Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
War of Words Escalates After Trump Speech Heckling; FBI Records Tied to Trump Accusers Missing from Epstein Files; Clintons to Testify on Epstein Files Tomorrow and Friday. "NewsNight" Discusses State of the Union Address; Vance's Freezes Medicaid Funds to Minnesota State as New Fraud Czar. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired February 25, 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 war of words intensifies.
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: They won't even have the courage of their convictions.
REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): His administration was responsible for killing two of my constituents.
PHILLIP: Now, the president suggests his next deportations should be Democrats.
Plus, why were FBI records of Trump's accusers missing from the Epstein files? New allegations of a cover-up as the fallout hits two more big names.
Also --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We have to be strong. It's really called peace through strength.
PHILLIP: -- the reasons are changing, the goalposts are shifting and the narratives are contradicting. If America attacks Iran, did Trump make the case?
And the administration is pulling Medicaid money from Minnesota.
VANCE: They're not going to those kids, they're going to fraudsters.
PHILLIP: But how does that square with Trump pardoning fraudsters?
Live at the table, Val Demings, Jason Rantz, Lydia Moynihan, Congressman Jared Moscowitz, and Ana Navarro.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, that ugly State of the Union clash, well, it just got a little uglier, because now President Trump is escalating his fight with Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. Both had begun shouting when Trump challenged Democrats to stand for Americans while he was speaking about illegal immigration and fraud in Minnesota.
Now, in a post today, Trump said that Omar and Tlaib screamed uncontrollably and had the bulging, bloodshot eyes of crazy people. He likened them to lunatics and suggested that they be institutionalized. Then he added, quote, we should send them back to where they came from as fast as possible.
Vice President J.D. Vance also got in, in the war of words.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: They were all looking around for cues from their colleagues because they didn't have the courage to stand on their own. And that more than anything, Bill, is the saddest commentary on the Democratic Party that not only will they not stand for the idea that Americans should come first, they won't even have the courage of their convictions. They lean on the person to their left and their right rather than actually have some conviction.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But Omar says that she has no regrets.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OMAR: And I think many people look at that moment when the president says it is our responsibility to protect Americans and he does not acknowledge the fact that two Americans, two of my constituents, two of our neighbors, were killed. And it was important for me to just remind the American people that the president and his administration was responsible for killing two American citizens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And Congressman Moskowitz, you were in the room last night, right? Was that moment what Donald Trump ultimately wanted and what perhaps your Democratic leadership wanted to avoid?
REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL): Oh, yes. No, the president clearly came in with a strategy to do that, right? His strategy was to try to rage bait people into that fight. He wanted that and he got it.
You know, look, ultimately, he's not deporting two members of Congress, just like he didn't lock up Hillary, even though that was chanted in arenas, you know, around the country. So, you know, look, he can't fix his poll numbers. He can't turn around the fact that he's underwater on the economy, underwater on immigration, the two issues that helped get him elected. So, what he's going to try to do is he's going to try to fight to the point where he tries to make us not an option, right? He wants to just bring us down with him to the hope that that might help him somehow survive the midterms.
This is the new strategy. He met with his pollsters. They saw where everything is. They can't turn around their stuff. They've ruined it in the first year. So, the strategy is to try to bring everybody down in order to survive the midterms.
PHILLIP: So, Rashida Tlaib responded to Trump. She said, can't take two Muslims talking back and correcting him, so now he's crashing out, and then she used the hashtag PresidentMajnoon, which means crazy or insane in Persian.
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: Yes. I mean, she also got what she wanted, which was a mistake I think for the Democrats to play into that. I actually agree with the congressman. I think the president was setting up Democrats in a really simple and easy way. They shouldn't have fallen for it. It seems pretty easy to stand up and say, actually, no, I support American people first.
[22:05:03]
That is where I stand. And we can have a nuanced conversation afterwards, if you want, about illegal immigration. But they walked into that trap because it was so easy to set.
MOSKOWITZ: Well, that's not true. I mean, I stand for --
RANTZ: Most Democrats did not stand.
MOSKOWITZ: I stand for Americans over non-citizens, and so do all of my colleagues. But just because it's not the galactic Senate, just because the emperor says rise doesn't mean I get up. Like I'm a ifferent branch of government. I rose for the heroes that were in the gallery not because the president --
RANTZ: But not for the other point. I mean, you rose because, and thank you for rising. I think in those cases that this is an easy moment to be united, whether it's around Team USA or it's around any of the people who were featured there. But that's sending a message that you agree with the statement or the sentiment, and you chose not to stand. I think --
MOSKOWITZ: I'm sure if Joe Biden told the Republicans to rise, they would've left from their seats, okay?
