Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Sources Say, Army Secretary Resigns Amid Tensions With Hegseth; Trump Shrugs Off Six-Plus Months Of Iran War, This Is Not A Big War; Supreme Court Allows Trump To Continue Building Ballroom; Laura Loomer Lashes Racist Comments On Angie Nixon, Other Black Politicians. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired August 31, 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 ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, America's military leaders warn Pete Hegseth of grave consequences if the war doesn't end soon. This as the president releases a fake video of a U.S. attack.
Plus, the Supremes give the green light for Donald Trump to continue his ballroom despite the conservative chief justice saying it's likely illegal.
Also, she's bragged about advising the president. Now, Laura Loomer is launching racist attacks against a black Senate candidate.
And after his boss gave a full-throated endorsement of a very unpopular issue on the trail, J.D. Vance strikes a different tone.
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: If you build the data center, you should be putting power back into the grid, not taking it out.
Live at the table, Noah Rothman, Leigh McGowan, May Mailman, Isaiah Martin, Niall Stanage, and Elie Honig.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (voice over): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
As America's war against Iran continues with no signs of ending, the Army Secretary is out tonight. Dan Driscoll submitted his resignation after months of tension with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. It is yet another departure under Hegseth as the US and Iran trade attacks for the first time in weeks.
It also comes as The Washington Post reports that military leaders are warning Hegseth against letting this war go on much longer. We're told that leaders say the prolong- prolonging large scale operations is unsustainable and risks weakening America's ability to confront threats here and abroad. The president didn't deny the warning, but he did dismiss the concerns.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Number one, we have nothing else in mind. Number two, we're very respected. Nobody else would be crazy enough to do it. Number three, we have so much ammunition and munitions, as they like to call it, all over the world that we can always take from if we want. And this is a relatively little war for us. This is not a big war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: In a statement, Hegseth's spokesman, Sean Parnell, said, publishing classified assessments is a crime and a betrayal of the force, and that the Post is inaccurate. He adds that this is TDS and PDS. They hate Trump and Hegseth more than they love America.
Before we open it up to the table, we once again invite you at home to join the debate. Go to cnn.com/abby. Weigh in there. We'll get to some of your comments as we go throughout the show.
Noah, you've been a, a big defender of this war, and I think that we are at a place now where it seems that gaining an upper hand against Iran has taken a lot out of the United States, and I think that's what The Washington Post report from over the weekend suggested.
The Navy in particular is facing strain as a result of what they're being asked to do. You know, these military service members out on sea for months and months, extending into 2027. So, that is the reality of the situation. How long can we sustain that?
NOAH ROTHMAN, SENIOR WRITER, NATIONAL REVIEW: Extended deployments are taxing. I wouldn't compare the current operational posture in that region to, for example, the strategy we deployed against the Houthis, which the Navy said represented some of the highest intensity combat operations that we've experienced in the Navy since World War II.
This is a little bit different, and thus I think it's more sustainable. It's absolutely fair to say that this has been a longer war than Donald Trump said it would be. Probably didn't think it would be this long, significant strain on American resources.
But if you only encounter the -- you know, a lot of American reporting, you would think that the United States is at war with itself. I encourage everybody to go read Brett McGurk's excellent piece in CNN yesterday, where he describes the degree to which the United States is seeing green shoots from this strategy. He compares it to the incredulity that he experienced with saying, you know, combating ISIS. They were going to be around forever, right? And then they just imploded.
I would add to that the collapse of the Syrian regime, where it just looks like something that's completely improbable suddenly becomes inevitable.
[22:05:00] We're clearing the strait. We're getting two-thirds of the amount of oil that was pre-war levels out of there, according to Goldman Sachs. And you have reporting now from grizzled veterans like CNBC's Brian Sullivan and Axios' Marc Caputo, who are saying basically that all these mines that were in the strait are decoys. They've recovered 200 of them. Only 11 worked.
And what I thought was so fascinating about that is they encounter incredulity everywhere. No one wants to believe it. It's almost like there's an allergy to good news from the front.
PHILLIP: Well, I guess that just it depends on what your definition of good news is.
ROTHMAN: I think that's good news. Wouldn't you --
PHILLIP: I mean, you know, Brett's piece was very interesting, and one of the things that he points out is that Iran may not be winning the war, but it, he suggests that this could be a conflict that the next president inherits from Donald Trump because there's no clear actual end to it. The effort that is being taken to clear the strait, for example, is massive. The Navy's chief of operations said that barely one-fourth of the Navy's destroyer fleet is ready to deploy. That's a sharp decline from pre-war levels. And more broadly, according to a document that was sent to Hegseth, the impact on ship maintenance, if demands imposed by Iran continue unchanged, jeopardizes the fleet's ability should another conflict arise. So, that is the reality.
