Return to Transcripts main page
Table For Five
DHS SECY: ICE Is "Turning Up The Heat" On Streets; DHS Secretary Pledges To Aggressively Pursue Voter Fraud; House Passes Bill To Make Daylight Saving Time Permanent; Mick Jagger: Singers Shouldn't Lecture Fans At Show; Springsteen: I Believe In Critical Patriotism. Aired 7-80a ET
Aired July 18, 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)
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Today, two fatal shootings. A stop and restart on traffic stops. And now doubts about what was actually inside a victim's van.
SEAN TEARE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, HARRIS, COUNTY, TEXAS: We don't believe that they are drugs.
SIDNER (voice-over): ISIS's plan to conduct operations quietly fails.
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: We're turning up the heat on the streets.
SIDNER (voice-over): Plus.
MULLIN: Those individuals can also be held accountable, even depending on how far it goes. Prison time.
SIDNER (voice-over): Just over three months from the midterms, states braced for new questions about how they conduct their elections. Also, can't get no satisfaction? Rock legend spar over whether politics belong in music.
MICK JAGGER, SINGER & SONGWRITER: Nobody wants to hear a whole song about politics.
BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, SINGER & SONGWRITER: Well, I believe in critical patriotism.
SIDNER (voice-over): And spring forward, fall back. The dreaded loss of an hour of sleep. Is Daylight Saving running out of time?
Here in the studio. Xochitl Hinojosa, Jason Rantz, Astead Herndon, and Cari Champion. It's the weekend. Join the conversation at TABLE FOR FIVE.
(END VIDEOTAPE) SIDNER (on camera): Hello, I'm Sara Sidner. Renewed scrutiny of ICE after the killings of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston and Johann Sebastian Duran Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, at the hands of ICE agents, both fatal encounters happened during ICE traffic stops, which have become a critical tool for agents trying to meet the Trump administration's goal of around 2000 arrests per day. The protests erupted in both states, calling on ICE to cease its operations.
In the face of that criticism, the agency initially appeared to listen, at least temporarily, pausing vehicle stops. But reversing that decision 24 hours later. A White House official tells CNN that change came at the direction of President Trump. The Homeland Security secretary defended his agency.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MULLIN: Let me clarify. When I say turn down the temperature, when I turn down the temperature with you guys, we're turning up the heat on the streets. We're out there working harder than we ever have because we've empowered our law enforcement to do their job.
What I'm trying to do is remove us from the headlines every single day. But everybody will be held accountable. I don't pick and choose which laws I'm going to enforce.
I enforce our nation's laws. That means I'll enforce it with our own agency, and I'll enforce it with the criminals on the streets.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: It all comes after the FBI said they found "A crystal-like substance consistent with methamphetamine inside Araujo's work van. His family is forcefully pushing back against that. An attorney also for his brother says, our understanding is that this was granulated salt, which is paired with lemon and water as a homemade electrolyte mix, used by outdoor workers in extreme Texas heat, not methamphetamine or any other illicit substance.
The Harris County district attorney, whose office has launched an investigation into the shooting, appears to agree, saying he does not believe drugs were found in the van. We also know that the mayor of Houston, who spoke earlier this week to Kate Bolduan, said that this was not drugs. So, let me start -- let's see.
Where should I start? Who wants to go first on this lovely Saturday morning? Look, let me start with you, Mrs. Hinojosa.
When you see the department saying these things, and you have a district attorney and the mayor contradicting what they're saying, what kind of confidence do people have in this agency right now when you have those kinds of disparities?
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Usually, federal law enforcement, they won't come out and run out and say something without having all of the evidence. And you oftentimes hear we have an ongoing investigation, and there is not more that we can say. And is usually the locals that come out first and rush to conclusions.
And the -- this is why the FBI has typically taken its time until it has more information about any sort of shooting or any incident. Under Kash Patel, what has happened is that they have tried to rush -- to frame the narrative a certain way. And it's not the way that you do law enforcement. I think we can say both in Houston and in Maine. These were massive law enforcement failures. And we have seen Kash Patel and our law enforcement agencies fail at every turn to try to get ahead of the narrative.
The other thing on this matter is that the FBI is supposed to work with state and local law enforcement to ensure that they have all the resources possible. And so, this back and forth doesn't necessarily help when it comes to this. Also, this is what happens whenever you have quotas. We have quotas people get shot and killed.
[07:05:13]
JASON RANTZ, HOST, SEATTLE RED RADIO: Well, there's also conflicts when you have sanctuary policies in place that prevent any kind of cooperation between local law enforcement and the federal government on anything related to ICE. I think that's an important piece of this. Whether or not that played any role in any of this, we don't know.
