Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Hillary Clinton Testifies That She Never Met Jeffrey Epstein; Washington Post Reports, Activists Pitching Plan to Give Trump Power Over Elections. Nearly Blind Refugee in Buffalo, New York Found Dead After It Was Released by Fed Agents; New York Mayor Gives Trump a Fake Front Page to Push for Housing Proposal. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired February 26, 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, Hillary Clinton versus Republicans, the next episode.
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I don't know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein,
PHILLIP: How Clinton turned the tables on MAGA while testifying about the Epstein file.
Plus, ICE detains a Columbia student from her dorm and a refugee said to be nearly blind is found dead after agents left him.
Also --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: He's a communist. We're going to go to a communistic -- that's so bad for New York
PHILLIP: -- months after villainizing him, Donald Trump gives Zohran Mamdani a hero's welcome as the relationship gets more surreal.
And MAGA activists are pitching an executive order that would allow Trump to take over the nation's election.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Leigh McGowan, Jason Rantz, Xochitl Hinojosa and Congressman Tom Suozzi.
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, the Clintons, specifically Hillary Clinton. She sat down with the House Oversight Committee today for a six-hour deposition about what she knew about Jeffrey Epstein. And tomorrow they're going to speak with Bill Clinton, who appears many times in the Epstein files.
But the former Democratic nominee took Republicans on head on, and she made it clear that she had no direct links to Jeffrey Epstein.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I never met Jeffrey Epstein, never had any connection or communication with him. I knew Ghislaine Maxwell casually as an acquaintance. But whatever they asked me, I did my very best to respond.
We returned to answer questions repetitively, literally over and over again. I don't know how many times I had to say I did not know Jeffrey Epstein. I never went to his island. I never went to his homes. I never went to his offices. So, it's on the record numerous times.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: In her opening statement, Clinton called out Republican-led -- the Republican-led committee claiming that her deposition was an attempt to distract attention from President Trump. She also added that if the committee was actually serious about finding out the truth, they wouldn't rely on press gaggles with Trump, and they'd instead asked him actual questions under oath about the tens of thousands of times that his name appears in the Epstein files.
It is a question after this deposition, but even before this deposition, what is the point of bringing Hillary Clinton in to ask her about Jeffrey Epstein at all?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I assume they thought maybe she might have some views on it. I mean, Jeffrey Epstein visited the Clinton White House 17 times. Her husband is in the files, he's in photos. I'm assuming she has an opinion about this, may have encountered some of these folks. Ghislaine Maxwell went to Chelsea Clinton's wedding.
So, look, I'm not sure what she had to say. My understanding is we're going to get to see the tapes of both of them and then we'll find out what they know. But I take her at her word that she claims she didn't know him. The real meat of this week will probably come tomorrow when they get Bill Clinton under oath.
PHILLIP: Why is it relevant what her opinion is on Jeffrey Epstein? I thought we were trying to find out whether people were involved in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: That's right. And also they asked her about how she felt about her husband being with Epstein or on the plane, and she says, this isn't about my feelings. This is, I'm telling you what I know and I don't know anything.
And the interesting part about this is they knew that this is what they were going to get out of her. They weren't going to get anything out of her. She told them over and over and over again that she had no information about this. They asked her about UFOs. They asked her about Pizzagate. They -- she, at the end, stated in her statement that you played a little while ago, she stated that she had to tell them how to investigate, how to conduct an investigation because they had not asked previous people that they had deposed about Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell.
And so this is all political. And the fact that they even brought Hillary Clinton to, what, answer for her husband is just laughable.
[22:05:05]
I think at the end of the day, this is what Hillary Clinton does best. She knows how to take on Republicans and she essentially told them, she walked out of there telling them, you are not serious about this investigation, and if you are, this is how you run one.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: Well, as my friend, Joanne Carducci, said, there's three people mentioned most in the Epstein files, and that's Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and Donald Trump. One of them is in prison. One of them died in prison, and one of them is the president of the United States, but we're deposing Hillary Clinton. Like, it doesn't make any sense.
At the end of the day, the government has repeatedly lied about these files. They refuse to release the full files, then they're hiding the documents and now they're pointing allegations everywhere except at the president who is in the files the very most. And this is a huge distraction to use Hillary Clinton, the like vicious evil Hillary Clinton, as a distraction from what they've actually done.
PHILLIP: Let me play --
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: Or as a distraction from not going after Trump for four years.
PHILLIP: Well, let me play -- this is Hillary Clinton talking about what Republicans did not do when it came to the deposition of other people who are also in the Epstein files.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: The best exchange that I had came at the very end when contrary to every other deposition they have taken, no Republican member asked any questions about Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell to anyone else they have deposed. And, in fact, the Republican members didn't even show up for the deposition of Les Wexner.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: How do you even explain that, Jason? They don't show up to a deposition of the man who everybody acknowledges is the source of a vast amount of Jeffrey Epstein's wealth and was connected to him for ages?
