Return to Transcripts main page

S.E. Cupp Unfiltered

President Of Brazil Authorizes Military To Fight Amazon Fires; Trump Blasts The Fed, China Amid Economic Red Flags; Trump Courts Confusion On Background Check Position; Biden Pitches Electability Edge, Call For A Movement; CNN Poll: 54 Percent Of Dems Say Top Priority Is Choosing A Candidate With A Strong Chance Of Beating Trump; Members Resign After Conservative LGBTQ Group Endorses Trump; One Year Later: Remembering John McCain. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired August 24, 2019 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

S.E. CUPP, CNN HOST: If it feels like the world is on fire, that's because it literally is. New reports that yesterday a U.S. plane made its way to South America to help local authorities fight the massive fires ripping through the Amazon, the world's largest rainforest.

The Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro finally caved to global pressure to authorize the country's military to assist in putting the fires out, that after Bolsanaro initially accused his critics of intentionally starting the fires to make him look bad.

Chaos, delayed action, conspiracy theories, sound familiar? Well, here at home, there are metaphorical fires to put out too. President Trump lit a blow torch to the U.S. economy this week shortly before he left for France for the G7 economic summit.

Despite increasingly grim predictions by economists and experts that our rocket economy could be in for some serious trouble thanks to steel worker job cuts, wild deficit increases, an escalating terror for, and more, Trump spent the week insisting it's all the Fed's fault.

Yesterday on the eve of the first day of the G7, not coincidentally, China called Trump's bluff announcing $75 billion in new tariffs on U.S. goods. In response, Trump went on a Twitter tirade hereby ordering American companies to leave China and implying his Fed chair is a bigger enemy than China's president.

Right after that, the stock market plummeted, eventually dropping by over 600 points. So, naturally, Trump announced more tariffs on China because that will fix it.

Here is what he said when his erratic scorched earth decrees were responsible for the market crash.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Not at all. Not at all. Because if you look at from November 9th, the day after the election, we're up 50 percent or more. We're up many, many points. We were at about 16 or 17,000. We are at 25,000. So don't tell me about 600 points.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: So here is tonight's headline. Better start practicing your stop, drop and roll, because the arsonist-in-chief is just getting started.

You can sense his desperation, his panic. His own aides inside the White House warn of increasingly erratic behavior. Like what you asked, well, there was the tantrum over not being able to buy Greenland, suggesting that he would buy Greenland in the first place, implying he might just be the second coming of God, changing his stance on gun control three separate times, daring his Fed chair to resign. That was all just this week.

What's the president got -- what's got the president so out of sorts? Well, here is the deal. Trump's re-election is hanging on by a single thread, the economy. And it's good, historically low unemployment, the average American workers pay is growing, more than 3 plus percent a year, consumer and business confidence has surged, there are fewer Americans on food stamps.

But a climbing debt and deficit and a constant threat of raising tariffs is jeopardizing Trump's rosy economic outlook, and he knows it. And without the economy, voters are left to vote on, well, everything else, the good, the very, very bad and the decidedly ugly.

So the question is, in trying to convince his voters not to panic over the economy, is his panicking making things worse?

Joining me now are New York Times Opinion Columnist, Farhad Manjoo and CNN Senior Political Analyst, Mark Preston.

Mark, I want to start with you. This was one hell of a week. What are folks on the Hill saying about Trump's out of control behavior this week? Are they pinning it to economic anxieties or do you think else is going on.

MARK PRESTON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: No. It certainly comes down to the economic anxieties. Because as we've seen in this last poll that CNN put out this past week that his strength continues to be the economy. And it also continues to be strong with Democrats, as well in independents are backing him on that.