I think part of getting ahead of the narrative is because any time there's any kind of action, the response has always been that ICE is 100 percent to blame and that the person who might have ended up becoming a victim, or was the one who was the target for a reason, is somehow playing no role whatsoever in this. In both of these cases, we heard from ICE suggesting that both of the people who were shot and killed fled. And they used their vehicle to flee.
We should be having a conversation, at least in part, to say, do not do that. Stop doing that.
HINOJOSA: But the use of force policy specifically said --
RANTZ: We can have that conversation, too. I think that that's an important piece.
SIDNER: But you cannot shoot somebody -- unlike the movies, you cannot shoot someone if they flee unless their life in --
RANTZ: Well, if they're fleeing, unless --
SIDNER: Unless the officer --
RANTZ: -- if more like his or someone else's -- well.
SIDNER: -- life is in danger. So, fleeing is not a reason for extrajudicial killing. We should be clear about that, because I think times -- sometimes people see -- you know, you watch a lot of movies, a lot of film --
RANTZ: Yes.
SIDNER: -- and television shows. And you know, the cops --
RANTZ: And I've heard people say, you know, shoot at the tires. It doesn't --
SIDNER: Yes.
RANTZ: It doesn't quite work like that at all.
HINOJOSA: And I will -- and I will give Todd Blanche. Todd Blanche said in his hearing that we -- in the use of force policy that we -- that all law enforcement should follow. And I will say -- I will give the FBI, DEA, and the Marshal Service credit.
They follow the use-of-force policy. You do not see ICE agents killing people on the streets. This is happening. We are -- so, you don't see FBI agents. This is happening with ICE agents.
And there is a reason. And it is either because of training. They don't believe that they have to follow the use of force policy. It is, you know, Trump's sort of law enforcement agency to go after these undocumented immigrants. There are all sorts of questions about it.
RANTZ: Or they don't want to get hit by the vehicle that's fleeing.
HINOJOSA: But I don't understand why the FBI, DEA, and other law enforcement agencies aren't out killing innocent people.
CARI CHAMPION, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Correct.
HINOJOSA: I mean, that is just the reality.
CHAMPION: Correct.
HINOJOSA: They're out with killing the bad guys.
CHAMPION: To her point, this is the first time we're seeing this. Other agencies aren't just randomly killing people because they say that their --
RANTZ: Why is this a random killing?
CHAMPION: They are actually randomly killing people.
RANTZ: So, this is random --
CHAMPION: This is, in fact --
RANTZ: -- if they're going around and accusing people --
CHAMPION: - -because they have -- in fact, because they do have a quota in place of 2000 arrests per day. They are actually probably not trained to do their job effectively in the way in which they should. And they should be partnering with other agencies so that this job can be done effectively.
RANTZ: How is it random? CHAMPION: And it's random because you're targeting people and you're suggesting after the fact that after you murder --
RANTZ: What do you think target people --
CHAMPION: -- after you murder someone. Right? Because that's what this is.
RANTZ: This is a murder.
CHAMPION: After murdering someone. And then you say that they had methamphetamine, and then you're like, wait a minute -- wait a minute. It wasn't that. It was actually something, so they can stay hydrated because they're construction workers and they work out.
RANTZ: The FBI hasn't said --
CHAMPION: You have to then decide how to make this look good. We have seen this. If you sit up here and tell me straight face on a Saturday morning that you don't think that they've made mistakes and the people that.
RANTZ: No, I don't think they've -- I think they kind of --
CHAMPION: Can you explain to me what they've been doing right?
RANTZ: I don't think they've committed murder.
CHAMPION: When they have murdered these people.
RANTZ: But it's not murder.
CHAMPION: What's your definition of murder?
RANTZ: Well, the purposeful taking of life that's unlawful.
CHAMPION: Correct.
RANTZ: That is it -- have -- has anyone been charged with murder here?
CHAMPION: There have -- there have --
HINOJOSA: Of course not.
RANTZ: OK. Well --
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: They're also not investigating.
HINOJOSA: They're not investigating. And they're making --
RANTZ: So, your point is that this is a murder to you?
HINOJOSA: I'm not saying that.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: No, no. But there is not. Just to be clear, there is not a current investigation into the ICE officers in Texas and in Maine. They are --
RANTZ: Because it doesn't just happen. They're investigating what happened first. You have to get some of the details first.
HINOJOSA: No, that's not -- that's not the way that it happened.
RANTZ: Of course, that is. That is how it happens.
HINOJOSA: FBI usually opens a civil rights investigation anytime there's a police-involved shooting, except for in this administration.
ASTEAD HERNDON, HOST & EDITORIAL DIRECTOR, VOX: I think it's kind of ridiculous to take this in isolation. ICE has lost credibility over the scope of time --
SIDNER: Correct.
HERNDON: -- seeing that we have seen them blatantly mischaracterize actions, even situations of people where they have claimed they're using their car as a vehicle or as a weapon. And it turns out the video has disproven that.
