Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Says Iran To Allow Nuke Inspectors, Which Was In Obama Deal; U.S. Allows Iran To Sell Oil In Dollars For First Time In Decades; Source Says, Mass Firings Begin At Office Of Director Of National Intelligence; Hillary Clinton Says The Electoral College Is An Abomination; Donald Trump Claims Vandalism In Reflected Pool Causing Algae buildup And Peeling Of Sealants From The Bottom. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 22, 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 VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Tonight, the White House touts a concession from Iran that was in the Obama deal.
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: The Iranians have agreed to invite IAEA inspectors back into their country.
PHILLIP: While the U.S. allows Tehran to sell oil in dollars for the first time in decades.
Plus --
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I personally think the Electoral College is an abomination.
PHILLIP: Hillary Clinton reignites a debate over how America votes, and Kamala Harris does, too.
KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I think we need to look at that, too.
PHILLIP: And Donald Trump blames vandals for his reflecting pool chaos and threatens to throw them into the deep end.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They did something to create the algae.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Charles Blow, Jason Rantz, Jemele Hill, Caroline Downey, and Ana Navarro.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Tonight, the White House is touting a, quote, big deal in its talks with Iran, but the breakthrough is something that was in Barack Obama's nuclear deal that President Trump tore up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: This is probably what we're most excited about as Americans. The Iranians have agreed to invite IAEA inspectors back into their country. That is a major milestone for the American people and the first step in permanently denuclearizing or permanently ending a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: For decades, inspectors will have access to Iran's entire nuclear supply chain, from the uranium mines and mills where they get raw materials to the centrifuge production facilities where they make machines to enrich it.
And under the terms of the deal, inspectors will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in Iran.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Back in 2015, Republicans criticized President Obama's nuclear deal, claiming it gave billions in cash to Iran. It actually was their own assets that were unfrozen. But Trump today said that he has lifted sanctions on the sale of Iranian oil for the next 60 days, and for the first time in decades, the United States is allowing oil to be imported into this country.
A reminder, just last month, the State Department announced new sanctions on Iran's trading oil with China, and it argued that Iran's oil trade was the primary revenue stream for Iranians to fund terrorism and regional destabilization.
So, I don't know. I mean, I guess if the benchmark is, how do we fix things that were -- that we broke, maybe this is a big deal. But not only was the IAEA inspections part of the Iran nuclear deal, but IAEA inspectors were in Iran up until last summer, right at the point at which Operation Midnight Hammer happened, and then it was after that that they left the country because the Iranian government shut down their access to nuclear sites as a result of the U.S. attacks on Iran.
So, why is this some kind of breakthrough that J.D. Vance is touting?
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: I don't know if it's a breakthrough. I think the reason why it's being framed that way is obviously political. They're looking for a win in front of the American public who have been not convinced that this was the right thing to do.
I think some of this is just simply premature, both coming from J.D. Vance, but also critics of this. We don't actually know what the plan is. We don't know what this deal is going to look like in 60 days. I hope that it's something different than what we've had in the past. I am amongst the conservative critics of the MOU, but I'm also understanding that that's all it is. It's a memo of understanding.
This notion that we're laying the foundation, fair enough, that the immediate goal was to end the military strikes and to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, that was a political goal to help bring down the cost of gasoline in this country going into the midterms.
So, I'm looking forward to what this is going to look like. I don't necessarily trust Iran. I don't think any of us should trust Iran, but we are doing things from a slightly different position than when President Obama was in power.
[22:05:03]
They obviously don't have quite the same military threat as they did before. So, we're going into it with a little bit more strength than we have in the past.
PHILLIP: But we're going in less.
CHARLES BLOW, THE LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Yes. But we went into it in peace time. We went into it not having at least 13 American soldiers have to be killed to get it. We went into it not having 168 innocent Iranian schoolgirls killed to get it. We went into it not having our stockpiles depleted in order to get it. We went into it not having billions of dollars of American taxpayer money spent to get it.
So, I'm trying to figure out where the win is. Even if you say we don't know what it's going to be in 60 days, then why are the sanctions lifted today?
RANTZ: Because they're doing this in good faith to get to a point that --
BLOW: Good faith with the Iranians?
RANTZ: Well, we're acting in good faith. I don't think they're going to act in good faith. But this idea that --
BLOW: Then why would you do it?
RANTZ: But this idea that there have been no accomplishments whatsoever here is to completely dismiss the work that the military has done in destroying their air force, destroying their navy capabilities, that does matter. That changes the power dynamics in that region.
PHILLIP: But hold on. Can I just --
BLOW: But what has really changed is the Iranians are stronger.
PHILLIP: I don't really understand --
RANTZ: They're definitely not stronger.
PHILLIP: I don't understand the logic.
BLOW: Absolutely they are.
PHILLIP: I don't understand the logic here.
BLOW: Absolutely they are.
PHILLIP: If we are in a stronger position, why are we negotiating with them on things that they have already conceded in a past era in which there was no military threat on the table?
