Return to Transcripts main page
CNN This Morning
Ousted GOP Senators Threaten Trump's Priorities; Fetterman Threatens to Leave Democratic Party; Law Professor Derek Muller is Interviewed about Election Claims; Responsibility When A.I. Goes Wrong. Aired 6:30-7a ET
Aired July 17, 2026 - 06:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:33:24]
AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish. Thank you for joining me on CNN THIS MORNING.
It's half past the hour. And here's what's happening right now.
Iran vowing to expand attacks across the Persian Gulf after a U.S. strike leveled a marine control tower near the Strait of Hormuz. An Iranian spokesman says they could now target five key ports of U.S. allies in response. The U.S. also hitting several Iranian bridges connected to the Strait of Hormuz. And media outlets say at least nine people were killed and nine were injured. President Trump has threatened more strikes on Iran bridges and power plants if Tehran does not return to the negotiation table.
In Britain, Andy Burnham set to be formally elected leader of the governing Labour Party today. This will clear the final hurdle before he becomes prime minister on Monday. Burnham has overwhelming support from Labour lawmakers after Keir Starmer's resignation.
And this morning, more than 100 million people are under air quality alerts. That Canadian wildfire smoke is still lingering over the U.S. from the Midwest to the Northeast. And this polluted air is expected to actually get worse throughout the day. It might ease tomorrow. In the meantime, officials recommend people impacted stay inside.
And President Trump used his primetime speech to push Congress, once again, to pass legislation to require proof of citizenship for voter registration and vote -- and photo I.D. to cast ballots. Senate Republicans have made it clear to the president again and again they don't have the votes to pass this. And some of those are crucial no votes. They belong to Republican senators whose terms are ending this year.
[06:35:02]
Lawmakers who have been highly vocal in their opposition to both the president and the bill. Here are some of them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): If I see a reconciliation bill come from the House with another failed attempt to confuse this election, I will use every device I have available to slow down the wheels of government until people cop a clue and do the math.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: OK, group chat is back. That's Senator Tillis with what I have been calling the YOLO bolo. He has been uninterested in moving on issues that are Trump priorities.
Can you talk about how the president has been trying to deal with these people he's upset with? We have a couple of social media posts where he's complaining about Thom Tillis, where he's complaining about Cornyn. He's complaining about Cassidy. And Cassidy, going as far to say, "Cassidy is sleazebag, a terrible guy, who is bad for Louisiana. Now he's going to get clobbered."
These are people that he hurt in the long run. What do you think he -- is going on here?
ELIZABETH MITCHELL, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "THE DAILY SIGNAL": Well, these are people, of course, they have nothing to lose now. They can criticize the president as far as they want. They can ask tough questions to his nominees and his cabinet when they come before the Senate.
But ultimately, I don't expect these people, when it comes down to it, to actually harm the Republicans and its ability to pass the president's agenda. For instance, Cassidy reportedly gave the president a very hard time about the Iraq War, voted for the war powers resolution, and then the time there was a second vote, he actually turned around and said he was pleased with what the president said and voted against it.
So, I think that, at the end of the day, these people are still Republicans, and I don't expect them to get in the way too significantly of the president's agenda. But I do think, particularly with reconciliation 3.0, having the SAVE America Act attached to it poses additional challenges. So, Tillis' no vote could be very significant in that case.
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think part of the challenge, though, is that there's increasingly less and less incentive to go with President Trump, one, because his approval ratings are so low. But, two, come November, there will be a midterm election and then folks need to start looking forward to 2028, like the sort of Trump mojo might still be there, but he's sort of losing it a little bit.
CORNISH: Yes, but then don't you get to turn the SAVE Act and the election stuff into a voting issue for your base to say -- kind of like what Democrats would say with abortion to say like, look, here's what's at stake, the Senate. And the Senate is getting in the way of this thing that's really important to us.
