Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Scandal-Plagued Cory Mills Loses Primary; Loyalty or Obsession? Natalie Harp's Family Questions Trump Ties; Meta Faces Social Addiction Trial Worth Up to $1.4T. Aired 6-6:30a ET

Aired August 19, 2026 - 06:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[06:00:03]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Today in the group chat, we're talking about Congressman Cory Mills. Trump-backed candidate loses his bid for reelection. Are voters finally fed up with bad behavior in the era of Trump?

Plus, a red-state surprise. A Democratic socialist upsets the Florida establishment. Are Republicans the real winners here?

And a debate-stage blunder for political newbie Darline Graham. Should you admit that national security, for example, isn't your thing?

And what's the line between loyalty and obsession? Trump aide Natalie Harp's brother talks to CNN about his sister and the president.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PRESTON HARP, BROTHER OF TRUMP AIDE NATALIE HARP: That's obsession. That's like an unhealthy obsession with someone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK, good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish, and here's where we begin.

Not even a Trump endorsement could save Cory Mills. The Florida congressman lost his primary race to keep his seat in the House to former local TV news anchor Ryan Elijah. This was just last night.

Now, Mills, a scandal-plagued congressman, has been facing a House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations including sexual misconduct, campaign finance violations, misuse of congressional resources, all of which he has denied.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. CORY MILLS (R-FL): The reality is, is that I've never been found guilty of a single thing. I've been accused of a lot but never found guilty.

And the reality is the MPD closed the case with no probable cause. They did on the actual day of the call. The -- regarding the, you know, sexually explicit videos, that's also never been actually levied and/or even brought to court. That was something that was accused.

And so, the whole point is that there's an easy way to make accusations and allegations. But let's look at the facts. Facts are, I've never been found guilty of any criminal or civil charge. I'm not under any open investigation for such when it comes to this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, as for Elijah, he believes that what helped push him over the line was this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN ELIJAH (R), FLORIDA CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: I said early on that I respect him. I really respect his service. I just think -- and I've said this a lot -- if you're going to serve in Congress, and you're going to be representing the people, you have to make sure that you don't have things that are going to compromise your voters.

And I just felt that that was the case. That's not being negative. That's just reality.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK. So, today in the group chat, we've got Julia Manchester, White House correspondent at "The Hill"; Terry Schilling, president of the American Principles Project; and Antjuan Seawright, Democratic strategist.

We often hear from those who say, look, don't jump to conclusions too quickly, that the voters are the ones that are going to decide. Just because there's an allegation doesn't mean Congress has to expel that person.

So, is that what we're seeing here, that whether it's Mills or anyone else, that people do not have the appetite for this kind of issue?

JULIA MANCHESTER, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, "THE HILL": I think potentially. I think the real test for this will come in November, when Congressman Max Miller, up in Ohio, faces a general election. I think in this --

CORNISH: He's having this very visceral --

MANCHESTER: Yes.

CORNISH: -- like, graphic --

MANCHESTER: Very public.

CORNISH: -- custody battle and has a father who is a Trump-supported senator.

MANCHESTER: Absolutely, absolutely.

CORNISH: A father-in-law. Sorry.

MANCHESTER: Yes, yes. But, you know, going back to this district -- and I'm from the Orlando area, so I'm familiar with it.

Ryan Elijah. It's -- and Cory Mills. This is a little unique, because we know that Ryan Elijah is obviously a former local news anchor. He is a well-known commodity in the central Florida area, in that district in particular.

And for Cory Mills, you had story after story really piling up. A number of prominent Republicans, including the governor, backing away from supporting him, rescinding their endorsements. You actually saw another foreign -- Republican congressman show up at the debate between Elijah and Mills, supporting Elijah.

CORNISH: Yes. To back up to your point, you had Anna Paulina Luna, Mike Haridopolos, they endorsed his opponent.

MANCHESTER: Yes.

CORNISH: They put out a statement. They wrote on X, "We need leaders in Congress who serve with integrity, energy, unwavering commitment."

You also, as you mentioned, talked about Ron DeSantis, who threw cold water on the whole thing: "I don't endorse the guy. I don't support the guy." Why did Trump?

TERRY SCHILLING, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN PRINCIPLES PROJECT: You know, I don't know why Trump did. I -- we've talked about this before. Trump's been making some endorsements that don't always go through.

