Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Maxwell Says She'll Clear Trump And Clinton If Granted Clemency; Epstein Redactions Include Disturbing Language From Mystery People; New Report Casts Doubt On Trump's Worst Of The Worst Claims; DHS Defends ICE Actions; Trump Calls Olympian A Loser For Criticizing The U.S. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired February 09, 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, a quid pro quo from the accomplice. Ghislaine Maxwell says she'll clear Donald Trump and Bill Clinton in exchange for freedom.
Plus --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: The worst of the worst.
PHILLIP: But are they? A stunning new report suggests only 14 percent of those arrested have violent criminal records.
Also --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It brings up mixed to motions to represent the U.S. right now.
PHILLIP: -- an Olympian exercising his First Amendment right gets called a loser by the United States president.
And --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At what point are we in the Trump economy?
TRUMP: Oh, I'd say we're there now. I'm very proud of it.
PHILLIP: -- after a year of blaming Joe Biden, Donald Trump officially owns the economy, the one an overwhelming majority of Americans don't like.
Live at the table, Charles Blow, Caroline Downey, Anderson Clayton, Jason Rantz and Stacy Schneider.
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. Let's get right to what America's talking about, a quid pro quo from Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice. Tonight, lawmakers who sought answers from Ghislaine Maxwell were left empty handed after the convicted child sex trafficker refused to answer questions during her virtual hearing before a House committee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAXWELL GHISLAINE, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ACCOMPLICE: I would like to answer your question, but on the advice of counsel, I respectfully decline to answer this question and any related questions. I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.
I invoke my Fifth Amendment right to silence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Maxwell invoking her Fifth Amendment right, right there, but her lawyer did make a major offer. He vowed that Maxwell will be speaking and willing to speak and clear the names of both President Trump and President Clinton if and only if Trump grants her clemency.
Now, Trump and Clinton have appeared throughout the Epstein files, but both have denied any wrongdoing. Maxwell is serving a 20-year sentence for conspiring with Epstein to abuse children.
I guess this is not surprising considering that very early on, the Trump administration seemed to want to engage with her, then she was moved to a more kind of cushy prison that really she's not eligible to be in because of the nature of her crimes. But would you, Stacy, be able to trust anything that Maxwell says, especially if it comes on conditions like that?
STACY SCHNEIDER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: You can't trust the word she's saying. First of all, she and her attorneys know she can't even answer questions because she has an appeal pending right now. So, truthfully, anything she does say can be used against her to defeat her appeal. So, they already know that going into this. So, now they show up in front of Congress and she used this opportunity, she and her lawyers, to make, as you said, a quid pro quo. It's an advertisement to the president that I'm going to clear you and I'm also going to clear Bill Clinton, not saying that either one of -- and I'm not saying this. I'm not saying either one will be -- have shown to have been guilty of any wrongdoing. But she's saying I'm going to clear both of them and, but you have to give me clemency. So, give me a pardon, commute my sentence, take away my time, give me a get out of jail free card, and I'll do that.
And the most ironic part of all of this, besides having a convicted felon make this type of offer, veiled offer to Donald Trump, is Todd Blanche when he went down to her prison last year and interviewed her. She already cleared everybody, she said -- and we can't trust that either because the Epstein files now that have been released are showing that none of her statements previously that got her a better deal in prison are true. Because there are -- there's alleged wrongdoing in these files and a lot came out even today, or that Congress is looking at, as we go through it. But she already said, the only person who's guilty of any wrongdoing was Jeffrey Epstein and anyone associated with him, including Donald Trump and Bill Clinton back last year, they're already cleared. So, she's making the same offer again as this big advertisement to, pardon me, Donald Trump.
[22:05:02]
PHILLIP: Yes. And part of it is also Trump has not ruled out pardoning her.
CHARLES BLOW, AUTHOR, BLOW THE STACK ON SUBSTACK: Right. And -- but isn't it so striking though that -- so you had her being charged with perjury 2016, they only dropped that perjury charge because she already went to prison, right? And then you had Trump's fixer also charged with perjury, admitting to the perjury in 2019 depositions, but Trump called her -- called him a liar, Michael Cohen, liar, who's only lying to try to reduce his sentence.
Now, what is the difference between these two people? The only difference is that one was wanting to -- did testify against Trump, and the other one is willing to testify for him. It is never about the truth with this man. It is only about loyalty.
PHILLIP: Why won't Trump take this off the table so that we don't even have this conversation?
CAROLINE DOWNEY, COLUMNIST, NATIONAL REVIEW: I think he absolutely should. I think clemency would be extremely unpopular with the public. I mean, we're talking about the mastermind of a child's sex trafficking ring. What he might consider is granting immunity and exchange for her being compelled to speak but with the knowledge that she could be prosecuted if she doesn't comply with the Oversight Committee. That's kind of a middle ground here. Maybe not granting her a pardon because that's egregious and I think his MAGA base would be very, very upset if he did do that.