LUKE THOMAS, HOST, "MORNING KOMBAT" PODCAST: I don't know what the polling on that kind of bears out at the present moment. I just feel like -- I agree with her that this is ultimately something that they're going to cave on. I mean look at the case of -- with acting A.G. Blanche, where Tillis says you have to meet with Epstein victims as this is some kind of hurdle. And he does. How --
CORNISH: Yes, but he did it like that day.
THOMAS: However much -- however much friction there may have been.
CORNISH: Yes.
THOMAS: My only point being is, this is a small hurdle to put in front of a guy who is manifestly unqualified for this. And if you really had genuine antipathy for the president's agenda in any kind of real way, that's not a real hurdle. And him clearing it wouldn't mean anything to begin with.
CORNISH: Yes.
THOMAS: So, I'm of the belief that ultimately they're going to fold.
WILLIAMS: But one thing I would say, it's remarkable that we are now a couple days after the hearing for the attorney general, and that these hoops are having to be jumped through by the nominee and by the White House because the president spent all his time pissing off these Republican senators, right?
CORNISH: Right.
WILLIAMS: It's, he needs the votes of John Cornyn and Thom Tillis.
CORNISH: Here's an example of the Cornyn one. I want to let you finish your point, right. Like, I did not expect -- I thought a Democrat would be still talking about this at a hearing.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
CORNISH: Instead it was John Cornyn talking about that anti- weaponization fund, which the administration had, you know, allegedly caved and backed down.
WILLIAMS: Right.
CORNISH: It wasn't enough for this Texas senator.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): I think what I confirmed is that the weaponization fund is still -- can be revived. And so, this idea that it's somehow gone is just not true.
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): I need a work product that convinces me that the 1776 fund is dead, period, full stop. I'd like to get to yes, but there are very specific, measurable work
products. Not a wink and a nod and a handshake, but definable, ratified, executed agreements that will make me feel comfortable that this turkey of an idea is dead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WILLIAMS: So, I want to be clear, maybe these guys ultimately end up voting for Todd Blanche. You know, to your point, like, you know, ultimately they will. The problem -- and I think people who've never worked in Congress may not recognize, there's a finite amount of time to do the work of the Senate.
CORNISH: Yes.
WILLIAMS: If these guys are spending their time or, you know, if the nominee and the president are spending time fixing fires to win Republican votes, that's time they're not working on the SAVE Act or some of the president's other priorities.
CORNISH: Yes.
WILLIAMS: They're just burning, and this is all through the president, hurting the goodwill that he could have had with people. This was a layup, putting these -- putting an attorney general nominee up in front of these Republicans.
CORNISH: OK, I want to talk about another uncooperative partizan battle. Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania.
[06:40:01]
After more than 100 House Democrats voted to block billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, this happened on Wednesday, Senator Fetterman is threatening to leave the party.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): I've always expressed my dismay the way the Democratic Party continues to turn their back on Israel. So, I've said that publicly. Like, that's my red line. If the Democratic Party becomes official anti-Israel, then that's when I would force me out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: All right, I wanted to talk about this because, a, it feels like a long time coming. Like, oh, OK, am I the only one reading that?
THOMAS: I'll help him pack his bags. Good riddance. This is a -- this is -- this is the biggest non-threat I think I've ever seen. I realize that -- I mean, to your point, you have -- you said this has been telegraphed. You have seen evidence of him in his voting record, not merely on Israel, on other issues too, for example, on the government shutdown and not getting the ACA subsidies secured.
CORNISH: Yes. While you're talking, I'm going to put up a couple other votes.
THOMAS: Sure.
CORNISH: Things he's pointed out himself.
THOMAS: So, like, he's not pledging that on the other issues he's all of a sudden going to start voting Republican. He's just saying, this is a line in the sand. This is a litmus test for me.
And I'm like, you could not possibly be more out of step with the average Dem voter base, particularly the primary voter base. And more to the point, there was a Quinnipiac poll this week, this week, that showed him more popular with Republicans than Democrats in his own state. Look, he has 19 percent support among Democrats. That is what -- like a Latin American president at the end of his term is getting after just repeated failure to do anything. Good riddance to him.