So, I don't think that anyone in good faith is taking ICE and credibility in its isolation here, because they've lost that over a scope of time. I also think the quota point is really important here. They have a directive from the president and from the administration to really cast a wide net, and they've specifically done this with ICE and the DHS or other agencies, because they want these cowboy tactics.
They want to turn up the heat in the streets, as the DHS secretary is mentioning. And so this is, I think, a logical result of some of that. I think after Minnesota, there was a sense that maybe the administration was going to step back on some of this immigration enforcement.
But whether it is the targeting of Haitians, whether it is the arrests -- quota we see, whether it's a July month right now, that's going to be the most amount of rest we have in any month of the second Trump administration. They have contrib -- continued to double and triple down on an unpopular policy that most Americans don't think is in their interest.
SIDNER: Let me do ask you about the way in which ICE is being viewed now. Because, as you just mentioned in Minneapolis, for example, the DHS secretary at the time, Kristi Noem, made a statement that turned out not to be true. It was a lie. And she kept saying it until there was so much video out there that you just could not dispute it anymore.
[07:10:09]
In this case, initially, DHS had said they were targeting the gentleman in Maine. And then it turned out he was not the target of the investigation. And so, when you keep having these disparities over and over and over again, how do you say to the public, we are trustworthy, we're just doing our jobs, we are going to do it right? And if there is a problem, there is going to be an investigation because that also does not happen in the ways that it has in the past with ICE.
RANTZ: Yes, two points. One, I think they should be better at acknowledging when mistakes are made. I -- while I understand their efforts to get ahead of certain narratives, like I completely get it. I don't always think that that's the right thing to do.
SIDNER: Yes.
RANTZ: On the other hand, I would also point out that I think if we had media coverage of literally every other case that has been successful, there wouldn't be the kind of disparities in the minds of the American people. They do these arrests every single day.
To your point, I think it's a valid criticism, actually, of just going with whatever the quota ends up being, 2000. I think it can lead to mistakes. But also, we've got 1999 that do not get covered at all and are done by the books, and there are no mistakes made, at least any that are relevant to criticize.
And I think that that's a piece of that. The other issue is also reminding people when we're targeting someone who's got a warrant out for their arrest, for example. That is the right thing. We are supposed to arrest those people.
SIDNER: Just lastly. When you hear from the DHS secretary that the heat is going to be turned up -- I mean, I remember this playing out in Minneapolis, where you had Greg Bovino on the ground, and then Tom Homan came in and actually turned the heat down. So, Cari, do you feel like at this point, when you hear turn up the heat, that things are going to get much more complicated and much more difficult in cities around the country when you hear that from the head of DHS?
CHAMPION: Well, that's what I was going to ask you about. Because in that -- in that that soundbite that we just -- that clip we played --
SIDNER: Yes.
CHAMPION: He said, why don't we turn up the heat there, but with you all?
SIDNER: Yes.
CHAMPION: What does that mean? And here is my thing. I understand that they have a quota to fill. I am very curious as to why the president feels as if this is the policy which is clearly unpopular with many Americans, if you were to take a simple poll. You just don't want to fear for your lives when you're in certain areas.
And yes, they are being targeted. And yes -- but at the same time, honestly, Sara -- I mean, if we're being honest, there's a stereotype. There is a certain type that they're looking for specifically.
So, people are not feeling safe in their communities. These same people are law-abiding citizens. They may -- there could be a percentage of these people who are, in fact, criminals. No one is saying that.
But by and large, it doesn't appear to be that way. And if you aren't -- if you don't look the part right -- because they now have the right to arrest you by what you look like. So, for me, as someone who could be considered maybe an immigrant, you don't know who I -- where I come from.
I'm an African American woman born here. But you could -- here in New York, it could be anything. When you say turn up the heat, that makes me feel as if I am in danger. There could be something wrong with me walking down the street day in -- day in and day out doing my job.
It makes me nervous for where we are as a society. These -- and I've said this about ICE over and over again. I know that these people think they're doing their job. But I know by and large, you see these videos on Instagram, you see a social media showing folks who are ill- prepared to do a job that requires a certain level of certain sensitivity, a certain level of understanding, a certain level of situational awareness.
And they don't employ any of those. And that's what's so unfortunate about a policy that I think most Americans would agree with. No one wants someone in this country who is committing crimes. No one wants anyone in this country that it -- that makes America less safe.
SIDNER: I had -- the homeland security secretary has a message to state officials cooperate with their election security plans, or you could face fines or even potentially prison time. Plus, the Stone's frontman and the boss. Big disagreement on the role of politics at their concerts. So, who's right? Is it shut up and sing? We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:19:04]
SIDNER: All right. On Thursday, Donald Trump gave a primetime address on federal elections -- addressing federal elections and alleging vulnerabilities exist in American election systems. Trump offered little in the form of new -- brand new evidence. And the speech did not make for huge news as the declassified documents the administration released largely discussed vulnerabilities that have been known about for years.