RANTZ: Well, James Comer was having surgery at the time, so he actually has a good excuse.
MCGOWAN: Just answer her question though.
RANTZ: The rest of the Republican --
PHILLIP: No Republicans shows up?
RANTZ: No. I don't know why the other Republicans chose not to show up. I have --
PHILLIP: I mean, it seems to show a lack of seriousness.
RANTZ: Well, I think it's a lack of seriousness when we decide to turn this into actual politics, and that's part of the reason why I think there's such pushback from just immediately saying, well, why isn't Trump showing up? I mean, on one side you have to say, Hillary Clinton shouldn't be showing up because that's purely political. She's already said she has no connection and she didn't do anything wrong. Okay. Well, Donald Trump has said exactly the same thing. He hasn't done anything wrong. And all we've heard for the last year is these implications that because his name is in the files, that he somehow did something wrong, he committed a crime, except no one's actually telling us what the crime was.
MCGOWAN: They're holding back all the files that have his name on.
RANTZ: I think that's absurd because she's already --
REP. TOM SUOZZI (D-NY): I think everybody is tired of the political games. People are just tired of this. I mean, why would you question Hillary Clinton in the first place? I read her statement today. She said, I've been fighting for women and girls my entire life. Why are you questioning me instead of working to make sure all the files are released? Why are you coming after me instead of making sure that the redactions are proper redactions that protect the victims and expose some of the powerful people and their politically connected people? Why are you questioning me instead of questioning the guy that said, I want to go to the wildest party that you have on the island, when is that going to be? Why are you not questioning the secretary of commerce who says, I wouldn't go near that disgusting guy, and then it turns out he did go to the island on a boat?
RANTZ: Why did you not ask those questions for the four years in which you had control in --
SUOZZI: I was never paying attention to this issue. I have to be honest, it was not a big issue. And because it's not one of the big issues, you've never heard of me talk about it before.
JENNINGS: You seem pretty passionate.
SUOZZI: Because I'm here tonight to talk about this issue and I'm disgusted by the fact that the American people don't know who to trust about anything anymore.
JENNINGS: What'd you think about when your colleague, Ro Khanna, went down to the house floor and doxed four people who apparently had nothing to do with this whatsoever? Did you think that was a good use of time?
SUOZZI: I actually didn't know that it happened.
MCGOWAN: There are hundreds of thousands of --
PHILLIP: But hold on. I've heard this being brought up a few times, and, frankly, I'm not understanding what the argument is. Are those people in the Epstein files?
JENNINGS: Yes, that's part of the point.
PHILLIP: Are they victims?
JENNINGS: They were there.
PHILLIP: Are they -- hold on. Are they victims of Jeffrey Epstein?
JENNINGS: They're victims of Ro Khanna.
PHILLIP: So -- no. Are they victims of Jeffrey Epstein?
JENNINGS: I don't think so.
PHILLIP: So, what does the law say about whether or not their names ought to be redacted in the files?
JENNINGS: It has nothing to do with redactions. It has to do with the fact that a member of Congress went down and doxed people who did nothing wrong and had nothing to do with it.
PHILLIP: Hold on. First of all, the use of the word --
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: What was that?
PHILLIP: Guys, one second. One second.
SUOZZI: Why are you having this back and forth? I mean, the reality is we know that Jeffrey Epstein did some really bad stuff. We know there are millions of files that have not been released. We know there are millions of files that have redactions that don't make any sense. Why can't we just get to the basic facts of the situation?
[22:10:01]
Why do we have to play the game, Ro Khanna, Hillary Clinton? Like --
MCGOWAN: Because you guys are running cover. That's why, they're running cover. There are hundreds of thousands of documents naming people, including the people that Ro Khanna said on the floor who are in the files.
JENNINGS: Are you accusing me?
MCGOWAN: There are thousands of victims? PHILLIP: Revealing people's names is not doxing.
JENNINGS: Are you --
RANTZ: Abby, the implication from Ro Khanna and others --
PHILLIP: Let me just make this point. It is not doxing to name a person. That is not what doxing is. That's the first thing. The second thing is, there are a lot of people who are innocuous people in the Epstein files. Unfortunately, Congress passed a law that says that unless they are victims, there is no justification to withhold their names. So, to those gentlemen, unfortunate that they are being brought up, if they're innocent, fine, that's fine, but there's no legal requirement to withhold their names. And, in fact, withholding their names is probably a violation of the law.