CORNISH: People were actually asked directly the question, should Fetterman leave the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania? I just want to point out Pennsylvania. And as -- and it was a little more split, right? Democrats, 57 percent. Republicans, 55. Independents, 46.
Now, at the same time, for Israel being the issue, I feel like, a, this isn't a surprise given his sort of position. And, b, also, Pennsylvania, you know, Governor Shapiro is someone who also has come out with his support for Israel and been a bulwark for that conversation in the party.
WILLIAMS: Yes. So, you know, certainly Israel is and I think an important and polarizing issue that is going to drive a lot of this.
CORNISH: Yes.
WILLIAMS: And so I think it's a little bit of a smoke screen in that. And here's -- can I be cynical for just a second, Audie.
CORNISH: Please. Please do.
WILLIAMS: The cynical view is that senators switch parties when it is politically advantageous for them to do so. If it's a 50/50 split in the Senate --
CORNISH: Right.
WILLIAMS: And he gets to be the chairman of something as a Republican, or he gets some big concession, he will switch his parties.
Look, in the last 20, 25 years, Joe Lieberman, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema got something for either switching or not. And I just think that's what it comes down to.
CORNISH: I know. I think it's just that Fetterman, at one point, was a major critic of Manchin, right? Like, it's -- he's had such a transition post his health issues. First a stroke, than for depression when he actually went and got treatment for that. I think he's lost -- I think the number I read was like 16 staff members. People walked away from him, one, with concerns about his health and, two, because they disagreed with him about Israel. That was buried in some of these stories about his health. Do Republicans want him?
MITCHELL: I think that Republicans would probably welcome him to the party, but I don't think he's going to leave, personally, either. I mean --
CORNISH: Yes. They'd probably welcome a cabbage if it meant another vote in the Senate, right? Like --
MITCHELL: I mean, if we look at those positions that were up on the screen that he voted with Republicans on, none of those are far right or very conservative. I mean the Laken Riley Act is related to, you know, a young girl murdered on the streets by an illegal immigrant. Then we have government shutdown funding. He just wanted to keep the government open. Immigration enforcement. Securing the border. I don't think any of those things are extremely conservative priorities.
CORNISH: Yes. But the flip side for Democrats at the time, the government shutdown was about withholding money while they had a fight over ICE tactics and the Laken Riley Act is something that is focused on the victims of crimes done by migrants. And Democrats are still having a very big battle with the administration, again, over how they have implemented mass deportation. And what they see is Fetterman doesn't he's not a part of that.
THOMAS: He's not an ally at all. More to the point, there is unequivocal data. The incarceration rate in this country, measured since 1870, 150 years, immigrants have never, not one single year, had a higher share per capita of incarceration than natives. Like, what are we even talking about here? At all levels of immigration, this is a fact. They could -- and so -- so for him to -- for him to --
CORNISH: But isn't the argument -- no, hold on a second, Luke. This is the kind of guy, though, that, for the Democrats who are worried that the Platner implosion or things are pulling too far to the left, or there's too much conversation about Israel, don't they want the hoodie and shorts type dude?
THOMAS: No.
CORNISH: Isn't this why they went on a literal fishing expedition in Maine and tried to bring Platner in?
THOMAS: No.
WILLIAMS: Can I ask a -- let me ask you a quick question. I'm just genuinely curious. Would you be content with John Fetterman leaving the Democratic Party if it meant Republicans kept the majority in the Senate?
THOMAS: I mean, these are complex questions about how power is shared.
[06:45:01]
And I -- I'd have to -- I'd have to think more about it. WILLIAMS: Yes.
THOMAS: But just as a basic kind of overview, losing a guy like this would only make the Democratic Party richer. I am sorry to say that.
WILLIAMS: If they were in the minority, though, do you -- I mean it's a serious question though. It's --
CORNISH: Yes, this is why people care about this, actually.
