Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Event/Special

CNN Saturday Morning Table for Five. Utah Governor Spencer Cox Calls for Nation to Heal after Killing of Conservative Activist Charlie Kirk During University Event; Some Republican and Democratic Politicians Accused of Contributing to Heated Political Rhetoric in U.S. in Wake of Killing of Charlie Kirk; President Trump's Comments on Israeli Attempts to Assassinate Hamas Officials in Qatar and Russia Sending Drone Incursion into Poland Examined; Former Vice President and Democratic Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris Criticizes Former President Joe Biden for Staying in 2024 Presidential Race Too Long. Aired 10-11a ET.

Aired September 13, 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)

[10:01:04]

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Today, America's poisonous politics turns deadly again. The assassination of Charlie Kirk puts a spotlight on the division of the red, white, and blue.

Plus, while lawmakers fear for their own safety, the fingers are pointing and the blame turns into a game.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, they did cause this. That type of rhetoric.

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN, (D-MA): Oh, please. Why don't you start with the president of the United States, right?

PHILLIP: Also, from an unprecedented strike to an unprecedented incursion, the world tests Donald Trump, who's acting like a bystander.

And --

KAMALA HARRIS, (D) FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Joe Biden is extraordinarily strong. And that that cannot be debated.

PHILLIP: -- 2025 Kamala Harris would like a word. The former vice president goes scorched earth on team Joe, calling him reckless and driven by ego.

Here in studio, Dan Koh, Lance Trover, Juliette Kayyem, and Tim Naftali.

It's the weekend. Join the conversation at a "TABLE FOR FIVE".

(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: Hello everyone. I'm Abby Phillip. And if there is a thing that a divided nation can all agree on, it is that America is broken. And the question is, right now, is it fixable? This week brought another horror after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and we are still learning about that suspect who was caught. But we do know that he was young, said to be deeper into politics in recent years. And as graphic video of the shooting moved rapidly across social media, so did the hate, the blame, the rhetoric. Now, here's an assessment from Utah's Republican governor, Spencer Cox.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. SPENCER COX, (R) UTAH: I still believe in our country, and I know Charlie Kirk believed in our country. I still believe that there is more good among us than evil. And I still believe that we can change the course of history. I'm hopeful because Americans can make it so.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Now, we often talk about the extremes of this country being louder than the majority who are in the middle. And there's a discussion to be had about whether those megaphones are helping to chip away at the humanity in both politics and in our society at large. And that is fundamentally what Spencer Cox spent a lot of time this week talking about at that podium.

Now, normally, to be honest, less is more from these politicians. But I do think that he understood that there is a gap here. There's almost like a vacuum that exists that he sought to fill by trying to actually get people to understand that the solution to this is not more hate, it's not more anger, it's not more division. How do you think he did, Lance?

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think he did OK. You hit on something in your opener about the youth, and that's what Charlie Kirk was focused on. Peggy Noonan this week called it generational trauma in her column, and I really thought that was spot on. I was talking to a friend of mine whose daughter just started college, and when she and her friends learned of what happened, I mean, they sat down and cried. Because I feel like people don't realize the impact, or maybe minimize the impact that Charlie Kirk was having on our college campuses throughout the country.

And my buddy reminded me, he said, it's kind of like William Buckley was to the young conservative movement to say, it's OK to be conservative. It's OK to believe in God. You don't have to agree with your college professor. And that's the kind of impact that he's had.

And I worry that some on the left, and I'm not trying to throw dispersions here, but there are some, not all, who don't fully understand that there is generational trauma that has been inflicted on many, many youth out there today.

DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CABINET SECRETARY, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: Look, I think we can't only care about safety and free speech when it's for people that we agree with.

[10:05:04]

And I think that's the top line of this. You know, we are in a very precarious time, and, you know, people feel like their rights are being threatened in many ways. And the right to free speech is incredibly important for all of us. And so if you care about expressing your views, and I don't care if it's left or right, and that you can do it freely and safely, then you should deeply be concerned about what happened to Charlie Kirk and what's happening afterwards in free speech. We need to protect that. It's a tragedy.

And by the way, most importantly, a wife does not have a husband anymore and two kids won't see their father as they grow up. And that's a tragedy.

