Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Shrugs at Sailor Concerns, Deployment Not Long Enough; Trump Says, I'll Never Apologize for High Gas Prices Amid War; Trump Takes Credit For Drops In Crime Rates Across U.S.; Trump to Ask Supreme Court On The Continuity Of The White House Ballroom Construction; Democrats On The Verge Of Changing The Primary Schedule By 2028. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired August 14, 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)
ELIE HONIG, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, as Navy families sound the alarm about sailors struggling at sea, Donald Trump says nothing to see here.
REPORTER: Has the deployment gone on too long?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: No, not nearly long enough.
HONIG: Plus, as crime drops across America, the president takes a victory lap by going after Democrats.
TRUMP: The communists want to turn America into a third world country, into a hellhole of crime and filth.
HONIG: Also, Trump calls on the Supreme Court to let him build his ballroom before it's too late.
And the map turns left. Why Democrats are about to change which states vote first in the primaries, and not everyone's on board.
Live at the Food Network, Joe Borelli, Cari Champion, Lauren Wright, and Brian Tyler Cohen.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HONIG (on camera): Good evening everybody, and welcome to CNN Newsnight. I'm Elie Honig, filling in for Abby Phillip.
Well, it's a summer Friday night, so that means we're coming to you live from the Food Network Test Kitchen, our sister company here in New York City. Our chefs are already hard at work to feed our live audience. That looks delicious.
In the meantime, we will get right to what America is talking about. First up, as families of sailors aboard the U.S.S Abraham Lincoln sound the alarm about the ship's abysmal living conditions and a mental health crisis on board, their concerns are falling on deaf ears. The Lincoln and its 5,000 sailors left San Diego last November, and it hasn't made a port call in more than 200 days.
That's a modern-day record, not the good kind. And consider the fact that carriers generally return to port within 30 to 45 days. The conditions are pushing sailors to the breaking point.
Despite families' desperate pleas to Navy leadership and media reports recounting the dire conditions, which include food rationing, water contamination, even suicide attempts, President Trump and his defense secretary insist it's really not that bad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Completely misrepresented. Listen, we make sure that every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment.
REPORTER: The family members of U.S. service members are concerned about conditions onboard the USS Lincoln.
TRUMP: Well, no, that ship is moving. No, they're not.
REPORTER: Have the deployments gone on too long?
TRUMP: No, not nearly long enough.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: Well, President says, Not nearly long enough. Joe, do you agree?
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: He was kidding. He smiled. Not a great joke, though. Not a great --
HONIG: Do you think the families appreciate that?
BORELLI: No. Again, not a well-timed joke. Families are right to have concerns, but we have always placed our sailors, soldiers, and Marines in difficult conditions in time of war. We are in an active war. This ship is serving in an active conflict.
I think the narrative out there, though, that the Trump administration has somehow ignored this problem I think that's really where the line has been crossed. They deployed the USS George Washington weeks ago to relieve the ship. It's on the way. That was happening before the stories came in to light about some of these conditions.
Still, these are troops in active combat situations, and we should be appreciative of the work they're doing. I hope they get relief soon, but, unfortunately, from time to time, over the 250 years of our country, we have asked our soldiers and sailors to do some great things. HONIG: I'm not sure the problem is with the we appreciating. It might be with the president and the Secretary of Defense. Brian, what do you think?
BRIAN TYLER COHEN, AUTHOR, THE DAY AFTER: HOW TO WIELD POWER IN A POST-TRUMP WORLD: Yes. I mean, look, I agree. I think there is nobody here who doesn't deny the sacrifices that these soldiers have made, but -- or these sailors have made. But at the same time, if you really want to give something back to these sailors, why don't you hold true to your word? When Donald Trump said he was going to get engaged in no new foreign wars in the Middle East, and yet here we are, $130 billion that we've spent on a war in the Middle East at the hands of the president who came into office on the idea that we would be focusing on America first.
Now, prices are higher. Yes. Healthcare has been cut. Food assistance has been cut. Epstein files still aren't released. Inflation's surging, 30 percent higher than Joe Biden leaving office, and yet here we are, spending tens of billions of dollars on another war in the Middle East.
CARI CHAMPION, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: This is the issue, and I understand what Joe is trying to say. We are at war, but this is, as many people have said, a war of choice. No one knew. An illegal war, in fact, and we're not using the word to describe what it is appropriately.
So, you can only imagine how the families of these sailors feel, knowing that they are in these deteriorating conditions.
[22:05:04]
They know that they aren't necessarily supposed to be here on an act of Congress. It, again, feels very selfish and petulant on the president's part because he had his own ulterior motives. We don't know what they are.
We also don't know really what's going on because they refuse to give us all the information. There is no transparency. We're working on what we have to hear based on what these families are saying.
And then I also feel like, let's just talk about why there are so many mental health conditions. They said we had one soldier, I guess, August 3rd, sometime around that first week of August, who decided to go overboard because he was feeling as if he could not take it anymore. I was just looking it up for fun, for giggles, because we're here, and stats. It says that after 15 days of confinement, you start to feel, if not off, you feel some level of mental unhealthiness, 15 days. How long have they been there?
BORELLI: Look, thankfully, the military takes this very seriously. They were very clear that there's been no statistical uptick in suicide attempts by people on this ship. The anecdote might be real. There might be legitimate people suffering with real psychological problems, real distress, and that's something we should take seriously, but the Navy was clear, there is no panic in terms of statistical increases. CHAMPION: And you believe that?