WILLIAMS: Right. I mean literally --
CORNISH: Yes.
WILLIAMS: Because literally if the Senate's at play, it's really going to be by a matter of a seat or two. And you're talking about, whether it's Supreme Court justices or the passage of legislation or whatever check on the president --
CORNISH: Yes.
WILLIAMS: Do you think like -- and it's a fair question. A lot of people think, no, you want a narrow party that is ideologically cohesive or whatever else. But getting that will mean potentially losing -- and I'm curious as to your thoughts --
CORNISH: Power for a time (ph).
THOMAS: He voted for -- it -- I don't know how that would fundamentally change how he actually votes, right? So, if he actually votes in the way that he has where he voted in committee for Markwayne Mullin, he voted for Pam Bondi. If he's going to continue to vote for this, or to give a blank check to Israel, what is -- this is a difference without a distinction in this case.
WILLIAMS: But it's not just a vote. It's not just a vote. It's, who's the chair of the committee? Who's setting the agenda?
(CROSS TALK)
THOMAS: It's a fair -- it's a fair point.
WILLIAMS: So many questions. And I'm not making an argument for him at all. But so many questions hinge around who -- you know, somebody has the majority, right?
THOMAS: I'll just say this very quickly. I'll just say this very quickly. Trying to align with diet MAGA within the left is a path to ruin.
WILLIAMS: Did you say diet MAGA?
THOMAS: Yes. That is what he is.
WILLIAMS: Like what -- (INAUDIBLE) MAGA.
CORNISH: Yes.
THOMAS: I mean he's a -- he's a giant man, but he's diet MAGA.
CORNISH: But just let's, for the context for the audience at home, this is why the Michigan Senate race is an obsession.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
CORNISH: This is why the Maine Senate race is an obsession. And this is why somebody even making a feint towards leading the party -- leaving the party would be an obsession where these margins are so small.
All right, I want to turn to this next. President Trump addressing what he claims are new election vulnerabilities. Does influence on voters actually change election outcomes?
Plus, if A.I. helps commit a crime, who takes the fall? The machine, the maker, or the human behind the keyboard? Our panel's going to be on it after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:51:18]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Put together these disclosures reveal an election system so broken and so vulnerable that no one can possibly defend it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: President Trump's primetime address Thursday sowing doubt about if any election in the U.S. is reliable. The president outlined sweeping claims about Chinese influence campaigns, vulnerable voting machines. He also claimed non-citizens on voter rolls. A former deputy director of national intelligence during the first Trump administration said that Trump's speech was connecting dots that didn't exist.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUE GORDON, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: Intent is not activity. Activity is not impact. And impact is not outcome. So, to now jump in to go from intelligence to that impact, I think, is dangerous.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: Joining me now to discuss, Derek Muller, law professor at Notre Dame University.
Thank you so much for being here.
I want to ask you about something. Someone's response to the speech last night, Steve Bannon. He texted CNN and he said, "we need a national security emergency about the midterm elections immediately. This is a powerful predicate for that."
Derek, did you hear a powerful predicate for a national emergency around elections?
DEREK MULLER, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME: I did not. I heard things that we're very familiar with in the United States. And that should be causes for concern. We are concerned about foreign interference in our elections. We should be concerned about aging voting machines and things that need to be updated. We should be concerned if there's some evidence that there are non-citizens on the voter rolls. But at the same time, we've got lots of checks, lots of ability to update systems, lots of ability to use kind of the existing infrastructure with maybe a little extra cash from Congress to be able to sort of patch up those systems. But on the whole, many of the things do not suggest an emergency is at stake.
CORNISH: There are some that argue that the SAVE Act and what the president is asking for isn't about patching up a system, but replacing it. "The Washington Post" opinion section saying, "voter I.D. doesn't need Washington's meddling." They say, "the problem with the legislation is not that it tries to verify identity or citizenship." They say "the problem is that it replaces every state's voting law with a national code."
Do you think this is why senators have been loath to pass it?