But, quite frankly, I don't think he is considering doing that because I think this is sort of a political show and a nothing burger. I mean, clearly, what she's being told by her lawyers is, look, you could still be indicted. There's an ongoing criminal investigation. But in case there are more criminal charges brought, you should probably say nothing. So, she's doing this little dance quid pro quo, well, maybe if I can pardon these two -- one former president, one current president -- I can get off free.
BLOW: What's the nothing burger part of it?
DOWNEY: The nothing burger part is the fact that -- not the allegations themselves. It's not the allegations themselves, but she's behind bars right now. BLOW: Right.
DOWNEY: So, I think there still needs to be a lot more revelations from her, but I think at the same time this has become a bit of a political football.
BLOW: But then how do you trust -- how do you trust anything she says? How can the villain offer vindication?
DOWNEY: Well, I do think she's inherently untrustworthy. To your point, former Epstein survivors said that, look, you can't trust a word she says because she has been noted of contradicting herself from previous testimony. But I do think that the base of MAGA voters is demanding that we hear from her even if she's not exactly --
BLOW: She should get nothing for that. Tell her don't talk, no immunities nothing for that. Because, number one, there's nothing that she can say that anyone can believe. She pleaded not guilty. She went into that courtroom and her attorneys argued that the victims were the problem, that the victims had false memories and were exaggerating. They called the same psychologist -- psychiatric expert that was used to defend Jeffrey -- no Weinstein, I'm sorry, not Epstein, Weinstein, and the jury saw through all of that and said this is all a lie. You are guilty of sin. You are guilty of sin and (INAUDIBLE) go away. So, what do we want to hear from the liar for?
JASON RANTZ, RADIO HOST, SEATTLE RED: Well, because she could point potentially to some evidence that hasn't actually been discussed yet.
BLOW: Can you trust that?
RANTZ: The physical evidence, if it's pointed to, and we can actually look over those particular documents, yes, I think there's some value there.
(CROSSTALKS)
SCHNEIDER: She's signaled over and over that she's going to clear certain people.
RANTZ: No one is arguing that she is trustworthy, nor is anyone arguing that she's a good person. She's evil. She deserves to rot in hell and rot in jail between then. But I am saying that she -- it's possible that she can point to something that none of us know about yet that could be of value to getting justice for the victims.
SCHNEIDER: I think that's sort of a cover, not your cover, but a cover from the Justice Department. She went to trial in front of a jury. The U.S. attorney's office prepared an indictment. A grand jury found she was indicted. She was then tried and convicted of sex trafficking. All the information is in the U.S. attorney's file.
A lot of these exercises about looking to Maxwell and putting her up in front of Congress and bringing the Clintons in, all the government needs to do right now, the DOJ, is to go into their own files look at the original investigations of Epstein back in 2006 when he got arrested in Palm Beach, and back in 2019, when he got arrested in New York. They've got everything there.
RANTZ: That's not happened.
SCHNEIDER: But they're not giving --
BLOW: It has not happened. No, it has not happened. All you have to do is look -- all you have to do is release the files as compelled by an act of Congress. All but one representative in the House voted to release it. It was unanimously passed in the Senate and the president signed it. This is law. This is not an argument.
And the DOJ and the president and the administration is violating the law that the president signed.
[22:10:04]
I don't want to hear from Maxwell. I want all the files to be released. Let's start there. Let's start there.
ANDERSON CLAYTON, CHAIR, NORTH CAROLINA DEMOCRATIC PARTY: And it's also not the first criminal note though that this administration has tried to help. Like I think that we are all missing the point of this in every circumstance that this administration will do anything that they can to help somebody who is going to help them. And that's exactly what she's trying to promise right now to them on this stage. And he is willing to go through with that, just as he had with every other member of his cabinet and every other member of this administration.
RANTZ: He doesn't actually need help from Maxwell. If there's --
CLAYTON: Well, then release the files.
BLOW: Why is he acting like he needs help?
(CROSSTALKS)
SCHNEIDER: I'm not saying he's acting like a, there's evidence of wrongdoing, but 6 million pages just came out, a lot of it redacted that Congress believes should not have been redacted, and they're going through it. They went through it today.
RANTZ: Well, some members of Congress believe that, correct?
SCHNEIDER: Well, what's the difference if you're reading a report --
RANTZ: The difference is that the people have come out and spoken out in favor --
SCHNEIDER: No, you're making it political.
RANTZ: Well, of course, it's political. When you've got Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, who have been very critical of the president, one is running for president and he thinks this is going to help his career, the other one is being is primaried because of Donald Trump. So, these are two people who clearly -- (CROSSTALKS)
CLAYTON: (INAUDIBLE) a Republican and Democrat that are bipartisan in that capacity, which is something that don't often see in this day and age, right?
