Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Supreme Court Hands Trump A Win On Mail-In Voting; Abbott Breaks With Trump, Pauses New AI Data Centers In Reversal; California Cancels Talks With Paramount Over Warner Bros. Merger. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired August 24, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: His wife, Karen, was suspected of the crime, considered armed and dangerous. This is doorbell camera footage from last Tuesday, just minutes after police responded to the call. Today, the search for her ended. Police say they found what they believed to be her body in the woods, not far from where the video was taken. A gun was found nearby, and police are now calling the entire incident a murder-suicide.
That's it for us. Thanks for watching. The news continues. I'll see you tomorrow night. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: The Supreme Court just handed President Trump a big win when it comes to his mail-in voting restriction push. But what does it mean for the midterm elections, and is it final?
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
The Supreme Court handing President Trump a win, on his mission to restrict mail-in voting, with new rules for the U.S. Postal Service and who gets a mail-in ballot.
It's a decision that is far from the end of this story tonight, but it's one that is already prompting alarm bells from people like the Supreme Court Justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote in her dissent today that it, quote, Needlessly injects chaos and uncertainty into the upcoming midterm elections. Midterm elections that I should note are just 71 days away.
And this is the latest turn in what has been the President's crusade against the very form of voting that he himself actually just used last week to vote in Florida's primary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Mail-in ballots are corrupt. Mail-in ballots -- you can never have a real democracy with mail-in ballots.
When a state is for mail-in voting, that means they want dishonest elections.
Once you have all mail-in voting, and for whatever reason, the Democrats cheat, and they cheat like, you know, they're not stupid.
Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating.
The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It's horrible what's going on.
Mail-in ballots are inherently corrupt.
Hopefully, there will be no mail-in ballots.
Mail-in ballots have proven to be a disaster.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I think you get the sense of how the President feels about mail-in ballots.
We start tonight with a trio of power-sourced legal experts.
We've got Elie Honig.
Ben Ginsberg, who has worked for decades on election law for national Republicans.
And also, our own Tom Dupree here.
Elie. I think, first, when this came down today, just recently, a few hours ago, people were looking through it, trying to discern what the court has done here and what they have not decided today.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, FORMER STATE & FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: So, Kaitlan, what the court has not done is decide the ultimate constitutional issue.
The Constitution tells us that elections are run by states or Congress and not by the President, not by the executive branch. The states argued that this executive order essentially is the executive branch usurping that function. Essentially, gives the executive branch the power to decide who's an eligible voter and who can actually practically vote by mail. The Supreme Court did not decide that.
What the court did do today is issue an important temporary procedural ruling. The court basically said, It's too early. They said the states who are suing to block this, the Democratic-run states, cannot yet show enough concrete, specific harm that we can rule on this case as a court. Essentially, the court said, Well, there's a bunch of hypotheticals here that could lead to some harm, but we're not there yet.
So, the ultimate constitutional issue, still to be resolved. But for now, a big win for the Trump administration.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, Ben, on that front. Actually, the President hasn't responded yet formally, which is pretty surprising to me. I thought he would be posting on Truth Social by now. We have heard, though, from other elected officials in other states. Pennsylvania's Governor Josh Shapiro wrote and said: Donald Trump does not run elections here in Pennsylvania -- or in any state. We'll see the Trump Administration in court.
I think there is a question of what are the constitutional questions that are at play here, in your view.
BEN GINSBERG, REPUBLICAN ELECTION LAWYER: Well, certainly what Elie pointed out, which is the President, under the Constitution, doesn't have the authority to do this. Secondarily, Congress never delegated the authority to say who can vote and not vote to the United States (inaudible). So, I think that'll be part of the challenge as well.
But what Governor Shapiro said is, I think, a sentiment of both Republican and Democratic governors, which is, We run elections in our states. That's what the Constitution said. That's because we have a better feel for what our citizens need in voting. And I think that many a state of both parties will fight an executive branch intrusion into the running of elections.
COLLINS: I mean, Tom, on that front. There is a real question of what this means in the next 71 days, practically speaking here.
[21:05:00]
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Right, and practically speaking is the key words there. Elie is right that the Supreme Court did not decide the merits of this case, and in fact, the court at the end of its opinion was very careful to say that we're not deciding today that anything the administration does to implement this executive order is going to be lawful. So, they definitely left that for another day.
COLLINS: Yes.
DUPREE: But at the same time, I think as a practical matter, it is going to be exceedingly difficult for challengers to bring a successful challenge to this executive order or anything that flows from it in the time remaining before the election.
COLLINS: Why?
