that we have is if you add 500 people to this equation, or 500 soldiers -- it doesn't, it wouldn't have stopped what happened today. He walked up on soldiers and opened fire. It would've just been more targets there. These people are there. Their assignment is high visibility patrol, so people know where they are, they're uniformed, so people know what they look like. And if they want to approach them or harm them, they're in harm's way. So, why add to that and put more people in harm's way when it wouldn't have changed the outcome in this particular matter?
HILL: So, it could put more, potentially, more troops in harm's way. Does it make the city any safer, in your view?
RIECKHOFF: I don't think so. I mean, maybe potentially in those immediate areas. But I think the bigger question is this. Anytime the commander-in-chief sends men and women into harm's way, he has to explain why it's absolutely necessary. And the question should be, is this absolutely necessary? Is there no other tool we can use to solve this problem? And I think that's where the debate in this country. And the unfortunate problem is that our troops are caught in the middle of that debate.
This is a really bad place for our troops to be where half the country or less supports this and half the country or more does, and our troops are caught in the middle of that. So, they've always been at risk, not just from terrorists, but from protesters, from accidents, from any number of things. And the president's now got to look some families in the eye and say, this is why your son or daughter was critically wounded and potentially killed. And that's a justification he has to make to the American people, especially since the court is now ruling it's potentially illegal, not just there, but in other cities as well.
HILL: And to your point, Kristen, does this then turn it, right? So, it is not the soldiers themselves who are political, right? But does this make even just their presence even more political?
ROUSE: I'm afraid so. It's really frustrating where troops are always caught in the middle.
[22:20:00] And when political rhetoric is high, it's always the troops that you see visible with the American flag on their shoulder. Even politicians, you know, can go on the subway and, by and large, not be noticed. But if you're wearing the uniform in the United States of America, you know, I mean, you are clearly visible and you are unfortunately a target.
And this was a high visibility patrol and something that we would do when deployed in Afghanistan or other countries this type of thing, but so many of the troops in Washington, D.C., have been basically picking up trash. And it's it seems very challenging to justify that in terms of injuries, you know, an assault like this. You know, are they going to be covered by the V.A. for injuries that they assume in trash pickup or in a tragic, horrific incident like this?
MILLS: I think one thing that has to happen though is we have to make sure that this assailant is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to deter anyone from taking any action against any of our soldiers, absolutely in D.C. or otherwise. He has to be prosecuted his own video so it will make this easier, but some background will be done to see motive generally isn't involved in cases. But if it was politically motivated or something like that, that can enhance whatever his sentence is. And we also want to look and see if how premeditated it was and if there's some evidence to suggest that.
RIECKHOFF: And what's the threat level now there and across the country?
MILLS: Absolutely.
HILL: Which is a valid question, right? We're seeing those questions, especially ahead of the holiday here in New York City, people wondering about the parade, as well as a number of other cities. When we look at, you know, in terms of motive, that will come, hopefully, perhaps we will get some more information on that.
But in terms of potential charges, where we stand right now, based on what we've learned over the last few hours, does that change at all what you're hearing in terms of potential charges, either one of you?
MILLER: Well, you're going to start off with the assault and then the attempted murder. That just comes with the territory when you walk up and attempt to shoot people in the head. But because they're in that uniform, because they are serving at that spot, then it's also attempted murder of a federal official in the process of carrying out their duty.
Those charges can come right away based on the prima facie evidence that is here now. The Joint Terrorism Task Force with the D.C. Metro Police working on that attempted murder case, and, God forbid, one of these soldiers passes away, when those charges or charges would go up a notch, we will be looking at the terrorist angle here, which we don't know about, but you can't not look for it.
It's why the case has been assigned to the JTTF. They're going to want to know where was this person's mindset, what were the stressors in their life, what was their intake from online propaganda, if any, communicating with whom. You know, we have seen in recent weeks, as recent as November 7th, ISIS renewing calls to have domestic lone wolf attacks in the United States and Europe. They're going to have to page through all of that and figure out what was going on with this individual.
