Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Admiral Tells Lawmakers Survivors Didn't Radio for Backup; Source Says, Admiral's Logic for Second Strike F***ing Insane; Grand Jury Declines to Re-Indict Trump Foe Letitia James. Redistricting Maps To Be Reviewed By Supreme Court; Brian Cole Is Charged In D.C. Pipe Bomb Case. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired December 04, 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 --
REP. JIM HIMES (D-CT): One of the most troubling things I've seen in my time.
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): Admiral Bradley is very clear that he was given no such order.
PHILLIP: Why images of an alleged war crime may be in the eye of the beholder.
Plus, the retribution tour suffers another cancelation, why a grand jury is rejecting Trump's thirst for revenge.
Also, a supreme decision, a red state will be allowed to use Donald Trump's map, setting off a redistricting war.
And a cold case turns hot. But an FBI warning after the arrest of the pipe bomb suspect raises questions about those already caught and released.
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: When you attack our nation's Capitol, you attack the very being of our way of life.
Live at the table, Charles Blow, Isabel Brown, Dan Koh, Joe Borelli, Mercedes Colwin, and Colby Hall.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Philip in New York. F-ing insane, that is the quote from a source tonight on the logic behind the Trump administration's second strike on that alleged drug boat. Admiral Mitch Bradley briefed lawmakers today on that strike that killed survivors, which many critics say could be a war crime. According to sources who did see the video, Bradley and officials saw the survivors clinging to the wreckage, and they talked about it for about 41 minutes before choosing to bomb it again. The admiral also told lawmakers that the survivors did not radio for backup, even though that was one of the defenses that had been floated in recent days.
But it appears that Republicans and Democrats can't agree on what they even saw and heard in this briefing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HIMES: What I saw in that room was one of the most troubling things I've seen in my time in public service.
COTTON: I didn't see anything disturbing about it. What's disturbing to me is that millions of Americans have died from drugs being run to America by these cartels.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: A source also told CNN that the admiral justified the strike because the survivors could have hypothetically floated to safety, been rescued and continued the trafficking of drugs. But another source called that rationale F-ing insane. Senator Cotton disagrees.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COTTON: I saw two survivors trying to flip a boat loaded with the drugs bound for the United States back over so they could stay in the fight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, what happened in that briefing could be cleared up pretty quickly. They can release the tape and we can all see it with our own eyes, but what it seems based on both what the lawmakers said coming out of it and based on what our sources are telling us is that these men were shipwrecked essentially after the boat was capsized. They tried to turn over the boat that was still floating perhaps to survive and then they were bombed again.
How is that an attempt to get back into the fight?
JOE BORELLI (R), FORMER NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL LEADER: So, I don't know. And let me just start by saying I don't care, not one bit, genuinely and wholly do not care about these two men in the boat. We're talking about two people who were clinging to life. How about the thousands of Americans every month that are on the floor in some bathroom clinging to life because of overdoses from drugs that these people brought? These guys are not good guys.
This basically follows the typical Democratic fact pattern. It starts with a fake news story about Pete Hegseth that gets disproven, right? He didn't actually order them to kill everyone. That's been sort of taken back. And then it goes into the part where Democrats defend the bad guys at the expense of law enforcement and now the American military.
This is kind of standard Democratic operations. And if you ask me, I give more of a crap about the Americans who are losing their life every single year to drug overdose than two jerks floating on a boat trying to flip it back over or whatever, it doesn't matter.
DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SENIOR AIDE, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: This is not about drugs. This is not about justice. This is about power. This is about a secretary of defense so drunk off alpha male bullshit that he is willing to take lives to get off on that power, okay? He knows he's in the hot seat with Donald Trump. That is one thing. And my question to everybody here is, do you really want a person leading the largest employer in the world of 3 million people who are willing to take lives to keep power? I think the answer is no.
BORELLI: No. Actually, it's yes, because I'll read a quote that was also in The Washington Post from the Obama administration.
[22:05:04]
We use double taps all the time. Today's Washington Post, we use double taps all the time. You could have an initial signature off a target that's been hit. And if a person squirted, meaning they were injured, we would hit it again. That was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency under Joe Biden, or the architect.
COLBY HALL, FOUNDING EDITOR, MEDIAITE: Was that in the ocean?
BORELLI: Obama -- this is the Obama administration --
HALL: Wait, by your own definition of what's in the --
BORELLI: I'll finish.
HALL: This is a war crime. So, this is a war crime.
BORELLI: The person who orchestrated the Obama drone program, right, the Obama drone program, which killed hundreds of innocent people, right, innocent people, not drug traffickers.
HALL: Those were not war crimes.
BORELLI: The person who orchestrated, the Democratic Party in the Senate actually voted to promote that guy to the head of the CIA. So, this is full of crap.
PHILLIP: Joe, (INAUDIBLE) your position. Are you essentially saying that even if it was a war crime, you just don't care? Is that what you're saying?
BORELLI: It's not a war crime if there's boat with drugs floating in the ocean, and they're shooting at it again.