But just months away from the midterms, the speech pointed to Donald Trump's focus. Hours later, DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin threatened state election officials. Mullin warned the states use the administration's tool for identifying non-citizen voters or face consequences.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MULLIN: The states have to do their part. I will tell you. The states that choose not to participate with the state program, and they choose not to participate in securing the elections, we will make sure that we make those states a priority.
If the election officials, once we gave them the information they need to secure their elections, and they chose not to, then those individuals can also be held accountable by fines, by penalties, and even, depending on how far it goes, prison time.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[07:20:14]
SIDNER: Mr. Herndon, I'm going to start with you. There is a threat of penalties. There's a threat of fines. There's also a threat of potentially losing your freedom.
HERNDON: Yes.
SIDNER: And as someone who has covered elections and who has watched all this happen -- I mean, what do you make of this when there is no new evidence that there is a real problem when it comes to the outcomes of elections?
HERNDON: I think, again, the context of Donald Trump matters. And so, we could -- we should see this in conjunction with his consistent efforts to undermine faith in elections. He has never lost an election without contesting the results.
He has made pretty clear, whether it be on Truth Social or throughout this summer, that he frankly sees the SAVE Act and his priority of that as a precursor to this midterms. And I think has created a pretense to not only, you know, what some folks are worried about, about declaring a national emergency, but that minimum, even talking about things like not seeding people if they were to be elected. Those are all in the realm of possibility.
I think we should take him at his word for it. But I think, specific to the speech last night, I was kind of reminded of, like, how much that's falling on deaf ears, even among some Republicans. The reason that the SAVE Act is not passing is because of Republican opposition to it. And even if you're looking through kind of conservative media today, they're not taking him at his same call anymore.
CHAMPION: Yes.
HERNDON: But I think that just speaks to how people have tried to deal with, particularly, second-term Trump and the hands-off approach, thinking that as his power wanes or as he's in a lame duck era, that Republicans can just kind of hope he fades away. I would just caution them against that in the ways that he has refused to exit stage left over and over again. And I think these election denial claims specifically should be taken with seriousness.
SIDNER: Are Republicans concerned about what they're hearing from him -- in particular, there are so many other issues. The war in Iran, the economy, especially because Americans care most about that. And almost every election, that's usually number one. Is this a mistake for him to be going down this road again?
RANTZ: No. I actually -- for -- so, my concern with his comments in the past, because he did lose the last election or the previous election --
SIDNER: Yes.
RANTZ: -- is that Republicans have been more concerned about not voting because they believe that elections are stolen. And I come from a state -- Washington State, where it's a hundred percent mail-in voting. And I hear from people who say they're not going to vote because they don't trust the system. That kills me.
SIDNER: But Donald Trump himself again said --
RANTZ: So, my point --
SIDNER: He wants to get rid of mail-in voting.
RANTZ: Yes -- no, I --
SIDNER: -- with few exceptions.
RANTZ: With a few exceptions. My point is, though, in what he's doing, what he announced, and what we got today from Secretary Mark Mullin or yesterday from Mark Mullin was actually going to give confidence to Republican voters that they are paying attention, that they are going to look at the databases. They are going to make sure that if people are registered illegally, they're not actually voting.
I think that that's a good thing. That should actually, for everyone, give them a little bit more trust in the system. What gives people a lack of trust is that you had a couple of hundred thousand that we know of, potentially, who have been registered to vote, and they're ineligible to vote.
That should not happen. And it should be apolitical to look at that and simply say, we should come up with some bipartisan solutions to ensure this doesn't happen.
HERNDON: It's just wild to pretend that this isn't the president who, like, got on the phone with Brad Raffensperger.
CHAMPION: Yes.
HERNDON: He said, find me more votes. It's literally the same guy.
RANTZ: Is it fair, though -- is it fair that you don't think --
HERNDON: It's too -- it's too wild to see those things.
RANTZ: no. But is it fair --
HERNDON: That's a totally disconnected event. That's not going to be something I'd say --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: I don't care about that.
HERNDON: Yes.
RANTZ: But my point is, do you not see that there's a problem if someone is getting registered to vote illegally?
HINOJOSA: So, I would say --
RANTZ: You don't think that's a problem?
HERNDON: I'm going to just watch you because I'm not going -- because I'm not going to actually --
RANTZ: Yes, because you don't think that's a problem. And that I think --
HERNDON: I'm talking about Donald Trump's actions --
RANTZ: No, I know. You don't want to talk about the action issue.
HERNDON: -- from the public -- from the White House, which is not an equivalent action between --
RANTZ: Because you don't want to talk about the issue.
HERNDON: OK.