HILL: And in terms of that, what does it change in terms -- I mean, we're talking about the alerts just in cities, but the alert for law enforcement tonight, as they are looking at their people, right, and how safe or not they feel that they are.
WACKROW: Well, it goes back to law enforcement, you know, is working hand in hand with National Guard troops across the country. Does the responsibility now shift from a law enforcement, a policing practice, to now protecting them against what is now an unknown threat against them?
And I think when you think about the number, like adding 500 more troops to Washington, D.C., I think today's incident actually pushed us beyond the point of marginal utility. Adding more soldiers on the ground in D.C. becomes more detractive than it is additive. Because now they just increase a target-rich environment for somebody who has animus against that.
We are saying, and we're hearing officials say right away that this was a targeted attack. Again, now you can make a little bit of an analytical leap to say this is a targeted attack against somebody in uniform. So, why would we put more targets in an area which could potentially, you know, I impact public safety at large? I'd rather see more officers. I'd rather see more, you know, uniform presence.
The deterrence factor from this incident today, the whole point of having these soldiers on the ground to act as a deterrence to this high visibility, you know, action is now gone because they became the target themselves.
MILLS: And there's no evidence that adding 500 will add to it. It just may put more people in harm's way. And you balance those scales, there's nothing --
HILL: And to Paul's point, it will be interesting to see what, if any, information is given as the justification for why these additional troops are needed and what ultimately the administration believes that would change.
[22:25:06]
I appreciate all of you. Thank you.
We're going to continue to follow any developing moments -- any developing news, rather, on this breaking story throughout the evening.
Also, taking a look at this for you this hour, dismissed, a Georgia prosecutor dropping the racketeering case against the president for allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Tonight, Trump's still saying he won that race.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
ERICA HILL, CNN ANCHOR: President Trump escaping yet again after a Georgia prosecutor dropped the final pending criminal case against him. You may remember in 2023, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis brought historic racketeering charges against Donald Trump and 18 others for their alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election. Willis, course, was later disqualified.
In a court filing today, the new prosecutor said the case is on life support and that the legal challenges would have pushed any chance of a trial far into the next decade. The President, perhaps not surprisingly, taking a victory lap, calling the case an un-American hoax. He also continued to deny the 2020 election results.
We have a whole new panel with us now to discuss as we look at where things stand. Brian, I actually want to start with you because I'm just curious about as we take the temperature in terms of the reaction --
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes.
HILL: -- to this case being dropped, what are you seeing?
STELTER: Number one, it's a very big deal in Georgia. It's a very big statement about Fani Willis. She has not said a word about this. And I think we're now officially at the point as of today, we're going to leave it to the historians, right? The President pardoned all the rioters, the other cases have been dropped, the evidence is mostly out in the open.
The other evidence will eventually come out over the years and now it's up to the historians, you know? The President continues to try to rewrite the January 6th history, but we're not going to see prosecutions, and I think that's going to sink in now that this is officially happened.
HILL: And I thought it was interesting that the, you know, what we saw from the prosecutor, who has a long history, we should point out, this is not someone who's new to the job, basically said, look, this was going to be too tough. It certainly couldn't wait until 2029 when the President was out of office. And also, these shouldn't have been brought as state charges.
These should have been more, you know, a federal issue. When you see all of that, when you see the way that it was laid out, what does that tell you about the strength of the case that was initially filed?
TIFFANY CROSS, AUTHOR, "SAY IT LOUDER!": I think the case was very strong. And I hear you, Brian, when you say we have to leave it to the historians. But being a journalist navigating news for 25 years, I got my start at CNN in Atlanta 25 years ago. I wish we could leave it to the journalists because we have him on
tape saying I need you to find me 11,000 votes. That's not gossip. That's not hyperbole. We have it. It's not a political debate or political fodder to present as news. It's actually facts that we should remind the American people of all the time.
