Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump DOJ Releases Trove Of Heavily Redacted Epstein Files; DOJ Releases FBI Doc Confirming Epstein Was Reported In '90s; Trump's Name Added To Kennedy Center Despite Legal Questions; U.S. Visa Applications May Now Be Expedited For A Huge Sum; Stefanik Announces Political Plans; Erica Kirk Endorses Vance. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired December 19, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SARA SIDNER, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, they're the subject of scrutiny, conspiracy, and mystery. Now, Pam Bondi faces a midnight deadline to release all the Epstein files, or else.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): We will prosecute individuals regardless of whether they're the attorney general.
SIDNER: Plus, the president put his name on the Kennedy Center despite legal questions about whether he can do that.
FMR. REP. JOE KENNEDY III (D-MA): The fact that for some reason he decided to put his name on a monument to a fallen president is just bizarre.
SIDNER: And a fast track to citizenship as Donald Trump denies rejects and boots more and more people from America. There is one way to get in cold hard cash.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's a green card on steroids. It's a pathway.
SIDNER: Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Cari Champion, T.W. Arrighi, Xochitl Hinojosa, and Stacy Schneider.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER (on camera): Good evening. I'm Sarah Sidner in New York in for my pal, Abby Philip. We are back in the kitchen at the Food Network, our sister company. We'll catch up with the crowd later in the show.
But, first, let's get right to what America is talking about, the Epstein files, some of them, but not all of them. The Justice Department has two more hours to release the entire trove, but that's not going to happen, which goes against the law Congress passed and President Trump signed 30 days ago. So far, they have released tens of thousands of documents and pictures, much of it redacted and at times inconsistently so. We're still sifting through what has been released so far. One document though confirms that Epstein was first reported to the FBI back in the 1990s.
There are some new pictures of Bill Clinton and Epstein, including one of the former president in a pool with Ghislaine Maxwell. It's worth noting all of the pictures lack context in terms of date and time and who's there, Clinton's camp says the pictures are being weaponized and he never engaged nor is accused of any wrongdoing.
But tonight, there is anger from all sides. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who spearheaded the law to force this release, says Pam Bondi's DOJ grossly failed to comply. And now there are questions about what was redacted, why it was redacted, and which documents are being held back.
All right, I am going to start with you, and I'm going to call you Madam Schneider. You're our lawyer at this table. When you see that they are not going to meet this deadline, you say?
STACY SCHNEIDER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: Ridiculous. The law was passed. They were given 30 days. They knew today was the day to release the documents. And all of a sudden today, they tell us they're not ready. They can only release a couple of hundred thousand pages. There's more. They haven't told us how many more pages there are.
And their software to go through these documents, there are keyword searches they can do with software, with A.I. technology. This is how lawyers operate when they have voluminous document production, they could have gone through that quickly. And then the lawyers come and look over everything and make sure they're not violating any privileges or laws or privacy or executive privilege or all the other loopholes that they were given in the statute, in the law.
But to tell the American public the day they're due, oh, we're not ready, we're only giving you a little bit, and then the amount they give us, blank pages again, same thing that happened last time. It happened in February when Pam Bondy said, I'm going to release the Epstein binders, and they had a big ceremony on the White House lawn and there was nothing new in the binders.
There are some new things now coming out, and they are slowly coming out. I'll just make one comment before the panel jumps in, but Bill Clinton, releasing those photos, and there's nothing wrong with showing -- you know, he's not doing anything wrong in the photos, but maybe it's embarrassing to him. Why are you releasing the Bill Clinton photos and not redacting those when President Trump ordered or directed Pam Bondi to open an investigation on Bill Clinton last month? It's a disingenuous type of investigation, in my opinion.
[22:05:00]
He ordered the investigation of Clinton and prominent Democrats within the Epstein file and nobody else, and all of a sudden they're releasing pictures of Bill Clinton when he's the subject of a government investigation. And that's exactly the opposite of the DOJ policy, which is, when you have an active investigation, you close off all information. So, it seems duplicitous to me,
SIDNER: And, Scott, don't you think that because they are not releasing everything that Congress and the president signs to say you have to release this in 30 days, doesn't it give more fodder for the conspiracies that exist? I mean, they're not following the law.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, look, they've released how many documents tonight, 200,000 or more, 400?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: 10 percent of the Epstein files, 5 percent.
JENNINGS: So, a good faith effort is being made to release files tonight.
SCHNEIDER: Really?
JENNINGS: They're obviously doing that. And I think as it relates to redactions, I mean, my impression is that there's a whole lot of names of victims in there and minors and other people that you probably wouldn't want to release and they do need to be redacted.
Regarding Bill Clinton, I'm sorry to tell you, the reason that Bill Clinton's picture is in the Epstein files is because this has always been a story about Bill Clinton and not Donald Trump. We should call it the Clinton files, not the Epstein files. That's what we're learning tonight. This is the Clinton files. This is the blowing up in the face of the Democrats over this. It's Bill Clinton -- this is a story about Democrats and Bill Clinton, and it's always been that way.
SIDNER: There were pictures of Donald Trump with Epstein as well. So, I mean --
JENNINGS: Not a shred of evidence about Donald Trump at any time doing anything untoward.