HONIG: Okay, let me pick up on this real quick.
CHAMPION: I genuinely believe that. Yes.
HONIG: So, the president and the secretary of defense have said, no problem. We heard the clips in the beginning. But we're hearing very different things come out from the soldiers from their families. Let's take a quick look at some of the things that we have heard from those families talking about problems that may be happening on that ship.
One family said, quote, we are already had an instance where watch standers had to stop someone from jumping. Another family said that we've just been turning and burning the whole time we've deployed, nothing to really look forward to at this point. All we want is a day at home. What we are hearing from the people on board that ship and the families is decidedly different from what we're hearing from the president and the secretary.
LAUREN A. WRIGHT, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY POLITICAL SCIENTIST: Yes, I think it's probably actually worse than the reports indicate, because who is more likely to underestimate, you know, shove aside harsh conditions than the U.S. military? I mean, these are people who do not complain, and the issue, Elie, is the 275 consecutive days. Like you said, that's the issue, is they have not been at port.
But, you know, - speaking to Cari's point about the illegal war, we said nothing under the Obama administration when the USS Truman was deployed for seven months straight to fight ISIS. I'm glad he did it. We said nothing under Biden when the USS Eisenhower was deployed for nine and a half months almost. We were glad he did it, because they were fighting radical regimes in the Middle East and defending us, and they have broad Article 2 constitutional authority to do so. I'm glad they're there sticking up for us. The problem is the consecutive days.
BORELLI: And one more point to that. There is more outrage, it seems, from Democrats over spoiled milk in the galley and conditions on the ship than there was from Biden's withdrawal from Afghanistan where 13 American service members died.
CHAMPION: You guys love a what if, and a what about.
BORELLI: No, it's not a what if. It's not a what if. It's harsh conditions against soldiers serving overseas. Joe Biden ended with 13 deaths over a withdrawal, okay? That's the record that that I think is shameful.
(CROSSTALKS)
COHEN: Donald Trump came into office on the pretense that he was going to engage in no new wars on the Middle East. So, why is that okay? Why is the fact that this guy who campaigned on a very specific idea of not doing the exact same thing that all of his other predecessors have done, the thing that he told all of these people that were going to his rallies that he swore he would never do, why is it okay now five minutes later to engage in this exact kind of war that he swore he wouldn't do.
For all those people who say, oh, well Iran's been an issue for, what, 47 years, that's the talking point. That's something he knew during the campaign.
WRIGHT: That's true. That's not a talking point.
COHEN: So, if that was true during the campaign, because that falls within the 47 years, why was that -- what changed from November of 2024 to August of 2026?
BORELLI: There is a very fair criticism by members of the Republican Party that Donald Trump has engaged in this war. That is not something that that Republicans can sweep under the rug. There are two sort of paths that Republicans were hoping to go down. Most Republicans didn't want the new wars.
That said, do you want a nuclear Iran? I don't. Do you want an Iran to not fund terrorist proxies as it has for the last 47 years? I don't.
COHEN: Then why would he campaign on no new foreign wars if --
BORELLI: If this is the course of action the president chose, I think it's a noble one. I think the end result of a non-nuclear Iran, less funding of terrorist proxy groups, is ultimately a better thing for the world.
WRIGHT: Well, you're calling it an illegal war, and we're saying maybe it's a stupid war, maybe it's a bad explanation for a war. Why don't you just stick to that? Why do you have to go all the way to an illegal war when Obama had the same thing, no Congressional approval to fight ISIS? You know, Biden had the same thing, no Congressional approval to fight the Houthis who were attacking our troops.
HONIG: Let's talk a bit about some of the promises that have been made and some of the forecasts that have been made.
WRIGHT: I totally agree with that.
HONIG: First of all, the president was quite clear in the beginning that this war would not last anywhere near this long.
[22:10:00]
WRIGHT: Totally fair.
HONIG: Let's take a quick listen to some of the things the president has said about how long he expected the war in Iran to last.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Right from the beginning, we projected four to five weeks.
REPORTER: The U.S. will be gone or done with the war in two to three weeks?
TRUMP: I think we're two or three weeks in.
We were in there for two months, and you know what? We're going to have victory very shortly.
I thought it would take four to six weeks, and I was right.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: He was not right. Why was he so wrong on that?
WRIGHT: Oh, well, I don't think you can defend the indefensible. I think the service members on these ships don't know what the mission is. And after Operation Midnight Hammer, which I was an ardent supporter of, the explanation became much less clear why we were re- engaging, and I think those are very fair critiques.
HONIG: Has there been a failure of messaging?
COHEN: Absolutely. I mean, the war was initially because we wanted regime change. Okay, we went from Ayatollah Khamenei to Ayatollah Khamenei. Then it was to open the Strait of Hormuz, which was open before the war. I mean, we've gotten --
CHAMPION: He's going to declare it American territory.
COHEN: But he's going to declare it. And now it's going to be a U.S. territory, apparently. So, I guess we can add that to the list of Greenland and Panama and Venezuela and Iceland and whatever.
CHAMPION: That doesn't even make sense.
HONIG: Again, talk to us about what we learned today.