PHILLIP: I want to play, because you mentioned Spencer Cox's message to young Americans. Let's play that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GOV. SPENCER COX, (R) UTAH: To my young friends out there, you are inheriting a country where politics feels like rage. It feels like rage is the only option. But through those words, we have a reminder that we can choose a different path. Your generation has an opportunity to build a culture that is very different than what we are suffering through right now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: You mentioned the word, Lance, or the phrase "generational trauma." I think we understand that because there is a generation of Americans, of young people, who have lived through a lot of violence on their campuses, high school campuses, elementary school campuses, churches, now a college campus. Even the same day that this occurred, another radicalized person shot up a school in Colorado. I mean, if that is not generational trauma, I don't know what is.

JULIETTE KAYYEM, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: We have a name for it. It's generation lockdown in terms of guns. The pool of students who are now college and slightly post-college, who have been living through active shooters and some of the training that we require them to go through.

And I should also say, because this is my kids' generation, they view sort of fidelity to institutions as somewhat quaint and old fashioned. Like I'll be like, well, you know, they'll come help you. And they're looking at me like, you know, did you not live through COVID? Did you not live through -- and I think, I really thought that Governor Cox, because I work in the field of disasters and crisis, I mean, he so rose to the occasion and in such an important way and in many ways sort of put himself forward, because it was unique to have a governor talk about operational planning and the investigation is rare. You would normally have the FBI do it. I think he really felt like it was important to take the microphone because of mistakes that were made by the FBI, because some of the tone in D.C. and the accusations that it was someone from the left by the president. And he sort of set -- he at least set the table and invited us. I don't know if we're going to show up. And I thought it was a really important moment for him and us.

TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: It is a very important moment. And it's a moment when our influencers, as well as our political leaders as well as parents and pastors and rabbis and imams, should talk about the poison of hatred.

And I thought it might be worthwhile sharing something that Ronald Reagan wrote in his diary 11 days after he was shot by John Hinckley. He said, "I couldn't ask for God's help while at the same time I felt hatred for the mixed up young man who had shot me. We are all God's children." And he said, "I pray for John Hinckley."

Now, this is not an argument for Charlie Kirk's widow to pray for this man who is alleged to have killed her husband. But it's an issue of hatred. How do we respond to evil? Do we respond to evil by perpetrating the hatred that is at the engine of evil, or do we talk about the importance of our country and our political culture and all those rights that make the United States what it is? And one of those is the right of free speech.

So at this moment, people are angry, and people are sad. How do you respond to that? Well, Ronald Reagan responded to it by saying, we are all God's children and we are all God's beloved. And if I want healing, I have to understand forgiveness. And that might be a philosophy that would be very helpful at this moment.

PHILLIP: It is so fascinating to me that that was not said, I presume, out loud. It was written in a diary. And the point I'm trying to make is that was a private thought, right, that he had for himself, not just something he was posturing to say for the public, as sometimes we say things even when we feel anger and hatred in our hearts.

[10:10:03]

But I want to play, separately, what President Trump said on Friday morning as he was talking to FOX hosts about this, and they're asking him the fundamental question that we're debating at this table. How do you bring this country together? Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:. How do we fix this country? How do we come back together?

DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: Well, I'll tell you something that's going to get me in trouble, but I couldn't care less. The radicals on the right oftentimes are radical because they don't want to see crime. They don't want to see crime.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Worried about the border?

TRUMP: They're saying we don't want these people coming in. We don't want you burning our shopping centers. We don't want you shooting our people in the middle of the street. The radicals on the left are the problem, and they're vicious and they're horrible and they're politically savvy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Everybody has been talking about toning down the rhetoric. The president said, I don't really care. Not toning it down.

TROVER: I don't think that's what he said. I mean, I think what he what he was saying, what I heard from the president, is that there is a difference being -- having a -- talking about policies and debating policy ideas versus going out and calling somebody a nazi or a fascist. It's not lost on me that I've seen all over Washington, D.C. as of late at protests the word "fascism" all over, at every single protest.

KOH: It was on this kid's bullet.

TROVER: Hold on, hold on, hold on. I mean, that -- so when you're debating policy, we're talking about a battle over policy, that's one thing. But when you go out and call somebody a nazi, for crying out loud, that's a -- that's just completely different.

