Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Democrats Rip DOJ Over Epstein Files; Lawmaker Wants Howard Lutnick Out; Not Everyone Pleased by Bad Bunny; Democrats Raise Alarm Bells On Voter Suppression; GOP Defenders Justifies President Trump 's Racist Post. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired February 09, 2026 - 23:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[23:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Tonight, as Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice tries to sell the supposed truth.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): That was redacted for some indeterminate, inscrutable reason.
PHILLIP: Lawmakers were supposed to see the unredacted files only to see a lot of black bars. Plus.
MEGYN KELLY, FORMER HOST, FOX NEWS: This is supposed to be a unifying event for the country, not for the Leftinos.
PHILLIP: Why the dueling halftimes showed just how ridiculous American politics has become. And why one columnist argues Donald Trump will try to steal the election with a nightmare scenario.
Live at the table, Jamal Simmons, Caroline Downey, Christine Quinn, Jason Rantz, and Donte Mills. Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here they do.
Good evening, I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
With the second hour of Newsnight, let's get right to what America is talking about. Controversial redactions, co-conspirators, and evidence of potential crimes. Today, lawmakers were given a chance to review the unredacted Epstein files, and they're raising some concerns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RASKIN: I saw the names of lots of people who were redacted for mysterious or baffling or inscrutable reasons. I think that the Department of Justice has been in a cover-up mode for many months and has been trying to sweep the entire thing under the rug.
There's no way you run a billion-dollar international child sex trafficking ring with just two people committing crimes, Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. No way. It doesn't work like that. (END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: In the ongoing battle for justice, today there was even more Epstein fallout abroad. Norway's Crown Princess is facing questions over her ties to Epstein, and two Norwegian diplomats are now under investigation. And, as new allegations surface about the disgraced Prince Andrew, Congressman Ro Khanna is demanding answers from the British monarchy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): They ought to ask the King and Queen questions and maybe this will be the end of the monarchy.
UNKNOWN: Do you think it could be the end of the monarchy?
KHANNA: Well, if they don't have answers, if they're implicated within Epstein class, not a good look for the British monarchy.
UNKNOWN: What questions does the king have to answer?
KHANNA: Well, the king has to answer what he knew. What he knew about Andrew, just stripping Andrew of a title is not enough. I mean, Andrew needs to come before our committee and start answering questions. I mean, look, if you have allegations of raping a young girl, I don't think the appropriate punishment is you no longer get to be a prince. There's got to be more than that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I mean isn't it strange that there seems to be at least some desire for accountability across the pond, but here it's like well if their name is in it doesn't mean anything.
DONTE MILLS, NATIONAL TRIAL ATTORNEY: That's the problem that I have even with the statement from Ro Khanna, you're saying other people should be held responsible. We're not doing it at home. And we want to be the leaders of the world with how we protect our citizens, especially our young girls, but we're not doing that. We're not stepping up to the plate.
We talk about it all the time how there had to be more than just two people that were involved in this crime, yet there are no other investigations happening right now. And when you look at what's coming out it's not being done the right way. We're not getting all the information. The information that's being put out looks like it's been combed over, vetted and scrubbed of anything that's going to hold somebody accountable. We can't let that be the standard and then expect other people in the world to look at us as the ones that's really showing the way.
CHRISTINE QUINN (D), FORMER SPEAKER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: And you add to that, it happened here.
MILLS: It happened here. QUINN: It happened in the United States. We should be holding any
United States citizens, regardless of what positions they have, whatever anyone is implicated, should be investigated in public in an open session and should be held accountable.
And it just speaks to kind of the pervasive disregard of victims of sexual assault and rape in this country. And we have a moment where leaders, the president and others, could stand up and say, this is not OK and we won't tolerate it. But instead, they're standing up and saying, move on, nothing to see here. Why isn't a whole bunch of little girls and young women raped? It's really just disgraceful.
PHILLIP: Congress people who went in and saw the file say there were a lot of strange redactions. Let me play what Jamie Raskin said about the redactions involving President Trump.
[23:04:52]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RASKIN: Donald Trump's name was redacted in a number of different places. And I saw one conversation between Epstein lawyers and Trump lawyers relating to the 2009 investigation, which had been redacted. And I don't see any particular reason that it should have been.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now if that is true, that would seem to indicate a violation of the law because you're not supposed to, according to the law, redact to protect anyone's reputation, least of all the president.
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: They delayed the release of the Epstein files. They have scrubbed the names of some influential people from the Epstein files. They released the names of some of the young women and girls who were victims. They released their names and let them out.
It just seems like this Justice Department is not acting in the interest of the people who they are supposed to be, which are to protect innocent American citizens, instead they're trying to protect the powerful.
The question I have now for the president is, what's going to happen to his base. Remember there were all these conspiracy theorists who were believing there was some child sex ring that was out there. It turns out they may have been right. There was one out there, but it wasn't just the Democrats, which is what they had said originally.
So, I think we've got to really ask them questions about what this Justice Department is doing and how it's going to show up.
JASON RANTZ, HOST, SEATTLE RED: It's also possible that with millions of documents that have been rushed to be released recently, that they made mistakes. I think that's an important piece of this because I agree with you that clearly some of the people's names should not have been released. I think that was a mistake and I think we've all conceded that that's likely the case. I mean, I don't think anyone thinks that they're doing this intentionally.
