Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
CNN Saturday Morning Table for Five. Former National Security Adviser John Bolton's House Raided by FBI; California Governor Gavin Newsom Gains Attention for Social Media Posts Mocking President Trump; Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth Fires General over His Intelligence Assessment of Damage to Iranian Nuclear Facility by U.S. Strike; Retailer Target's CEO Resigns after Drop in Sales Following His Ending of DEI Program; Restaurant Chain Cracker Barrel Criticized by Conservatives for Changing Its Logo. Aired 10-11a ET
Aired August 23, 2025 - 10:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Today, he used to advise Donald Trump on national security. Now --
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: I'm not a fan of John Bolton.
PHILLIP: -- he's the target of Donald Trump's FBI.
Plus, it used to be when they went low.
MICHELLE OBAMA, FORMER U.S. FIRST LADY: We go high.
PHILLIP: But now.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When they go low, you go to hell.
PHILLIP: Facing their fight or flight crossroads, liberals choose force.
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM, (D) CALIFORNIA: We're going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.
PHILLIP: Also, in the culture wars, It's gravy's turn in the barrel.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is it too much to ask to just go get a fat stack of diabetes?
PHILLIP: How a logo triggered the right and a CEO learned woke ain't always broke.
And a ticket to America will soon test your morals and your opinions on the nation of free speech.
Here in studio, Van Lathan, Batya Ungar-Sargon, John Fugelsang, and Kristin Davison.
It's the weekend. Join the conversation at the "TABLE FOR FIVE".
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Hello everyone. I'm Abby Phillip from New York.
Another critic of Donald Trump's gets a knock at the door, or in this case, a kick. The FBI searching the home of John Bolton, who has famously become one of the president's most outspoken critics even after he served as his national security advisor in the first Trump administration. Now, we are told that the feds are investigating whether Bolton shared or possessed classified information, particularly after he published a book about his time working for Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: We're going to find out. I know nothing about it. I just saw it this morning. They did a raid. I don't want to know, but just you have to do what you have to do. I don't want to know about it. It's not necessary. I could know about it. I could be the one starting it. I'm actually the chief law enforcement officer.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: First of all, he's not, or at least he should not be. Secondly, he doesn't have to play like he's in the dark. Trump has previously and publicly threatened to put Bolton behind bars, even though the White House cleared his book for publication. So while it's too early to know, this is sure something that has the hallmarks of the very retribution tour that Donald Trump promised his voters when he was running for the presidency.
We don't know all that this is about, but I do want to play J.D. Vance, what he had to say about it, because it's not even so much exactly what he said. It's just the tone of how he said it that I thought was very notable. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is Ambassador Bolton being targeted because he's a critic of President Trump?
J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT: No, not at all. And in fact, if we were trying to do that, we would just throw out prosecutions willy- nilly, like the Biden administration's DOJ did, prosecutions that later got thrown out in court. If we bring a case, and of course, we haven't done that yet, the Department of Justice has not done that yet, we are investigating Ambassador Bolton, but if they ultimately bring a case, it will be because they determined that he has broken the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: First of all, I think in a normal administration, Batya, the answer to that question is that's something for the DOJ to handle. We're not involved in a criminal prosecution. And yet he keeps using the word "we." In another part of the interview, he talked about that the scope of the investigation into Bolton is very broad. All of this seems to be that the White House is not shy, that their hands are in this.
BATYA UNGAR-SARGON, DEPUTY OPINION EDITOR, "NEWSWEEK": Well, I wouldn't read too much into the language that he used. I think that there's very much a perspective on behalf of this administration that what they do, they do together, they do as a unit. There's a unified mission here. It is too soon to tell, right, whether this is politically motivated or not, because we don't know what is in the indictment. We don't know what the judge saw, what the judge, by the way, authorized this warrant.
But we do know that John Bolton was being investigated in the last administration for mishandling documents, classified documents. The point that I really want to make, though, is lets for a minute, just think about this from the perspective of the president's supporters who did see the president being targeted in a weaponized fashion by the justice system, who are now being told, well, now that we Democrats have the power, it's time to, you know, everybody is going to be nice.
[10:05:19]
Everybody's going to stop acting like, you know, we should be allowed to pursue people even if they have criticized Donald Trump. You know, how are Democrats planning to make Republicans, supporters of the president who had to see their president be prosecuted in this way, feel like the Democrats too believe that everybody should be treated equally, nobody is above the law, and nobody's going to be weaponized or targeted by a weaponized --
PHILLIP: I'm not understanding what you're saying. You are fine with John Bolton being investigated for being a critic of the president because this was done to Trump?