NAFTALI: I was just talking about Ronald Reagan. And when you're president of the United States, you have the ability to whip up passions. You also have the ability to help healing. President isn't solely responsible for healing, but the president can be the healer in chief. It's a choice. It's a choice you make.

By focusing on the fact that there are bad people on one side and not making clear that this is a sickness that is in the DNA of American political culture -- we have had a violent society throughout our history. You know, there were in the reconstruction, there were eight state legislators in ten years who were assassinated. There were two members of Congress who were assassinated. We've had four presidents assassinated. Weve had six presidents --

TROVER: And a shot at one who had twice.

NAFTALI: But my point is that we need to heal.

(CROSS TALK)

PHILLIP: I think that actually, listen, nobody is forgetting that. But I think the idea, and what, you know, just reading what he actually said, he said the radicals on the right are oftentimes radical because they don't want to see crime. So he's excusing radicalism on one side, condemning it on the other. Why can't we just condemn radicalization?

KAYYEM: That's what -- so, I mean, you're sort of doing what we shouldn't do, which is you're keeping track, right? So you're like, this person got killed, and then that person killed. And sometimes I think, like, is it that hard to say political assassination is bad, period, period? And that's all -- and I think I think you don't -- I think in some ways you're not respecting the role of the president when you equate the president's power with some rally, some random guy at a rally who is saying something you don't like

The president of the United States, that's why you want him to win, is the president of the United States has the biggest platform to unite. And to give him a bye, I think just the consequences of that, whether you're Republican or Democrat, it's meaningful, right? His role is meaningful, or it used to be and it should be. But you cant say he doesn't have that role, right? He does have that role. And that's where sort of I think the disjoint between his power, his role, his ability to unite, which he won't do -- we know that now -- and why I think everyone is so focused on Cox because maybe that's a vision of conservative unity that we're not seeing, in the Reagan realm, that we're not seeing with Trump.

PHILLIP: All right, next, for us, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are canceling their events. They're saying that their lives are in danger. And at the same time, they're pointing fingers at each other for who is responsible for political violence. We'll be back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:19:12]

PHILLIP: Tensions on Capitol Hill spilling out into public as lawmakers grapple with Charlie Kirk's murder in broad daylight. Some are also taking the moment to point to larger blame. This is what Congresswoman Nancy Mace said the day that Kirk was killed.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there a problem with political violence across the spectrum?

REP. NANCY MACE, (R-SC): Yes, we're talking about Charlie Kirk right now. That's the subject of this, that's we're talking about right now. Democrats own this 100 percent.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: On the left, Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez won't stand for the blame.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, (D-NY): It was extremely disturbing, using rhetoric of vengeance and violence, whether it is a member of congress, whether it is the president of the United States, to assume and assert and cast blame when the FBI has failed to even apprehend the assailant, is absolutely an irresponsible action.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[10:20:04]

PHILLIP: You know, I want to just, in a moment of grace, honestly, the day that he was killed was a day that just filled people on Capitol Hill who knew him personally with so much rage, anger, and sadness. And there was a lot of high tensions, a lot of crazy things said, that maybe a day later, the tensions are slightly lower.

But that being said, I do think that there is a debate happening in the conservative sphere right now about how to respond. Is it an eye for an eye? Is it war? Is it -- I'm not sure I'm seeing a lot of appetite, frankly, for the coming together of this all. But I think they have a decision point to make about where to go next. And that will be crucial for the whole country.

KOH: Look, I think AOC's allusion to the president is important. Let's remember that the president had an Oval Office video blaming radical leftists before we even had any idea who the shooter was, with no allusion to any other people, like the representative from Minnesota who was also assassinated, one.

Two, I think there's a much larger conversation that, Abby, you've alluded to on social media about how our social media incentivizes politicians to be extreme, to get the clicks, to get the engagement. No one should have watched that video. And Twitter should not have served it to so many people, right? But that is what the algorithm is doing. And it's incenting people on both sides to make extreme statements that is making our politics a lot worse.

PHILLIP: Can I play? This is these are two congresspeople, a Republican and a Democrat, talking about this issue on CNN this week. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, (R-OK): If you pour gasoline on a fire, it's going to explode. And sometimes we gaslight the base. And it's been happening a lot, and I'm not, I'm not -- I am pointing fingers here because this happened to Republicans a lot lately. But it seems like the Democrats are gaslighting this a lot more.

REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER, (D-NJ): One of us shouldn't say it's the other side, because both sides are guilty of this. The president of the United States, right, I mean, calls Democrats vermin or the enemy from within. What we need to do is take the temperature down and say none of this, to your point, what you said earlier, none of this is OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: The service to the base part of that is, I think, interesting and important for both parties to grapple with. Do you think that Markwayne Mullin is right, that -- and I'll just have you speak for your own party first -- is he right that there are some people who spend all their time just trying to whip up the base, and the result of that is something really toxic for the country?

TROVER: I do think both sides -- yes. Yes, I mean, of course there are, if were talking about being on X and whatnot, of course there are sides that spend all their time whipping up the base, both right and left. I'm not going to disagree with you on that. But I do think that, look, you know, I heard the congressman on there

saying, oh, we need to tone down the rhetoric. Well, will the rhetoric get toned down? I mean, again, I go back to what was on the bullet from this kid was "fascism." And that's only coming from one side currently in this debate. And it's on every placard and every poster around the country. I mean, I think it's a valid question, but are they going to live up to what they say they're going to do with the nazi and fascism and the like? I --

PHILLIP: Do you think.

KAYYEM: I don't think we know -- just to be clear. I mean, just law enforcement people, I think, I don't think we know the meaning of his message. We know his history.

TROVER: "Bella ciao" is an anti-fascist thing. It says "fascist, catch this." What are you talking about?

KAYYEM: Then I'll give you his history, right. Think about his history. His history, and this is not the --

TROVER: Why are we debating this? This is what I'm talking about.

KAYYEM: This is why I wanted to tell you. This was my point, not yours. This was my point, not yours. The point is, who cares? A man was killed, and you have yet to say political violence is bad, period. That's all that people want from the president. That's all. And we are getting this spin up of the you and this and what. Stop counting. Stop looking, because you're not going to, you're not going to divine a perfect motive in this case. I think we're looking for it. You're not going to divine it. We generally don't.

PHILLIP: Let me just ask a pointed question about language here. And I'm not sure that we want to go down this road of language policing, because I think some Republicans would have a problem with that, too. But, Tim, I mean, I know Democrats fervently believe that Trump is using a fascist playbook, but should they stop using that word?

NAFTALI: I think that Democrats and Republicans both have to stop using apocalyptic language. When you use apocalyptic language, you're basically saying if the other side wins, it's over. It's all over, people.

[10:25:06]

In other words, you're saying the stakes are so high you should contemplate the kind of actions that we don't want people to contemplate. So I think the language, the apocalyptic language should just stop. If you find, and I have seen it myself, elements of authoritarianism and of the authoritarian approach to government, which seem to emanate from the current White House, I think as long as you can point to it and explain what you mean, I think, as an analyst, you are responsible to say that.

TROVER: So he's a fascist.

NAFTALI: I did not -- no -- I did not.

TROVER: That's what you're basically saying.

NAFTALI: Lance. Excuse me. No, no, I'm -- no, no, no, on this one. I'm sorry. Lance, somebody who's family, my father survived a pogrom in Bucharest in World War II. I am very, very careful about how I use the term Nazism. Authoritarianism is something that can exist outside of the genocidal work of the nazis. It is perfectly appropriate as an analyst to talk about authoritarian regimes. These are regimes that speak of elections in a way that suggests they don't really want them to happen, or that the ones that go the wrong way were actually flawed.

There are certain things we associate, but I am not -- please, Lance, today, of all days, let us not worry about what people have called one side. Let's worry what people have said about -- no, because otherwise, let's talk about Melissa Hortman.

TROVER: Both-sidesism.

NAFTALI: No, no, no, it's not both-sidesism.

PHILLIP: Lance, the other side of the coin, the other side of the coin. I asked him the pointed question about fascism. You know, Trump and Republicans have accused Democrats of being socialists and communists. Will that stop? Should that stop?

TROVER: OK, socialism versus calling somebody a nazi? There is.

PHILLIP: No, no, no.

TROVER: We have a guy running for mayor who is a socialist in this town.

PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Hold on a second. I asked him about the word "fascist." OK. I'm asking you about the use of the language "communist" and "socialist," with which many Republicans use together. Now, some people are socialist, but many, many, most Democrats are not, including some Democrats who have been called that. So should that stop, too?

PHILLIP: Generally speaking, I agree with you that the apocalyptic language should end. If you're --

PHILLIP: Is that a no or a yes?

TROVER: Well, I'm saying that if you're a socialist, you should be called a socialist.

PHILLIP: But, OK, but Joe Biden, Joe Biden is a Democrat. Is he a socialist?

TROVER: I mean, he governed like one, that's for sure.

PHILLIP: OK, so look, listen. I want to -- listen, this is a this is a charged topic, but I think that the intellectual exercise of really going down the road of what it looks like to start saying, well, you can't use this language, you can't use that language, I think we actually have to go down that road at some point as a country to really understand what we're saying here. And if we're only going to apply those rules to one side, that doesn't work, you have to apply it on -- you have to apply it throughout the political system.

And nobody is wanting to do that yet. But at some point, we're going to have to do it. So it won't be resolved at this table today, but I think it's a thought for all of us to take with us as we go into this next week.

Next for us, two international incidents put two regions on the brink and Donald Trump in the middle. But instead of the strong stances, the president is acting like a bystander in all of this. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:32:49]

PHILLIP: As Democrats deal with political violence here at home, the world is right now testing Donald Trump. The first international incident, Israel has infuriated a region by striking Hamas targets inside of Qatar, the site of peace talks. Now, the president is distancing himself and the United States from that strike, and the White House is said to be frustrated by Israel's actions.

Second, Russia flying drones into Poland, forcing NATO jets to scramble and to shoot them down. Now, NATO says that it's the first time that forces confronted a threat in their airspace, raising fears of the Ukraine war expanding. But despite the serious moment of all of this, the president is shrugging it off.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What's your reaction to Russian drone incursion into Poland?

DONALD TRUMP, (R) U.S. PRESIDENT: It could have been a mistake. It could have been a mistake. But regardless, I'm not happy about anything having to do with that whole situation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Now, President Trump says it could have been a mistake. Poland's prime minister Donald Tusk said pretty pointedly in an X post, "We would also wish that the drone attack in Poland was a mistake, but it wasn't. And we know it." And as with a lot of things with Putin, Trump is displeased. He's unhappy. But what comes next? What are the consequences?

KAYYEM: So it wasn't a mistake. It was a test. And I think Trump actually passed if it's Putin that is testing it, which is the lack of interest in what was happening, and again, the sense that that the president of the United States has no authority to help steer, right, the reaction or the Europeans or whatever else. You see the same with Israel.

That happened this week, the bombing in Qatar. But in the Middle East, I mean, it's hard to shock people in the Middle East right now. That was shocking, right? You're doing negotiations for a peace deal in Israel and Gaza, and in the middle of it, you basically bomb -- this is Israel -- the headquarters.

[10:35:00]

And so, I mean, look, Donald Trump has emotions, not strategy. He said "I" four times in your 27 second clip. He never says "the United States". And therefore, when the I is disinterested or can't seem to control it or whatever, he reverts into, well, I'm not going to pay attention. You don't hear the president talk about the United States' strategic interests in a way that would then guide us into the future.

PHILLIP: And on that Israeli attack, I mean, there was a moment this week where I was like, OK, we need to see if this is just sort of plausible deniability. But the reporting seems to indicate they truly were not given a heads-up about this, and that Israel did something that kind of put the United States in a corner with a key strategic ally in the region. And Trump was caught on the backfoot. And it's not clear to me what, if any, consequences there are for that for Israel.

TROVER: I'm a little skeptical that they were calling about -- this is one of our greatest allies. Trump and Bibi are completely aligned. I think it's been very clear.

PHILLIP: I only say that because, I mean, look, I was skeptical too, to be honest, right?

TROVER: Yes.

PHILLIP: But the reporting is inside the White House, there was anger, scrambling. Trump sent his top envoy to call Qatar as the bombs were dropping. So, I mean, there was a clear element of they were not told.