CHAMPION: I just feel like it doesn't make sense. I think that him declaring it U.S. territory, you got -- we got to be honest with that. That just doesn't make sense. There are things that, he says that are just like --
HONIG: Well, let's listen to that real quick just so we can hear exactly. This is what he said today the president said about the future of the Strait of Hormuz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: And after we finish defeating Iran, which is being very badly defeated, pretty soon, I'll be declaring the Hormuz Strait a territory of the United States.
Essentially, that's what it is. We have the blockade. No ships get through unless we want them to.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: How's that going to work, Cari?
CHAMPION: Yes, you tell me. Because I've been sitting here, we've been all trying to figure it out. Do you know how that's going to work?
BORELLI: Look, he was chuckling at the end of the statement. I'm not sure we can take --
(CROSSTALKS)
COHEN: Thank God we have a comedian. What would we do without all of these jokes, you know?
BORELLI: We saw him do the same thing when Iran declared that they would not open the strait until there were reparations paid for damages caused by U.S. troops. He immediately said, okay, what about the damages on the families of the 50,000 protesters who were killed? I think he's saying the same thing, just putting a point of negotiation on the table, putting a point of leverage, playing a chip essentially, or he was being completely joking because he was laughing at the end of it.
HONIG: Lauren, do you have a theory about how this is actually going to work?
WRIGHT: Well, it could be a treaty with Oman. Wouldn't you rather us and our security partner we've had since 1833 be in control of the strait than Iran?
HONIG: So, you mean the Strait of Hormuz is going to become a territory the way that Puerto Rico is?
WRIGHT: No, not a territory, but you could have a security arrangement in place where we're a more permanent presence there, and I'd much rather us have a foot there than a radical regime that wants to kill us.
CHAMPION: I just think it's exhausting that we're gaslighting people. This is not going to happen. We've just got to be honest. It's not happening.
WRIGHT: A treaty with Oman's not going to happen?
CHAMPION: He's not going to declare it, and if he does, how's that going to work? He can't even get it opened. How the hell is he going to declare it? Tell me how that works. And you're --
WRIGHT: Well, right now --
CHAMPION: Honestly.
BORELLI: Even the Iranians have conceded this week that --
CHAMPION: You can say, okay, this is going to happen. It's not. It's just not, and we have to start being honest about what it is.
WRIGHT: But that's a different point.
CHAMPION: I agree with you saying that we need to meet in the middle.
WRIGHT: Okay.
CHAMPION: No, it's not happening. That's the only point I'm saying.
WRIGHT: Yes, I agree. I said it's not becoming a U.S. territory, but we could have a treaty with Oman to make the area more secure for ships.
CHAMPION: I just wish we'd stop talking about the what ifs and possibilities that could happen because my whole point is like -- no, I'm not apathetic. I'm tired of lies. I'm tired of people lying and gaslighting and knowing that this president has no idea what he's talking about every single day, and we pretend like it's real.
HONIG: The president has said recently --
WRIGHT: I'm very critical of him. I just said he's been bad on the war.
HONIG: The president has said in the last few days that we have total control of the Strait of Hormuz. Not true. Yes.
BORELLI: Even the Iranians have conceded that their negotiations that were with Oman over who controls the actual navigable portions of the strait are still subject to whatever the big elephant in the room wants to do. The big elephant in the room is the U.S. and the blockade. So, there is, you know, essentially Iran accepting the fact that there is some coordination of people in the Gulf, of countries in the Gulf that, that impact their ability to themselves control the Strait of Hormuz.
WRIGHT: I just really reject the fact that we can't say it would be better if there was an American presence there than not. Because if we're not there, it's Iran controlling it, and more people are going to die.
COHEN: But that's not dissimilar to what we were told about the Iraq War, and look at what -- look where that landed us, 20 years, what, $3 trillion, $4 trillion spent, and the second we left, fell right into Al-Qaeda's hands. And so we don't have a good track record in terms of taking control of these foreign entities and then thinking that's going to have some longstanding effect.
WRIGHT: Yes. And Joe Biden sent some gift baskets to Al-Qaeda, and I hope you guys are pleased as well.
HONIG: Does it really help our service members now to point at -- there have been failures in the past, no question. Joe Biden didn't have the best record when it comes to the Afghanistan withdrawal, but what does that do?
[22:15:01]
Does anyone who's on board the Lincoln right now care about that?
CHAMPION: Give a damn about Joe Biden? No.
HONIG: All right, folks, great discussion. We've got plenty more ahead.
Up next, the president takes credit for America's low crime rates and calls out the, quote, socialists and communists who are winning primaries.
Plus, home renovations are apparently a Supreme Court issue now. What Donald Trump is asking the justices to do.
Also, we want to invite you at home to join in our debate. Head over to cnn.com/abby and weigh in, and we will get to some of your comments throughout the show.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
HONIG: Tonight, President Trump is taking credit for the steep decline in America's crime rate, and he's taking a swing at Democrats with this warning ahead of the midterms.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They want to make us a communist country. They skipped socialism. They skipped socialism. Can you believe it? So, at least I was right. I like being right.
But they continue their war on police and their destruction of the rule of law. The communists want to turn America into a third world country, into a hellhole of crime and filth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: Crime rates are indeed coming down, and that's good news for everybody. Crime rates are complicated, Brian, and they're due to many factors, never to one person, one agency, one policy. DOJ is, however, the largest law enforcement agency in this country. So, is it fair for Donald Trump and his DOJ to claim at least some credit for those declining crime rates?