RANTZ: And it is a fair question that you don't take seriously.
HINOJOSA: See, I think Democrats --
SIDNER: Xochitl had it easier.
HINOJOSA: I think Democrats would come to the table and work with Donald Trump if he had credibility when it came to voting, but he doesn't. And the problem is, is that he only cares about the elections that he loses or his party loses. And that one of those is coming up.
And all of a sudden, just a few months before the election, he wants to implement rules that would end up decreasing the number of people that end up voting. And by that, I mean, like, proper documentation that people will not be able to obtain, et cetera. If Donald Trump had never tried to stop the certification of elections and committed crimes, frankly, as a grand jury believe that he did.
And if it would have gone to trial, the Justice Department was pretty certain that it would -- they would have been able to succeed. If he -- if that stuff would have never happened and he was about election security and wanted to work with Democrats with it, I think they would be willing to do that.
[07:25:00] I think that they would also be willing to do like opening -- making sure that there is enough early voting, making sure that Election Day is a federal holiday, other ways that we can increase the right to vote. But right now, everything that he is doing is pointing fingers, claiming fraud when there isn't fraud, when his Justice Department has not prosecuted fraud. He is out there trying to limit mail voting.
He -- everything that he is trying to do -- he's trying to go after states. I had no idea that the Republican Party did not believe that states should run their elections, and that they believe that there should be more federal government involvement in that. I didn't know that that was a long-term position of the Republican Party, but all of a sudden, it is. All of these things should show that there's like a distrust from Donald Trump.
CHAMPION: Yes.
HINOJOSA: And it's because he does not want the congressional oversight. He does -- this is all about Donald Trump. He doesn't --
RANTZ: Do the message you will disagree with, not necessarily the message?
HINOJOSA: I think -- well, I mean, I think his intentions are not that he wants a safe election.
RANTZ: Yes.
HINOJOSA: His intention --
RANTZ: But the underlying issue.
HINOJOSA: His intention is to win.
SIDNER: Yes.
HINOJOSA: And that is the problem -- that is the problem with this entire thing.
RANTZ: So, the messenger. So, the reason why I bring that up --
HINOJOSA: Then, I should try -- I'm sorry. Actually, I -- the messenger --
RANTZ: This is why.
HINOJOSA: -- and the Republican Party.
RANTZ: So, the Republicans.
HINOJOSA: The Republican Party -- well, the Republican Party continuing to go along with his silly game of fraud. And the fact that they will not go out there and say that acknowledge that he won the 2020 election, the fact that they won't put -- push back on his lies on fraud, the fact that they continue to support him even after January 6, the fact that they were now all of a sudden they're fine with the pardons, all of these things as a whole are now the Republican Party. They all own it.
RANTZ: So, then you can't bring the Democrats because you're saying that --
CHAMPION: No, I'm saying there was an --
RANTZ: -- you want everyone to come together. But now, it seemed they can't.
HINOJOSA: There was an opportunity to do that.
RANTZ: So, no more. There's no opportunity for Democrats and Republicans?
HINOJOSA: I don't know. I hope that the next Republican president can actually be a trusted figure in this space that can actually work with Democrats.
RANTZ: I trust Marco Rubio. That'll be fine.
HINOJOSA: I think that --
SIDNER: Well, Marco Rubio, that's what I'm hearing.
CHAMPION: Honestly, I think the American people in general -- I think when you have these presidential addresses, it should be for something that is important and new and informative. If you are going to break into programing and you're going to say, I need America's attention, it should be for something that affects all Americans in a real, honest, and true way. If you have the power to do that as a leader, do it with what I would hope would be an honest intention.
SIDNER: And in the end, there was no big call to action. But we are seeing some actions now from DHS to states, particularly democratically run states. We're going to end this conversation with you having the last word there on that one, Cari.
Up next. The clock is ticking on a change that could affect every American. The new move in Congress that could change the way Americans keep time. We'll explain.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:32:21]
SIDNER: This is often a hotly debated subject. Americans could soon stop springing forward and falling back. A bipartisan bill to make daylight saving time permanent cleared the House this week. It would keep the country on the current schedule with the sun rising and setting later in the day. President Trump backs the move, writing this: "It's time that people can stop worrying about the 'clock,' not to mention all the work and money that is spent on this ridiculous, twice-yearly production. It will also be a very nice win for the Republican Party. Take it!"
The Sunshine Protection Act now heads to the Senate. OK, first of all, I'm not sure this has a chance of passing the Senate. So, let's please put that. We don't know. We don't know.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don't know.
SIDNER: We don't know if it is, but it may not have a chance of passing the Senate.
(CROSSTALK)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Who would --
SIDNER: But I am -- I want to do a quick poll around the table, as to do any of you like the way things are now in most states, with the exception of a couple, including Arizona.