Now, we are seeing a slowdown right now. We are seeing companies and businesses start to pull back money. We're not seeing it from consumer spending but we're certainly seeing from the business side of things. That is a telltale sign that we could be heading down this road, and he is trying to stave it off. The problem is you can't stave off a recession. You could only exacerbate it. And in some ways, you've got to wonder is he exacerbating it. CUPP: Well, Trump seems to really believe that the numbers don't mean as much as the way that people feel. And that really goes to those poll numbers that you're talking about, a majority of people feel like as if the economy is good, 65 percent according to a new CNN poll say current economic conditions are good.

So do you think that we are making too much of his crazy antics, of people mostly feel as though the economy is good?

[18:05:02]

PRESTON: No. Because -- I mean, look, if you go back to what he's trying to do, he's talking about trying to put in a payroll tax. That's done for political reasons. What he's trying to do is trying to put more money in the consumer's hands right now to show, look, you have money to spend.

You have money spend. And if I can lower this payroll tax, that's going to affect everybody and people are going to love me for it. But to the point of what happens to the deficit and then what's going to happen to social security, Medicare, these entitlement programs, that aren't going to get funded correctly.

So I do think when you're talking about Republican politics right now, is we're not really seeing a whole lot of leadership from conservative Republicans who are trying to tilt (ph) the line on spending.

CUPP: Farhad, you wrote an interesting column in "The New York Times" this week. I want to get to it. But, first, I want to go back. You wrote a book called, True Enough, Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society. Now, so our viewers are clear this book was written in 2008, long before, quote, unquote, fake news and a president that routinely lies.

I wonder what you thought of Trump's wacky week and so far as how it makes sorting through the distractions to find the facts even harder?

FARHAD MANJOO, OP-ED COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Yes. I mean, it was incredible. I think we expect in America that kind of the economy is real. It's sort of a real world fact. It's kind of -- we feel it in the job numbers. We feel it in kind of the people around us. And here, you have this president who's sort of muddying all of the economic data, muddying the facts about the economy. And I think people are left to wonder kind of what's happening in the real world.

You're right. I think people do feel good about the economy right now. But as I argue in my column, I think that, you know, can change quickly because the recovery hasn't been very good for most people over the last ten years. Most of the gains have gone to the rich. And so you have this -- I think people's good feelings about the economy can change very quickly because people have only recently started to get higher wages. And we have seen kind of some of gains starting to go to the middle class.

And if that ends, I think people will be really, really upset with Trump, with businesses and, you know, a lot could change. CUPP: Were you -- Farhad, were you surprised when Brazil's president said the wildfires in the Amazon were staged?

MANJOO: I mean, no. He is a very -- you know, as we've seen around the world, there are these Trumpy characters who have been trying this new kind of propaganda where they just say completely factless things and, you know, it works.

And the fires are one of those things where, you know, it's a complicated -- it's a huge area, it's a complicated thing to report on. And so it's relatively easy to kind of lie about it.

And I was more surprised actually that he did an about face, that he did a mistake.

CUPP: Yes, that he abandon the lie, right.

MANJOO: Yes.

CUPP: Mark, do we know what is the plan from the Trump campaign to deal with some of the economic storm clouds or is this going to be it, this is the plan, chaos forever?

PRESTON: Of course. I mean, if you have some kind of plan that's put into place, that's going to disrupt the whole fuel that fires up Donald Trump every morning, chaos, chaos, chaos, obstruct, obfuscate, lie. I mean, that's all he is going to do for the next, you know, year-and-a-half as we head into the November election. I'm not telling anything that nobody already does already know.

CUPP: So, Farhad, in your new piece, you write of CEOs, quote, they are worried that when the next recession breaks, revolution might too. This could be the hour that the ship comes in. The coming recession might finally prompt the masses to sharpen their pitch forks and demand a reckoning. What do you mean by that?

MANJOO: I mean, it would usher in, I think, the CEO's worst fears, which is an Elizabeth Warren or a Bernie Sanders presidency. I mean, I think that we've had this huge record economic expansion over the last ten years.

But a lot of people understand that most of the gains have gone to the healthy with the Trump tax cut but then also just kind of the economy is tilted in such a way that millionaires and billionaires are getting a lot of the gains here.

