Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip

Protests Tonight in Minneapolis After ICE Fatally Shoots Woman; Two Shot by Feds in Portland, Senator Tells ICE to Get the Hell Out; FBI Blocks Minnesota from Evidence and Investigation of ICE Shooting. Not All GOP On Board Trump's Venezuela Policy; Elon Musk's Race Post Irks People. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired January 08, 2026 - 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, fanning the flames.

J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: It's a tragedy of the making of the far left.

PHILLIP: The Trump administration attacks the woman shot by ICE, claiming she caused her own death.

Plus, after instantly declaring the incident domestic terror, the feds are now blocking Minnesota from the evidence.

GOV. TIM WALZ (D-MN): I will continue to press that we be part of the investigation.

PHILLIP: Also, Donald Trump goes nuclear on the five Republican senators who joined Democrats to keep his Venezuela actions in check.

SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): It's about a real invasion of a foreign country.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): They're dead wrong.

PHILLIP: And the world's richest person supports a call for white solidarity to avoid being slaughtered by black and brown people.

Live at the table, Leigh McGowan, Jim Schultz, Ashley Allison, Lance Trover, and Jose Antonio Vargas.

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 Phillip in New York.

Tensions are growing in Minneapolis tonight and the administration is helping to fan those flames. After an ICE agent shot and killed a woman in her car, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has activated the state's National Guard to help with any clashes or protests that might erupt against the wishes of the mayor. Homeland Security is sending more officers to the city.

Meantime though, White House is intensifying the blame gaming death of Renee Good, but despite calls for an investigation before judgment, and many different interpretations of that video that we've now all seen, the vice president makes it clear who he thinks is at fault.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: That woman has -- is part of a broader left wing network to attack, to dox, to assault, and to make it impossible for our ICE officers to do their job. A group of left wing radicals have been working tirelessly, sometimes using domestic terror techniques, to try to make it impossible for the president of the United States to do what the American people elected him to do.

There's a part of me that feels very, very sad for this woman, not just because she lost her life, but because I think she's a victim of left-wing ideology.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: It's important to note, when pressed on what evidence he has for those very specific claims, Vance admitted that he had none.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Who do you think is behind this broader left wing network?

VANCE: Well, it's one of the things we're going to have to figure out.

REPORTER: Are there any indications she may have been a paid agitator and maybe that there are others that were brought to the area considering everything that's going on in Minneapolis?

VANCE: I wouldn't say that she was paid. I don't have the evidence to say that one way or the other.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Joining us in our fifth seat is one of the nation's leading voices on immigrant rights, Jose Antonio Vargas. He's also the author of Dear America, Notes of an Undocumented Citizen.

Jose, what do you make of Vance's performance at the White House briefing room today?

JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS, AUTHOR, DEAR AMERICA, NOTES OF AN UNDOCUMENTED CITIZEN: The first thing that came to mind for me was this was a human being. She was a mother. I think we have to insist on the humanity of this tragedy. I don't know what the far left is. I don't know what the far right is. All I know is there's three kids who lost their mom. And I wanted leadership from our government. I wanted leadership from the vice president, from the president and to say, this is a horrible thing what's happened, and we should find out what really happened. That's the other thing.

I think even before we found out her name, Renee, people were already saying that she was a domestic terrorist. Our own government, without evidence, was already tagging her as something she's not, as someone she's not.

So, this to me is just the tragedy and the lack of restraint, which I think we can all agree on, right? Like people go to their corners and we are losing the humanity of what this is about.

PHILLIP: It is also partly a strategy as well. I mean, it's not the first time that Vance and others have alleged some kind of broader conspiracy that everybody is a part of, and in this case, we really don't know that. He doesn't know that.

[22:05:00]

And up until this point, the administration hasn't provided any proof at all that there is some kind of grand conspiracy to explain the pushback that we are seeing across the country to ICE's actions. Why is it that they have to resort to conspiracies rather than just addressing the fact that this stuff is controversial, it is divisive by nature?

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Well, the New York Post is reporting tonight that she was part of a local organization and she was labeled as an ICE warrior. Her role was to go out and impede ICE to do videos and stalk these guys. I mean, can we not just admit right here, right now, can we all agree but for her actions, we would not be having this discussion tonight? That is absolutely true. Think about this.

LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: Now, we absolutely cannot all agree, that this is bananas.

TROVER: No, absolutely.

MCGOWAN: What is happening again, is, once again, one side is painting the other side is if we are terrorists, as if we are radicals, we've got the vice president calling her deranged, a deranged leftist.

TROVER: What was she doing there, Leigh? What was she doing?

MCGOWAN: Do you honestly want to know?

TROVER: You tell me. I'd like know.

MCGOWAN: Okay. She was there in her car after dropping her child off at school. She was shot at nine --

TROVER: (INAUDIBLE) blocking two lanes of traffic, right.