SCHNEIDER: It's not legitimate what you're saying. This is not legitimate because this was a --
RANTZ: It's not political at all? None of this is political?
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: Let's admit that.
SCHNEIDER: This is a criminal investigation from two different indictments, in two different places on one person who is now dead. This didn't become political until the DOJ decided that they -- well, the Trump administration ran on a campaign that we're releasing the Epstein's files as soon as we get into office, and as soon as they were asked to release the Epstein files, they gave empty binders out in the White House in February of 2025 with nothing in them. And then from then they hid it. And then we had to go to Congress and get a law put on the books to get the files released.
RANTZ: After four years of not doing anything.
SCHNEIDER: Then they released the file. Then they release the file and they don't tell us in advance that it's 6 million pages worth of documents. They told us the year before that they already looked through the file. The DOJ issued a memo and said, we looked through the file, July of 2025. There's nothing to see here. Everybody go home. President Trump said the same thing. Everybody move on. There's nothing to move on from. This is huge. And Maxwell is just sort of a prop put up there and they gave her an extra chance to ask for a pardon again.
And the fact that the president -- and I'm almost done with my point and then you're on your own. The fact that the president did not say, there's no way that this convicted sex trafficker is ever getting a pardon from me, that's the problem that we're all sitting with right now.
RANTZ: But I don't think people that's giving her the opportunity are sitting with that as a problem. This idea that this wasn't political from the beginning after four years of the Biden administration and Democrats who had complete control --
SCHNEIDER: Of course, you're going to have to go to the Biden administration.
RANTZ: Yes, because you're pretending it wasn't political.
SCHNEIDER: There's prosecution during the Trump administration 1.0.
RANTZ: But why pretend that there is general agreement across the board about several talking points, right? She's evil. She deserves to be in jail, period. I don't think she has that much to offer. However, this idea that you're pushing here --
CLAYTON: She was in jail because of your president. But --
RANTZ: The idea that you're playing here, that there's no politics at play is just absolutely --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let me ask you this because, I mean, the vote in the Congress was bipartisan.
BLOW: Yes.
RANTZ: Yes.
PHILLIP: And it was nearly unanimous.
RANTZ: Yes.
PHILLIP: So, I mean, if there's politics being played, it's now by both sides.
RANTZ: Oh, no, I think politics are being played on both sides, to be clear.
PHILLIP: But I don't understand --
RANTZ: But this idea that one side is playing politics is just -- it's flatly false.
PHILLIP: Well, no, I mean, I don't think that's actually the accusation. I think the accusation isn't that the Trump administration is playing politics. The accusation is that they're trying to protect people, whether it's Trump or other people. That's the accusation.
RANTZ: Well, so I actually agree to a degree on that.
PHILLIP: So, that's not political because agree that a lot of these other men, they don't have ties to politics, they have ties to all kinds of different things. So, that's not political.
RANTZ: I don't disagree with you on that point. I think that there is truth to that. However, I also think in that truth is that there are people who are named in the documents who aren't actually guilty of anything. And I think some of the reluctance to just put out all of the documents, number one, is because we don't want to just smear someone who is mentioned in the documents. And I think that that's fair for anyone to point to.
PHILLIP: So, look, let me just make a quick -- let me just make a quick segue here.
(CROSSTALKS) BLOW: But you keep saying, however, after every statement that you make as if you're conceding a point when you're not. That however is operating as a negation. I'm sure you know this already, but when people say that, basically, the however --
RANTZ: So, you think everyone --
BLOW: No, the however, it validates everything you said before that. That's the problem. That is not a concession. It's an obliteration of the fact.
PHILLIP: It may not be everyone, Jason, but, look, there's a reason that people think that there is a lot of smoke here that needs to be investigated. A bunch of emails with the sender's names redacted. Now, let me just make a note. The DOJ says their emails have been redacted for privacy reasons, but here're some of the emails.
[22:15:01]
Thank you for a fun night. Your littlest girl was a little naughty. Another email, the key are the 14 to 15 year olds. I am a sexual pervert because I say they are now of reproductive age. Being called a sexual pervert is no fun. Another email, I met redacted today, she's like Lolita from Nabokov, fem miniature. Another email, I just saw the most beautiful little girl on Madison with soft blonde hair.
Again, a lot of smoke, and then the DOJ, all they keep saying is there's nothing to see here. Nobody should be charged except for Epstein and Maxwell. That's what Todd Blanche said. And people think that's suspicious. Don't you think that that's a reasonable thing to say?
RANTZ: No, I do think that that is suspicious, and I do think that is reasonable to ask all of the -- for all of the data, but it doesn't mean you do it in an irresponsible way. There have been some of the emails that clearly point to perverted behavior that should be out.