Furthermore, he led a riot on Capitol Hill to overthrow the elections that he would not accept. He continues to lie to the American people and not accept those election results. So, I think it's a sad day because at this point when you have someone who has been convicted of breaking the law, you kind of have to ask in this environment, what is the law? What is the rule?
(CROSSTALK)
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: The lie here is not what Tiffany's saying. The lie here is that --
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: The lie here is exactly what I'm saying.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: The lie is that the crime to actually challenge the election results. You are allowed to. In fact, Peter -- I can't pronounce his Greek name.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: -- the prosecutor pointed out in his filing that it is not inherently a crime to challenge the results of an election or question the results. You are allowed to do that. In fact, most states have a legal procedure. Having a legal procedure is the opposite of it being illegal. He actually followed the case. The Secretary of State of Georgia is the person, whether you agree with it or not, who investigates fraud in elections. He investigates the results of elections.
If the prosecutor felt that this couldn't be done, then I think he made the right choice. But remember, he was also appointed not to take the case on himself. He was supposed to find another prosecutor to take the case --
UNKNOWN: That's right.
UNKNOWN: Right.
BORELLI: -- and he could not find a single prosecutor in the state of Georgia that said this was a valid case against the President.
JOHN FUGELSANG, SIRIUS XM HOST, "TELL ME EVERYTHING": Which is why they didn't clear him. He was in no way exonerated. They ran out of prosecutors who were --
(CROSSTALK) BORELLI: When you don't have an indictment, and you --
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: They ran out of prosecutors who were willing to shepherd this radioactive diaper of a case for the next several years. Four of Donald Trump's co-defendants pled guilty on this. So this is the first time a guy has gotten away with it because the courthouse got tired of prosecuting. But to Tiffany's point, he's on tape, not saying we have to find out the exact number of votes. He's on tape demanding you find the exact number of votes I need. And people who don't mind seeing cops beaten on the Capitol steps for a lie find this very acceptable.
HILL: I do just want to play that moment for people who don't remember, right? This is that moment on tape that we're talking about. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So look, I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes which is one more that we have because we want to say --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: And he said, as you pointed out, the prosecutor did say, look, that call is concerning, right? Saying people could interpret it different ways. But he is asking for a very specific number of votes in that moment. How does that age?
CARINE HAJJAR, "THE WASHINGTON POST" EDITORIAL WRITER: Well, I think there could have been a thoughtful conversation about how whether the President should be speaking this way. And I think it got muddied by the barrage of lawsuits that voters were getting throughout the primary into the presidential election. I was in New Hampshire at the time and one lawsuit after another.
[22:35:02]
Voters don't have time to break down each lawsuit and the merits of the case, but as the President's telling them, look at everything that they're throwing at me. Voters started to buy that. And I saw it flip people towards Trump in real time. And I think the lesson here is that lawfare, especially when it's sloppy, is really politically risky.
That's a lesson that Democrats should have learned. I mean, here's Trump in the White House. That's also a lesson that the President, who was the beneficiary of all this lawfare, should be learning himself. I mean, he's had some really big legal losses this week.
HILL: He also had a very distinct, and has had for some time, a very distinct -- how do I phrase it? Legal approach, if you will.
FUGELSANG: That's very -- best diplomatic way to put it.
HILL: But what we saw consistently, right, as this is coming up during the campaign and as voters are asking questions about it, what we saw is the President's legal strategy has always been to delay, right? Delay, deflect. And it worked too, because we do know that part of the process is, I just need to get elected again, and then likely a number of these things will go away. And they did.
STELTER: And that was successful. He also turned this one into a soap opera by pointing at Fani Willis and her boyfriend and saying this was all tainted, this was all scandalous. People love that, right? People love when it's, oh, this is now about sex. It's now about a scandal. And that was a distraction, a very effective distraction for the President.
FUGELSANG: This guy dodges accountability like he dodges sit ups. But we should point out that Georgia made a point of saying that he did lose the 2020 election. So, even letting him off the hook, they're acknowledging his years of lies about this.
HILL: The fact that the President still says he didn't lose the election, is that ever going to end?
