Return to Transcripts main page
Table For Five
CNN Saturday Morning Table for Five. Virginia Supreme Court Strikes Down Dems' Redrawn Maps; Trump Admin Downplays Iranian Threat, Economic Impact Of War; U.S. Insists Ceasefire Still Underway Despite Exchanging Fire; CEO Likens Mamdani's "Tax The Rich" Slogan To Racial Slurs; McCain: Spencer Pratt's Candidacy Is "Blueprint" For Millennials. Aired 7-8a ET
Aired May 09, 2026 - 07:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[07:00:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Today, do the president's war claims match reality?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We're the winner. We won. Let me tell you, we've won. So, I think we won.
PHILLIP (voice-over): While the U.S. may be underplaying the immediate threat of Iran. Plus, all over the map, the redistricting wars take dramatic new turns as another state jumps in.
JUSTIN J. PEARSON, DEMOCRATIC STATE REPRESENTATIVE, TENNESSEE: These maps are racist tools of white supremacy.
PHILLIP (voice-over): And one state rejects the effort altogether. Also, one titan likens Zohran Mamdani's tax-the-rich attacks to racial slurs. Is the rhetoric getting too dangerous? And it's been called the greatest political ad of the year.
BATMAN, FICTIONAL CHARACTER: Please, I just want to rebuild my home. It's been over a year.
PHILLIP (voice-over): And one conservative says he's the blueprint for millennial candidates.
SPENCER PRATT, MAYORAL CANDIDATE, LOS ANGELES: She's an incredible liar.
PHILLIP (voice-over): But can a reality TV star run America's second biggest city? Here in studio, Leigh McGowan, Noah Rothman, Lydia Moynihan, and Denver Riggleman. It's the weekend. Join the conversation at a TABLE FOR FIVE.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Hi, everyone. I'm Abby Phillip. The outbreak is growing. No one claims to like the disease, but there is a race to spread it. And in fact, all states.
I'm talking about partisan gerrymandering. After the president demanded that Texas redraw its maps in the middle of the decade, other states have now followed suit, including Tennessee this week, where Republicans have carved up a majority-black district in Memphis. So, here is the 2024 map. You can see that only one of those nine seats are blue.
The new map divides the city lines of Memphis and pretty much guarantees the Republicans will win every seat in that state in November. Here is how Democrats see it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GLORIA JOHNSON, DEMOCRATIC STATE REPRESENTATIVE, TENNESSEE: This is not a special session. This is a white power rally and a white power grab. Vote yes. You're telling everyone you're a racist.
PEARSON: These maps are racist tools of white supremacy at the behest of the most powerful white supremacists in the United States of America, Donald j. Trump. We are here because this Republican Party has to seek to steal elections and seats, because the president and the party have refused to address the pain, the suffering, and the struggling of everyday Tennesseans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And now, a new plot twist for a state that tried to fight back. Virginia Supreme Court striking down the referendum that would have given Democrats new seats. The court called it a violation of the state's Constitution and their own rules for doing redistricting.
Denver, this is a major blow to Democrats. I actually wonder if you think this is the end of the story in Virginia. And what do you think the Democrats ought to do next?
DENVER RIGGLEMAN, FORMER U.S. REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN, VIRGINIA: Well, right off the bat, I want to tell something so we can just get it out there. And it's almost indefensible. But I voted yes as much as I was against gerrymandering from the beginning.
I think what I was looking across all the states, I was looking at what was happening with this. And it's something that's pretty disgusting. But when I did vote, I talked about unilateral disarmament. What are we doing here? Right? As somebody who was a former Republican, what I was looking was something pretty nuts.
But then, when you look at the ten-one map, it's almost like they went too far, also. So, you have this weird thing that happens in my soul, you know, like, what are we going to do here going forward? I think this is just the beginning.
I think this was a bit of something we call court rigging. You know, my grandmother was born in Tazewell County. That's where they actually started the court cases. They went up through specific conservative judges. And now, you're looking at a -- really, a Supreme Court that should have adjudicated this well before the election.
And I think that's the issue. People are going to get very emotional. They're going to look at it. Maybe it's a conspiracy, things of that nature.
But what it really is, is that it almost looks like a bait and see. Not even a bait and switch to see what was going to happen. And then when they actually do this vote, right, and they're like, oh my God, we lost, now you have an actual judgment that says, oh, it's no good. Four-to-three along partisan lines. It's just a really bad look.
PHILLIP: Doesn't the Supreme Court lean Democrat?
RIGGLEMAN: No. The four that actually voted were actually during mixed or actually Republican legislatures. I went ahead and did the --
PHILLIP: Yes.
RIGGLEMAN: I went ahead and did -- and took a deep dive on that. And, you know, I was looking at some of the lieutenant governors who were former Republicans, saying, well, obviously, it went along party lines four-to-three. What's interesting about this -- and I hope people look at this, Abby. Both had some pretty valid points.
[07:05:06]
The issue that you have downstream is that what's happening at the Supreme Court and everywhere else with gerrymandering. There's incredible emotion. And what the Supreme Court did is they lost, I think, a bit of their luster. I think they damaged their credibility by waiting until afterwards, because now it looks like they're being switched --
PHILLIP: They could have -- they could held their referendum.