MAY MAILMAN, LEGAL DIRECTOR, INDEPENDENT WOMEN: They have -- Iran has been unsuccessful in being able to export versus we're able to get 20 million barrels of oil out per day in the region. When you look at Iran's military is 95 percent depleted according to the White House. Their uranium enrichment for the past 20 years, 19 out of the 20 years, they have enriched uranium. Guess what? Not this year.
And so there have been successes, and you have to -- their economy is crippled. Their food inflation is up 154 percent. This is unsustainable for Iran. And what's the alternative, surrender? Surrender, well, you're going to get more of it. You're going to have wars breaking out all over the Middle East. There has to be finishing the job. And just because the Navy is strained doesn't mean it's unsuccessful in doing what it's supposed to do.
ISAIAH MARTIN (D), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, TEXAS: When you talk about what's the alternative would've been to stay inside of Obama's nuclear deal. They had a 97 percent reduction in their enriched uranium.
But here's a real focus that I think we should be talking about, is that in the first week of this conflict, Pete Hegseth said that one of the core objectives was to completely destroy the Iranian missile threat. He then went forward in a couple weeks later and said that he declared total victory, that all of the objectives had been completely finished. Now, we see that they're still able to go and shoot missiles at United States military equipment. How is that possible? Did Pete Hegseth lie to the American people? Did he lie under oath when he testified in front of Jon Ossoff and all those folks inside of the United States Senate? Is that potentially why all these folks are leaving? I think so because they see there's no leadership going on right now with this Department of War.
NIALL STANAGE, WHITE HOUSE COLUMNIST, THE HILL: Look, I think there are a lot of e- elements to this, including the domestic element, right?
MARTIN: Any answer?
MAILMAN: So, the -- like I said, the military has been substantially depleted. I think they said 95 percent. Iran has been a bully in the region forever that's been in control to have a constant threat not only against our number one ally, Israel, not only against our ability to get oil.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: Our number one ally?
MARTIN: Number one ally?
MCGOWAN: Really?
MARTIN: Number one ally that goes and suckers us into war?
MCGOWAN: Yes, that was kind of a sliver tongue there.
(CROSSTALKS)
MAILMAN: You think that there's another ally --
MARTIN: He's been boasting in Israel right now, you know that, right?
MAILMAN: You think there's another ally in the region? If you want to talk about --
MARTIN: You know that Bibi is boasting right now in Israel about suckering the United States into war as we speak. It's one of his campaign platforms that he's pushing right now in Israel.
MCGOWAN: Yes, it's on his social media.
MARTIN: Are you denying that?
MCGOWAN: Yes, it was on Israeli T.V.
MARTIN: Do you have an answer?
MAILMAN: I'm sorry. So --
(CROSSTALKS)
ROTHMAN: I want to know what the implication is. What are you implying? Are you implying that the United States was dragged into war by Israel against our interests? MCGOWAN: We're not implying it. That's what Bibi said. He said --
ROTHMAN: Precisely what I'm saying. So, you're saying that what he just said?
MCGOWAN: Noah, Bibi said on television, it took a long time to get the U.S. to come to its senses, but it finally got it -- but I finally got it to attack it under my influence over its leaders through a thousand hours on American television. That came right out of the leader of Israel's mouth. I got them to attack it.
ROTHMAN: Benjamin Netanyahu is on record saying he had lobbied George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
MCGOWAN: And he finally found a president that would do it. And a lot of the military leaders are saying, we don't want any part of this. This is not going the way that it's going to go.
And so we have to be realistic about that.
PHILLIP: So, Noah, we have a question from a viewer that asks you specifically, is all of this worth the demands that we are putting on our military?
ROTHMAN: Well, listen, I think it is, but we have to have the hindsight to review everything that we've been doing as, is it necessary to complete the mission? And the mission is neutralizing the Iranian threat. You said that the next president will inherit this. Guess what? Every president since 1979 has inherited this threat.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, I am saying --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I mean, I'm just pointing out that Brett suggested that that is a possible outcome of this, that holding Iran at bay is going to keep us in this cycle of being there for a long time, right?
[22:10:07]
STANAGE: And the ramifications of the effects that it is already having on the American population. Price of oil is up $20 from where it was before the war, price of gas up more than a dollar from where it was before the war, American people against this by two to one. We have alienated our friends. We have emboldened enemies, Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi, rubbing their hands in glee. And to the point about Netanyahu, the person who's happiest in the world about all this is someone who's accused of war crimes.
MARTIN: That's right.
ROTHMAN: I think Obama was right, and Joe Biden was right, and Donald Trump was right to say that we need to pivot to Asia. Why have we been unsuccessful at doing that? It's not because of the lack of will.
MARTIN: That is not what we're talking about right now. You're a dream shaker.
ROTHMAN: I would love to finish a sentence. It is because --
PHILLIP: Hold on, let me -- you can finish, because I actually think this is an interesting point.