SCHNEIDER: Nor a shred of evidence about Bill Clinton doing anything --
JENNINGS: Democrats had tried to sell a narrative this year that this is a story about Trump and Epstein and it's going to blow up in their face.
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: It's not a talking point. Your President Bill Clinton is in a pool with some people that have their faces blurred out.
HINOJOSA: And you know what, and I think that if there are photos of any politician or anybody who is potentially friends with Jeffrey Epstein and was around these minors, I think they should release the photos of all of them, whether they are Democrats or Republicans.
The reality is that the entire reason we are in this place is it does seem fishy to me that Pam Bondi wanted to release all the files and all of a sudden she did it and then all of a sudden she has files to release, only 10 percent of them, 5 percent, which are new, and they happen to only have photos of Bill Clinton. Explain to me why you think that Pam Bondi --
JENNINGS: Did you feel that way?
HINOJOSA: -- was holding on so tight, so tight, so tight to the Bill Clinton photos.
JENNINGS: Did you feel this way about the oversight Democrat document dump the other day when they put out a picture of Donald Trump at some unrelated issue and redacted faces of adult people who had nothing to do with Epstein at all? Did you feel that? Were you having righteous information?
HINOJOSA: Let me tell you, I actually believe that the only thing that they should be redacting are the face is a victim.
JENNINGS: SO, you're mad at the Democrats on the Oversight Committee?
HINOJOSA: I think they should -- I don't think that they should. I don't --
JENNINNGS: And the victims are mad at the Oversight Democrats. I'm telling you.
SCHNEIDER: The Oversight Committee did not do what you say they did.
JENNINGS: Yes, they did.
SCHNEIDER: They released photos of people on both sides, men who were not redacted.
JENNINGS: Did they redact of women who were adults, who were not Epstein victims, who had -- these were public -- they redacted the pictures to create a narrative but not the truth. And that's the story of this thing.
SCHNEIDER: No. That's your narrative. They gave a very equal disclosure in the photographs. It wasn't just Donald Trump.
JENNINGS: The Clinton files are out and you're upset about it, I understand.
SCHNEIDER: No. But the funny part is you saying they made a good faith effort today, a Friday, their deadline, they made a good faith effort.
JENNINGS: Of course.
SCHNEIDER: They had to come up with all kinds of statements. Todd Blanche went on Fox News to say, we're not ready, we need more time, there's so much work to do.
JENNINGS: Sure. Well, government's never missed a deadline, yes. SCHNEIDER: They had -- they knew the deadline 30 days ago. They have the capabilities to meet deadlines. These files have been around since before 2019.
(CROSSTALKS)
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT, PUSH DIGITAL GROUP: First of all, with response to the Oversight Committee releasing pictures of who they redacted, who they didn't, I wish they redacted the face of Jimmy Buffet, let's not drag him into this.
But the second thing is when you're saying that there's 300,000 documents that were released today, and that's just the tip of the iceberg, now you're talking about millions of pages. I'm sorry. I want my Justice Department to measure five times and cut once before putting a name out to the public. That could be run through the mud. So, I'm sorry, I know --
SIDNER: Congress and the president signed a law and said you have to put all out. And, wait, and how long has the DOJ -- hold on. How long has the DOJ had these documents? And I'm asking that because the victims are really upset. They are the ones that are searching for their own names and they can't find them in these documents. So, that is why we're here.
ARRIGHI: And I do not disagree with you on any of the stuff with the victims. You have over 1,200 victims. There's probably thousands and thousands of more names of people associated. This is a huge web. And you're right, the DOJ has had a lot. Biden didn't release anything. This is the first time we're seeing the light of day.
But here's the whole point here, is there is still a P.R. battle being fought. And what I wish the DOJ would do, if I had one piece of advice, is you need to be incredibly clear when you do redact entire files, hundreds of pages.
[22:10:05]
Please explain. It doesn't have to be much, just explain why it was there. This is still under investigation.
SCHNEIDER: They can give a list of redactions. You're absolutely right.
HINOJOSA: Well, it's not only that. When I was at the Justice Department, we dealt with this, not the Epstein files, but we dealt with something similar, and various investigations, which was essentially is you'd provided Congress in camera review. You provide Congress with all of the documents unredacted, even with victims in a SCIF, and both sides, Republicans and Democrats, should be allowed to review all of it and explain exactly why there were redactions for each part. And if they're not, then I actually think that Pam Bondi should be impeached. And I think that Todd Blanche should be impeached or potentially held in contempt if they're not going to go ahead and obey the law. CARI CHAMPION, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Xochitl, I have a question for you. S,o you said earlier, or maybe you said this earlier, we are under the impression that some of the statements were the reason why there was redaction, full page redactions, were based on the simple fact that there's an ongoing investigation, you don't want to release the name of some of the victims, and as you call it, the Clinton files. So, why was it okay to release the pictures of Bill Clinton even though he's under investigation?
I'm curious as to why that would happen if it is the Clinton files and they are trying to err on the side of caution and they want to make sure due process is done.
HINOJOSA: Well, that's a big question.