RIGGLEMAN: It's all about -- yes.
PHILLIP: And they explicitly didn't do that.
RIGGLEMAN: Correct.
PHILLIP: The other thing -- I mean, first of all, I think your view of this, this kind of hold your nose and cast a vote thing is what a lot of Virginians did.
RIGGLEMAN: They did.
PHILLIP: And -- but at the same time, this is a lesson in how the system works, which is that you have a state in Virginia that has its own rules. And it says, you can't do it this way. The outcome that they were trying to achieve, which is a completely lopsided map, is exactly what Tennessee Republicans then went and did this week.
So, you have two wrongs just in the matter of a couple of weeks apart. And it really illustrates that some places, yes, you can do it because the laws allow it. In other places, you can't. It's not about principles at this point.
NOAH ROTHMAN, SENIOR WRITER, NATIONAL REVIEW: Well, two points. Briefly, I hope everybody follows Denver's advice and digs into this and reads the decision, because you made a point that Senator Tim Kaine made. This court should have found this before the referendum. If you read the decision, you'll see that the justices deferred to Democratic logic.
RIGGLEMAN: Yes.
ROTHMAN: They said explicitly, you can't adjudicate this before the referendum, citing precedent. And then once the decision comes out, they say, oh, gosh, I wish you guys would have litigated this before the referendum. But they were deferring explicitly to Democratic objections.
And they found something that a lot of people have been wondering -- warning the governor against. And the Democratic legislature against, including lawyers for the governor who said maybe this isn't a great idea, that the state Constitution says that if you're passing a constitutional amendment, which is what this was, you have to have another election cycle before you can implement it, so that the voters can weigh in. They didn't do that.
They skipped over the process. They were warned that it was unconstitutional. And then it was found to be unconstitutional. It had nothing to do with the makeup of the maps. It had to do with the process.
RIGGLEMAN: I think definitionally, it's probably not correct. I mean, if you're looking at what the left and the right are talking about, and if you look at actually what happened, the definition from the left was correct when you're talking about the dissent. On the other side -- on the majority side, there was something called purposivity, which I sort of agreed with. I mean, to your point, honestly.
But what you're looking at is you had two separate types of things, you know, going head to head. But when you're actually looking at the conservative courts coming up, they actually could have adjudicated this beforehand if they wanted to. And I think that's the issue that you have is people are already worried about disenfranchisement. There's this feeling that courts are trying to -- courts are trying to overwhelm --
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, I do think that -- I mean, Noah, you're right that on the legal front, the argument was not one on the fairness or unfairness of the map. However, on the political front, it was definitely the case that many Republicans were arguing that it was disenfranchising Republican voters in a state that is a purple state. So, you can make -- if you can make that argument in Virginia, then you can also make that argument in Tennessee, where now Democrats in that state, maybe 40 percent of the state, has zero representation potentially in Congress.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: Yes. You can also make that argument in California or Illinois, or New England. This is just the reality of gerrymandering writ large. And I don't think we would have seen Tennessee gerrymander if Virginia hadn't aggressively decided as a purple state to try and redraw the map at all.
PHILLIP: I don't think -- well, I don't think that's true. I think it has --
MOYNIHAN: So, I think this is unfortunate for Democrats that they were this aggressive --
PHILLIP: Well, only because --
MOYNIHAN: And now, they're suffering the consequences.
PHILLIP: The only reason I would say -- I would -- I would dispute that is because Tennessee's gerrymander was explicitly because of what the Supreme Court did --
RIGGLEMAN: Right.
PHILLIP: -- which had to do with the Voting Rights Act. Even if Virginia had never happened, what is going on with the Voting Rights Act would have forced -- not forced. It would have encouraged states like Tennessee to do what they're doing.
And you're going to see that all over the map. I mean, southern states are moving like lightning right now to eliminate as many black majority districts as possible.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: Yes. I think this comes back to racism. I think we can think of the Supreme Court for this decision and all the anti-DEI stuff that's going on around the country. We are just headed right back down the segregation road.
I mean, the argument that the Supreme Court made that Justice Alito made in his decision was that we don't need to have these protections anymore, because racism is a thing of the past. And then within hours and days of that decision, all of the Confederate states were -- are rushing to erase black districts. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, North Carolina. They are all actively working to redraw maps to erase districts with black majorities.
The Voting Rights Act was necessary because, since the end of slavery, white America has done its very best to make voting as absolutely hard as possible for black Americans, saying nothing of their experience in everyday life. And I just think --
MOYNIHAN: This is political. This is not about race. As I noted --
MCGOWAN: It's a hundred percent about race.
ROTHMAN: As you see the other night.
MOYNIHAN: The district in Tennessee is going to go to a black Republican.
[07:10:03] MCGOWAN: I don't know how we can do this. I'm actually so distressed for our country right now because, really, there are many ways that we can divide up our country. I think we should have been doing it from the 117th Congress on when we had the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, when we had the For The People's Act, that made our maps more fair.