MCGOWAN: She was not blocking two lanes of traffic because we both watched her wave to people around her car. They drove around her car, so she was not blocking two lanes of traffic. Then when they told her to move, she backed up and she drove. I've said this a million times. That's not the point.

TROVER: I'm going to ask the question again, what was she doing there?

MCGOWAN: The point -- it doesn't matter what she was doing there.

(CROSSTALKS)

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Let me just say this. It doesn't actually matter why she was there. She didn't deserve --

TROVER: Oh, of course not. It doesn't matter.

ALLISON: No, it does matter. She didn't deserve to die. Because you know what? If there was a de-escalation tactic, which some of the work I've been doing for the last 15 years of my career, if there was a de- escalation tactic and not drawing a weapon, there's a way, you have the license plate. Guess what, if I go, hey, you look me, you don't look over there, right? So, if a man is coming to your car and pulling, you might not even seen the officer in front.

TROVER: She was asked to move the car. She refused to do it.

ALLISON: And she said, go around.

TROVER: She was ordered to get out of the car.

ALLISON: And so that deserve -- she deserves to die?

MCGOWAN: Do you not think -- have you not lost your mind sitting here? Honestly --

TROVER: You sound like you've lost your mind because you're saying it's okay to impede law enforcement.

ALLISON: I'm not saying that. I'm saying that --

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: Guys, one second. Let's just take that question that Ashley just put on the table. But let me just play for you. This is Congressman Wesley Hunt talking on Newsmax today about essentially the answer, his answer to what Ashley just asked.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. WESLEY HUNT (R-TX): The bottom line is this, when a federal officer gives you instructions, you abide by them and then you get to keep your life. And her death is tragic, but at the end of the day, it was completely avoidable if she would have simply followed the commands of the ICE agents.

(END VIDEO CLIP) ALLISON: We know that's not true.

PHILLIP: So, again, I think the question a lot of people are asking, the question Ashley is asking, if you disobey an order from a federal officer, is that a death sentence in America?

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: No, it's not.

PHILLIP: That's kind of what he just said.

SCHULTZ: That is not what he just said.

PHILLIP: He said, abide by them, you get to keep your life.

SCHULTZ: From a legal perspective, there's going to be an investigation that sorts all of this out and the investigation's going to look at a couple of things. One, what did the person that pulled the trigger, what was his mental state at that time? Did he believe that that other officer was in imminent danger because he was holding onto the car, at risk of being dragged? Did he believe he was in danger because the car was coming at him when he pulled that trigger? There's a number of things that are going to get factored into this.

For everybody to just kind of go to their corners, as you said earlier, and just start lobbying that this guy's a murderer or that this person is someone who's a domestic terrorist, it's kind of weird.

ALLISON: But here's the thing.

PHILLIP: Isn't there a place somewhere in between that says, there were decisions made on both sides of this?

ALLISON: Yes.

PHILLIP: And the responsibility of leaders like J.D. Vance isn't to say this woman is a domestic terrorist who deserved to die, but rather to say this was a tragedy and should be investigated?

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: Hold on. I think, I mean, you can't both say that there should be an investigation and then also conclude that it was lawful.

SCHULTZ: Well, was it a lawful shooting or wasn't it a lawful shooting? That's going to be --

ALLISON: That's the question. But the thing about it is, most of the time, when we have police violence, is that there is a firewall between DOJ and the White House. There's supposed to be. That doesn't really exist in this administration. The president nor the vice president should come and make an accusation about whether or not the woman was innocent or a guilty.

This is why the outrage is because there's a lack of leadership, but there's actually a lack --

SCHULTZ: But Democratic members of -- politicians cannot out and call the guy a murderer?

ALLISON: I haven't called him a murder.

SCHULTZ: I didn't say that you did.

ALLISON: I'm saying what I -- my question is still, did she deserve to die? And if you say yes in this moment, I think it is premature.

[22:10:02]

We don't know all the facts. And, certainly, the vice president doesn't know all the facts. And you asked, can we all agree? Can we all agree that it was a misstep in leadership for the vice president to get behind the podium with the seal of the president and say the things he said today about a woman, about a mother, about a daughter, about a citizen?

TROVER: I think I heard him say exactly what I started this conversation with, but for her actions, impeding, getting in the way of law enforcement and trying to drive over and hit the gas when she knew a guy was in front of her.

ALLISON: She didn't know that, and you don't know that.

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: Hold on. I think that you could make that same argument about the actions of the law enforcement officer, and that's part of the problem here --

TROVER: Well, that's why we have an investigation.

PHILLIP: -- is that -- yes, of course. But, I mean, there are questions being raised. CNN reporting today, generally, ICE policy says deadly force is only warranted if the subject poses an imminent threat of serious injury or death. Flight of a vehicle does not typically constitute deadly force. Additionally, ICE officers are trained to approach a vehicle by forming what's known as a tactical L to avoid being in front of the vehicle and prevent injury.