DUPREE: Well, the problem is, is the election, as you noted, is approaching fast. And we are in a universe where the challengers are going to have to come back to another court, file an amended complaint, make new arguments, put in new evidence, get decisions, and then get back up to the Supreme Court, all within a very compressed amount of time. That's a huge task, and I don't know if it's possible at this late date.
COLLINS: So, if you are one of these Democratic-led states and you want to fight this, what do you do here?
DUPREE: Well, one thing you can do is do your best to hustle back into court, hopefully let events progress, such that the federal courts will say, You've been injured. There's actually a dispute here that they can adjudicate. That was the basis on which the Supreme Court threw this out. They said, States, you haven't shown us that you're hurt by this order yet.
So, the states are going to have to find a way to make the case that something they're doing from this order hurts them. That gives them the ticket to get back into federal court.
COLLINS: So Ben, on that front, when you're looking at this, I mean, do you expect that there is going to be a legal challenge again to this as soon as tomorrow? I mean, everyone keeps saying, this is a big win for the Trump administration for now. I think Ben, the big question is, what does this look like in the next weeks, speaking?
GINSBERG: Well, the rule becomes final on Wednesday. So, my guess is there'll be the challenges filed on Wednesday.
There's also the practical applications that are going to have to be dealt with at some point. What the executive order tries to do to the United States Postal Service in certain envelopes and lists prepared by UPS and the Department of Homeland Security. None of those lists have been made public, so that the practical implications are huge.
Plus, you have to remember, the problems and, really, distress this causes to election officials, who have a lot of work to do, to get their elections ready to go soon, and there is all this uncertainty about it, which takes away a little bit from the blocking and tackling that they have to do to put on an election, and that may be the most worrisome part in terms of the overall chaos around elections.
COLLINS: Why do you think that's the most worrisome?
GINSBERG: Well because, I think that due to the rhetoric of the past few years, public confidence in elections has gone down. There's a great 2020 decision in which Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that as elections become close, near, you have to have clear rules, so that everyone knows what they're doing. Well, that seems to be the opposite of what's happening with these proposed rules and the continuation and the litigation that Tom and Elie have described.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, Tom, on just the practical front of this, in terms of what Ben is laying out there, and how this would -- how this would shape out in terms of the list and what DHS would be putting forward. Put resources aside, which we actually know is a huge issue. These states don't have the resources to actually implement these changes right now. Many of them say.
What would this even look like? What would DHS be doing here?
DUPREE: Well, hard to know for sure. But in theory, DHS is going to be compiling a list of citizens that then they will send to the states, and the states can use those lists in whatever way they see fit. But presumably, it would be to prune their voter lists of anyone who's not eligible to vote. So, there's that.
COLLINS: And who decides that? DUPREE: Well, in theory, it would be state election officials. But there's another part of the order that directs the attorney general to prioritize the prosecution of people who would facilitate voting fraud or not take steps to prevent fraudulent votes from being cast.
So, at the same time, the Trump administration is trying to, in its view, preserve the integrity of these voting lists. They're also telling law enforcement: You've got to get your act together. You've got to go after people who could be trying to set up a fraudulent election.
COLLINS: Which, in their view, would be some of these state officials who disagree with what Markwayne Mullin or President Trump wants to do.
DUPREE: Presumably, yes. The Trump administration has made no secret that I think it plans to try to hold state officials accountable if, in their view, the state officials aren't doing what they need to do to preserve the integrity of the elections. I think that's their endgame here.
COLLINS: Ben, I think the biggest question tonight. There are probably a lot of people watching who vote by mail. I mean, that could include the President of the United States who votes by mail. Where does this leave them this evening?
[21:10:00]
GINSBERG: Well, as of right now, people should continue to vote by mail if they want to vote by mail. There is nothing in effect that would stop them from doing it.
One thing is, I think you're going to see some blowback from Republicans in the coming weeks because, after all, Republicans are the older party, and older folks like to vote by mail. They're the rural party. And certainly, vote by mail is important to people in rural areas.
And thanks to Donald Trump, there are many more low-propensity voters in the Republican Party. And Republicans operatives in the states know that putting up those barriers to that part of the Republican base makes Republican turnout less likely. So, this is kind of a flawed political strategy wrapped in a rather -- vocally charged policy from the President.
COLLINS: I think that's a good point, I mean, just in terms of the political aspect of this and how some Republican officials might see this.
I mean, Elie, just from your perspective, what are you looking at next here?
HONIG: Well, Kaitlan, keep in mind. I think all of the practical difficulties that we've been discussing with getting this order implemented and actually put in place, between now and the 2026 midterms, are going to be major practical problems. It would shock me if any of this actually gets through the process of DHS pulling together these lists, of the Postal Service developing this high-tech envelope and figuring out a way to decide who they're going to deliver ballots to or not. However, all of this is still going to be in play for 2028.