So, I don't understand that whole argument from the beginning. And, secondly, there is so much outrage about revealing the names of random men and zero outrage about revealing the names of actual victims. That actually happened in the Epstein files. Why is there no outrage about that?
RANTZ: I don't know why you're saying there's no outrage. I mean, I was on this show when that had happened like the day after or a couple days after, and we all were on the same exact page that it shouldn't have happened. The problem was when you're pushing to get millions of documents out there, mistakes unfortunately get made. That is the reality.
It is true it's not something any of us want. No one wants to see any of these victims have anything other than justice. But this idea that there was no outrage, I don't think that that's accurate.
To the point of the implication of the individuals who were named, it's not so much that they were named, to your point, and it's valid. And I hope everyone understands this, there are people who are named, who have literally nothing to do with anything tied to even the rumor of a crime in those files.
But Ro Khanna and some others --
MCGOWAN: People like Hillary Clinton.
RANTZ: -- decided to go out there and imply that, wow, look what we just found. We found co-conspirators. We got people --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: They said, why are these people's names redacted but they should not be redacted. That's just a simple --
MCGOWAN: That's part of the law.
PHILLIP: That's part of the law.
Now, I do want to play this one thing. This is on the Trump of it all. Anna Paulina Luna and other Republicans and the president, they keep insisting that the president has been exonerated. But I want you to listen to this and listen to what she's saying and what one of the actual victims has said about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ANNA PAULINA LUNA (R-FL): We asked specifically the victims, and we are all there as well as the speaker and the Democrat members of Congress if the president was involved and they exonerated him. So, why would we bring in the president of the United States, who's been exonerated, who cooperated with law enforcement and who released the files?
MARINA LACERDA, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: I had, you know, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna say that the victims have exonerated him. I have not yet talked to the DOJ. Do you think the Trump administration has reached out to myself? I can't speak for my survivor sisters, but I'm pretty close with them. I'm pretty sure they would have shared that with me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Again, forget about Trump for a second here. She's a victim. The FBI hasn't talked to her?
HINOJOSA: Yes, that --
PHILLIP: What's happening?
HINOJOSA: And that's extremely concerning. And I think that is the big question that survivors are facing. I think what typically happens in these types of situations is the U.S. attorney's office takes lead and they should be doing all of those interviews. If someone is coming out and saying, I have more information, I have new evidence, it is the FBI's responsibility to go figure out what that new evidence is and potentially open a case for investigation again.
And so I think that there is a big question about why the Justice Department isn't necessarily looking at it, isn't necessarily, if someone is saying they have new information, taking that interview. And it's just -- to me, it seems that there isn't the political will within the building to do that.
And so I find it interesting that the whole reason why this started was because Trump and Pam Bondi wanted full transparency because they thought that there were Democratic members and Democrats in the Epstein files, and it was -- it started off as political, completely political, and now we are where we're at, where the survivors are not being able to tell their story.
RANTZ: To be clear, there are Democrats in the Epstein files.
HINOJOSA: And there are also Republican. And actually I will go back to Donald Trump being exonerated. I actually don't think that there is potentially-charged conduct in the Epstein files that there will result in new charges. But if we're going off people who are mentioned thousands and thousands and thousands of times, then Donald Trump should sit for a deposition the way that Joe Biden sat for a deposition during the Hur report and recorded. There is no reason if he has nothing to hide, he should sit for a recorded deposition and he should be able to tell them exactly what his relationship was with Donald Trump.
RANTZ: He's been on the record.
HINOJOSA: Not on the record. Sworn testimony is different than on the record. He has not done sworn testimony.
RANTZ: And Hillary Clinton, who didn't want to --
[22:15:00]
HINOJOSA: And she did it. And she did it.
RANTZ: She said she shouldn't have.
HINOJOSA: But Donald Trump, what does he have to hide?
PHILLIP: All right, we got to leave it there.
Next for us, ICE arrests a Columbia student by entering her apartment under alleged false pretenses. But then a phone call to Donald Trump gets her freed.
Plus, a group of MAGA activists is pitching the White House on a plan aimed at giving Trump the power to take over America's election. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: MAGA activists are reportedly plotting a scheme that would allow President Trump to take over the nation's elections. According to The Washington Post, the group is coordinating with the White House and is circulating a draft executive order that claims China interfered in the 2020 election.
[22:20:06]
They're using that as a basis to declare a national emergency that would unlock extraordinary presidential power over voting.
In a statement to CNN, the White House says, its staff regularly is in communication with a variety of outside advocates who want to share their policy ideas with the president. Any speculation about policies the president may or may not announce is just that, speculation.
Does that satisfy you, Congressman, that they're just talking to these people? It's just speculation that he might declare a national emergency to take over elections?