And, you know, that has worked out for a lot of Americans because they have gotten some small piece of it recently. But when that changes, I think that there will be calls for kind of larger systemic structural changes to the economy.

And so you saw the CEOs released a statement over -- earlier this week saying, you know, that shareholder value is no longer their primary interest. And instead, you know, America's top CEOs are going to start caring about the environment and customers and their local communities. They're trying to just be a lot more inclusive. And I think that shows if they're worried that people are going to start asking whether they have been working for the good of the country over the last ten years.

CUPP: Farhad, boss, I say boss because you were once my editor of my college newspaper, good to see you.

[18:10:05]

Thanks for joining me. Mark, thanks so much for coming on tonight too. Great conversation, guys.

OK. The president's week of outbursts, contradictions doesn't end with the economy He is also courting (ph) confusion on guns. I'll tackle that.

And it should come as no surprise that beating Trump is the most important issue to democratic voters, but is it enough?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

CUPP: It's been three weeks since 31 people were killed in back-to- back mass shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio. And in that time, more than two dozen people have been arrested over threats to commit more mass shootings.

The three weeks since those mass shootings, and in those three weeks, the president has changed his mind about new gun measures, just as many times.

Just days after the shootings, Trump said this about expanding background checks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I'm looking to do background checks. I think background checks are important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Later, he reinforced the message, even saying Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would support stronger background checks.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I am convinced that Mitch wants to do something.

He wants to do background checks and I do too, and I think a lot of Republicans do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:15:02]

CUPP: But then other guys got in the president's ear, apparently. Republican Congressman Mark Meadows and NRA Head Wayne LaPierre, the president walked back his support. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: People don't realize we have very strong background checks right now. You go in to buy a gun, you have to sign up. There are lot of background checks that have been approved over the years.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Then on Tuesday, he had a lengthy phone call with LaPierre where Trump told the NRA chief that universal background checks were, quote, off the table or are they. This was Wednesday, one day later.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I have an appetite for background checks. We're going to be doing background checks. We're working with Democrats, we're working with Republicans.

We have background checks. But there are loopholes in the background checks. That's what I spoke to the NRA about yesterday. They want to get rid of the loopholes as well as I do.

At the same time, I don't want to take away people's 2nd Amendment rights. I don't want to take away the Constitution having to do with gun owners yet. And, you know, we can't let that slope go so easy that we're talking about background checks and all of a sudden we are talking about let's take everybody's gun away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Just to be clear, the NRA does not want to get rid of the loopholes, contrary to what the president said.

Just how important is keeping those loopholes in place for the NRA? $1.6 million worth. That's what the group spent during the first half of this year, lobbying Congress against expanding background checks to include private sales.

Whether the president is ignorant of the NRA's position or is being disingenuous about their sudden willingness to bend on the long- opposed issue or he just says stuff is any one's guess, including congresses. They return in September but to what exactly? A president who is ready to do with a majority of gun owners already support or a president who is too afraid of Wayne LaPierre to do what he has said he wants to do.

With me now is Matt Bennett, who is the senior V.P. and co-founder for Third Way, a national think tank focused on promoting centrist Democratic ideas.

Matt, you have worked on gun control policy over the years. I've covered gun control policy over the years and, frankly, opposed much of it. But I quit the NRA over its refusal to even come to the table to discuss some new common sense legislation.

In all of your years working in this space, which included after Newtown, do you think this is the time to get expanded background checks passed?

MATT BENNETT, SENIOR V.P. AND CO-FOUNDER, THIRD WAY: I hope so, S.E., but I doubt it. Look, those clips you showed, the word, salad, from Trump, it's the same thing that happened after Parkland. He first came out and said, we need background checks.

No, we don't. He talked to LaPierre. He backed off. This is the pattern that we have always seen with Trump. So I doubt that with Trump in the White House and with Mitch McConnell in control of the Senate, which really means that LaPierre controls the gun policy for the United States, we're going to see much change.