And so, this executive order, they're going to continue to litigate about it, but it could well be in place for the 2028 presidential election. And if that happens, as a practical matter, a lot of the power to decide who gets a ballot by mail, who can submit a ballot by mail, that's going to get taken away from the states and given over to the federal government, to DHS as well. So, I think we'll wait and see. I don't think it's likely to go into effect for 2026. But this could be with us in 2028.
COLLINS: OK. Well we'll see what these legal challenges look like this week.
Elie Honig. Ben Ginsberg. Tom Dupree. It's great to have all of you here tonight.
Up next for us here on THE SOURCE. The administration has also just launched an economic war, but it's not just against Iran. They're also targeting one of America's closest allies. How they're responding and what that means for Americans.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Trump administration is leaning into economic warfare on two very different fronts. But you'll be forgiven if it's hard to distinguish how they talk about the country that the United States has called the world's leading state sponsor of terror versus how they talk about one of America's closest allies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT BESSENT, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY: We are launching an economic onslaught.
JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Stop taking advantage of America. It's over.
BESSENT: We want to make clear here today that no one is above the reach of U.S. sanctions.
VANCE: That unfairness is something that we just have to fix.
BESSENT: Our objective is to sever every economic lifeline.
VANCE: Allows itself to be used as a back door for Chinese goods.
BESSENT: This is economic asphyxiation of this regime. And Jennifer, as I said, no one should test our resolve.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: See what I mean? The Treasury Secretary there, Scott Bessent, is talking about Iran. The Vice President, JD Vance, is talking about Canada.
And when it comes to the nation that the United States is actually at war with in the Middle East, the Treasury Secretary threatened sweeping new sanctions on countries that do business with Iran. But notably today, he stopped short of actually imposing penalties on a lot of those nations, like China, which buys roughly 90 percent of Iran's oil exports.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: You described this as an economic D-Day, but D-Day wasn't a threat of an invasion, and the U.S. didn't give a timeline to Germany. So, why not impose sanctions today?
BESSENT: Well, we are giving everyone the opportunity to remedy bad behavior. Why would I want to blow up the global financial system? We believe that it is important to level-set and give people a cure period, but they should know that that will move very quickly, and that we are serious.
So, we believe that a warning shot and a level-set of expectations is appropriate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was the Treasury Secretary there, responding to an excellent question from my colleague, Kevin Liptak, who says that yes, a warning shot is appropriate for nations like Iran and China, and also making clear that if the U.S. does follow through on what it's threatening to do, how devastating it would be to the global -- it would be to the global financial system.
There is no such luck of a warning shot, though, for Canada, which President Trump just hit with 50 percent tariffs on roughly $20 billion of Canadian goods. His reasoning is this: Quote, "Canada has been ripping off the United States of America for years... On Trade, and in other ways, also, they are among the worst Nations in the World to deal with. They feel entitled, and yet, WE DON'T NEED CANADA, THEY NEED US."
Posts like that one prompted a pretty angry response from Canadian leaders, including Ontario's Premier, Doug Ford.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DOUG FORD, ONTARIO PREMIER: I have a lot of real estate on my ass, so he has a lot a room to kiss my ass.
(LAUGHTER)
FORD: I'm a big dude. What can I say? [21:20:00]
Hopefully, they'll come to their senses when they see the pain he's putting on the American people. And we have to focus on the red states.
I've been in this game a lot longer than he has. I got a skin on me like an alligator. And you think an insult from him hurts me? Well, bring it on buddy, I'm ready. Bring it on. You know something? I've dealt with guys like you my whole life, and guess what? Y'all become losers because you're a loser.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Plainspoken there.
My source tonight is the Canada-U.S. Trade Minister, Dominic LeBlanc.
And it's great to have you here, sir.
I mean, when you hear that portrayal of, from Doug Ford, which the President actually responded to directly today and was praising his late brother instead, is that how Canadians are viewing this tonight?
DOMINIC LEBLANC, CANADA'S U.S. TRADE MINISTER: Kaitlan, it's obviously a -- it's a tough moment for Canadians. We have built, over decades, an integrated economy with the United States that we believe has benefited both countries, has been to the advantage of North American competitiveness.
Mr. Trump has put a series of tariffs, 232 tariffs across sectors of our economy where we're the most integrated with the United States. And as you noted, he added another 50 percent tariff for us to 28 billion Canadian dollars of exports to the United States. There are tens of thousands of jobs in Canada that are threatened by these actions. So, it's a difficult moment for Canadians.