What's also likely then is that some of the people's names who were redacted should not have been redacted. That is a consequence of --
(CROSSTALK)
MILLS: We got to stop giving you guys a pass. It's just millions of documents that they're --
CAROLINE DOWNEY, COLUMNIST, NATIONAL REVIEW: And look, in the spirit of transparency and to appease the MAGA base, it would be right to completely open the books. However, I've consulted with some friends who have an intelligence background and what they told me is, look, there's usually a serious principle behind redactions or classification protocols, that being that you cannot necessarily trust the American public with raw intelligence. And we could consider this raw intelligence.
PHILLIP: Why would we consider it raw intelligence?
MILLS: Yes.
DOWNEY: Well, because --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean, the law is, the law dictates what redactions are supposed to happen. And this is an unusual situation, I'll concede that, because rarely do we have a situation where the law says, hey, you've got to do it in a particular way. But in this case, the law is very clear. Victims, names, and identities should be protected. Perpetrators do not need to be protected. Their names, if they are in there, should be out there.
And look, I actually think, Jason, I think that your point is important to some extent, right? There are probably a ton of mistakes happening and they're being caught and when they're being called out for it sometimes, they're being fixed like Todd Blanche tonight they have re-released several of the pages that were flagged by Thomas Massie as being improperly redacted, but I don't know.
I mean, why should it take that kind of pressure and if not for Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna going in there and Jamie Raskin going in there and saying, hey, why is this redacted, we would never know.
(CROSSTALK)
QUINN: You know, we're all acting like they just got noticed 48 hours ago. They ran for president saying they would release these files. So when they won, why didn't they start immediately preparing? It shouldn't have been the law that Congress had to pass to force them. They should have done it because they promised the American people.
MILLS: Well, let's take a step further than that. Forget about the politics of it. We have victims here. The way the Justice Department works, the way these investigations work, I handle them all the time, is they do the basic investigation starting with the victims. We don't even have victim interviews here in these cases. There's so many victims that they haven't even interviewed yet.
So, we're talking about redacting things that come from other sources. They're not doing a basic investigation to get to the factual finding of who's responsible.
PHILLIP: And the victims have said --
(CROSSTALK)
MILLS: What they're doing is pointing out stuff so that they can protect people.
PHILLIP: Their victims have said that there are lot of things missing like their interviews. Some of them who have done interviews, they're saying, where are these interviews? Why are they not in the file?
So I mean, there are a lot of serious questions and a lot of serious questions about why DOJ is not more proactive about it, not more proactive about the redactions, but also about saying, hey, we're going to go back over some of these names, some of these people who are engaging in some really scary conversations frankly with Jeffrey Epstein and ask the question what are they talking about and are there victims here? I think that's the question that people are asking.
DOWNEY: Well, I mean I think it is important for including MAGA base but the general public to figure out if there were other potential collaborators with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
[23:10:02]
And I think that's worth litigating. But I think also to your point, this is fundamentally a bureaucracy at the end of the day and there's millions of documents. It's going to take some time. And I think, honestly at the end of the day, Trump doesn't want this to be the sole focus because there's so many other domestic priorities that he's still trying to achieve. And frankly, this is taking up a lot of headspace.
QUINN: No more headspace than the victims had.
MILLS: Who care what Trump wants. It's the Justice Department.
QUINN: No more headspace than those --
DOWNEY: Yes.
QUINN: -- poor women and girls who will have to live with for the rest of their lives.
MILLS: Who cares what Trump wants. The Justice Department should do their job and protect these victims. There are victims here. They're not doing their job. Trump shouldn't be leading this in determining what comes out and what doesn't. The Justice Department should be acting independently to find out who molested these girls and bringing them to justice.
RANTZ: This is the problem with certain documents.
(CROSSTALK)
MILLS: He shouldn't be saying (inaudible).
RANTZ: He doesn't have anything directly to do with it to that point. I mean, have you seen --
(CROSSTALK)
MILLS: His attorney is going to sit with Ghislaine Maxwell. Right?
RANTZ: I'm sorry, but have you seen any evidence of the president directing to the level you're even remotely talking about redacting or not redacting certain documents?
SIMMONS: Here's the challenge of what we're talking about.
MILLS: You saw his administration to bring people in to go through the documents before they came out.
RANTZ: I saw for four years none of this conversation taking place. So I do think that this president is doing a hell of a lot more than the previous one did.
SIMMONS: But see here's the problem.
MILLS: The Justice Department should do their job.
SIMMONS: The problem is that the president, usually the Justice Department has some claim of being impartial. The Justice Department can say we've got distance from the White House. We can't even talk to them. When I was in the White House you couldn't even call the Justice Department to ask them when a press release was going to be released. You couldn't do it.
But now the president has inserted himself so often into the DOJ operations, it's hard to know where the line is for him and when he's directing things and when he's not. Because he personally has injected himself into it.
PHILLIP: Even if it's not him personally, I mean, there are many people even in his administration whose names have come up in these files. One of them is Howard Lutnick, the Commerce Secretary. He had said at one point that he cut off ties with Jeffrey Epstein, then the emails showed that that wasn't quite true.