RANTZ: Two reasons. I think, number one, this administration believes that they're able to get to a deal that changes the dynamics with Iran in a place where we can actually trust them.
Now, I am highly skeptical of that. But, number two, and I think the underlying issue --
PHILLIP: Do you acknowledge that they, you acknowledge that they are not giving anything that they have not given before, correct?
RANTZ: Well, I'm saying they're giving something that they haven't given before --
PHILLIP: Which is what?
RANTZ: No, I'm saying they're not. But the context is different in which --
CAROLINE DOWNEY, COLUMNIST, NATIONAL REVIEW: Yes, this is a good point.
RANTZ: -- they're no longer the same threat as they were before.
PHILLIP: Okay.
DOWNEY: The MOU --
PHILLIP: Maybe they're not -- maybe they're no longer the same threat, maybe -- yes, we've bombed them significantly, but that would then follow that we would get way more out of them, not way less. So, why are we getting the same amount that Obama got, and he didn't have to bomb them for it?
DOWNEY: Yes. I mean, this is the conservative critique of the MOU. Basically, Iran has reneged on every single treaty it's ever signed, by the way. We're seeing now that Hezbollah is still striking Israel from Lebanon because they weren't included in the negotiations. This could dismantle tomorrow, which would give the United States a convenient out from some of these commitments.
Like you said, a lot of conservatives are not comfortable with these concessions. But to draw this blanket comparison between this and the Obama deal, it's just not true. Because to Jason's point, the war context, this is a post-war framework. We didn't just negotiate a limited nuclear deal. What we did is all of the --
PHILLIP: We didn't negotiate a nuclear deal at all.
DOWNEY: Well, no, that's going to come down the road. But the JCPOA, it literally put out of commission facilities with a sunset clause, because as you recall, the JCPOA, 10 to 15 years, that was going to expire. Trump demolished those facilities. So, now that's off the table.
PHILLIP: That's 15 years compared to zero nuclear commitments, just to be clear. That's the actual comparison.
But let me just play, this is actually interesting tape file --
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Watching these two guys try to make it -- turn themselves into pretzels to justify it is better than watching the World Cup.
PHILLIP: To be fair, neither of them support the MOU, so that's probably why this is ridiculous.
DOWNEY: the missile stockpiles gone. You know, Obama refused --
PHILLIP: The missile stockpiles are not gone.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I do want to play this because I think we should just hear it from Donald Trump's own mouth what he thinks a good deal actually looks like. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We've made them a strong country from really a very weak country.
And we took the sanctions off. We got nothing for that.
We've rewarded the world's leading state sponsor of terror with $150 billion, and we received absolutely nothing in return.
It's a one-sided transaction where we're giving back $150 billion to a terrorist state, really the number one terrorist state.
I would have made a deal not from desperation. I would have doubled and tripled up the sanctions, and I would have made a much better deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Okay. So, just to lay it out, the missiles are not gone. In fact, Trump said that they are entitled to missiles for self-defense. He's looking at a deal that contemplates -- first of all his, statement of the facts here are not accurate. But even if they were, his deal would contemplate twice as much in sanctions relief money that goes to Iran. Sanctions relief is happening right now. Iran has done nothing except what is required under current international law, which is to open up the Strait of Hormuz.
So, even by Trump's own standards, I don't see how this deal measures up.
JEMELE HILL, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: Well, and not only that, it's just they're not going to be able -- the conservative position is never going to be able to outrun the reason the deal was torn up in the first place. It's because of inherent jealousy of Barack Obama.
So, the president is insecure, and he did something that actually moved all of this backwards because of his own level of insecurity and hatred of the president that was before him.
[22:10:08]
And that is, we are never going to be able to -- we're never going to be able to get up under that.
RANTZ: But I think a lot of the criticism right now against Donald Trump is driven by the fact that the critics hate him as well, and so they're unwilling to look at this work.
NAVARRO: No.
RANTZ: We end up seeing is --
NAVARRO: But there's plenty of Republicans who have been very supportive of Trump, including people like, for example, Senator Roger Wicker, who is half dead, and he woke up from his coma to say, this deal sucks. I mean, you know, I mean, have you seen him lately? You know, people like Lindsey Graham. There is nothing that, you know, that Donald Trump does that Lindsey Graham doesn't like, and he's been critical of this.
People in the -- you know, in the right wing blogosphere, who have been very supportive, and I admire that. I admire that they are standing on principle and calling a spade a spade. I mean, not only, you know, not only are we giving them exponentially more money, not only are we lifting sanctions, but now Iran knows that they can close the Strait of Hormuz and bring us to the verge of war.
(CROSSTALKS)
RANTZ: Iran also knows that we can strike them militarily, which the Obama administration was unwilling to do.
NAVARRO: We did strike them militarily -- but we did strike them militarily.
RANTZ: Yes, and we could continue.
NAVARRO: And you want to know what they know? They know that they can survive it.
HILL: Correct.