If you look -- I have been at this gun policy stuff for over 20 years. If you look at when Congress and when laws have been past at the federal level, it's really only three times, 1968, 1993 and '94, and all three times, Democrats controlled both House of Congress and the White House.

CUPP: And I am sure I don't have to point out to you, there were not great political consequences for Democrats --

BENNETT: Going on.

CUPP: -- which I am sure -- yes, which I am sure some -- for some, that's top of mind. Look, I'm either -- I'm even further out on this issue. I think we should be talking about banning 100-round drums, fixing the NICS system, temporary gun violence restraining orders, investing in mental health in our schools. I know some of this will be off limits for my friends in the gun rights community. But the NRA isn't as strong as it used to be.

Do you think Republicans could politically survive supporting some of these policies now?

BENNETT: I do. And I think three big things have changed. Look, as you noted, in 1994, Democrats lost control of the house for the first time in three decades in part because of the assault weapons ban, which was part of the Crime Act then. And the set gun politics for about 20 years.

But I do think three things are different. One, the NRA is a lot weaker. They are in big trouble over there because of all kinds of shenanigans with money. Two, we've had this incredibly horrific drumbeat of mass shootings that continues and seems to be increasing. And three, there are now really powerful groups on the gun safety side, including one funded by Michael Bloomberg, and he has $32 billion. So the money disparity has closed.

I think between those three things, the politics really have shifted not only for Democrats but also for Republicans.

CUPP: Well, I have read -- so I have Chris Murphy's bill, Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy. I have read this, the Background Check Expansion Act, expands background checks to include private sales online, at guns shows and homes, but it exempts a whole lot.

[18:20:08]

It exempts transfers between law enforcement officers. It exempts temporarily loaning firearms for hunting and sporting events, gifting guns to immediate family members, transferring through inheritance and temporarily transferring a gun for immediate self-defense.

I mean, this, to me, seems totally reasonable as a gun owner who lives in this state, you know, Connecticut. This seems totally reasonably to me. Do you think that there's any willingness to get something like this passed?

BENNETT: There should be. That is -- what you just described essentially was the Manchin/Toomey bill that was written after Sandy Hook. And Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey came together, both of them, A- rated NRA members, Pat Toomey, a conservative Republican.

And, look, they wrote a bill that protects the 2nd Amendment and it spoke to people like you who are strong 2nd Amendment supporters that this doesn't impact anyone's gun rights in any way. It's simply is designed to keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them.

But as we saw back then, the amendment failed with 54 votes in the Senate because you need 60. It isn't at all clear that there are enough votes to get over the filibuster.

CUPP: So the NRA isn't going to pull their support of Trump. Let's be very clear about that, there is nowhere else for them to go. And believe me, they want to be participants in the 2020 election and there is a lot of money to be made there.

So what is Trump afraid of if even a majority of NRA members support background checks?

BENNETT: Well, the people that produce the loudest applause for Trump are the people who are kind of on the frontlines of the fight to stop any gun safety measure, the most absolutist of the 2nd Amendment people in the NRA kind of world.

And I think what LaPierre was telling him was those people that show up at your rallies six hours early in MAGA hats, they are not going to like this.

And for Trump --

CUPP: I think that's -- don't you think that's a farce though? Don't you think that's a lie? I mean, Trump himself knows his supporters do what he tells them. He could justify, I think, any new policy, even if it was seen as heretical to Republican orthodoxy, don't you think?

BENNETT: 100 percent agreed. But Trump believes the last thing he heard. This is why he flip-flops back and forth so much. And any threat to his applause is the biggest threat of all. And that's I think he's backing off.

CUPP: Matt Bennett, thanks for joining me. I appreciate your insight.

BENNETT: Thanks for having me.

CUPP: Yes.

The enthusiasm is with Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. But so far, it's Joe Biden winning the other E word, electability. Is there a compromise in there somewhere? We'll discuss it next.