PHILLIP: It's not -- I get the point about doing it responsibly. They're not doing it at all. They've told us they are not doing it at all. Todd Blanche has repeatedly said that there's no reason to believe that anyone else should be charged. I don't think it's unreasonable for people to hear that and say, huh, how is that possible?
RANTZ: Oh, I agree, and I would have and did hold the same position for four years when nothing was being done. And so there's one of two things. Both parties decided, or both presidencies decided to cover something else up, or maybe they don't yet have the evidence that we think we need in order to charge. Both of those things can also be true. And I do think that that is a reasonable point to be made.
PHILLIP: I think you're right, but I think that there's no explaining the lack of initiative to even engage an investigation, which is what we are also seeing now.
BLOW: And you're trying to make some parallel. There are three major differences here. Number one, the sitting president today, unlike Biden, is mentioned over a thousand times in the emails that we have seen so far.
RANTZ: What were some of them --
BLOW: One second. Are going to let me finish my --
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: Are you not going to let me finish? All right, thank you, that's great.
The second one is that Congress has passed legislation to make -- to compel this, which did not exist during Biden. And the third one, which is the most important, the most important one, is that now the survivors have banded together to ask themselves that the full documents be released. Those three conditions did not exist under Joe Biden. They exist now.
You know, the one of --
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: It's a real problem.
RANTZ: It's a valid question.
BLOW: I have not met a single person who can go back and change a single minute that happened before. But we can all today just make an affirmative statement that, yes, all of this should be exposed and anyone who knew about it and participated in it should be exposed at brought for justice. They aren't. The DOJ is arguing against that.
RANTZ: Yes, but no one's really arguing against it. But you're three points, ten seconds. Number one, when we're saying how many times he's mentioned, they include article links and URLs that have his name in it, and we should point that out. Number two, the real reasons why it didn't happen under four years, no one's going to answer that question. You're saying that now we have the people to do it, okay, well, then explain why for four years we didn't. And then the third point, Democrats -- hold on.
BLOW: Democrats were asking to investigate even before the Biden administration.
RANTZ: You do in fact have victims who are calling for it, but there are also victims who don't want their names out there. And there has been criticism of the DOJ rushing to get out some of these documents because they didn't do full redactions of every single person.
BLOW: Nobody is asking about their names being out there. What they're saying is that we -- that they specifically don't want their names out. That is part of the travesty of this is that the DOJ has published their names and some of their photos and some of their addresses. That part is a tragedy of this.
PHILLIP: We got to leave it there guys.
Next for us, is ICE really arresting the worst of the worst? A damning new report suggests that it's not even close. We'll debate.
Plus, the president calls a U.S. Olympian, a real loser after criticism of the United States, despite Trump's long history of doing the same. We'll roll the tape.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: We're going after the worst of the worst every single day.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're doing the worst of the worst, always a first.
TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: We're going to keep targeting the worst of the worst.
TRICIA MCLAUGHLIN, HOMELAND SECURITY ASSISTANT SECRETARY: We will continue to arrest the worst of the worst.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president continues to be wholeheartedly committed to deporting the worst of the worst criminals.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: That was the Trump administration being very clear about who it is targeting in its immigration crackdown, the worst of the worst, they say. But new reporting is casting some doubt on that. According to a DHS report obtained by CBS News, out of nearly 400,000 total ICE arrests, about 60 percent had criminal charges or convictions, but less than 14 percent had violent criminal records and nearly 40 percent had no criminal records at all.
CNN has not been able to independently verify CBS's figures. And tonight, the Department of Justice of security -- the Department of Security is pushing back on the report saying drug trafficking, distribution of child pornography, burglary, DUI, embezzlement, solicitation of a minor, human smuggling are all categorized as non- violent crimes.
So, look, I think this is actually a legitimate debate about when they say violent crimes are the worst of the worst, what does that encompass and how transparent should they be? But at the same time, I think the statistics are pretty clear.
[22:25:02]
Let's look at just gang affiliations, for example. 98 percent of those arrested have no gang affiliation. Only 0.3 percent are Tren de Aragua, which we've been reliably told by Stephen Miller was launching an invasion into the country. 40 percent of these people have no criminal records at all. Another 30 percent, they have criminal records that are not anything violent or murderous or even the things that, you know, DHS is saying or serious problems. So, it does seem to indicate that there's something different happening than what they're claiming.
DOWNEY: Yes. Well, I mean, this administration said that they would prioritize deporting the worst of the worst, but they didn't say only the worst of the worst. I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive. The Trump campaign explicitly ran on the most enormous deportation campaign in American history. I think it was safe to assume that he was going to follow through on that. And it wasn't just going to include the most egregious offenders of unmentionable crimes but in fact those who are just not supposed to be here because they cross the border illegally.