UNGAR-SARGON: No, no, of course not. No, no, I'm saying the opposite. I'm saying, first of all, we don't know yet, right? Because it does seem like a judge -- I mean, we know a judge signed off on a warrant, right? So at least a judge felt that there was enough information here to allow this to go forward. What I'm saying is --
PHILLIP: Right, but why wasn't that -- I guess you're saying that's fine now. But it wasn't fine when the judge signed off on warrants when it came to Trump.
UNGAR-SARGON: No, I'm saying --
PHILLIP: Not to mention that -- if this is the same, we don't know. But if this is the same general scheme of investigation that Bolton was under back in 2020, that was dropped because there was apparently nothing there. I mean, so --
KRISTIN DAVISON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: It was dropped because Biden became president is why it was dropped. I mean -- PHILLIP: But why was it brought in the first place? Because they cleared the book for publication. But then the White House didn't want it to be published because it was critical of Trump.
DAVISON: So attorney -- then Attorney General Barr, who I think right now, no one would say he's the base of MAGA or the president's biggest supporter, at the time said there was cause for concern that there were documents that were mishandled. It was in "The Washington Post" today, go back in search in 2020. I mean, these are statements that were made. They were looking into a criminal investigation. And again, an investigation is just that. It's investigating to see because there were enough cause for concern to see how these documents were handled.
And, you know, no one knows what this what is going to come of this, what's going to happen. What we do know, the examples of political retribution that we do have proof of is Biden and Obama. Go back in time. Those are the ones we know for sure that the IRS was weaponized, the DOJ was weaponized. Those are the examples that we've actually seen. This one we don't know yet.
PHILLIP: I guess my critique of that argument, which we hear a lot from conservatives, is that you might argue that these institutions, the IRS and the DOJ, went overboard. But there has yet to date been no proof that any of that was directed by the president of the United States. If I'm if I'm wrong, where is the proof? Because I have yet to see any proof of Joe Biden directing that.
But I do want to just note, I mean, again, the choreography of this this morning, as we learned about this raid, we had Kash Patel, who, by the way, put John Bolton on his list of members of the deep state, writing, "No one is above the law. FBI agents on mission." FBI director Dan Bongino, "Public corruption will not be tolerated." A.G. Pam Bondi, "America's safety isn't negotiable. Justice will be pursued always." They're sending a clear message that they want the world to know that this raid is happening. This is not just an investigation that's happening under the radar while they fact find.
VAN LATHAN, PODCAST CO-HOST, "HIGHER LEARNING": Yes. I mean, look at the norms that we're accepting right now. We're having an argument and I think a lot of people are going to have an argument about which side has done this worse. We're accepting the norm of one side politically and legally persecuting their opponents and kind of shredding and eroding the rule of law in our country. Like we've accepted that. We've culturally accepted that. Now, everything is going to be a race to power so that we can then be punitive to the side that we disagree with, and we don't get on with. And so.
PHILLIP: It's a race to the bottom.
LATHAN: It's a race to the bottom. And that race, that race to the bottom is not just about the enemies of the president directly, people that he knows personally. It's going to be about institutions that he doesn't like. It's going to be about schools that he doesn't like. It's going to be about businesses that he doesn't like. It's going to be about all types of people who seem undesirable to him. And at some point, someone serious about America is going to have to say, enough of this and return the country to the people, the consent of the governed, and not let it be about their egos.
(CROSS TALK)
PHILLIP: I'm going to let John get a quick word in, though.
UNGAR-SARGON: Well, did we accept it when he went after the nuns in Ohio or Catholics? When the DOJ went after Trump on all of the -- we all accept now that these were trumped up charges.
LATHAN: OK. So do you think that --
PHILLIP: I don't think --
(CROSS TALK)
PHILLIP: I don't think that there is --
UNGAR-SARGON: All the cases were dismissed.
JOHN FUGELSANG, SIRIUSXM HOST, "TELL ME EVERYTHING": No. They were not all dismissed. And if I may, the indictments were returned by grand juries who saw evidence.
[10:10:00]
PHILLIP: And on top of that --
FUGELSANG: It's not Joe Biden going after anybody.
PHILLIP: -- The main, the main reason that Trump is not facing criminal penalties is that he ran for president again. That's really the main reason. But It's not a fully accepted that, first of all, that even this idea that this was a weaponized -- these were all these different prosecutions and all these different jurisdictions were not all directed from one place. There's absolutely no evidence of that. You guys can tell me what evidence you have of that, but I've never seen it, and I've never heard anybody actually voice it.