But the reality is -- by the way, shout-out to Jill Savage at "The Blaze." She was one of the first real journalists to -- to get into this and the scandals that Cory Mills was involved in.

[06:05:06]

But look, I think that Cory Mills has not -- he's been jet-setting. He's been doing everything except being a congressman for that area. And Ryan Elijah has been on the ground, building a grassroots movement and -- and talking to real voters.

I think this is, like, a huge combination. Obviously, to get Anna Paulina Luna against you, to get Ron DeSantis and state those all carry much more weight, I think, in Florida at this point, especially when you have all these other -- scandals.

CORNISH: Oh, no one would think that. They would think the president, who has a White House in Florida, Mar-a-Lago --

SCHILLING: Yes.

CORNISH: -- like that he is the ultimate endorsement, that that somehow is the magic touch over even other kinds of scandal. I mean, I can see why Mills might think that.

ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: The president has been defeated in many races here lately, starting in Iowa, the gubernatorial race. He lost two times in South Carolina, my home state. He was able to -- he lost in Georgia. So, this is not anything new, him being defeated.

What I think is interesting is the idea that birds of a feather flock together. The president -- and I think most of the candidates who face these situations think they can power through, as Donald Trump has done with some of his serious allegations.

CORNISH: Yes. I'm going to show three candidates who are dealing with scandal, who had endorsements. At least one of them dropped out, Chuck Edwards. But the other two, as we point out, lost.

SCHILLING: Look, I don't know much about Chuck Edwards. I did actually do. Yes, well, look, Andy Ogles, I don't think the campaign finance violations had anything to do with it. I think those are other things.

But, look, Cory Mills deserved to lose. He should have lost. Trump never should have endorsed him. I think that's obviously clear.

SEAWRIGHT: But the president still -- the president endorsed him. He endorsed Ken Paxton. He's standing by Max Miller. So, there's consistent pattern of behavior from this president and these serious allegations, quite frankly.

I know Democrats who have resigned from their seat, who've been dismissed from their seats for less serious allegations. And I think the party of family values have some serious evaluations to do.

SCHILLING: I just think you're doing yourself a disservice to not distinguish between those people. Ken Paxton stands far and above all those other candidates, because he's been a conservative warrior. He's taken several key fights to the Supreme Court.

SEAWRIGHT: So, no, wait, wait, wait.

SCHILLING: And actually won on them. He's a winner.

SEAWRIGHT: So, you're saying -- so you're saying Ken Paxton, with all of his baggage.

SCHILLING: What I'm saying is voters care about --

SEAWRIGHT: No, no, no, no.

SCHILLING: -- what you're going to do in office. That's what they care about.

SEAWRIGHT: I just want to make sure I hear you clearly.

SCHILLING: They care much more --

SEAWRIGHT: You're saying Ken Paxton, with all of his baggage. SCHILLING: Yes.

SEAWRIGHT: You're saying that does not matter?

SCHILLING: Yes, absolutely.

SEAWRIGHT: Just based on his conservative record.

SCHILLING: What we are saying is that what we care about is the results you get while in office.

SEAWRIGHT: So, you don't care? You don't care about the affairs? You don't care about the --

CORNISH: Listen --

SCHILLING: We care about the results you get in office. And Ken Paxton is a winner. He's gone to the Supreme Court --

CORNISH: Lucky for you guys, this Congress -- guys. Pause. Pause.

SEAWRIGHT: Terry, that's the most serious (ph) thing you've said since you've been on this show.

CORNISH: Lucky for you, this Congress, there's a spectrum between biblical divorce, outright domestic violence, and a lot in between.

And unfortunately, in this -- I don't know what to call it -- dirt-bag primary, there are a lot of people who have allegations of one kind or another, and sexual misconduct against women.

We're talking a lot about these issues on air. We're also talking about allegations of misogyny and criticism of women.

Coming up, I'm going to talk to you about the brother of Natalie Harp speaking out. We're going to talk about what he's saying about his sister's relationship with the president, which he is calling a, quote, "sad obsession."

Plus, a Sunshine State surprise. Democratic socialists see another victory in Florida.