Here's what Thomas Massie says should happen to Lutnick.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: What questions do you have about Lutnick's ties to Epstein and should he come before Congress and testify? REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): No, he should just resign. I mean, there
are three people in Great Britain that have resigned in politics, the ambassador from Great Britain to the United States, the prince lost his title for less than what we've seen Howard Lutnick lie about.
Look, Howard Lutnick clearly went to the island, if we believe what's in these files. He was in business with Jeffrey Epstein. And this was many years after Jeffrey Epstein was convicted, you know, lightly sentenced, but was convicted for sexual crimes.
So he's got a lot to answer for but really, he should make life easier on the president frankly and just resign. If this were Great Britain he'd already be gone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Is that fair, Jason?
RANTZ: I think the criticism is fair for sure, and I do actually think that Howard Lutnick should answer to some of the conversations he had and when he had them and why he said.
PHILLIP: Should he resign?
RANTZ: But I don't think he should resign based on the details we have at this point. I think, here is an uncomfortable truth that it feels like no one on either side wants to acknowledge. Uber wealthy powerful people talk with other Uber wealthy powerful people and in retrospect, we can all say well they shouldn't have done that but that's just not how the world works. And it is not --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I don't know if that's a (inaudible).
RANTZ: I don't know. But that's what I agree with.
SIMMONS: You stop talking to these people.
RANTZ: A hundred percent. I agree with you.
DOWNEY: So clearly there's a spectrum here, association with Epstein all the way to you could be a potential collaborator in criminality, which Democrats, to the point of how they've made this into a political football that they keep throwing around, they did imply heavily that Trump was involved potentially with criminality with Epstein before any of this had really come to light.
PHILLIP: Well, you know, what's interesting? The Miami Herald, Julie K. Brown, she has a new story out today where she has a quote basically from Trump to one of the investigators in Florida basically saying, everyone knew. Everyone knew what Jeffrey Epstein was up to and what Ghislaine Maxwell was up to.
And I think that there's a moral question on the table, which is that if you knew and you continue to associate with this person, what does that say about you? And should there be consequences for that lack of judgment?
QUINN: And Lutnick had indicated that he hadn't had ongoing conversations with Epstein and then we find out that he did. And and this isn't about people meeting, crossing paths at the golf course at the country club. This is someone who was convicted of a terrible crime and people who continued to associate with him.
I mean you have to be held accountable for that. Actions have consequences and those actions were immoral. There is no question.
[23:15:02]
RANTZ: The moral part, which I actually completely agree with, is a political question. It's not a legal question. I think that's where a lot of this gets mixed up. This idea for accountability in the context that we want to go after the people who are directly legally responsible is separate from the political question.
These are political questions. And it would be less political if we had an equal number of members of Congress or political pundits who are also targeting anyone who's a Democrat.
MILLS: But here's where the line blurs.
RANTZ: And they're clearly (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Donte, last word.
QUINN: Yes.
MILLS: Here's where the line blurs. When you have political people influencing the ability for legal people in the Department of Justice to do their job and find out who was involved in --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: When did the investigation stop?
MILLS: When did it start?
PHILLIP: OK.
MILLS: They haven't even done the basics of the investigation.
RANTZ: You're putting the blame, well, they've done parts of the investigation. That's obviously true. We're putting the blame --
(CROSSTALK)
MILLS: We're three years out.
RANTZ: You're putting the blame on the president when you have --
MILLS: I'm not putting the blame on the president. I'm putting the blame on the situation that we have, that we have thousands of girls that were impacted. We have two people that have been held accountable for it. That's it. That's impossible.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Well, that started years ago.
MILLS: That should be the case. I agree with you.
PHILLIP: Next for us, why the halftime show at the Super Bowl reveals just how toxic and frankly, ridiculous American politics have become. Plus, one columnist says Donald Trump will try to steal the election with a nightmare scenario. We'll discuss.
[23:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: That was just a little snippet of the electrifying Super Bowl halftime show from superstar rapper Bad Bunny. For weeks, conservatives complained about the choice of Bad Bunny as the performer, and President Trump predictably says he was not impressed. He called it, quote, "absolutely terrible, one of the worst ever and an affront to American greatness."
But you didn't hear Bad Bunny mention ICE. He didn't mention immigration. Instead, he celebrated his Puerto Rican roots. And he ended the show by marching out to a parade of flags with these words on the big screen, the only thing more powerful than hate is love.
Now before spiking the football at the end, with these four words emblazoned on it, it said, together we are America.
Well, heartwarming, right?
SIMMONS: Yes.
PHILLIP: I don't know. I mean.
DOWNEY: Yes.
PHILLIP: I guess this whole thing has been perplexing to me. I mean, conservatives, I'm sure they don't like a lot of the halftime performers. But popular music is popular music. And if you don't like it, just go watch something else. Don't complain about it.
DOWNEY: Yes, there are plenty of things you could be doing instead. I didn't find it super objectionable in comparison to previous halftime shows. It was pretty much equal level of outrage, except there wasn't any outrage, if you want to call provocative dancing. That was probably the maximum that you could really muster.