COHEN: Look, it's Donald Trump. He's going to take credit for anything that goes well, and he's going to --
HONIG: But is it fair for him to do it here? It's not always fair. Is it fair here?
COHEN: Look, I think, sure, if any president presiding over a reduced crime rate wants to take credit for lower crime, just like any governor wants to take credit for lower crime in their states, just like any mayor wants to take credit for lower crime in their cities, that's perfectly acceptable. They also have to take the blame when things don't go well.
But I think what's interesting here as he starts to attack these candidates, like, for example, we're in New York right now, Zohran Mamdani is the most well-known Democratic socialist that there is, you know, he frames this as this big spooky boogeyman. We're talking about somebody who spent his time in office filling potholes, doing permit reform, and protecting tenants from predatory landlords.
So, I get that he wants to have his talking point, but it's not exactly as spooky as he's making it out to be.
WRIGHT: Wait, what, calling for the destruction of the Constitution and, you know, getting rid of the Supreme Court and the Senate is not scary to you?
COHEN: Zohran Mamdani said that?
WRIGHT: That's the Democratic Socialist of America agenda. You can go on the website.
COHEN: What Democratic socialist is in power that says -- that espouses that position?
WRIGHT: Mamdani. He is a DSA member.
COHEN: Mamdani does not espouse that position.
WRIGHT: Okay. Well, that's kind of weird, don't you think?
HONIG: Well, the DSA's website does endorse abolishing the U.S. Senate, that is true.
COHEN: But you won't find any Democratically-elected official in the DSA --
BORELLI: Because they want to win elections, and they know that's a bat shit crazy position.
WRIGHT: That's a lot of Twitter.
HONIG: Guys, hold on.
WRIGHT: Yes. It's not so fair.
BORELLI: The reason why they're not saying it is because they're trying to win elections, and they know that eliminating the Senate and doing a host of those things are completely bat shit positions.
We have this debate now where they're calling it Woke 1.0. All these progressive Democrats, AOC, other local people here in New York, they're saying, Woke 1.0 was crazy, right? The things we used to say back in 2020, 2021, the very issues that actually propelled people like AOC to power, those were ridiculous, and now we're just the lighter, softer side of Democratic socialism.
The reality is the main goal of Democratic socialism hasn't changed. The main -- the end goal of socialism as a policy, as a thought, hasn't changed. These are the people who want to bring you to it. It's rich that they're now trying to distance themselves from policy because now they have to wear it like a scarlet letter.
CHAMPION: Respectfully, I think it's interesting how when you guys talk about -- and, look, you don't know my politics. I'm assuming you think you do, but you do not. But when you talk about progressives, I think it's really interesting how people insert fear first we do a lot of fear. We sell it. And when we sell it, it works really, really well because you think about what could possibly happen.
Your point about Mamdani is that people are really happy that he's in place. I know that you can say he espouses certain things and it should be fearful, but I can get with universal --
WRIGHT: I think we should be able to look into those.
CHAMPION: I think we should be, but I think we should be able to be honest about what he's been doing since he has been elected mayor here. There's nothing that you can't get behind. Him wanting to help the little man --
WRIGHT: No, that's not true. The city-run grocery stores are a disaster. We can talk about those. We can talk about the taxes.
CHAMPION: I can also talk about him wanting to make sure it's rent stabilization. I can like the idea of universal healthcare. I like the idea of working for the little man.
I'm not saying everything that he's doing perfect, but I want you to look in the White House and tell me what we got going on there. We're watching right now real time why this country is going bankrupt, and no one's saying anything about it.
WRIGHT: If Mamdani's policies were national --
CHAMPION: You are selling fear, and it's not truthful.
WRIGHT: I'm not. I'm just asking questions about a policy platform that is public.
CHAMPION: Because you can only see what you want to see.
WRIGHT: And when you look at the RNC platform --
CHAMPION: And you're not and you're not talking about this president that you are also promoting and that you are also saying is okay.
WRIGHT: I'm not going to vote for him.
CHAMPION: I think you have zero problem with him.
HONIG: It is true that very few --
WRIGHT: I just critiqued the Iran war for like 30 whole seconds.
HONIG: Very few Democratic socialists have actually been elected to office at this point. Some have won primaries. They're going to be up for election in November. Are we at a point, though, where even any success or any failure, there's always going to be the Republicans, and it looks like this is starting to happen, say, socialists, communists, blame them?
I mean, you have lower crime rates. That's a good thing, and then it just, we have to tie it to socialism or communism.
COHEN: Look, I think I think that is -- I mean, you have the president of the United States who did that right now.
[22:25:00]
That's going to be the talking point that he runs on in this campaign cycle, which is, of course, just a way to distract from what's happening.
Democrats don't have control of government everywhere. They don't have the House, they don't have the Senate, they don't have the White House, they don't have the Supreme Court. It is full, unbridled Republican control that has brought us higher prices, full, unbridled Republican control that's brought us cut healthcare, cut food assistance, suppressed.
CHAMPION: And you're still selling fear. You have everything and still selling fear.
WRIGHT: And if you guys would campaign on that stuff instead of canceling Thanksgiving --
CHAMPION: And still selling fear. You have everything. What are you people happy about?
WRIGHT: Winning everything.
HONIG: Joe, I want to hear what you have to say.
BORELLI: Look, we started this conversation by crime, talking about crime, right? And the president is touting his record on crime, right? You basically made the case that everyone takes credit for it.