ROTHMAN: It is because Iran is busily engaged in executing and planning terrorist attacks on the United States and our allies --
PHILLIP: Is that really why we haven't been able to pivot to Asia, or is it because this president, even though he talks a lot about combating China in all these different areas, got distracted? I mean, because at the end of the day, Iran has been, to your point, doing the same thing it's been doing for a while now, and Trump was the one who decided that rather than focusing on our actual threats in Asia, that you point out, we're going to do this instead. And now the prospect is that maybe if there is a conflict, if China invades Taiwan, are we going to be prepared? Are we going to have the munitions? Are we going to have the navy?
ROTHMAN: If Obama could've gotten out of the Middle East, he would have. He did. Yet he let, every troop was gone in 2011. They went back in 2014. Why? Because Iran's stalwart ally in Syria incubated the ISIS threat that exploded across the region.
Iran is the nexus of the threat. Iran keeps us there. Without the Islamic Republic, we can't pivot.
STANAGE: No, let me get back to Abby's point, because that brings us back to where we started with that post report where there were military leaders saying we can't sustain this. And those military leaders were often the people with responsibility for the areas that we're talking about.
Their objections aren't rooted in them suddenly becoming peace campaigners. Their objection is that it is distracting the United States from those other theaters that would be important.
PHILLIP: One other thing the president did this weekend was post this video, A.I.-generated video of an attack on Kharg Island, which as you know, if you've been watching, he's been threatening for weeks and months now.
And it's so interesting to me, because he posts that, and then here comes J.D. Vance, the vice president, seeming to clean it up. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: -- to switch it up on social media a little bit. He would be the first to say he doesn't make an- announcements about military actions on social media, but I think that he's sending a message to the Iranians, look, we know that they continue to shoot at commercial shipping. We continue to have a lot of tools at our disposal to prevent them from doing so, or at least cut down on them from doing so. And that's what the president is saying is, look, you guys are shooting at commercial shipping. You guys are behaving like a terrorist country. You've got to stop or there are going to be some consequences.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, this has more made to do with just the president, how he conducts himself. He keeps making these threats that seem empty because he isn't willing to carry them out. And then now to have the vice president kind of walk it back, that seems to make them look weak here.
MAILMAN: So, I don't necessarily see this as a threat being walked back. I see this as a president A.I.-generated video, and I thought that they were --
PHILLIP: Still around on the internet.
MARTIN: It's just a video, right?
MAILMAN: I don't know. I just like, I guess --
MCGOWAN: It's a good time. He's murdering everyone. Wohoo, America.
MARTIN: Let's go shoot folks because we can.
MAILMAN: No. That's -- it's like when are we going to stop being like so triggered by Truth Social and an A.I. video?
MARTIN: How dare we take the president of the United States seriously? Wow.
MAILMAN: No, I'm sorry. It's so absurd.
MCGOWAN: He does crazy things that are completely unhinged, says he's going to annihilate the entire civilization, then does this bombing thing and we're supposed to be like, he's just joking. He's just coming in there for a little joke. It's a terrible way to lead anyone.
MAILMAN: I didn't say that he was joking.
MCGOWAN: And I want to say that J.D. Vance, right after that segment, said that we have continually under-invested in our military, and Donald Trump is only fixing what we did in the past, and it's Biden's fault. J.D. Vance is constantly sweeping up behind what Trump is doing, saying the opposite of what Trump said, and it ends up meaning nothing. And American leadership has to mean something, especially when you're at war.
This is terrible. We should never have been there. We had no intention. And I think we need to be honest.
PHILLIP: Let me let May responded and then --
MAILMAN: I do think that it is a visible reminder, even if it is an A.I. reminder, that the U.S. is the world's military strength, and that Iran should not forget that. And I don't think it does forget it.
MCGOWAN: For how long? We're running out of bullets.
MARTIN: If they have a missile threat, just --
PHILLIP: Noah --
ROTHMAN: I mean, it's -- you're not wrong. I don't think anybody's wrong here. I'm kind of tired of these empty threats because he has made them continually.
[22:15:00]
I don't think they're credible. What is credible is the lawn mowing strategy that we begin to see articulated in the press, and the Iranians should be very afraid of our degree to degrade their capability to project power in the Strait.
MARTIN: I thought it was already destroyed, though. I thought that's what Hegseth said. I thought that Hegseth said that all of the objectives have been completed.
ROTHMAN: I am willing to concede to you every concession about how terrible this administration's rhetoric has been.
MARTIN: So, they lie?
ROTHMAN: A lot of it is in 100 percent --
MARTIN: So, they lie?
ROTHMAN: Lie, mislead, exaggerate.
MARTIN: They lie?
ROTHMAN: What is true and what I can assess is the fact that --
MARTIN: They lie.