BORELLI: I don't know, but I just want to go back to this whole lawfare idea.
STELTER: We do know. We do know.
CROSS: Thank you. We know.
FUGELSANG: He will lie as often as he can.
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: Let's deflect. Let's lie and deflect all the time.
BORELLI: Going back to the series of cases that resulted in the President winning reelection in 2024, I mean, it all started with Alvin Bragg. If you remember here in New York, even sitting around, it was probably this very table, right? Where Alvin Bragg brought an indictment saying Trump was falsifying business records. They had to find the crime he was concealing. And even Bragg's own indictment didn't even include that second crime.
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: And the grand jury saw the evidence and indicted him.
BORELLI: That is what set the precedent for all the claims of lawfare. Whether any case that came after that was more valid than the next, it didn't matter because the first one out of the box was Alvin Bragg and it was a complete pile of dog poop.
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: No, jury saw the evidence and returned the conviction.
CROSS: Precisely.
FUGELSANG: And all these lawfare cases are happening because Donald Trump has a penchant for committing crimes.
STELTER: But there is an argument. If we could just play back history for a second -- 2021. If you think back to 2021 and what didn't happen, right, the delays by Merrick Garland, the delays by some of these other prosecutors.
FUGELSANG: Yes.
STELTER: If you imagine a world where in the summer of 2021, there were lawsuits and legal accountability for
FUGELSANG: Yes.
STELTER: President Trump in the immediate aftermath of the riot, you'd be living in a very different country today.
CROSS: I agree with that exactly.
STELTER: Instead, years of delays, and all those delays benefited Trump.
HILL: Yes, they certainly did. I'm seeing a thing in the prompter which makes me think that we're moving on from this one. But don't go anywhere guys because we have much more to come. The demolition at the White House on full display -- turns out though there's a little bit of a battle going on about just how big the new ballroom should be. Here's a hint the President would like it be a little bit bigger. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:42:52]
HILL: Is the White House ballroom going to be big enough? That burning question apparently has President Trump and his handpicked architect at odds. That's according to a new report in "The Washington Post." The President thinks the vision that the architect has is too small. The architect disagrees and believes that a bigger ballroom would in fact dwarf the rest of the White House. Michelle Obama was asked about the renovations and she questioned why they were necessary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHELLE OBAMA, FORMER U.S. FIRST LADY: It's not about me. It's about us and our traditions and what they stand for. I think in my body, I felt confusion because I'm like, what, who are we? What do we value and who decides that? That's the part of it that hurts. It's not the house. I think I felt a loss for us as a nation, but personally, you know, that was not our -- that's not our house. That's the people's house.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HILL: Not our house, it's the people's house. I'm fascinated by the ballroom idea in and of itself because I really want to know who's going to rent out the ballroom post Trump administration.
FUGELSANG: No one will be renting it. We'll be paying for the maintenance.
HAJJAR: The White House is led by the leader of the free world. I'm sure that they'll be able to figure out what kind of event to put in this new ballroom. I mean, you'd think he's trying to add on a golf course. And of course, the President has gone about this in his usual abrasive manner. But having a ballroom to host functions for dignitaries, world leaders, seems like a perfectly normal thing to do.
BORELLI: Well, considering the Elysee Palace has a ballroom, it's called the Salon de Fete. I just Googled it during the break. The Polish presidential palace has a ballroom. Buckingham palace has a ballroom. In fact, most presidential executive mansions around the world actually have some facility where they entertain guests.
So this is not a crazy thing, right? Maybe we could joke about Trump wanting it bigger because that's Trump's style, that's Trump's personality, right? Those are things I think fairly SNL could kind of poke at. But the idea of having a ballroom in the White House when guests are entertained in tents right now, I think it's little shabby for America --
[22:45:00]
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: There's a right and a wrong way to that idea, of course.
CROSS: Precisely.
BORELLI: Where is the right or wrong way?