RANTZ: Look at -- so, you're arguing that the economic situation right now in Iran --
NAVARRO: No, I'm not arguing that it's better. No, I'm saying that they can survive it. HILL: But it's because they're fighting a different war. That's the thing, is that we're fighting a different war than they are. They know that the war here is unpopular. They know here the war is unpopular. They know that people here are looking at gas prices.
RANTZ: That's true.
HILL: They are willing --
NAVARRO: And the elections are four months away.
HILL: And elections are four months, they know all of these things. Those are huge leverage points for them, so they don't care about their own personal survival.
DOWNEY: I was just going to say, I think it's worth pointing out, on all of that understood, that all of these proxies of Iran, the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran -- or Israel and the United States have greatly degraded them, and they were attacking U.S. bases, U.S. soldiers, killing them. We were at war with Iran for a very long time.
BLOW: In 2018, when Donald Trump reinstated the sanctions on Iran, he said out of his own mouth he was doing so to deny them the capacity to -- what does he say? Deny them the funds they need to advance its bloody agenda, which is basically to fund the very same groups that you just described. Now, we're allowing them -- we're lifting those sanctions that he reinstated onto them. What do you think that money's going to go? What do you think it's going to do?
DOWNEY: I think you're correct that if it does end up --
BLOW: I'm always correct.
DOWNEY: -- in their coffers -- in this very limited point. I think if it does go to their coffers, that, yes, it's going to fund the world's biggest sponsor of terror, as it has historically.
I don't think this MOU is going to stick. I don't think it is.
HILL: So, then it's --
(CROSSTALKS)
RANTZ: The point is to get to the 60 days and actually get something done. You bring up an important point --
DOWNEY: They've broken every single deal.
RANTZ: -- in all of this.
PHILLIP: Wait, hold on. You guys are not -- just to be clear, you guys are not making the same point. She's saying the MOU is not going to last. You're saying that it will and that we get to a deal?
RANTZ: No, I'm not saying that. No, I'm saying the point of getting the MOU on the table is so you can start these negotiations. It's really what's going to happen in 60 days. And I think we should judge that harshly if it's a bad deal.
BLOW: So, Iran gives up --
RANTZ: Well, then that's what we figure out. I mean, that's part of the negotiation.
PHILLIP: No, I mean, I'm saying what happens, like -- really, like let's wishcast into the future. What would -- what is the scenario if we don't get a deal in 60 days?
DOWNEY: I can do a recommendation.
PHILLIP: Are we just going back and bombing?
RANTZ: We might go back to bombing.
DOWNEY: My recommendation, the only way to do this is to crush them.
PHILLIP: Okay.
BLOW: What does crush them mean? What does that mean? He already threatened to wipe out their civilization. So, what does crush them mean?
DOWNEY: So -- no. Like if he was withholding military force. Like, frankly --
BLOW: We're always withholding because we don't want to destroy the world. So, what did you say? What did you say crush them?
DOWNEY: I'm just saying -- I'm not saying he will. And I'm saying -- not saying --
BLOW: What does crush them mean to you?
RANTZ: Let her respond.
DOWNEY: Crush them --
BLOW: I'm saying you got the rough end here. I want to know what crush them means.
DOWNEY: Iran was dangling the one piece of leverage it had, which was the Strait of Hormuz.
BLOW: Okay.
DOWNEY: Because we were letting them do that.
BLOW: Okay.
DOWNEY: What do you think it means if we don't let them do that?
BLOW: So, I'm asking you what do you mean when you said you would crush them? I want to know what that means to you.
DOWNEY: I'm saying, technically, it means escalate military force.
BLOW: And to what? To what end?
DOWNEY: To maximum pressure.
BLOW: To what end? To what end? Because we already destroyed their military, so to what end?
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let me just ask you, Caroline, because I don't think this is hypothetical --
DOWNEY: I don't think we will.
NAVARRO: There's going to be the appetite.
DOWNEY: I know. I don't think there is an appetite.
PHILLIP: Guys, hold on a second. This isn't -- this is not really a super hypothetical situation. The military said at the beginning of this conflict, they had a list of targets. It was, you know, hundreds of targets. They got to nearly the end of that list, and then they stopped bombing. The Strait of Hormuz, the options are we do what we did, which is the blockade and maybe try to escort ships, or we try to put boots on the ground, take Kharg Island to secure it. Is that what you're saying we would do?
DOWNEY: I'm not recommending that. I'm saying that is the only way to actually end this, like because a deal won't work (ph).
[22:15:03]
BLOW: You're trying to say you're recommending --
PHILLIP: To put boots on the ground to take Kharg Island.
DOWNEY: No, I'm saying like there's really no in between. Like there really is no in between.
BLOW: Well, yes, I just need to get your story straight because, first, you said that you were recommending it, and now you're saying you're not. So, which one is it?
DOWNEY: No, I'm saying if you want to finalize this and basically --
BLOW: You're not. Come on, let it come on out your mouth. What?
DOWNEY: If you don't want to broker with a terrorist regime anymore, then, yes, you have to apply more military force.