So, you could, if you want to say, but for the actions of this woman, you could also say, but for the actions of the officers not following the policy --

TROVER: But that glosses over the question I asked Leigh, which --

PHILLIP: -- the not following policy.

TROVER: But you're assuming that he didn't follow the policy.

(CROSSTALKS)

ALLISON: But you're assuming he tried to run her -- she tried to run him over?

TROVER: Well, I saw a video where she hit the gas and the guy was in front of him. I don't know what her intentions were or what her motives were, but that's what happened. We have a video --

MCGOWAN: Well, to escape from the man screaming at her, trying to get into her car.

TROVER: But that's my point. You can't do that --

MCGOWAN: Because I watched the video.

SCHULTZ: Because you watched the video, you heard the exact exchange and you know what happened in that split second --

MCGOWAN: One hour after this happened, the head of DHS went on T.V. and lied. She said the officers were trying to get themselves out of the snow bank and she gunned her car and tried to hit them, total lie.

Then the president went on and said she was a domestic terrorist, and the officer was hit and he was in the hospital fighting for his life, total lie.

Now, we've all seen the video from multiple different angles and we all know her wheel was turned. They were saying, get the fuck out of here, then they were saying, get the fuck out of the car, then she was like, oh my God, and then she turned her wheel to move with her spouse there and her stuffed animals in the car. Do not folks me. There was a woman who was -- stop it. Stop it. Stop it. I'm not done with my point. My point is, today, the vice president went on television -- I'm not done.

PHILLIP: Ashley, just a second.

MCGOWAN: The vice president got on television and doubled down on the lies. He doubled down on the lies and he called her a deranged leftist. Then Leavitt went on T.V., the head of the White House speech force, and said that it was a larger, sinister left-wing movement that did this. And now you're sitting here beside me saying she was part of a group in her community that was -- I mean, give me a break. A woman shot three times by an officer for no reason.

PHILLIP: All right, let me let Lance respond.

MCGOWAN: You're sitting here defending it like we're not talking about humanity.

PHILLIP: Let me let Lance respond.

MCGOWAN: We've lost the plot.

TROVER: All I want to say that what you're saying is you're talking about she's trying to get away. It is non-negotiable when a law enforcement officer orders you to get out of the car. The Supreme Court has made it very clear, she should have got out of the car. Why didn't she do that? And you're saying it's okay.

MCGOWAN: What does our society look like then, Lance?

TROVER: This is what you all -- MCGOWAN: Every law enforcement officer --

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: But here's the thing. Hold on a second. Even if what you're saying is as unequivocally true as you say, that's not the issue here. The issue here isn't actually whether she did the right thing, whether she did the legal thing. The issue here is whether or not the correct and legal response was to kill her. That's the issue.

TROVER: See, that's what I hate about this discussion is because it glosses over back to the original thing. What was she doing there? She should not have been there impeding law enforcement.

VARGAS: But she should not have been shot like an animal. She should not have been shot.

(CROSSTALKS)

ALLISON: A couple days ago, your team, the Republicans, people were cheering because somebody who people say as a dictator and as a terrible person shouldn't be under power, Maduro, was captured by our country, right? Do you know what Maduro did when people who didn't agree with his policies? He killed them. He killed them.

TROVER: This has nothing to do --

(CROSSTALKS)

ALLISON: The argument that you're making right now is that because she didn't agree ICE policies, she should be killed. Guess what? In this country, when somebody does not follow the command of law enforcement, the law does not say, as long as they do not pose a lethal threat to them, the law of these United States of America does not say that that person has the right to die. But that's not what the vice president said.

PHILLIP: We got to hold off for just a second said. We have much more on the other side of the break.

Next for us, the feds are now blocking local Minnesota authorities from taking part in the investigation into this incident as Governor Tim Walz doubts that there will be a fair outcome.

[22:15:10]

Plus, J.D. Vance says that despite the shooting, ICE is stepping up its operations and planning to go door to door.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're not animals. We are a human beings.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) PHILLIP: More on our breaking news tonight. Two people have been shot by federal agents in Portland. Homeland Security officials say that Customs and Border Protection agents were pursuing two alleged Venezuelan gang members. They say that when the agents identified themselves, the driver tried to run them over, and that the agent, feeling his life was threatened, opened fire and the car took off.

The two people shot are in the hospital.

[22:20:00]

And in a press conference tonight, the Portland mayor called for ICE to stop operations until the investigation is complete.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR KEITH WILSON (D-PORTLAND, OR): We know what the federal government says happened here. There was a time when we could take them at their word. That time has long past.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: One Oregon Senator called for ICE agents to get the hell out of our community. We'll update the story throughout the evening as we learn more about it.

But back in Minnesota, the state says it was initially set to conduct a joint investigation with the FBI, but then the U.S. attorney's office reversed course, putting the FBI solely in charge of that investigation and denying the state access to evidence.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz warns that decision could undermine faith in whatever federal investigations reveal.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALZ: It feels very, very difficult that we will get a fair outcome. And I say that only because people in positions of power have already passed judgment, from the president to the vice president, to Kristi Noem, have stood and told you things that are verifiably false.