And, you know, this kind of premise makes me think, is the point mass amnesty? Is that really what the point is here from Democrats? Because that's the only other alternative to a deportation campaign.
CLAYTON: In fact, the last guy was not someone who was not supposed to be in this country. She was here seeking a safe haven from Honduras. She was here seeking asylum. She is not somebody who is supposed to be deported and yet she was under this administration and only recently has come back to North Carolina. They are not deporting the worst of the worst. And they're not deporting people who are supposed to be here.
DOWNEY: Well, they definitely are deporting the worst of the worst. I mean, have you seen some of the criminal records?
BLOW: I actually have. Actually I spent today --
DOWNEY: Are you arguing that we should have rapists and --
BLOW: No, I would like to -- I would like to have you look at how many people they have on that list. So, the DHS keeps a list of the worst of the worst, they call it the worst of the worst, arrested. You know how many people are on that list?
DOWNEY: Tell me.
BLOW: You don't know, right?
DOWNEY: Tell me.
BLOW: Exactly. So, there are 25,000 roughly people on that list. If they get stuck to those kinds of people, they have real convictions, they would have been great. They would have fulfilled Trump's promise, and I think the American people would be behind them. They have not 25,000 of 400,000 deportees of arrest, that is only like 6 percent. That's even less than what this report is showing. If they have more worse than the worst, why aren't they publishing it? If they've only published 25,000 of 400,000 people, where are the rest of their worst of the worst? RANTZ: Laken Riley's killer was not a criminal prior to the murder. I think that's part of the point here.
BLOW: So, you want point on one?
RANTZ: I think you have people who are --
BLOW: Individuals?
RANTZ: I think you have people -- yes, of course. Just like you, you Google some some data and then you threw it out there. But that's part of --
BLOW: I went to the Department of Homeland Security website.
PHILLIP: Let me let him finish his thought.
RANTZ: The point is an important one here. We have people coming in unvetted, and that is a reality that folks don't want to acknowledge on your side of this argument.
BLOW: If you were -- what is my side? Because I don't believe --
RANTZ: I'm sorry, but if the people were out there on the side of the Democrats right now who celebrate going after the rapists and the murderers and attack that with the same passion that they do, the individual one-offs who have been mistakenly targeted, this would be a completely different conversation.
BLOW: One person, one-offs that have been mistakenly targeted?
RANTZ: Yes, one or two one-offs. When you look at the actual --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let me just address that based on what we just -- I mean, we were just talking about the numbers. You're describing it as one or two one-offs, but the data shows that it's 40 percent.
RANTZ: But, no, the data does not say that 40 percent of the people aren't --
PHILLIP: 40 percent of people have no criminal record at all. And that includes not -- that includes crossing the border illegally. Hold on. Okay, hold on. Let's just all be talking about the same thing. You're saying one-offs are people who are being caught up in this. The data seems to indicate that 40 percent of the people that have been arrested have no criminal record at all.
So, maybe they are in the country in an uncertain status. Maybe they're in the country, they have overstayed a visa. Maybe they are like this Irishman who has been in the country for 20 years with a valid work permit who was months away from a green card interview, or like some other examples. The New York Times did a story a few months back about people who were literally in their green card interview and were detained by ICE in their green card interviews. Those are in the 40 percent. So, that's not one or two people. That's a lot of people.
RANTZ: But it is -- I think it's more to the story. So, for example, this guy from Ireland who overstayed a 90-day visa since 2009 --
PHILLIP: But that's an administrative infraction.
[22:30:01]
And under U.S. --
RANTZ: When should they be able to --
PHILLIP: But hold on a second. Hold on a second, Jason. Under U.S. law, it is legal, perfectly legal for him to rectify his status through marriage to an American citizen, which is exactly what he was doing, is why,
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- hold on a second, which is why he had a valid U.S. work permit, which was issued by the United States government in his pending green card. So, we have a process in the law where people -- who like this man, maybe he overstayed a visa, can rectify their status and they're not penalized for it. So --
RANTZ: But they are still subject to the laws and that does include being deported.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- so, yes, sure. But Jason, it's about capriciousness, right? Forty -- look. A lot of people on the conservative side say, deport everybody. Fifty six percent when you're asked that question, point blank say, we favor it. But when you ask them more specifically, do you favor deporting people who have lived here for a number of years, have jobs, no criminal record?
Fifty-six percent oppose that, and it's because Americans understand that it doesn't make any sense to deport somebody who's married to an American citizen, has a work permit, is about to get their green card. What's the point of detaining him for months?
STACEY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: And Abby, what I want to say about the law and what you're missing is, people are going through the immigration and naturalization process. They are submitting the paperwork to gain permission to stay here, whether they're here lawfully or not or they came in lawfully, but they're overstaying. Those are civil liabilities. Those are not crimes, and those are not the worst of the worst.