DAVISON: The Obama and Biden administrations didn't politicize the DOJ.
PHILLIP: OK, who?
DAVISON: Oh, I mean, come on, you could -- they were better at hiding who it was without transparency.
PHILLIP: I'm just saying, if you are making the claim that this was directed by some kind of big puppeteer at the top of the documentation who is that person?
DAVISON: So how did the IRS only go after conservative groups?
FUGELSANG: They didn't go. If I may --
PHILLIP: You're not answering my question. Who is the person? Who are they? DAVISON: I'm talking about the conservatives that Obama and Biden --
PHILLIP: There's no proof. I'm sorry, John, go ahead.
FUGELSANG: Thank you so much. I'm so happy I didn't interrupt anybody.
The grand jury returned the indictments. Merrick Garland didn't make people beat cops for a lie on the Capitol steps. Under Barack Obama, the IRS did not target conservatives. They targeted tax cheats. Emerge America, a liberal group, lost their tax-exempt status. No conservative groups lost their tax-exempt status. It's a racket. I would think conservatives would be angry about tax cheats.
As for today, Donald Trump is the first man on earth to be angry at John Bolton for telling the truth about something. And this has been the pattern. If It's a "New York Times" disabled reporter who won't back up a lie about Muslims on 9/11, if It's a Department of Justice lawyer who admits that we were wrong to deport and kidnap Kilmar Garcia, if it's a general in the Pentagon who says, no, we really didn't destroy Iran's nuclear capability, people who tell the truth are punished.
John Bolton, look, he's killed more people. His lies killed more people. Donald Trump's lies killed more Americans. We can go back and forth all day over who's got more sins on their chest. But this has nothing to do with anything specific. What are the charges? I didn't hear any indictments. What is he even accused of today? This is harassment by this guy. And I think that John Bolton's problem is he doesn't have a lot of support anymore in the Republican Party or among liberals.
PHILLIP: He's a little bit on an island that that much is true. But this has been an alarming step, an alarming week, actually, for a lot of people watching the Trump administration's actions.
Next for us, though, a huge week in the war over political maps as Democrats get aggressive against Republicans. Will their new tone work?
Plus, the administration fires another official because Trump doesn't like the numbers. This time, as John just noted, a general involved in the strikes against Iran.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:17:26]
PHILLIP: Welcome back. Democrats finally discovering their inner killer, as Donald Trump likes to say. The party is suffering a brand crisis. As we learned, Republicans voter registration outpaced Democrats in 30 states where they keep track. But if there was a question about whether this was about a better strategy to go high when they go low, we are finally getting our answer. California Governor Gavin Newsom is going to war after Texas revealed its redrawn political maps that benefit MAGA. But it's not just policy, it's the pomp, too. Newsom has gained traction by mocking Trump's social media habits, something that the president's allies can't stop complaining about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DANA PERINO, FOX NEWS HOST: If I were his wife, I would say, you are making a fool of yourself. Stop it.
J.D. VANCE, (R) VICE PRESIDENT: And this idea that Gavin Newsom is somehow going to mimic Donald Trump's style, I think that ignores the fundamental genius of President Trump's political success, which is that he's authentic. Don't be a crazy person. Be authentic.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So is this the party learning from Newsom, and will it ultimately work?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD, AUTHOR, RADIO HOST: When they go low? Either you ignore them and mind your business, stay doing the work, or when they go low, you go to hell. OK? And Gavin Newsom, over the last week-and- a-half has been going to hell with the Trump administration, not even really going to hell. Just matching energy. And I like it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: All right. I think there's an argument for, you know, voters want fight. But I also think it is worth considering for Democrats that some voters might say neither to Trump's, you know, behavior and the Gavin Newsom behavior that he's mimicking from Trump. That is also possible, don't you think, Van?
LATHAN: I think it's less about what voters are going to consent to and what they'll pay attention to. And the world has just changed. I hate -- we're meaner now. We're meaner. We're meaner. We don't -- we - either it's our minds being digitized or a change in the way we communicate. We're meaner than we used to be.
Donald Trump, when he started his political movement, he insulted everybody. He debased everyone. He insulted all the people now that fawn over him, that get behind him, made up nicknames, talked about their wives, talked about their biology as women, all of that stuff. And America said yes. And then when you try to nice guy America, America said no.