PHILLIP: But to that point, doesn't that happen at every single State of the Union address? The president says something innocuous. The party that is the opposite party doesn't stand. That happens every single year. I don't understand why we're pretending like this is something --
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. But I don't feel like these shouting matches used to happen. I mean, they started happening maybe in my memory with Joe Wilson right under Obama. You know, I don't like Donald Trump. I don't support Donald Trump, but I am an institutionalist. And I think that there is a pomp and circumstance and gravitas to something like the State of the Union. Does he use it to lie? Yes. Does he use it to divide? Does he use it to attack immigrants? Yes. But that doesn't mean that that two Congress people should be in this shouting match.
And, look, what he tweeted out today is horribly racist. And I say this as somebody that gets told the same thing over and over again, go back to where you came from. They -- I can't tell you how many times I open up social media and it says, go eat a burrito and go back to Mexico, because racists are so stupid, they don't realize there's more than one country in Latin America, and I'm not from Mexico. Also, I don't eat burritos. I like tacos.
But the fact that what he said is racist and it is horrible, and it emboldens and it strengthens, empowers racism. My question is, how does it help American citizens to have the president of the United States and two Congress people in a pissing match over stupidity? How does it help them have lower grocery prices? How does it help them have access to healthcare, access to housing?
And, actually, I think it's -- you know, you talk about Donald Trump goading them into this. I think this is really stupid by Donald Trump. I mean, most people use the State of the Union as a launching pad to then go out and sell their agenda and try to have it be a good moment for them, and instead he's out there in the bottom of the gutter fighting and being a racist pig. Why?
FMR. REP. VAL DEMINGS (D-FL): Can I just ask this question? Is it asking too much to expect the president of the United States, the commander-in-chief, to set the tone in the room for the State of the Union?
MOSKOWITZ: Yes. It's asking too much.
DEMINGS: Okay. But what --
MOSKOWITZ: It's asking too much.
DEMINGS: It had to be awful tough. I talked to a member, a lot of members of Congress about attending versus not attending. Both of the congresswomen who this, the president, the commander-in-chief, have been after for a while now were in the room, in their seats, on behalf of the people that they represent.
You know, I served as a law enforcement officer for a lot of years, and to even ask or make a statement that you need to protect this group first over another group, when I was on the street, if somebody needed help, I didn't check their citizenship before I helped him.
So, the president started off trying to divide, which he does so well, the nation, right? And you want to talk about protecting Americans, that's exactly what Ilhan Omar was doing, talking about two U.S. citizens who were killed under very questionable circumstances in her district. PHILLIP: Is it fair for her to raise that? I mean, Trump is asking about protecting Americans. Is it fair for her to raise the two Americans who were killed?
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: Well, I think Trump's entire speech was actually pretty unifying. I think Donald Trump's superpower is positioning himself as the common sense guy who's advocating for positions the vast majority of Americans want.
And there was one moment at the beginning where he invited the USA Hockey Team, and, of course, the crowd went wild chanting, USA, USA, and then the camera panned to Rashida Tlaib, who appeared to be mouthing KKK. And then, again, you had another moment where Trump says, stand up if you want to support American citizens over illegal aliens, and instead Ilhan Omar is screaming and heckling the president.
[22:10:02]
And those are the best kind of sound bites and visuals that the GOP can have for the midterms because a lot of people might not like Donald Trump and might be kind of hemming and hawing, and then they look at the alternative and they say, oh, well, this really angry woman, gosh, I don't know about her. So that's what Trump set out to do --
PHILLIP: But that was my question.
MOYNIHAN: -- highlight the 80-20 issues.
PHILLIP: In response to his own question, is it fair for the Democrats to respond, why, yes, we do care about American citizens, including two that were killed by --
NAVARRO: Yes, it is fair, but not in that venue. It's fair, but not at that moment.
DEMINGS: But what's surprising to me that the president of the United States did not even mention the two U.S. citizens that were killed in Minnesota. How do you do the State of the Union because you care about Americans so much and not even mention the two people who lost their lives on the streets of America at the hand of federal agents?
RANTZ: One who tried to run over an ICE agent --
DEMINGS: But how do you not even -- you can do your commentary all you want or, you know, critique, but how do you not mention that two people died in that environment?
And the president -- it was one of the most unifying speeches, the president who said, look at the Democrats, aren't they crazy? He obviously does not understand that when he won the election, he is supposed to represent all people.
MOYNIHAN: When you go through some of the moments he went to, right, he pointed to a little girl, Delilah, who was almost killed by an illegal alien, miraculously came back, she was there with her dad, when you have Democrats who won't stand and applaud her recovery, yes, I think that's crazy.