SUOZZI: Well, I can't imagine that the president would try a move like that, it would be awful for our country. The Constitution gives control over elections to the states. And is it true that the Chinese Communist Party interferes with our elections? I believe they do. They interfere every single day using social media, like TikTok, that unanimously -- I mean, sorry, overwhelmingly bipartisan, the House and the Senate said that they have to divest TikTok, has to divest from their Chinese Communist Party ownership. The president has delayed that for over a year. Now there's going to be some divestment of those of those ownership interests by the Chinese Communist Party.
But we have to recognize that our adversaries, our foreign adversaries, are trying to use our social media and freedom of speech to divide us from each other on a regular basis. They take issues where we're fighting about each other a little bit and they blow up both sides, giving a different message to this side and a different message to that side.
Your show, when you said in the beginning where people can talk together with different views, that's not happening in most of the country. In most of the country, people are getting information here and information here, and they have nothing to do with each other.
PHILLIP: I'm not -- I mean, I think that that is true, but I'm not so sure that's what Trump is concerned about here. Some of the people that he has around him and some of the people in these groups, what they're talking about are far more outlandish conspiracies, including back in 2020 when they were claiming that, you know, Venezuela was manipulating voting machines. And, I mean, if it's just China and if it's Russia, which in the same report that accuses China of wanting to interfere with our elections, Russia was found to have interfered in our election, that might be it, but that's not it. There's a lot of other stuff going on.
HINOJOSA: Well, and there is a lot of stuff He wants control of the system because he understands that he's going to lose the midterm elections. I'll say if there is a national security threat that they are worried about, whether it's the Chinese or it's somebody else, they need to brief the Gang of Eight on what exactly is going on and what the intelligence is behind that.
Instead, what they are doing is there are plans to take this -- the elections away from the states and unclear who would run them, Kristi Noem, which she can't even run DHS and ICE, so I can't even imagine how she would be running a national election.
I also want to point out, I was talking to a national security official who used to work at the Justice Department, and one thing that they were telling me is that if you make -- if you nationalize our elections, it makes us less safe. The fact that our elections are in states, that happens for a reason, and it happens because then a foreign adversary can't go and necessarily target everyone. It is safer for it to be in the states than for it to be held within the federal government. Also, we don't trust the federal government to run our elections. So, there are a lot of things --
MCGOWAN: The Republican Party has spent my entire life talking about the importance of state's rights. Like that's -- that was it, the importance of state's rights. And now I feel like everyone's supposed to just roll over and be like, yes, the federal government takes care of all the elections. That's ludicrous. It's terrible for the people. Everyone sitting at this table and every American should be shocked if that's what they're trying to do.
It has nothing to do with foreign interference. It has to do with controlling an election they can't control. And it's not the behavior of someone who thinks they're winning. It's the behavior of someone that thinks they need to do something to win.
RANTZ: I thought they were trying to cancel all the elections. So, have we moved on from that talking point? So, now it's trying to create --
HINOJOSA: It's not a talking point. We're talking about a story that is in The Washington Post --
RANTZ: No. Previously, the talking point was that he wasn't even going to allow an election to happen.
HINOJOSA: No, we're not talking about a talking point. We're talking about facts, end of story.
RANTZ: But actually the story doesn't have that many facts. I mean, this is speculation about what could potentially be in an executive order that we haven't actually seen yet. I think a lot of this probably has to do with voter I.D. law and ensuring that only folks who are in this country legally and are American citizens and are eligible to vote are being registered.
MCGOWAN: Which is what already happens.
RANTZ: Except that's not true. But that is not true. That doesn't happen. You don't have voter I.D.
MCGOWAN: It's just not based on what you guys want to say.
RANTZ: But that's just not true. That's factually not.
HINOJOSA: The group is going even further in the reporting and it states that they want people to register to vote over again in an election this year. There is no way that that happens and that -- I mean, that is completely insane.
RANTZ: There are lots of groups --
(CROSSTALKS)
RANTZ: I 100 percent agree with you on that. There are lots of groups that say lots of things. There were lots of groups during the Biden administration that said crazy things as well.
PHILLIP: So, why isn't the White House knocking that down?
[22:25:00]
Why are they saying, oh, the president takes all these ideas, and they -- he takes them under --
RANTZ: Because it's true, they are talking to different groups and there's going to be --
PHILLIP: So, let me get this straight. Do you think it is okay for the president to consider an executive order that declares an emergency that allows him to take over control of elections?
RANTZ: I don't know if that language is actually accurate. I know that's what's in the reporting, but this whole idea that we're framing it as taking over elections. So, for example, if he were to come out and it really was just focused on basically what's in the SAVE Act, I wouldn't view that, or I wouldn't frame it as taking over federal elections.