And later, guess which former White House podium prancer (ph) is going to be Dancing with the Stars.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

CUPP: As most of the Democratic candidates met in San Francisco for the DNC summer meeting this weekend, two top candidates opted to skip it, Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden. At least for Biden, it's part of a pull-back strategy to keep a low profile, a move that's been criticized by some Democratic strategists for appearing weak.

But he wasn't in hiding. He spent the week talking about his electability edge, arguing he is the candidate best positioned to beat Donald Trump. His wife, Jill, also hammered it home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JILL BIDEN, WIFE OF JOE BIDEN: Your candidate might be better on, I don't know, healthcare than Joe is but you've got to look at who is going to win this election.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Today, that message seems to be evolving a bit. Biden, while stopping in New Hampshire, admitted this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We can't just be a campaign about beating President Donald Trump. It has to be a movement, a movement grounded on the values and ideals that define us as a nation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CUPP: Well, despite a rocky few weeks of questions about his record, some alarming gaffes, confusion over dates and places. Biden has actually been rewarded in the polls. In head-to-head matchups, Biden beats Trump by the largest margin of any Democrat.

He has expanded his lead among Democrats to double-digits. And 54 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters think the top priority is still choosing a candidate who has a strong chance of beating Trump. And over a third in that group support Biden. His two biggest adversaries in the debates, Kamala Harris and Cory Booker, haven't seen any lasting bump in the polls. In fact, Harris is down. So what's Biden got to worry about?

I'm joined now by my all-star panel of the week, Republican strategist Alice Stewart, Democratic strategist Basil Smikle.

Basil, it is really something for all the bruises he sustained over the first few weeks, he's still on top, like way on top.

BASIL SMIKLE, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: That's right.

CUPP: What do you make of it?

SMIKLE: And he is being bolstered by a lot of older, more pragmatic voters, both black and white.

And what that says to me is that this is not a time to have an ideological discussion in the Democratic Party. That's what Biden supporters are saying to him.

CUPP: A purity test.

SMIKLE: A purity test. That's what Biden supporters are saying. They're saying, look, at all cost, we need to get Donald Trump out of office. And I think --

CUPP: Save me the revolution.

SMILE: Exactly right. And what I think -- what doesn't get discussed enough is how those voters also feel that Biden would be good for down ballot. If you're trying to flip seats in districts where they're a little more conservative, then Biden actually might help do that more so than some of the other candidates. That's part of their argument.

CUPP: Yes.

SMIKLE: So we'll see what happens when we get to Iowa, because electability becomes a very different issue if Iowa puts its stamp on you.

But right now, he is doing well in the polls.

CUPP: Alice, polling also suggests that enthusiasm for Biden isn't necessarily enthusiasm for his ideas but just that they believe he can beat Trump. Should that worry him though?

And to that point, his new line that we can't just be about beating Trump, does that show to you that maybe he's a little worried about that?

ALICE STEWART, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't see that at all. Because what is a big factor for him that, as strong as he has, is not only has he polling -- has polled from the very beginning in a lead in these national polls. You look at Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina. All of the early state polls, he is the lead. And he has kept that

lead ever since he got in -- before he got in there until now. And the second and third and fourth place finishes are swapping between Warren and Sanders and Harris. But if he can keep that lead in those early states, that's critical.

[18:30:00]

But I think the tweak in his message was critical. You cannot just go out there and give something for people to vote against. You have to give them something to vote for and that's important for him to do. Now, he's got three-fold of messaging he needs to do; show why he can be Trump, show why his message is stronger, but he also still has to contrast himself with the rest of the Democratic field.

And if he can show they are too far left, I am more moderate, I'm not only good for the Democratic primary, but I'm also the strongest in the general election.

CUPP: Well, he'll get that chance because there's another debate and it will be the first debate in which he shares the stage with Elizabeth Warren.

SMIKLE: That's right.

CUPP: And so how do you expect those two to go after each other or do you?

SMIKLE: Well, I think Elizabeth Warren wants to have a bit of an ideological debate ...