PHILLIP: But you just said, I don't care, you know, about whether it was right or wrong. So, you're -- are you actually definitively saying -- BORELLI: I do care because it's right.
PHILLIP: So, is it -- so hold on.
BORELLI: So, if you shoot missiles at drug traffickers killing Americans is right, full stop.
PHILLIP: So, hold on. So, okay, so let's take it one step at a time. Do you think that it's possible that this might have violated, you know, military law?
BORELLI: No. No, I think it's a perfect drone strike. To use President Trump's language, it was a perfect strike.
PHILLIP: If it did, would it be okay with you?
BORELLI: If it violated law, yes, but, I mean, we're having a Congressional --
PHILLIP: It would be okay with you?
BORELLI: We'll see. It wouldn't be okay with me, fine.
PHILLIP: It would not be okay?
BORELLI: But we're having an inquiry.
PHILLIP: So, don't you think it's -- so I think we're kind of at the point here where we are just -- we need to know whether it was right or wrong.
BORELLI: Why did the Democratic Party promote the guy who orchestrated drone killings of innocent --
PHILLIP: Joe, hold on. I think we need to know, right, whether it was right or wrong. And one of the clearest ways to clear this up is to release the video, which would show us what happened. It would allow people to determine whether or not they think it was justified or not, allow other people to weigh in on it. And I don't know why they don't just do it tonight. I mean, they literally -- they had a briefing. They won't release the rationale for the legal justification, but at least release the video. Why not?
ISABEL BROWN, AUTHOR, THE END OF THE ALPHABET, HOW GEN Z CAN SAVE AMERICA: Sure, absolutely. Always on the side of as maximum transparency as possible from any administration in power, but we're talking about right versus wrong. We're talking about crimes against humanity. We're talking about all of these important big, top level topics. Why are we not addressing the fact that fentanyl is the leading cause of death for Americans age 18 to 45? 77 --
(CROSSTALKS)
CHARLES BLOW, THE LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: First of all, the boat -- they said the boat had coke on it, not fentanyl.
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: They are saying that it wasn't fentanyl. It was cocaine. They are saying it wasn't fentanyl, it was cocaine, so you are wrong on that point. And, number two, if it was really about maritime smuggling of drugs into the U.S., most of them come on the West Coast, not in the Caribbean. So, we are already trying to figure out why are we blowing up boats in the Caribbean when that is not the primary route of drugs coming into the U.S. It's not about that.
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: No, it's not. I'm -- what I'm trying --
BORELLI: So, you're objecting --
BLOW: No. The objection is that you do not have a coherent strategy --
BORELLI: So, you wouldn't support it on the West Coast?
BLOW: It's not. It's about a coherent strategy. And this is not it.
BROWN: Let's bring it back down to simple basics here. I would love an explanation from the political left in this country as to why there is always a justification for drug trafficking operations that are taking the lives of thousands, tens of thousands of Americans.
BLOW: Donald Trump just pardoned the president -- the former president of Honduras who was found guilty in America of importing massive amount of cocaine and you have said nothing about that. That doesn't bother you at all because you are partisan and the only thing you care about is the fact is defending Donald Trump. I'm not lowering anything. I'm telling you the truth.
PHILLIP: So, Dan asked the question or posed the point that Pete Hegseth in another world would be out of the job. And you've suggested that the reason he's in the job is because of all of this, because he's willing to go out there and say both at the same time that he's going to get all the bad guys, but he didn't have time to stick around for the second part of this strike and is making a big show of this whole thing.
HALL: Hegseth has been an unmitigated disaster and it shouldn't so shock anyone. He was the weekend host of Fox and Friends. He is not equipped to manage the Pentagon let alone whatever sort of veterans group that he had when he was also on T.V.
It's not just this double-tap situation. The inspector general report came out and said that he shared sort of sensitive material that put military officers at risk. And, you know, it makes everything that he said before a flat out lie. He's suggested a court martial. He's trolled Mark Kelly, and you know, he's a buffoon. He's a buffoon. And it begs the question how is he still in this role.
And I'll tell you the answer is, because, as Jeff Goldberg said on this network earlier, there is a culture of impunity in this administration.
[22:10:05]
It's from Trump. It's from a Republican-led Congress who just will give a pass. And in any other administration, this guy would be out in a heartbeat.
BLOW: Anti-DEI only works on black people and brown people because these people are not qualified for these jobs, but they still get to hold them. That is the hypocrisy of the entire anti-woke Republican position. And you guys can never defend that. You can put person after person in these jobs who do not deserve to be there. They're failures.
BORELLI: I just want to go back to the point I made earlier, the person who orchestrated Barack Obama's drone strike program, which killed innocent civilians, including Americans, the Democrats actually promoted him in a vote, in a roll call vote, to the CIA director. So, spare me the holier than thou B.S.
KOH: Okay. Spare me the MAGA that you're fighting crime when you're cutting hundreds of DEA jobs, cutting hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget that has community violence intervention that worked in the city of Boston, that reduced homicides per a hundred thousand percent from 80 per a hundred thousand to three.