MCGOWAN: The SAVE Act includes DHS taking over all the --
PHILLIP: Hold on, hold on. Finish your thought. And then we will --
RANTZ: But I'm saying we are expanding, based on what some activist groups are proposing, activist groups work with both parties, whoever's in the White House, that is not new. That happens. And sometimes there are groups that come out that have some crazy ideas. And I think, politically, you don't just automatically reject an entire group of people who might be part of a meaningful conversation about what we will do.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: The president himself has said that the federal government should take over elections. He said that federal agents should be counting votes. He has said that the federal government -- that the states are just agents of the federal government. Those are things that he said with his own mouth, no groups, put that -- those words in his mouth. And then on top of that, the White House will not rule out that the president would declare an emergency in order to essentially do what he's already said he wants to do, which is takeover elections. Why?
JENNINGS: Well, he has concerns about the election system. He has made that very clear. I personally don't think the federal government should take over or be in charge of elections. We have a diffused system of elections in this country for a reason. States are in charge of elections and then you get inside of states and you have county officials.
And I think the diffusion of this actually is a protectorate of -- it would be hard to hack or, you know, as the Congressman said, if people are trying to mess with it, it would be hard to do it because you have so many people with eyes on it in different locations with different laws and different regulations. There a bit of an inoculation in that.
However, the federal government already has some entanglement with states on elections. We have the Help America Vote Act. We have the Voter Registration Act. They expect certain standards when it comes to voter rolls out of states. I think that's very appropriate that states should be asked, I think, to meet those standards. Why do you have hundreds of thousands of people on your voter rolls, for instance, who are not registered or legal voters in your state? These are legitimate questions.
I also agree with the Congressman about the foreign interference. It may not all be technical interference, but some of it may be psychological warfare against the American people. I think we have to be sure fully on guard for that, but I think part of the solution here may be just an expansion of the already legitimate connection between federal statutes and the states when it comes to ensuring voter laws and the systems are working properly.
PHILLIP: The relationship is through legislation, right. So, that's the premise. But here's the thing that's been getting the Trump administration in trouble. They've been asking states to just hand over their voter roll and sensitive data, and a lot of states have refused, and now they're suing more states.
And take a look at this map because those states in red are the new states that are being sued and they're Republican states. West Virginia has said, you guys can buy the voter rolls just like everybody else, but we're not giving you sensitive data. Kentucky, Oklahoma, Utah, I mean, you have states that are -- that should be fine with this, right, but they're not because the they, they believe the federal government is overstepping here.
MCGOWAN: Because the federal government is overstepping. And they're not just overstepping and trying to take voter rolls, and then if they can't just get them, to then sue them, and then if they can't get it that way, to just walk into a place like in Georgia and take them or put it into the SAVE Act, which they just added in that every state would have to give their voter rolls to DHS. They're also doing things like messing with the Post Office, saying when ballots come in, they don't have to be certified that day, changing where ballots are certified. So, if I live 300 miles and I put my mail in the box here and it goes 300 miles to be certified, then has to come back to my town to be mailed.
It's all about voter interference. It's all part and parcel of the same thing, and it's all part and parcel of somebody that knows they are not going to win without interfering in the election.
SUOZZI: I just want to take the moment to embrace the fact that Scott has come out and said that he doesn't think the federal government should be taking over state elections. And I would ask our other colleagues say the same thing, and that we all agree here, let's find the common ground here. The federal government should not be taking over the state's roles in these elections.
And let's have the common ground here. It's not going to be as good entertainment, but if we need to move the country forward and get people working together a little bit.
PHILLIP: We got to leave it there.
All right, on that bipartisan note, next for us, new questions after a Columbia student is detained by ICE agents allegedly under false pretenses. What DHS is saying about that, we'll discuss next.
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, two more stories involving the Department of Homeland Security prompting outrage and concern.
This morning, a student at Columbia University was detained after ICE allegedly used deception to gain entry into a campus building. The university says that agents claimed that they were looking for a missing person before taking the Azerbaijani student into custody.
[22:35:02]
Also this week, detectives in Buffalo are investigating the circumstances of the death of a nearly blind refugee who spoke little English and he was dropped off by Border Patrol agents at a coffee shop alone. That man, a refugee from Myanmar, was found dead five days later about four miles from the coffee shop. His family says they were never notified where he was being dropped off and that he couldn't read, write, or use electronic devices.
This Buffalo story is really sad. It seems utterly preventable and I don't know, I think it raises questions about what does happen when ICE just drops people off, no paperwork.
Apparently this guy didn't even have shoes on. He was still wearing, you know, yellow or orange cloth booties on his feet in the middle of winter.
REP. TOM SUOZZI (D-NY): This is so tragic and so painful. Who knows the circumstances here, but there are stories like this happening all the time. And, you know, the President had a great success securing the border and the idea of going after violent criminals. People in the country, I think, most of them support it.