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: Well, I'll tell you. The wrong way is when you lie and tell people that you won't touch the structure. That's the wrong way. When you lie to people and do it unilaterally to build your ballroom of the damned. And this ballroom is a lot like Donald Trump. It's going to be gaudy and tacky and oversized and, like Trump, it's going to be financed by rich guys who are expecting some favors in return for what they do. This thing stinks like Chris Christie's hamper.
And again, I don't care too much about the ballroom of the damned. It's not that big a deal. There's people dying from USAID cuts. But the amount of dishonesty that was levied in the construction of it, I don't get sentimental about a building. There's real people really suffering. Twenty million folks who'd be kicked off of Medicaid from this bill. But this is just another example of the tackiness.
And I think it's great. He wants something that can be seen from outer space. But again, it will dwarf the original structure. It's going to be gold. It's going to be tacky. It's going to be one guy's aesthetic. And you can build a ballroom and allow the American people to have a say in it. They could have made it a process. He didn't have to be like the rich kid who wants a toy. But he can't stop.
CROSS: But I've been in the East Room. It was perfectly fine. I don't know. I know he wants to have a bigger crowd there.
FUGELSANG: But I'm with you on the tents outside. I'm with you.
CROSS: But to me, the story is not that he's building a ballroom. And I actually don't think it's anything to joke about. I think that's part of the problem that we treat this like it's, you know, fodder and like ha ha ha. It's actually a travesty. And it's strange that this ballroom is going to be funded by Amazon, Google, Microsoft. These are very weird things and that's not something that we should start to normalize in our democracy, that it's funded by the private sector.
And is this honesty about it. I mean, this is a $300 million project and it's like we have completely abandoned our social norms and mores. I completely understand Michelle Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama's perspective when she asked, who are we? What are our values?
And when we sit around and talk about this, like, oh, we can joke about the ballroom and oh, he and his architect are fighting. No, no. This sounds to me like someone is building a structure that he does not plan on leaving. And that's something that we need to start taking very seriously.
HILL: There's also the separate question of the optics, right? And it is important to point out, this is being -- this is being privately financed, right? So it's not technically taxpayer dollars.
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: We'll pay to maintain it.
HILL: But in the moment -- in the moment where there are people dealing with real issues when it comes to affordability, when it comes to struggling and wondering are they going to change their Thanksgiving menu tomorrow based on the high prices at the grocery store, which can't be ignored? There are concerns about the housing market. There is a question about the optics. Should that come into play?
BORELLI: I think every president has made renovations at the White House, and look.
STELTER: Not like that
HILL: But not like this. They're coming to play in this moment.
BORELLI: Wait. Hold on, hold on, let me -- we were just criticize -- you just criticizing the President for not using taxpayer money. At the same time, you're saying that this money, this resource, this whatever should have gone to something else. So, I don't think you can compare the two.
HILL: No, no, I was making -- no, I was making -- I wasn't criticizing anything. What I was saying was laying out the facts that people will point to this and say, well, the optics, this is terrible. And then rightfully so, the President will say, look, I'm not taking away any money, right? I'm just putting that out there, right? They're not taking away any money. Absolutely.
But all I'm saying is in the moment, does it make sense as a President to consider the optics and the message that that sends when there are so many Americans who are struggling? Would you advise that?
BORELLI: A part of me thinks that pretty much, I mean, this is a great test case for just about -- and this is Bill Maher's point. Everything that President Trump ever does is automatically treated as a disaster and a travesty, and it's a ballroom but he's not going to leave the White House somehow, right? Every single thing is treated --
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: I mean, but you're intellectually dishonest. Like you are incapable of acknowledging a simple truth about anything. Like you --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: What am I lying about?
CROSS: Because you use this platform -- you use this platform --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: You just said that he's not going to leave the ballroom. He's building a ballroom so he can stay there. What did I lie about? You're the one who said he's building a ballroom not to leave the White House. You just said that. You said he's building a ballroom to not leave the White House. That makes no sense.
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: You use this platform to lie and defend this president no matter what. You lie -- you see facts -- you see facts and say, oh, that's not true. You have something presented to--
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: Yes, I do think that is a question that we have to examine.