Also in Florida, Disney fighting back, suing the FCC over what the entertainment giant calls a retaliatory campaign.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:13:02]

CORNISH: All right. Quote, "You're all that matters to me. You're my guardian and protector." Those are the words for President Trump from one of his aides, who once even rode in the trunk of an SUV just to stay with him. She is Natalie Harp.

Now, her name was brought up publicly by Senator Jon Ossoff in the middle of his feud with the president, and apparently, it struck a nerve with the White House. That's because Harp is known as, quote, "the human printer," passing along messages from allies, setting up meetings, pushing out Truth Social posts on behalf of the president.

Is the line between loyalty and obsession somehow being blurred? Well, CNN spoke to Harp's brother about this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HARP: Trump's best friends are people who are his fan club. You know? Like, and so she's his biggest fan. And so, that's probably why he likes her. And, like, she's good-looking. She's got a good personality.

She's written letters to other presidents. Let me put it that way. And so, like, her dream came true finally.

That's obsession. That's like an unhealthy obsession with someone.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK, the group chat is back. I wanted to talk about this because in talking about her, it has revealed a lot of sort of chatter about her role in the White House, being not just the closest person to him, but a whisperer, meaning you want something done, get her phone number first.

MANCHESTER: Yes, certainly. And those of us who cover the White House see her all the time at events. She's very close to the president. She's seen as someone who the president relies on. They call her the human printer, because President Trump, during the campaign, likes to, you know, to print things out and, you know, read them, posts, et cetera.

CORNISH: All the time. Not during the campaign.

MANCHESTER: But yes,

CORNISH: Like, he wants to read something, you've got to print it and read it to him.

MANCHESTER: Yes, yes. So, she got that nickname during the campaign.

But you know, now this is interesting, I think, because looking at the reaction, what struck me was looking at the reaction between President Trump and staffers and MAGA world.

[06:15:07]

It was somewhat different. When President Trump was asked about this by Kristen Holmes a few days ago, it didn't seem to strike much of a chord with him.

He was asked about Ossoff's comments. He said, Oh, Pee-Wee Herman, whatever; changed the subject.

But we saw very visceral, intense responses from White House communications director Stephen Cheung.

CORNISH: Yes. He turned on the full wrestling.

MANCHESTER: Absolutely.

CORNISH: Yes.

MANCHESTER: And then those around the president, close to the White House, former officials, very much coming out to bat for Natalie Harp.

CORNISH: Hold on. We have an example that I'm somehow going to read before breakfast. "Jon" -- quote on -- "Jackoff has to be the biggest cuck loser in politics. Instead of denigrating hard-working people serving their country, Jon should look deep in his soul and ask why he's a miserable person and hates this country. It's because he's a radical extremist Dumocrat." That's D-U-M. Some subtle jabs from Stephen Cheung, 47.

SEAWRIGHT: You know it ain't no fun when the rabbit has the gun. This convenient --

CORNISH: What does that even mean, Antjuan? Tell me.

SEAWRIGHT: I'm about to tell you.

CORNISH: Yes.

SEAWRIGHT: This White House and this president spend significant time beating up on women in the press, treating them sometimes like second- class citizens.

CORNISH: This is the" Shut up, piggy" type argument, things like that.

SEAWRIGHT: Including Kaitlan Collins and those who work for this particular network.

All of a sudden, the bully gets punched or gets a taste of his own medicine. Then the selective, convenient, manufactured outrage becomes a thing.

And you know why they want it? Because they're fearful of Ossoff. They know that he's going to beat their candidate in Georgia and potentially rise to a bigger platform within the -- within the Democratic ecosystem so that you're doing this, using this as an opportunity to try to tear him down.

But it's not working. He did not say anything offensive. He did not say anything that Donald Trump has not said more of in his commentary.

SCHILLING: I just couldn't disagree more. I've known Natalie Harp for almost a decade now. She's one of the hardest working, best people ever. This is all innuendo, obviously.

But let's not pretend it's the -- the weird, strange brother. This is all Jon Ossoff. And here's what's -- what's enraging: is that I think it's hypocritical. Natalie Harp is a very good person. She's a cancer survivor. She's actually reached high levels of success in the White House. Anyone would be jealous of this job that she has because of how influential it is.

Jon, I was planning on coming and talking about what a force Jon Ossoff is --

SEAWRIGHT: You still can.