The problem with crime for Democratic Party is that when they went back to, as I said before, this Woke 1.0, they were the party that universally and unilaterally decided to stand against police officers. They were the party that decided to have bail reform, in not just this state, but in dozens of states.
They were the party that always advocates for early release. They're the party that advocates for discovery reform. They're the party that advocates essentially for the rights of criminal defendants. So, when President Trump goes out and takes credit for FBI statistics, by the way, just like Joe Biden did, no one had a problem when Joe Biden took credit for FBI statistics in 2022, 2024. But Trump does it, and suddenly it's this controversial thing that why is he taking credit for this?
CHAMPION: It's not controversial. I just want to add this. In 2000, right, when we -- 2020 rather, during the pandemic, he's still president, crime was through the roof, horrible. He didn't say, guess what? It's Obama's issue. I tried to do the best thing. He's president for four years, and we say nothing. I don't mind him taking --
WRIGHT: But the pandemic had something to do with that. CHAMPION: Oh, the pandemic had everything to do with it.
WRIGHT: Okay.
CHAMPIOHN: And how he handled the pandemic was awful, in my opinion.
HONIG: Speaking of law enforcement here in New York City and state, Donald Trump today brought up one of his least favorite members of law enforcement, the New York State attorney general, Letitia James, who has been a frequent target of the Justice Department. Let's listen to what the president said today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Crooked Attorney General Letitia James, she is the most dishonest, a real slob, a real slob.
You know, they had her. She got off on a technicality. They had her, but she got off on a technicality, but let's see what happens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HONIG: As a reminder, the Justice Department indicted Letitia James. That was thrown out by a federal district court judge. The president calls it a technicality. Hold on, because the prosecutor was unconstitutionally appointed. Then they tried to indict her again, and the grand jury rejected it, which almost never happens. Take my word for it. And then they tried again.
CHAMPION: Don't go up against Elie on this.
HONIG: Yes, you're out of your depth here. Hold on. They tried to go a third time. They tried to indict her a third time, again rejected by a grand jury. I don't know that that's ever happened in history.
So, should they try a fourth time, Joe?
BORELLI: No, they probably wouldn't have good luck. But she was a -- the indictment was thrown out because of a technicality against the prosecutor, not an evaluation of the evidence that you could plainly see her signature on some of the documents.
So, you know what? If the president wants to call it her getting out on a technicality, fine. If the president wants to call her a slob, it's not a newsflash that the president is not exactly kind to people he doesn't like.
COHEN: Joe, do you think that we have a weaponized DOJ right now?
BORELLI: Do you think the A.G.s -- do you think the A.G.s -- this A.G.'s lawsuit against Trump and valuing Mar-a-Lago at $9 million, do you think that was a total --
HONIG: But, Joe, hold on. That's fair. You dodged that question. Let's get an answer. Is this -- so Brian's question, is this Justice Department weaponized for political purposes? You can have your theory. Forget it. Let's not focus on prior ones now.
BORELLI: Do I think the Justice Department has been weaponized? Absolutely.
HONIG: Okay. Are you okay with that?
BORELLI: No, I'm not.
HONIG: All right.
CHAMPION: Good for you, Joe.
BORELLI: No. I watched people knock down the door of my friend Michael Caputo. What did he do? All he did was work for Donald Trump as a loyal, you know, public servant working for Donald Trump. FBI basically destroyed his life for nothing, for nothing, simply because he was an acolyte to Donald Trump.
The DOJ has been weaponized so many times in the past and it is fine that we're having this conversation because the more sunlight that's brought upon this, the better off.
HONIG: Are we espousing the theory two wrongs make a right?
WRIGHT: Can I offer my anti-Trump take?
HONIG: Please.
WRIGHT: It is inexcusable, these personal attacks, because it makes the story about that. I don't know why he does this. It's rude. I think it's bad for democracy. It's a phrase Democrats like to use a lot. But the bottom line is Letitia James in 2018 campaigned on prosecuting Trump before she had any legal authority to do so. That's easy. Look, five seconds, he could say that for the rest of his life. Doesn't have to call her a slob, doesn't have to do anything. I hate that stuff.
HONIG: Okay. Good talk.
CHAMPION: Kumbaya.
HONIG: Kumbaya. Well, look, somebody's got to end this, right?
CHAMPION: Someone has to be kind.
HONIG: We're in a downward spiral on this weaponization. I think we all agree on that.
[22:30:00]
Up next, president is now going to the nation's highest court to decide whether he can go through with his extreme home makeovers at the White House. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:34:53]
HONIG: President Trump is taking his legal fight over his White House ballroom to the Supreme Court. He's asking the justices to step in after lower federal courts repeatedly ruled he needed congressional approval before moving forward.
The Trump administration argues that the East Wing construction is required for the president's safety, citing recent attempts against his life.
Okay, the courts have said quite clearly Congress can authorize this if they want. Right now, a summary check, Republicans control the House and the Senate. So what's the holdup, Joe?
BORELLI: Look, I think the president has got us to a point where there is 65 percent of this project already done. Essentially, these are all sunk costs.
I think ultimately the American public just is going to have to accept that there's going to be a ballroom. There's going to be a military bunker. There's going to be some drone launch facility and the sooner we just get past this, I think the better.