TROVER: Well, I think his statement also was kind of telling. He was basically like, I'm sorry, I hate that this happened in Qatar. But let's remember what's going on here. No one was really upset when we went in after 9/11 and got Usama bin Laden. Pakistan is an ally, and we did because we had 9/11. And 10/7 is their 9/11. They are going after -- and let's also remember who we're talking about here. These aren't diplomats that they're going after. This is Hamas. They are terrorists and they have hostages.

And so I'm not look -- I think, yes, for public facing purposes, the administration is like, yes, we're not too happy about it. But if you look at the president's statement, we're not upset that they're going out there to kill Hamas terrorists.

KOH: But let's take Qatar out of it for a second. This is a president who has a clear pattern of kowtowing and bending to leaders of other countries. Your president, who literally rolled out the red carpet for someone who has called the United States a global parasite. You have a president who has agreed with Netanyahu on a proposal to relocate an entire group of people out of where they are living, in a place where there are more child amputees per capita than any other place in the world.

So I don't know where people should look to see the president winning with any of these leaders, and that should concern all of us, because America first should be the policy of this country. And especially when you look at how he's proceeding with Putin in Ukraine, I don't see a lot of evidence of it.

NAFTALI: The administration talks about its realism. And, you know, historically, there are reasons to work with dictators at times. We had to work -- we actually had to defend Stalin during World War II. It was a good thing that Richard Nixon went to China. Mao was a mass murderer, terrible person. But it changed the nature of the political system, the international political system, in a way that helped American interests.

My question is this -- how is it in American interests that we enable Putin in Europe, that we make it easier for him to alter the politics of neighboring countries like Moldova and Georgia, and that we basically sacrifice Ukraine? How is that in our interest?

And I'll go even further than that. Leave aside the moral issue of who started that war. Our most important trading partners are in Europe and they're in Canada and they're in Mexico. How is it in our economic interest that we should be undermining a cause they all believe in? How is that America first. If the president could explain how this will lead to a stronger America, I'm not sure I'd agree with him, but I want to hear.

PHILLIP: Next for us, Joe Biden has a new critic of his decision to stay in the race -- the woman who replaced him. How Kamala Harris is not holding back, and why she ultimately lost to Donald Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:43:46]

PHILLIP: When Joe Biden insisted there was no daylight between him and Kamala Harris, apparently, he needed to whip out his aviator shades. The former vice president going scorched earth on her former boss and his team, calling his decision to stay in the race reckless. She also laments in the first excerpt from her new book, quote, "getting anything positive said about my work or any defense against untrue attacks was almost impossible."

This is delivering for what her publisher probably wanted from her, but you know, it's amazing to me. I mean, Dan, I'm sorry, but I know that you don't want to talk about this.

KOH: I can just walk out.

(LAUGHTER)

PHILLIP: But we've got to talk about this. What do you make of, a, the decision to do this? And b, what she said, which is that it's the fault of the White House, the Biden side of the White House, that she wasn't given enough credit?

KOH: So look, a few things here. First, I was lucky enough to work with both the vice president and the president pretty closely. A couple of things. One, she was not -- I just want to clarify, she was not calling President Biden reckless. She was calling the decision that it wasn't a larger conversation to be reckless.

I saw two people in the White House who worked incredibly closely together. Joe Biden himself and the vice president had incredible affection for one another.

[10:45:01]

Frankly, I saw the vice president during those 107 days, and I saw a badass who never let the pressure of the moment get to her, who, yes, held her entire staff to an incredibly high standard, because that's what a president does. And the criticism she got for that and the turnover, if you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen. And I don't blame her for having a high standard given the moment.

My last point. All these anonymous sources lobbing bombs at the president, the vice president, are not helping anyone. And I would tell them directly stop being a coward. If you're going to do it, do what the vice president did and put your name against it.

PHILLIP: Well, look, I mean, she dropped the biggest bomb of them all.

KOH: And her name was, her name was firmly --

PHILLIP: She dropped the biggest bomb of them all. I mean, let me just read this part where she talks about the border czar narrative. She says, "It seems as if they decided I should be knocked down a little bit more. When Republicans mischaracterized my role as border czar no one in the White House comms team helped me to effectively push back and explain what I had really been tasked to do. Instead, I shouldered the blame for the porous border, an issue that had proved intractable for Democratic and Republican administrations alike. No one around the president advocated give her something she can win with."