Mr. Carney speaks for the Government of Canada. We have a federal system like you do in the United States. President Trump isn't responsible for what every American governor says. Mr. Carney has been clear with us that we should seek an agreement, a deal with the United States, it's in the interest of both countries, and that was the work that we were doing in good faith, last week.
COLLINS: OK. Point taken on Doug Ford not speaking for the entire Canadian government.
But on this deal that Prime Minister Carney wanted you to come to Washington and get, sitting down with the President's officials face- to-face. I mean, the President just a few days ago, last week, was saying that you had reached a deal that he thought it was very fair. So, I think some people tonight might be wondering what happened.
LEBLANC: And you're right. We also, Kaitlan, last week, Wednesday, Thursday, last week in particular, thought we were moving towards an agreement that would be in Canada's economic interest and would benefit the United States.
Mr. Carney has said consistently that a strong Canadian economy benefits the United States and Canada, makes us a reliable and steadfast partner for North American prosperity. So, we were doing, in good faith, that work.
I met with Ambassador Greer, many times. Very constructive, very thoughtful conversations. We were pursuing in sectors of our economy that are facing these 232 tariffs: steel, aluminum, automobiles, softwood lumber, critical to Canada's economic circumstance. We were pursuing an agreement with Ambassador Greer in good faith. We took him to be in good faith.
But as we got towards the end of the week, some of the things that we thought had been agreed upon and other things started to come up in the conversation in a way that Mr. Carney concluded, on Friday evening, a difficult decision, that there wasn't in sight, an agreement, that for us, for Canada, would improve our economic circumstance as compared to other American trading partners. So, the negotiations concluded.
COLLINS: Well, and concluded. I mean, they were called off basically, and no agreement was reached.
The administration is saying that y'all made last-minute demands, and that was the issue. Prime Minister Carney says the Trump administration made unacceptable demands.
Some people may say, Well, what's really happening here? What is actually the sticking point? Is it one? Is it two? Or are there 30 sticking points here?
LEBLANC: Yes. So, I think it's the cumulative total. What Mr. Carney said in a news conference, in Ottawa, on Saturday, is there was an accumulation, a series of circumstances, of questions that weren't being resolved, that left us, as I said, in a situation where -- I mean, Canada is the United States' biggest customer. We're the top export destination for 26 U.S. states. We've integrated our economy, over decades, in those very sectors where President Trump has applied the 232 tariffs.
[21:25:00]
So, obviously, we were seeking to be in a better circumstance than trading partners that have done a lot less, to build a competitive North American economy. And in the end, we weren't able to get to a result that Mr. Carney thought met the economic interest that Canada was pursuing.
COLLINS: You know, the reaction really has been that Carney here is doing something that a lot of other countries have not, a lot of other leaders have not, in terms of going head to head with the President. Other countries have made trade deals that either haven't panned out always for them, or are not always favorable terms to them. But they did it because Trump is President of the United States. And so, when he's now saying he's going to match the U.S. tariffs, dollar for dollar, roughly 70 percent of Canadian exports come to the U.S. I think the big question tonight is, can Canada afford that?
LEBLANC: But -- and that's a fair question, Kaitlan. But if you're the Government of Canada, we cannot afford not to protect Canadian workers and Canadian businesses that are suddenly facing a 50 percent tariff. In the case of the most recent Section 338 tariffs. Canadians rightfully expect their government to respond, to take the steps necessary, to protect these very industries, as I said, these very sectors of our economy, that have contributed to the joint prosperity of both countries, so.
And we had been clear with our American interlocutors. The conversations, the discussions, were always professional. None of this was personal. But we said, if we weren't able to get to an agreement, and President Trump's additional tariff burden was applied to the Canadian economy, it shouldn't surprise anybody that Canada would properly take the steps necessary. Canadians expect us to do that. We would expect the Americans, in the face of such an action, to take steps to protect their economy. So, we're going to -- we're going to do exactly that.
But we're doing that regretfully, Kaitlan, in the sense that we still believe that an economic partnership between the two countries benefits the competitive advantage of North America. And in these sectors of the economy where President Trump has applied these tariffs, Canada has been a reliable and steadfast partner in dealing with -- we heard your piece around Secretary Bessent's comments. For example, in the steel industry, we've put in place melt and pour requirements--
COLLINS: Yes.
LEBLANC: --to ensure that non-market economies aren't coming into the North American economy. So, we think we can be a reliable partner, and regret that we couldn't get to that point of a deal on Friday.
COLLINS: We'll see if that changes.
Dominic LeBlanc, thank you for joining us tonight. It's always great to have you here on THE SOURCE.