When Kristi Noem was judged jury and basically executioner yesterday, that's very, very difficult to think that they were going to be fair.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Just last night, we were having this discussion, Leigh, and you were saying that you wouldn't trust it now.

MCGOWAN: Yes, I mean, I think that's the thing. It's that if this was an old administration or a different administration, we could say, okay, well, we trust what the federal government is going to do, but this is the Trump administration and everyone ends up answering to Trump. The FBI works for Trump. The Justice Department works for Trump. The reason we haven't seen the Epstein files, they all work for Trump. It all comes back to what he wants and what he's trying to tell us. And the vice president laid that out today. The vice president said these people have our backs. We are going to give them total immunity to anything that they do. And that's not what law enforcement gets, just total immunity for anything they do, and then two people were shot a couple hours after that. So I'm not sure what we're supposed to do about that.

PHILLIP: Yes. Let me actually play that sound from J.D. Vance. Here's what he said about what kind of immunity apparently that he believes officers have.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: The precedent here is very simple. You have a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action. That's a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: I don't know what he's talking about there. Absolute immunity is not a thing for law enforcement officers. He might be talking about qualified immunity, which doesn't apply to criminal charges, but he's trying to create a doctrine of untouchableness here.

SCHULTZ: Well, let's walk through the law here, right? So, let's say the, a state prosecutor wants to bring in a case like this. There's an investigation, they believe they want to bring a state case. If they bring that state case, under federal law, that can be removed to federal court, right? So, the case gets removed the federal court if there's any -- if they have some type of colorable defense to any of it, whether it's immunity or any of the other issues, that will go before a federal judge. If they have that, any colorable defense to it, it gets pulled into the federal tribunal and it gets prosecuted or evaluated by the feds. It's not a state issue.

ALLISON: But there's also the incident that like when things happen in state, most of the time, the state prosecutor actually gathers all the evidence, runs the trial, and then a federal investigation comes, takes that state's evidence and does a separate investigation.

SCHULTZ: Well, that's not how it works.

ALLISON: Yes, it is how it works.

SCHULTZ: That's absolutely wrong.

ALLISON: It's not wrong.

SCHULTZ: So, I spent time in the Justice Department. That's not how it happens.

ALLISON: It's actually not that --

SCHULTZ: Where you have a federal officer involved in it.

ALLISON: Maybe not all the time, but it can happen. SCHULTZ: Federal law enforcement has jurisdiction over that investigation. The U.S. attorney locally has jurisdiction over that investigation. If they want to bring in additional resources from the state, they can do that if they want, or they can say, we got it.

PHILLIP: J.D. Vance said, this guy is protected by absolute immunity. Is that true or false?

SCHULTZ: No, it's not right. He has an argument. He will have an immunity argument. If he's in the course of law enforcement duties, there will be an immunity argument from state prosecution. The Civil Rights Division of the Federal Department of the U.S. Department of Justice is usually -- that's who typically handles these types of shooting claims, right, the Civil Rights Division will take a look at this.

ALLISON: I think he dismantled that under this adminstration.

SCHULTZ: And they will look at FBI Field Office in Minneapolis, who's -- they're run by career folks, are going to conduct an investigation there --

(CROSSTALKS)

ALLISON: Is there are Civil Rights Division in this Department of Justice?

PHILLIP: There is but they're not focused on this type of thing.

But, Lance, that's not -- hold on, that's not what we're debating here. That's not what we're debating here. He tried to claim there was absolute immunity, which is not a thing.

TROVER: Yes, I don't -- yes.

PHILLIP: But Todd Blanche, he's the number two at the Department of Justice, he sends out a message today saying, the law does not require police to gamble with their lives in the face of a serious threat of harm.

[22:25:07]

Rather, they may use deadly force when they face an immediate threat of significant physical harm.

Now, he is saying that in the context of the FBI essentially saying, Minneapolis, we're not going to let you look into what happened here, looking to the evidence. And for people who are looking from the outside, what it sounds like he's saying is that they've already prejudged this situation and they know how it's going to go.

And so one of the reasons that they're taking this off the table for state investigators is to protect this officer, that's what it sounds like.

TROVER: I think he's following the law. Todd Blanche also sent a letter to Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi back in October when they were talking about arresting ICE agents and citing these exact same cases, the Supreme Court, which ruled on like 1890 on this, and they Ninth Circuit upheld it, I think, in 1977, that the supremacy clause applies here. If you're a federal officer in the course of doing your federal job, you are judged by the feds. That's where it belongs.

PHILLIP: But do you but believe there's going to be a fair and thorough investigation into this?

TROVER: I absolutely trust our federal --

PHILLIP: Why --

TROVER: I trust our FBI agents. Why would I not have trust them?

