Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Retreats, Pulls ICE from Minneapolis After Deadly Chaos; Another DHS Account of an Incident is Proven False by Evidence; Judge Blocks Hegseth from Punishing Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) Over Illegal Orders Vid. Democrats Argue on Practicality of Voter ID Requirements; Jane Fonda Tries To Understand Trump Mentality. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired February 12, 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, the feds back down on ICE in American cities --
TOM HOMAN, BORDER CZAR: President Trump has concurred that this surge operation concludes.
PHILLIP: -- as the president's poll numbers crash.
Plus, a Republican senator warns Trump officials they will be prosecuted in the future after a judge blocks Pete Hegseht from punishing Mark Kelly.
Also, in the fight to control America's elections --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We're trying to save America and it has to do with largely voting.
PHILLIP: -- what both sides are getting right and wrong about voter I.D.
And for liberals coping with MAGA sequel, Jane Fonda says she talks to Trump while lying in bed.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You can hate the behavior but you have to see through it to the traumatized person and not hate them.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Bakari Sellers, Joe Borelli, Tiffany Cross, Lydia Moynihan and Judge Glenda Hatchett.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening, I'm Abby Philip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, Donald Trump retreats. After thousands of arrests, months of clashes between federal agents and protesters and the deaths of Alex Pretti and Rene Good, immigration operations in Minneapolis are now coming to an end. That's according to Border Czar Tom Homan.
But also tonight as the administration chastises people who question their actions or accounts of those actions, there are three new instances showing that there's good reason to. First, in Chicago, you might remember border agents shot a woman multiple times, claiming she rammed them with her car. It turns out that wasn't true. Body camera footage proved otherwise, including one agent saying, quote, do something, bitch. That case was closed and the charges against her were dropped.
Now, second, you'll remember this one as well. The feds claimed that an agent shot a man in Minneapolis last month after he was attacked with a shovel during an attempted arrest. Now, the incident even sparked Trump to threaten the Insurrection Act against Minneapolis, along with his officials and allies repeating the account chapter and verse.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTI NOEM, DHS SECRETARY: What we saw was three individuals weaponize shovels and brooms and attack an ice officer that had to defend himself.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Two other Venezuelan nationals ran out of a house and attacked him with brooms, handles and shovels, which are deadly weapons. He had to discharge his weapon. Three illegal aliens trying to kill an ICE agent in the street, and we're worried about interactions like this? This is outrageous.
NOEM: Our agent is beat up. He's bruised. He's injured, he's getting treatment, and we're thankful that he made it out alive.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Well, it turns out, apparently, all of that wasn't true either. Tonight, court documents show the DOJ dropping the case against the man who was shot. While the details are vague on how their story fell apart, the government itself says that the evidence doesn't match the accounts of that incident.
And, third, you might remember, the administration jumped to call Alex Pretti a domestic terrorist, only to be refuted by the facts, and now today their own Border Patrol.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NOEM: This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.
This individual who came with weapons and ammunition to stop a law enforcement operation of federal law enforcement officers committed an act of domestic terrorism. That's the facts.
We were being relayed information from on the ground from CBP agents and officers that were there. We were using the best information we had at the time.
SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): Commissioner Scott and Acting Lyons, did you provide Secretary Noem with an assessment of what Mr. Pretti was engaged in and that he was engaged in domestic terrorism?
Are you the ones that told her that?
SCOTT: No, sir.
TODD LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR, IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT: No, sir.
PETERS: Did someone in your staff tell her that?
RODNEY SCOTT, U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION COMMISSIONER: Not to my knowledge, sir. No, sir.
PETERS: So, why would Secretary Noem, why would she tell the public that this was an act of domestic terrorism?
SCOTT: I can't speculate on what someone else would say or why, sir.
PETERS: Mr. Lyons?
LYONS: Sir, I can't speculate to what the secretary thought at that time, sir.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:05:02]
PHILLIP: So, it's no wonder why Homeland Security has lost credibility and Trump has lost the country on his crackdown. 60 percent say that he's gone too far on immigration and only 38 percent approve of his immigration policies. That's down from 49 percent a year ago when he first came into office.
That incident in Chicago where the woman was shot, I believe it was five times by Border Patrol agents at almost point blank range, her lawyer made the point that had she not lived, had she not survived that attack, we might never have known what really transpired there because the account from DHS was so divergent from what the video very clearly shows, which is the agent swerving into her.
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, I think what you're seeing right now is there are a lot of people who go into interactions with law enforcement from a legal perspective, and Judge Hatchett would know better than I, but it's more of a trust but verify type of ideal. Anything that they tell you, you're like we love law enforcement, but let's pause. Let's actually see the video. Let's actually get witness statements. But in these cases, to your point, the majority of the time, the best witness is dead. So, when you're dealing with officer-involved shootings, the best witness, the person who was actually targeted by law enforcement has died. In this case, we're lucky enough to be able to identify and hear her statement.