SCHILLING: -- because of the speech he just gave. Because of the speech he gave, where he talked about his five-year-old daughter and what he's going to say to her when he -- would he do this to his five- year-old daughter? Would he like it if someone was --

CORNISH: Well, Terry, I want to let you address Antjuan's point, then, because it was very specific. It is: Can a White House and a president who use denigrating language against women consistently over years be in a position to defend a woman from denigrating language, now?

SCHILLING: Well, I would -- I don't support the denigrating language. I think everyone should be treated with human dignity and respect.

But the reality is there's a difference between these unserious remarks that Trump has made that are denigrating, that are, you know, schoolroom attacks and, you know --

SEAWRIGHT: You mean locker-room talk?

SCHILLING: Not -- I'm saying name calling. And making serious accusations, using innuendo about affairs and obsessions.

SEAWRIGHT: But he didn't say that.

SCHILLING: Yes. But it's all --

SEAWRIGHT: I think -- no, no, no, no, no, no.

SCHILLING: It's all innuendo. It's all there. It's just --

SEAWRIGHT: I think you have to be very crystal-clear about what -- he did not say that.

And the fact of the matter is, Donald Trump has been specific.

SCHILLING: You're obsessed.

SEAWRIGHT: And the things that he has said.

And look, I -- look, my father suffered with cancer. So, I appreciate the cancer survivor story. But you can't say -- use that as some -- some sort of crutch, when this president has spent time cutting dollars for cancer research and trying to take away health care --

SCHILLING: I'm not using it as a crutch. SEAWRIGHT: -- from millions of Americans.

SCHILLING: I'm saying --

SEAWRIGHT: Well, that's what Republicans seem to think; that that somehow makes it convenient.

CORNISH: But to your point, there's something going on where essentially, when the fight turns to her, all of a sudden, we're debating whether she's a good person or not, which is not really what the question is.

SCHILLING: Well, they're making her sound crazy.

CORNISH: The question is the person who has the most access to the president, who is his interpreter to the public, what is her role? What is her accountability?

And does it make her vulnerable to political attack from someone like Ossoff, who called her, quote, "a security blanket"? Right. Somebody who was a buffer to him, to bad news.

The public would want to know this, because they want to know: Is the president hearing my frustrations? Is the president understanding how I feel about the economy? Is the president understanding how I feel about the war? Or is someone handing him printouts of something that he already knows and believes?

SCHILLING: Look, there are a lot of people that are advising Trump and that are giving him information. Natalie isn't the only person.

CORNISH: But is she the closest one?

SCHILLING: She's one of the closest people. But there are a lot of people that are close to him that he relies on for this information. She's not the gatekeeper. She's important.

SEAWRIGHT: Let me ask her. Julie, you covered the White House. You know how close she is to the president.

SCHILLING: She's very close. No one's denying that.

MANCHESTER: She's very close. But, you know, can we just take a step back here and address the Jon Ossoff part of this, and when Jon Ossoff made that comment?

Jon Ossoff, I think, he's running a Senate race, state -- statewide in Georgia. A lot of people in Georgia -- and this isn't me -- don't know who Natalie Harp is. Who didn't even say --

CORNISH: Well, most of us didn't until this last week, yes.

MANCHESTER: Yes, exactly. He didn't even use her last name. But what are we talking about now on a national network? What is the national discourse on right now? It's Jon Ossoff's comments about Natalie Harp.

[06:20:11]

To me, when we look at Jon Ossoff in particular, and Jon Ossoff being a force, we are looking at Jon Ossoff as being a national figure. And Jon Ossoff is creating this dichotomy of "me versus Trump" --

CORNISH: Trump, yes.

MANCHESTER: -- going into 2028.

CORNISH: OK.

SEAWRIGHT: And politics is a contact sport.

CORNISH: Hold on one second.

SEAWRIGHT: And no one should avoid contact.

CORNISH: So, after the break this morning, talk about awkward. We're going to actually talk about South Carolina's newly-appointed senator, Darline Graham, who actually tripped over a question about national security in a debate. We want to find out if and how this could impact her campaign.

And then there's this child safety trial against Meta. It's kicking off in federal court. The potential trillion-dollar penalty that could come from what could be a landmark lawsuit.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:25:14]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With this trial, we're sending an important message. Powerful technology companies must follow the law. And if they don't, we will hold them to account.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: So, Meta is back in court, and they're facing the biggest trial to date, alleging their platforms were designed to be addictive for kids. And the damages in the trial could potentially hit more than 1.4 trillion -- with a "T" -- dollars.