ROTHMAN: Well, but I'm willing to make that concession, and I think you should make concessions to our shared reality, which is observable in the Strait of Iran. I'm not dealing with rhetoric from this administration. I'm dealing with what we're getting from independent trackers, from analysts, from regional sources who are all saying that the situation is improving for the United States, and the United States maintains escalation dominance, which is what that video represents. If it represents anything, it represents the capacity by us to dictate the tempo of events.
PHILLIP: I guess only if he actually means to carry it out, and I think so far he's made that threat so many times, you would not be you would not be faulted for thinking that maybe he doesn't mean it this time either.
Next time for us, more breaking news tonight, the Supreme Court gives Trump the green light on his ballroom, but the chief justice, John Roberts, suggests flatly that it's illegal.
Plus, one of the president's unofficial advisers launches racist attacks against a black Senate candidate, and the left is calling out the double standard over Hasan Piker.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Breaking news, construction is back on for the president's massive White House ballroom. The Supreme Court tonight rejecting a challenge 5-4 from a group trying to halt that project, and the president has gotten his way again with the conservative court on a procedural issue.
The majority opinion stated, today, we do not pass upon the legality of the government's East Wing project. We conclude only that based on the submissions before us, the government is likely to prevail in showing that the trust lacks Article 3 standing to challenge the project in federal court, and that the remaining stay factors favor relief.
Now, conservative Chief Justice Roberts dissented. He wrote that the construction of the ballroom is, quote, likely unlawful.
Elie Honig is with us now at the table. So, Elie, this is kind of a win for Trump on a technicality.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes.
PHILLIP: And I think the big question tonight is if the trust can't sue, is there anyone who could stop the president from tearing down part of the White House and rebuilding it however he sees fit?
HONIG: So two big takeaways, I think, from all this. First of all, the ballroom construction itself is almost certainly -- we didn't get a full ruling on this, but almost certainly illegal. It has to be Congress to allocate money to authorize a project like this to control the national parks and monuments.
However, this case was defeated because of standing, which is, yes, a technicality, but important. And what the Supreme Court found is you cannot sue unless you have some sort of concrete, specific stake in a case. The plaintiff here, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, their argument for standing was mighty thin. It was, we have one member, a professor, who likes to walk by the White House, and she will suffer, quote, aesthetic and cultural harm. And the majority said, that's not enough.
Now, to your question, who can sue? I'll give you a two-part answer to that. One, I don't know, and, two, maybe nobody. It's not necessarily the case under the law that there's always somebody who can sue over every problem.
PHILLIP: But isn't that crazy that the president -- I mean, I'm just going to channel what people are probably thinking at home. It seems crazy that the president could do something that is clearly on its face illegal, and nobody can stop him.
MAILMAN: So, it is actually not that crazy, because it happens all the time. And I would say, so, one, I disagree that actually on the merits it's unlawful. So, the Trump administration in particular, there are two places where Congress has authorized this, one, for improvements onto the White House itself, but then also for the National Park Service to build new construction projects on Park Service land, including the White House and like the president's park.
But standing, so, for example, President Biden order 10,000 illegal crossings per day that they caught.
PHILLIP: Guys, hold on.
MAILMAN: This is a lawsuit.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Just let her finish.
MAILMAN: Okay.
PHILLIP: So, we can understand.
MAILMAN: So, the Republican states sued, not even on aesthetic injuries, but I will say that my aesthetic injuries were very triggered by that. So -- but the states couldn't sue because they didn't have standing.
And abortion doctors, for example, so other doctors who are, you know, co-doctors and have abort -- they want to see the babies born. They want to see the babies born, but they were not allowed to sue because that was not -- so this happens constantly, so it's not some sort of shocking thing that the lady who doesn't even live in D.C., who didn't want to look at a ballroom maybe?
MCGOWAN: No, it's a bad lawsuit. But the point of the, Abby's question is, what about the people at home that are like, yo, this guy's just a temporary resident of this house. He can't come in with a wrecking ball and take out one third of it because he wanted to without asking the people who, A, have to pay for it, and, B, who get to decide.
And then the people who are in charge of the important buildings in D.C. said, look, each president is just a temporary steward of the house. He doesn't have the unilateral authority to completely demolish or redesign anything, including the East Wing, including the Rose Garden, including the horses, including the Reflecting Pool, including taking down the trees now that were a gift from Japan.
He's just unilaterally changing the town as if he owns it, and he doesn't own it.
[22:25:04]
And I think that is a lawsuit worth pursuing.
PHILLIP: So, a viewer asks, will conservatives be fine with a Democratic president knocking down the ballroom if they come into office?
ROTHMAN: So, my question is, with relation to standing, correct me if I'm wrong, the House can sue.
HONIG: No, because -- no. I think that's a common misperception, that, well, a member of Congress can sue. And you know how you know that's not the case because there would be 10,000 lawsuits, Pelosi v. Trump, Schumer v. Trump.
PHILLIP: Right, yes.