ICE has a fundamental problem. Kristi Noem is awful at her job. She needs to be impeached and/or fired by Donald Trump. I mean, you see his ratings and the poll numbers dropping, sinking on immigration, but you also see immigration agents acting and running amok. Over the past few years, you've had nearly two dozen ICE and Border Patrol agents that have been arrested and convicted for charges ranging from physical violence all the way through sexual battery, and no one's saying anything about these ICE agents that are just patrolling our streets and committing everything, from murder to everything else.
We need immigration reform. We need immigration agents, but do we need ICE doing what they're doing now? The answer's hell no.
PHILLIP: Joe?
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Look, I mean, you know, you phrased this as a retreat from Minnesota. I would say it's not a retreat. I would say it's a successful mission that is now over. I mean, there were 4,000 --
TIFFANY CROSS, AUTHOR, LOVE, ME: It's not successful.
BORELLI: There were 4,000 arrests of individuals. Many of them had ICE detainers. And I think they -- more importantly of the big picture, the policy, they've reestablished that despite sanctuary city jurisdictions who refuse to comply with ICE detainers, they've reasserted themselves as saying, hey, whether you arrest someone and release them or not, we are still going to enforce federal immigration law in Minnesota and Chicago and where else.
JUDGE GLENDA HATCHETT, HOST, THE VERDICT WITH JUDGE HATCHETT: And how do you say that's successful? How do you say that the mission in Minnesota and Chicago, in places around this country --
BORELLI: 4,000 people were arrested. I find that successful.
HATCHETT: Do you find it successful that people who have no criminal records, who actually have been detained, who are actual citizens? Because the U.S. Supreme Court has given them authority based on the color of your skin, which means my skin, my -- your accent, where you're working to be detained? That is not successful, nor is it in compliance with what this country says.
BORELLI: With all due respect --
HATCHETT: You can pick and choose with respect between --
BORELLI: We had a situation where Minnesota, like many sanctuary cities, refused to comply with the most simple solution to this problem. When someone is arrested, when they have an ICE detainer, they should not be released to the public. They should be handed over to ICE for deportation. That was the goal of this mission. The mission resulted in 4,000 people result in the arrest.
PHILLIP: I haven't seen any evidence of that.
HATCHETT: No.
BORELLI: The evidence that we don't need to waste (ph) the detainer.
PHILLIP: I haven't seen any evidence that what you just said is -- has actually changed. And, in fact, here's Mayor Jacob Frey talking about what he says came out of this operation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MAYOR JACOB FREY (D-MINNEAPOLIS, MN): I had two productive, if not three productive meetings with the border czar, Tom Homan. You know, obviously, there's progress in that they are leaving right now, but as far as some deal that was struck to get them out, the answer is no. I think what you saw is you saw a federal government and administration that thought that they were going to break the people of Minneapolis down. They thought that we were going to back down and sort of kowtow to whatever it is that they were looking to get done, not just locally in Minneapolis, but nationwide. They were looking to implement a national agenda based on coercing us to change local policy. And here's the thing, we didn't.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BORELLI: Well, what Mayor Frey is saying is that we don't want the people in Minnesota to kowtow to what the federal government is doing.
PHILLIP: Well, what he said was literally --
BORELLI: The federal government is doing -- they are enforcing the law.
PHILLIP: What he said was, literally, they were looking to implement a national agenda based on coercing us to change local policy, and we didn't. And I'm asking the question, what evidence is there that policy actually changed? Because, as we've discussed at this table before, Minnesota is not universally non-compliant with ICE detainers.
[22:10:04]
They do often transfer people from prison to ICE custody. In fact, some of the 4,000 people you're referencing, they were transferred directly from custody into the hands of ICE.
BORELLI: What I said before --
PHILLIP: So, that's the first thing.
BORELLI: What I said before was not that they've declined --
PHILLIP: The second thing is if the issue is what's going on with Hennepin County, where is the evidence that the policy with the county jail has changed? I haven't seen any evidence.
BORELLI: I said the federal government is going to enforce those detainers and arrest the people they want to without the cooperation of Hennepin County.
PHILLIP: But you can't enforce a detainer. A detainer is --
BORELLI: Well, rather than enforce the arrest of the person you want to arrest.
PHILLIP: The detainer is supposed to be --
BORELLI: Correct, yes, point stipulated. My point is --
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: If they have a lawful deportation order, they're going to enforce the law.
PHILLIP: That has always been the case.
CROSS: And more importantly, what you're calling this -- they shot a mother in the face and a nurse in the back, and you're calling that a success. So, at best, this is a (INAUDIBLE) performance for Donald Trump, or at worse, it is a gross lack of humanity for fellow human beings.