So in order to get people to pay attention to you, they have to see you as a direct challenge to the things that they disagree with. And if you can't make that case with them, they are simply going to ignore you.
[10:20:04]
So it's not a positive change that we have to behave like this, but it is a change that has to be made to me. FUGELSANG: It's self-defense. There's two things at play. There's the
redistricting and there's the memes. A lot of the callers to my show who are progressives are really glad that Gavin Newsom is finally reading the room. I enjoyed watching his podcast "Dancing with Fascists" all through the winter, and I enjoyed seeing him give a pedicure to Steve Bannon. But people want to see the fight. So he knows, he knows what people want to see.
So the humor -- look, John Lennon said the two things fascists can't handle are nonviolence and ridicule. They can't. If you're violent, they can handle you. "South Park" is showing us how to do it. Newsom staff is doing it. The redistricting is something completely different, and that is purely an act of self-defense. If Kathy Hochul goes and adds more seats now, then that will be cheating. All Newsom was doing was neutralizing the cheating done by the Republicans.
PHILLIP: That's interesting. So you think if Democrats go one step further than Republicans --
FUGELSANG: If they go one step farther, I will call them out for cheating, absolutely.
PHILLIP: OK, so on the on the Republican side, this, I think, is a little rich. Erick Erickson says "They just mimic poorly what others are doing." He's talking about Newsom. Tomi Lahren says "New lows unlocked by Gavin Newsom and his team of losers. Gavin and his team of beta males are sad," she also adds.
I don't know. I mean, if this is imitation, it's imitation of the guy that they back, although I shouldn't -- I don't want to over-speak about Erick Erickson, but Tomi Lahren, generally speaking, backs Trump. You can't be mad about Gavin Newsom doing exactly what Trump does if you like it when Trump does it.
DAVISON: The key here is who is taking up the air share. So that that is what Trump is better at than anyone. When he speaks, when he tweets, you're not talking about anything else. He takes over the airwaves. No one else can break through. We saw it in every election, in 16 and 24, and that's what Gavin is doing now.
We're not sitting here talking about Andy Beshear. We're not talking about Josh Shapiro. We're not talking about any other potential 2028 Democrat nominee. He's taking the air share. So in that case, as a Republican, I'm thrilled. I love it. I would love to go against Gavin Newsom in 2028, because the minute we start diving in at the state of California, he's not going to get off the block.
So I hope he keeps going. I think it's pretty funny. I laugh at it. And frankly, he's taken the oxygen from any other potential threat on the Democrat side for 2028.
(CROSS TALK)
LATHAN: J.B. Pritzker.
DAVISON: Oh, I hope it's him too. I love to go against him, too. PHILLIP: I mean, I don't know. I feel like history tells us it's not
the person you're talking about three years out. But $6.2 million raised from Newsom in this redistricting fight, just really instant money from people expressing with their dollars support. But he's also building a list, to your 2028 point, a very powerful list that will help him if he does decide to run for president.
UNGAR-SARGON: I think much of it is also really funny. Like, I've laughed at some of those tweets out loud. It reminds me how funny Donald Trump is. And I think it's really interesting he's trying to mimic him. The problem Gavin Newsom has is that this is all he's got. When it comes to the actual issues the Democrats need to make up their mind about -- trans women in women's sports, immigration, all of these issues, he keeps doing -- having it both ways.
PHILLIP: He backtracked on that.
LATHAN: He's abandoned that.
FUGELSANG: He's abandoned that. The liberals are mad at time.
UNGAR-SARGON: That's what I'm -- that's exactly my point. You guys, you're agreeing with me. That's the point I'm trying to make. The issues that the Democrats need to get back to the center on he's trying to have it both ways, because he will not commit to a position. He is a haircut and a series of tweets --
BENSON: He's being smeared by bigots. He'll be smeared by anti-trans bigots.
UNGAR-SARGON: He doesn't believe anything. And so if all he has is these tweets, it's not going to get him anywhere.
LATHAN: So yes, it's funny. You know what the funny.
PHILLIP: Very quickly, Van.
LATHAN: The funny thing is, is watching people respond to Trump out of his body. They're responding to someone acting like Trump, and they don't like it. Like so --
UNGAR-SARGON: We both just said that he's funny.
LATHAN: No, but what I'm saying is like.
PHILLIP: We're talking about some of the other people.
LATHAN: Yes. And they don't like it. They actually don't like --
(CROSS TALK)
LATHAN: He doesn't -- OK.