As far as the American is not, America is not great criticism from Trump, you know, maybe he took the Bad Bunny line about, you know, everything is America, or you know, God was America and then he lists like all of the Latin American and Central American countries. But honestly, like, I don't think that's objectionable either because
I think what that is, is just a unifying message and I think most Americans just took it at its artistic performance value, which was family friendly, actually family focus.
PHILLIP: There was a lot of things that happened.
(CROSSTALK)
QUINN: Yes.
MILLS: And for the biggest performers in the world three of the top 10 songs are his. He's an incredible international performer. America, he's a part of America.
QUINN: yes.
MILLS: He's Puerto Rican, he's a part of America. This is an opportunity to introduce that part of the culture to a lot of people who never saw it before. I think he did it in a phenomenal way. He made sure the background of Puerto Rico was displayed. It was a chance for us to learn about America and our fellow Americans, and it really should be no contrast.
SIMMONS: It was really just a fantastic show. I mean, it was like watching a movie set as he moved through the entire show. But we also are having all this anxiety about whether or it was American. We've had U2, we've had Celine Dion, we've had Coldplay. We've had a lot of international acts with people who literally were not Americans, but nobody cares.
DOWNEY: Right.
RANTZ: I think two things are true at the same time. Number one, I think the conservatives, some of whom are saying this is the worst thing in the world, including the president, I completely disagree. It wasn't the worst thing. It's also not the best Super Bowl halftime show we've ever seen.
Like some of the praise of it has been over the top to also make political points. And to your point, there were a lot of people who did leave and didn't watch. They watched Kid Rock, which was also something that was happening at the time. They competed really well, I think, given it was a YouTube-only event. And Kid Rock was mocked and conservatives were mocked for doing that. So they didn't do what you said.
(CROSSTALK)
SIMMONS: It was bad lip-synching.
PHILLIP: Well, only because it was like, it was kind of like, that you know.
RANTZ: It was the response. PHILLIP: The conservatives didn't have an artist that maybe they liked. So instead of just saying, OK, not our day, let's go do something else.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: You just to go and watch something else.
PHILLIP: Hold on, there's all this, there's a lot of insulting happening of the Super Bowl. Jake Paul says turn off this halftime show. Or a fake American citizen performing who publicly hates America. I cannot support that. Kid Rock, this is today, here's what he said about the Super Bowl halftime production.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KID ROCK, SINGER: Nothing against Jay-Z. I respect him for his hustle and his music. But it seems like there's a little bit of a DEI hire there going on, you know?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I just, I don't know, I mean that's the stuff. And as Kid Rock --
(CROSSTALK)
MILLS: It can't be about his music.
QUINN: Yes.
[23:24:57]
PHILLIP: I mean, if you want to put DEI on the table, right. If this is about merit, I mean, Jay-Z and his career runs laps around Kid Rock.
QUINN: Yes.
PHILLIP: So, what are we even talking about here? It seems like cultural resentment.
DOWNEY: The other thing I want to know is --
SIMMONS: Yes.
DOWNEY: Yes.
MILLS: There is a cultural resentment. There is.
DOWNEY: It's the reactionary culture that I think is so insufferable to so many Americans. And if you want to really take the Kid Rock lyrics, you want to take the Bad Bunny lyrics, I mean, come on. It's like a whole other level.
PHILLIP: Yes. DOWNEY: And that's coming from a conservative who's like, this is outrageously (inaudible).
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Yes. There was a piece of Kid Rock's lyric where he's talking about underage girls.
DOWNEY: Yes.
PHILLIP: That was highlighted a couple days ago.
QUINN: And the other thing about, you didn't have to speak Spanish to know what he was saying, right? And it was so joyful, it was so upbeat, it was so young kids and people getting married and you know, iconic.
MILLS: But even if wasn't, you don't like the meaning of what he was saying.
(CROSSTALK)
QUINN: No, you --
RANTZ: I didn't know what he was saying.
MILLS: It doesn't make it un-American.
QUINN: No.
MILLS: One, America doesn't have a national language, right? And so if he spoke Spanish, he spoke Spanish.
QUINN: Absolutely.
MILLS: He's Puerto Rican, he speaks Spanish and Puerto Rican.
DOWNEY: However --
QUINN: But it should be that brought people together.
MILLS: But imagine being so bigoted that you think I don't like this music so it's un-American.
DOWNEY: Right. Well, I don't think he said --
MILLS: America is being so bigoted (inaudible).
DOWNEY: I don't Bad Bunny set himself up for success though. He tainted his future performance by his anti-ICE activism that nobody asked for.
QUINN: Or he elevated his stature.
DOWNEY: No.
MILLS: He start off for success by being the top-selling artist right now in the world.
DOWNEY: But that's why so many Americans, I think --
MILLS: That's why (inaudible).
DOWNEY: -- tuned out. They tuned out because they anticipated an anti- law enforcement screed when they would just wanted a performance, which didn't happen.
PHILLIP: Which didn't happen.
DOWNEY: You're right.
PHILLIP: So, --
DOWNEY: But that's why you don't use that stage for that.
PHILLIP: Why that continued hatred of him?
(CROSSTALK)
SIMMONS: And by the way, Kid Rock just did an anti-woke screed, right? They asked, they had a conversation --
RANTZ: Yes, and he's getting criticized by the left for it.