And now, we're at a position where we are literally taking a city like Memphis, which is a majority black city, and we are splitting it into three so that none of those black votes count. And they did it based on the census. And the census has racial not political affiliations. And they've done it deliberately.
PHILLIP: Let me not -- let me not --
ROTHMAN: Lydia has made this point eloquently, and I don't want to step on her point. But we should be careful about making - -equating something synonymous, as though minority representation and Democratic representation are the same thing. They're not.
And the court did not find that racism in America is over. What they found is that excessively voting -- or observing race to the degree that it discriminates is something that's constitutionally prohibited. It conflicts with the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.
PHILLIP: Look --
ROTHMAN: So -- but there are plenty of African American representatives who are Democratic, who are Republican --
PHILLIP: Well -- (INAUDIBLE) So, I think that --
ROTHMAN: -- that discriminate against is just different.
PHILLIP:-- this a little bit backwards. The point is not solely to elect black representatives.
ROTHMAN: No.
PHILLIP: It's to allow black voters to have their choice. So, if their choice is a white representative, that is their choice.
ROTHMAN: Which is currently happening in Memphis.
PHILLIP: It's not about the -- it's not about whether the black person goes to Congress. It's about whether the black voter has their rights respected.
All right. Next for us. 11 weeks into the war, and Donald Trump continues the we won refrain. But is this just presidential spin? Plus, is the tax the rich slogan a hateful slur? Is it dangerous? Billionaires are furious in fighting back against Democrats like Zohran Mamdani.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:15:33] PHILLIP: Donald Trump has made a life, a business career, and two presidencies. Being a salesman and a pitchman. But when it comes to the war, is it the reality, and is it too serious to spin? For nearly 11 weeks now, we've heard that the U.S. has won this war over and over again.
But recent developments just aren't matching that message. The Washington Post reports that the U.S. believes that Iran can outlast America's blockade for months. The paper also reported that Iran had far more U.S. military assets than was previously reported.
We also learned this week that Iran attacked the U.S. at least ten times since the ceasefire began. A CNN investigation reveals that despite the president's claims, satellite images show that some of Iran's nuclear capabilities have, in fact, survived recent attacks. Also, last month, sources said that the U.S. assessed that Iran's maintained significant ability to launch missiles.
And speaking of missiles, CNN reports that the U.S. military has significantly depleted its stockpile of missiles in this war, and it's at risk of running out if the war were to break out again. The Pentagon downplayed all of this. But the president tried his usual spin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We're stocked and locked and loaded. Right now, we have more than double what we had when this started.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, that appears to be just pure spin. I don't think anybody is asserting that we have double what we had when we started. But the other part of this is that this has been a war where Trump has tried almost on a daily basis to say, we're close to a deal. It's almost done. They really want a deal.
And yet week after week passes, and there's no deal. And the American people -- they weren't buying it at the beginning, but they're definitely not buying it now.
ROTHMAN: Yes. I think that based on your introduction, the president observed too much restraint over the course of the ceasefire. The degree to which we were attacked while he was chasing some diplomatic overtures suggests that, yes, he probably should have been a little less cavalier about the degree to which Iranians were attacking --
PHILLIP: Do you think -- do you think -- to that point. I mean, do you think that we really are in a ceasefire if they've -- not only have they attacked us, but we've counterattacked.
ROTHMAN: We're in a ceasefire as long as we intend to observe it. We're determining events here. We're dictating the tempo of events. Again, back to your introduction.
Those missiles. You know the notion that Iran can launch all these missiles. They had that capacity at the end of the war, didn't they? The thing is, is that you can't fire these missiles in a strategically coherent fashion because were interdicting them in high-tempo combat operations. And if we return to high-tempo combat operations, the same will apply. And we'll continue to degrade and neutralize launchers and ballistic missiles.
PHILLIP: I'm not sure that that's true, because for -- just as an example. Earlier this week, the president launched this operation to have ships go through the Strait of Hormuz. And when he did that, not only did Iran fire on ships in the Strait, but they actually also fired on their regional -- their regional neighbors. And it was that that caused those regional neighbors to say, this operation needs to stop.
So, whatever leverage they have, however limited it is, they are using it in a way that is strategic and is getting outcomes that are to their benefit. The -- Trump announced within hours that they were stopping this operation to reopen the Strait, which is a win for Iran.
RIGGLEMAN: You know, it's interesting. You know, my background really quickly. I'm headed to Ukraine soon to talk about drone warfare. That's sort of what I do.
[07:20:00]
When you're looking at our ability to actually fight asymmetric threats, we're losing. When you're looking at Shaheds, when you're looking at F-5s -- you know, when we had the F-5 penetration into our base, you're talking about a base that's probably accrued about $1.9 to two billion dollars-worth of damage. When you're looking at their spray and pray coming out of Iran, when you're talking about Shaheds, there's actually -- and I hope people know this, there's 22 different types of Shahed drones from rocket power to propellers.
PHILLIP: I was just going to ask you if that's --
RIGGLEMAN: Yes.
PHILLIP: -- the type of drone that Iran utilizes in this war.