Tell me how that is helping reduce --
BORELLI: I don't know the stats in Boston. I'm not running for Congress in Boston.
KOH: I am talking about our federal budget, hundreds of DEA jobs that have been cut as a result of Donald Trump, as well as hundreds of millions of funding.
BORELLI: So we need more federal law enforcement in Boston. Is that what you're saying?
KOH: We need more DEA agents.
BORELLI: Do you support more federal law enforcement?
KOH: So, you care about law enforcement and increasing law enforcement?
BORELLI: Are you saying as a Congressional candidate that we should have more federal law enforcement in Massachusetts, because I would agree with you there?
KOH: I think you're being a hypocrite by saying on one side that we need to be enforcing the laws on the high seats, but cutting DEA agents and cutting law enforcement --
BORELLI: I think he's wrong cutting DEA agents.
KOH: That's it. PHILLIP: So, Charles had asked about the logic of Trump saying that he is fighting drugs coming into this country, while also pardoning people who ran, not just the random guy on the fisher boat, but actually ran the drug trafficking operation. How do you square that?
BROWN: Look, I can't speak to President Trump's justification for pardoning any individual, but I can tell you with his track record more than any other president in our lifetime has been dedicated to securing our southern border --
PHILLIP: My question is, how do you rationalize this administration saying, we care so much about the drugs that we will blow fishermen out of the water, whatever, all of that, while also pardoning somebody who is responsible for tons of drugs coming into this country. It's not just about the pardon. It's also about what -- what is the message that he's sending?
BROWN: Yes. The message and the actions of this administration have been unequivocally clear back when he was president in the 45th presidency, and now again as number 47. This president has gone out of his way throughout my lifetime to crack down on illegal migrants coming to this country, bringing untold numbers of illegal narcotics, like fentanyl and cocaine and several other options.
PHILLIP: But you're also aware that most of the drugs transiting across the border from Mexico are coming across from Americans.
BROWN: Okay. So, that's now --
PHILLIP: You're aware of that, right?
BROWN: -- the justification to keep the southern border open?
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, the reason I'm -- hold on, the reason I'm --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: The reason I'm saying this is because you're trying to -- you're making this about -- just about the immigration issue.
BROWN: Oh, not at all. Not at all.
PHILLIP: We know the drug issues are multifaceted. We know that, for example, the fentanyl issue that you highlighted is not centered on Venezuela. It's not centered on the Caribbean even. So, again, make it make sense. I think that's part of the problem here is that the logic of this whole campaign doesn't really line up if drugs is the only rationale.
BROWN: No, it's not. It's certainly not.
PHILLIP: There are other -- well, yes. I mean, I'm glad that you acknowledge that because there are a lot of other political on in the Caribbean and battleships being brought --
BROWN: (INAUDIBLE) the safety of American citizens -- PHILLIP: Hold on, including battleships being brought into the Caribbean that are not required to take out drug boats, and so, again, many questions on those issues.
And I don't want that to get lost in the trees here because there's some serious things happening in the Caribbean that the administration's not being transparent about, and this is only one of them.
Next for us, more breaking news, a grand jury has rejected the DOJ's second attempt to indict a Trump probe.
Plus, the Supreme Court tonight is allowing Texas to implement that Republican-friendly map, which will send the redistricting wars into a new stratosphere. Another guest is going to join us at the table. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, another swing and a miss for Donald Trump's DOJ in its efforts to prosecute one of his political enemies. Just ten days after the court threw out an initial charge against New York Attorney General Letitia James, a grand jury is now declining to re-indict her. James, a frequent Trump critic is one of several political opponents that Trump has said should face legal trouble.
But late last month, the fraud charges against her were dropped after Trump's handpicked prosecutor was disqualified on the grounds that she was unlawfully appointed. And a source familiar with the situation says that there should be no premature celebration because the DOJ could try to seek an indictment a third time.
James has denied any wrongdoing, accusing the government of transforming the DOJ into the president's personal agents of revenge.
A third time? Really? Shouldn't they just let this one go?
BROWN: I think time will tell what this case ends up looking like. Look, this is not a vote or a procedural movement on the evidentiary claims of this particular case. A grand jury deciding not to indict on this particular situation has no realm of bearing on whether or not she actually did commit mortgage fraud. So, I think that's a separate conversation.
But, look, I do think it's a shame that the media continues to focus on this idea of Trump going on a revenge tour to use the DOJ to weaponize his political enemies.
[22:20:04]
I think it is highly important the American people remember that it was the Biden DOJ throughout the last four years that regularly weaponized our federal law enforcement agencies to attack not only Donald Trump but American citizens. It was Turning Point USA which was targeted --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Which president made a list of people and then posted it on social media --
BROWN: Was it not the Biden DOJ that specifically targeted organizations on Turning Point USA a national security threat --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: But do you acknowledge that Trump wrote a list and put it on the internet and said to my attorney general, Pam Bondi, why are you not prosecuting these people? Do you acknowledge that that even happened?