RANTZ: Well, trick question. That is a trick question, because I agree. Like changing clocks two times a year, it's awful. It's annoying. However, going to permanent daylight saving time is the worst thing for your health, health and for your sleep.
I live in Seattle. We would have sunrise at 9:00 a.m. in the winters. That is awful. Your body runs on a clock that is determined by the sun.
SIDNER: Right.
RANTZ: And so, you want it to be light early in the morning so you can actually get up, and you want it to get dark later at night, so, you can turn off and go to sleep. It's such a horrible idea. I hate this idea.
SIDNER: Is this something that you think that Democrats and Republicans could actually come together about? Maybe?
HINOJOSA: Yes, I do think so. I will say, as a mother of a toddler, I speak for all mothers of toddlers that the changing back and forth is just terrible for our lives.
Like, it is -- it is a terrible thing for children. It is not great. We need to figure this out. Do it for the moms. Do something for the moms. Change something for the moms.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Do something for the --
HINOJOSA: You got to do something for the moms.
CHAMPION: Do it for the moms. OK.
HINOJOSA: Yes, yes, yes.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: I want to throw something in there, because there are some -- there is some other folks that are very concerned, and these are agricultural districts. These are farmers worrying about sort of long winter mornings and how it's going to affect them.
Is this sort of a -- one of those issues that each state is going to have a different thought on it, and therefore, it stays the same?
CHAMPION: Yes, I think it -- well, look, I don't know. I can't -- I can't speak to all that. But I am in agreement with the idea of mornings starting somewhere between 8:00 and 9:00.
SIDNER: Yes.
CHAMPION: That sounds insane to me. I can't even speak to what other farmers are thinking or what they're -- yes. But personally, too, I mean, I agree with you. I think, physically that will be such a toll to take on someone's body.
[07:35:00]
And the late nights. Like, who wants to deal with that? As a mom, do you want to get your babies to bed?
HINOJOSA: Yes, I don't. I don't.
CHAMPION: Correct. So, that's it. We --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Yes. I just -- I just don't want to (INAUDIBLE).
CHAMPION: We have decided here at the table this is a wrap. We are not going to do it.
HERNDON: Yes. I feel kind of agnostic about it. I'm happy to defer to the moms. I'm happy to defer to whoever. Oh, I -- oh, I --
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Yes, right.
CHAMPION: Are you really agnostic about it?
HERNDON: Yes, I mean, I have to say, like, in a random way, I kind of like the figuring it out a couple times a year. I mean, like you know, the night in which you are out and then you learn you have another hour on flight. Like there is kind of fun moment to it.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: That's true.
CHAMPION: There is a moment to it.
HERNDON: Like, you get the extra credit bonus evening every now and then.
SIDNER: -- microwave.
CHAMPION: Yes, yes.
HERNDON: So, I'm going to say, like, I have some fun with daylight savings, but not enough to like, you know, mess up folks with real children.
CHAMPION: Yes.
HERNDON: So --
CHAMPION: With real human beings.
HERNDON: I've had these children first --
SIDNER: I do want to throw up. So, we -- they are obviously polling on this, and most Americans want to end the clock change. Only 12 percent of U.S. adults favor the current system, according to the AP-NORC Poll. 47 percent are opposed, and 40 percent are neutral.
Now, those are not huge numbers. I mean, it could be you know 70 percent. But it seems that you all are in the same vein as most of America that they are tired of this sort of back and forth. But some states will really get hit.
RANTZ: Washington will get rid of it, and that's awful. And I get the argument, like, we love it that it's 10:00 at night and the sun is still out.
I do too, but that's not good for your sleep or your health. It's awful.
CHAMPION: And also, we have other things to deal with. I just don't understand if this is a real issue right now. Let's --
HERNDON: It is kind of funny though.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Instead -- it is an easy -- it's an easier issue than everything else.
RANTZ: We been doing this forever in Washington.
HERNDON: Yes, that's what I was saying. Like, there -- you know, the economic productivity is like --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: The black out curtain industry is going to make a lot money.
HERNDON: I don't know if this is top of the list, as all of it.
CHAMPION: Let's table this until we get America back to its tract.
SIDNER: We are going to table this at TABLE FOR FIVE. Coming up, a rock icon has a hot take on a growing debate. Should concert goers get music or a political message? We will debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:41:40]
SIDNER: You can't always get what you want. But rock legend Mick Jagger says what fans deserve is a live show without a lecture. In an interview with The New York Times, the Rolling Stones frontman drew a contrast with Bruce Springsteen, saying his job on stage is to give audiences an escape.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MICK JAGGER, SINGER AND SONGWRITER: My job in the in the live music world is just -- those people that come is to have the best time they possibly can, and for two hours or whatever it is to forget all their problems and problems of the world and their mortgages.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Now, Jagger says he is not opposed to politics in his music. He just prefers them in the lyrics and in small doses.