HONIG: You can't sue --
ROTHMAN: Well, specifically with the violation of the power of the purse.
PHILLIP: But why? Why, Elie?
HONIG: Because that's not the way the law works. You have to be able to show that you will suffer some specific, concrete injury. And -- but the Congress --
PHILLIP: Can I just say -- well, let me just --
HONIG: -- is the missing piece here.
PHILLIP: Yes. Well, that's what I was going to just point out, not to interrupt you. But I just want to read, because this is Chief Justice Roberts -- like he puts this on the table. He says, the White House isn't just any building. And when it comes to historic preservation, in failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff's injury, allowing the executives likely infringement of the legislature's power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue.
So, he's making it clear, I mean, maybe the person injured or the entity injured is the Congress.
HONIG: Key point. Congress cannot sue, but Congress can do what Congress does. They can legislate. They can pass a resolution or a law saying, you cannot spend this money or you can spend this money. They've done neither, and hence we have this lawsuit.
(CROSSTALKS)
MAILMAN: Congress also has the impeachment power, obviously, and he's -- President Trump has been double impeached. They know how to do that. But I will say, this like hypothetical, what if somebody knocks down the ballroom, I do not understand the public's animosity. The East Wing is a 1942 rebuild.
MARTIN: Because it costs $350 million of taxpayer money. That would precisely be the reason why people are outraged about it.
MAILMAN: Then ask that Congress not fund it. That is the power of the purse. There you go. There's your authority. MARTIN: The point is -- exactly.
PHILLIP: But that hasn't stopped Trump from actually knocking it down --
MARTIN: Absolutely, which is exactly what he did.
PHILLIP: You know, Congress has actually not funded it, May. I mean, and, again, you just pointed out, I guess you don't like the idea of a Democratic president knocking it down, but it seems like they very well could.
MAILMAN: Well, and then, I guess that's the case.
PHILLIP: And that would be fine?
MAILMAN: But I think there's right and wrong.
MARTIN: Do you think it's a good use of $350 million?
MAILMAN: So, we're speaking hypothetical of like, you know, but actually, what is happening with the ballroom is underneath the ballroom, there is going to be security equipment, but also hospital facilities. Right now, you're taking people away, like there are so many capabilities that the White House doesn't have, their HVAC equipment.
MCGOWAN: (INAUDIBLE) have a really good point here because I think that in this decision, Trump made a very interesting comment where he said, you know, the Supreme Court has finally ruled on me and my ballroom military complex. And he called it a ballroom military complex.
And I thought that was interesting, because from the beginning, it was like, we need a bigger ballroom. We need this ballroom so we can show off America properly. We don't have enough room to have all these parties. And then the military complex keeps being added in, right? And the Trump administration is now saying that people are going to work on it at least 20 hours a day.
So, you might have workers there or crew almost 24 hours a day trying to get this built by, they're saying summer 2028, which to me is a very interesting time to have a fully operational military complex below the ballroom right in time for the election. I find that very interesting.
PHILLIP: What are the implications? Sorry.
MCGOWAN: The implication there is that they're building an entire bunker underneath a huge ballroom, and I think that's more interesting. And I think him saying a military complex, the completion of this national security project, when you see him at the Indy race right in the front with no glass in front of him, I don't think this is a ballroom.
PHILLIP: Well, not for nothing. There is already a massive bunker underneath the White House.
MCGOWAN: Yes, there is.
PHILLIP: That already exists. Elie, so where -- what happens now? I mean, will there be an attempt to find somebody who can have standing here?
HONIG: So, a couple things could happen. First of all, yes, somebody can come along and try to say, well, look, I have standing. I'm not sure there is someone here given where we are with the construction. Number two, Congress can act. Congress can, again, they can block this. They can authorize it, but there's no chance they do that. So, I think this thing ultimately gets built.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, you say that, but, I mean, there is an election that's coming very soon.
HONIG: Could be.
PHILLIP: Congress could change hands, in which case, that could create a truly bizarre situation in which you have a maybe two-thirds built ballroom and a Congress that says, stop it.
MARTIN: Yes. It should be immediately defunded.
MAILMAN: So, why do we have to have our state dinners in tents? That's what we have right now. We have state dinners in tents because we do not have a place to entertain properly.
PHILLIP: I don't think that's --
MARTIN: We should not be spending $350 million on a ballroom. I think having a ballroom that costs more than stadiums in America, I think that's pretty absurd.
MAILMAN: Is it okay to have secure, complex --
MARTIN: A ballroom, $350 million.
MAILMAN: It's also okay to have a ballroom.
PHILLIP: Well, look, this horse has left the barn. Well, this horse has left the barn. However, I will say, I mean, this argument that this is all about whether or not we should or should not have state dinners in tents is beside the point because the president could very easily have just done it the right way.