I think what we'll see going forward is Democratic presidents, Republican presidents using the ballroom as most people concede that it probably should happen. The whole issue with the tents and the foreign leaders is a significant problem. I think it is embarrassing the United States doesn't have this facility.
Ultimately, it's a good thing. I just don't think it's what Americans care about. And I think there's been so much focus on Democrats highlighting the problems with this issue. I just don't think it's an issue that's going to resonate in the midterms.
COHEN: I think that the reason Americans don't care about it, you kind of answered the question unto itself.
The fact that we are spending, what, $950 billion -- million right now, this is money that could and should be going to other things. The fact that Donald Trump is obsessed with these vanity projects only underscores the fact that he's not delivering for regular people. People don't care about the reflecting pool, they don't care about the ballroom, they don't care about the triumphal arch, they don't care about his Qatari jet.
But he is so focused on himself, he's so self-absorbed. The world revolves around Donald Trump that he can't forgo any of these projects because he only cares about himself and enshrining his surroundings with gold. And the fact that you have so many Americans who are hurting right now, which is, by the way, something he should know because he campaigned on that exact issue.
It shows the gulf, the chasm between his priorities and what everybody else in this country cares about.
CHAMPION: Can we not argue, too? I don't think this is even a debate. We don't even have to push back. What you said was right, and it's accurate, and we all know it. We're talking about the American people.
If you're campaigning on affordability, it's only fair that we should be able to criticize the fact that there's a $900 million project, that half of which we are going to have to pay for.
LAUREN A. WRIGHT, LECTURER IN PUBLIC POLITICS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY: Yes, it's a price to pay. I agree with that.
CHAMPION: And it was supposed to be privatized. It wasn't going to be an issue.
WRIGHT: Donations.
CHAMPION: And then it doubles. Of course we knew it was going to double. Anybody will buy a house or buy anything, it's more than what you think it's going to be.
And so the reality is, this isn't something we should be debating. It's just fair. It's just the honest way to describe it.
WRIGHT: But what should they do now? I mean, shouldn't they finish it?
CHAMPION: No.
WRIGHT: Isn't there a security interest? No.
CHAMPION: No. Look, if they do finish it, he should pay for it. He's got enough money.
Hasn't he made it?
WRIGHT: I would like to hear a better explanation for the $200 million to $600 million jump. They say it's security reasons. They should submit those to Congress.
CHAMPION: He has the money. He can finish it.
HONIG: But there is a saying in the law that possession is nine-tenths of the law. And what that means is, sometimes the conditions on the ground just dictate your result.
And we don't know what the Supreme Court is going to do here. But if they uphold the lower courts, we're going to have a hole in the ground. And I think that could push against the Supreme Court, letting this block stay in place.
But where is Congress? Why wouldn't Congress just approve this? They can do it.
COHEN: I mean, they can. But the fact that Donald Trump didn't even go that route, when he has a perfectly obsequious Mike Johnson and John Thune in the House and the Senate, goes to show that he is only focused on usurping as much power as he can for himself.
It's not like he has Democratic control of Congress. It's not like he couldn't get these guys to just grovel at his feet and do his bidding.
WRIGHT: What price would you have been okay with for a secure location for the President to host world leaders?
COHEN: I don't care about Donald Trump hosting world leaders.
WRIGHT: But if it was a Democrat?
COHEN: I couldn't care less about the value.
WRIGHT: Okay, I think that's an important part.
COHEN: I don't think that's an important part of anything.
WRIGHT: Having world leaders come to the White House and to not have assassination attempts. I don't think that's that wild.
COHEN: We've not had assassination attempts in the existing structures of the White House.
HONIG: I mean, let's take a look. There have been an unprecedented number of serious attempts on the President's life.
None of which was a few weeks ago at the White House property. There was a person who came to the west side of the White House with a gun, and he was apprehended by the Secret Service.
So is there a valid security interest here? Whatever the price, I'm not saying the price is irrelevant, but there is a value.
This is something like we've never seen before. There were never six serious attempts on the life of any prior President.
BORELLI: And we don't know how the new world with drones is going to impact this, right? Obviously, in the past, we had the idea that a plane could be crashed into the White House.
Now we have this notion that someone could bring a handful of drones in some flatbed truck and launch them against the White House. So I think that's why there's a very valid, very necessary security concern for having this project. That's why it kind of never made sense to me why not just go about it in the way that might have been the easiest or required the least litigation.
[22:40:00]
I think ultimately, like I said before, you're going to have this 10 years from now, completely built. We're not even going to remember the controversy around it, but it's going to become just one of those parts of the White House that is celebrated and remembered and historic.
HONIG: I want to give you a hypothetical. Cari Champion, I'm going to make you the next President of the United States. Congratulations.
CHAMPION: Thank you. HONIG: Are you going to take Donald Trump's name off of these things? Are you going to stop these vanity projects? Are you going to let him go through it?
CHAMPION: No, I'm taking his name off. I think, in fact, what he's done, and I've said this before, I think he's shown that you can have the audacity not just to necessarily help, but to do whatever you want to do. I think that we'll see more of that, and there should be no pushback on either side.
HONIG: President Cohen?
COHEN: Look, I would rename it in honor of Barack Hussein Obama. He seems to be so obsessed with him. The Barack Hussein Obama Presidential Ballroom.
HONIG: Laura, what do you think?