CUPP: She sure does.

SMIKLE: ... because she's got a plan and a policy for everything, right?

CUPP: Yes. Yes.

SMIKLE: So she's going to want to talk about that. I don't know if she's going to attack Biden in the way that Kamala Harris or Cory did, simply because I don't think she really needs it. What she does do is present an actual alternative to a moderate Joe Biden. So I think she's been --

CUPP: Yes. But the way she attacked her opponents in the last debate was to call them chicken.

SMIKLE: Yes.

CUPP: Was to say, "You're your chicken for not being as bold as I am." And all that meant was not going as far to the left and would she do that with Joe Biden?

SMIKLE: She'll do a little bit of that. But remember there was also an interesting point where in saying that she was recently calling attention to the whole stage, not to anyone in particular. CUPP: Right.

SMIKLE: She was trying to bring that and I think she can do some version of that, absolutely. But it will be interesting to see if she really does lean into that ideological debate and whether or not she goes into either Biden and Sanders or do they play the sort of friends that they did from the earlier debate.

CUPP: Alice, I have a fun game. Back in 2016, Joe Biden wasn't sure if he was going to run, but he was reportedly certain that if he did Elizabeth Warren would be his running mate. Could you imagine that happening this time around and the problem aggressive reaction to even the thought of a woman on the bottom of that ticket?

STEWART: Right. Well, the name of your fun game would be time traveler. And it is what a difference a few years makes in the world of presidential politics. And it is unusual for someone at that stage of the game when he is looking at all options to look at someone who would be a well rounded Democratic ticket.

And for her not just being a female, but certainly being more to the left of him ideologically, that is a very wise move. But politics --

CUPP: Would she ever take it? I mean, would she take that job?

STEWART: You'd be hard pressed to find anyone in politics who would turn down the VP offer and anyone who says they wouldn't take it is not actually being factually accurate. But the reality is politics is a blood sport, you can be friends one minute, you're enemies the next when you're on the debate stage and you're competitors. All the gloves are off and it is mano a mano.

CUPP: All right. To tell you guys, when we come back I want your thoughts on Sean Spicer. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:36:48] CUPP: In THE RED FILE tonight, life outside the White House is usually a lucrative one. But life outside this White House presents some interesting challenges. On Wednesday, ABC announced Sean Spicer will join the cast Dancing With the Stars.

And with that, the press secretary who infamously boasted about Trump's inauguration crowd size danced his way into controversy. Host Tom Bergeron tweeted that he had hoped the show would avoid divisive bookings, but that producers had decided to go in a different direction.

And now some ABC News staffers are up in arms over the decision with one staffer saying, "It's a slap in the face to those of us who had to deal with his baloney and the consequences of the ongoing lies and disinformation campaign at the White House." Back with me now a Republican Strategist, CNN Political Commentator, Alice Stewart and Democratic Strategist Basil Smikle.

Basil, let's start with the idea that I think in some ways this is the perfect way to try to get back into the country's good graces. It's a family friendly popular TV show. You get to show you have a sense of humor about yourself, but on the other hand, does it look like he's maybe trying to like whitewash his reputation?

SMIKLE: Yes. So for full disclosure, I really haven't watched the show. I voted for Lil' Kim and Alfonso Ribeiro when they were performing and that was pretty much was it? And that was it. But I think why people are upset is because we are still dealing with Donald Trump and they view Spicer as someone trying to normalize Donald Trump.

I don't know Sean Spicer. He might be a very nice person, but the anger is about normalizing. He didn't make an appearance on the Emmys and so this whole sort of trying to normalize Trump behavior is what's upsetting to a lot of people. It upsets me.

But the truth is the show, it's about ratings for them, so if they're going to do it, they're going to do it.

CUPP: Well, I do know Sean.

SMIKLE: Yes.

STEWART: Right.

CUPP: You know Sean, Alice.

STEWART: I know Sean very well.