DEMINGS: Sadly, people are killed in America every day, sadly. And the majority of them are killed by U.S. citizens. So, whether an undocumented immigrant --
(CROSSTALKS)
DEMINGS: Whether it was an undocumented immigrant or a U.S. citizen who's the perpetrator, the bottom line is somebody has died or someone has been injured.
RANTZ: One died as a result of bad policy that was in place for four years, allowing people to come into this country unvetted illegally, and if we had border policies, it actually worked, those people wouldn't be here and those deaths would not have occurred. That's the difference.
So, when you can point directly to policy, I think that's obviously well within the scope of any president, Democrat, or Republican.
MOSKOWITZ: Yes. By the way, it went so well in Minnesota that the president sidelined his secretary, skipped her in the cabinet meeting, replaced her with Tom Homan, who then pulled everybody out. So, yes, it went -- worked real well that they abandoned it and left. That's number one.
Number two is, look, Donald Trump had -- there's a lot of verbs and adjectives to describe. Unifying is not one of them. He doesn't even think he's unifying. That's not his strategy.
MOYNIHAN: Two thirds of the people who watched the speech thought it was very positive and they liked it.
MOSKOWITZ: Actually, it was the lowest positivity in 20 years.
PHILLIP: I think that's right.
NAVARRO: And -- listen, and he, patently, boldface lied about illegal immigrants and criminality. He said that the man who had killed the Ukrainian woman in Charlotte, North Carolina, Iryna, was an undocumented immigrant who had been let in by Biden. That was a lie. He's U.S. citizen. He was born in North Carolina.
He said --
(CROSSTALKS)
NAVARRO: That was purposeful him using illegal immigrants as the boogeyman. He said 12,000 murderers had been allowed in by Joe Biden. That's made up. He's making that number up and conflating numbers.
MOYNHIAN: We don't know.
NAVARRO: That is -- no, we do. MOYNIHAN: We don't know. There's maybe 20 people who --
(CROSSTALKS)
NAVARRO: We actually do know that that's not real. It is a lie.
Listen, he lied over 20 times. Daniel Dale from CNN has done the fact- checking and a lot of those lies were about immigration. He said Maduro opened up the prisons and the insane asylums. There is no evidence, zero, that Maduro did that. Castro did it in 1980, but there is zero evidence that Maduro did it in the last few years.
MOYNIHAN: This is kind of the whole point, is you're literally defending Maduro in Venezuela right now.
NAVARRO: No, I am not Maduro. I am telling you the guy you say is unifying is a pathological liar.
PHILLIP: I don't think it's defending Maduro to just point out that what Trump said about Maduro is not true, okay? That's not a defense of Maduro. It's just a defense of facts.
MOSKOWITZ: Oh, he's so unifying. I feel unified. Don't you feel unified? I mean, I feel so unified that the president, like he's just unifying everything. It is painting us with --
PHILLIP: We are being brought together every moment of every day.
MOSKOWITZ: It is dripping there.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, why are dozens of FBI records related to accusations against Donald Trump suddenly missing from the Epstein files? Is there a cover-up at hand?
Plus, the president sounds ready to strike Iran, but the reason for attacking keeps changing. We'll debate.
[22:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, new allegations of a cover-up related to Donald Trump and the Epstein files. They were missing from a trove of documents released by the DOJ and they are FBI records related to a woman who made an accusation against Donald Trump alleging that she'd been sexually assaulted by Trump and Epstein when she was a minor.
Now, Trump has consistently denied wrongdoing in connection with Epstein, and in a statement the White House called the allegations against him false and sensationalist, while failing to clarify why the documents weren't released.
Now, this week, Epstein fallout is leading to even more resignations.
[22:20:02] Larry Summers, the former treasury secretary and Harvard president, resigning from his remaining teaching roles at the university. And Celebrity Doctor Peter Attia is resigning from his new contributor role at CBS. Also, Bill Gates apologized this week to his foundation staffers for his ties to Epstein, while he also insisted that he had no involvement in Epstein's crimes.
Now, these missing interview files, Jason, why -- even if they are unsubstantiated or untrue, why would they not be released?
RANTZ: Well, there's three reasons why they can't be released potentially is it's tied to an ongoing investigation. I mean, the actual law on what was supposed to be released is clear on what can and cannot be released. It's also possible that there was a mistake that was made, and we've talked about this in the past, like we expect that there's going to be mistakes when you're rushing to get millions of documents out there. I do ultimately think they have to explain it a little bit more detail to the extent that they can, unless it's tied to an active investigation, and then I don't think it's in their interest to actually say that.