RIGGLEMAN: Absolutely. Absolutely. So, what happens is we have very poor mission planners who are unable to predict how effective their asymmetric warfare would be. That's why we're having so many issues.
Even the U.S. right now, one of our drones, the LUCAS drone, is a copy of the Shahed. So, for me, when I hear that were somehow winning this war, and we're actually in control, we're not. Because when it comes down to it, we're not quite sure what to do about the asymmetric threats when you're talking about the multiple types of HPV and long- range drones that they have. So, that's the issue.
MCGOWAN: Yes. But can I ask you a question?
RIGGLEMAN: Sure.
MCGOWAN: Because you're talking about a lot of military terms that most people don't understand. When you talk about asymmetric warfare, you're talking about, like, we are sending a million-dollar missile, and they're knocking it down with a $20,000 drone.
PHILLIP: Absolutely -- well, yes. The Trump --
ROTHMAN: Is that right?
PHILLIP: Maybe the opposite.
RIGGLEMAN: It's the opposite. Yes.
PHILLIP: They are sending.
RIGGLEMAN: So, it is --
PHILLIP: A cheap drone --
MCGOWAN: We're spending a lot of money, aren't we?
RIGGLEMAN: We are --
PHILLIP: We are knocking it down with an expensive --
MCGOWAN: OK.
RIGGLEMAN: Drone warfare is the future. And I think that we should have been sidesaddle with Ukrainians a lot earlier because they're the ones who are actually helping the Middle East, not us. And that is the truth. And that's the fact of it.
And the -- and the other fact is, is that we're having a really tough time trying to actually push up our own drone program, unless it's the Trump boys. So that's the issue we have right now.
ROTHMAN: As a matter of clarification, something that was said earlier, Abby --
PHILLIP: Yes.
ROTHMAN: -- was that the Gulf partners, including Saudi Arabia, UAE, Oman, were frustrated with the war and wanted it to stop.
PHILLIP: That's -- I didn't -- nobody said that.
ROTHMAN: That's not according to the -- well --
PHILLIP: That's -- nobody said that.
ROTHMAN: Well, let's say what actually happened then in what's put in the Wall Street --
PHILLIP: And just to be clear, you don't dispute something that nobody said at this table. I --
ROTHMAN: Fair enough. Then what -- PHILLIP: I -- all I said was that that particular mission to reopen the Strait, when Iran attacked its regional partners, it caused them to say this particular operation is not well thought out. It's putting us in danger. And Trump stopped it.
ROTHMAN: The Wall Street Journal reported that. According to when Dan Caine said that, this did not -- when they struck the UAE and Oman, that this did not rise to the level of a ceasefire agreement, that's stopping the cease fire, the protest from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia was that you're not going to defend us when we get attacked by Iran, and we're going to show you why you need to.
Subsequently, 24 hours later, they reversed that unspecified assurances from the United States, and the threat-clearing operation emerged once again and once again and once again. It wasn't they were saying, stop. They were saying go.
PHILLIP: No, no. What I'm saying is that -- is that the threat from Iran is what caused the president to stop his operation. He stopped the operation to clear the Strait.
ROTHMAN: Yes.
PHILLIP: That that is a fact.
ROTHMAN: Because reportedly --
PHILLIP: Yes.
ROTHMAN: -- in NBC News and the Wall Street Journal --
PHILLIP: No, no. I --
ROTHMAN: Saudi Arabia and Kuwait denied our access to their airspace.
PHILLIP: I -- OK.
MCGOWAN: Can I just -- do you mind if I step in for a second?
PHILLIP: Yes.
MCGOWAN: Just because you obviously have a lot of details about the war, you obviously have a lot of vernacular about the war. Most American people don't really understand the details of this in the same way. I have to say, from my perspective, I don't really understand what the goal of this war is.
It sounds like a win at this point would be get -- to be getting back right to where we started with Iran not having nuclear weapons and the Strait of Hormuz being open, which it was before. So, what are we doing with this whole thing? Is this just a way to insider trade on poly market? Are we just trying to piss off or please certain individuals --
MOYNIHAN: A person who insider trade --
MCGOWAN: I'm still --
MOYNIHAN: -- has already been brought to justice. Just so you know. MCGOWAN: I'm still talking.
PHILLIP: Just one person.
MCGOWAN: Yes.
PHILLIP: Just -- yes.
MCGOWAN: Insider trade -- like, are we trying to please Middle Eastern nations or piss them off? Are we doing something for Netanyahu? Is this about the Trump family making a lot of deals on drones that they're trying to sell?
I don't get it. It all seems like a ridiculous waste of money, of lives, of international goodwill. And we've completely screwed up our economy while doing it.
So, I'm not really understanding what we're doing here. And I know there's a lot of details about it. But I think for general American people who are like, how come we have a billion dollars a day to spend on this war, but we don't have it for healthcare or education, or in infrastructure? I think that's what we really need to be wondering.
MOYNIHAN: OK. Again, we spend trillions and trillions of dollars on healthcare and food stamps, and all kinds of entitlements.
MCGOWAN: We do not spend trillions of dollars on healthcare, Lydia. We do not.