[22:30:06]
He just chose to do it in a way that is arguably unlawful, and maybe he might get away with it.
HONIG: Just quickly. Donald Trump, since the 80s, since he was building and knocking down buildings here in New York City, understood that sometimes the law might makes right. What a President could have done is gone to Congress, sought the proper authorizations. Instead, he said, how about if I just knock the thing down and then make some plaintiff scramble into court, understanding, maybe consciously or not, that there's a lot of hurdles to that.
It's expensive, it's time consuming, you're racing against the clock, and you have this standing problem. And sometimes, even if he's doing something that's patently illegal, he gets away with it just through sheer brute force. And I think that's how this is going to play out.
PHILLIP: That is the story of the Trump second term in a lot of ways. Elie Honig, thank you very much.
Next for us, Laura Loomer, who brags about advising the President launches a racist attack on black women, including a Senate candidate. But now the left is calling out the hypocrisy over extremists. We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, far right activist Laura Loomer, who has a long history of Islamophobia, dehumanizing migrants, conspiracy theories, and of course, advising the President, is facing backlash for dropping these racist attacks on a Florida Democratic state nominee, Angie Nixon, and other black women.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LAURA LOOMER, CONSERVATIVE ACTIVIST: Call out the entitlement of these, as I like to call them, ghetto black bitches. I've noticed this stereotype exists in the Democrat Party, and I don't think it belongs in the United States Senate. Unfortunately, it's already in the United States Congress.
Angie Nixon, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Presley, Cori Bush, Ketanji Brown Jackson. I mean, look at that disaster.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Loomer has since doubled down over the last 24 hours, and the reaction across the aisle, or lack thereof, is what's led to questions about double standards.
Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, who has also been targeted by Loomer, called out people who criticized Democratic candidates for campaigning with leftist streamer Hassan Piker because of his controversial past statement. But have remained silent about Laura Loomer, who has publicly wielded her influence as a Donald Trump whisperer. That is both during the campaign, and now that he is President.
This is about a lot of things. I think one of the things it's about is just the sheer racism that she puts on display regularly. But it's also about whether or not people are actually going to be even-handed. So, I mean, I think on both sides. Do you think that Trump should
disown Laura Loomer for any number of reasons? And if so, do you have to then also think that Democrats should disown Hassan Piker?
MARTIN: Well, I think that Trump absolutely should go and disown Laura Loomer because it's absurd, the stuff that she said. I mean, to put it in perspective, Republicans spent weeks talking about Hassan Piker while we have a de facto attack dog for the Republican Party attacking everybody that she can.
What's interesting about this is that Laura Loomer is somebody that Trump's own campaign manager did interviews with. We know that. And the real question is, is that why is it that any of these people refuse to say anything about her? But it's not just Laura Loomer.
It's also people like Steve Bannon, someone who has literally called for subverting the United States Constitution, someone that has been very close to Donald Trump. Republicans refuse to say anything about him. We know this.
And we also see that whether it's Nixon, whether it's Ketanji Brown Jackson, Republicans refuse to say anything about this. Why?
Because they know that all of their attacks against Piker is really just a distraction from the fact that they've destroyed this economy. They've gone and they've raised inflation, they've got us in this ridiculous war and they want to do anything to dream shake out of that.
I think that we as Americans need to go forward and call this out for its insanity because it's absolutely so.
MAILMAN: So distance from Hassan Piker or no, though?
MARTIN: The distance from Hassan Piker --
MAILMAN: Should Democrats distance themselves from Hassan Piker?
MARTIN: I think that Democrats should do that when Donald Trump goes forward and says that he can.
MAILMAN: The answer is no.
PHILLIP: So that's a fair question about Hassan Piker. But what about Donald Trump and his open embrace of Laura Loomer, who is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who has said --
MAILMAN: -- not campaigning with any single candidate. She is an online personality. She's a Twitter and podcast person.
But Hassan Piker campaigns with Abdul Al-Sayed.
PHILLIP: Laura Loomer campaigned with Donald Trump. Okay, so that is a fact. But also right now, she has boasted of basically being the de facto Presidential personnel director, firing a number of officials, FDA officials, army officials, NSA officials, Surgeon General, the CIA.
She says, "I'm happy to take people's tips about disloyal appointees, disloyal staffers and Biden holdovers. And I guess you could say that my tip line has come to serve as a form of therapy for Trump administration officials who want to expose their colleagues and who should not be in the positions that they're in."
[22:40:02]
MAILMAN: Laura's talking about herself. And I'm talking about what Democrats say about Hassan Piker like that he is my friend.
PHILLIP: But let's just take it one at a time. Let's play what Donald Trump has said about Laura Loomer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Hi, Laura. Boy, you're something. What spirit you have, Laura.
You know, she can be a little nasty, but to me, she's always nice. So that's all that I wanted to say that way to --
Laura Loomer is a very good patron. She makes recommendations of things and people. And sometimes I listen to those recommendations like I do with everybody.