And if that turns out to be the case, and I'm hearing some reporting that's kind of pivoting to that, that we don't -- it seems really bad maybe on optics, if you frame it that way, but also there are legitimate reasons why you might not release these particular documents.
PHILLIP: Well, you did name two reasons. I mean, I think, certainly, an ongoing investigation would be a legitimate reason. But it would also be extremely newsworthy if there were an ongoing investigation involving the president of the United States.
RANTZ: It didn't say it was about the president though.
PHILLIP: And -- well, the allegation pertains to the president. So --
DEMINGS: But the attorney general announced that there was no more to see here, right? No more to see here.
PHILLIP: Todd Blanche has said there are no investigations.
DEMINGS: So, we know it could possibly be that.
But isn't it amazing that the documents that disappeared just happen to have something to do with the president of the United States? The president who when he was candidate Trump said that releasing the Epstein files were his priority. Look, I investigated crimes against children, including sexual assault. I take this very, very seriously, like concealing the names of the victims doing everything that you're supposed to do to conceal their names.
Isn't it interesting that victims' names and identifying information have been released, but anything to do with the president has not only been concealed, but is now gone?
(CROSSTALKS) NAVARRO: One of the things you said is that it could be a legitimate mistake. If it was a legitimate mistake, they can correct it.
RANTZ: Sure.
NAVARRO: They can quickly release those files. And tomorrow and the next day, we're going to see the Clinton's testifying in front of the Oversight Committee about this. Hillary Clinton, I don't know what her association with Epstein was. I don't think she ever met the man. Bill Clinton, certainly, I think there is legitimate reason for him to be testifying. I like them both. I am very happy that they're testifying. I think they owe it to the American people.
I think Donald Trump owes it to the American people as well. And I think that if they're going to haul the Clintons' asses into testify, then they should haul Trump's as well, because he knew to Epstein incredibly well for over a decade, they were best friends.
RANTZ: They had four years to do that. They chose not to because they didn't find any specific evidence that tied them --
NAVARRO: Yes. Well, you know what? Shame on Merrick Garland. I think Merrick Garland didn't act. I think --
RANTZ: Why didn't he act?
NAVARRO: Because he was afraid of his own shadow, because he was afraid of his own reputation and of being seen as too political. You know, I mean, we saw --
RANTZ: So, everyone else --
NAVARRO: But this is the guy that prosecuted Joe Biden's son. This is the guy who appointed a special --
RANTZ: Like just Merrick Garland didn't.
NAVARRO: Merrick Garland was too worried about his whole reputation. He should have acted.
RANTZ: Is it possible that he didn't act because there wasn't actually a crime that was committed by Donald Trump? Is that possible?
PHILLIP: Let me ask you --
RANTZ: Is that possible?
PHILLIP: Is it also not --
NAVARRO: No.
RANTZ: It's not possible. So, you say that Donald Trump committed a crime.
NAVARRO: No. I'm not saying that Donald Trump committed a crime. RANTZ: So, but I'm asking you, is it possible that they actually did look at the documentation, the Biden administration, which obviously had reason to go after Donald Trump? They didn't find anything and that's the reason why they didn't bring that up.
NAVARRO: And they didn't release. Why? They didn't release it because of Merrick Garland made a mistake and he too should ask --
RANTZ: But you won't say it's possible that --
PHILLIP: The Trump administration, also by that same logic --
NAVARRO: I don't know that if he committed a crime or not.
PHILLIP: -- have reason to release derogatory information about other Democrats, like Bill Clinton, for example, or -- you know, I mean, Hillary Clinton is testifying. Donald Trump wants nothing more than to put her in jail. I mean, if there -- by your logic, why are we hearing from Bill and Hillary Clinton tomorrow? If there -- you know, if there were derogatory things in the file, they would've been released by now.
MOYNIHAN: That's a fair point. I'm sort of an Occam's razor person. I think, generally, the simplest explanation is the correct one, and I don't think that there's any conspiracy theory there. Obviously, there's been some pretty embarrassing things that have come out about Bill Clinton, Peter Attia. But I think there is such -- there's been such an emphasis on trying to find something damning about Donald Trump.
And if you remember, the DOJ didn't whitewash things in the first tranche of emails.
[22:25:01]
There were crazy allegations about him raping a 13-year-old. Not true. The DOJ wasn't trying to protect him. They threw (ph) all kinds of allegations out there.