Cari, I'm going to start with you.
CHAMPION: Yes.
SIDNER: Look, music has been used as protest for I don't remember when it was then.
CHAMPION: Just beginning of time. Yes.
SIDNER: Yes. But what he is saying here is that when people make comments on stage, I think, and when they get in, delve into the politics of the day, that that's not what audiences want, and that basically just play the music and let people enjoy themselves. How do you -- well, there is.
CHAMPION: Two things here that I I'll take him for. No disrespect, I think, he is a legend in his -- in his own right, and I'm sure that his fans love what he does, and how he sings and what he gives them.
SIDNER: Clearly. Yes.
CHAMPION: He is the man in that right.
However, there is another world that he may not live in. It is a privilege to be able to step away from the world, and the politics, and how it treats you, and how you feel you are being treated. It is a privilege to close your eyes and not and not really acknowledge injustice. That is a privilege that many of us do not have.
And so, as a result, everyone can't just shut up and sing. And if that is your choice, right? Mick, have at it. God bless you. Continue. But there are those like a Bruce Springsteen, or I even think back to when I was a kid growing up, and my mother would play Marvin Gaye.
(CROSSTALK)
Marvin Gaye. Yes.
CHAMPION: And remind me of how his music infused an entire community. Stevie Wonder, for that matter. I think of some of the greatest hits. While you may not even know what you are singing, because they are so talented, you are also inspiring an entire culture and a movement.
And so, I don't think that it's fair for someone who has such a huge platform to determine what it should be. It should be room for all. It's not an either/or. It should be room for all.
SIDNER: What do you think about these comments? I mean, of course, there is going to be a lot of talk around this, because it is Mick Jagger who has been doing this for decades and decades. He is an icon in the business, but times are rough for a lot of people out there, and a lot of people have a lot of things to say, artists included.
HINOJOSA: They have a lot of things to say. And I went to the Bruce Springsteen concert, and I was crying when he was talking about Alex Pretti and Renee Good, and it was one of those moments. It's two Americans that died. Essentially, he was there to honor them, and I think that that is OK when you are talking about Americans who have died, who, in terrible circumstances.
I do think that the fact that with, you know, if you are a celebrity and you have the mic and you have that voice and you have that platform to use it for good. Many of them fundraise. Many of them, when there are flood victims, when there are natural disasters, et cetera, to use it when something is going on in America. I think, that's their right to do it. I do think that there are times when people believe that, you know, why isn't -- why didn't Taylor Swift say more, for example.
[07:45:06]
Or why, you know, you know what's happening. There are -- there are some -- there are some artists that do get some criticism for not necessarily coming out for using their powers for good.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Using their powers for good.
CHAMPION: Yes.
HINOJOSA: And I will say that I respect those that are willing to speak their voice, and some artists are scared to speak out. They don't want to be targeted by Trump. They want -- they believe that that could be detrimental to their career, and that's also sad.
SIDNER: Let me -- let us all kind of listen to Bruce Springsteen, and with the caveat that I was in literally the streets of Minneapolis after the killing of Alex Pretti, and Bruce came to Minneapolis, and there was a concert that he put on in this small venue where Prince played many of his songs that everybody knows, First Avenue.
And he is been asked about some of his work as a person who is both an artist and someone who is very politically active. Here is what he says.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, SINGER AND SONGWRITER: I believe in critical patriotism. I believe that's the definition of a patriot, you know. That you love your country so much that you are willing to look at it clearly, recognize its faults, encourage it to be a better place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: Everybody gets their say. How do you see this, where politics has very much been a part of art, in whatever form?
RANTZ: Sure. Yes, and it's their art. They can do what they want with that. I think the context of Mick Jagger's comments were more around going to a concert and having it just sort of come out of nowhere, and I do think that that's kind of annoying for all sorts of different reasons. I've never gone to a concert and really cared what they had to say about political issues in a general sense.
If you are going to a show, if you are going to a Bruce Springsteen show, you know he is political.
SIDNER: Right.
RANTZ: That's not going to be shocking to you. But if I am going to like an M83 or Reliant K concert --
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Yes.
RANTZ: And all of a sudden, they are getting into politics, like -- OK, like, you get to hold that view, and I'm not necessarily going to be upset for a view that you have if I like your music, but it does take you out of the moment, and it does become a little bit of a distraction.
And as long as any of the artists on either side -- as long as they are OK with the consequences of getting more involved politically, there is going to be pushback from the side that's not in agreement with you.
OK, you can get to do that. It's up to you.
CHAMPION: But it's not the hard time believing any form of art is separated from politics.
I have a hard time believing any discipline is separated from politics. I think that we have, in theory, we would like to say shut up and dribble, shut up in sing. But it's just not true. We have politics interlaced in every single aspect of what we do as Americans, day in and day out.