ROTHMAN: We have. Yes. The vast majority of our -- a trillion-dollar budget every year.
MOYNIHAN: That is the vast majority of our federal budget. But I would like to say --
MCGOWAN: Oh, my God. You guys.
MCGOWAN: I would like to point out. Look, I know there's lots of polling. People aren't excited about the war. Obviously, you're not going to tell a pollster, oh, I'm excited about this war.
But if you do look at the polling from Harvard/Harris, voters actually want to see Trump's goals accomplished in this war. 80 percent believe that Iran needs to stop handing money to terrorists. 54 percent of voters believe that we have the upper hand in negotiations, which seems to be borne out in what the reporting is about, what a new deal could look like. And 66 percent of voters believe Trump should insist on the conditions and extract maximum concessions from the enemy.
So, yes, people are eager to see this wrapped up. Of course, no one likes war. But if you also look at the polling, it's a lot more nuanced than simply war is bad, let's end it.
PHILLIP: I --
MOYNIHAN: People want to see Trump accomplish the goals that he set out to do in this war.
PHILLIP: Well, look. I don't think anybody -- very few people in this country would tell a pollster that they want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon. So, I don't think that's a really -- I don't think that's a revelatory statistic that most people don't want them to be sponsors of terror and have nuclear weapons. However, they're very clear in the polling.
[07:25:09]
And Harvard/Harris doesn't meet our standards here at CNN. But there's plenty of other polling that shows just how is Trump handling this war. That's a very simple question. Most Americans say they don't think that he's handling it well.
Up next for us. Is tax-the-rich as offensive as a racial slur? One billionaire thinks so, and he and a few of his friends are fed up with New York City's mayor, Zohran Mamdani. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:30:05]
PHILLIP: This week, New York's governor, Kathy Hochul backed a new tax on luxury, on the wealthy. Something that the NVIDIA CEO seems to have no problem with.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JENSEN HUANG, CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NVIDIA: First of all, I prefer lower taxes than higher. However, I also don't mind paying taxes. You know, I love this country.
We don't exercise that many tax loopholes. I think once a year, we get a bill, we pay it, and it's big, and I don't mind it, and Lori and I never one time think about it.
We love this country in a way that's our way of giving back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: On the other hand, real estate titan, Steven Roth is sounding off on the broader tax the rich movement, saying, "I consider the phrase, 'tax the rich' when spit out with anger and contempt by politicians both here and across the country, to be just as hateful as some disgusting racial slurs.
Two very different approaches to how to deal with being taxed. There is a question, I think, right now about whether Democrats are going too far in demonizing the rich. What do you think?
MCGOWAN: No, I don't think they are being demonized. I think, they are being held accountable. When our country was great, when people think about when it was great, it was when the tax rate on the rich was the very highest. It was between 70 and 90 percent.
This tax that Mamdani is suggesting is a luxury tax on second homes over $5 million for people who are not living in them full time. So, it's like a pied-a-terre tax. It's going to make about $500 million a year for the city. 98 percent of the city is for it. I don't know why we wouldn't want that.
This idea that you can afford to live in a $200 million plus home that you don't actually live in, and you can't afford to pay more taxes is kind of insane. I think this hurts no one. I think we have to stop defending the people who are hoarding their wealth. And I think we need to look at this kind of wealth, this level of wealth, as a hoarder. You would look at a hoarder.
If I had way too many typewriters in my house, if I had way too much newspaper in my house, you would be like, Leigh, you've got a problem, you need to hold off on that.
I think, these people that get up to billions and billions of dollars, having Elon say he wants to be a 10 trillionaire, coming up, it's like -- that's a mental problem. And if they can't deal with themselves, then we should tax them to deal with.
PHILLIP: Lydia.
MOYNIHAN: So, first, just to briefly address the economics, at least in New York, about the top one percent of basically 40,000 people pay about 50 percent of the taxes. So, if you look the numbers, I think, Mamdani is going to be a tough spot, because people will continue to leave. So, that's just the reality.
But in terms of the way that the rich are being treated, Mamdani, of course, is very close with Hasan Piker, who, over the years, has made comments that he wants to see effing capitalists' blood in the streets. And Mamdani --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: They know each other. They are not -- your associating Hasan Piker. Don't do that.
MOYNIHAN: OK. No, but, Mamdani basically did a video right in front of Ken Griffin's house, called him out just blocks away from where the United Healthcare CEO had been assassinated. So, I can understand why people are on edge.
And to address your point, Leigh, Elon Musk has deserved every single penny of the money he has made. Jeff Bezos --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: Absolutely, not.
MOYNIHAN: Yes, they have a -- they have a large --
(CROSSTALK) MCGOWAN: That is the most ludicrous statement you had ever made.
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: Yes, they have a large slice of the pie.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: They are making money off the American taxpayer, off the American government, after deals with SpaceX.
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: But havenless, you know, capitalism has made the pie bigger.
MCGOWAN: I don't know why you are shilling for these people. It's nuts.
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: It has made our standard of living -- It has made our standard of living because capitalism has a moral argument that needs to be found. It has made our standard of living better than any other group of people in any other time.