LEBLANC: Thank you, Kaitlan. Have a great evening.
COLLINS: Up next. The Governor of Texas has just changed his stance when it comes to data centers, as we're seeing voter backlash growing, and he's facing maybe, what is, a closer-than-expected battle to keep his job. His Democrat opponent is going to join me right after this.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, backlash over AI data centers has triggered a twist in Texas' heated governor's race. The Republican governor, Greg Abbott, now finds himself actually squarely against President Trump on this issue.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If I ran a community, if I was a mayor, or if I was a governor in a state, I would want to have the data centers because, they bring tremendous income.
I saw Texas the other day, sort of as against data centers. I think it's a mistake.
For Texas to say no to data centers is a mistake in the sense that it could be bigger than oil. I mean, data centers could be bigger than oil.
GOV. GREG ABBOTT (R-TX): I have pressed pause on any new data center.
They'd not been working in collaboration with local governments. And so, they've basically dug their own grave for the problem that's been caused for them, and that's why they got the backlash they deserve, and that's why these new standards are in place to make sure they're not going to be able to operate until they come into compliance with the standards that I have set.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, what Governor Abbott is saying there is not just a sharp turn from the President. It's also from what he's said on data centers before. Less than a year ago, he said that Texas would be the epicenter of AI development, as he announced a $40 billion investment by Google.
Last month, though, a Fox News poll showed that Governor Abbott is locked in a virtual tie with my next source tonight, Texas State Representative and the Democratic nominee for governor, Gina Hinojosa.
And it is great to have you here tonight. I want to note, your sister is a CNN Political Commentator, so people have probably seen Xochitl on our air before. Obviously, you're coming on as a candidate tonight.
With what you hear from Governor Abbott there now, on data centers, is that a position that you two are now in agreement on?
GINA HINOJOSA, (D) NOMINEE FOR TEXAS GOVERNOR: No because, his is just rhetoric, but his actions are the same.
So, I have called on Governor Abbott to issue a moratorium and convene the legislature in an emergency special session today, so that we can come together and pass laws to actually protect Texans. Instead, Abbott has chosen to issue a temporary pause that we all know will be lifted November 4th, the day after the election.
These are political games; it is smoke and mirrors, and nothing has really changed. And the people of Texas know it.
[21:35:00] COLLINS: I mean, you have made this a big part of your campaign. You put out an ad about this last week, attacking him over his positions on data centers. Do you think that is why he is now taking the position that he is, as he just articulated in that interview from yesterday?
HINOJOSA: Yes. Look, Greg Abbott knows he's in trouble. He sees the same polling we see. And the data centers are the latest kind of physical manifestation of what he's been doing. This whole time he's been in office, he's been doing the work of the moneyed interests. He's received $20 million from data center moneyed interests, and he hasn't been working for the people of Texas.
So, this is just the latest straw on the camel's back, and people are angry about it. And this is impacting them. This is literally hitting home for so many Texans. They see it, they feel it, and they're angry.
COLLINS: President Trump's argument is that having these AI data centers in your state can actually create jobs. It can increase tax revenues. It'll help with the AI war against China, as far as the United States' standing.
When it comes to the billions that tech companies are investing in places where they are building them, places like Texas, would you be OK if that money went to a different state?
HINOJOSA: Well, listen, please understand what is happening in Texas. There are no rules. Data centers have been invited in by Greg Abbott with the richest tax breaks in the country. The state is losing $1.5 billion a year to these data centers.
And so, it is --listen, I don't hate data centers. I hate the way Texans are being abused by the data centers, and the way Greg Abbott is letting this happen. Understand, they're setting up shop in these rural, unincorporated areas where there are no regulations about development. They don't even have paid firefighters, paid EMS. So, there's a total mismatch in resources in these communities. We need basic standards, basic rules when it comes to data centers. And Greg Abbott has left Texans with no protections. That's why Texans are mad.
COLLINS: Some people might be surprised to hear that.
Well, first off, on the numbers there, The Texas Tribune says that there are 335 data centers in the state, 248 more in the works.
But in terms of who is going to be making these decisions. Obviously, you're running for governor against Greg Abbott. Some people may say, Well, it's Texas; he's going to win. Cook Political Report actually shifted their prediction, in this race, from solid Republican to likely Republican in the last few days.
When you look at that, and the big disparity in your fundraising, in his? And you know, obviously, he's a political powerhouse in that state. What do you think this looks like over the next several weeks?
HINOJOSA: Yes. Listen, we've built momentum. We started nine points down at the end of last year. Now we're in a virtual tie. Six polls in three weeks show we're in a virtual tie with Greg Abbott. People want change. People are tired of the culture wars. They're tired of the struggle in Texas. We are a world economic powerhouse, and the people of Texas who built that power aren't feeling it.