BLOW: So, you are suggesting it?
PHILLIP: I just think --
DOWNEY: I'm saying that is -- if that's what their calculus is. PHILLIP: Hold on. Listen, I just think that it's not helpful to say, we got to do more. I mean, what does that really look like? Is it what Trump said, which is taking out their bridges, their infrastructure, their desalination plants, which would be --
BLOW: Which are war crimes.
PHILLIP: Or is it putting boots on the ground? Because which of these bad scenarios do you want?
DOWNEY: Listen, I'm telling you that I'm not sure what their thinking is internally. But in the beginning, at the outset of this, they were floating all these options. And I agree, it wasn't a clear --
NAVARRO: The American people don't want any options. The American people want to get the hell out of there, to the point that even if we know it's a bad deal, we are happier with a bad deal than we are continuing to be in there bombing and putting people at risk.
DOWNEY: The context is improved.
NAVARRO: But let's call it a bad deal.
HILL: The context is not what you got in it for. I mean, they're also asking --
BLOW: There are some improvements. There are some improvements. You're right. There are some improvements. We've degraded their military.
DOWNEY: Yes.
BLOW: The other -- the negative where I said they are stronger is that now we have enshrined them as the gatekeepers of the Straits of Hormuz. They know that they can take it. They know that that imposes a maximum pressure on us and the rest of the world whenever they want to do it. And that was never the case until now, until they proved it during this war.
PHILLIP: All right. Let's leave it there.
Next for us, we've got more breaking news tonight. The man with no experience that Trump put in charge of the nation's intelligence agencies has now begun mass firings there. And just a reminder, these are the groups that are in charge of preventing another 9/11 from happening on U.S. soil.
Plus, the president claims vandals are creating algae in the Reflecting Pool that he spent at least $14 million to make over. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a major shakeup at the agency that's meant to keep America safe and help prevent another 9/11. A source tells CNN that President Trump's acting intel chief, Bill Pulte, is slashing jobs at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Now, it's not clear which positions are impacted yet, but we're told that the National Counterterrorism Center and the National Counterintelligence and Security Center are both expected to be hit hard.
Now, Pulte had reportedly been eyeing large scale cuts. Sources previously told CNN that he showed up to his new job last week and demanded a list of every employee so he could weigh whether to fire them.
This is actually a pretty unbelievable story. I mean, somebody who has zero, none, zilch experience in national security, in intelligence, in anything related to this field, shows up at the job on day one and just gets a list of names and then decides who should have a job protecting America and who should not? How?
NAVARRO: And this is another point where Republicans have stood up and voiced concerns. There have been bipartisan concerns about the lack of qualification and the character or lack thereof of Bill Pulte, which is why, if you will remember, Trump for a minute there pretended he was nominating somebody else, right, Jay Clayton, and then somehow stopped that nomination and put this guy back, Pulte, back acting in because he wants this done.
This is what -- you know, I think Trump sees DNI as the deep state and that it's full of people that are working against him, and this guy's job, this guy's close to Trump, he talks to Trump, he's proximity of Trump, he's doing what Trump wants.
BLOW: And even that's a generous reading. Gabbard already slashed this by up like 40 percent or more.
PHILLIP: That's right.
BLOW: Now he's coming in and slashing --
NAVARRO: was that under the orders of her guru?
BLOW: Well, I mean he -- right, he wanted to get -- she wanted to get rid of it, I'm sure, under, you know, for, because he wanted the guy to slash it. But he wants now to slash it even more.
And I think we always have to ask ourselves who's served by this, right? Is the American are the American people served by this? Or is someone else served by getting rid of all the people who are supposed to stand in the breach and prevent us from being attacked, prevent foreign actors from doing horrible things? Who's served by this?
PHILLIP: Well, let me just ask, you know, the elephant in the room, because, you know, Trump hates the intelligence infrastructure because he thinks that they went after him. Is that what this is about? Is this entire project about taking revenge against entities that he thought went after him, even though their jobs have absolutely nothing to do with him, and most of the day they wake up and they are thinking about how to prevent terror attacks on the homeland? DOWNEY: Well, to be a little bit of a mouthpiece for conservatives, what Ana was saying is right about some of the criticisms of Pulte. Mitch McConnell didn't want him, but it was for a specific statutory reason that you are required by law to have intelligence experience to serve as a director of National Intelligence, which he does not, which is why this is a temporary role.
He's acting and technically under the Vacancy Act, he can serve in this role temporarily, but, obviously, a lot of Republicans are not a big fan of it. Even in his housing role, a lot of conservatives argue that he's not necessarily qualified for that either. The 50-year mortgage idea was abysmal, backfired, was not well-received because, you know, it's just -- like it's a continuation of basically what FDR did.
[22:25:04]
But I digress.