PHILLIP: That allegation that you're talking, I mean, that's this one, right? This is the woman who called the FBI hotline and reported that she had been a victim of Epstein on July 10th, 2019, several days after his arrest. FBI agents interviewed her for two weeks. And at one point in the interview, the woman showed agents a well-known photo of Trump and Epstein together that a friend had sent, her attorney said, and she was concerned about implicating additional individuals and specifically any that were well-known due to fear of retaliation. She had alleged that she was abused beginning at the age of 13.
So, I think -- so I guess my point is the documents that we are looking for are ones involving this woman, and emails are emails, but these are FBI interviews that are missing --
MOYNIHAN: My understanding is this is all new, right? This hasn't been reported. In January, there were allegations against him in the documents, against Trump. The DOJ wasn't trying to cover anything up. I think -- I'm not saying they're doing a great job, but they're simply errors.
PHILLIP: So, what's your simplest explanation? Like what do you think is the simplest explanation?
MOYNIHAN: I think that if there was any sort of damning smoking gun, I think that we would have charges against any high-profile person. We know that prosecutors love to have high-profile cases that make their career. There's been a Democrat in office. They weren't able to find anything. There's a Republican in office. They haven't been able to find anything. And I think the reality is because maybe there just isn't anything there.
MOSKOWITZ: We don't have -- guys, hold up. We don't have most of the files. I went into the room, okay? There are files that were submitted into the DOJ system completely redacted, okay? Like they're like 50 percent of these files we don't even have. They were submitted into the system.
DEMINGS: (INAUDIBLE) they haven't released?
MOSKOWITZ: Yes. And they were submitted into the DOJ system.
PHILLIP: Is it in the millions? I mean, I feel like I've heard Ro Khanna and others saying it's --
MOSKOWITZ: 6 million -- they think there's 6 million. They think (INAUDIBLE) in total documents and there's 3 million in the system.
PHILLIP: So, about half of them are --
MOSKOWITZ: Right, 50 percent we don't -- 50 percent we don't even have.
NAVARRO: These women have been failed by four previous administrations, and they're continuing to be failed by this administration today.
DEMINGS: But what happened between Candidate Trump saying, we're going to release the Epstein documents, we're going to release them, the American public wants to see them, we're going to release them, and President Trump having to have legislation forcing the release and we still have not gotten all of the documents?
RANTZ: Yes. Actually, I think there's a simple explanation on that one.
MOSKOWITZ: Oh, I'd love to hear this.
RANTZ: Yes, because I think what's happened is that people have taken misreported and misinformation, put out information that supposedly is in these documents that showed that Donald Trump committed all of these crimes. They're taking things out of context. They clearly don't have the context. A lot of the information that has been put out has been used to smear him unnecessarily and unlawfully in some cases, I believe, and he wanted to avoid that. I think that's really what it's about. PHILLIP: So, you think that he's actually hiding things?
RANTZ: No, I think he's choosing to -- I think he was slow walking this out there because he realized what's --
PHILLIP: So, he's hiding --
RANTZ: No, he's not. He's not -- hold on. I'm saying he was not slow --
DEMINGS: There was no walking. There was no walking.
RANTZ: Hold on. He brought --
MOSKOWITZ: Of course it is.
RANTZ: So -- but -- hold on.
MOSKOIWTZ: He brought Lauren Boebert into the Situation Room with the cabinet and the attorney general and threatened her that he would primary her --
RANTZ: He did not want --
MOSKOWITZ: -- if she didn't get --
RANTZ: I don't think he wanted some information out there because he didn't want to be unnecessarily smeared by bad faith Democrats who were going to take --
(CROSSTALKS)
NAVARRO: Remember what Marjorie Taylor Greene said Trump told her? I don't want this released because a lot of my friends are going to get hurt.
DEMINGS: But, see, that's my point.
NAVARRO: And we are seeing that happen.
DEMINGS: It's more -- it's bigger than Donald Trump though. It's not just about --
NAVARRO: It is.
RANTZ: You are only talking about Trump.
DEMINGS: They're a co-conspirator -- I'm not talking about him.
NAVARRO: There's a lot of powerful men --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let me just say one thing. I mean, it is not just about Donald Trump. It is about a whole host of other people. However, Donald Trump is the only person in a position to prevent derogatory information about him from being released. And so that becomes extremely relevant in this situation.
None of the other men have the ability to do that. He's the only one. So, that's the reason why we are talking about him, the president of the United States.
Now, that president, he has Iran within his sights. More U.S. firepower is moving into the Persian Gulf, and tensions are high in the region. But it's the why that has generals and intelligence officers still guessing. We'll debate that next.