PHILLIP: Why would you assume trust that when the DOJ, Todd Blanche, the president, the vice president, the DHS secretary, they have all said, they know what happened, they know that there was no wrongdoing happened when it came to the officer?

TROVER: Did I say that? No.

PHILLIP: I'm -- listen --

SCHULTZ: The court you just gave was a statement of the law, not what happened in this case.

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: But the context -- hold on. The context of his message today was essentially that they believe that this officer was using deadly force because there was an immediate physical threat. That is an open question in the course of this investigation. That has not reached a conclusion.

SCHULTZ: He wasn't making a conclusion to this case. He was stating the current state of the law --

(CROSSTALKS)

SCHULTZ: (INAUDIBLE) coming up with their own ideas of what the law is.

MCGOWAN: If I may, I think we can debate a lot of things. I think the point here is that the government is telling us through the president and the vice president and Leavitt putting ICE, stand with ICE on all of the socials that they can kill us at any time and they can get away with it.

TROVER: Oh good Lord.

MCGOWAN: And I think if we interfere with them while they're disappearing people off the street, if we don't like them kidnapping our neighbors, if we don't like them building concentration camps, if we film them while they're doing it, then we can't do anything about it because this is no longer the land of the free. And if you do something about it, they will lie about you. They will lie about who you were and this is the point that they're trying to make right now.

VARGAS: So, underscoring this point, I just want to remind everybody, we're talking about the highest funded agency in the country. Because of the big, beautiful bill, $29 billion is the ICE budget for this year, $29 billion.

SCHULTZ: DOD has a bigger budget.

VARGAS: No. Well, if you combine everything else in terms of what ICE is doing. My point is this, what happened in Minneapolis, what happened in Portland a few hours ago, you're going to see this happen all across this country. Why? Because you can't go kidnap people, you can't go after people's neighbors, their classmates, their co-workers, people they go in without people saying, wait a second, that's my dude. That's -- she's my neighbor. So, you're going to see a lot of this happening.

TROVER: So, political vigilantism is what you're saying, you should go interfere with law enforcement?

VARGAS: No. But because there's actually something -- I got to tell you though. We are not talking about --

MCGOWAN: It's so disingenuous to say that. It's so disingenuous to say that --

(CROSSTALKS)

PHILLIP: Hold on, let me let Jose respond. Let me let Jose respond to the question.

VARGAS: As a formerly undocumented person who, if you were to pick me up, my high school principal, my superintendent, my quiet teacher, my math teacher, everybody ever worked with my whole village of people at Mountain View, California, Ashley, my friend, Krisa (ph), if you were to detain me at an airport, all of them are going to go show up, right. And that is what's happening all across this country.

Now, the question is, and this is what's really been in my heart, watching all those people last night at the vigil in Minneapolis, people saying, don't do that, don't come here, these are our neighbors, what kind of violence, everyday Americans, regardless, far left, far right, whatever, what kind of violence are they going to be subjected to? That is what I'm holding in my heart, and that's what I'm really fearful of.

ALLISON: And I think the danger of saying that people who stand up and counter the government is interfering with law enforcement is an exact antithesis to what this country was founded on, what our Constitution says, and the right that those people are expressing.

Now, let me be very clear. As someone who grew up in a town that every year there was a KKK march, those people wanted me dead. They did not -- and that in my very present life did not see me as human.

[22:30:00]

I always supported that march happening because they get to march for the same reason, I get to go protect Jose and Renee gets to go defend her neighbors. And the moment we disingenuously, the moment we try and spin ourselves into the depths of hell to try and make this a us versus them, we have lost sight of the humanity of the dignity and the things that so many people say that makes America better than other countries that are run by dictators, that are run by less than human.

LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: Don't cut her off.

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Like you cut me off earlier.

ALLISON: So, I'm just, I don't get it. I don't understand the people who say they are America first.

(CROSSTALK)

TROVER: No, you're mixing, you're sitting here saying suggesting that I'm saying oh you can't go out and film. You can't go out and protest. I never said that.

ALLISON: You can't be in your car and try and leave.

TROVER: Shh.

ALLISON: Okay, but what?

TROVER: Yes, no.

ALLISON: Right. And you're going to say to me.

TROVER: You know what I'm going to say.

ALLISON: She wasn't trying to leave.

TROVER: Yes, she didn't.

ALLISON: She was trying to kill that man. And I'm going to say, you don't know that.

TROVER: No.

ALLISON: And an investigation should be allowed.

JOSE ANTONIO VARGAS, AUTHOR, DEAR AMERICA: NOTES OF AN UNDOCUMENTED CITIZEN: You don't know that she was trying to leave.

ALLISON: And I know. But you know what I'm saying?

(CROSSTALK)

TROVER: Ashley, what I don't --

VARGAS: But she was trying to leave.

ALLISON: But guess what? Guess what? I didn't hire Tom Blanche, and I didn't hire Kristi Noem, but you know who did? Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. And you know what? They said, they said that. And so, when you are hired by a person, and they have already made the indictment about what the situation is, you don't get a job if you disagree with that person.