WRIGHT: He names way too much stuff after himself, but there's a long list of Presidents that will succeed him, and like Joe said, no one's going to remember the idiosyncrasies of Trump.
CHAMPION: Wait, should we remove it? I think that's interesting. Would you remove his name? You're the President.
WRIGHT: To the Ballroom?
CHAMPION: Yes, remove his name.
WRIGHT: No, I wouldn't, because I teach the Presidency, and I actually think it's interesting to look back and see how the person that is the President influences the office, and I would want my students to get a full picture of this person, and naming everything after himself, to me, is very interesting.
CHAMPION: No.
HONIG: Then you already know, given that you teach Presidential History, that as far back as George Washington, Presidents have declined and said, do not name things after me, not while I'm alive, right? This is different.
WRIGHT: This is a completely different person. But also, every President has made, almost, changes to the White House grounds. They have brought executive authority over that ground.
CHAMPION: I'd get the biggest erasure possible, and I'd go nuts.
WRIGHT: I believe you.
CHAMPION: I'd get the biggest erasure possible, and go nuts. Thank you for letting me be President. What do you have to say to that? You love it.
BORELLI: The list of little dumb things I would do as President, like the naming of stuff, wouldn't even be close to the evil I'd come up with.
HONIG: All right, maybe we'll find out someday. Stay with us, folks.
Next up, the nation is used to Iowa and New Hampshire voting first in the Presidential primaries, but very soon, that's going to change. There's a lot of backlash.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HONIG: The primary calendar for Democrats will look very different in 2028. The party's gathering in Texas this week, and tomorrow, there's a vote to finalize a new schedule.
Now, a quick reminder of what the process looked like the last time Democrats had a contested primary in 2020. The Iowa caucuses kicked off the season, followed by New Hampshire, Nevada, and then South Carolina.
But now, under the proposed new calendar, South Carolina will jump the line and become the first primary, then Nevada, then New Hampshire would move to third. Now, this is going to make a big difference. If we look at the results last time Democrats had a contested primary in 2020, there was a big difference between what happened in New Hampshire and South Carolina.
As we see here, Joe Biden finished in fifth place in New Hampshire with 8.4 percent of the vote, and then he won South Carolina with 48.6. So this is a huge difference.
Now, Brian, let me ask you, given this new calendar, assuming it gets through, is this going to favor more the moderate wing of the Democratic Party or the far left?
COHEN: Look, I think it's clear it'll be a little bit more favorable to the moderate wing. But at the same time, I mean, the base of the Democratic Party is black women. And so to start this whole process in states like New Hampshire and Iowa already seems pretty unrepresentative of the party as a whole.
But look, starting in South Carolina, moving to Nevada, and then the spate of states beyond that does not preclude one candidate or another. Sure, you get some marginal benefit from the momentum that you derive from winning one or two states.
But as you said, I mean, Joe Biden was fifth place in the Iowa caucus and then ultimately won the nomination. So having one state here or there doesn't preclude you from being able to still become the presidential nominee.
HONIG: Cari, who do you think it favors?
CHAMPION: Look, I agree with what you just said. I also think, though, if we just take back a bigger picture, and I really honestly don't know if the calendar matters right now, I think a bigger issue that they have is that there is no clear leadership. I feel like there is so much infighting, if you will.
And it's hard to be a party that represents everyone. And I think that's the Democratic Party's problem. There are no real clear theories or no ethos, if you will, of who they are and what they mean.
There's a lot of, we're all for everyone.
Everyone come on in. And I don't necessarily think that works in today's America, because people want to know what you stand for really clearly. And if they can't understand who you are or where you live, they can't really be behind you.
BORELLI: She's 100 percent right. And the gap that establishment Democrats have left was filled by Democratic socialists. They didn't pick these states out of a hat, they didn't throw a dartboard and land on South Carolina. They did it because they are afraid of AOC, Zohran Mamdani, some of the other Democratic socialists.
I'm willing to bet the Democrats, the mainstream Democrats, are more afraid of Zohran Mamdani being successful, if he can be, here in New York, than Republicans are. Because that would mean the complete takeover of the Democratic Party by the far left.
HONIG: Laura, do you think?
WRIGHT: Yes, I think they're going to regret this. Because I think Democrats think the progressive message is the winning message.
And guess what? You're not going to get from South Carolina the Medicare for All people and the anti-Israel people and the Green New Deal people.
[22:50:09]
There is going to be a very different class of voters selecting this, lower-income working voters. And they're not going to be on board with the most progressive ideas.
So I think they're doing it, and they might regret it. I don't know.
HONIG: Who is the leader of the Democratic Party right now?
WRIGHT: Don't ask me.
HONIG: Anyone?
BORELLI: The real question is, who is the constituency they appeal to?
WRIGHT: And that's what they're trying to figure out. We know that.
BORELLI: The upper-left side cat lady when they've lost the working class, middle class of America in the states that aren't on the coasts. CHAMPION: It's almost like, why go after the people that aren't going to vote into you? I don't find myself trying to win over people who've already decided they don't want to be a part, or be down with me. I want to get my loyal followers.
I'm just saying, in theory, if this is me, I'm like, who are the people who are riding with me? Who are the people who are like, this is what I like? I love what you're saying.
Let's take this. And maybe the movement then takes over. But instead of trying to impress people who have moved on, that's the problem.
I'm going to win these flyover states, these people who aren't really saying. No one cares. Talk to your constituency.
Figure out who it is.