And I would say, I want Elon Musk --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: Who's standard of living, Lydia? Who's standard of living?
MOYNIHAN: Elon Musk, I hope he is a trillionaire, because guess what?
PHILLIP: OK.
MOYNIHAN: With his money, he is literally letting blind people see. He is letting paralyze people walk. I want him to have the money.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Let me just say --
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: Not Elizabeth Warren, who is going to funnel it to fraud.
MCGOWAN: He is -- blind people see and paralyzed people walk?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Just one -- just one -- just one second. I mean, I think --
MOYNIHAN: Have you heard Neuralink? Have you heard Neuralink?
PHILLIP: Lydia --
MCGOWAN: Have I heard of Neuralink? Does it work, babe?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm wearing it now. PHILLIP: Lydia's point now, capitalism --
MCGOWAN: Oh, my God. This is so freaking insane.
PHILLIP: Lydia -- hold on -- hold on, Leigh. Lydia's point about capitalism being a vehicle for prosperity across the board in this country is true. But I also think you have to acknowledge that specifically, Elon Musk would not be anywhere near as rich as he is, if not for the United States government, which subsidized his businesses, which gave him contracts, et cetera.
I also want to play because you brought up Ken Griffin. I want to play his response to that, Zohran Mamdani's video -- Mamdani video. Let's play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KEN GRIFFIN, FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CITADEL: I actually had to see it a second time, because the first time I couldn't believe what I was watching. And I'll tell you, it took a moment to digest what I was watching. What really upset me about the video was the fact that he put me in harm's way.
To turn me into a political puppet was just in poor taste. Really poor taste.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I think a lot of people maybe would agree with that, that you know, you can make an argument that wealthier people need to pay their fair share, and maybe they should be more like Nvidia's CEO and say, hey, like, we are a big company, we are very profitable.
[07:35:07]
We are profitable because we are here in the United States of America, we should pay plenty of taxes.
But doing so by going outside of somebody's home is a different story.
ROTHMAN: Yes. And I also hear the expropriation for expropriation's sake. I don't hear, oh, we need this appropriation to pay for this program. We -- I see, this target needs to be brought low. And I don't know quite exactly, we talk about a lot of industrialists, but I don't know quite what Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos have in common with Jay Z, Steven Spielberg, or Taylor Swift.
PHILLIP: Beyonce.
ROTHMAN: Beyonce. The true billionaires in this country, right? The people who have -- what do they have in common, say for the fact that they create value. And they create value in ways that they are able to then parlay that into business investments which make a lot of other people money. Not just them. They have whole apparatuses below them, which is big -- which is creating wealth, generating wealth, from scratch, from nothing. And then, creating value for shareholders, which then subsequently boost the economy for everybody, including you, Leigh.
You are actually doing quite well because of the billionaire businesses that are generated off their capital. So, yes, I see a lot of --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: Yes. But you know what? I'm worried about the regular American.
ROTHMAN: I see a lot of class warfare and envy. I don't see policy.
MCGOWAN: I mean, I'm worried about the regular American. The ones that are not doing quite well. The ones that don't have health care and don't have (INAUDIBLE)
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: OK, but here is my question, Leigh. But this is -- no, this is --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: No, Lydia, why are you cutting me of so you can shill for a bunch of billionaires?
MOYNIHAN: This is -- will you --
MCGOWAN: I don't understand. It make no sense to me.
MOYNIHAN: This is -- but what I don't understand with the left is the politics of envy and --
MCGOWAN: The politics of envy. I'm looking now --
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: No, because look at -- let's talk about New York. OK, how much money is enough? We spend about $100,000 on each homeless person in this city. To what end? We get more homeless people, as a result. We spend about $45,000 on each public-school kid, K through 12. Their education sucks.
So, this is not a money issue, right? We have plenty of money --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: But since (INAUDIBLE)
PHILLIP: Let Denver have a quick word before we have --
RIGGLEMAN: I might have a different view on this. PHILLIP: Yes.
RIGGLEMAN: I find it a completely insane. So -- (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Which part?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All of this.
RIGGLEMAN: Well, the thing is, it's about language, right? And I think, when I see was it Steven Moore, so the tax --
PHILLIP: Steven Roth, yes.
RIGGLEMAN: Or Steven Roth says that tax the rich is the same as a racial slur, I think maybe take a history lesson. That's the first thing here. Because we -- if we go back to the base here, oh, tax the rich, I feel is as bad as a racial slur. Well, maybe if we go back, you know, to slavery, maybe if we go back to some of those, maybe you might think a little different. The tax the rich might not be quite as bad as a racial slur.
It's so ludicrous that's almost hard for anybody saying to say really, do you mean that you might be a little hurt. I understand your heart's hurt, or you cry a little bit, but that's a lot different than a racial slur, saying tax the rich.
It's different though, with Ken Griffin, the issue there is that when you are outside somebody's house, there is some -- there is a bit of a threshold you are crossing. I think, we have two different things here. Steven Roth, insane.
ROTHMAN: Denver, I take your point.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: OK, we.