FUGELSANG: Me, me, me is not a policy. The Republicans who are angry about the redistricting, it's like the drug war commercial from the 80s. Who taught you how to do this? You did. You showed me how. UNGAR-SARGON: People voted for Trump despite his tweets, and Gavin
Newsom thinks people will vote for him because --
(CROSS TALK)
PHILLIP: To be continued. We will be talking about this a lot, I have a feeling.
Up next for us, the Pentagon fires a general whose assessments Donald Trump didn't like. Plus, a week of brands taking heat over wokeness and diversity. But is the criticism of them fair?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:29:10]
PHILLIP: Job numbers are one thing, but life and death is another. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth firing the general whose agency did the first assessment of the U.S. strikes against Iranian nuclear sites. According to reports, President Trump was angry over those assessments, which found that the nuclear program was only set back a few months rather than totally obliterated, as he had told the public. It's just the latest upheaval at the Pentagon and intelligence communities, but it's very similar to the firing of the labor stat chief when Trump didn't like the numbers, the job numbers that she reported. Either tell him what he wants to hear or you're out, Kristin?
DAVISON: I mean, this general was in the position for 18 months. He was a Biden appointee. So the Trump presidency has the ability to put in who they want in these positions. He probably should have it a lot sooner, January or February, but finally going around to it.
[10:30:02]
I don't see how it's any different than, you know, Obama reappointing, you know, different people overseeing AmeriCorps or, you know, the same thing in the Bush administration. It is kind of --
PHILLIP: It is pretty different, because at the end of the day, look, the military, even though I know we use the term's Biden appointee, Bush appointee, whatever, typically it's really, again, like the Trump of it all has made us think that filtering everything that the government does through a partisan lens is the way that it has always been. And it is not, especially not over at the Pentagon. Yes, presidents put in their top generals where they want them, but obviously they kept this guy because, presumptively, he does his job. We know why he was fired, though, and it's because, as you pointed out, because Trump did not -- Trump and Hegseth did not like the assessment. So again, they're going to hire somebody who will give them the information that they want.
FUGELSANG: The Smithsonian, it's the war on facts. And if you go against Trump, then the facts have to be fired. He screams at his bathroom scale. I mean, this poor general, imagine, he told the truth that no, we did not obliterate their nuclear plant. We had a working deal with Iran. Our Pentagon swore that they were complying by the deal. Trump tore it up. Now he's bombing them. Claimed it was obliterated. I want to know if it wasn't. And you don't think Donald Trump's going to bomb Iran again? I don't think he's going to do it again?
PHILLIP: John, the thing about it, though, is that it's not even so much that whatever this initial assessment was, was the Bible right? It's just an initial assessment. And the intelligence agencies, I presume, ought to have the ability to go through that process and have versions that are updated as time goes on without fear of retribution.
UNGAR-SARGON: I'm sorry. This person was objectively terrible at his job.
PHILLIP: Why do you say that?
UNGAR-SARGON: Because we bombed Fordow in June, and he said right after that -- and it was leaked right after that at a sensitive time that we only set it back, the Iranians' capabilities, nuclear capabilities by months. It has been months since then, it's been two months since then. This was obviously nonsense. The Israeli intelligence told us that we had set it back by years. It was obvious from the footage that the report could only have been this wrong if it was politically motivated.
PHILLIP: That is only the view you would come to if you don't understand how intelligence gathering works, and/or you don't care how intelligence gathering works, and you don't appreciate the fact that more information is gathered over time, and that there are often disagreements between agencies about what they understand to be the facts of the situation. All of that is normal. None of that is new. Not every assessment is all the same, because that would negate the point of having multiple agencies doing assessments.
UNGAR-SARGON: That's why you shouldn't allow sensitive assessments that are going to be proved to be very wrong very quickly --
FUGELSANG: When Donald Trump bombs Iran, when he bombs Iran in four months, what will you say? When he bombs Iran again, when the Epstein papers flare up and he has to go there again --
UNGAR-SARGON: I know you can just sit here and make stuff up and then not feel responsible four months from now to come back and say I was wrong, I was wrong about it.
PHILLIP: I just wonder if the expectation at this moment now under Trump is that, you know, you should only produce information for Trump if it -- if it -- if you know for sure that it's going to align with what the president wants to hear. And if it doesn't, then don't bother to even do anything.