The thing about what he's doing with slashing roles is conservatives will also say any kind of downsizing of a department that they think is somewhat useless is a good thing. Now, I know you're wondering, why am I saying useless? Well, after 9/11, DNI was created, to your point, to collect data on, you know, foreign actors who are nefarious. But it actually added a lot of bureaucracy, and it didn't streamline intelligence very well. So, there's a lot of conservatives, well- intentioned, very smart, who think that DNI shouldn't exist.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I do think -- I think it's totally okay to have an argument about bureaucracy, the structures, does it work, does it not work, but I also just want to be clear that the role of DNI is a coordinating role. It -- because the big failure of 9/11 was that all these different intelligence agencies had information about a potential attack and weren't sharing it with each other. So, that's why it exists.
I also think we have to acknowledge, it's 2026, okay? It's been 25 years, and there have been no similar attacks on the homeland. So, the idea that it's been a complete failure seems to be disproven by the fact that we have actually prevented a similar attack on the homeland.
RANTZ: Well, and we've prevented it recently, right? Not to the same level, and we did that despite the 40 percent cuts. I look at something like this and I say to myself --
BLOW: Wait, all of these (INAUDIBLE)?
RANTZ: on the one hand -- I'm saying on the one hand, I look at this and I say, yes, on the surface it's concerning. But the other hand, we don't know what's actually been cut.
To your point of the bureaucracy --
PHILLIP: Isn't that concerning? RANTZ: Right this moment? No, it's not that concerning. Tomorrow and the next day, it will. I'd like to know some of the details though. To your point, you --
PHILLIP: In one year and then another unknown set of cuts in another year. Isn't that a bit concerning?
RANTZ: If we're cutting positions because they are redundancies of redundancies of redundancies, well, I am still a little bit concerned because we're in the space of intel. I'm not going to give that the exact same level of concern if this was just some whole cloth cut.
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: Abby just read the news the guy didn't know what anybody did. He got a list of --
RANTZ: Who was cut? Who was cut?
BLOW: He asked for a list of the --
RANTZ: Who was cut?
BLOW: Can I finish? He asked for --
RANTZ: Tell me who was cut? Give me one position that was cut.
BLOW: I don't know his list.
RANTZ: Exactly.
BLOW: You don't know the list.
RANTZ: Exacty.
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: So, you say it the whole time and not letting me talk is what you're doing.
RANTZ: But you're not saying anything.
BLOW: I can't because your mouth is yapping likes this and I'm trying to get my words out.
RANTZ: you're debating a point that is not even up for discussion. Thank you. Let me -- no, I'm not finished. Give me one more second.
PHILLIP: Hold on. So --
BLOW: look, here's the problem. You can ask for a list of names --
PHILLIP: Let me let him finish and then I promise you I'll let you finish.
BLOW: Is he going to let me finish? RANTZ: Yes.
PHILLIP: Go ahead and finish.
RANTZ: When we find out the specifics --
BLOW: Same thing you just did.
RANTZ: -- we can then look at that and say, this was wrong.
But I also remember not long ago we were told all of these cuts were happening in the federal government, and we got to the point where we were told the guy who unlocks the bathroom at a park, who only has the keys to unlock the door, we're never going to be able to open the bathroom again.
PHILLIP: But hold on, I'm sorry, Jason, but that was not what happened.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: There was a slashing of the federal government. We actually told people to stop working and then continued to pay them. So, yes, I mean, it was concerning that that happened.
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: Can I say --
PHILLIP: It was 100 percent correct that people raised concerns about it at the time because it did not make any sense, and then they tried to rehire some of those people, but there you go.
BLOW: Why would you say the same thing three times? Let me say this. He got a list. He has no experience in this area. He knows none of these people. He has no ability to know which of these people is important and which is not, and he starts slashing on his first day. Are you trying to tell me that should inspire any confidence in us, that that is about bureaucracy? He doesn't know what they were doing.
HILL: But, Charles, I mean, that's the --
RANTZ: I'm saying we're arguing points that haven't been established.
(CROSSTALKS)
RANTZ: Who is he dealing with?
PHILLIP: All right. Let me let Jemele have a last word.
HILL: But that's the bigger point though, is that we have seen this as being a part of the staple of this administration, hiring grossly incompetent and unqualified people.
BLOW: DEI. HILL: Right, DEI, putting them in positions they frankly don't deserve to be in, and then make -- allowing them to figure it out at the expense of our standing as Americans -- at the expense of American lives, and, frankly, other people who work in federal government.
The entire process is insulting. This dude doesn't know anything.
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: This affirmative action for white men is out of control.
NAVARRO: No his only qualification is he --
HILL: Is he loves Trump. That's it.
NAVARRO: No, and is vindictive, as he has proven with his housing choice.
PHILLIP: Next for us, Hillary Clinton says the Electoral College is an abomination, and Kamala Harris thinks it's worth looking into. We'll debate the pros and cons.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, Hillary Clinton is reigniting a debate over how America votes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I personally think the Electoral College is an abomination. For obvious reasons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: You'll remember, in the 2016 election, Clinton surpassed Trump in the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. But, Trump did win the Electoral College, and thus, the White House.
This is how the system works. Doesn't mean it can't be changed, but should it be?