BROWN: I hope that regular American citizens can see through the ridiculous double standard and hope that would --
PHILLIP: I'm just asking, do you acknowledge that --
BROWN: -- (INAUDIBLE) a non-two-tiered justice system?
PHILLIP: Do you acknowledge that it even happened --
BROWN: Okay, look, again --
PHILLIP: -- that Trump actually made a list and then like a four- year-old writing to Santa Claus, put it on the internet?
BORELLI: Do you acknowledge that she ran for office saying she was going to prosecute the individual.
PHILLIP: I absolutely do.
BORELLI: And was that the right thing to do?
PHILLIP: I do acknowledge that.
BORELLI: Is that the right thing?
PHILLIP: I don't think it necessarily was the right thing to do. But I'm asking you if you're going to say that Trump is not targeting his political enemies, you would have to have blinders on for the last, you know, couple of years because Trump has not been shy about that. He's been open about it. He campaigned on it. He said so on social media.
BORELLI: So, he was the targeted. He was a target of the weaponization.
PHILLIP: What are we talking about here?
KOH: There's a reason why this case isn't going anywhere. It's because it's never should have been brought forward in the first place. Let's be -- let's run the clock back here. He pointed a junior staffer as the U.S. attorney because he couldn't get anyone else to bring this forward. This is a sign of just incompetence in this administration. We're seeing everywhere. Incompetence is leading to a 30x increase in measles year over year in this country. The FBI deploying resources to protect Patel's girlfriend, okay? War plans being leaked on Signal. We're seeing this over and over again.
The qualification for Donald Trump is loyalty. It is not competence, and the American people are suffering.
BLOW: And the idea that this says nothing about the case, that's just not true. I mean, there's no way that the federal government should not have been able to get an indictment. The bar is so low, they only have to prove that there's a probable cause that a crime might have been committed and they don't even need a unanimous decision from the grand jury. They just need a majority of them. They couldn't even get that. So, it does point to the weakness of the case.
But the entire point of this is just to kind of drown them in the litigation. It doesn't matter to him really whether or not it goes forward. He'd love it for it to go forward. He would love for them to get in trouble and go to jail. But as long as he disrupts their lives, as long as he drains their pockets, keeps them in the court, like he was in court, he feels like that is winning.
And so, yes, I believe that if there's an opportunity to retry and go before a grand jury for the third time, that they'll take it.
PHILLIP: And her lawyer was just on saying that they believe that they're going to go back -- they could go back to the very same grand jury, or perhaps they wait until another one is impaneled and go back.
But to Charles' point, I mean, you made the point --
BORELLI: I thought his point about how Trump was actually targeted --
PHILLIP: Yes. Well, I was going to ask --
BLOW: Yes, but he should have committed a crime.
PHILLIP: Well, I was going to ask you about that because, I mean, you know, Trump -- maybe Trump feels like he's just going to, it's just going to be payback. But if you thought it was wrong when it happened to Trump, shouldn't it be wrong when he's doing it to somebody else?
BORELLI: Yes, maybe. But, look, I actually know and like Tish James, and that's probably a fact that doesn't make me popular with many of the people who support me. The thing is, all of her friends who came out and supported her after she was indicted, not one of them actually made the claim that she didn't do what she was accused of doing. And I think that really is the underpinning of --
PHILLIP: She's making that claim because she didn't do anything.
BORELLI: Yes. Look, she filled out the forms, she signed them, she put her signature.
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: She put her signature on the -- my point is she put her signature on the doc, right? It can't be -- do I think people should actually go to jail for mortgage fraud? No. I don't think that. But can people exist in a world where someone is powerful and connected and doesn't have to face consequences that others do? If that's the system we live in, then fine. But that's not the system we live in. It shouldn't be.
PHILLIP: Wait, you're saying --
BLOW: What does that mean?
PHILLIP: Wait, you're saying that she should be targeted by --
BORELLI: No one is saying -- no one is saying that she didn't do what she's accused of, right. All -- again --
PHILLIP: I guess what I'm saying is she is saying that she didn't do what she was accused of and she is the person --
BLOW: And the grand jury said that they didn't believe it, exactly.
PHILLIP: But I guess maybe I'm just trying to clarify because maybe I misheard you. I mean, is it okay with you that Trump is using his power to, you know, rummage through the mortgage applications and find something to come after her on, especially since he claimed that that was wrong when it happened?
BORELLI: You can go on the DOJs website and all the districts around the country and find people who have settled cases or been convicted criminally of some type of fraud that resulted in dollar amounts around the same that she was being prosecuted for. So, it wasn't just a little --
BLOW: One of them is Donald Trump.
BORELLI: It wasn't just a little teeny weenie crime, right? It wasn't.
PHILLIP: Well, I guess that by that logic --
BORELLI: Does she deserve to get away with it? No one's saying she didn't do it.