RANTZ: I think artist say that -- I mean, artist would say that they are not (INAUDIBLE)
HERNDON: Mick Jagger made a political music too. I mean, he is talking about --
SIDNER: Is that true?
RANTZ: Is that --
SIDNER: Yes, yes.
HERNDON: --political music too. I'm saying, he is talking about, I think, at a live show, and I think his flavor of how he wants you to do it.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Making a statement. Yes.
HERNDON: He wants you to do it in your lyrics. He wants you to do it in your songs rather than kind of on the stage.
To me, it sounds kind of a difference between kind of British and American. Like, I can see the kind of Bruce Springsteen specific offense by Donald Trump, and, you know, Mick Jagger sounds a little keep commentary on to me. But like, you know --
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Keep commentary on.
HERNDON: You know, and -- but I also just think that this is a feature and a debate that's been playing out in music and in art for a long time.
SIDNER: All right. Up next, the panel's unpopular opinions. What they are not afraid to say out loud. Hello.
First, the royal family. From their clothing and corgis to their priceless jewels and castles, go behind why Americans seem so obsessed.
The CNN flashed out "ROYAL FEVER: WHY AMERICANS CAN'T QUIT THE CROWN". Saturday at 8:00 p.m. Eastern on CNN or the CNN app.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[07:53:23]
SIDNER: All right. It's time for your unpopular opinions. You get to go first. HERNDON: h, I think America 250 was kind of a flop. I think that there was three ingredients -- the three ingredients in our flop-a-roo. The first was Trump in D.C. in the kind of concerts there, nobody showed up. The second was our U.S. soccer team losing too early, and the third was the royal wedding Taylor Swift tried to have in New York, which was kind of tacky.
HINOJOSA: You are killing me. Killing me.
RANTZ: Oh.
SIDNER: All right. You know what, Swifties --
CHAMPION: I can't close out -- I can't close on that last one.
SIDNER: Don't hurt him. Don't hurt him, Swifties.
CHAMPION: I don't. I can't close out on that last one. But I --
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Cari.
CHAMPION: But not bad. I can't close out on that last one, but not bad.
OK, this is something that I have been thinking personally and professionally. You know, how they have -- I'm a dog lover. I love dogs, right? And so, you know, how they have the dog whistles, and when the dogs are, you know, misbehaving, they blow the whistle so to calm the dog down and or stop it from some sort of mischievous, nefarious activity. We need that for humans.
And so, when we are sitting around this debate table.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: I don't know that's unpopular.
CHAMPION: Is it really -- we are sitting around the debate table, and you know, someone is lying. You just blow the whistle, and they stop mid-sentence. They have to buffer their thoughts, and then, bring it back. Like it would hold us accountable in a way in which I feel like we have lost all accountability. So --
SIDNER: On blow the whistle.
CHAMPION: Blow the whistle.
SIDNER: Sorry, music.
All right. We are talking about music.
CHAMPION: I love music. Also, political.
SIDNER: Very. All right. HINOJOSA: People seem to have some strong reactions to mint chocolate chip ice cream. People either want chocolate or they want cookies and cream or vanilla. I'm saying this also because my son is watching and hates and despises mint chocolate chip ice cream, and so does my father.
But apparently, people really hate it. So -- OK, I love it.
(CROSSTALK)
CHAMPION: I love it.
[07:55:01]
HERNDON: Yes, yes, yes. Is slime -- table.
HINOJOSA: Maybe it's gone.
CHAMPION: You got to step outside.
HINOJOSA: These are my people.
CHAMPION: Your tribe is here.
HINOJOSA: These are my people.
CHAMPION: Your tribe is here.
SIDNER: Yes.
RANTZ: Mine is specifically to my conservative friends. I'm looking forward to seeing The Odyssey. I generally don't like stunt casting, and I'll call it out as distracting, I guess. But Christopher Nolan is a brilliant filmmaker. I've loved pretty much all of his movies. He is one of the best, and I will be seeing it later tonight. So, I --
CHAMPION: I heard it was amazing.
SIDNER: Oh, it's just great.
CHAMPION: I heard that it was best. They said line up the Oscars. Everyone says it's great.
RANTZ: Yes.
SIDNER: Oh, all right.
RANTZ: I'll be honest with my review afterwards. But I'm looking forward.
CHAMPION: OK.
SIDNER: All right.
CHAMPION: We are looking for --
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: We'll have to -- we'll see if that opinion is popular or unpopular the next time once everyone gets to look at the movie. But I am going to go see it too. It looks really good.
All right. Everyone, thank you guys for being here.
CHAMPION: Thank you.
SIDNER: And thank you for watching TABLE FOR FIVE. You can catch me and Abby, of course, every weekend morning from 7:00 to 10:00 a.m. Eastern.
But in the meantime, CNN's coverage continues right now.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