But to have an immigration policy, I get what you're saying and I agree. I've worked in the criminal justice system. People who come here and don't belong here and are guests of the country or are here unlawfully and commit crimes, they should be shipped right out. And they usually are where they were in the old days under ICE 1.0. They went to all the courthouses and whoever came out with a
conviction, they put them right into immigration custody. They went to a detention hearing and they were flown out of the country. And that's how it was always done. This is ICE on steroids.
This is happening where people who are lawfully applying to be citizens or to remain here, or have family connections in the middle of paperwork are going to their government-sponsored interviews, showing up at federal courthouse buildings where the immigration courts are to do it appropriately and are being swept up and shipped out of the country.
College students who've gone home, we've seen the stories in the news, they've gone home on a break, they've traveled to another state to go visit family, and they're here on student visas and something's going wrong but they're doing it right, are being shipped away from their families out of the country. This is a mass market deportation and it was never done this way, and it's not being done properly, and they need to change it. No one's saying eliminate deportation of illegal people.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: There are people saying that, to be clear. There are a ton of people who are saying that.
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: Yes, oh, they're definitely saying abolish the entire institution that is literally supposed to be supposed to be doing immigration enforcement.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHNEIDER -- because that's absurd. That's absurd. But to go around, sorry one more point and --
CLAYTON: Go ahead.
SCHNEIDER: To have the government over and over again, we saw the worst of the worst. We're doing the worst of the worst. Don't convince the American people that you're doing it the right way because the people in the cities and -- are seeing their neighbors getting deported, who have jobs and have families and children in schools, they are not the worst of the worst and people know the truth.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I wonder -- I wonder, Caroline and Jason, I mean, do either of you acknowledge that prioritization would actually help the Trump administration politically on something that used to be a top issue for them and now has become a liability?
DOWNEY: Well, Obama, deporter-in-chief, certainly prioritized violent illegal aliens at first and then moved on to those who also are not allowed to be here because they crossed the border illegally. Again, that's federal law. That's a violation of federal law.
(CROSSTALK)
CLAYTON: We didn't see two U.S. citizens die during his term under that administration.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: And you also didn't see masked ICE agents running around, ripping people out of cars when Obama was president.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But let me just restate my question. Do you believe that prioritization would help Trump get this issue back? I mean, they have seemed to have ceded this issue to Democrats in a way that is extraordinary. And they simply could just start actually prioritizing the people who virtually 98 percent of Americans agree should be taken off the streets and deported.
DOWNEY: Well, first of all, as I said, he literally did run on this. So, for the polling that stands right now showing that more than 50 percent of Americans or even Republicans oppose the way he's conducting this, they did elect him. And most Americans elected him as he promised to do --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hey, look, I mean, you might -- you can get mad at them for saying that they don't like it anymore but they don't like it.
DOWNEY: No, I understand.
PHILLIP: I mean --
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: I'm just saying, I understand. But what no one else is talking about is how Trump kind of inherited a very impossible situation with the sanctuary city policies, which basically makes -- make it almost impossible to do these types of --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Sanctuary cities existed under Obama.
DOWNEY: Yes, they do.
PHILLIP: They existed under Trump one. They existed under Biden and they existed under Trump two.
BLOW: This is not a sanctuary city problem.
DOWNEY: Have you ever since this kind of defiant --
PHILLIP: Sanctuary cities are not new. BLOW: This is not a sanctuary city problem.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Sanctuary cities are not new.
[22:35:00]
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: They're not new.
DOWNEY: When have we seen these defiant protests?
BLOW: This is a quota problem.
DOWNEY: When have we seen this kind of --
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: This is a quota problem. The administration said they wanted to deport a million people a year and Stephen Miller says he wants 3000 a day. We know what happens when you put quotas on arrest. We've had that with police departments. It leads to all kinds of civil and human rights violations and that is exactly what we are seeing because they need to meet the quota.
DOWNEY: I hear you that there's room for error.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: No, no, you don't because you're not even listening. They want to meet the quota so they are doing things that are conspicuous terror and that is a policy of the administration. That is horrendous.
DOWNEY: How do you propose that we rectify what Biden did in mass importing millions of unvetting illegal aliens?
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: He didn't import. He didn't import. That's a ridiculous -- that verb -- that verb is ridiculous and you should excise it from your vocabulary. He did not import.
(CROSSTALK)
CLAYTON: He could do exactly what folks have asked for, which is that you do get the most violent of the violent out of this country. That is not what he is doing right now. Instead he is going to job sites. He is taking people off of HVAC sites right now and deporting them.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right.
DOWNEY: Actually, Trump was trying to protect the job sites because -- PHILLIP: We got to go.