SCHNEIDER: And I'll answer that as an attorney. I think it was deliberate. I think they had a choice.
CHAMPION: Interesting.
SCHNEIDER: The interest -- the standard policy for DOJ is when there's an ongoing investigation, you seal off information especially about the subject of the investigation, whom is Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump made Bill Clinton the subject of the investigation.
So, why is it okay now to violate all the policies that they have when it comes to the Epstein file and release these photos, which don't show anything? I mean, they don't show up crime.
CHAMPION: I mean, look --
SCHNEIDER: They're not indicia of criminal activity.
CHAMPION: Listen, look. I want to say something. I see those files. I'm like, Bill was having a good time. He was having a time of his life. I don't know what was going on, but he was enjoying himself. And while it doesn't incriminate him, I'm not going to sit here and say on either side that I didn't look at that and think, well, Hillary can't be happy with that tonight.
But I will say this to you, and I'm really am curious about how this works. We're not talking about the victims. I want to talk about Maria Farmer. 1996, September 1996, she made this complaint. Her sister was doing the campaign trail. She released that in terms of interviewing and talking to everyone about it. She releases a statement. 1996, this man was abusing the law and the FBI did nothing. That should be what is most upsetting. And while the victims may not want their names --
JENNINGS: What was the (INAUDIBLE)?
CHAMPION: it doesn't matter. It does not matter. I'm talking about the -- I'm not on any side. I feel like it's disgusting that she has to wait until 2025, and decades after she (INAUDIBLE) and we are still protecting this man, like we're still pointing fingers. It's disgusting, and he's not even alive. But stop protecting him. It's disgusting. HINOJOSA: But I think that -- and I -- to that point, even if there is evidence that comes before the FBI that they don't use or they don't take seriously, or they do not, for some reason, believe that it fits in a certain case, the prosecutors and the agents have a responsibility when they were going to trial to convict Jeffrey Epstein, when they were going to trial to convict Ghislaine Maxwell, to look at all of this evidence. And that should -- and that is -- I will say FBI has some explaining to do. And I think the Justice Department should really talk about why exactly did this complaint get lost at the FBI.
ARRIGHI: And that's why I'm so glad that this story was corroborated with today's release. That is why I believe, as you were mentioning, conspiracy theories. The more these release -- and that's why I want them out immediately. I want full transparency. I want people held accountable. I think everybody does. Democrat, Republican.
CHAMPION: Do you?
ARRIGHI: But I want it done -- yes, of course I do. But I want it done --
CHAMPION: No. I mean, do you think everybody does? That's what I'm questioning.
ARRIGHI: Oh, yes.
CHAMPION: I don't question your integrity. I'm questioning, do you think that both sides want everything out? That's not true.
ARRIGHI: I do, unless --
JENNINGS: They all voted for it.
ARRIGHI: They all voted for it. But what I would say, if we have poll Americans, do you want Jeffrey Epstein, you know, bad people held accountable, everybody would say, yes.
CHAMPION: Do you think that this administration is intentionally withholding information?
ARRIGHI: I do not believe until given evidence to believe otherwise.
CHAMPION: Do you believe that? Do you believe that wholeheartedly?
ARRIGHI: Until given evidence to believe otherwise.
SCHNEIDER: You know what? I'm going to give you a little piece of what I think is evidence. In July, the DOJ and the FBI had a joint statement that said, we've thoroughly reviewed the Epstein file and we do not find evidence that we should pursue any further investigations against any third parties. So, that was their own statement, we thoroughly reviewed this file and they did a press release on that.
So, all of a sudden now, at the end of the year, they haven't thoroughly reviewed the file and they don't know what's in it, and now they have to sit and redact it. That does not make sense.
ARRIGHI: Well, first of all --
SIDNER: Let me give you the last word.
ARRIGHI: Well, thoroughly going through the documents to redact for public release and going through to find other cases to pursue. Look, I'm not a lawyer, but I would suspect those are two different things. So, yes, I think that's totally --
CHAMPION: Come on.
(CROSSTALKS)
ARRIGHI: I'm telling you the DOJ has a real P.R. battle on their hands.
[22:15:00]
I don't think they've communicated clearly. I have said --
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: You know who has a P.R. battle? Clinton.
ARRIGHI: Yes.
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: The Clinton files.
CHAMPION: No one even cares about --
(CROSSTALKS)
SIDNER: Hold on a second. There a lot of people that are going to have -- people wondering what happened in these pictures. And it is not just Bill Clinton. We've seen a lot of pictures of a lot of different people that are in those.
We will put a pin in this.
Next, it requires an act of Congress, but Donald Trump adds his name on the Kennedy Center without that. How and why?
Plus, the president introduces a gold card that fast tracks immigrant visas. The catch, it's a million bucks.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
SIDNER: All right. From coins to checks, Donald Trump is putting his name on even more stuff, his name now on the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts. New signage already up less than 24 hours after its board voted to change the name of the renowned facility to the Trump- Kennedy Center.