ROTHMAN: It's not the same as racial slurs, and it's not the same as racial slurs in this country.
However, there's a Marx seeing movement here that is quite violent, and does seek to meet out violence against people based on class. And the history of the planet Earth is one of class warfare that can be quite bloody and dangerous. You do have to be aware to that.
RIGGLEMAN: My issue is --
MCGOWAN: We have transferred -- for since 1975, we have transferred $80 trillion from 90 percent of the Americans from the top one percent.
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: Everyone has a better -- this quality of life, and standard of living today but that any other point with all of human history.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: They do not had a quality of life, Lydia.
PHILLIP: Denver, last word.
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: And that's because of capitalism.
PHILLIP: Very last word. Go ahead.
RIGGLEMAN: I'm trying to say is snot everyone are -- not everyone is a victim.
And I think what you are looking at when you have a billionaire out there saying the tax the rich is just about as a racial slur, I understand what you are talking about from a Marxian side, or we can go from a -- you know, a far right or far left side. It really doesn't matter about how you are actually presenting Republicans or Democrats. What matters is that language matters.
And if you're saying that tax the rich is just as bad as a racial slur, you sort of cross the line to something that's insane. On the other hand, if you do have people in front of somebody's house and saying certain things, that is actually a different. I think, that's a completely different thing we are dealing with entirely.
PHILLIP: Yes. All right. Next for us, from a reality show star to a reality campaign for mayor, Spencer Pratt is using MAGA-style politics in his attempt to be the next leader of Los Angeles. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:43:45]
PHILLIP: Could one half of Spidey run America's second most populous city? Spencer Pratt, who became famous on a reality T.V. show, lost his home in the -- in the California wildfires, and is taking his anger out on officials to the campaign trail in the race for Los Angeles mayor.
He is running as an independent but taking a lot of pages from Donald Trump's playbook. Some of his stunts are going viral, including an ad where he's standing outside of the home of incumbent Karen Bass and other -- another where he depicts himself as Batman using A.I.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I just want to rebuild my home. It's been over a year.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mom, look.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: MAGA is praising it. Jeb Bush calls it the greatest political ad of the year. And also, this week, he was reprimanded during a debate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She is an incredible liar.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I have to interrupt you. No name calling, please.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: She just lied though.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Meghan McCain, says that this is the blueprint for the millennial generation to communicate when they are running for office. Maybe?
MOYNIHAN: Yes, look, I mean, his odds are going up. We'll see this is a really uphill battle for him, but I think, Republicans should be taking copious notes, because he is literally -- you just got to embrace common sense and be normal.
[07:45:09]
And he is calling out the fact that leftists in L.A. seem to be fine with letting people, you know, shoot up in front of schools. They are fine with dogs getting injected with fentanyl. They are doing nothing. And he is calling out some very obvious things that the vast majority of Americans can agree on, and he is going viral because of it. People want common sense.
MCGOWAN: Is this common sense for real? Like as an L.A. voter, as someone that will vote for mayor in Los Angeles, I'm telling you, this is the opposite of common sense. This is so embarrassing. I am so exhausted of being surrounded by this level of idiocy. It is not -- this guy is not practical.
MOYNIHAN: Let me guess.
MCGOWAN: Oh, this man's plan was to live up his reality fame. When that dwindled, he wanted to be an influencer. When that dwindled, he tried to make his wife a singer. It didn't work. So, now, he is going to be mayor of L.A. He says he is going to end corruption. How? He says he is going to have no more homeless. How? He says he is going to have renter's rights. How?
I'm so sick of having politicians come in here with zero experience, telling us they are going to fix everything. Have we learned nothing? It's embarrassing.
PHILLIP: Let me -- let me just play what his -- what his retort to you would be. He compares himself to none other than Barack Obama.
MCGOWAN: Yes. PHILLIP: Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPENCER PRATT, MAYORAL CANDIDATE, LOS ANGELES: I mean, look at Obama, he was a community organizer. I've won two community advocate awards for my -- nobody thought, why can Obama become a senator? And then, the president. He had no experience running the whole entire country, which is way bigger than L.A.
So, when people have passion and they care, and they have common sense, and they have humility to know, I don't know everything. But what I do know is all these very smart, successful people in Los Angeles want to get around me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Say what you will about Obama. He has more experience than Spencer Pratt.
And I also just -- I do wonder, Noah, like, realistically, you heard what Leigh just read off about his very checkered past. There is -- it's one thing to sort of tell it like it is, but it's another thing to actually be able to run a complex city. And do you really think that you should overlook his inexperience or his counter experience, it's not even inexperience. It's like things that might actually argue that he could not do this just because he says all the right things.
ROTHMAN: Well, saying all the right things is how you get elected.
PHILLIP: No, I mean --
ROTHMAN: And that is really -- number one.
PHILLIP: I am not -- I'm asking -- I'm asking you.
ROTHMAN: Yes, and all -- I'm sorry if I --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: We are talking about (INAUDIBLE) a $13 billion -- second largest city in the U.S.
PHILLIP: Hold on. Hold on a second.
MCGOWAN: It's not how it works.