BORELLI: So, you think he's building a ballroom to stay in the White House? That's his plan. That's his plan.
CROSS: Where would I get that from?
BORELLI: You're just saying it.
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: Him lying about the 2020 election? Him leading a mob to attack Capitol Hill? Yes, that's very serious thing. And the fact that you are intellectually dishonest about it when authoritarianism came for America and history asked, what did you do and what did you say? I hope they play back every single time you're on this show and regurgitate a bunch of nonsense when you are incapable -- you are incapable of --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: I think you are the ultimate example of the Trump derangement syndrome in the flesh.
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: I think you lied to the American people. I don't know if you're to get into position but it's --
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: I want to say how much I love that he's ignoring his architect. You go, Mr. Trump. You reject all the advice of every expert who tries to bring their woke expertise on you. In fact, when you had -- need surgery Mr. Trump, I hope you ask RFK Jr. to do it for you. You don't need those woke experts performing surgery, Sir. He's literally ignoring his architect.
STELTER: That's the thing about this "Washington Post" story today. It shows how obsessed the president is with this project.
FUGELSANG: Yes.
STELTER: That's where he might be vulnerable. That's what Democrats can use against him -- this idea that he is obsessed and fixated on building this ballroom. And of course, as always with the president, it's who's going to stop me?
FUGELSANG: And it's not going to be the people.
[22:50:01]
HAJJAR: I'm saying that two things can't be true at once.
(CROSSTALK)
STELTER: -- at the top of the Washington monument just to see what he is working on. That's how the news media is covering this. I go into the top of the monument to look down to see what they're building.
FUGELSANG: Yes.
STELTER: And the most interesting detail today, there's no word yet on how high at the ballroom is going to be.
FUGELSANG: Exactly.
STELTER: I don't know exactly what --
(CROSSTALK)
HAJJAR: Two things can't be true at once. He should have been more forthright about the plans. He should have said that this wasn't going to alter the East Wing. You swing you can be a little less abrasive about his approach. But adding a ballroom to the White House -- it's not like we're talking about a Ferris wheel here or a mini golf course.
(CROSSTALK)
HAJJAR: We're talking about something that, all honesty, I can't wait to see the first Democratic president use his ballroom. Of course they will.
HILL: I will say to everyone, it's not necessarily the fact that it's a ballroom, right? That the people who are outraged about it are upset about it. It's the way that it was, that he went about it, right? Perhaps the size, for some people it is the size, too. But sure, like a ballroom?
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: We're all okay that Amazon, Google and Microsoft -- we're treating like, no big deal, this is a ballroom. Amazon, Microsoft, they're throwing hundreds of millions of dollars to the White House.
HILL: No, I'm talking about the space.
CROSS: No big.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: I don't want to pay for it.
HILL: People saying there could be a space.
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: Here's the other thing we're going to do. We're going to wrap this bad boy up. No more of this discussion because there's still more. We do want to on a very serious note continue our coverage of the breaking news. Two National Guardsmen, of course, shot today in Washington D.C. They are in critical condition at this hour. We are live on the scene. We're going to bring you that update, just ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:59]
HILL: Tonight, President Trump lashing out after "The New York Times" produced a detailed data-driven report and talking about how he may be showing some signs of aging. In that report, the "Times" writes, "Mr. Trump has fewer public events on his schedule and is traveling domestically much less than he did by this point during his first year in office," noting that "-- he also keeps a shorter public schedule than he used to," and that "-- most of his public appearances fall between noon and 5 P.M." on average. President Trump is 79.
He responded by not only criticizing the report and defending his cognitive abilities, but also lashing out at one of the reporters, a woman, who he called, quote, 'ugly inside and out." Now, there are two reporters on that byline. The President did not personally attack the male reporter. So, I'm just curious what everybody made of the article.