KAYYEM: She -- just because looking on the outside and someone who does homeland security, she was never the border czar. She was the -- she was the flow czar. She was to look at --

TROVER: Flow across the border czar.

KAYYEM: If you know the field, there's a difference between flow and enforcement. And so -- so let me tell you this.

PHILLIP: But let me ask you this.

KAYYEM: Stuck with DHS's bad narrative, and I agree with her. PHILLIP: But I also think she outranks the cabinet, OK. So in what

world -- why is that distinction even a distinction in a White House? I'm not understanding.

KAYYEM: Because --

PHILLIP: Because if you are president and you understand that immigration is -- the country looks at immigration as a whole issue, and they don't care about the root causes.

KAYYEM: I agree with you. I agree with you there. But I wasn't -- I wasn't supportive of the Biden administration.

PHILLIP: I just think that, I mean, from a policy perspective, that feels like, OK, that makes sense. But from a political perspective, that never made any sense.

KAYYEM: I am with you, but also from an operational perspective. The Biden administration finally changed six months before the election. But there were Democrats very critical of them as well, because they had gotten it in their head that it was just like a FOX News narrative about the borders. You cannot have a country that even if who's experiencing immigration is out of control. And Trump walked into that vacuum. So there were Democrats who also were very, very critical.

PHILLIP: A quick last word, Tim.

NAFTALI: I just wanted to say that the only other presidents who faced an issue similar to that of Joe Biden were Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, and neither of them had been formally nominated again. They decided to step away. They made their decisions on their own. And it's historically the way presidents do it.

I'm not sure that any president would have enlarged the group of consultants, because that's politically dangerous. And they certainly wouldn't have involved the person who is going to benefit most from the decision, the vice president. So I'm not sure under what scenario more people would have been involved. And frankly, the issue is the question whether the president himself and the first lady decided that this was the best thing for the country. And if they did, they're acting like every other first couple in our history, like it or not.

PHILLIP: It's an interesting point because, I mean, first of all, the only person who could allow this to be a bigger conversation is the president himself. And she was obliquely critiquing him for not doing that by making it just something that he decided within his nuclear family.

But next for us, our panel will give each one of you a way that you can try to help heal the country in a difficult time.

But first, we have a quick programing note. Join CNN for one of the biggest concert events of the year as iconic musicians raise awareness for American family farms. That's Saturday, September 20th, right here on CNN.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:53:52]

PHILLIP: We know it's been a heavy week for the country -- grief, outrage, and division following the death of Charlie Kirk. So this morning, I want to go around the table and ask you, what is one bold idea to help heal the country? Lance, you're up first.

TROVER: I don't know how bold it is. I think laughter brings us together. I think we need a big comedy movie night in America type thing. Like, whatever like we could -- maybe the country can vote on it. Maybe it's by individual towns. I'm a big fan of "The Big Lebowski." That's not everybody's cup of tea. Maybe it's "Beverly Hills Cop," maybe -- you choose. But we need to like -- laughter brings people together. We could do a comedy movie night in America.

PHILLIP: I like that.

KOH: John McCain during the election against Barack Obama one time proposed to do joint town halls as part of the campaign. Since it's not a presidential election year, almost every town in this country has a town committee, Republican and Democrat. They should get together, have some open conversations, and get to know one another and build those relationships.

PHILLIP: Yes.

KAYYEM: I'm going to give a challenge to our citizens, which is visit a place that is not if you're if you're in a blue state, visit a red state and not the city in the red state. And if you are from a red state or conservative, go visit a blue state.

[10:55:00]

And I think you will see that we all complain about the streets, and everyone's basically the same. And I think it's good to travel this country to meet each other in our homes.

NAFTALI: I'm going to put out a challenge to universities. I think a consortium of universities from across the country should sponsor Charlie Kirk debates to discuss the future of our country, to involve young people, to do the kinds of things that Mr. Kirk suggested, and to do it from all sides.

PHILLIP: All right, everybody, thank you very much. And thank you for watching "TABLE FOR FIVE". You can catch me every weeknight at 10:00 p.m. eastern with our Newsnight Roundtable and anytime on your favorite social media, X, Instagram, and TikTok. But in the meantime, CNN's coverage continues right now.