JEMELE HILL, "THE ATLANTIC" CONTRIBUTING WRITER: Here's the thing, it's better if you make the argument when you didn't lose the election. You know what I'm saying?
[22:35:04]
CAROLINE DOWNEY, "NATIONAL REVIEW" COLUMNIST: Yes, from a position of strength. HILL: From a position of strength. It's like, listen, anybody who's
studied any small bit of history knows the Electoral College is rooted in slavery.
That was the entire reason that it was invented, essentially. And we should have gotten from up under it a long time ago. And not just because you have two women quite capable who lose the election.
So, I don't have a problem with her argument. I think it's probably correct. And I think most people in this country, a big reason there's a lot of apathy is because a lot of people feel like their vote doesn't matter.
And the reason they feel that way is because they look at things like, okay, let me get this straight. We can all agree and all, from a popular vote standpoint, vote for a candidate and that candidate still lose. And the math doesn't matter for them. So, it's like, why are we clinging to the system?
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, AND HOST, "BLEEP WITH ANA NAVARRO" ON IHEART RADIO: If anybody should hate the Electoral College, it should be Hillary Clinton.
HILL: Yes, I agree.
NAVARRO: She won the popular vote by three--
HILL: This is not a new argument.
NAVARRO: She's got the self-awareness to laugh at the fact that she hates it because she won the popular vote by three million and she lost the electoral vote. I actually like that side of Hillary where she's self-deprecating and she's laughing at the circumstances.
The bottom line is changing the Electoral College is something that we talk about all the time. It's archaic, it may make no sense, it's rooted in slavery. All those things are true. But in practicality, getting rid of it, it's in the Constitution.
HILL: It would require a constitutional amendment.
NAVARRO: And that is an incredibly high bar. And in this political environment--
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: It's not going to happen. Just to be clear, it wasn't founded because of slavery. That's just factually inaccurate.
The reasons behind it had a lot to do with the size of the country and the lack of technology to actually reach everyone at the time. That's why the Electoral College came out. To your point, I agree with you.
CHARLES BLOW, SUBSTACK AUTHOR, "BLOW THE STACK", AND THE LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: We're not going to let that lie stand.
RANTZ: It's not a lie. It's not rooted.
BLOW: Let's take the word rooted out. You're not going to sit here and say it has nothing to do with slavery, which you just insinuated.
RANTZ: I'm going to say that it had nothing to do with slavery. That's just not true.
BLOW: That's not true. So the large states, the small states were already up in arms because if you had a straight vote, a popular vote, then they would always be drowned out.
Some of the smaller states were in the South. Roughly a third of their populations were enslaved people. One of the compromises was to take one person or every representative you had that incorporates the three-fifths rule on slaves automatically because the representatives were determined with the three-fifths rule incorporated.
The moment that the Electoral College adopted one person or every representative, it incorporated by default the slave clause. For this man to sit here and say it has nothing to do with slavery, what did you learn in school?
RANTZ: Well, I learned that it wasn't rooted in slavery because, again, that is factually inaccurate. That is the context in which I was responding.
You're wrong. I'm not arguing that slavery doesn't play any role in slavery.
BLOW: You just said that. I said it.
NAVARRO: -- schooled it on national T.V. That's what you were saying.
BLOW: You weren't schooled.
NAVARRO: You weren't absolutely schooled. Your ignorance was revealed.
PHILLIP: Let me play Jeff Flake making the 2026 argument for the Electoral College. Listen to this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF FLAKE (R), FORMER SENATOR: I'm one who finds virtue in the Electoral College. And it's not just because I come from a smaller state, Arizona, that may benefit more than a larger state like California. It emphasizes our system of federalism.
We are not a direct democracy or representative democracy. The states have considerable power, the states run elections. That is a good thing to decentralize that kind of power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So that's a case for it. That is even in this modern day taking all of that into history into consideration. But I guess I just wonder I mean what's wrong with just one person one vote applying at the Presidential level
DOWNEY: There was a constitutional amendment on the table for the popular vote election of the presidency in 1968 after Nixon won. It was Republicans who were aggressively advocating for that, it was Democrats who killed that proposal because they were so persuaded by the counterargument that they read at the 11th hour which basically said that this is a constitutional bulwark against majoritarianism.
Every single safeguard in our constitutional framework prevents majoritarianism. Everything. Federalism.
[22:40:01]
The fact that the Senate has two senators that are equal no matter what state you're in. The fact that the House is proportionate based on population. The fact that everything is divided between the federal government and the states.
This is just an extension of that. And you know why the Electoral College really works? It's because it forces both political parties to try to court moderate voters in swing states. Of course, progressive candidates would rather to spend all the time on the campaign trail in California they would rather not go to Pennsylvania but it forces them to understand the concerns and interests of other states, other interests.
PHILLIP: Hold on. Caroline, are you finished?
PHILLIP: I was just going to say that there's so many diverse interests across this country. They vary by geographic region, industries as well. And, yes, it's a good thing.