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Right now, the U.S. military has built up its largest presence in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And after the State of the Union last night, the reason is even more unclear. President Trump has teased a potential strike against Iran for weeks now, but the administration has been shifting its justification for any action they might take, from killing protesters to terrorism funding. Now, Trump says Iran has restarted their nuclear ambitions.
[22:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy. But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon. Can't let that happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Last week, a Trump official said that Iran was just a week away from developing nuclear bomb-making material. But that stands in sharp contrast with what Trump has said for a while now about those strikes against Iran that he ordered last summer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.
His targets were obliterated and the pilot should be given credit.
Look at the Iran situation, what we did in terms of obliterating, you know, their -- we obliterated their nuclear capability.
Iran will never rebuild its nuclear -- from there? Absolutely not.
We hear it was obliteration. It was a virtual obliteration.
We assess that the American strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities has set back Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons for many years to come. It's been obliterated. It would be years before they could ever get
going.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, if you remember when those attacks happened, the reporting actually was right after the attacks that Iran's nuclear capabilities had simply been set back by perhaps a matter of months. Now, the Trump administration seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth saying that yes, it was obliterated but also, Iran is on the verge of getting a nuclear weapon. Which one is it?
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, "NEW YORK POST" CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think we've been hearing probably for 20 years that Iran is weeks away from getting a nuclear weapon. I think it makes sense that Trump would be a little coy though, at least in terms of what he wants to do in Iran and not signal necessarily to the Iranians exactly what he's going to do.
Now, I feel that he put down a red line in January when he encouraged people to protest and said that he would support them. And it seems like Iran has crossed that line many times without the U.S. doing anything. I do think when you make statements like that, you sort of are morally obligated to follow through.
But I also think he's in a bit of a bind because foreign policy is frankly the last thing that the American people want him to be focused on. And it's last thing that the GOP and people running for re- election want him to be focused on.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: He made that statement encouraging Iranian protesters to keep protesting, take over government institutions. And he said help is on the way about 10 days after the Maduro operation. When he was feeling like I don't know, Alexander the Great, and that he could conquer the whole world.
He's trying to do with Iran what he did with Venezuela, and park a great deal of Navy arsenal, Navy assets off the coast and scare the people there. But Iran is not Venezuela. Iran has allies. Iran has military capabilities. Iran has terrorist capabilities that Maduro, who was bankrupt, did not have. So, you know, I think he has to be incredibly careful.
The sad thing is that in the meantime, there have been anywhere from 5000 to 40,000 Iranian protesters killed and slaughtered by that regime. And so, as we're talking about nuclear prowess, let's also talk about the people of Iran --
(CROSSTALK)
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: But I think that's an argument to maybe get involved militarily. I mean, I think at the end of the day -- your point is very valid, but the threat --
NAVARRO: But we can't is tell the Iranians, help is on the way.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Well, they're surrounded right now -- they're surrounded by American military forces --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Have them go out to the streets and killed the way they did and not do anything.
RANTZ: That indicates that there is help, that's there and is willing to strike. I don't think the President wants to do that. I think the sanctions that were announced a few hours ago make that point. Whether or not that works, I have no idea. But this is a president who I think is trying to come to a solution. He's clearly trying to use the strength of American military might to threaten Iran so that they don't actually do what they're currently doing to justify this threat.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I want to play what Steve Witkoff said on Saturday about Iran and nuclear weapons. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE WITKOFF, SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE MIDDLE EAST: They're probably a week away from having industrial grade bomb-making material. And that's really dangerous. So, they can't have that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, the reason I played that is because, first of all, there are two different justifications. It's, one, you know, the murder of the protesters in the streets, and the other is how close are they to a nuclear weapon.
And if the justification for a major attack on a dangerous regime like Iran is that they are weeks away from industrial grade bomb-making material, shouldn't proof be provided to the American people? Shouldn't there be more of a justification than a couple of lines in the state of the union?
[22:40:00]
I'm just thinking back to 2003 and the post, you know, 9-11 environment.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And Americans were lied to and they were not given evidence --
(CROSSTALK)
VAL DEMINGS (D) FORMER U.S. CONGRESSWOMAN, FLORIDA: People deserve to know why the president said what he said about Iran's capability eight months ago. If we're going to send America's sons and daughters into war and look, Iran is not a ally. If we're going to do that, nor should he --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: You read my mind.
(CROSSTALK)
DEMINGS: But they ought to have some justification for what America is trying to accomplish at the time --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: There is a lot that is between the war plans and the proof --
(CROSSTALK)
DEMINGS: Yes, that's right.
PHILLIP: -- justifying a major military action. This is not Venezuela, okay? This is not really any other part of the world. This is one of the biggest, you know, antagonists on the planet right now. Where's the justification?
REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL): Well, I mean, you saw Schumer get out of the briefing again in a gang of eight -- gang of eight. Usually, he's pretty verbose and he came to the microphone, he said this is very serious, the President needs to make his case the American people and he walked away. Let me say a couple things.
First off, when Steve Witkoff says that, obviously, if it's true when they are close to the enrichment -- he's talking about the enrichment level, that tells me that we didn't obliterate the program, that it's that close to the enrichment level to -- it's admitting that.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: It's also the side we didn't know about.
MOSKOWITZ: Correct -- which is deeper on the ground. Also, Witkoff said something very interesting couple of days ago as well. He said the President is flabbergasted or taken aback that he brought all this equipment there and they haven't caved. They haven't capitulated. So look, there's a lot of Obama comparison --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: He had equipment off the coast of Venezuela for five months.
PHILIP: Go ahead. Finish --
MOSKOWITZ: There's a lot of Obama comparison here. And what I mean is, when Obama made that red line in Syria and then it got crossed, he got crucified by the Republicans for doing that. You were right. Trump did set a red line. He said help is on the way. He moved half the armada there. And he can't make a deal that's worse than JCPOA, right? Because then he's trapped there.
So, this is not Venezuela. You can't just take one person out. And I actually think that's what Trump's thinking about. That was such a success for him. What does success look like here? How difficult can he look like the same winner? And so, this is very complicated.
PHILLIP: Yes. All right, everyone. J.D. Vance's first move, as the new fraud czar, is to freeze Medicaid funds to the state of Minnesota. But the governor is calling it retribution. We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:16]
PHILLIP: Just a day after being announced as the new anti-fraud czar, Vice President J.D. Vance announced that the administration is withholding $250 million in Medicaid funds from Minnesota over what he claims is widespread fraud.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: We are stopping the federal payments that will go to the state government until the state government takes its obligations seriously to stop the fraud that's being perpetrated against the American taxpayer.
Far too many people have gotten rich by taking what is the best of the American spirit and getting rich off of it instead of providing services to kids who need it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, Vance blamed Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for not adequately policing the safety net program and is giving him 60 days to respond. Walz hit back calling it a campaign of retribution, and he accused President Trump of weaponizing the entire federal government to punish blue states.
I do wonder why is it acceptable to withhold Medicaid funds from probably millions of people who did absolutely nothing wrong? Just to make a point about fraud as opposed to prosecuting said fraud.
DEMINGS: Look, we should investigate fraud, waste and abuse. Billions of dollars are tied up in fraud, waste and abuse that the American people could be using. However, why would you target the most vulnerable population and take away health care, not from the perpetrators but from the people who are receiving the service? And it definitely appears vindictive.
What about if you want to look at states that report large numbers of Medicaid and Medicare fraud and abuse? Go to Texas. Go to Florida. Go to -- I wouldn't call my state's name but you just did. So come on now, we're interested and I think we should. But if you're serious about that, it's kind of like we're going to target violent crime, but you don't go to the red states that have the most violent crime.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: I've made that point around this table before, that Florida -- in Florida, there's a particular problem with Medicaid fraud centered around recently arrived Cuban immigrants. It is one of the busiest U.S. attorney fraud departments in the country and yet there is not one word about it from Trump. Look, I think --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Why is that? Why?
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: This is why. I think it's because when you're talking about Minnesota, there is a general reluctance to not only acknowledge the white threats fraud but also not having a system in place.
[22:50:04]
PHILLIP: Reluctance by whom?
RANTZ: By whom? By -- Tim Walz who tonight says that this is a case of retribution rather than --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay. On January 14th, Attorney General Keith Ellison announced $3 million in fraud charges against Medicaid providers.
RANTZ: Correct.
PHILLIP: On December 18th, the federal government along with state prosecutor as -- the State Attorney General Keith Ellison, six additional defendants charge, one pleaded guilty in on-going fraud schemes.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And this the last 90 days, okay? The last 90 days -- these are on-going investigations. And then on top of that, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota has lost what, a half a dozen more prosecutors, including some of the top prosecutors who are dealing with this very fraud scenario. So who exactly is reluctant to prosecute fraud?
RANTZ: It's not about the reluctance. And even in that clip you just played from Vice President Vance, he's asking for an assurance that you're putting in place a system that actually polices the fraud. And that's the difference between a Texas, and a Florida, and a Minnesota right now, is that this administration, and if you disagree with this, this is totally okay and we should have that debate. They believe that those states actually are taking this more seriously based on the system that they have in place.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Why are they not issuing the same threat to Florida and to Texas?