She recommended certain people for jobs. Well, she'll recommend that, too.
And I know she's known as a radical right. But I think Laura Loomer is a very nice person. I like her.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MARTIN: So right now in front of millions of people, will you go and call on the President of the United States of America to condemn Laura Loomer? Will you call on him to do that?
MAILMAN: Yes. Go condemn Laura Loomer.
So this -- but this is all a distraction. Because --
MARTIN: From you guys economy, I would agree with --
MAILMAN: A, it is manufacturing racism because Florida is about to have a black governor. Byron --
MARTIN: What the heck does that have to do with anything?
MCGOWAN: -- racism. That's racism. That's straight up racism.
It's not manufacturing. It's so ignorant to say that.
Truly, it is so ignorant. She called her a ghetto black bitch. That is racist. Do not say it's manufactured racism. It is heinous.
And I'm so tired of it. Honest to God.
The only reason we're talking about Hassan Piker, I'm sorry, is because he's on the left. We have had right wing shock jocks for years. We had freaking Rush Limbaugh ringing the bell every time a gay person died of AIDS.
We have Nick Fuentes dining at Mar-A-Lago after he says your women are your body, my choice. We've got these right wing Christian zealots who said women shouldn't vote and we're nothing but vessels. They are all on the right-wing.
And then we're not asking every single Republican candidate and the sitting person if they approve of them, if they should disown them, if they should do this. The only reason we're doing this is because it's one person from the left that said something extraordinary. And we can't even have this one woman who is literally the President.
ROTHMAN: You mentioned Rush Limbaugh, I'm old enough to remember when every Republican in Congress is asked to respond to things Rush Limbaugh says (inaudible) all the time.
MCGOWAN: He got a Presidential medal of freedom from the President we have right now. So please --
PHILLIP: Okay, stop. Noah, really, I mean, respond to what she's saying. Why is it that it does seem like all the other crazy people, if they are on the right, can go ahead and pawl around with the President? They can be supporters of all kinds of candidates and that doesn't become the defining issue of these campaigns.
ROTHMAN: No, it doesn't. But there was a significant backlash to the Nick Fuentes dinner, if I recall. And that's all he cares about is his reaction on the right.
PHILLIP: But why is it that Laura Loomer is still shot calling in this White House right now? This is a woman who literally says that the United States is responsible for 9/11.
ROTHMAN: Yes, that's gross. It's hard to pin down precisely what influence she has.
If you actually read these reports about her influence, it's rather nebulous and vague. But to be sure, she has influence. And those are vile comments.
A long history of similar vile comments. She deserves to be cast out. And all the influencers need to be cast out.
We have reached the point of diminishing returns on the influencers. Their incentives do not work.
MARTIN: Your President refuses to condemn this man. And that is the overarching point. I do not want to hear a single thing about Hassan Piker (inaudible)
goes forward and condemn this man.
ROTHMAN: I'm being consistent. I have said that this is a universal moral imperative that we should embrace. So has Meg.
STANAGE: We keep talking about influencers. The President of the United States described people from Somalia as garbage.
Randy Fine, Republican congressman, compared Muslims unfavorably to dogs. The Republican nominee for Senate in Georgia tweeted a video at the time of pro-Palestine protests of a white counter-protester racially abusing a black woman. Those are not influencers, those are the President of the United States and officeholders in this time.
One final point, Abby, just before we stop this. We're all talking here about political influence.
What Laura Loomer said was flagrantly racist. And if there's someone watching this show tonight, maybe because it was racist, classist, and sexist, and if there's some working class young black woman maybe in student government or in her community today watching this, she knows that if she goes further, she'll have to put up with that kind of crap from a woman who is defended by the President of the United States.
MAILMAN: And when I say that there's a element, I don't mean it because of her comments, obviously, which are racist.
[22:45:08]
What I mean is by continuing to platform it and to say that this is some sort of endemic part of the Republican party I think is wrong.
MARTIN: Randy Fine was endorsed by Donald J. Trump and Mike Johnson. What are you talking about?
MAILMAN: It's not something that's endorsed by the President.
MARTIN: He was endorsed by the President.
MAILMAN: So what I'm saying is he posted that tweet, everyone reacted negatively to it --
MARTIN: And then Donald Trump endorsed it.
PHILLIP: Well, the President didn't react negatively to it.
I guess that, listen, I mean, I just wonder if you can intellectually reconcile those things. You're claiming that certain people on the left are so bad that they should be cast aside, but the President endorsed somebody who has regularly made Islamophobic and xenophobic comments.
He is, I played it, on tape praising someone, Laura Loomer, who has said, among other things, how many more people need to die before everyone agrees that Islam is a cancer and we should never let another Muslim into the civilized world?