The cultural complex joins a growing list of federal buildings, programs, initiatives that President Trump has put his name on. JFK's family members outraged by the change.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KENNEDY: The fact that he likes the Kennedy Center is a good thing. The fact that he likes the arts and he wait, he's touched by it like many Americans are like, that's a good thing and recognizes that we should continue to celebrate him. That's a good thing. So, all of that is great. The fact that for some reason he decided to put his name on a monumental fallen president is just bizarre.
It is named this way under federal law. So, it would be somewhat akin to if somebody or President Trump wanted to put his name on the Lincoln Memorial because he liked Lincoln.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: JFK's niece, Maria Shriver, said, quote, this is not dignified. This is not funny. This is way beneath the stature of the job. It's downright weird. It's obsessive in a weird way. Just when you think someone can't stoop any lower, down they go.
That was quite a statement. What do you think about this renaming, because the code is pretty clear? In fact, let's pop up the U.S. code here. 20 USC Chapter 3, Subchapter 5, says that the board shall assure that after December 2nd, 1983, no additional memorials or plaques in the nature of memorial shall be designated or installed in the public areas of the JFK Center for the Performing Arts. Why do that? First of all, why even do this?
JENNINGS: A, he loves the arts. He loves the Kennedy Center, and they're performing in Kennedy Center, so that's why he's interested in it, number one. Number two, being lectured by the Kennedys about stooping low and so on and so forth, spare me. And I don't -- we don't have to go down all the rabbit holes, but come on. Number three, I'm sure they'll be sued. He's sued about everything else, and we'll see what a court has to say about it.
But I hate to break the news to everybody. The man's a two-term president. They're going to name some stuff after him, probably more than one or two things, just like all two-term presidents.
HINOJOSA: But you know what? It's fine.
SIDNER: But most presidents don't put their own names on things while they're in office. If Biden would've done this with something else, let's say the Lincoln Memorial --
JENNINGS: I said two-term presidents.
SIDNER: Oh.
JENNINGS: He's a one term president. And, actually, he was about a third of a term president. I'm not sure he was running --
SIDNER: Okay. So, if Barack Obama would've decided like I want my name on the Lincoln Memorial, would you be okay with that? Would you be okay with his name on it?
JENNINGS: On the Lincoln Memorial? There's a statue of Abraham Lincoln in there, not Barack Obama. This is a building, it has a theater in it.
(CROSSTALKS)
SIDNER: Would you be okay with Barack Obama's name, Barack Obama/Kennedy Center? Like do you not think that people would --
JENNINGS: Two-term presidents get their name put on stuff and it's going to happen for Donald Trump, just like it happens for all two- term presidents. So, it might be an airport, might be a road, might be a national park.
HINOJOSA: There's a difference. There's a difference between Donald Trump potentially naming his big, gold beautiful ballroom, whatever it is, after him. There is a difference between whether or not he wants to build some sort of museum somewhere that houses, all the, what, you know, his presidential library. It's very different when there is a former president who is assassinated and Congress names a memorial, which is the Kennedy Center, after that person and a sitting, current living president decides to, oh, you know what, I'm also going to place my name on that.
That is very different. You are honoring a dead man. You are honoring a man who was shot in the head. You are -- Donald Trump is a sitting president. If Barack Obama put his name on the Lincoln Memorial or anything else, there would be outrage from the right. And so --
JENNINGS: Why would you put your name on a statue that's not of you? That doesn't make any sense.
HINOJOSA: It's a memorial.
JENNINGS: It's a silly example.
HINOJOSA: It's called a memorial.
SCHNEIDER: You know what this is? It's disrespectful. This is a slain president. This building was named in 1964, a little less than a year after the president was assassinated. It is a living memorial in Washington, D.C. We don't need to see Donald Trump's name on there. And they've already started pulling it on --
JENNINGS: Where are we allowed to put it on? Do you have a list of things you could have it on?
HINOJOSA: The ballroom.
SCHNEIDER: He could have picked anything. He picks a memorial to a slain, assassinated president. I think it's gross. It's absolutely gross, unnecessary gross. And it's all -- we don't need.
JENNINGS: Can you name one thing you'd like? Tell me what is, B, okay if we put Donald Trump's name on it?
SCHNEIDER: All the things you just mentioned, an airport. But let's not distract from the issue. It's pretty disgusting, okay? It's not necessary. They're drilling holes into the walls, the pristine white walls of the Kennedy Center that had existed --
JENNINGS: How do you guys (INAUDIBLE)? It would exhaust me to be as outright.
SCHNEIDER: Well, I only wish you could be as exhausted as I am outright.
(CROSSTALKS)
ARRIGHI: I don't want to overstate this case. Look, I really don't. Look, is it my way of going about things? Perhaps not.
[22:25:00]
I think Donald Trump got the reaction he wanted.
(CROSSTALKS)
ARRIGHI: Hear me out. I think he got the reaction that he expected and wanted. So, I think it's a win for him.
The reason I think it would be better for him to have waited for a new Congress to make that move or a new president is because the Democrats are going to rip it down. But that'll come back to help Trump because he can get right back and have more media attention where the next Democratic president says, I'm tearing it down.
But I don't want -- look, the Kennedy Center is an institution. John F. Kennedy's name isn't going anywhere. But this idea that we're tearing down the Capitol limb from limb, I don't want to overstate the case that is too much, the art. It's the name.