RANTZ: Because think they believe that system is in place.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Because look, Ana just pointed out -- Ana just pointed out, the busiest office for fraud prosecutions. It's in Florida.
NAVARRO: Yes.
PHILLIP: Okay. Why not issue that same threat to say we are going to -- we're going to turn off the spigot unless you do unspecified things because the answer to the question about what exactly they need to do was incredibly vague from the Vice President today. So, if you're going to withhold the funds, shouldn't you have a clear and detailed plan that states can meet in order to put those -- to turn those funds back on? Because it's not just monopoly money. This is money that is going to actual human beings.
MOYNIHAN: Yes, and I think that's why Republicans are so outraged. There's reporting from the city journal that money that was supposed to go to help the elderly and the disabled was actually funneled to the al-shabaab terror group in Somalia. So, I think we should all be furious that --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: There were accusations of that and absolutely no proof that that actually AHPPENED.
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: So, that's what we're going to find. So let's look into it.
PHILLIP: There were allegations but no proof that that actually happened. But again --
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: Okay, so the reporting is totally wrong?
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: I think we should all --
PHILLIP: But again, again, prosecuting fraud, no one disagrees with, okay? But gain, why is it only one state when there's fraud happening all over the country, why --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Well, it might be more than one state, and the reporting was that they're considering other states --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Because he lost Minnesota, but he won Texas and Florida, because it's about Somalis.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: And it's not about Cubans who he does like. And the number that he threw out yesterday in the State of the Union, there is no -- no documenting -- no -- (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It's not $18 billion -- $19 billion. That is not --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Yes, there's no $19 billion. The documented $1 billion, which is too much, not 19. That's another number. That's another lie.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Governor Walz, cannot, right now, send that tweet -- look, Governor Walz right now could just simply say, here's what we're doing to ensure this isn't happening. Put that in a tweet and then shut the President up and that'll work.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right, okay. Next for us, the panel gives us their nightcaps, "Rock and Roll" edition. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:00]
PHILLIP: The nominations for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Class of 2026 are in. And so for tonight's news nightcap, of this year's 17 nominees, give us your best argument. Lydia, we'll start with you.
MOYNIHAN: The Queen of Christmas, Mariah Carey. She has an amazing voice. She's very talented. But she did something completely masterful, which is write a Christmas song. No matter whether you become irrelevant or not, they will play your song every year. And that's what made her great and relevant.
PHILLIP: Genius move on her part.
UNKNOWN: And rich.
MOYNIHAN: Yes. Well done for her.
MOSKOWITZ: Well, yes. Now that the war on Christmas is over, but -- so, mine's Wu Tang Clan, okay? I'm a kid of the '90s, right? Method Man, RZA, ODB, may he rest in peace, okay? They also had someone named Remedy in the clan, which was their first Jewish member of the Wu Tang Clan. So, you know, a 12-year-old. I'm like Wu Tang's got a Jewish member. So for me, it's the Wu Tang Clan.
PHILLIP: Okay. Ana? NAVARRO: Shakira Shakira -- her hips don't lie and listen, this woman has been putting out music in English and Spanish, in several languages. I love her because she turned -- she turned her cheating husband's in discretion and affair into a multi-million dollar tour -- worldwide tour and successful song. So, go girl.
PHILLIP: Yes
NAVARRO: She said women don't cry anymore. They make money.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Can't be mad at that. All right, Val?
DEMINGS: Luther Vandross.
NAVARRO: Okay, I like that one.
(CROSSTALK)
DEMINGS: If this world were mine, who does not know a Luther song 2345? It's like the man invented the word love. Luther Vandross.
NAVARRO: I'm pretty sure Donald Trump doesn't know any of songs.
(LAUGHTER)
RANTZ: I've got the only correct answer tonight, I'm sorry to say. Not that I want to be the person who says everyone you mentioned isn't actually a rock and roll star. I'm going with Oasis because that's a real rock band and they are brilliant.
[23:00:00]
They ask a great question, where were you while we were getting high? And I'm still waiting for an answer.
PHILLIP: Does it have to be strictly Rock and Roll?
RANTZ: It's called Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. (CROSSTALK)
DEMINGS: These people are on the list --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Yes, they're cheating. Come on.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I think they should all be in there. I think you are all correct.
NAVARRO: How many can get in?
PHILLIP: Isn't it just one for this year? NAVARRO: No, it's not just one, is it?
RANTZ: I don't --
PHILLIP: Oh, it's like, it's five this year. So maybe you guys will all be right and then we'll come back and we'll recap. All right everybody, thanks for being here. Thanks for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" is right now.