MCGOWAN: Right.

ALLISON: And you can look me at the face and tell me I'm wrong. But let me tell you something, folks. Remember all you people who voted for the Epstein files to come out? Did he lie to you about that? So, he might lie to you about this.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: All right, we've got to leave it there. Next for us, five Republican senators move to check Trump's power when it comes to Venezuela. And he is livid about it. But when it comes to who can check him, he says his own mind will be it. We'll debate that next.

[22:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIP: Tonight, Congress tries to rein in President Trump's war powers after the Senate voted to advance a resolution limiting Trump's ability to further take military action against Venezuela. And Trump lashed out at the five Republicans who backed that measure by name, calling for them to quote, "never be elected to office again," and arguing that their vote hindered national security. But Senator Josh Hawley defended himself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): I don't see this as a backward-looking thing. I see this as a forward-looking thing. If this resolution is limited to Venezuela and it says that for future armed hostilities there needs to be congressional authorization, I just think that would be troops on the ground. And I just think as an Article 1 matter, we would need to be on the hook for this. They are saying, hey, we don't know what might happen in Venezuela. We may want to commit troops. That is totally their prerogative to do. We would need to debate it. We need to authorize it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: When asked if there are any limits to his global powers, Trump told the New York Times, quote, "my own morality, my own mind. It's the only thing that can stop me."

What to even make of that, Jim? I mean Trump truly thinks there is nothing that anybody can do to stop him globally, let alone here in the United States.

JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Hawley makes a good point and he made the point that it was forward-looking at least on his part of the forward-looking issue. This really wasn't a forward-looking issue for Chuck Schumer. It was a backward-looking issue for Chuck Schumer. Someone who pounded the table time and time again saying we need to get Maduro, we need to take Maduro out of power. And then when it happens, they make it a political statement that well, maybe we should have done it.

That's the political statement that the Democrats are trying to make here. The statement that Hawley is making. Is it forward-looking? Should we put troops on the ground? That's a good question and something should be debated by Congress.

PHILLIP: I don't know if that's fair. I mean, Democrats and Republicans agreed that anything beyond what just happened needs to come to Congress. And I'm not even sure we would be having this conversation if Trump had not said from the jump and actually said to the Times, we're going to be controlling the country.

finny face: Right.

PHILLIP: He says, actually here's the exchange with the New York Times about how long we're going to be hanging around in Venezuela. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: How long do think you'll be running Venezuela?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Only time will tell.

UNKNOWN: Like, three months, six months, a year, longer?

TRUMP: I would say much longer than that.

UNKNOWN: Much longer.

TRUMP: You have to rebuild the country and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: So, look, I mean, maybe that is all good and well, Lance, but it does seem fair that both parties are saying, hold up, before we enter into this nation building exercise, before we commit to running a country that is notoriously overrun with, as Trump has already told us, criminal cartels, violence, factions. Don't you think we ought to have a national conversation at least in the Congress about it?

So, I think Democrats and Republicans, though at least the five that voted for this seem to be on the same page about that.

TROVER: This has been a battle between the executive and the Congress for how many years. How many presidents have done this. They go in, they take decisive action. Obama did it. Other presidents have done it. Congress gets angry about it. Both sides Republicans, Democrats in Congress come together and say, yes, now we want to say so in this. I'm personally, look, the president is cranky. One thing I love about the president by the way, is we don't have to wait for some staffer to like whisper like he's not, you know, without a non-quoted saying, oh, he's cranky. He just goes out and tells you, I'm not happy. I'm not happy with this. And I love that about him.

PHILLIP: You mean, he's cranky about the --

TROVER: Yes, he's cranky about this.

PHILLIP: Yes.

TROVER: But my point to this --

[22:40:01]

PHILLIP: You think he is right to say, I can do whatever I want.

TROVER: Well, no. And I don't think he really means he could do whatever he wants. I think he's right to be cranky about, I think he's cranky about this bill that passed today. And I think any president gets cranky when they're saying, yes, you can't let me conduct foreign policy the way I want to. He is the commander in chief. And let's face it, commanders in chief they need the flexibility to go and do things like what we did in Venezuela the other day.

MCGOWAN: I think you have to remember that their hands are --

(CROSSTALK)

TROVER: Their hands are tied by 535 members of Congress. We'll never get anything done.

MCGOWAN: I'm sorry, the 535 members of Congress represent the 300 million people in America.

TROVER: Sure.

MCGOWAN: Not sure.

(CROSSTALK)

SCHULTZ: And they're never going to have the votes. The president can veto if it actually doesn't pass.

MCGOWAN: No, but there are three co-equal branches of government and one of them is Congress and Congress makes the laws. Congress declares war, Congress controls the purse. This president has been working above Congress for the entire time he's been in office. He has made so many executive orders, which Congress has said like, sure, go ahead, sure, go ahead, sure, go ahead. That's not how our laws are made.