CROSS: Now, "The New York Times" is saying, hey, we think this guy might be a little coo-coo. It's like, where were you in 2016? Even recently, they wouldn't even acknowledge Elon Musk Nazi symbol. They called it a hand gesture. But I think we, the American people have long seen --
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: No, it wasn't. But I think the American people have long seen a cognitive decline here. And look, I think on -- we saw it with President Biden, as well. Very different circumstances. Donald Trump routinely lies. When he was just on the global stage, he started talking randomly about windmills and killing birds. And have you ever read the transcripts of some of the speeches he's given?
FUGELSANG: It's almost like you don't appreciate that we're going to finally have Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker back.
CROSS: I mean, I find it --
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: -- before the next segment.
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: See? Don't -- stop saying Trump doesn't make things happen for the economy.
CROSS: There's a reason the White House took the transcripts down because when you read them they are nonsensical and they are burying this. So, I know everybody, you know the day before Thanksgiving everybody's joking. But this is the President of the United States who routinely lies, routinely insults journalists, is eroding our core democratic structures here.
And there's just nothing funny about it. And I just think we have to raise the red flag every single time we see this happen because a part of the reason why he's been able to do this is because a largely -- I would argue sometimes feckless beltway media that treated this like it was normal instead of saying, whoa, this is a huge problem.
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: But I would argue that ridiculing humor are important weapons against Trump.
HAJJAR: I agree. A very long, long cable footprint like you can go back years and years. This is how the President has always talked. And I think that, you know, calling him out at this point on crazy things he says is not an effective strategy. People should be focusing more on the policies and picking them apart on the merits. Saying that Trump said something crazy or stupid is a failing strategy.
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: This is more about, you know, stamina, right? So, looking at that the schedule is different in his second term. He's traveling shorter, that he's traveling less.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: You said domestically he's traveling less. He's actually doing double the foreign trips in his first year in office than he did in 2016-2017.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: What Tiffany said is correct though. Americans are familiar with decline because we saw decline on TV for four years. President Biden actually quit at 4 P.M. He only worked 30 hours a week. And they know that President Trump is not declining like him because whereas Biden's staff had to give him pre-printed cue cards with Nancy Pelosi's name on it, pre-printed questions that they fed to reporters --
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: -- say about Trump?
FUGELSANG: Trump can't stop lying, my friend. He can't stop lying.
BORELLI: They have pre-printed questions. This president, whether you like him or not, actually goes out there and talks to the press every single day. Every time he goes to the --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: -- he takes questions from the press.
CROSS: He's lying. He says nonsensical things and insults the press.
BORELLI: He does press conferences with world leaders.
HILL: But I think the point is he's always sort of said --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: He's always been forthright with the press. You can see that he's not mentally declining.
CROSS: He's always forthright with the press?
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: If you're out and boasting -- if you're boasting that you passed the dementia test, that's a great way of telling the rest of us they may you take a dementia test. HILL: Brian, you get the button.
STELTER: We're left in a situation where if my six-year-old came home from school and called a girl ugly on the playground he would get in trouble.
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: But they're to a higher standard.
STELTER: If he said little piggy, he would get in trouble. And we're still in a situation where the 79-year-old president, trouble is as they begin to express it, right? People laugh about it instead of taking it serious.
[23:00:00]
HILL: And that is a problem because that's such a terrible --
(CROSSTALK)
STELTER: That's where we are.
(CROSSTALK)
HILL: --in this country, right?
(CROSSTALK)
STELTER: That's where we are.
HILL: And I will say this as a woman who is raising two young men.
STELTER: Yes.
HILL: If I ever saw my boys use that language or not stand up for a woman when it was used in front of them, I would be questioning where I went wrong with them because that's not the way to behave. That is separate from this right from the actual tone of the article. But yes, it's an important point, as well. We're going to have to leave it there.
STELTER: Happy Thanksgiving.
HILL: It was pleasure.
BORELLI: Go to bed without dessert. That's it.
HILL: Don't forget. Please join me alongside my dear friends Sara Sidner and John Berman. Tomorrow morning, we will see you 8 A.M., "Thanksgiving in America". It's all happening, all the good stuff. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