It is disgusting, honestly, that I wonder sometimes when I see something happens and I wonder how could we possibly have a debate about this? How could there be another side to what we're seeing? You're bragging that they arrested 4,000 people. So, what? If the goal is just numbers, then you can just do snatch and grabs at random.
We don't know how many of those 4,000 people are guilty of anything. DHS hasn't even released data on that. That is a scary thing. They have terrorized this community. They cost local municipalities millions of dollars, up to 20 to 40 percent of children were not going to school because they were so terrorized.
So, the alleged pro-life party that's so concerned about children, the alleged pro-law enforcement party that celebrates J6ers getting pardoned and ICE agents shooting moms in the face and nurses in the back, and you call that a success, it is a disrespect to the people out there watching.
And so I don't know anything about you. I've never been curious enough to Google, but I have to imagine you are a human being with family. You don't want somebody living like that. You don't want somebody being arrested or murdered by the state. And for all the people who have endured that for decades, it is a disgrace and disrespect to call that a success.
BORELLI: The immigration laws have not changed in the last 10 years, in the last 20 years.
CROSS: How was it a success that they shot a nurse in the back and a mother in the face?
BORELLI: No one is saying -- you are putting words in my mouth.
CROSS: You said this was a success.
BORELLI: Stop putting words in my mouth. I said the operation was a success.
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: They reestablished the fact that Immigration and Customs Enforcement can enforce immigration law. They reestablished that fact. That happened.
It is unfortunate, it's a tragedy, there's an investigation going on --
(CROSSTALKS)
CROSS: Tell her that her son getting murdered by the state was a success. Look yourself in the mirror tonight and tell yourself it was a success.
BORELLI: When the hell did I say someone getting shot in a police operation --
CROSS: At the beginning of the show.
PHILLIP: Hold on. Hold on. I think we can -- I mean, I think she's raising an important question. How do you characterize the operation as a success if one of the byproducts of that operation is two American citizens were killed in the streets? I think a lot of Americans are asking that question.
And it's one of the reasons why we're seeing that polling slide that we talked about early on. This used to be a strong issue for the president. It is not anymore, and it's largely because of what Americans are seeing in the streets.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: Well, look, Tom Homan was set into deescalate and obviously in a not shocking turn of events. Minneapolis officials, Jacob Frey, are saying one thing about what's happening and Tom Homan is saying that they do have some sort of retainer and or detainer, rather, with these county jails.
But I would say as for the poll numbers, which you pointed to, I think a lot of that has to do with what the media chooses to focus on. And one thing that Tom Homan highlighted today is that in Minnesota, they have found 300,364 children that the Biden administration lost. And instead, 93 percent of the media coverage has been negative on ICE, according to the Media Research Center.
PHILLIP: I know Tom Homan has been big on this lost children thing, but the idea that these children were lost or missing has never been true. There -- some of them were released into the custody of relatives or other caretakers, which is part of the process over many years.
MOYNIHAN: They often were released to adults who weren't verified.
PHILLIP: Listen, I'm not -- all I'm saying is that his characterization of them has being lost has never been accurate. And it wasn't accurate when he started saying it a year ago. It's still not accurate today. There are a lot of different reasons why those children were released into the custody of adults in the interior of the United States. That is not the same thing as those children being lost.
But to your point on the depictions of what's happening, I don't know that you can blame the media, but even if you wanted to blame the media, what has also been happening is that Americans have been recording their interaction.
HATCHETT: That's very important.
PHILLIP: And that act has actually put regular people who are not immigrants in the crosshairs of this whole thing.
[22:15:02]
SELLERS: But let's also -- let's be very clear about that. I mean, you brought up a point about children and I think one of the things that people saw about children is children being displaced from their homes. We saw children being placed in different detention centers throughout the country. We saw children being sent to cities where they're not from with their parents, and a lot of people found that to be inhumane. I think you're right. I think much like the Edmund Pettus Bridge, when people are able to see brutality, their minds change, whether or not it's civil rights or whether or not it's immigration.
But I do want everybody around the table to be extremely honest now. It wasn't with Keith Porter in L.A., it wasn't with Renee Good when she was killed, but when a straight white male who's a CWP owner was killed and gunned down and shot ten times, then the country moved. And I think that there is something to be said about that because it wasn't when these other bodies were gunned down, these other people were shot, these other people were shot in the face or the nurse on the way shot to work, but this is what happens when things charge to change. And we're starting to see that ice break around Donald Trump because people are saying this can come to my doorstep, ICE is getting out of control.
PHILLIP: Judge, you wanted the last word?
HATCHETT: And I was going to say that, also, historically, we've seen that happen.
SELLERS: Yes.