PHILLIP: By that logic, you should be totally fine with her prosecuting Trump for sums that are orders of magnitude much greater than anything that we're talking about with her mortgage application, right?
[22:25:08]
BORELLI: My favorite case is the Bragg case, the Alvin Bragg case, because they --
PHILLIP: But that's different case. (CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: You're trying to change the subject because that's a different case. Because if you were saying that --
BORELLI: She only tried Trump civilly. The criminal case was against Bragg.
PHILLIP: Sure.
BORELLI: In Bragg's criminal case, he had to find an underlying crime to the business fraud.
PHILLIP: You're changing the subject because I think you don't want to go where the logical conclusion is.
BORELLI: That's not a criminal case.
PHILLIP: If you think that it is okay for her to be criminally prosecuted for a sum that is a small fraction of what Donald Trump was accused of doing at the business level, then you should be more than okay with that case that she brought against Donald Trump, and I know that you're not.
BORELLI: That was a civil case.
PHILLIP: So -- yes. But --
BORELLI: I'm just saying.
PHILLIP: But, yes. But even more so, it was a civil case. He would've had to pay a monetary fine. He's trying to take away her liberty as a result of this case.
BORELLI: And going back to Trump's criminal case --
PHILLIP: So, it sounds like you're totally fine with it when it comes to Letitia James and you're not when it comes to Donald Trump.
BORELLI: I'm not. You're talking about being targeted. Trump's criminal case brought by Alvin Bragg required an underlying crime that they were trying to hide the evidence.
PHILLIP: We're talking about Letitia James. You keep talking about Alvin Bragg.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: We do have to go to break though, guys. We have much more ahead next.
The Trump plan for redistricting in Texas gets the green light tonight from the Supreme Court. But does a win for Republicans mean a win for Democrats in other states? We'll debate that. That's next.
[22:30:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Our redistricting rumble is about to go down after the Supreme Court decided that Texas can use its new Trump approved map to boost Republicans odds at keeping the House in the midterm elections next year. And doing so would likely flip five Democratic held seats to the GOP. And you might remember the district court had blocked the state's new map, finding that the lines were drawn based on race and were likely unconstitutional.
But tonight, the high court's conservative majority undercut that claim. But the justice, Samuel Alito writing, "-- the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map was partisan advantage, pure and simple." But in her dissent, the liberal justice, Elena Kagan wrote, "The decision disserves the millions of Texans whom the district court found were assigned to their new districts based on race."
Attorney Mercedes Colwin is with us in our fifth seat. Mercedes, do you think that this means that when all these other cases come up to the Supreme Court, which many of them probably will, that they will have to probably uphold a lot of these gerrymandered maps because of the precedent that they set here.
MERCEDES COLWIN, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Well, it certainly seems to be that case because there a lot of constitutional issues that are here at play. One, the Voting Rights Act, basically to assure the individuals are able to vote unrelated to their race. You also have the other constitutional issues that come into play when you talk about equal protection.
So, those are the constitutional issues that are an issue that the justices are presumably looking at. That's the lens in which they look at. But here was a little different because you had in the underlying court nine days of hearing with three judges making a decision based on those nine days of hearing. This was an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
And apparently, whenever there's this appeal regarding these types of maps, it's automatic. You don't have to go to the Interim Court, the Fifth Circuit, which would have been the Fifth Circuit here, and then applied to the Supreme Court. It goes from that district court decision right up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
So, when looking at this, it's probably true because this is really on ideological lines. We're talking about Justice Alito running the charge for the conservative majority and writing that he found two errors by the underlying court. He said that they didn't give the legislators the -- really, the deference that was due to them constitutionally.
PHILLIP: So, one of the liberal justices wrote, "The majority today loses sight of its proper role. What basis does the majority have to thus substitute its understanding of the direct evidence for the District Courts? The short answer is none. And she points out that as you said, there were nine days of hearings on this. The Supreme Court basically spent a long weekend on the facts of this
case and then came to a conclusion. And so, I think what she's really saying, which we've heard from other justices, is that there is a belief among the liberals that this is a court that now will sort of give Trump carte blanche on a lot of things.
CHARLES BLOW, THE LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW,HARVARD UNIVERSITY: And in particular, I believe that this court is making itself historically notorious on the issue of race and voting and access. The point that you made before, mean, that quote jumped out to me. They said that the lower court had failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith.
There was no good faith here. We know that they were targeting those black voters. Black voters voted Democratic 86 percent in Texas. Every other demographic voted majority for Trump. If you're going to go for those -- go for seats, you have to go to the black voters and get them and disenfranchise them and spread them around to get that there. And the reason that jumped out to me was because it mirrored to me something that I had read from a decision in 1896, was also -- there was the Fuller Court.
[22:35:10]
And they said in a case in Mississippi where they went out to disenfranchise black voters who were a majority of that state, it said, "It has not been shown that there's actual administration was evil, but only that evil was possible under them." There was the same court in the same year that gave us the decision in Plessy versus Ferguson, separate but equal.