So, I'm running on securing the American dream by saving Texas schools, putting money in your pocket, back-to-basics approach to governing, government that actually works for the people, and it is resonating across this state. And that's why, really, what we are seeing on the ground is exactly what the polls are showing. That, Greg Abbott has lost support in this state, and it has created a space, an opportunity to win. And so, we are building on that momentum for a win in November.
And I'm inviting people to learn more at ginafortexas.com.
COLLINS: Gina Hinojosa, thank you for joining us tonight. We really appreciate your time.
HINOJOSA: Thank you. It's good to be with you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: And on this issue, which is not just important to voters in Texas, I want to bring in the deeply-sourced and veteran tech journalist, and also host of the "Pivot" podcast, our CNN contributor, Kara Swisher.
Kara, what do you make of this?
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY EXPERT, PODCAST HOST, "ON" AND "PIVOT": Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, this has landed like a bomb in so many of these political races--
SWISHER: Yes.
COLLINS: --in terms of where Republicans are, where Democrats are. What do you make of how this is playing out?
SWISHER: Well, I know you know I've talked about it for a long time.
COLLINS: Yes.
SWISHER: Because I think data centers were sort of the proxy for this. And a couple -- about six months ago or more, I started to see it. Like, you could start to see that this -- people are worried about AI. They're worried about Elon Musk with a chainsaw cutting the government. They're worried about billionaires out of control and access to the White House. They're worried about what AI is going to do for their jobs. And it all coalesces in data centers.
Because there are data centers. As you said, there's several hundred in Texas right now. It's just the kind of data centers that are coming, and sort of this cavalier way that these tech companies have come in with the help of mostly these Republican governors, and just done whatever they felt like doing. And people, they're mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore, essentially.
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: Well, actually, I mean, on that front. Michael Whatley is running for the Senate in North Carolina. He's the Republican candidate in that race. Something he said today about what he thinks is fueling the criticism of these data centers stood out to me.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICHAEL WHATLEY, (R) CANDIDATE FOR U.S. SENATE IN NORTH CAROLINA: This opposition to data centers is not organic. This is being ginned up, the same way that we saw opposition to energy projects around the country. You know, they're trying to build a new nuclear plant. All of a sudden, people come out of the woodwork and they hate nuclear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What do you make of that argument?
SWISHER: It's entirely inaccurate. It didn't work for Kevin O'Leary in Utah.
I've talked to lots of activists on the ground in Virginia, in Utah, in Michigan, everywhere else. I talked with the Mayor of Lansing, Michigan, who they put together a pretty good data center deal with closed water loop and all the things that you'd want, which are no tax breaks, no special things, away from the city, not noise, and they still couldn't pass it because regular citizens came out and said, Absolutely not.
So, Michael Whatley doesn't know what he's -- he's just it's -- what am I going to say? He's lying. He's lying about that. It's not true.
This is a real grassroots situation, and that's the one thing that I think tech people didn't realize is, I was meeting with people from Facebook, over their Louisiana thing, a couple -- like, six, seven months ago, and they're like, What do you think?
And I said, I think people hate you. Like, I don't know what to tell you. Like, you need to like stop saying you're going to create coffee shops and jobs, and really be very transparent about what these things are.
And President Trump certainly isn't helping a lot of these candidates, like in Ohio, for example, or any of these places. Sherrod Brown is making a comeback. He got knocked down by all the cryptocurrency guys. And now he's hung, I think it's Husted's neck, this idea of Mr. Data Center.
And so, it's a very effective thing, and it is real people who are really concerned about their fate, and they should be.
COLLINS: Yes, and in Ohio, I mean, that's a seat that Republicans thought was safe and that they didn't have to worry about too much.
Do the tech giants, do they realize this? Do they realize that this -- I mean, as you put it, that it is grassroots--
SWISHER: Yes.
COLLINS: --that it is organic, and that they do have a real problem on their hands?
SWISHER: I think they spent a lot of time telling us how AI was going to take all our jobs for a while, right? Like, that wasn't a very good messaging.
And, I know, Sam Altman has talked to a lot of people about this idea of doom and gloom has not been good for their brand. Well, no, it's not good for their brand to tell everyone they're going to lose their jobs, and by the way, we're going to put a noisy gas belching thing next to you, and you're going to like it, you're going to take it. I think people are over this.
And then seeing all this massive wealth at the same time struggling to pay their bills, it's very normal that it would -- if it articulates on a physical level near your home, that really does resonate with people.