But the idea of some of these actions on the interior enforcement that we've seen, whether it be Minneapolis or the stuff out in L.A. or Chicago before, or a story about like this man getting picked up and then dying out in the freezing cold, I mean, it's just awful.
And not only from a political point of view is the President blowing what would have been a great success of his, but we're treating people very poorly. And we -- that's not -- most Americans have a sense of fairness and they don't want to see people treated inhumanely. And we've got to do a better job.
And I think that there's a way forward if, again, if people just work together with each other to find a way to secure the border, fix the broken asylum system and legalize a bunch of people that have been here since before President Trump became President the first time and haven't committed any crimes and are going to work every day and go to church on Sundays. Let's figure out a way to move forward. This is just so painful.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, "POLITICSGIRL": As a congressman, though, is this not the problem with ICE, that they aren't educated in the law, they don't follow the law, they aren't beholden to the law, so it doesn't matter if they break it. So, it becomes less about them being a law enforcement agency or even an immigration agency, but more like an unregistered rogue agency where they can kind of do what they want, which is, I think, why people want it defunded, if not abolished.
Because you can have an immigration agency that works, or you can have a group of people who will pull you out of your car, leave you alone on the street, let you be shot in the head. And then that's why the American people are like, what are these guys doing? They've got it under control.
SUOZZI: ICE is failing. A lot of the behavior has been immoral and illegal. And most of the people who work for ICE, I'm sure, are good people trying to do the right thing.
But there are these rogue instances where these awful things are happening. You see a window of a car being broken and a guy dragged out and getting beaten up.
We saw people killed in Minneapolis. We see these awful things. And there's not enough supervision and training in this office, and that's why everybody wants to get control of it.
You hear things like defund ICE, or abolish ICE, I should say. I don't think we should abolish ICE. We still have to do the work necessary to enforce our immigration laws, but we totally have to reform ICE.
MCGOWAN: I don't think these guys are reformable, though.
JAZON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: So, number one, I mean, this idea that people do, in fact, have support for abolishing or defunding ICE is just not true. There's no poll that suggests that.
PHILLIP: There was a poll that showed almost half of Americans are open to the idea of abolishing ICE. That's a shocking result, but I think it's in the midst of all of the stuff going on with Minneapolis.
RANTZ: I mean, that's also an outlier. I think two things are true at the same time.
MCGOWAN: It's not an outlier, man.
RANTZ: It is an outlier.
MCGOWAN: You can't just say things and expect them to be true.
RANTZ: Well, that's what the polling actually suggests.
MCGOWAN: The polling suggests it's 50 percent.
RANTZ: Okay, so you got your one poll, and we can point to literally every other poll that doesn't show that. People do want to see reforms, and I think in some cases.
I agree with the Congressman. There have been some instances, at least on the surface, that seems like better oversight is something that we should be focused on, but there's also, I think, some folks jumping to conclusions based on not all the facts.
In this particular case, maybe it was not just a tragedy, but it was an egregious abuse. I don't know. I saw some of the reporting suggesting that the man said, drop me off at this coffee shop.
I don't know the details beyond that. This idea that maybe they broke the law, ICE maybe broke the law. Okay, what law was broken in here? We don't have the details yet.
PHILLIP: Well I have a few basic questions about this.
One, you know, Border Patrol or ICE or federal agents, they were called to pick this guy up because he was about to be released on what ended up being a misdemeanor plea. Rather than checking his deportability before they picked him up, they detained him.
Now, they detained him, learned he couldn't be deported. Why couldn't that have been done before? Well, part of me wonders, is it because they have quotas that they have to reach in terms of people that they have to detain as part of their Stephen Miller push to hit certain numbers?
[22:40:08]
Because we're talking about, they're acting as if these are just individual people, but it actually seems like a broader issue with ICE and Border Patrol putting numbers on the table and saying, the more people you pick up, the more bonuses you get. The more people you pick up, the closer you get to the target that we want you to get to, regardless of whether these people are eligible for deportation or not.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR AND FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes, I don't have enough facts about this case to know whether what you're alleging is true. I do know broader numbers. I saw some numbers today for the month of January, in fact, for the city of New Orleans.
Over 2500 arrests, 10,000 deportations, 25 gang members picked up and taken off the streets. I mean, ICE is having hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of interactions with people around the country. Do I think it's reasonable to assume you're going to have individual interactions where something goes awry, where a detail is missed, where there's something unfortunate or bad that happens?
PHILLIP: This man is dead. He didn't need to be dead. He was not a criminal, he was--
JENNINGS: But does that negate the need to do the hundreds of thousands of other interactions they're having across the country?