PHILLIP: You were saying resentment. What do yo mean by that?
RANTZ: I think the left has had control over entertainment for a while and we just haven't seen conservative values exposed to the same level. We just haven't. And part of that is you know, outside of country music, you don't have whole lot of outspoken conservatives in media. We just don't have in entertainment.
PHILLIP: Yes.
RANTZ: We don't.
PHILLIP: But isn't that like if you win, you win, if you lose, you lose.
RANTZ: No, I think it's a, it's about --
PHILLIP: I mean, if conservatives are not as successful as liberals, that's just --
RANTZ: No, I think what we've heard --
PHILLIP: You don't think that's the market's --
RANTZ: No, I don't because I think what we've heard from a lot of folks who finally came out and said, I'm not comfortable speaking out as a conservative. I think we have --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Most artists --
RANTZ: -- going on right now with Nicki Minaj who's getting attacked over this very issue.
PHILLIP: But most artists don't speak out about politics. They're successful.
DOWNEY: One way the other.
PHILLIP: They're successful on their fandom, on whether people love their music, whether they are producing things that are good.
(CROSSTALK)
MILLS: And Bad Bunny wasn't chosen for his politics.
PHILLIP: So, I mean, one -- if -- I don't believe that any artist should be judged on their politics. But if it is in fact, --
RANTZ: But that's on the (inaudible).
PHILLIP: -- that right-leaning artists are just simply not producing the art that people want to consume, isn't that just merit?
RANTZ: No, because whether or not someone feels comfortable speaking out in favor of their conservative values.
PHILLIP: I'm talking about putting aside their political views. Just straight up on the music, on the art, on the acting.
RANTZ: But do you think that there is closer to a 50-50 in artists who are conservative versus liberals, or do you think they're --
MILLS: No, you're missing a point. Bad Bunny wasn't chosen because of his politics. He was chosen because he's a good artist.
QUINN: He's huge.
MILLS: He may just happen to have you, you don't agree with.
RANTZ: Oh, 100 percent. No one here is going to say that.
MILLS: So, you acknowledge he's talented, right?
RANTZ: Of course he's talented. I don't think he was chosen for his politics necessarily. I do think it was chosen in the context of the political world that we're now living in.
PHILLIP: You mean, chosen for the Super Bowl specifically?
RANTZ: Yes, you're highlighting --
PHILLIP: But I'm talking about the fact that he is one of the most, if not the most popular musician on the planet.
DOWNEY: Right. PHILLIP: That was before --
RANTZ: Yes.
PHILLIP: -- he was talking about ICE, before he was talking about any other stuff.
RANTZ: Yes.
PHILLIP: Yes.
RANTZ: But they also concurrent. No, I'm sorry, he was also going after ICE. He's been after ICE for a while.
PHILLIP: This was before Donald Trump was president.
DOWNEY: Yes.
PHILLIP: Before ICE, Bad Bunny was a massive music star globally.
MILLS: Yes.
RANTZ: Yes.
PHILLIP: It has nothing to do with the ICE.
RANTZ: The reason why he got on the attention of conservatives who expressed some reservations was because of his political stances in a context in which conservative viewpoints generally not put on display.
PHILLIP: You're right that that's the reason that conservatives started paying attention to him. That is not the reason that he is a massive star.
RANTZ: Yes. No one --
PHILLIP: He is a massive star.
RANTZ: I don't know.
DOWNEY: You're right. The reason he was actually chosen is because Roger Goodell wants the NFL to go global and he wants to expand into the Latin America markets.
PHILLIP: Bingo.
DOWNEY: That's why his children (inaudible).
PHILLIP: Right.
MILLS: You're all for capitalism.
RANTZ: Now you're all coaching.
SIMMONS: I've always been. PHILLIP: All right. Ahead for us, will Trump try to replay his 2020
playbook and attempt to undermine 2026 midterms. We're going to unpack what one columnist is calling the nightmare scenario next.
[23:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY), HOUSE MINORITY LEADER: What Donald Trump wants to do is try to nationalize the election, translation, steal it, and we're not going to let it happen.
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): My fear is now he sees the political winds turning against him and he's going to try to interfere in the 2026 elections, something that a year ago I didn't think would be possible.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Prominent Democrats vowing to stop President Trump from taking control of the 2026 elections. As a new column on Vox lays out what a quote, "nightmare scenario would look like in those midterms.
[23:35:01]
Control of the House comes down to a small number of close races. Republicans lead on election day in many of these contested -- many of these contests, but their advantage steadily erodes as mail-in ballots arrive. The White House attributes these adverse trends to mass voter fraud and demands a halt to vote counting."
And if that is familiar sounding, well, it's because it has already happened on election night in 2020.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We want the law to be used in a proper manner. So, we'll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court. We want all voting to stop. We don't want them to find any ballots at 4 o'clock in the morning and add them to the list.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The only difference between then and now is that Trump seems more emboldened. He said, I should have seized the voting machines then. They're already asking for 20 -- they're suing 24 states for voter rolls. They're going into Fulton County trying to find God knows what. It seems that Trump has taken a lesson that actually, yes, I can stop it.