And one of the things -- you know, when Trump is going on and on about how great they are, we'll put one right next to Mar-a-Lago then, if they're so fantastic. That's what I say. Fine, you know -- you know, eat your dog food if you want to -- if you really believe in this. And so, it's just an inter -- the real estate is expensive there, from what I understand, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Yes.
SWISHER: But I've never been, so.
COLLINS: I've reported from there many times.
SWISHER: I know. Yes.
COLLINS: It certainly is.
SWISHER: Yes. Yes.
COLLINS: Kara Swisher, it is always great to have you. Thank you for joining us tonight.
SWISHER: No problem. Thanks.
COLLINS: And I'll see you Wednesday, when I am co-hosting "Pivot" with you.
SWISHER: Yes. I'm so excited. Are you ready? Are you ready?
COLLINS: I'll be ready by Wednesday.
SWISHER: All right, you're going to be great. You're going to be -- I'm so excited for you to come.
COLLINS: All right, Kara. I'll see you on Wednesday.
Up next here for us on THE SOURCE though tonight. Why did California's Attorney General just call off settlement talks with Paramount? He's actually going to join me right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, accusations are flying back and forth, after California's Attorney General canceled a planned meeting with Paramount over its proposed merger with CNN's parent company, Warner Bros. Discovery.
Rob Bonta is accusing Paramount of leaking and misrepresenting confidential settlement talks. Paramount denies that it leaked anything related to the discussions and says that it remains ready to negotiate.
California is one of a dozen states that is suing to stop this merger from happening, arguing that it would hurt competition and consumers. Unless both sides reach a settlement, they are headed for what is going to likely be a blockbuster trial in March.
Joining me tonight is the California Attorney General, Rob Bonta.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
ROB BONTA, (D) ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Can you just walk us through why you canceled these talks that were scheduled with Paramount?
BONTA: Sure. In short, Paramount seemed to be leaking lies to the press in the middle of our settlement negotiations.
We had some early preliminary settlement conversations on Friday. And then on Saturday and Sunday, press stories started appearing that seemed -- that purported to be telling what our positions were, what we said, what we said we wanted in the settlement negotiations. They were misrepresentations. They were lies. But clearly, there was someone on the Paramount side who was talking to the press.
And the quickest way to say, I'm not serious about settlement negotiations, the quickest way to end pending settlement negotiations, is to leak lies to the press. So, that wasn't going to fly with us. That's not the way to comport yourself, to adhere to the rules of confidentiality, and to act in good faith and sincerely to try to resolve a case.
So, we pulled down the meeting that was scheduled for today, and we remain ready, willing, and able to engage in discussions, if Paramount is able to get a lid on what's happening, get their house in order, stop the lying leaks, and engage in good faith.
[21:50:00] If they're willing to do that, we will take the position we've always taken, which is that we prefer to resolve disputes in the boardroom, not the courtroom. And if an opposing party in a litigation, in good faith, wants to talk to us about resolving the case, we will listen. If Paramount is able to do that, we're happy to continue conversations.
COLLINS: So, they're saying they didn't leak it. They said that they have your concerns about the public discussions and misreporting that has surrounded the deal. They said they've assured your office that they are not the source of leaks.
Why are you so confident that -- I mean, there's a lot of states involved here. Why do you -- why do you believe that it's them?
BONTA: Yes, that's what they say, and -- but the leaks remain. The lies and the misrepresentations remain being reported in multiple news outlets, citing multiple sources.
And they have an army of attorneys, an army of consultants. I don't know that they can speak for what every one of their hired consultants and attorneys is saying to the press. But they need to find out and put a lid on it and end the leaks, so that we can move forward, if they wish to. That would be a good demonstration of good faith, ending the lying leaks on their side.
COLLINS: Have you talked to anybody from Paramount since you canceled the planned meeting today?
BONTA: I have. They've reached out, and my team has been talking to them. They've reached out directly to me, multiple times.
I hope we can get this on the right track, but it requires them to get their side on the right track, to not be -- I mean, it's really not hard, Kaitlan. This is basic. This is what litigators do all the time, in cases, all across the United States of America. They engage in good-faith settlement conversations without leaking lies to the press. Most -- everybody does that.
It is those who are the outliers, like Paramount seems to be, who engage in it. Honestly, they're playing too many games. They're being too cute. It's too cloak-and-dagger. This is just a straight-up bread and butter, black and white, meat and potatoes, antitrust case. And they should--
COLLINS: What are the lies that they -- that you're--
BONTA: --accept it as such.
COLLINS: What are the -- you said they're leaking lies. What is it that's -- what is that?