MULLER: Yes, I think this is why people like Senator Mitch McConnell, they don't think that Washington should set a one size fits all solution for elections. And people like Lisa Murkowski recognize, when you say that you need proof of citizenship and you need to go to your county, you know, place of registration and show them a birth certificate, that disadvantages the rural voters in parts of Alaska who might have registered online.
So, I think there's a reason why you're seeing Republican pushback. And it's, you know, good faith disagreement about what we think the best way forward is. Should we have more federal safeguards, or should we leave it to the states? And I think it's a reason why the SAVE America Act is probably not going to go forward.
CORNISH: Finally, what I heard last night is someone who does not trust his intelligence apparatus, who talked about things that were being withheld or obfuscated. Given the cuts that they've made, the changes they've made, do you think the U.S. is actually in a position to protect its elections from those agents? Will those agencies be able to protect the elections?
MULLER: Yes, so I certainly hope so. You know, we hope that, with all the focus that he gave on China last night, and all of the focus on foreign interference, you know, we want to make sure that we don't have hackers trying to infiltrate our systems in the United States. And we know there have been Iranian plots against the president's life. And we know that Russia has tried to interfere in our elections in a wide range of foreign actors. But at the same time, you want to have somebody in that role, in
national intelligence, who is competent, qualified, capable, Senate confirmed, and somebody who can sort of gain the trust of not just the intelligence community, but also the president himself.
[06:55:06]
And so, hopefully we'll have a candidate in the near future who bridges that divide and who is committed to bringing us secure elections.
CORNISH: OK. That's Derek Muller. Thank you so much for your analysis. Appreciate it.
MULLER: Thank you.
CORNISH: All right, I want to turn to something else. If a chatbot encourages self-harm or helps plot a crime, who's to blame? A.I. giants are arguing that they can't control every user. But as autonomous A.I. agents move deeper into our lives, a wave of lawsuits is forcing a critical question. When a machine goes wrong, do humans pay the price? And that's why it's time to lawyer up with Elliot Williams.
So, agents means when you -- when you turn over your passwords and you say, go computer, deal with my calendar, deal with this, deal with that. And if it does something wrong, who's at fault?
WILLIAMS: Well, it's two different questions. Are we talking about criminal liability here, civil liability here, right? And criminal liability --
CORNISH: I'm talking about the one that might send me to jail.
WILLIAMS: No, I know. Well, you're going to have a hard time sending someone to jail for the work of A.I. because you have to establish criminal intent, that the thing or the person intended to do harm.
Now, what happens when someone designs programs, creates a system, right, knowing that it might go on to harm people? The great example of this is the tobacco industry in the 19 -- frankly, most of the 20th century.
CORNISH: Yes.
WILLIAMS: When the product was used the way it was supposed to be used, it caused harms. And that opened up the tobacco industry to different lawsuits. The question, and this is a grossly or wildly untested area of law right now, Audie, and developing.
CORNISH: I was about to say, especially since big tech is protected by Section 230 --
WILLIAMS: Yes. Yes.
CORNISH: Which is a rule that says, we are just a platform. We distribute things that other people put on the platform.
WILLIAMS: Right. And so that shields those entities from lawsuits, you know, if someone commits misconduct on their platform.
CORNISH: Yes.
WILLIAMS: But what happens when the design of the very platform creating the thing that even if it is used lawfully ends up hurting people, does that open them up to lawsuits? Now, you've seen some --
CORNISH: Yes. Especially since it's literally called generative A.I.
WILLIAMS: It's called generative A.I. It makes something up.
CORNISH: Like, it generates its own thing.
WILLIAMS: Yes. Now the question is, you know, the social media companies have faced some of this now, which is that when you use social media, yes, it's lovely. It helps society. However, it might hurt people. And you were aware of that. And there's certainly been discovery and lawsuits against Meta saying that they were aware of some of the risks and that they could be sued.