PHILLIP: I'm just asking -- I'm just asking you if you realistically think --
ROTHMAN: Listen, hey, Leigh, I held the apple file there. That apple file was really big. And we are going to hear a lot of it, but Spencer Pratt keeps rising on the polls. However --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But do you realistically -- but do you realistically think that he can be mayor?
MCGOWAN: Why is he rising in the polls?
ROTHMAN: Why is he rising in the polls is the question, Leigh.
MCGOWAN: Why are you talking me like that? That's ludicrous.
ROTHMAN: If this guy is such a threat to the civic compact that you just outlined --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: No, he is a threat to the --
(CROSSTALK)
ROTHMAN: Why is he generating so much traction? Why is this happy warrior vibe registering? Why is the homelessness problem registering? Why is the failure to build registering? The red tape.
PHILLIP: I know. But, Noah, you are you are not answering the question I asked you.
ROTHMAN: I'm sorry. What's the question?
PHILLIP: It was, do you really think that he actually has the experience that would be required to do the job?
ROTHMAN: No.
PHILLIP: I mean --
ROTHMAN: Does it matter? I don't think voters care.
PHILLIP: That's all -- listen, that's what I was asking you.
ROTHMAN: I think voters are willing to take -- I think voters -- if voters --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So, if the answer is no, I mean, I think, it's reasonable for people to say like -- that what, what are we doing here?
(CROSSTALK)
ROTHMAN: Abby, I think voters -- and you can learn on the job. I think, voters in a dysfunctional municipality are willing to take risks, and the more risks they're willing to take is equivalent, directly proportional, in fact, to the level of dysfunction they are experiencing.
PHILLIP: Denver.
RIGGLEMAN: You know, the one thing that bothers me about America is when you have people that swim in fantasy-based sewage, you don't want them making policy decisions. And that's what this guy is. What she said, there is no way that anybody is going to be able to make practical decisions with that list right there. It's the same thing as having freaking caucus meetings on UFOs and alien abductions. It's the same thing. You don't want somebody like that actually in a position of power. You want adults in the room, and he is a child.
Anybody who actually dresses up as Batman and doesn't work out should not be elected. Done.
PHILLIP: OK. All right. And we'll leave it there.
Next for us, the panel's unpopular opinions, what they are not afraid to say out loud.
But first, a quick programming note, Kara Swisher travels to South Korea to uncover their secret to longevity.
[07:49:16]
The new episode. "KARA SWISHER WANTS TO LIVE FOREVER", Saturday at 9:00 p.m. on CNN, and the next day on the CNN app.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: We are back, and it's time for your unpopular opinions. Lydia, you are up first.
MOYNIHAN: Summer is coming up, and I'm all for sunscreen, but I think the sun is getting too much hate. I feel like I heard constantly, stay out of the sun. You need to get some sun. Get some vitamin D. Embrace it in moderation.
PHILLIP: Oh, my god. No.
MOYNIHAN: Just not with your face, mostly your leg.
PHILLIP: Wear sunscreen and take vitamin D supplements. Everybody should be doing that. Anyway, go ahead, Denver.
RIGGLEMAN: Oh, yes. Aliens are not sneaking into your bedroom. I just want everybody to know this.
MOYNIHAN: Thank you, Denver.
RIGGLEMAN: I know it's crazy. I know since 1947, the government is trying to prove it, 79 years trying to prove that aliens are out there and things of that nature. All we have are that aliens are demons. Read the Book of Enoch, right? And we also have a Congressional Caucus.
So, what I want to say, the only time we are going to have first contact is when the aliens serve us with a restraining order.
PHILLIP: Leigh.
MCGOWAN: Boy, I'm going to sound like an idiot after that. I think, pineapple is a legitimate pizza topping. I think people give it a lot of hate, I think it's ridiculous, it's delicious, you don't have to like it, but all they hate is very profound.
[07:55:07]
PHILLIP: I have to say that is actually a very popular take at this particular table.
MOYNIHAN: Yes.
ROTHMAN: Yes.
MCGOWAN: Thank you.
PHILLIP: Yes, I'm with you.
All right, Noah.
ROTHMAN: So, there is this phenomenon of GLP, one friendly restaurants, where you get very small portions because that's all they can handle. And I'm worried about this, because American heritage compels us to be able to -- I'm going to cling ever tightly to my giant excessive bowl of food. I think this is a populist issue. We should get MAGA into cheesecake factory and say, remember your heritage, America. It's this.
MOYNIHAN: Heritage Americans.
PHILLIP: you know, the only thing that would piss me off about the small portions is if they charge me big portion prices.
MOYNIHAN: That happens.
PHILLIP: For less food, which is -- yes, which happens.
MOYNIHAN: You want the doggie bag. Even if you don't finish it, takes some home.
PHILLIP: That's annoying.
All right, everyone. Thank you very much. Thanks for watching TABLE FOR FIVE.
You can catch me every weeknight at 10:00 p.m. Eastern with our "NEWSNIGHT" round table and anytime on your favorite social media, X, Instagram, and on TikTok.
But in the meantime, CNN's coverage continues right now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