LATHAN: If that's not the feeling now, it very soon will be. And it just makes us weaker. A lack of truth, always makes you weaker. We won't be as we won't really know where we stand geopolitically if we can't give accurate information to the president for fear of him firing you. We won't know where we stand economically if we can't be truthful about the job numbers because you'll lose your job if you tell the president the truth. And, like spinning these lies --
UNGAR-SARGON: But these people all got things very wrong --
LATHAN: --- like spinning these lies, but this reality is like, in this, in this particular situation, having to yes-man the president on issues that are this big and this fundamental to people's lives, makes people less safe.
UNGAR-SARGON: Don't you think people should be fired if they are very wrong and their job is to produce intelligence?
FUGELSANG: What if they lie? What if they can't stop lying?
DAVISON: If we assume that this firing was political, who is to say we can't assume that the leaking of the information from a Biden appointee wasn't political? Why do we give that a free pass?
PHILLIP: Actually, I don't think we know where the leak --
DAVISON: Now we don't know.
PHILLIP: No, no, no, no, no, the leaking specifically. I mean, I think that you all have made the assumption that he leaked the information. I don't think that that is what we know either based on the reporting or based on anything that the administration has said. So there's that.
But I think the other part of this is that, you know, there are times when there is disagreement within an administration, even between allies. When the Israeli government says one thing about what their intelligence says and our intelligence says something else, who are we to believe, or do we just not want disagreement at all?
LATHAN: And also --
UNGAR-SARGON: They waited two months and it was shown that this director of intelligence was crappy at getting intelligence. And so they fired him for being bad at the job description. That's totally normal.
FUGELSANG: So you're saying it's obliterated?
LATHAN: I could also argue that there have been other people in the administration that have shown gross incompetence over things, and they have not been fired, like that Hegseth with that whole Signal thing and all of that stuff.
[10:35:07]
And the president has rallied around different people that have done things that were massively incompetent to the very lay political minds that could read any newspaper in the country. And rather than fire those people because -- or remove those people because they are his people, the president doubled down on his support for them. It seems like it's --.
UNGAR-SARGON: He fired --
PHILLIP: Batya, I think you would appreciate this because wrongness is usually not the main problem when it comes to intelligence gathering. Sameness is. When everybody is rowing in the same direction and there is nobody saying, hey, I'm not sure that this is right, that's what got us into the wars after 9/11 based on shoddy evidence. So I do think --
LATHAN: Everyone was telling the Bush administration what they wanted to hear.
PHILLIP: Everyone was telling them exactly what they wanted to hear.
LATHAN: And then a million people died.
PHILLIP: I say that because I know that you are not a fan of those types of conflicts, but I think that it's important to understand that the issue with the intelligence in moments like that is not that there was one person who was wrong. It's that everybody was saying one thing and that that groupthink was wrong.
UNGAR-SARGON: Thank you. I appreciate that point a lot. That's why I started by saying he's bad at his job because of the combination of the leak and the bad intelligence. You, as the boss, are responsible for the leaks that happen in your department.
FUGELSANG: The boss is responsible.
UNGAR-SARGON: He needs to take responsibility for what happened.
FUGELSANG: You know, I just feel bad for a general being fired by Pete Hegseth. I mean, what's the journalistic -- that would be like Walter Cronkite fired by Jesse Watters. It's just got to sting. That's all I'm saying. It's got to sting.
PHILLIP: Next for us, Cracker Barrel changes its logo, and Target's CEO has stepped down. So what do they all have in common? Well, backlash from both the left and the right in a woke debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:41:36]
PHILLIP: So what is the impact of a culture war on the bottom line? It depends on who you ask. Two examples this week. The first, Target's CEO suddenly resigning just eight months after he eliminated DEI programs. That move helped lead a plunge in sales as the chain faced boycotts. And then now you have Cracker Barrel. The biscuit and gravy company updating its logo and redesigning the interiors of its restaurants. But instead of the normal Crystal Pepsi style backlash companies are getting for aesthetics, a logo change led to the right accusing them of being too woke.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And got rid of the cracker and the barrel. They erased the white guy sitting outside of the Cracker Barrel store. White people are about to riot. It's getting sticky because the CEO of Cracker Barrel is as woke as they come. She's destroying a great American brand.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: This is wild. And I also think -- I noticed, I think, by the end of this week, there is a fatigue happening in the country, maybe I'm just making it up -- of everything being described as woke. It just, it's losing it's meaning. I don't know.
LATHAN: Yes. I mean it's expired. It's culturally expired. Like really, the term, making it a pejorative already stuck. Like, what "woke" meant was there was a group of people who wanted to take a look at the world, and they wanted to awaken themselves to some of the disparities and some of the things and have a conversation about it. You know what, American whiteness said you can't do that. You can't challenge us in that way. You can't ask us about ourselves. You can't ask us about our history. You can't ask us about our present. Go back to the corners. That battle was actually lost. The term "woke" --
FUGELSANG: Not yet. Not yet.