CUPP: He is a really nice person. You talk to him after this casting was announced, what did he say?

STEWART: Right. I talked with him yesterday. And look, I've known Sean for a long time as you have. He worked his butt off in Republican politics and earned his way into the White House. But the problem is when you work for a factually challenged person, you say things that are factually challenged and it did, it affected his credibility.

That being said, he is a good person, a nice person. And one of the things he said about the show is like, "I want to go there and have fun. I want to dance and let's not talk politics, let's go have fun." That's where he's going into. That's how he is approaching it.

And I think that's the way it should be done. This is not a new show. It's a dance show. It's an entertainment show and I think he will bring a lot of fun to it.

The problem is Hollywood and the left. The party of inclusion, the one that says we include everyone as long as you agree with us. They have a problem with his politics and that is where the big (inaudible) ...

CUPP: Well, let's talk about that.

SMIKLE: But they don't, because they just (inaudible) the show. CUPP: Well, let's talk about that because he's not the first

Republican to appear on the show. There was Tom DeLay, Tucker Carlson, Geraldo (ph), who I wouldn't call a Republican but who's on Fox.

STEWART: Right.

CUPP: Do you think the calculus is a lot of people who watch this show are in the heartland and not the coastal elites who are all up in arms about this and who cares what they say?

[19:40:03] SMIKLE: Well, I actually think that there's a lot of that in the decision making, certainly. And look, for folks like Sean and others who've gone on that show, it is a way to, as you said, to get them back into good graces of Middle America or for anyone that would have a problem with something they did.

Because you are, right, if you're working with a factually challenged president and your job is to defend that president ...

CUPP: Yes, to aid and abet that.

SMIKLE: You're going to run into some problems. So if he wants to have a life post White House and he's willing to do this ...

CUPP: But here's my problem, the post White House thing I would get, but he's posting the President's, "Congratulations, Sean," blah, blah, blah on Instagram and Twitter just reminding people of his connection to that. I don't get the strategy there.

STEWART: Yes, you can't have it both ways. You're either you're Dancing With the Stars or you're the former White House press secretary. But that being said, he is as you say, he is a nice person. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of these liberals are afraid people might like them and see he's not some bogeyman.

But Dancing With the Stars needs to focus more --

CUPP: I think I recall Sarah Palin's daughter did pretty darn well on that show.

STEWART: Right. But that show is a dance show. They need to focus on the tango, not Trump, the foxtrot, not Fox News, and salsa not Sean Spicer.

CUPP: Oh, well, we got to leave it there. That was too good, you don't want to say anything else.

SMIKLE: Yes, how long did it take (inaudible) ...

CUPP: Leave it on the high note. Leave it on the high note. Alice Stewart, Basil Smikle, good to see you both. Thank you.

All right. Log Cabin Republicans, once an important voice for gay conservatives, now just another Trump sellout?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:45:27] CUPP: President Trump recently gained a controversial endorsement, The Log Cabin Republicans. A group that represents conservative LGBTQ voters threw their support behind the President in an op-ed in The Washington Post.

The group while prefacing the endorsement with an acknowledgement of continued inequality for LGBTQ Americans, and ending the endorsement with an admission that it does not agree with Trump on some policies still anyway threw their weight behind Trump writing, "To be treated equally, fairly and justly under the law is our goal, and we know that 'Inclusion Wins' is a mantra we share with the president."

Inclusion wins, that's rich, considering this President is one of the least inclusive in modern history. The bizarre endorsement from full disclosure, a group I have supported in the past turned more than a few people off. There were a number of high profile defections from the board, prompting several Republican leaders to leave in protest.

One of the Board Members who left is Jennifer Horn, who wrote in her resignation letter, "There is no world where I can sit down at the dining room table and explain to my children that I just endorsed Donald Trump for president. It is contrary to everything that I've ever taught them about what it means to be a good, decent, principled member of society."

Jennifer Horn is with me now. Jen, I want to know first what brought you to join the Log Cabin Board in the first place? What was your goal for the organization?