CHAMPION: Well, I'm in line with the ladies, obviously. I think the idea is that this is a memorial to a dead president who was shot and killed, murdered for his beliefs and what he tried to do for this country. And I think it was very disrespectful, not only illegal, but disrespectful to do it. And you said he goes, the board wants me to. It's the board that you put. It's very, as we talked about earlier, very mafia-style. Like you guys should put my name on this. I'm just suggesting. But if you want to vote unanimously to put my name on this, thank you. I appreciate you guys voting for me.
I think that we have known for a very long time he likes his name on many things. I'm here living in New York and that was his calling card. But the reality is he does not own America and he can't slap his name on everything, which this is the second building in as many weeks, and I feel like it's just disrespectful. I understand you want that and you want to be memorialized, but now is not the time. We have so much going on in this country. This is not the time to bow to the king or whatever king that he thinks he is. It's simply disgusting.
SCHNEIDER: And, you know, Karoline Leavitt said, his press secretary, who is in la la land, that President John F. Kennedy would be proud that he's associated and in a team with Donald Trump on this building, I mean, who talks like that? It's just -- it's insanity,
CHAMPION: You know --
(CROSSTALKS)
SIDNER: Hold on a second. There is an entire family here who had to live through the death of John F. Kennedy. And to say that he would be so proud to be side by side with him, she doesn't know that, and certainly the family doesn't believe that, the people who knew him the best.
SCHNEIDER: Right. Show the man some respect.
ARRIGHI: I love John F. Kennedy as a president. And he was a good man. He had a lot of moral flaws, as many of our presidents do. So, I don't want to overstate that case. The Kennedy family drives me crazy as a guy from Massachusetts.
But let me just say this. It's not step or being disrespectful to say, I think -- no, I don't know if I wouldn't phrase it like Karoline Leavitt did, but her saying that, hey, I think Kennedy would like Trump, that's her opinion.
CHAMPION: So, you think this outrage is not necessary?
SCHNEIDER: Why do we need to hear her opinion integrating on something like this? It's so --
ARRIGHI: I don't want to exaggerate.
SCHNEIDER: Again, here we go. Here's --
JENNINGS: Oh, yes, right. They're going to sue. Who knows what will happen. I'm sure some tyrannical federal district judge will take it down. We'll see what happens.
SIDNER: All right, I'm going to leave that there.
All right, next, President Trump says his new million dollar gold card to expedite visas has raised more than a billion dollars, but critics say it's wrong, but possibly illegal as well and un-American. We will debate, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Tonight, money talks. Now more than ever, President Trump flashed his new Trump Gold Card at the podium today. And for the price of $1 million, foreigners can get their visa applications expedited, $2 million if a company wants to sponsor them.
(BEGIN VIDO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: That's a -- essentially, it's the green card on steroids. And it's a pathway. And it's been an amazing thing. And as you know, millions of people pour into our country from the border, and not anymore, they don't. And now, when they come in, have to pay a million dollars. And we've had a tremendous surge. And you're going to be happier than anybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All right, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick says the administration has already brought in $1.3 billion for the program and Trump says the money will go towards paying off the national debt. It's a monumental shift from the traditional visa process or here's how Jimmy Kimmel puts it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JIMMY KIMMEL, "JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE" HOST: There's a card now from -- it might be time to update that inscription on the Statue of Liberty. Never mind you're poor and tired, give us a million bucks, you're in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All right. This is an interesting twist. You're talking about $1.3 billion, but you're also talking about saying, hey, if you've got a million dollars, you've got a chance at America. I'm going to start here.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, FORMER DNC SPOKESPERSON: Yes, that's absolutely right. It is -- you are not necessarily letting people in who are high skilled, who are, you know, who are, should be let in or have a process. You're letting people in just because they are able to pay a large amount of money.
And contrast that to Trump's deportation policies right now, where he going after families, and he's going after children, and he's now trying to go and start de-legalizing many people across this country. It is now going to be -- we are now going to be a country of pay us a lot of money and we'll let you in.
[22:35:00]
You can't afford it, then you are out. And do we really want to be that country?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The flip side argument is that we've let a bunch of people in, say I don't know, up in Minneapolis, who came here and have defrauded U.S. taxpayers to the tune of $9 billion. Presumably they wouldn't have needed to have done that if they had a million dollars to get here in the first place.
Look, they're trying to get people here who want to be here, and who want to be part of America, and have something to offer our country. We've got a bunch of people, millions of people into this country who have nothing to offer, who don't want to assimilate, who have defrauded our government, who have committed violent crimes. We have one party fighting for that system, and now we have a president saying, well, maybe we ought to rethink how we're bringing people here and why.
We're making money off of it. People are coming here. If have a million, $2 million to come here, you want to be here really badly and I assume be part of the fabric of America. That's a good step.
HINOJOSA: Well, and it's not only -- it's not that. It's the fact -- I'm sick and tired of the Republican Party and Trump trying to paint all immigrants as criminals, as people who are here in this country that don't offer anything to this country. That is not the case. There are many immigrants who have been here and this is the only place they know as home. And Trump is trying to get rid of everybody.