HATCHETT: It is really when we get to that tipping point. That's where we are in this nation now. We're at a tipping point. And it is hypocrisy. It is -- you have to not be hypocritical about picking and choosing when you are going to be outraged. SELLERS: Correct.
HATCHETT: And that there has to be -- if this democracy is going to survive, then we have to be very clear about the constitutional principles that ought to apply to people across the board. And that is not what we're seeing in this country right now.
PHILLIP: All right.
Next for us, a judge blocks Pete Hegseth from punishing Mark Kelly over that illegal orders video. And a Republican senator is now warning Trump officials, what goes around will come around in three years.
Plus, it's perhaps the biggest political fight of the year. Should you have to show an I.D. and proof of citizenship to vote? We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: The Trump administration's attempt to criminalize rhetoric just failed after a federal judge told Pete Hegseth that he can't punish Senator Mark Kelly over a video urging U.S. troops to defy illegal orders. Hegseth had sought to reduce Kelly's military rank and dock his retirement pay. But the judge called Hegseth's actions obviously unlawful retaliation, and wrote in his ruling, quote, as Bob Dylan famously said, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. Hegseth is now vowing to appeal that ruling.
But Republican Senator Thom Tillis is warning him, what goes around comes around. He says, this will come back to haunt the defense secretary once this White House is out of office.
And, Judge, is this the right decision from that judge who made this --
HATCHETT: Absolutely the right decision. And let's remember too that this is a Bush appointee. And so I am really pleased to see the independence of the judiciary. This is absolutely the right decision in this case.
Now, they vowed to appeal, and so this is not going to be over and we're going to see this over and over and over again. But the senator had, and his -- the other people, the five people, six people in all, had the right to say exactly what they said on that video. And what they were saying is that you do not have to obey illegal orders. And there is nothing wrong with having said that. It is not a problem. And the judge did exactly the right thing in that case, and I'm very pleased to see that.
PHILLIP: I think it's probably -- look I think it's fair to have a view that they shouldn't have done it, it was imprudent, it was unnecessary, all that is fine, but I find it fascinating that the Trump administration is expending all of this energy over this issue. They tried to indict the lawmakers and failed, which is -- I mean, it's like a needle in a haystack, it's so rare, and now this. Should they just drop this issue?
MOYNIHAN: I don't think that this is a wise use of political capital, but I do have to say in your introduction, you talked about criminalizing rhetoric, and I think a lot of Republicans feel triggered because that was essentially the case that Jack Smith had against Trump was going after him because Trump said that it wasn't a fair election.
So, I do think that Republicans are very sensitive about this. But, look, I think we should end -- I think we should end the lawfare. I think Thom Tillis is right. Certainly, Democrats started it under Biden. They put Navarro in jail. But I would like to see the Trump administration --
SELLERS: Okay. So --
HATCHETT: You can't compare the two. You can't compare the two.
SELLERS: Jack Smiths' case was about the simple fact, but not only that, but you have phone calls in places like Georgia where he would say, where he would try to influence people, pressure people, and he say, go find 11,000 votes or whatever it is. Jack Smith's case was about the fact he had classified documents in his bathroom. So, Jack Smith's case was a little bit more robust. It falls out of this.
What would be more in line is if --
HATCHETT: A lot more robust.
SELLERS: But what would be more in line with this is if Secretary Lloyd Austin, for example, tried to indict Tom Cotton. That is more analogous to what we're talking about and the absurdity of it. Because what I like to do with my Republican friends is I like to say, well, what if Barack Obama, right? And people are just outraged. Like what if somebody else tries to do the things -- and to be a party that are such free speech absolutionist, to go out of your way -- I mean, we've heard that all the time, the words, lawfare and free speech and the First Amendment, but then to try to prosecute that continuously.
[22:25:01]
Donald Trump is not necessarily the -- it's not analogous to what we're talking about in any way, shape, form, or fashion, but this in itself, I think, should offend their common notions of what it means to be a Republican. But I guess what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.
CROSS: Well, we should remind the audience that Pete Hegseth himself said this exact same thing in 2016. The video is up on CNN's website and YouTube.
PHILLIP: We can play it.
CROSS: Let's take a listen and remind the audience. I love it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: I do think there have to be consequences for abject war crimes. If you're doing something that is just completely unlawful and ruthless, then there is a consequence for that. That's why the military said it won't follow unlawful orders from their commander-in-chief. There's a standard. There's an ethos. There's a belief that we are above what so many things that our enemies or others would do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: That may very well be why Thom Tillis is warning that this could come back and bite him. Because, I mean, if you can indict Mark Kelly, or try to demote him over his comments, why wouldn't you demote or indict Pete Hegseth?
BORELLI: Look, let me just say this about Thom Tillis. I don't think he's wrong, but the counterpoint is that, does anyone think that the Democratic Party is not going to seek prosecutions against Trump officials after they're out of office?