QUINN: Yes, I mean, he is, you know, full steam ahead. The Constitution be damned. He believes the election was stolen from him and he is going to do everything he can, it's clear, to try to have an impact on the midterms. And it's just that kind of classic Donald Trump when you don't like the results. He criticize the rule and say it was rigged, say it was a witch hunt. I think it's very important that not just Democrats, but people who
believe in the Constitution, people who believe in democracy, stand up and not let this happen. This is about voter intimidation, and it's also a reaction to what is a trend now of Democrats winning the special elections and the Republicans are afraid and they're going to try to change the rules and they're going to try to intimidate voters.
RANTZ: No, I mean, let's be clear, Democrats changed rules during COVID and they used that and there was some validity obviously to needing to update some of the laws if they wanted to have it all. You could laugh, but you know --
(CROSSTALK)
SIMMONS: But we know it's an international emergency. There's a pandemic. People were trying to show we had a democracy that existed while we were dealing with the health crisis.
RANTZ: I'm sorry. It should be completely left up to the states and this whole idea of voter ID laws suddenly about voter suppression, which is an unpopular position for the left to take.
PHILLIP: Right.
RANTZ: That's part of the issue here. So, the president is clearly taking on the SAVE Act. There's no doubt about that.
PHILLIP: Wait. I'm not following you.
RANTZ: So, laws were changed.
PHILLIP: Yes.
RANTZ: Voting procedures were changed.
PHILLIP: Voting procedures were changed.
RANTZ: He didn't follow all the rules at a state level.
PHILLIP: They were challenged and none of those challenges went anywhere else.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: OK. But sometimes you can then make changes or argue for something like the SAVE Act.
QUINN: So, you can make it --
RANTZ: What we're now saying is going to be suppression. And I will say, Democrats have updated their language a little bit on this, because previously they said, well, people can't get an I.D. So, the black people can't get an I.D. was a specific talking point that the left was pushing and it failed miserably and it still failing.
QUINN: There was a pandemic. RANTZ: Yes.
QUINN: It was an international pandemic. So --
RANTZ: And we don't currently have a pandemic.
QUINN: Right.
RANTZ: And so, the argument coming from folks on my side are saying, well, should we be doing exactly the same thing that we did during the pandemic?
MILLS: We also currently don't have a voter fraud problem.
QUINN: Correct.
MILLS: There has never been a national election that has been the outcome has been impacted by voter fraud.
RANTZ: Yes.
MILLS: Never.
RANTZ: I don't think that there is -- hold on.
MILLS: But wait, we're creating an issue so that he can fix it in a way that benefits him. That has to be done.
(CROSSTALK)
QUINN: Because he uses --
RANTZ: Democrats are --
MILLS: It has to be the only reason.
RANTZ: -- that unless they win essentially that the president is rigging this thing.
SIMMONS: No, no.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: No, that's actually what Mr. Trump is saying.
MILLS: Correct.
PHILLIP: Unless he wins the race. Because for example, mail-in ballots, Trump wants to outlaw them, even though prior to the pandemic, Republicans utilized them at a much greater rate than Democrats did. So, there's no evidence that mail-in ballots are rife with fraud. There's no evidence that that had anything to do with his loss.
So, this, yes, he's like, OK with the SAVE Act, but he wants to add to the SAVE Act a ban on mail-in ballots, which is all just about his obsession with the conspiracy that he won the 2020 election when he didn't.
DOWNEY: I think you can never go wrong with more accountability, more oversight, but we started the segment by introducing Hakeem Jeffries' fear-mongering on nationalization of elections, which Democrats tried to do in 2021 out of fear for our democracy, which is very ironic because now they're using the exact same talking point against Trump when he offhand mentioned, oh, maybe in 15 states, we should just federalize the election.
QUINN: He didn't offhand, he doubled down.
MILLS: No.
DOWNEY: OK. But first of all, there's no mechanism for that, OK, so it's not going to happen.
(CROSSTALK)
QUINN: So, it's OK for the president to (inaudible).
PHILLIP: Are you saying that it's not going to happen or that he didn't call for it?
DOWNEY: There's no mechanism for that.
PHILLIP: He did call for it.
DOWNEY: There's no mechanism for that because there's no letter.
MILLS: But he should have listened when (inaudible).
[23:39:55]
DOWNEY: OK. Listen, I just think that it's completely rich that Democrats are talking about sanctity and integrity of elections right now because as we speak, Democrats are violating Virginia state law to pass the most extreme gerrymander in the nation.
OK, they want to make Virginia a purple state into Massachusetts, a 10 to 1 count. I mean, you're telling me --
(CROSSTALK)
SIMMONS: You know how it started. Right?
DOWNEY: Oh, you're going to about Texas.
QUINN: Yes.
DOWNEY: No, but see, that's a fallacy.
SIMMONS: Don't be mad because fire got nothing to do fire.
DOWNEY: No, that's a fallacy, my friend, because Illinois was already aggressively gerrymandered before the Texas effort from Republicans. So what are you going to say about that? SIMMONS: So even if --
DOWNEY: Illinois? What you going to say about Illinois?
SIMMONS: Even if we are going to have an argument about states that you don't like doing things you don't like, the question is, who's in charge of elections? States are in charge of elections.
DOWNEY: I agree with you.