And so, it is not a -- ever -- it's people who, you know, want to pay $1 million and all of these criminals who are violent and are on our streets and that Joe Biden let them in. It is not an either or. There are people in this country who work hard, who play by the rules, who should be part of our country, who -- part of the fabric of our country.
And the Republican Party continues to demonize those people. And that is what we've come to. We've come to either you have a lot of money and you can get off crimes and maybe come into our country, or you don't have any money and you're deported.
T.W. ARRIGHI, FORMER SENIOR COMMUNICATIONS AIDE, SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM: I love immigrants. We all should love immigrants. The name of Rigi didn't appear on the Mayflower Rolls. We all descend from others who came here before us. But again, let's be clear about what this is. This is not an unusual thing across the world. Canada has a similar visa program. Forty countries around the world, 16 in Europe, have a very similar program to what Trump just did.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: They charge a million dollars for a visa?
ARRIGHI: Up to 800,000 euros. It's up to 750,000. So in the ballpark, it's not widely off. Going to the H-1B visa program, that is expensive and takes a lot of time. This replaced, just so we're aware, this is a reform on two visas. EB-1 and EB-2, the Einstein visa and the others for skilled workers and a national need, that came out in 1990. It's not like this was here from Ellis Island days. This is a 1990 thing.
Donald Trump is putting a wise provision in place to get more entrepreneurs here. He's trying to bring foreign investment. This is an enticing factor. CARI CHAMPION, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I don't disagree with your argument
that this is done in other countries. In fact, I think we read that Singapore does it. They charge like $8 million. I don't even have a issue with this idea that we should charge. I'm going to be honest. I'm like, okay, businessman, makes sense, million dollars.
Here are my two questions. One, because he doesn't have the legal authority to do this, right? Because from my understanding, this still should be passed through Congress. I'm not -- I'm not sure if it will be, if it should be.
UNKNOWN: You're right.
CHAMPION: Thank you. The second thing is, how do we know when someone who, in this administration more specifically, how do we know that this money is going to pay down national debt? We don't know that. We have to take his word for it. Those are my only two concerns with this process. Fine, go ahead and do it. This is there some oversight committee that we can actually trust and know that this is not going to pay for the ballroom. And this is not paying for the beautiful ballroom that is happening --
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: Yes, but what I'm saying is that
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: We don't know where the money is going.
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: We don't know that. I don't trust anything that any of these politicians say.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Is there -- is there a concern on anyone's mind that corruption can play a role in this --
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: One hundred percent.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: -- whereas you have oligarchs or people who actually have
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: One hundred percent.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: -- maybe nefarious reasons for wanting to come into the country, take their million dollars from wherever they get it? (CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: They have to prove that the money doesn't come from illegal or illicit sources. And as far as I've been reading, some people are -- have trouble showing -- you have to show where the source of the funds are.
STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE TRIAL ATTORNEY: Right.
JENNINGS: And so, that's part of that --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHNEIDER: So, that's not money laundering, right. Exactly.
JENNINGS: -- that's part of the, you know, safeguards --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHNEIDER: Here's the problem with it. It's not a terrible idea. It definitely feels and sounds like a Trump idea. You know, the Trump now, the Amex platinum, the Trump platinum, these -- he's offering a platinum version of the gold card also for real.
UNKNOWN: Five million.
SCHNEIDER: I think it's five million. Right. The problem with -- it's where he's putting this plan, first of all it is illegal, Congress enacts immigration law, not the President, but he's taking spaces from the Einstein visa which you mentioned.
Those visas are set aside for people who bring gifts to this country. Scientists, doctors, people who can cure cancer, people who are ahead on A.I., those are the people who enrich the United States. Now we're just bringing in cash. I'm not sure that that type of enrichment is necessary in this program.
[22:40:00]
ARRIGHI: Or another national need. And we need jobs, we need infusions of cash, we need chip-in cash.
SIDNER: One of the big things that we also need are doctors. If you talk to rural hospitals, they will tell you that some of these policies have really, really made it difficult. They're really worried about the number of doctors that they will not be able to fill slots for because of this administration's immigration policies.
JENNINGS: Doctors and nurses, both. And in rural America, that's 100 percent true. I will quibble with one part of your argument that --
HINOJOSA: Of course.
JENNINGS: -- only Congress can set immigration policy. During the Biden years, the executive fiat, we brought in scores and scores, thousands, hundreds of thousands of people from Haiti and Venezuela and other places just based on presidential fiat, temporary protected status and they come here and that's hard to get them out.
And so, the President does have some latitude, here at least previous administrations have had some latitude in deciding what kind of people do we want to have come here? Under the Biden administration, we brought a lot of people here. I'm not sure what they do for America. Under this program, you're going to have people coming here. It is a source of funds for the United States. They are entrepreneurs. They do have something to offer America, I think.
And I agree with you on the doctors. I think if I were in his shoes, I'd be, look, because rural hospitals do need the help. That's absolutely true. They did something for rural hospitals in the Big, Beautiful Bill, but they need staffing, and so I'm with you on that.