SELLERS: I hope they do.
BORELLI: That's exactly -- that's my point.
CROSS: Absolutely.
BORELLI: So, my point to Bakari is like he is justifying exactly what Thom Tillis is saying, that the Democratic Party, just like they did last time, just like Tish James did when she ran for office, saying, I'm going to get Donald Trump, I'm going to use the power of my office to get Donald Trump, we are going to see, no matter, what a number of Democratic prosecutions against Trump officials.
Now, Judge, you said before you were very happy with the judge, the judicial system, how the judge, you know, weighed the right way. This was a Bush appointee. Do you also agree that a non-Trump appointee in Georgia just gave the federal government the ability to seize 700 boxes of the votes?
SELLERS: It was a magistrate.
HATCHETT: It was a magistrate -- first of all, it was a magistrate. And, no, I --
BORELLI: So, a big difference, right?
SELLERS: Yes.
HATCHETT: Yes, there is a big difference.
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: The judicial system works --
SELLERS: No, but it's just --
(CROSSTALKS)
BORELLI: (INAUDIBLE) it's not the way you want, it's different. We have to say it's different, right?
HATCHETT: Well, no. But the two aren't.
BORELLI: I could say I respect both of them. I can say I respect the judge because I kind of agree with what they did here with Mark Kelly. Can you just say that the judicial system probably acted in the way it's supposed to when a judge, not appointed by Donald Trump, but waived the evidence and gave a warrant to see the documents?
HATCHETT: No, that's a different situation.
PHILLIP: Let's let the judge answer and then we will --
HATCHETT: But also I will tell you that there are different cases that come up, and I don't think that every decision has been a good decision, this situation. I think there have been some U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have not been correct decisions. And so for you to parcel out those two and try to compare them, no, we can't do that.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, a big question facing us right now, should you need an I.D. or proof of citizenship to vote? The president is ramping up his fight to control elections in what's becoming the biggest political debate ahead of the midterms. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight in Donald Trump's quest to overhaul American elections, the President says he sees a path forward in a vote that fell largely on party lines. This week, House Republicans and one Democrat passed the SAVE America Act, which would impose strict vote new voter identification rules, including documentary proof of citizenship in person for voter registration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's the Save America Act and the Democrats are against it. I heard one of them say, we will stop the SAVE America Act. No, we're trying to save America. And it has to do with largely voting. And basically it's got three very simple points. It's got voter ID, photo ID, but voter ID with a photo, right? It's got the confirmation of U.S. citizenship. And then you have no mail-in ballots. And there will be no mail-in ballots, very important. That will assure the security of our crooked elections. We have crooked elections.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And just to be clear, the SAVE Act does not include a ban on mail-in ballots despite what the President just said there in that clip. But the other part of it has been more controversial. It's not just a voter ID bill or a law that they would like to pass. It's also something that would require you to show up in person with some proof of your citizenship.
And no, your real ID wouldn't count. No, you could not just show up with your driver's license. You would have to bring your passport or your birth certificate. So, that's what's made this controversial and I think it's a real question, a debate to have in this country about whether that is even necessary, Joe.
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Yes, it's great to have a debate, but we have to remember that 80 percent of the people have a general understanding about what voter ID is. They have an understanding that, you know, voter ID at some form is in about 25 states. I personally am sick of sort of the circles that we always run where Republicans are saying, you know, this many cases of voter fraud have happened.
Democrats will say, well, that's not indicative of massive of, you know, massive voter fraud. I want to hear where in those 23 or 24, 25 states that have voter ID laws in place already where people are required to show an ID, where is the massive studies of people being disenfranchised?
[22:35:07]
In fact, it's the opposite that's true. You remember, I think it was 2021, the MLB All-Star game pulled out of Georgia because Georgia was implementing voter ID and it was going to disenfranchise voters. The number of gubernatorial voters went from the year before 1.1 million to 1.9.
Bakari, your state, I looked it up. South Carolina, I know they're a voter ID state. They went from 56 percent voters turnout in the presidential year in 2012 to 61 percent in 2020 and then like 65 percent in 2024. Those are more people voting in states that have passed voter ID laws. So, this is why I think the majority of Americans reasonably can look at it and say, this is a good thing.
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You just wasted about three minutes and we're not talking about voter ID.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: The fundamental thing of the Save Act is requiring proof of you are.
SELLERS: That's two different things. So, voter ID means that you have to have a driver's license or you know the real ID
BORELLI: Understood. Yes.