The trial began yesterday with opening statements and attorneys general from Colorado, California, Kentucky, New Jersey. They're all teaming up on this case.

So, Meta executives, including Mark Zuckerberg, are expected to testify. And activists and parents of children who have harmed themselves, they're actually making their voices heard outside the courtroom.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LENNON TORRES, DIRECTOR OF MOVEMENT PARTNERSHIPS, HEAT INITIATIVE: CEOs like Mark Zuckerberg and Adam Mosseri would rather make money than protect its users, especially vulnerable children.

MARY RODEE, MOTHER OF RILEY BASFORD: Meta and others have built empires on exploitation, and they hide behind outdated laws, while families like mine live with the heart-wrenching consequences.

JULIANA ARNOLD, MOTHER OF COCO KONAR: Because this list doesn't even represent the tip of the iceberg for the number of children who have either died or been harmed by social media.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Joining us now, we've got Lauren Feiner, senior policy reporter at "The Verge." Thank you so much for being here.

LAUREN FEINER, SENIOR POLICY REPORTER, "THE VERGE": Thanks for having me.

CORNISH: So, parents have sued companies before. This is different, you said, because it's states suing the companies. So, what do the states have that parents don't?

FEINER: Yes. So, this is a really significant case, because it's state A.G.s who are bringing this case. And because it's state A.G.s, they can ask the judge to make changes to Meta's business. Changes --

CORNISH: Meaning, if I sue a company, maybe they can give me a payout, but I can't say, "Oh, and by the way, fix the board. And by the way, do this." You're saying the states have a different kind of power?

FEINER: Exactly. Yes. So, they're bringing this under different statutes than some of the other cases. And they can ask for structural changes, changes to how Meta's algorithms work, how its features work, that are different from the individual cases.

CORNISH: So, Meta, in a statement, said, "The A.G.s offer no proof anyone in their states were misled," and claim benign features like having an additional Instagram account somehow harm their residents.

And, they say, "Rather than sticking to the facts or the law, the states have instead decided to chase an outlandish payout."

So, what is on states to prove in this situation. You're actually going in court, what do you have to say to convince a judge?

FEINER: Yes. So, the states have to show that Meta -- Meta's executives made statements that they knew were not true, that they knew that their platforms carried these risks, and they didn't appropriately convey that to the public.

CORNISH: Risks. Meaning I'm a kid, maybe I have an eating -- or disordered eating, and then I'm being served up recipes and skinny talk type content, right?

FEINER: Yes.

CORNISH: Like, It's basically the idea that you're being served more content algorithmically when you're most vulnerable in some way.

FEINER: Exactly. And how -- how their platforms made people feel; made teens specifically feel.

So, they have to show that these executives made statements, saying that our platforms are safe, knowing that behind the scenes that wasn't the case.

CORNISH: I noticed Meta settled a social media addiction case brought by a rural Kentucky school district. They're paying out money for violating New Mexico law. It looks as though, A, I'm seeing red and blue states on the list, but, B, they are trying to push back on what's looking more and more like a movement.

FEINER: Yes, this is becoming a big problem for Meta. You know, the damages, if they lose more of these cases. The cases they've already lost, they're adding up.

And you know, in the past, investors have found that, you know, they can kind of shrug off --

CORNISH: Yes.

FEINER: -- these big fines. But it's becoming more and more of a problem for them. You know, just in the second quarter, Meta said that it took a $2.4 billion charge for legal expenses.

CORNISH: Oh, gosh. And there's more to come, right?

FEINER: Yes.

CORNISH: As they have fights about A.I. data centers and more.

Lauren, I hope you come back as this case goes on, especially if people hit the stand.

And straight ahead on CNN THIS MORNING, unbuttoned shirts and bare biceps. How influencers are rebranding some of the Democratic Party's rising stars.

Plus, there's this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANGIE NIXON (D), FLORIDA SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: We have proved that every day people are more powerful than the corporations and billionaires.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: An upset in Florida. Democratic socialist Angie Nixon's surprise Senate primary victory. Will the will -- will the real winners be Republicans in November?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:30:00]