CLAYTON: No (inaudible) because that is where Fatima --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We have to go. Okay, all right. He is one of the top U.S. skiers at the Olympics, but the President now says that he's a total loser. We're going to debate the war of words between Hunter Hess and Donald Trump.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:41:04]
PHILLIP: These days you cannot escape politics even if you're skiing on the slopes in the Winter Olympics. Several American skiers learned that lesson the hard way after being asked about the current state of affairs in their home country.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS LILLIS, TEAM USA FREESTYLE SKIER: I feel heartbroken about what's happened in the United States. I think that as a country, we need to focus on respecting everybody's rights and making sure that we're treating our citizens, as well as anybody with love and respect.
HUNTER HESS, TEAM USA FREESTYLE SKIER: I think it's -- it brings up mixed emotions to represent the U.S. right now. Just because I'm wearing the flag doesn't mean I represent everything that's going on in the U.S.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Those last words from Hunter Hess triggered a response from President Trump. He called Hess, quote, "a real loser" and added, quote, "very hard to root for someone like this". Trump and MAGA World seem to be upset that Hess is using his platform to criticize the U.S. while visiting another country. But Trump himself has done just that for years.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I think that the United States has been foolish. I think we've all been foolish. Chicago is a disaster. It's a total disaster. The Democrats have gotten nuts. They're crazy. And it's very bad for our country. Jimmy Carter, look. He was a nice man. He was a terrible president.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Are the skiers allowed to speak their mind?
RANTZ: Yes, so is the President. I think two things are true at once. Number one, I think some of the comments made by some of the Olympians are wrong and it's the wrong stage. Although, I'll be fair to them, they were asked the question. I think that they're being set up in a way. I also think it's wrong for the President to call them out. I think he doesn't need to.
I think he can practice what a lot of us would like to preach, which is be forward about this country. Be proud of the country that you're representing on an international stage. And I think that both of those asks are reasonable.
BLOW: I'm happy we almost agree completely on that because I --
PHILLIP: Hey, that's (inaudible). That's positive.
BLOW: The President has, you know -- I think the President and a skier -- different -- different
RANTZ: Yes.
BLOW: -- levels, clearly. But this idea that people upset with him is crazy to me. Like you can love your country, that is part of patriotism. Demanding on correction of your country is also part of patriotism. But being disappointed by the thing that you love is part of love, ask any parent. In fact, I would argue that the only way you are disappointed or can be disappointed is because you love it. He is basically saying, this country that I love, this uniform I must wear, the flag I must have on my back, I love it, but I'm disappointed in the way it is behaving. We should all have that kind of patriotism because that is what makes us different, that we can do that, that we can say that, that we can insist on correcting correction in the country and can insist on it becoming better and better and better and being what Martin Luther King said, I want you to live up to -- and be true to what you said on paper.
SCHNEIDER: And thank goodness we live in a country where we're not China and Russia
BLOW: Yes.
SCHNEIDER: And we can make these kind of statements. And one thing I just have a little bit of a problem with that you said is their statements were wrong. I don't think that's fair of you to put that kind of judgment on these young athletes. I thought what they said was very balanced. They were expressing how they felt. They're entitled to their feelings. And they also -- in other parts of their statement, they said, I'm representing my family in the country I love, as well. You can have it both ways in America. We have the First Amendment.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I'm curious. I mean, Jason, I don't know. Were you talking about what they said in those clips or something else?
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: I'm talking more generally. When you're an athlete on this stage and you're getting into anything political, that is clearly contentious and obviously open for debate. I think you're asking for trouble. I think there are some folks who are upset with the President right now merely because they agreed with the statements that were being made.
But let's be clear, if any of these Olympians came out and said, actually, you know what, I'm going to take a contentious view on gender. I'm going to talk about transgender issues, and trans women are not women. They would be vilified. And by the way, I would join you in calling that out because I just don't think it's appropriate. I think there are places to get into political debates, and there are places to do what you're supposed to do, and show your pride for this country even when you disagree.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We're going to a very quick pause and then we're going to come back at the end of a break, and we'll resume our conversation. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:50:18]
PHILLIP: We're back at the table and we've been discussing the Olympic skiers speaking out against what's happening in the United States. It is reminiscent of the 1968 Olympics where you had some of the athletes holding up black power fists. That actually was controversial at the time, but I think we now understand exactly why they were doing that and it seems very much justified. So, is this a similar moment?
DOWNEY: I think personally, a lot of Americans are tired of sports arenas becoming political forums. I think there's a time and place for that, like Jason said, and this was probably not the appropriate venue. You have the right to do that. You have free expression. That doesn't mean you should, right? And I don't really remember conservative athletes or celebrities going abroad, officially ambassadoring the United States and criticizing the Biden administration or the Obama administration. I don't recall that. If anybody does recall that, I'd love to know.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHNEIDER: Well, we weren't having things going on during those administrations that are happening today.