BLOW: The counterpoint to that is that all the energy is put into swing states and not into safe states because of the electoral college. Because 48 of the 50 states have a winner-take-all electoral college system, there is no reason to go into a state that you know that you're going to lose or that you know that you already have.
So none of those people get campaigned to at all. They only get courted when they can go into and get a big rally out of that particular place because all their people are there.
DOWNEY: They can vote with their feet.
BLOW: But here's the problem.
DOWNEY: They can leave the state which is what people do.
BLOW: You're not trying to pack up and leave and go to Pennsylvania just so you can hear a campaign ad.
What do you say? I'm crazy.
Nobody's going to do that, so we can go on.
DOWNEY: If they don't feel represented in their state, they do. PHILLIP: Here's an interesting wrinkle.
President Trump, or at the time just Citizen Trump, back in 2012 said the Electoral College is a disaster for democracy. And then Trump, in 2016, says the Electoral College, this is after he won the Electoral College, the Electoral College is actually genius in that it brings all states, including smaller ones, into play.
Campaigning is much different. His eyes were open.
RANTZ: You know who likes the Electoral College? When you win it that way. The people who don't like it is when they lose it that way.
I don't get why Hillary Clinton is against it.
HILL: When they didn't win or lose.
BLOW: The last two people who won the presidency without winning the popular vote have been Republicans.
NAVARRO: I will tell you, I've lived in Florida for 46 years, and when I first got there, it was blue. Then it became purple, right?
Florida, and now it's red. It was a hell of a lot of fun before when we were getting campaigned at, you know? When people actually recorded our votes, showed up, nobody cares.
They just wanted our money.
PHILLIP: Next for us, the President claims vandals are to blame for the growing mess in the newly remodeled reflecting pool, and people are being charged. We'll discuss next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, President Trump is playing the blame game for his reflecting pool woes. Without evidence, he claims vandals are intentionally ruining the pool, causing the algae buildup and the paint or sealant from peeling off the bottom.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We also fixed the reflecting pool.
In fact, if you go over there right now, it looks very good. It's up. They put, somebody said, fertilizer in the water.
If you put fertilizer in the water, you get algae. But somebody said they might've put fertilizer. They did something to create the algae, but that doesn't matter, because that's been purified.
It's dead. Laying at the bottom, they're taking it out. They vacuum it out.
They vacuum it very carefully out, and it'll be back to health pretty soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So far, at least five people have been arrested for vandalism, and at least five others have been issued citations. The President also claimed that a 350-foot gash was caused by a knife- wielding vandal.
NAVARRO: I cannot believe you said that sentence with a straight face.
PHILLIP: Did not make that up. I mean, I didn't make it up. He might have made it up, but I didn't make up the fact that he said it.
NAVARRO: But it's ridiculous and absurd, and there is zero evidence for it. I mean, there is an actual logical scientific reason why painting the pool blue has resulted in this growth of algae, and it is ridiculous that in America, nobody's gone to jail because of being in the Epstein files or having associations with Epstein.
Fifteen hundred people who actually did vandalize the Capitol got summarily pardoned, but people who were riding around and just looking at the stuff floating around in this pool are now arrested and being prosecuted by this government.
PHILLIP: (inaudible) -- literally sicking (ph) the U.S. attorney on people who are picking up the pieces of chipped paint in the reflecting pool.
RANTZ: Two things can be true at once. I'm guessing that there are some people who foolishly decided to pick it out because they saw it floating, thinking they weren't doing any damage. They should not be hit with any vandalism charges.
PHILLIP: And for real, what's wrong with that? There's actually nothing wrong.
RANTZ: Well, because anyone who's tried to peel off something like wallpaper, you try to peel off just a little bit, and then the rest of it comes out. It does more damage.
HILL: Oh, God.
PHILLIP: No.
[22:50:01]
NAVARRO: You think people are jumping in the pool, wading in there and picking the thing off the floor?
RANTZ: I think in most cases, it's probably someone-- I'm saying in most cases, I think it's someone who thinks they're doing the right thing because it's floating and they're trying to clear it. I think those people, obviously, should not be hit with vandalism charges. I also think it's likely that people aren't trying to do something intentionally. Unless we're supposed to--
NAVARRO: You think somebody cut a 300-foot gash across?
RANTZ: I think it's likely. I think it's likely that someone might have committed vandalism, given we just covered a story of 8647 on the lawn.
Was that vandalism?
PHILLIP: You said it's likely.
RANTZ: That someone might commit a crime? Yes, a vandalism?
PHILLIP: You said likely. What makes you say that it was likely?
RANTZ: Because we've seen nonstop vandalism against this President and against Republicans for a very long time. Vandalism exists and exists on both sides.
What was just cut into the lawn? I'm giving you an example. Literally, within the last few days, we had stories about the--
BLOW: --vandalism against Republicans. I would love to know the answer to the question.
RANTZ: You don't see graffiti?
BLOW: So your one graffiti is the--
RANTZ: Yes, there's only one instance of graffiti. That's it.
BLOW: You don't answer that question because it's not true.