The -- Robert's court is running neck and neck with the Fuller Court, ignoring the fact that there's racial bias all around them and pretending that it does not exist to allow the disenfranchisement of black people and black voters. That is happening right in front of us and we cannot deny that.
PHILLIP: Go ahead.
DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SENIOR AIDE, BIDEN ADMIN.: At a high level, think what we are seeing is what the founding fathers feared the most, which is the collapse of our checks and balances. Supreme Court's supposed to be a co-equal branch of government. It's basically a mouthpiece for Donald Trump at this point.
Congress is supposed to be a co-equal check on the President. People are resigning rather than stand up to Donald Trump right now in Congress. Even the Bureau of Labor Statistics is supposed to be an independent data agency to show the health of the economy.
We don't even have the October jobs report. We're to be lucky to play catch-up while people are trying to make trillions of dollars of investment decisions. We see this over and over again, the fundamental collapse of how our democracy is supposed to work while Donald Trump celebrates left and right and it's disgusting. PHILLIP: Do you think that this means though, Isabel, that that what
is going on in California. The Trump administration is challenging it up to the Supreme Court, as well. That is probably going to go through because actually the court raised California and also described that as a purely partisan play.
ISABEL BROWN, AUTHOR, "THE END OF THE ALPHABET: HOW GEN Z CAN SAVE AMERICA": Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, does that kind of make that case move and then puts us --
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Look, attempting to a larger racial issue nationally. I think is a really pathetic attempt by the media to try to turn this into something that it's not. Breaking news, a Republican state tried to create more Republican congressional seats under a Republican governor and conservative legislature.
California is doing the exact same thing as a heavily blue state trying to gain more seats for the Democrat Party in Congress to represent California, which many people would say is probably the most blue it's ever been, especially with the exodus of so many millions of conservatives leaving California under the reign of Gavin Newsom.
And when we talk about checks and balances, this is not really a Supreme Court being a mouthpiece for Donald Trump conversation. This is a state's rights issue. And if we're really serious about checks and balances, shouldn't we be worried about the countless federal judges that are just blocking every single attempt by this particular administration to govern?
BLOW: When people deny racism, it says a lot about that.
BROWN: It's not denying the existence of racism. This is a Republican state trying to create more Republican seats in Congress to represent their state's majority.
BLOW: How did they do it?
BROWN: I mean this is reality.
BLOW: How did they do it? Answer that question.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: This is redrawing districts and powers all the time.
BLOW: How did they do it?
BROWN: It happens throughout American history.
BLOW: How did they do it? By disenfranchising black people. (CROSSTALK)
BROWN: It was the way our system was intended to work.
BLOW: But you don't want to that because it says a lot about you.
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Well, the problem is, Charles, the worst part about getting into a fight is when you get punched in the face back. Do you think it's a coincidence that 40 percent of Californians voted for Donald Trump but only nine out of 51 members of Congress are in Republican plus districts?
Or that out of I think 26 members of the House here where Republicans, voted 40 percent for Donald Trump, there's only seven members of Republicans. There's no Republicans in any district in New England. You're running a massive --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on, let me --
BORELLI: Have you ever seen Connecticut's first district, right? It's like a crescent moon. And if you overlay the precincts of Connecticut, you'll see that they just carved out the Republican districts to be in three separate congressional districts. So again, this is a, as Isabel pointed out, a Republican state, doing what Republican states tend to do just like what Democrats states tend to do.
Remember, New York was the first person to try midterm redistricting last year, right? So this is the second state that's trying to do this. I'm not surprised that we're having the domino effect, but let the chips fall where they may.
KOH: If you want national proportional representation let's abolish the electoral college. Great idea.
PHILLIP: Is this the beginning of the end of any sort of consideration of the effect of this kind of gerrymandering on race?
COLWIN: Well, you would hope so, because obviously when you're talking about the other constitutional issues that we mentioned before, the Voting Rights Act in particular, should never be an issue whatsoever with respect to the right to vote. That should be up. But when you're talking about redistricting, and it was very interesting to see the decision, the way it was written, how the judges -- the justices looked at this and the majority, that this is strictly partisan.
The same arguments that you're using, Isabel, that this is strictly partisan. So, any state that comes forward, any of these challenges that come forward, if they can show, because now you have this precedent right here in this decision, that it was partisan, then it will be tipped in the favor.
And whether or not the real litmus test to see whether or not there is this bias within the conservative justices is how they deal with the blue states. So now you have a red state. They say this was not -- this is strictly partisan.
[22:40:01]
What happens when a blue state has a challenge? And that's going to --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And that's going to push the envelope on this to test that very thing.
COLWIN: Exactly.
PHILLIP: Because, if this is sort of anything goes, anything may very well go.
COLWIN: Exactly.