BONTA: Well, there's a Wall Street Journal article, there's multiple other articles, that purport to state what our positions were, in these preliminary settlement discussions. And what we will ask for today, on Monday, in the meeting that was scheduled to happen, but we took down because of the lies, and they were assigning positions in this settlement to us, which is the core substance, the core thing that should be confidential in these discussions. And they were assigning positions that they said that we were taking that weren't true, and they were telling the press about it.
COLLINS: You've said that you want structural remedies in order to potentially settle here. What would count as a structural remedy in your view?
BONTA: Well, and they have very talented attorneys on their side who know exactly what I mean. But what we generally mean is keeping different parts of an operation under separate ownership, keeping different corporate entities separate, and that's what it means to be structural.
They are advancing what they call -- what we call, and they know, are behavioral remedies, which is we will behave in a certain way over the next few years. We'll make this many movies over the next few years. That's a way to behave.
A structural remedy is keeping different assets under separate ownership. For example, if Paramount and Warner Bros. merge, they will own 50 of the most valued basic cable channels in the nation, and that creates an unlawful market concentration. That's one of the markets that we challenge in our lawsuit. And so, a structural remedy in that market would be to sell, so that they are under separate ownership, some of those cable channels.
COLLINS: So, you want to see some of the cable channels sold?
BONTA: Yes, they can't -- they can't be under the Paramount Warner Bros. roof. They need to be under separate ownership, so that they don't have an unlawful market concentration that breaks federal antitrust, anti-monopoly law.
COLLINS: Obviously, we're approaching this interview as I'm a reporter, and we are asking you questions about this. Some people might be watching and say, You know, how much of this has to do with the channel we're watching right now, with CNN itself.
What would you say to that?
BONTA: Zero. This is about three different markets and three different potential remedies for those markets. That is another, unfortunately, lie that's been advanced by the Paramount side. They put out into stories and planted in stories this idea, of this false idea, that if CNN were divested, were spun off, that would be enough to resolve this case. That wasn't true yesterday. That's not true today. That will never be true. It's just not true.
[21:55:00]
And they're spending a lot of time talking about things that are irrelevant to the case. The streaming market, which is not part of our case. CNN, which is not a focus of our case. They're talking about what foreign regulators have done. No relationship to this case, and not relevant to this case. They're trying to claim they're going to leave California. They're trying to claim they're owed a $1.8 billion bond. All, you know, they're trying to manufacture and invent leverage in this case by talking about things irrelevant to this case.
I really highly recommend they focus on the case. Our complaint is straightforward. We set forth our concerns. If they want to try to resolve those concerns with structural remedies, we're happy to hear what they have to say and engage with them in good faith. But there's no three-dimensional chess here. It's just a straight up antitrust case, as set forth in our complaint.
COLLINS: Some people might hear this interview tonight and say, It doesn't really sound like talks are going to get back on track anytime soon.
What would you say to that?
BONTA: I'd say, it's completely up to Paramount. All they have to do is do what every other attorney in the United States of America seems to be able to do, which is stop with the lying leaks and just engage in settlement discussions in a normal way, a routine way. Have some ideas. Come with some creative proposals. Try to resolve the issues that we raise in our complaint. And don't talk to the press about it. Maintain the confidentiality that's required under federal law.
It's pretty simple. It's not a lot to ask. It's really basic. They are out on a limb and an outlier by doing what they did. So, they show that they weren't serious about settlement negotiations, by leaking in this way. And the easiest way to get us back to the conversation with them is to end the leaks and just have normal garden-variety settlement discussions with us.
COLLINS: California Attorney General, Rob Bonta, thank you for joining us tonight.
BONTA: My pleasure. Thanks for having me, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. It is time for Source Code here. We give you a number that is at the center of a story in the news. Can you guess what that story is? Tonight's Source Code is 70. I'll be back in just a moment with the answer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: No fraud is too small. If you are defrauding the American taxpayer, we're going to do everything that we can to put you in prison and send a message to the other fraudsters: The gig is up. Commit fraud against America, and go to jail.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Well, tonight's Source Code is 70. That's because, despite the comments that you heard from the Vice President there today, President Trump has granted clemency to more than 70 of his allies, donors, or others who have been convicted in, yes, fraud cases.
It is true that the administration has launched multiple fraud crackdowns and even created its own Anti-Fraud Task Force this year. But when it comes to the President himself, he has called the civil fraud case, even against him and his organization, a witch-hunt.
Thanks so much for joining us here tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
[22:00:00]
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST, CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP: Tonight. Going postal. The Supremes back Donald Trump's efforts to block mail- in ballots, at least for now, setting off a battle before November--