SIMMONS: And if states aren't making choices, that's fun. What we're talking about, the question now is what about the president of United States is going to send the FBI into voting places, is to send the military into voting places, is going to station ICE agents outside of voting places?
DOWNEY: Yes.
SIMMONS: Is going to turn people from coming.
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: You understand my point though. You understand my point though. Like, I don't think you guys have any credibility on this.
SIMMONS: Forget about our credibility.
DOWNEY: No.
SIMMONS: The question is whether or not the president of the United States is going to use the federal law enforcement mechanism to go and stop voting.
(CROSSTALK)
MILLS: You're right. It didn't happen in 2021, and it shouldn't happen now.
DOWNEY: Yes.
MILLS: What we should do is let's be positive, make this a broader issue. Let's make it a national holiday. Bring people out, bus people there. We want everybody to participate in our election system. Let's make it easier, not harder, and create issues when there is no issue there. We don't have a voter fraud problem.
PHILLIP: I just want to be clear that the legislation that you're talking about, the Democrats proposed, did not try to nationalize elections. That's actually not what it did. It was trying to put in place some things that you probably disagree with. Standards about how elections ought to be run, so on and so forth.
That's totally different from what the president is and has said. And if you've forgotten what he said, I'm going to play it. This is what he said last week on the Dan Bongino show about what he wants to see.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: These people were brought to our country to vote, and they vote illegally. And the, you know, amazing that the Republicans aren't tougher on it. The Republicans should say, we want to take over. We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many 15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And he went on to say that the states are agents of the federal government, that federal officers should count the votes. Maybe the argument is, well, he's just saying stuff, but he also is the president of the United States. And if the conservative principle is that states run elections, that should be this -- that should be the standard from the president.
RANTZ: Yes. He's the (inaudible) some guardrails. He's clearly speaking about distrust based on a lot of comments that have been made by Democrats who said they don't want this guy as president. They would do anything in their power to stop him.
PHILLIP: Where did you get that? Where did you get that from what he just said? Because he didn't say anything about those things.
RANTZ: What I got is he's talking specifically about states in which he does not trust the process. He was obviously also talking more grant.
PHILLIP: Yes.
RANTZ: I agree with you that it was a sloppy statement.
PHILLIP: No, but I'm just saying.
RANTZ: I don't agree with that. But I do think (inaudible).
PHILLIP: You know, it's like, I'm hearing you and then I hear Trump and it sounds like you're talking two completely different languages.
RANTZ: No, of course not.
PHILLIP: He's saying these people were brought in our country to vote and they vote illegally. That's false.
QUINN: Right. There's no evidence of that.
RANTZ: There was just a charge and conviction in Massachusetts of someone who's in this country illegally who then voted.
MILLS: Did you say HR?
PHILLIP: HR.
RANTZ: Hold on, hold on. We can't simultaneously say that nothing ever, ever happened.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: OK. That's not what I said. I said that Trump said. Hold on a second. Jason, here's what I said. Trump said these people were brought in our country to vote. True or false?
RANTZ: False.
PHILLIP: OK. And they vote illegally. True or false?
RANTZ: Some are true.
PHILLIP: So, they --
RANTZ: Some do vote illegally. Look, let me say --
PHILLIP: How many people are we talking about here, Jason?
RANTZ: I don't know.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It's either people who are -- it's either happening or at such a great rate that it's influencing elections or it's not. And by every measure, conservatives have looked at it, independent groups have looked at it, states have audited their voter rolls. It is not happening.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: The states accused --
PHILLIP: It is not even enough to put a percentage point next to it.
RANTZ: We just had in Oregon.
PHILLIP: It is so rare.
RANTZ: Oregon state, because of the way that they handle their elections, you're automatically registered. And we found out that a lot of people who were not eligible to vote were automatically registered. It's very difficult, I think, given the certain circumstances of secretaries of state refusing to turn over voter rolls for actual audits, independent audits not done by the office that they are directly implicated by or implicated with to do the work.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Why they --
RANTZ: I don't believe --
PHILLIP: But in a federalized state system, why do they have to do that? If states are supposed to run their own elections, why do they have to hand anything over to the federal government?
QUINN: Right.
RANTZ: Because I think they're administering elections on behalf of the federal government.
PHILLIP: Yes.
RANTZ: There are obviously some -- there are some.
[23:45:00]
SIMMONS: No, no, no. On behalf of the federal government.
PHILLIP: I mean, no.
SIMMONS: They are administered elections.
PHILLIP: They are administered for the elections.
SIMMONS: This is actually a really important point to make about the president got this wrong. About the states being agents of the federal government. No, the states are sovereign for the most part, right? And so the states are able to have to create elections for their citizens to express their will.
The president of United States works for the people who vote for him. It's not the other way around.
RANTZ: I'm sorry, but your argument is that they can run federal elections however they want. No rules whatsoever except for what's happening.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right.
SIMMONS: You can pass laws about this. What you cannot do is send the FBI into federal voting locations to grab ballots in order to try to make those ballots impure. And when those ballots become impure, it means we can't have a chain of custody to know exactly who voted and what the final count We've got to go.