PHILLIP: Mercedes, thank you very much. Next for us, a stunning arrest in the cold case of that pipe bombing suspect before January 6th. But the FBI's announcement was very ironic. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:03]
PHILLIP: Tonight, it's been nearly five years, but the FBI has finally arrested a suspect that they believe planted pipe bombs near the Republican and Democratic National Committee headquarters the night before January 6th. Brian Cole Jr., a 30-year-old from just outside of D.C., has been charged. His neighbors described him as reclusive and say he often avoided eye contact and rarely said much to them. But any motive for the alleged crime is still unclear.
The police work that led to this arrest should be commended. There's no doubt about that. But a warning from the FBI Director Kash Patel today stood out and stands counter to President Trump's day one order of blanket pardons for more than a thousand people charged in the January 6th attack on the Capitol.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: When you attack American citizens, when you attack our institutions of legislation, when you attack our nation's capital, you attack the very being of our way of life. And this FBI and this Department of Justice stand here to tell you that we will always refute it and combat it. We will provide the safest country the nation has ever seen under President Trump's leadership here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Colby Hall is back with us. Colby, I guess, you know, nothing matters anymore perhaps, but how does one square -- this pipe bomb crime, which is horrible, and glad this guy was caught, with freeing over 1000 people, including violent criminals who actually injured and hurt real people on January 6th? COLBY HALL, FOUNDING EDITOR, MEDIATE: You can't. But I'll start by
saying this is a good day for the FBI and they were really due for a good day. Credit for solving a case that had been around for five years, and they got who they think is the bad guy, who should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But it does make Trump's pardons about all the others who were involved in the riot on January 6th look terrible. It -- really, really bad. And they were there because they had been duped by the President into thinking that the election was stolen. It was a baseless -- there was no proof of that. And they came from the "Stop the Steal" rally.
So, the fact that Trump's DOJ found this guy and arrested him, great. But the fact that -- this brings us right back to the fact that he pardoned all these J6 rioters and has defended them. And you know, played their songs and --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Called them patriots and so on and so forth.
HALL: It's, you know, you said nothing matters, but it's deeply embarrassing and you know, it's indefensible.
BLOW: We're also not going to look over the obvious, which is that guy's black and he's not constructing the gallows to hang Mike Pence in favor of Donald Trump. We're not going to just skip over that fact, right? They're not going to, you know, pardon him. He's not part of the storming of the Capitol in favor of Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: I do wonder if he had been actually caught around the time of January 6th and prosecuted. Would he have been included in Trump's pardons?
BROWN: I mean, okay, this is absolutely beyond the pale to me, to be honest, to claim that we don't know any sort of inkling of a motive of this individual when just a few months prior there was a lawsuit ruled in the Trump administration's favor against this particular individual for his company seeking to let illegal immigrants out of prison on bail bonds.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: When -- hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: He purchased the supplies in 2019. This was very clearly --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Just to clarify, what we're saying is that on that podium there, the people who are --
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: Yes, you're suggesting that he's tied to January 6th insurrectionist theoretically because had he been found at that time --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: No, no. That is not at all what I'm saying. Just a second. We are saying that Kash Patel and Pam Bondi did not provide a motive. And so, you can speculate all you want but the authorities who are charging this guy haven't laid out a motive. That's all I've said. The other thing is that no, I'm not suggesting that he was tied to "Stop the Steal' --
BROWN: No, your question was had he been discovered right after January 6th, would he have been included in pardoning individuals who participated?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- but I'm not sure why you think that that would be -- right. So, it's called a hypothetical, right? So, it's called a hypothetical. Had he been prosecuted alongside all of those other people who were involved in violent acts on January 6th, would Donald Trump have pardoned him?
BROWN: No, because individuals who walked into the Capitol --
PHILLIP: Oh, why not?
BROWN: -- building on January 6th
PHILLIP: Why not?
BROWN: -- were not planting pipe bombs at both the DNC and the RNC.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: What about the ones -- but what about the ones that -- what about the ones that used the American to beat police officers?
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: But again, it's rich to me that now media is saying we have no idea what the motive is for this person.
PHILLIP: Hold on. What about the people?
BROWN: This network, MSNBC, "The New York Times" within 48 hours of January 6th, did everything it could to say this was intended to foment additional chaos to detract from law enforcement to respond to January 6th.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I get that you don't want to grapple with the facts of what happened.
BROWN: No, no. I'm answering your original question.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: No, let me ask you a question. Let me ask you question. What about the people who assaulted and beat police officers on January 6th?
[22:50:03]
BROWN: I have regularly said, anyone who commits a violent crime absolutely could be prosecuted to the full --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, do you think -- do you think that they are just trespassing, that they were wrongfully prosecuted, that they should have been set free?
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: But 1000 people didn't beat police officers on January 6th. So, I think there's an important distinction there. But again, the greater conversation related to -- (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Sure.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: What about the ones who did? I don't understand why it's so hard -- I don't understand why it's so hard to say that the people who were convicted of violent crimes, which there were many, many of them should not have been pardoned. And just like this guy who will be prosecuted for his crimes, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and allowed to face the consequences of their actions.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Why can't you say that? I mean, is that so hard to say?