SELLERS: -- that doesn't count under the SAVE Act. So, the SAVE Act, just want to tell you so the viewers understand, means that you have proof of citizenship. You also can't do those things online. So, 42 states out of the 50, since we're quoting numbers of states, their entire online voter registration systems are going to be tossed out the window. It's going to cost states like South Carolina money. The other thing is that 52 percent of Americans that are registered to
vote right now literally do not have access to an unexpired passport. That's important. Eleven percent of registered voters right now don't have access to proof of citizenship, that's important.
Now, we're just talking about people, black, white, and otherwise, poor folk, whatever, in that number. If you want to talk about the discriminatory effect, we're talking about poor people who don't have access to those things to be able to get to the DMV, to be able to get to places where you can get a passport.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, "NEW YORK POST" CORRESPONDENT: Okay. Our government expects a lot of us. Every single year, every single person is expected to file their taxes, something that is very complicated. You don't have to --
SELLERS: You can do it online.
MOYNIHAN: During COVID --
SELLERS: But you can do it online.
MOYNIHAN: -- people had to go and get a vaccine in person. I went twice. I had to carry my little card around --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: What does that have to do with voting?
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: -- I had to carry my little card around going to a restaurant --
UNKNOWN: We're way off track on this.
BORELLI: No, we're not.
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: The government expects a lot of things of people for talking.
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: Why can't we expect -- why can't we expect something far less onerous, proving that you are --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: But let me just -- can I just explain to you the difference? Can I tell you difference? Can I tell you the difference? Can I just explain to you the fundamental difference?
UNKNOWN: Yes, please, please.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: But the difference is you listed a lot of things -- you listed a lot of things in this country that are privileges. We're not talking about privileges. Voting is a constitutional right.
MOYNIHAN: Taxes are a privilege?
SELLERS: Yes, voting is a constitutional right. Tell me the enumeration -- in the enumeration of the constitution where it says you must pay this XYZ. We're not even talking about that. You're talking about restaurants. You're talking about vaccinations. You're talking about all these things. You're talking about driving. No, we're talking about the right to vote.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: The security is actually much less stringent and much more safe THAN VOTING.
PHILLIP: Can I ask you a question?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Let me ask you a question.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: Hold on, Abby. Hold on. I'm going to say that. Can someone vote by affidavit?
PHILLIP: Joe --
BORELLI: They can.
PHILLIP: Hang on a second. Joe --
BORELLI: So, even if you don't have their voter ID, you can still vote by affidavit --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- let me ask you a question. Why can't we ask the government to do what they have the ability to do, which is to verify people's citizenship? Why is the onerous on the person and not the government who is the keeper of the records?
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: If you have to show some proof and then the government can match it against the database, I'm fine with that. I don't have a problem with that.
PHILLIP: That's exactly how the system works right now.
BORELLI: Abby -- PHILLIP: Right now -- hold on.
BORELLI: Yes.
PHILLIP: Right now in the United States of America, this has been true for 25 years. You -- when you're applying for a voter -- to register to vote, you have to produce either an ID or a social security number. The government is then --
BORELLI: Not in the state. Not in the state. Not in New York.
PHILLIP: The government -- that's a federal law. That's a federal law. Every state, okay? When you are registering to vote --
BORELLI: You don't need an ID here. You can give any sort of -- you can -- any number.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Did you hear what I said?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Listen, Joe. Listen, Joe. I mean when you are registering to vote -- I'm saying, when you're registering to vote for the first time, you have to supply either an ID, or a social security number. The government is the keeper of the records of who is eligible to vote and who is not. Who is a citizen and who is not. They then keep a database, that's also part of the law, and they check against the database.
I also think we should just keep in mind here, the Trump administration has already asked for voter records from a bunch of states. They got 50 million voter records. These are largely Republican states where they've got voter ID. They looked at the records and guess what they found? They found almost no actual evidence of fraud.
However, even in their -- even if you -- let's just take what they did find, out of 50 million records, they found 10,000 that raised flags. So, even in the states where there's voter ID, they're still finding flags, not proof of fraud. But it's also when they look even deeper, a lot of times these are false flags. These are people who actually are registered properly to vote that the system is flagging.
[22:40:02]
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: Abby, don't say that.
PHILLIP: So, the Trump administration has had a whole year to look at this. They've looked, 50 million records, they found virtually nothing, 0.02 percent of something that is anomalous, not even fraud.
BORELLI: But just answer one question. If someone doesn't have an ID under the SAVE Act, are they permitted to vote affidavit? Via an affidavit? Are they permitted to vote? Can they vote?
PHILLIP: But Joe --
BORELLI: The answer is yes. This is so overblown. If someone cannot produce the ID, they can go to their website and vote affidavit.
(CROSSTALK)
TIFFANY CROSS, AUTHOR, "LOVE ME": It is not overblown. Okay, I -- Joe, respectfully, I don't even think you have the command of the issue.
BORELLI: I'm pretty sure I do.