Now they're saying, actually, if you're get into a war for two full years and put boots on the ground and spend millions and billions of dollars, we actually should probably look at that on paper. And he's like, outrageous. And that's where we are right now. TROVER: He's no different than any other president prior to him that

gets crazy (inaudible).

MCGOWAN: He is entirely different from other presidents.

TROVER: They do not want to be told what to do when it comes to this stuff.

MCGOWAN: They lost their damn mind.

PHILLIP: Okay.

VARGAS: I'm just really hoping that parents are talking to their kids and like using this as an opportunity to say what, we're a few months away from celebrating our 250th anniversary in this country. We have three branches of government and this is how this is supposed to work.

I have to say though, because what the president said to the New York Times this is not about legality anymore. This is just about power. And again, this is a country. Jim Crow was legal, slavery was legal. There's a lot of things in this country that was legal. This is now about power that's unchecked.

MCGOWAN: Which is exactly what Stephen Miller said.

ALLISON: Yes.

MCGOWAN: When he made his speech. He said to Jake Tapper, we live in a world governed by strength and force and power.

PHILLIP: What is legal and what's not? Because again, as I've said many times at this table, when we talk about legality, first of all, we need to remember we made those rules.

SCHULTZ: Yes.

PHILLIP: And then the second thing is that we made those rules not to protect Maduro, but to protect our people as they're operating around the world.

ALLISON: I guess I just thought I remember his slogan being, make America great again. But it feels like we're everywhere else but making America great. And I'm just so confused. Like, it's not, this is not an America first policy. This is we have literal like chaos and violence in our street right now. Luckily, I mean, we don't know if it'll pass the Senate, but luckily the House did the right thing and extended the health care subsidies, but people are about to lose their health care. Groceries are high, people still can't afford the cost of living and like now we're going to go to war. I'm like, yes, I want it to be legal, but I'm like, what happened to make America great again?

SCHULTZ: Something about going to war here.

VARGAS: I know.

SCHULTZ: We went and extracted Maduro out of the country. ALLISON: So why is he cranky? why is he cranky? Why is he mad? Why are

you so mad?

SCHULTZ: Because (inaudible) what they said.

PHILLIP: We got to go.

SCHULTZ: That's it.

PHILLIP: All right.

SCHULTZ: To his point. Presidents don't like it when the Congress tells them what to do.

PHILLIP: Next up for us, Elon Musk endorses a post on X calling for quote, "white solidarity." We'll tell you what it said and discuss next.

[22:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIP: Tonight, Elon Musk co-signs a call for white solidarity. An X user posted, quote, "if white men become a minority, we will be slaughtered. Remember, if non-whites openly hate white men while white men hold a collective majority, then they will be a thousand times more hostile and cruel when they are a majority over whites. White solidarity is the only way to survive," to which Musk responded with a 100 emoji.

He later tried to clarify, writing, "South Africa now has more anti- white laws than there were anti-black laws under apartheid," adding, "I'm extremely opposed to anti-black laws, but equally opposed to the laws against white people or other races too. There should be a fair and even playing field."

Now, I would like to request that Elon Musk take one of those cognitive tests that Donald Trump keeps talking about because that post makes absolutely no sense.

TROVER: No.

PHILLIP: But even if you were to think that it made some sense, it's pretty blatantly racist white supremacist, call it whatever you will. I don't get how that guy who says 100 percent to that is still walking around in the White House, is still hanging around with Republican members of Congress, why is it still okay to hang out with somebody who thinks that that post is accurate, true, fair, or not racist?

VARGAS: And also, this is the richest man in the world, right? I sure hope he afford therapy.

PHILLIP: Scary. It's absolutely scary.

MCGOWAN: That's exactly why, because he's the richest man in the world. Because here's the thing, if you look at the breakdown of the world, white people are 10 percent of the world, but we're not going anywhere.

VARGAS: Ten to 12 percent.

MCGOWAN: Yes, but we're not going anywhere because we also own like 80 percent of the world's wealth, right? We're not going anywhere. The white people are in no danger of going anywhere. It's just a baseless racist conspiracy theory with this like, inherent people who are different than me are inherently plotting violence against me, and so any sort of demographic shift is an existential threat to me the richest man in the world.

But the real existential threat to all of us isn't the white versus anyone else. It's the rich versus everyone else and Elon Musk is the pinnacle of that point.

VARGAS: And what it means to be at the center.

MCGOWAN: Yes.

VARGAS: Right. Like The --

MCGOWAN: One percent owns more wealth in the world than the 95 percent of the rest.

VARGAS: Again, if you look at the numbers.

MCGOWAN: He should talk that.

VARGAS: If you look at the numbers globally, the world's majority people are Asian people, my people. Sixty percent.

MCGOWAN: Yes.

[22:50:01]

VARGAS: Followed by black people.

ALLISON: My people.