RANTZ: And the federal --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We got to go. I mean, just to clear things up, the federal government can set rules, but they do have to pass laws. The president can't dictate it. The DOJ can't just do it on its own. They got to pass laws.
RANTZ: They're trying to say that.
PHILLIP: Well, we'll see if they're able to get it done. All right, next for us. Are you racist if you post a racist message? Well, two senators rallied to Trump's defense and they say no. That's after the firestorm caused by the president's post with a video of the Obamas depicted as apes. That's next.
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, more backlash after President Donald Trump posted and deleted a racist, dehumanizing video of former President Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes. Despite rare blowback from Republican lawmakers, some Trump allies are standing by the president.
Senator Lindsey Graham telling CNN, I don't think he's a racist. And Senator John Kennedy thinks the social media post was racist, but there's a caveat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): The president said a staffer did it, and I believe it. But no fair-minded person can look at that, what do you call it, a meme, whatever you call it. No fair-minded person in America today can look at that and not perceive it as racist.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, is it racist if it's a racist meme?
SIMMONS: Yes, it's racist. It also because the president of the United States, this president of the United States, has a history of using race as a way to build his political base. And we talked about this a little bit last week. There are so many people in this country who feel disconnected because of the culture changing, the demographic changing.
We just had an entire conversation about the Super Bowl. This is all the president -- this is the president digging into this sort of fear to try to animate people for his political movement. And that's what I think he's -- but what he's missing is so many Americans live next door to people who are different, their kids play sports with people who are different.
They've made peace with the fact that America is going to be diverse. He's the one who's holding on to something that I think most Americans realize is changing.
RANTZ: He deleted it and he called it out and that's unlike some of the other --
QUINN: How did he call it out?
RANTZ: He was asked directly about whether or not it was inappropriate to post. He asked that, he was asked that question on Air Force One last week and he said absolutely. It almost got no news coverage whatsoever but he very clearly did.
DOWNEY: But he's right.
QUINN: And he talked about it was the lion king. PHILLIP: So, I mean, the chain of events, Jason is right, that
eventually, I think it was actually --
RANTZ: It was after --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I know. Right. It was, I think yesterday that he said it, that he said he condemned it. The day that it happened though, the White House released a statement saying that it was faux outrage and they said, they did nothing about it. They left it up for 12 hours until the backlash became so great that they were forced to take it down. So, you can't omit that part of it.
RANTZ: Can you remember the last time he's taken something down because of outrage?
PHILLIP: I mean, I don't think that's (inaudible). I mean, I guess the issue is that -- hold on. I don't think it's a virtue that Trump -- I don't think it's a virtue. And what he did was so egregious that even his own members of his party, Tim Scott and others, came out and said it was racist and it should come down. And you know what? Even when Tim Scott did that, it did not immediately come out.
QUINN: No.
PHILLIP: It took many hours for to come down after that.
RANTZ: No, because I think what they're trying to do --
PHILLIP: So, why?
RANTZ: Here's why. Because I think the initial reaction which I do understand. Number one, because it wasn't intentional, and it clearly wasn't intentional.
PHILLIP: How do you know it wasn't intentional?
RANTZ: Because you can look at the video and it clearly played the whole thing and what happened towards the end there.
MILLS: So, the president is not responsible for everything he posts? The president isn't responsible for a full video that he posts? Are you saying that?
RANTZ: Well, he's not a child. He's the president.
MILLS: No.
RANTZ: He did not post the full video that you're talking about. The video itself that you're talking about was in fact racist. There's no doubt about that. And the president, I agree with you on that.
MILLS: Yes. And the president he has a history of that. He doesn't get a pass.
RANTZ: But I don't think the president actually posted that one.
MILLS: He doesn't get a pass.
(CROSSTALK)
QUINN: And it was posted under his name.
DOWNEY: I think to your point, what is much more likely and this is a criticism of President Trump, is that he's a boomer who I think haphazardly did not watch till the end of the video and he posted it without even thinking. He now bears the consequences of that and people are assigning racial animus to him that I don't think he has.
MILLS: We're not assigning it.
SIMMONS: The president throws out fairy tales and people latch on to the fairy tales that keep him having to deal with the uncomfortable truth of what the president is doing.
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: I just don't like it all. I just don't see him doing this in a charged manner.
MILLS: So, do you disagree that the president has a history of racism?
[23:54:59]
DOWNEY: I definitely don't think he has the history of racism that you think he does.
MILLS: Well, I think I would know the history of racism because that's how he would make me feel --
DOWNEY: OK.
MILLS: -- when he talks about throwing black men in jail. When he talks about not listing or giving apartments to black men, that's how it make me feel. This is the United States of America. There's no hierarchy here of white men should be treated this way and everybody else should be treated some other way.
That's how he views the world and how he approaches things. We don't have to accept that. And if he puts out a video, the meaning black men or black women like he did with that video of the Obamas looking like apes. We have the right to feel a certain way.
DOWNEY: Of course you do.
MILLS: And nobody, whether it's Lindsey Graham or anybody else, can take that away from us.
DOWNEY: I just don't think it was as motivated as you think it was.
PHILLIP: OK. We got to go. Thank you very much. Thank you for watching Newsnight. You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media, X, Instagram, and TikTok.
The story is with Elex Michaelson is coming up next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[24:00:00]