CROSS: You're talking about voter ID and we're talking about the SAVE Act specifically.
BORELLI: If you don't have the qualification to vote under the SAVE you can vote via affidavit.
CROSS: We've heard lot from you, so let me just try to weigh in.
BORELLI: Okay, sure, yes. Go ahead.
CROSS: Less than half of the American people have what it would take to comply with --
BORELLI: That's the problem. You got it figured out. Yes.
CROSS: That is a huge problem, exactly. So, when you think about married women, like we were talking about during the break, they changed their last name when they married --
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: Let me finish. Let me have the professional -- now we're talking about trans. This is ridiculous. Let me have the professional courtesy to finish my point.
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: Yes, please. Thank you. Anyway, this is a problem that is in search -- or a solution that's in search of a problem. There is not some outpouring of undocumented immigrants trying to vote. And that's what this is all about. If more than half of your people do not have the documents to support this act, it is clearly an intimidation tactic.
We heard from Donald Trump talking about nationalizing elections. We've heard from Steve Bannon, who went to prison, Trump's advisor, saying they're going to have ICE patrols at election points. All of this is meant to limit the amount of people to vote.
To Abby's point, if you wanted to ensure every American could vote, then the government, who we should expect things from our government, not about what the government expects from us. (CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: It's the same argument that people made about voter ID in all of the states.
(CROSSTALK)
CROSS: -- then the government could approve people to vote at the age of 18 or when they're naturalized. You want to encourage more people to vote? That's how you do it. This is a clear effort to suppress the vote, and you know it. And you don't even understand the act itself.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: Just tell me which state implemented some form of voter ID, voter registration rules, and had less voters as a result.
(CROSSTALK)
GLENDA HATCHETT, HOST, "THE VERDICT WITH JUDGE HATCHETT": It goes right back to what Abby was just talking about. If they have researched all of this and they have found minimal pieces most of the
(CROSSTALK)
HATCHETT: And so my point is, but my point is that if this is really a pretext to suppress voting then everybody at this table should be concerned about that.
BORELLI: You're making that up.
HATCHETT: No, no, I'm not. No, I'm not.
BORELLI: Eighty percent of America is on my side.
HATCHETT: Oh, no, no. I don't know what you're talking about.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. Eighty-three -- so, Joe is right. Eighty-three percent of Americans, according to a Gallup poll, this was back in October, say that they agree that Americans should be required to provide proof of citizenship. We're going to continue this conversation after the break, but I think it's worth noting that the how and why of that, right, matters. How do you provide the records? That's what's at issue here with the SAVE Act. We'll be right back after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:55] PHILLIP: We are back and we were just discussing the SAVE Act and the new citizenship requirements that it would put into place. Now, the big issue, as I was saying right before the break, is not just should there be citizenship requirements, but also how they are supposed to happen. One of the problems is the distances people would have to travel in order to produce the citizenship requirement in person.
If you live in Arizona, from Colorado City, Arizona to Mojave, Arizona, the elections office there, it take eight hours round trip to go and produce the documents that you would need to produce. And I actually wonder if Republicans, maybe they do know this, but they understand that this probably won't pass, should not be more worried about this.
Look at the top 10 states where the lowest percentage of people have passports. They're all Trump voting states, every single one of them, from West Virginia to South Dakota. These are all states where more than half of the citizens don't have passports. And so, if they don't have passports they would have to produce a birth certificate. That's going to be a barrier to a lot of these voters who are probably Trump supporters.
MOYNIHAN: Look, I think we have a lot of faith in people but they can figure it out. People are smart. I think we have faith in our constituency and I would also note that the act does allow some discretion to the states and there's incidents that happen all the time. What if your birth certificate is in a fire? You can get a new one. There are ways of getting documentation.
PHILLLIP: Have you ever tried to get a new birth certificate?
MOYNIHAN: I actually have.
PHILLIP: Tell us about the process.
MOYNIHAN: I was able to get a real ID and a passport. It worked out.
PHILLIP: Did you get your birth certificate?
SELLERS: No.
MOYNIHAN: It was when I was in college, this was a while ago. I was able to get passport.
PHILLIP: But look, I mean --
UNKNOWN: And you also have resources to get it done.
PHILLIP: Listen, I'm not saying it's obviously not impossible to get your birth certificate.
MOYNIHAN: These things happen.
PHILLIP: It's not something that happens in the blink of an eye.
UNKNOWN: It's not. PHILLIP: You sometimes have to go to county officials, even hospitals, to try to get the records. It costs money.
[22:50:00]
It costs --
SELLERS: You know, I mean, I think that --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All I'm pointing out --
MOYNIHAN: But that would be true for getting a driver's license?