SCHNEIDER: But we do have a Congress for -- one quick point. I'm really sorry. One quick point. We have a Congress for a reason. So, if Congress enacts immigration law and then the President goes and steps in and completely changes the program, it was enacted for a reason, it was discussed, it was planned, they were trying to accomplish something, and all of a sudden, Trump walks in and just goes ahead and changes it. I don't think he has the right to do that. I don't think legally --
JENNINGS: I'm sure someone will sue him.
SCHNEIDER: Probably true.
JENNINGS: Everything gets sued.
SCHNEIDER: Yes. I'm sure someone will.
ARRIGHI: I am encouraged to hear that you are worried about corruption and misappropriating of funds and I hope you keep that --
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: Don't start with me T.W.
ARRIGHI: Don't start.
SIDNER: Next, a rising star in the MAGA movement announces she is dropping out of the New York governor's race and also leaving Congress. What's behind her decision? That story ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:46:46]
SIDNER: Tonight, another political bombshell from a close ally of Donald Trump, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, announcing she is suspending her campaign for New York governor and is not seeking reelection to Congress. Over the past decades, Stefanik rose from within Republican ranks, evolving from one-time Trump critic to serving as one of the President's closest allies.
Earlier this year, Trump nominated Stefanik to be his U.N. ambassador before pulling that nomination, citing a narrow Republican majority in Congress. On social media, Trump expressed his gratitude to Stefanik, though he did not endorse her for governor before or after her most prominent challenger entered the field.
Okay, I guess one of the big questions here is this. When you're seeing and Stefanik maybe just one but there are a lot of people who are sort of moving out of Congress. And we -- there is a Republican senator that I think 30 minutes after that also resigned, or is not going to seek reelection. Is this that people are worried that the blue wave is coming and you're seeing the writing on the wall? Or are they very unhappy in Congress because it's so polarized? Or something else?
JENNINGS: It could be number of reasons. Could be those -- could be they just don't want to do it anymore. I think in the case of Elise, she's had a roller coaster year. And I don't know what's going to happen to her in the future. I worked with her in the Bush 43 administration. She's been an all-star Republican policy leader since those days. It's why she succeeded in Congress.
It's why Donald Trump loves her. It's why every Republican that I know loves Elise. So she's young person and I assume will be back in politics in some capacity. You know, some of these folks that are stepping down have been around long time. Some of them, you know, just maybe tired of it. Washington's a grind especially in the House. It's not a, you know, it's not an easy job for a lot of these folks and when you do it for a while it can it can grind you down especially when you got a family at home you don't get to see them very often.
SIDNER: I just didn't look at the numbers. Eleven senators and 44 members of the House do not plan to run for reelection. Why do you think that is? And at least Stefanik is the latest.
HINOJOSA: Well, if you've seen the elections over the last few months, Democrats are over performing or winning many of these elections. And so, if you're a Republican right now, we know that this is going to a good year for Democrats. If you're a Republican right now, you don't either want to take the chance and potentially lose and put in all that work and money to go ahead and lose.
For Elise Stefanik, I will say that she had no chance at this race. She was pulling double digits under Governor Hochul. And I think that there was a glimmer of hope for a period of time in the fall that if Mayor Mamdani or Mayor-elect Mamdani were to win, that somehow there would be some sort of divide in the Democratic Party and therefore she could potentially see herself as rising to the top and winning that election.
Then came Donald Trump and he had a love fest with Mayor-elect Mamdani. And I don't think she was expecting that. And I don't think Republicans were expecting that. And I don't think the Republican Party realized that Mayor-elect Mamdani and Donald Trump could potentially work together.
[22:50:00] And I don't think she saw a path for herself. And let me remind you, she's been trying to get out of Congress for quite some time. She really wanted to be a U.N. ambassador. They -- Donald Trump said, sorry, you got to stay in Congress. If I were her, I'd be pretty upset and I would, you know -- and I don't blame her at all. But I think the overall trend that you will continue to see is that Republicans see the writing on the wall. They know that they're not going to keep the House in November.
JENNINGS: But there are some Democrats not returning, too. Yes?
HINOJOSA: There are always. There's always that flip. But you were seeing way more on the Republican side. But you're saying way more on the Republican side --
JENNINGS: You're portraying -- it's not that anymore.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: -- Democrats are not coming back.
HINOJOSA: -- because -- but there are -- but all of the polling shows that Democrats are poised to win the House in.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: You guarantee that?
HINOJOSA: I would say it is a high probability.
ARRIGHI: Write it down.
JENNINGS: No guarantees?
HINOJOSA: I'm not a pollster, Scott.
JENNINGS: You said it a second ago. You're backing down. I'm just giving you five minutes to win.
HINOJOSA: David Chalian tells me it's, you know, he tells me what the polling looks like.
SIDNER: David getting a shout out. You're welcome David. Let me throw this -- her social media post. In it, Stefanik said that she considered her young son's safety, growth and happiness in evaluating whether to return to Congress. That is quite a statement. What do you make of it, T.W.?