VARGAS: Twenty percent. Eighty percent of the world are Asian and black. And yet in this country, where the marginalized, where the minoritized, of course I'm reminded by James Baldwin who said, you can't talk about minority rights without actually defining what and who the majority is.

And I think what Elon Musk always does, he shows his ass, and tells us exactly who he is and the victimization and this idea that somehow, he's under attack. We live in America right now, one out of four people under the age of 18 is Latino. One out of four, right? We live in a country right now where California, where I grew up, 60 percent of California is Latino, Asian, and black. That's not going anywhere. That's just the reality.

This country is, we are now truly a nation of nations and Elon Musk hopefully has all the therapists in the world that he needs so he can go deal with. PHILLIP: But at what point, Lance, do Republicans stop implicitly co- signing this crap? I mean it is wrong and dangerous.

TROVER: I read that first up on my queue, I thought it made no sense at all. I didn't understand it. But I wholeheartedly reject that type of language and any type of hate of that nature I do not condone and I think is wrong. I think, look, as a party we need to be focused on bringing people together by our ideas and our values. That's what we as conservatives and Republicans, that's what I believe we should be doing.

SCHULTZ: We should lift everybody up and we might have different ideas how to get there but we should be lifting everybody up.

(CROSSTALK)

PHILLIP: What about taking Elon out. Because I do think that that's kind of actually the question on the table. This is if that post had been reposted by Nick Fuentes or by David Duke, we'd be having a completely different conversation even though it aligns perfectly with a white supremacist ideology. And yet, Elon Musk is still welcome.

MCGOWAN: Yes.

PHILLIP: He is welcome in the tent. Why?

SCHULTZ: So, people that have those ideas that are supporting those ideas should not be influencing politicians, you know, period. Right?

ALLISON: But they are.

SCHULTZ: Like --

ALLISON: But they are.

SCHULTZ: I get it.

ALLISON: But they are. And can you understand why it could cause somebody, like I don't hate anybody. I don't like some people but --

SCHULTZ: You just hate them even you said that.

ALLISON: No. I don't hate anyone. I don't like some people and it doesn't really have to do anything with the color of their skin. But could you understand how even though that post didn't really grammatically make sense or logically make sense? Hearing that and then knowing that that person is welcome to someone that has more power than anyone in this country could make somebody like me or like Leigh or like Jose or like Abby.

My family members feel uncomfortable and why we would ask for like some more moral courage of our leaders to say, no, that can't be here in the people's house. And when they don't, can you also then make it understand that like, then when other issues are discussed, it makes us a little trepidatious to trust them on that. Because if they keep that around, what else do they keep around you could keep. I'm not trying, it's not a got you moment, but I'm just trying like,

sometimes I really struggle like, why is it so hard for people to understand why certain things are so problematic to have around such powerful people?

TROVER: Yes, again, I go back to it. Yes, I'm not disagreeing with you. I reject that. I reject that.

MCGOWAN: I think the fact of the matter is there is a big white supremacist movement within the Republican Party and the Republican Party has to come to terms with that. And they're not going to kick Elon out because right now the white Christian nationalist movement is what's running the organization. It's what's running Project 2025. White straight men are on the top and they believe what Elon believes.

And so I think he's not going anywhere. And I say that as a white person from a white family, we're problematic.

TROVER: Now this is where I'm going to disagree. You're saying white nationalists are running the Republican Party?

ALLISON: White Christian nationalists are running the White House right now through (inaudible).

TROVER: That is absolutely not true.

ALLISON: And Stephen Miller.

TROVER: That is taking it to a whole new level and that is not true. Not white nationalists.

VARGAS: I have to say though, what underscores so much of this is the great replacement theory. This idea that we are replacing what I just said about the numbers. I think what's important to remember is this country, Germans, Italians, Polish, we were just talking about all the Italians in Philadelphia when I was there 20 years ago doing an internship. I was like, wait, when did these Italian people get to be white? Weren't they something else before?

And then my question is, are the Mexicans, Filipinos, Indians, and Chinese, those are the top four immigrant groups in this country, right? Are they going to be the next Germans, Italians, Polish, and Irish of the 21st century? And as I ask that question, how do we talk about the fact that this is a country built on anti-blackness? And how do we, as immigrants of color, really grapple with that? So those two are the big questions.

[22:54:52]

And what Elon is doing here, I think, is really in many ways underscoring this Christian white supremacist nationalist movement and the fact that so many Americans are having a panic attack that this country looks the way that it does.

ALLISON: And I will go just one quick point. I will go back to what you were saying about money and that I do fundamentally believe that there are more things we have in common that we don't have in common, but it is the belief of a few powerful people that want us to be at each other's throats, even Asians and black people, so that we don't find our commonality to rise above those few.

PHILLIP: All right, everybody. Thank you very much for being here. Coming up, the latest from the ground in Minneapolis, Mayor Jacob Frey is just moments away.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

PHILLIP: This Sunday on CNN, what's next for Venezuela and its ousted president, Nicolas Maduro? David Culver reports.