WRIGHT: You don't think you need to convince people?
CHAMPION: You can do that after you decide what your base is.
WRIGHT: That's pretty misingenuous.
CHAMPION: No, it's not. It's how you win. So for instance, you think what Donald Trump didn't do, he knew what his base was.
Let's bring back behavior that some people will call downright racist, and how I see it in some ways. And he said, I'm talking to you. You're my base.
You people lie with me. You think that this is an issue? Come with me.
And it may have been wholly unpopular.
WRIGHT: Can you give me an example of that?
CHAMPION: I can talk about all the things, all the fear. I give an example of this. When we talk in sports right now, and this is a big issue with women in the WNBA, this transgender issue.
Transgender women are taking over the WNBA, that is a lie. That is not even something that is happening. There is no group of transgender women coming in to take over women's sports.
WRIGHT: So they're not just one league from the Green League?
CHAMPION: You asked me a question. If you let me finish my thoughts, then let me do that.
So the first thing is, there is no issue. No, there's no transgender women coming and waiting in line to play in the WNBA.
And in 29 states, K through 12, women cannot, transgenders cannot play high school. And it has been abolished on the collegiate level, as well as on the Olympic level. So there's no way in hell you're going from high school to the pros. Because guess what? It's not happening.
And then they say, oh, define what a woman is. This is all fear mongering. It's all what ifs.
These are the issues. But guess what? We're distracted, and his base loves it. That's what I'm talking about.
WRIGHT: I think a lot of people care about these common sense issues, I think for a lot of people, women's sports is really important. And women are disadvantaged physiologically to men. And that's common sense.
HONIG: Cari?
CHAMPION: I don't think that any of these people think they want to protect women. You know why they don't want to protect women? Because they don't give two craps about the Epstein files.
All of these people who are yelling they want to protect women in sports are not honest. It's disingenuous.
BORELLI: You think the people that don't want men playing in girls sports are upset about Epstein files?
CHAMPION: Because it's not the real issue.
BORELLI: Not that there's a man playing in the girls sports?
CHAMPION: Let's go back to the real issue. Cari, this is an issue. I'm just going to fall back on the statistics.
CHAMPION: No, let me ask you a question.
BORELLI: What is it? 80 percent or 90 percent of Americans agree with my position that men shouldn't play in women's sports?
CHAMPION: And they're not playing in women's sports.
BORELLI: What do you mean there's one?
CHAMPION: Where are they?
BORELLI: We have seen so many examples of athletes being --
CHAMPION: Name a man that's in women's sports right now.
BORELLI: The guy that beat Riley Gaines. I don't remember his name. I try to forget, for goodness sakes.
HONIG: All right. This is obviously an important culture war issue. Sometimes we run from the order of the Democratic primary candidates.
CHAMPION: She's asked for an example.
HONIG: I mean, you're right. CHAMPION: And I'm like, there's no such thing.
HONIG: This is an issue that is on a lot of people's minds right now. All right. Great conversation.
Up next, we're going to get some feedback from our in-studio audience, and we're going to find out what Chef Liza has been cooking for us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HONIG: All right. Food Network supervising culinary producer Liza Zeneski is here with some spectacular plates for us.
The table is already straight up chowing down. Tell us what you've made.
WRIGHT: Were we not supposed to eat this yet?
LIZA ZENESKI, SUPERVISING CULINARY PRODUCER, FOOD NETWORK: You are absolutely supposed to eat it.
This is bucatini with tomato butter. I think it's one of my favorite pastas to bake in the summer because tomatoes are obviously in peak season. They're so sweet.
But my -- I guess, secret weapon in this recipe is the Calabrian chili peppers, which gives you that very subtle warmth but not extra crazy, I guess, heat or spice. I think I was maybe thinking about Antonia LoFasso when I developed this menu for you guys tonight. She loves Calabrian chili.
She's one of our chefs. I worked with her over the years, and she actually has a brand new show out. It's called "Kitchen Undercover," it's on Tuesdays at Food Network at 9 p.m.
And yes, I just wanted to, I guess, give her a shout out because the show is so much fun. And we're the Calabrian chili girls.
HONIG: Chef, thank you so much.
We have some special guests real quick if we can. So we have an audience question. These are some of my students who I teach at the great State University of New Jersey, Rutgers.
All right, C.J., let it go. Let's go.
C.J., ELIE HONIG'S STUDENT AT RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY: Hi, Elie.
It was so interesting to hear everyone's takes on today's political climate. And I was so lucky to have taken Elie Honig's class at Rutgers University. But for all the people who didn't take a class, and for the people who don't follow politics, my question to you all is, what T.V. show most reminds you of today's political climate?
HONIG: Oh, easy. "Veep."
I mean, come on. Julia Dreyfuss. Alice.
[23:00:04]
Alice Coe, real quick. What do you got?
ALIC COE, ELIE HONIG'S STUDENT AT RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY: Yes, you taught three classes at Rutgers, two of which I took. Which one of your classes should all your panelists take? And what grade would you give them?
HONIG: All my classes are equal. I'm a notoriously easy grader. But you guys all deserve your grades.
Thank you guys for being here. It's great to see you all. Thank you to our panelists, that was a wonderful conversation.
Catch Saturday morning "Table for Five" tomorrow at 10 a.m. Eastern with our special guest host, Kara Swisher.
Meanwhile, stay tuned. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