PHILLIP: Listen, I don't know. I think some people would say that there is a way to do this that respects human life, right? Respects the lives of people who are here trying to seek a better life, trying to do the best that they can, and doesn't treat them as disposable. Dropping this man off outside of a closed store, they can't even
communicate with him. They acknowledge they cannot communicate with him because he is speaking a language that they don't speak.
So rather than take him back where they picked him up, allow them to help find his relatives, they didn't do any of that stuff. They just dropped him off in the middle of winter outside of a closed coffee shop.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER DNC SPOKESPERSON AND FORMER DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PUBLIC AFFAIRS DIRECTOR: Yes, and I think that whether the numbers that Scott is referring to, I do think it is because they have quotas from Stephen Miller, and I do think they run into trouble. Whatever happens moving forward on reforming ICE or however we talk about this, it is very clear that DHS cannot handle interior enforcement.
They should be in charge of enforcing the border, making sure our border is secure, and then, I don't know, we don't see the FBI or DHS or U.S. Marshals killing U.S. citizens, you know, leaving a man on the street to die or any of these things. There are law enforcement agencies in the federal government who know how to be a law enforcement, you know, like to follow the rules.
And so I do think that whoever is running for President, whoever takes over, and you know what, frankly, Donald Trump might even want to do this, is not only pass some sort of immigration reform, but he should also think about moving ICE outside of DHS and moving interior enforcement outside of DHS and having DOJ or FBI or somebody else having them do that from that entity. Because I don't think that Kristi Noem and DHS can handle interior enforcement.
PHILLIP: It's an interesting point, and we'll see if the calls for reform produce anything more than just calls.
But next for us, from enemies to frenemies, we have now entered the newest chapter of the Trump-Mamdani relationship we'll discuss next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, it looks like the Donald Trump-Zohran Mamdani bromance is heating up again.
New York's mayor went to the White House today to discuss building more housing in New York City, and to help make his case, Mamdani bought brought some visual aids like this photo-shopped front page of the "New York Daily News" with the headline, "Trump to City, Let's Rebuild," a play off of a 1975 front page that featured President Ford.
Now, Mamdani called the meeting productive, and his office says that Trump was enthusiastic about the proposal, which included building 12,000 new units in the city. The new relationship is a far cry from the war of words between the two just months ago.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He's a communist. We're going to go to a communist city? That's so bad for New York.
ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), THEN-NEW YORK CITY MAYORAL CANDIDATE: And if there is any way to terrify a despot, it is by dismantling the very conditions that allowed him to accumulate power.
TRUMP: The Mamdani thing is a -- it's a disaster waiting to happen.
MAMDANI: Our city is under attack by an authoritarian Trump administration.
TRUMP: He's a communist. He hates police, he hates Jewish people, and yet he's got Jewish people supporting him. He hates Jewish people.
MAMDANI: If anyone can show a nation betrayed by Donald Trump how to defeat him, it is the city that gave rise to him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I still see both Democrats and Republicans fighting yesterday's war on this. They're like still trying to make these two enemies when Mamdani and Trump are just fine working together, getting some stuff done for each other, posing for pictures. I mean, is it time to just let it go?
JENNINGS: This is a good thing. It's okay for us to have heated debates in elections, and then Democrats and Republicans work together when the elections are over. They're not going to agree on a lot of things, but I suspect if you're Mamdani and you want to have a good relationship with Trump, walking into the Oval Office and saying, let's build some buildings and do some development in New York City, that's like the number one thing that you would do to get Donald Trump excited.
And by the way, it's probably a great idea, and who better to get involved than Donald Trump?
[22:50:04]
PHILLIP: You were not a Mamdani guy, but he seems to be getting the job done.
SUOZZI: So listen, this is the big question. Why is Donald Trump doing this?
I mean, I love this idea of them working together. Why can't Donald Trump work together with the Democrats in Washington, D.C.?
You have Donald Trump here, and he calls Mamdani a communist over there. He says, but I want to work together with him.
Good, I like that. Why can't he work together with the Democrats? There must be something going on here.
PHILLIP: Can I flip the question? Why can't Democrats learn from how Mamdani is dealing with Trump?
Because he understands the game, he walks in with a poster and a very direct ask. That's a win-win for everybody.
$21 billion for 12,000 affordable homes. Trump wants affordable housing. It's easy to see how you get a deal. Should Democrats learn from that?
SUOZZI: Yes, absolutely. I've wrote an op-ed saying, let's work together with Donald Trump. I've sent letters to the President, bipartisan letters, saying, let's make a deal on immigration to get something done.
The problem is, the President has not talked to any Democrats in Washington, D.C. He talked to John Fetterman once in March of 2025, he talked to Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries before the shutdown, and that's when they're hoping with the sombreros for Hakeem Jeffries. And he's talked to Schumer a couple times about the Gateway Project.