I mean, if you take Islam out of that and replace the word with Christianity or Judaism, it would be a national scandal, because that person, the President, is regularly praising. How is that something that is acceptable to Republicans?
MAILMAN: So the reason I think that this is a distraction, though, is because you have Laura's distraction. It's a distraction from the real issues that are happening.
PHILLIP: Listen, maybe it's a distraction, but the person who could end the distraction is the President, and he's the one person who won't do it.
MAILMAN: Because he wants the distraction.
MARTIN: And here's the other thing. It's not just Randy Fine. It's also Brandon Herrera, a person who literally said he had his own copy of Mein Kampf.
You know what that got him? An endorsement from the President of the United States and the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson. This is endemic of the Republican Party, because this is who they endorse and who they support, and this is who's winning their primaries.
MAILMAN: This sort of race-baiting and pretending like the Republican Party is full of racists is a little tiresome, because it is false. That is not the Republican Party.
And when Angie Nixon goes on and says Republicans are killing black people, that's what she said. That's her statement.
MARTIN: That's what Brandon Herrera is, that's what Randy Fine is, that's what Laura Loomer is.
PHILLIP: We're going to have to leave it there.
I mean, I think, May, if that's your argument, then I would expect that Republicans tomorrow will stop talking about Hasan Piker every single day. They'll stop talking about all Democrats being socialists and communists, because it sounds like what you're saying is don't paint with a broad brush, but that's exactly what happens in our politics.
MAILMAN: Well, I also think that there's a distinction, because Hasan Piker, A, is campaigning with Abdul Al-Sayed, which I think makes it more relevant. But, okay, the second point is that Hasan Piker's statements that the United States deserved 9/11 are, to their core --
MCGOWAN: We're right back to it. It's like you're allowed to do it all over again, but it's like --
PHILLIP: Laura Loomer believes that the United States did 9/11 to itself. So I'm not so sure that that's a better situation to be defending.
All right. Next, we are going to spend some time answering your feedback. Stand by for that, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: And now we've got some viewer feedback from cnn.com/abby.
Fernando P. says, Congress needs to intervene now on all Iran war decisions moving forward, and a legal war without defined objectives and timelines must not be allowed to continue indefinitely.
And Cory M. adds on a similar topic, I hate this war, but panelists, how can the U.S. end this war? Iran is the one who has to decide the ending, unfortunately.
ROTHMAN: Just to take the first point, I agree with that. Congress should pass an AUMF, Authorizing the Use of Force Against Iran, specifically for this mission, and provide guidance to the White House about what the Congress expects and the timeline it expects to achieve that on.
That's previously been the case, and prior wars have been authorized by Congress. This one should have been, and they can get around to it any time they want.
STANAGE: How long do you think this should go on?
ROTHMAN: Until the job is done.
MARTIN: What does that look like?
ROTHMAN: It looks like Iran --
MARTIN: Because Pete Hegseth said not so long ago that the job is already done, so we keep going with that?
ROTHMAN: Yes, you asked, I'm answering. It should be capitulating on the nuclear program with verifiable mechanisms to identify and determine whether or not Iran is playing around, and also the free flow of trade through the strait. And at that point, we have achieved virtually all --
MARTIN: Sounds exactly like the Obama nuclear deal, doesn't it?
ROTHMAN: Not at all, if you actually know what the Obama nuclear deal was.
MARTIN: Oh, how so?
ROTHMAN: Which would have sunset last year and is no longer operative.
PHILLIP: So, this is a bit of a hard turn of topics, but this person points out, I can't change my water heater in my home without a permit, let alone adding an addition to my house. But Trump can do this to a home he doesn't even own.
Make it make sense.
MARTIN: Makes no sense.
MAILMAN: We can't. I wish that you could do more stuff to your house, too. Maybe people would have more families if you could add a bedroom, you know, you could just --
MARTIN: Or if the President didn't go and jack up the cost of everything.
MAILMAN: Yes, so dereg (ph) everybody. How about that?
[22:55:02]
ROTHMAN: Yes, I mean, that's a much bigger problem, right, is your ability to use your money as you see fit.
PHILLIP: I don't think the point was to pivot to deregulation.
ROTHMAN: Well, we're making it about small doubles.
MCGOWAN: The pivot was pretty hard there, you guys, like, you know what I mean? I think what the person is saying is, like, we have to ask our neighbors, we have to ask our city, we have to get permits to do things. How come this one man has no rules?
And I think that's the question of the hour with this entire presidency. How come this one man has no rules and doesn't need to follow any of them? And even when the courts come in and say, that's probably illegal, it's like, oh, I already did it. Like, that is problematic.
PHILLIP: On that note, one viewer says, I love Leigh, but I'm worried about how high her blood pressure is going to get during this administration.
MCGOWAN: Yes, me too.
Me too, viewer. Thanks for looking out for me.
PHILLIP: All right. Thanks for looking out for all of us.
Everyone, thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