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. It's not true for getting a driver's license. First of all, it's not true with getting a driver's license. You can get a driver's license that is not a real ID that does not require your birth certificate. But also, let's talk about real ID for a second. Do remember how long it took for real ID to actually become a thing in this country? It took 17 years because it kept getting pushed back because people couldn't do it.
SELLERS: But not only that.
MOYNIHAN: It's worth 17 years.
SELLERS: But not only that.
PHILLIP: Seventeen years later.
MOYNIHAN: But people figured it out. Maybe we should expect more people.
PHILLIP: Even to this day, you go to the -- you go to the airport and because so many people don't have real IDs they're like all right, you can fly with but you just have to pay us $45 --
SELLERS: But not only that. I mean, you have -- people don't even understand the cost to the states, I mean, just, I mean, it's as if people just see something and they're saying oh my God, we need to tighten up voting parameters to keep you legal or whatever from voting but people don't ever turn the page.
And when we're talking about turning the page, there's one thing that's very tangible. When you talked about, you know, people getting driver's license or states that have voter ID, what those states also did was make those identification cards free. They had to. They had to waive it. Those cost states millions of dollars to implement. They actually will have to shut down systems because you cannot do this online. We're talking about people driving and doing this. And so, that's one thing.
The other thing is the historical point that people somewhat disregard and I think -- and I'm not sure that you understand the historical consequence to what you're saying when you're saying that we should expect more from people or people will have to jump over this bar because there are groups of people in this country that traditionally -- and this is a moment of empathy that I think we can both see eye to eye on, that there are people in this country who for historically have had to jump over hurdle after hurdle after hurdle after hurdle.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: One second Joe. There have been people who have died. There have been people who have laid on jailhouse floors. There have been people who have beaten just so they could have the franchise. And we've heard before, you should be able to read a literacy test. You should be able to drive here. You should be able to do that. I think we should start from a point of how do we allow more people into the process, instead of the point of how do we restrict it. I didn't mean to cut you off.
BORELLI: I was cutting you off.
SELLERS: I know.
BORELLI: Now, I've known you a long time.
SELLERS: Sure.
BORELLI: I didn't know you in 2011, 2012 when you were state senator.
SELLERS: Right.
BORELLI: I imagine you had the same argument, the same conversation as South Carolina implemented these similar federal ID laws. I imagine some of the things you said tonight, you could have said verbatim at that time.
SELLERS: True.
BORELLI: And the net result, undeniable, the net result is that turnout increased in South Carolina after voter ID law came in, it went from 56 percent to 65 percent and then 61 percent.
SELLERS: Very in the weeds, very in the weeds. Many other the states that have passed voter ID, I mean one of the most stringent, if you look at ALEC, you look at all this stuff, Indiana was the first state to pass voter ID. What they did though, however, was they allowed you to utilize things like a utility bill. They allowed you to utilize things like a college ID. So, there were other mechanisms in place.
So my point is, why are we tightening this noose around people when, I mean, just simply why can't we do it online?
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: I think the polling also --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: I think yes. CROSS: The people are saying they support voter ID. The SAVE Act is very different and when you say leave it to the states I mean this is what happens when got in voting rights. This is what happened if I'm going to leave it to states like Arizona Georgia -- when Brian Kemp was in office in Georgia, if you're going to leave it to states like that --
BORELLI: The voter turnout increased, right? That that did happen from 1.1 to 1.9, that's almost double. Tiffany, literally almost double the amount of people voting.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay, let me let the Judge --
(CROSSTALK)
HATCHETT: Let me also say --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Thirty seconds, Judge. Thirty seconds.
HATCHETT: But you're saying that in an isolated thing. There were other factors that increased the turner vote out. You're at factoring -- you're at factoring who's running, you're at factoring who's at line.
BORELLI: They wouldn't be able to vote. That didn't happen.
HATCHETT: Well, it did though, Joe. It did in Georgia. That's another topic for another time.
PHILLIP: All right, it very much is. We appreciate the robust debate about the policy here. Everyone, thank you very much for being here. Still ahead, Jane Fonda admitting that she has tried to talk sense into Donald Trump while lying in bed. More on that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:59:11]
PHILLIP: As liberals cope with another Trump presidency, Jane Fonda reveals her interesting methods.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JANE FONDA, ACTIVIST AND ACADEMY AWARD-WINNING ACTRESS: In my mind, sometimes when I lie in bed, I have conversations with him. And I want to say to him, you know, I feel like I understand something about, because I lived with Ted Turner for 10 years. You have things in common. Do you understand what's happening? I would try to touch his heart.
It's important to understand what he does and what he says. The behavior is the language of the traumatized. And you have to see through it. You can hate the behavior.
[23:00:00]
But you have to see through it to the traumatized person and not hate them. Because if you hate them, then it's your -- it brings you down. I don't hate him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: All right. Well, thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media -- X, Instagram, and on TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