ARRIGHI: It's true. A lot of people feel. I think you have seen a lot of people -- obviously this is a midterm after a presidential election. It's always a big change here. You see a lot of people leave all the time in those elections. But we have seen people leave increasingly over time the last six, eight years citing the division, the hatred, the threats that they are getting against their family.
When you're a U.N. ambassador, you wouldn't get that, and you would have a lot of security. Her race for governor has been nasty, and I think she's worried like any parent would be. So I agree with Scott and many of the reasons for her actually backing out.
And this was going to be a tough race, and I think the final straw was when Donald Trump didn't take a side in the primary, and she knew she'd have a fight. She's like, I don't know if the juice is worth the squeeze anymore and I respect that opinion.
SIDNER: How do you see it, Cari?
CHAMPION: I know. I agree actually with what you say. I don't know much about either one of these candidates but I will say this. When she -- when you split up that statement about her son, I agree with that. It's like it's not worth it. There's so much -- everyone's so polarized.
There's -- I mean -- and let's not even mention what we've had to deal with in this year because we do have short memories. If we just think about attempted assassinations -- assassinations -- Charlie Kirk, it's just not worth it. Do I really want to deal with all that when it's all said and done? And perhaps that is her thought in her process? I mean, I'm going to take her at her word for what she said about her son and her family.
SIDNER: You brought up Charlie Kirk and I would be remiss not to mention that Erica Kirk endorsed J.D. Vance for 2028. What do you think? This early.
SCHNEIDER: I don't know what to think about that. Why is she going in that direction this early? I am surprised. I think she has an agenda, a positive one, to live up to and losing her husband and trying to stop the violence that is going on in this country. And having people see that there are two sides to every issue. I'm not sure why she's jumping ahead. Maybe there's some kind of discussion between the two of them. Maybe she's going to have a role later on.
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: Could be his running mate.
SCHNEIDER: Yes, who knows?
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I can illuminate the table.
SIDNER: Illuminate?
JENNINGS: Yes, because Charlie Kirk and J.D. Vance were extremely close friends. Charlie Kirk supported J.D. Vance. He helped J.D. Vance get elected to the Senate. He wanted J.D. Vance to be the next president. And so the reason she's endorsed J.D. Vance is because it's what her husband wanted and was going to do anyway. And she's carrying on his legacy in that regard.
And look, there's a 99.9 percent chance J.D. Vance is going to be the Republican nominee. And he'll have her support, but he's going to have the support of a lot of Republicans out there, as well. So I think this has everything to do with Charlie's wishes, Charlie's legacy, and Charlie's friendship with the vice president.
SIDNER: All right. Coming up, more on the Epstein files. And this looming deadline tonight. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:33]
SIDNER: All right now, Chef Liza Zeneski, Supervising Culinary Producer at The Food Network is here with us to tell us about what we've been smelling and not being able to taste. We're so excited. What did you make?
LIZA ZENESKI, SUPERVISING CULINARY AT THE FOOD NETWORK: So tonight you guys are enjoying Beef Bourguignon. We're doing with a little Frenchy theme tonight. I think it's a perfect dish for the holidays. It's impressive, but I don't think a lot of people realize it's not that difficult to make.
Just marinate the meat overnight and then throw everything in the pot and it all comes together super fast. I think it's rich. It's kind of perfect for a cold day. Plus all of us want to play Julia Child once in a while when we tell our loved ones we're serving beef bourguignon for dinner. So, enjoy.
SIDNER: Scott, do your best Julia Child.
JENNINGS: Oh, Lord.
(LAUGHTER)
JENNINGS: This is delicious. It's something like that, right?
UNKNOWN: Yes, perfect.
JENNINGS: Unbelievable. You know what you really got to eat back there? Chef Liza made the deviled eggs and as a chicken farmer, I was back there testing them out. A plus, plus.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: All right. Before we go, Cari and I are going to be doing something really fun for New Year's.
CHAMPION: We are. You don't have -- you don't drink. Sara doesn't drink.
SIDNER: I don't really -- I mean, it's--
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: She doesn't really --
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: -- on New Year's Eve?
SIDNER: Cheers. For the last three years we've had a wonderful opportunity to do the New Year's Eve show together. After Andy and Anderson signed off, it's you and I and it has been a pleasure. We have a ride together.
[23:00:00]
This lady is fun. We have so much fun together.
SIDNER: We do it in Austin.
CHAMPION: We do it Austin.
SIDNER: We get all decked out -- boots, hats, I mean, the whole thing.
CHAMPION: We're going to do special boots this year. We're learning it. You're dancing.
SIDNER: We're doing a dance.
CHAMPION: Yes, all the things.
SIDNER: Yes.
CHAMPION: What else is there to do?
SIDNER: I mean, and we're going to have Flavor Flav (ph). We're going to have a lot of -- a lot of fun. Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: Oh my gosh. Yes, I forgot all about that. Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: Are you guys going to be in Austin for New Year's Eve?
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: She's actually -- Xochi said she's going to come.
JENNINGS: No one invited me. I don't know.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Oh God. All right. She's public enemy just like Flavor Flav (ph). Thank you so much for watching "NewsNight". Catch "Table for Five" tomorrow morning at seven and 10 eastern. "Laura Coates Live" is now.