So, the question over the next decade is, what can people uncover as they sue? Or what do people uncover, not can, as they sue A.I. companies in terms of their knowledge of what risks might have come from their products? If it turns out that they were aware that people could be harmed and still put things out there, yes, they're open to lawsuits, but it's tough. And the law is developing so quickly on this as the technology is.
CORNISH: OK. All right. Well, we are at the end of the week. It's time for us to talk about what is in our group chats.
May I start with you?
MITCHELL: Absolutely. This week I traveled with the president to Pennsylvania for his speech in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. And it was my first time on a helicopter. I flew on an osprey helicopter. You can see it right there. I was very scared. I knew ultimately I was safe. I was at the White House. But it was a thrilling experience. Very exciting. And so, my family and friends have all been texting. They can't believe I was on a -- on a helicopter like that.
THOMAS: Was it loud?
MITCHELL: It was very loud. No air conditioning. The back of it is open so we could see D.C. getting smaller and smaller as we flew away. It was an incredible experience.
THOMAS: That's awesome.
CORNISH: Very nice.
Luke, what's in your group chat? THOMAS: I'll bring some frivolity here, I hope. There's a new movie
coming out called -- well, it's about the making of the movie "Rocky," right? And it's not a documentary. It's a dramatized version of how they made "Rocky."
CORNISH: Of just making it?
THOMAS: Now, listen, I'm not here to say it's bad. In fact, some of the early --
CORNISH: No, the Stallone story behind making it is amazing.
THOMAS: Yes.
CORNISH: Yes.
THOMAS: So, here's the only thing I'm going to say. As a gigantic fan of the "Rocky" franchise, can we get some new IP in Hollywood? Oh my God. Like, I'm not mad at the movie per say, but --
CORNISH: Don't be a hater. I loved Coogler's Creed series.
THOMAS: Yes.
CORNISH: Amazing.
THOMAS: Cosign. Completely. Completely.
CORNISH: Things can be done.
THOMAS: But listen, I mean, we had Mason Dixon in this whole series.
CORNISH: Yes.
THOMAS: And, what are we doing? Let's get some new IP, huh?
CORNISH: Thank you for surfacing this thing that I did not know about. And now it's time for you, Elliot.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
CORNISH: I hear you've brought me some nightmare fuel.
WILLIAMS: I brought you some nightmare fuel. You know, but I think my word to our audience is that, if you're having a bad day today -- which camera? If you're having a bad day today, just remember, you don't have a cockroach crawling on your neck.
CORNISH: All right, let's show it.
WILLIAMS: And there is a reporter from KTLA in Los Angeles who was doing her report, and she just kept powering -- look at that focus, Audie.
CORNISH: Oh, my goodness. I know.
WILLIAMS: She did not break once.
CORNISH: It is. The athleticism.
WILLIAMS: The athleticism.
CORNISH: The class.
WILLIAMS: The comms (ph). She could be -- we're talking about Leo Messi today. Talk about, you know, just grace under fire. Leo Messi's never had a cockroach crawling on his chest while playing soccer.
CORNISH: OK, let's stop showing it because I have to eat breakfast after this. But 100 percent this will live in my nightmares and will keep me in these collared shirts for a time.
WILLIAMS: Anybody old enough to remember the movie "Creepshow"? The Stephen King -- well, it's a series of vignettes, but one of them is cockroaches take over and they're just like, you open up the bowl of --
[07:00:03]
CORNISH: I don't -- what are you doing?
WILLIAMS: Open up --
CORNISH: The group chat's supposed to be fun. Yours is going to be an emoji of a cockroach.
THOMAS: Enjoy that cockroach sandwich there.
CORNISH: Yes, exactly.
WILLIAMS: I have, Audie, this is real.
CORNISH: Oh, really?
WILLIAMS: (INAUDIBLE).
CORNISH: Also, news next about tainted lettuce.
Thank you so much, Elliot. And thank you guys for being here. I always love having new people in the group chat.
We've got more headlines coming up today, especially people are going to be talking about that speech that the president gave last night around election integrity. Stay with us.