PHILLIP: What would it take to vandalize, to this extent, a pool that, according to, if we just take Trump's favorite analogy, is the size of a skyscraper? What exactly would it take to make that happen?
RANTZ: Well, what would it take to carve 86 into the lawn?
NAVARRO: That's not the question she asked you.
RANTZ: But it's the same thing. That was a matter--
NAVARRO: That's not the question she asked you.
BLOW: You try to get the truth out of this one for now.
RANTZ: I never did not vandalism against a reflection pool, so I don't know.
BLOW: Right now, you're saying you want to stop vandalism against Republicans.
PHILLIP: Can I pause it? RANTZ: Do you not see that it's possible that any--
PHILLIP: Jason, can I pause it a little?
RANTZ: Sure, please.
PHILLIP: A couple days ago, the federal employees took gallons of, you know, hydrogen peroxide and poured it into the pool.
RANTZ: Yes, they started doing it in 2021 under Biden.
PHILLIP: And they did it for days.
BLOW: It wasn't painted in 2021.
RANTZ: It was under Biden.
PHILLIP: The President painted the pool, then they poured gallons and gallons of a substance into the pool. I mean, if you saw anybody pouring gallons of substance into the pool, you might think it was vandalism. But these guys were federal employees, so I don't know.
I mean, what is more probable?
RANTZ: Both.
DOWNEY: I don't know. All I know about this story is that, okay, the paint is peeling. Apparently, Obama, under his administration, it was falling into disrepair.
This seems to be a really bad, the execution of cleaning this pool seems to be very difficult to maintain.
BLOW: That cannot be all you know about this story you came on T.V. to talk about.
DOWNEY: I'm telling you that--
BLOW: That's the worst research I've ever seen in my life, if that's all you know about this story.
DOWNEY: I'm just explaining the fact that the pool, how many issues that have happened to this pool, the fact that there was a parasite and ducks were in danger, so they had to drain the pool.
BLOW: Apparently, all the problems started under Trump. All the problems started under Trump.
DOWNEY: I'll tell you what, though.
BLOW: The paint showed up under Trump.
NAVARRO: The only guy who gave a no-bid contract with no process to millions of dollars, millions of our tax dollars --
RANTZ: Why did he do that for hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of several years?
DOWNEY: It was a well-intentioned beautification project. It's just as hard to implement.
PHILLIP: We do have to leave it there. Next for us, the panel's going to give us their night caps, weird food combination edition. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: As World Cup fever continues, people are sharing wild food combinations available at the stadiums. How about $75 caviar-topped trays of tater tots and $22 Twinkie cheeseburgers? That sounds gross.
Okay, so for tonight's night cap, what is your favorite weird food combination? Caroline, you're up first.
DOWNEY: Pickle juice martinis.
PHILLIP: Ooh.
DOWNEY: It's delicious.
PHILLIP: That's a thing, but--
DOWNEY: I took a night cap seriously. I took it literally?
HILL: Probably the best and weirdest food combination I had. I had pigeon and rose.
PHILLIP: What is that? What?
HILL: Pigeon.
NAVARRO: Pigeon as in a little bird?
HILL: Yes, as a pigeon. I had it in Hong Kong. There's a photo of it.
It's like, it was delicious. Had it with a nice crisp glass of rose.
NAVARRO: That thing looks like it went swimming in the reflecting pool.
HILL: Yes.
DOWNEY: I am shook.
HILL: And it was amazing.
PHILLIP: That is terrifying looking. I'm not going to lie. All right, Anna. NAVARRO: Look, a friend of mine who owns, who's a cheese monger in
Miami, is selling a caviar hot dog. But I will tell you, I think I object to anything being put, caviar being put on a hot dog.
HILL: Okay, I'm not going to lie. That looks good.
NAVARRO: You're pregnant.
HILL: I'm not pregnant. That looks good.
NAVARRO: Yes.
BLOW: I don't even know what mine was. I forgot what it could--
PHILLIP: You got to put it up on the screen.
BLOW: Oh, chicken liver. Okay, I don't think that's weird.
NAVARRO: That's not a combination.
BLOW: That's chicken liver straight up.
NAVARRO: What's the combination? Do you mean chicken and liver?
BLOW: I see.
NAVARRO: Chicken liver and iced tea.
BLOW: Yes.
PHILLIP: All right.
BLOW: It's amazing.
RANTZ: T-Mobile Park Mariners, they serve crickets that are deep fried and people are putting them on things.
I'm totally, I'm not going to eat any of them, but I'm totally okay.
NAVARRO: That's a Mexican delicacy. Chapulines.
RANTZ: People love them.
[23:00:05]
All right, everyone. Thank you for being here.
I've got an exciting new show available to stream right now. It's called "Confessions and Obsessions." I sit down with a group of familiar faces as they reveal some things that they can't wait to get off their chest and things that they cannot stop thinking about.
Don't forget to check out new episodes every Wednesday. You can stream the show anytime with an all-access subscription in the CNN app.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