He has not been talking to the Democrats. At the State of the Union the other night, I'm very well rested from that evening, but he made a point of saying, they're all crazy, they're all sick. I mean, let's work together to actually solve some real problems in people's lives.
RANTZ: But how many of your colleagues didn't bother to show up at something that would have been controversial for them to show up to and express some interest in at least respecting the office and respecting the institution?
SUOZZI: Listen--
RANTZ: There were plenty who chose not to, and I think that's why--
SUOZZI: I'm making a plea. I'm making a plea to the President of the United States of America.
Mr. President, let's work together to get some stuff done. Let's work on affordability, let's work on immigration, let's work on the things that are affecting real people's lives in America and stop all the finger-pointing. I'm ready to work with you.
PHILLIP: If Democrats could get Trump to the table, should they?
MCGOWAN: Yes, I mean, look, at the end of the day, Mamdani said he was working for the people of New York. His job is to get the people of New York affordable housing.
If he can get that money from the President, terrific. If he can get that money from Kathy Hochul now that the federal government owes her a $13.5 billion refund for Trump's tariffs, great.
He's doing what he said he would do, he said he would work for the American people, he said he would work for the people of New York. And I just think people should remember that picture of Trump smiling his face off, because I've never seen him so happy, when the GOP messaging for the midterms is, Mom, Donnie and the radical left Democrats destroy America.
SUOZZI: He's going to get every piece of literature that they put in my campaign.
Well, I think that's the end of that-- that's probably the end of that argument today.
HINOJOSA: Probably no more.
PHILLIP: And the end of our panel discussion on this topic. But next for us, the panel is going to give us their nightcaps, Whopper edition.
But first, a quick programming note for you. 40 years after the world's worst nuclear disaster, CNN uncovers the full story. "Disaster, the Chernobyl Meltdown" premieres Sunday at 9:00 p.m. on CNN, and the next day on the CNN app.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Burger King is unveiling the first Whopper revamp in a decade. Tweaks were made to the bun, mayo, and packaging.
And so for tonight's News Nightcap, what other American institution needs an overhaul? Jason.
RANTZ: Okay, I'm going with airlines and how they handle people getting onto a plane. And I'm going to talk directly to the people responsible.
If you are zone seven, don't stand right in front of the gate when they're calling zone one and two. I understand why you want to get onto the plane or I believe me, I understand it. You're causing problems and you're not getting on the plane any quicker.
PHILLIP: Yes, I know you and those airlines that make everybody line up. You guys are the villains. Okay, Leigh.
MCGOWAN: Okay, the institution I think needs to go is daylight savings. We're over it.
I think we just pick a time and commit. Farmers don't need it anymore. It upsets dogs and toddlers.
And quite frankly, no one likes it.
PHILLIP: 100 percent. Could you get on that, Tom?
SUOZZI: Yes, sure.
MCGOWAN: Thanks.
SUOZZI: The State of the Union should be limited to one hour so people don't fall asleep during the State of the Union.
PHILLIP: I would say put it on paper. Let's just write it down.
HINOJOSA: It's all serious. Mine appeals to the toddlers.
And toys in cereal boxes. Wine in healthy cereal boxes. Because you're going to--
RANTZ: We had a debate early on.
HINOJOSA: -- about how cereals unhealthy. We do cash in the cereal and the healthy ones.
But yes, bring toys back.
RANTZ: This is a MAHA to me.
PHILLIP: I can be down with that.
HINOJOSA: Sounds MAHA to you.
SUOZZI: That's what I said.
PHILLIP: The kids will be very excited.
HINOJOSA: Exactly.
PHILLIP: Yes, I'm with it.
HINOJOSA: Yes.
PHILLIP: All right, Scott.
JENNINGS: I also have an airline related.
I have a lot of airline views. I think you and I may be aligned on revamping the whole how we get in and out of the airport. But specifically, we now have the technology to give every single person who steps foot on an airplane free Wi-Fi, fast Wi-Fi the minute they get on.
Some airlines are trying. They've got Starlink on some airlines now. But some of them still make you sign up, some of them still make you pay for it.
I think if you buy an airline ticket of any kind, you ought to be able to step on that plane, push one button and have Wi-Fi for the whole time.
[23:00:05]
PHILLIP: I could not agree more. I mean--
HINOJOSA: Agree.
PHILLIP: Yes. And also, if you do make people pay and it doesn't work--
JENNINGS: -- you get your money back immediately.
PHILLIP: You better refund them. I mean, it is absurd. We have some airline hot takes, maybe we'll get to that one today.
HINOJOSA: Yes.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone. Thank you very much.
Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media: X, Instagram and Tiktok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