DOWNEY: Oh, oh, speak for yourself. Speak for yourself.
SCHNEIDER: I am speaking for way more than myself right now.
DOWNEY: Because too many conservative voters in America -- what the Obama administration did was nothing short of radical.
BLOW: They have people in masks?
(CROSSTALK)
SCHNEIDER: Why do we always live -- DOWNEY: No, the Biden administration --
BLOW: Were they breaking windows out of cars?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But Caroline, wouldn't they have the right --
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: -- admitted millions of illegal aliens in violation of our national sovereignty.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: I'm glad to change that verb.
DOWNEY: I'm just giving you an example.
SCHNEIDER: But why when we have a problem with the current administration, do you always go back to previous administrations? Why are we living there and not living right now and trying to fix what's going on right now? Why are we always doing that blame game?
DOWNEY: Double standards?
(CROSSTALK)
SCHNEIDER: -- very well but you're kind of doing the same --
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: Double standards?
RANTZ: Yes, and just to be clear. For four years -- respectfully -- for four years, Donald Trump was named by the Biden administration for absolutely everything that went wrong. So, this whole idea that -- well, I can't believe we're talking to anybody in the previous administration. Well, that's what happens. That's what every single administration --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHNEIDER: Can you -- exactly. I want focus. What are you talking about specifically? How much focus --
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: Enumerate those things.
RANTZ: You're right.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHNEIDER: They had a mess.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: I will correct the record. I will correct the record.
SCHNEIDER: Cleaning of COVID, cleaning of the economy. What are you talking about?
RANTZ: For four years, they never blamed Trump for anything. It never happened.
PHILLIP: But look --
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: You never got a single answer because that never worked out either.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Here's the thing. Even if these athletes, let's say conservative athletes, went abroad and they had criticisms for the previous administrations, wouldn't that be perfectly fine and correct in this democracy for them to be able to --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Fine -- legally -- no one's arguing that they don't have a right to do that. To be clear, I think they absolutely have a right.
PHILLIP: No, but I mean, I would say, I'm not sure that you would see all the -- I think it's a uniqueness of the American right now where anything that is contrary to their view that is being said, whether it's from athletes abroad or athletes at home becomes signs that they should just sit down -- a musician -- sit down and shut up and not express their opinions. Why can't they express their opinions?
RANTZ: They can express their opinions. The people who disagree will always call out the opinions that they disagree with. Again, do you believe that if any of them said something that was uber conservative and offensive to the left, that they would be celebrated for you know, speaking out and -- I don't think so.
PHILLIP: Well, I can almost guarantee you that any of the Democratic presidents of say the last 30 years would not have said a word about it.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: So, I think they would say it differently. I don't think that is a unique Trump trait, no doubt. But I don't think that they would say nothing.
PHILLIP: I guarantee you they would not have said a word about it because it's --
BLOW: They would not have tweeted it a minute a night. RANTZ: That's my big question here. So, Donald Trump is speaking for a large percentage of the public. Whether we like the way he says it is not --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHNEIDER: Wait, you mean by calling the athletes a loser?
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: I think by criticizing, I think yes he is.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Yes, he's absolutely speaking for a fraction of the public.
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: Preserving the integrity of the venue.
BLOW: This is the worst kind of hunting down ever. These athletes train literally their entire lives.
RANTZ: And they represent the United States.
BLOW: They've done their entire lives --
CLAYTON: And I've never felt more patriotic than hearing them say they were disappointed in what's happening right now this country.
BLOW: They get to biggest stage in their life for the very first time, many of them, they have all these cameras and someone is saying, give me a picture into your conscience and they have a conscience. They have trained over every administration. They have trained over every administration. They couldn't determine what real administration they were going to make the Olympics in. They happened to make it in one that they had disagreed in.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Well, first of all, she's been criticized this entire time by the left because she did in fact come out and support the President. She has been attacked over the courts of last year.
CLAYTON: Not by a sitting U.S. senator or by a Democratic president.
RANTZ: Okay.
CLAYTON: Yes, sure, like pundits like you and I can up there and talk about it. Of course.
RANTZ: If this athlete came out and said he wants more mass deportation, would you be celebrating it?
[22:55:03]
No. You would not be.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: It doesn't matter.
CLAYTON: But you would be.
(CROSSTALK)
CLAYTON: But you would be. I bet a U.S. senator would have tweeted that as a party.
RANTZ: I would agree with the point but I wouldn't agree with them doing it.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on, guys. We got to leave it there. We do have to leave it there. Next for us, lawmakers get a look at the unredacted Epstein files, and they're saying that multiple powerful men are being protected unnecessarily with blackouts. Will we ever find out who they are? Well, a second hour of "NewsNight" is coming up as more special guests join us on the table.