LATHAN: To me, to me, the reason why I say that, though. I don't say that with any glee. I say that with a profound --
FUGELSANG: Same, same, but it's not over yet. It's not over yet.
LATHAN: OK, I'm glad. That inspires me a little bit. But this now is just going too far. Like, they got to pick their culture wars better. This is not a good one.
FUGELSANG: I'm going to fight you on this. This is great.
LATHAN: Like this, the Cracker Barrel one, this is not a good culture war. Sydney Sweeney jeans, that was good culture war. This was not a good --
FUGELSANG: This is the best story of the week. This is the best story of the week.
LATHAN: This makes them look bad. For the first time I felt sorry for them.
(CROSS TALK)
PHILLIP: People are just like, excuse me. Like, who is outraged?
FUGELSANG: You bring me here to fight with liberals. And I'm going to do it for you. I grew up with that old guy who just lost a farm in a poker game on the barrel. I grew up with that old man.
(LAUGHTER)
FUGELSANG: And I miss the antiques in the lobby. It's not the same Cracker Barrel, but if I'm on the same page as Donald Trump Jr. and all of these crypto-fascists, then my God, Cracker Barrel did with the Pope couldn't do. I am nominating the new logo for the Nobel Peace Prize because I am in bed with my MAGA brothers on this one.
PHILLIP: You think that this is a woke turnover?
FUGELSANG: No, I think "woke" is a term for people who are more offended by Colin Kaepernick's knee than by Derek Chauvin's knee. You're right, the word has played itself out. It's a code word. Ask any racist what it means and you'll get a different, different definition. This is not woke, but it's still wrong to get rid of the guy.
PHILLIP: One quick thing about -- OK, on the other side of this, and you can talk about Cracker Barrel. That's fine. I'm not, I'm not I'm not taking you away from the Cracker Barrel discussion. But Target was another case of -- I don't know, the theory of the case on the right that woke is broke seems very disproven by Target's current woes.
[10:45:01]
And here's what Jamal Bryant, the reverend from Georgia who led this boycott, what he said about the impact of all of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you could talk to the new Target CEO today, what would you say?
REV. JAMAL BRYANT, LEADING TARGET BOYCOTT OVER DEI POLICY: I would say to him that it pays to give dignity where people are giving dollars, is that what we're looking for is not a favor, but to do business. And by them losing almost 20 percent of their stock today with the change, it would be less expensive and a less cost if they would just do right by humanity.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Target thumbed their nose at their customer base and they are paying a business price for that to try to align themselves with the political whims of the moment. And that seems like a bad decision from a capitalist perspective.
DAVISON: Well, it was probably also a bad decision when they went the other way. I mean, I haven't shopped at target since May 2023 because they had, you know, frankly, evil things. You know, pro Satan, pro everything.
LATHAN: Pro Satan?
DAVISON: Yes.
LATHAN: What was pro Satan.
DAVISON: A t-shirt. Images, it was images. And for most America went drastic one way. Now they're going to go the other way. You need to just -- I mean, this is Cracker Barrel's problem. I don't even think Cracker Barrel is a woke issue. It's just don't -- if it's not broken, don't fix it. This is why Chili's is the hero that we need, because they are the ones actually doing really well. Aside from all these --
LATHAN: Actually, can I be honest, Chili's did not run away. Chili's is one of the brands, as we share on the African American emails. Abby, I'm not sure -- Chili's is actually one of the brands that it's safe for us to support because they did not roll back any of their DEI and inclusion stuff. Chili's stayed strong.
Target is learning something. The Target thing is a targeted boycott because Target betrayed the black community. It's one thing to diss the black community. They betrayed the black community. Target had made themselves a friend of the community.
FUGELSANG: That's right.
LATHAN: And I have been a part of ridiculously awesome things that Target has done in the past. Then, at a time where it felt as high leverage for black Americans as it possibly could be, Target chose up and went the wrong way. And it's FAFO for Target now. And if they don't change, it will not -- there's something that can happen with the black community specifically to where you can be eternally lame and you can be stuck there. And if Target doesn't change it, they will be stuck.
PHILLIP: It's interesting that the backlash from that period that you are referring to did not have the same impact on Target's bottom line, which suggests that there is not as much energy there as there is where Van is.