BROWN: Sure. If a violent crime was -- absolutely. It's not hard to say. I'm saying the same thing as you right now, Abby. But where I do have a problem is where in 48 hours of January 6th, media apparatus and establishment politicians went out of their way to tie this guy to radical right wing MAGA insurrectionist. This is the exact same thing that they have done to the conservatives based in this country --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Does that require -- you don't have to -- that doesn't mean that you don't love Trump. It doesn't mean that you don't support him. It just means that you're willing to say something reasonable that most regular people in the world would be willing to say.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Joe, this is a little disturbing because -- (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. This is a little disturbing because nobody has a problem saying that this guy, pipe bomber, alleged, is -- should be prosecuted and charged. And should not be pardoned. I don't understand why it is a -- article of faith among Trump supporters that you cannot say the same thing about many of the other people who were pardoned on day one -- (CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: I've been on the show, Abby, I've been on the show --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- the very first act, and then to have Kash Patel go out there and say, this was an assault on our country, but not January 6th?
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: She said what you asked her to say, I've been on this show a dozen times and say people who committed violent acts on January 6th should not be pardoned. But now I have to throw it back on you. Are you basically equating the pipe bomber with Bob from Peoria who put his feet on Nancy Pelosi's desk? I mean should that guy not have been pardoned?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Joe, did you not hear anything that I just said?
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: -- not have been pardoned.
BORELLI: So, you don't think walking in the Capitol --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: Bob from Peoria who went to the Capitol and spent years in jail for walking in, right? Where whereas people are assaulting these people all over the country and they get out the next day.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Joe, I know that you're making hypotheticals about Bob from Peoria but look.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: Of those thousand people, the majority have not been convicted of violence? (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Joe, be honest. Let's be honest.
BORELLI: Is that not true?
PHILLIP: People who broke the law --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- people who broke the Capitol, the people who assaulted police officers, if they were charged, hold on a second, if they were charged, and they were convicted in a court of law, and they were sentenced to time, they should not only have faced their time, but they should have, in our system of justice, have the opportunity to appeal their sentences. That's the way the system should work.
I think it is your right that if you think that there was someone who was overcharged, great. They should appeal their sentences. What should not happen is that the President should say, you're all patriots, you get out of jail free, scott free. We're done here. That's a print.
BROWN: That's fine.
KOH: And here's what Kash Patel -- the joke of Kash Patel, he's taking this victory that he takes credit for it while he's also proposing cutting 545 million from the FBI, 2000 personnel jobs. If they are extorting universities on anti-Semitism while they are pardoning people who are wearing shirts that said six million wasn't enough, camp off with wearing swastikas, maybe Kash Patel should -- is that funny to you?
BROWN: No, what's funny for me --
(CROSSTALK)
KOH: Maybe Kash Patel should sit this one out.
PHILLIP: I mean, Isabel, I'm surprised that you're chuckling bout that because that's actually true .
BROWN: No, I'm not chuckling about those T-shirts.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Those people were among the people that were there on January 6th. The confederate flags, the gallows --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean, you name it.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We have to go. But absolutely no one was talking about half the country. We're just talking about the ones who stormed the Capitol on January 6th. Next for us, the panel is going to give us their night caps, "Spotify Wrapped" edition. We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:41]
PHILLIP: It's that time of the year again when everyone's musical guilty pleasure is revealed via Spotify's "Wrapped". So, what did you listen to the most? Joe, you're up.
BORELLI: I didn't even know what Spotify Wrapped was. I'm such a boomer. The only thing I listen to on Spotify is Joe Rogan. So like, Joe, like have me at a table in your studio. We could drink whiskey and smoke cigars.
PHILLIP: Okay.
BORELLI: I love it. Three hours of deep interviews.
PHILLIP: Shoot your shot Joe. Okay. Go ahead.
BLOW: So Abby, I don't even have Spotify. I went to Apple Music to see which one I played the most and it was a new thing which is kind of like a jazzy kind of spiritual song and I don't believe it. Like I play Anita Baker all the time to take a shower so I know it's Anita Baker.
PHILLIP: All right, go ahead, Colby.
HALL: My son made me a playlist for Father's Day and there was a song in that that just turned me on listened to all year. It's Father's Children -- "Universal Train" by Father's Children. It's a classic jam and it's a beautiful thing.
BROWN: Love that. I have a seven-month-old daughter at home and there is one song that will stop her from crying in the car or on airplanes. It is "Maine" by Noah Kahan. So we have binged every Noah Kahan song over and over this year. It's been fantastic.
PHILLIP: You're giving me things I've never heard of. Okay, go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
BROWN: No, CoComelon is not in our house.
KOH: For me, I have a two-year-old, so it's the "Nine Hours White Noise".
BROWN: Oh, yes.
KOH: I find that sometimes he goes to bed before the nine hours is over.
PHILLIP: Yes. That's mine, as well. Not because I have a four-year- old, but because it's for me. "White Noise" is the jam. Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media on Instagram, TikTok and on X. "Laura Coates Live' starts right now.