UNGAR-SARGON: I think the Target woes are much more entrenched and have a lot more to do with market share. They have a lot more to do with the fact that Walmart started carrying grocery items two years before Target did.
(CROSS TALK)
UNGAR-SARGON: If I could just finish my point very quickly. And 50 percent of targets product is imported compared to less than a third of Walmart's, which means that is eating a much higher percentage of the tariffs.
PHILLIP: That is not why they have declined 20 percent this year. That's not.
UNGAR-SARGON: Really?
PHILLIP: No. Because Walmart has been carrying groceries for a very long time. A very long time.
UNGAR-SARGON: And Target's problems are very entrenched. And we know since April --
UNGAR-SARGON: And we know that since April, they've been eating tariffs like everybody else, but at a much higher percentage because so much more of their product is imported. I don't think -- I don't buy the boycott story.
PHILLIP: Walmart just announced this week that they are raising prices due to tariffs.
UNGAR-SARGON: They did that a month ago and they didn't do it. They didn't follow through.
PHILLIP: Because Trump --
UNGAR-SARGON: Indeed, indeed. And he's going to do that again.
PHILLIP: We really do have to go. I'm sorry.
Next for us, the panel is going to give us their unpopular opinions, what they are not afraid to say out loud.
But first, a programing note. On Saturday, the world is shocked by John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette's lives that are tragically cut short. The series finale of CNN's original series, "American Prince, JFK Jr.," airs Saturday at 9:00 p.m. right here on CNN.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[10:53:44]
PHILLIP: We are back, and it's time for your unpopular opinions. You each have 30 seconds now to tell us yours. John, you're up first.
FUGELSANG: I hope mine is unpopular enough. I have many.
PHILLIP: I know. Make it, make it spicy.
FUGELSANG: Zohran Mamdani, who is running for mayor of New York, maybe you've heard of him, his policies are much closer -- as a Muslim, his policies he's fighting for, for families, for mothers with children, for food, for transportation, for expanded housing, much closer to the actual teachings of Jesus Christ than the Christians who can't stop smearing Zohran Mamdani for being a Muslim socialist. His policies are closer to the Gospel. Christ never talked about abortion, never condemned gay people, never condemned immigrants, would not shut up about poverty. It was like his Layla at all of Jesus's speeches. He's actually doing what Christ called for as a Muslim, and it's infuriating rightwing Christians.
PHILLIP: OK.
LATHAN: Wow.
PHILLIP: Go ahead.
DAVISON: A little lighter than that.
(LAUGHTER)
FUGELSANG: It was unpopular. DAVISON: I mean, it's a little unpopular. But I think we need to stop
making pumpkin spice happen before Labor Day. Like, can we push that after Labor Day? I want my summer back. You know, September 5th, I'm going right to Starbucks. We'll do it. Great. But right now, I just want, you know, a margarita and lemonade, and like, let's just enjoy summer. Pumpkin spice.
PHILLIP: I'm good to retire it altogether at this point. I feel like --
LATHAN: It's run its course.
PHILLIP: Yes, It's run its course.
LATHAN: I like the mean. I like, you know -- everybody is upset because of where the country is. It's so divided. Everybody is yelling it. I like it, I thrive in this.
[10:55:08]
This is send me your mean tweets, beat up on me. I'm going to be on the plane tomorrow tweeting all of y'all back and going --
PHILLIP: Chaos agent.
LATHAN: I like it. It will get everything to the top and then maybe there will be a brighter day. Or maybe we're shining the brass on the Titanic. Who knows? Bu I'm enjoying this, so keep being me.
PHILLIP: Hey, listen, you've got to hash it out. I guess we believe in that at this table.
Go ahead, Batya.
UNGAR-SARGON: I think I'm going to win. Sushi is disgusting.
FUGELSANG: She won.
UNGAR-SARGON: It has no flavor. It has no taste. It has no spice.
PHILLIP: You just haven't had good sushi. I'm sorry.
UNGAR-SARGON: It's just pure texture. It is the Gavin Newsom of food.
(LAUGHTER)
FUGELSANG: You had us, then you lost us.
LATHAN: You went too far, man. You was right on top of it.
FUGELSANG: You were like, going to carry you and have a parade for you on that one. Then you lost us.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: All right, everyone, thank you very much. Thank you for watching "TABLE FOR FIVE". You can catch me every weeknight at 10:00 p.m. eastern with our news night roundtable at any time on your favorite social media, X, Instagram, and TikTok. In the meantime, CNN's coverage continues next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