JENNIFER HORN, RESIGNED FROM BOARD OF LOG CABIN REPUBLICANS AFTER IT ENDORSED TRUMP: Well, thanks for having me, S.E. I was privileged to be - very honored to have been recruited by the Board and I was very happy to have the opportunity to serve in an esteemed civil rights organization that was principled, that was independent, and that was dedicated to fighting for equality for all Americans.

I've been very concerned for many, many years at the direction that our party has gone in this particular area. It's specifically that we've been so unwilling to remove language from our platform that targets this small group of people. And I had hoped that I would have the opportunity to work toward a more inclusive Republican Party that really fulfills our founding goals, our founding principles as the party of Lincoln.

CUPP: Yes, that's what drew me to the group as well and why I worked with them for so many years. And yet, just a day after the endorsement, the Trump administration argued in a court brief that federal civil rights law does not protect transgender workers. Earlier in the week, the administration revealed a proposed rule that would make it easier for companies to discriminate against LGBTQ employees.

And when asked about it, Trump referenced the Log Cabin Republicans' endorsement. It should be a problem for them, now? HORN: It should be a big problem for them and that was one of my

biggest problems with the endorsement was, of course, is the President is going to turn around and use it to advance his own personal political agenda in a way that is just entirely contrary to what the Log Cabin Republicans and frankly what the core values of the Republican Party should be all about.

And this administration seems to get particular thrill from targeting the transgender community in equality and housing and protecting transgender students and just recently health care protections. So I don't understand how our organization was able to come to this decision. It just doesn't sit for me at all.

CUPP: I've spoken to a few members, some former members, and some soon to be former members who also say the endorsement is only half of it. They complain that the group is moving away from its interest in civil rights, what drew you and I to it, and is now more interested in sort of being a social clubs, sort of a YRs, a young republicans sort of chapter of the RNC. Did you find that to be the case?

HORN: Well, that certainly is reflective of what I heard in a lot of conversations. And I think that there are folks on the Board who think that with this endorsement it will somehow bring them into that inner establishment circle of the Republican Party and that it will somehow get them more influenced with the President by endorsing his campaign.

And frankly I think we're going to find that exactly the opposite is true. It was their independence and their ability to stand on principle when the party was wrong that really gave them a voice and gave them influence. And I'm concerned that that's the credibility that they've lost in this endorsement.

[18:50:02] CUPP: Yes. The argument that tax cuts and economic improvement is good for all communities including LGBTQ is one that's made from time to time to defend Trump's record and I think that's important. But as a minority group, can Republican LGBTQ Americans really overlook the historic lack of inclusion and compassion for other communities in defense of his economic record.

HORN: And that's exactly the point I've been trying to make all week. As an LGBTQ ally, I look at the President's record not just with the LGBT community, but with any minority community that has ever had to fight for inclusion and acceptance in American society. This president is very comfortable targeting them, whether it's by the color of their skin or by some kind of class or as we just saw, a few days ago, by their weight sitting in the audience at one of his rallies.

CUPP: Right. Well, either inclusion matters or it doesn't. You can't have inclusion for some and exclusion for others.

HORN: Right.

CUPP: Jen Horn, thanks so much for speaking up, I appreciate it.

HORN: Thank you so much, S.E. I appreciate the time.

CUPP: Thanks for coming on. Yes. We'll talk to you again. Next up, tomorrow marks an important anniversary, maybe now more than ever.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:55:45] CUPP: Moments ago at the DNC summer meeting, Bernie Sanders rebuked a supporter in the crowd for celebrating the death of David Koch. Good on him for doing that. It reminded me of another guy, John McCain. Tomorrow marks the one year anniversary of his passing.

I remember sitting at his funeral in Washington, D.C. a year ago listening to moving testimonials from his colleagues, politicians and presidents from both parties, friends and family. It was a hand- picked list of eulogists, each of whom McCain thought would reflect him accurately even if that meant some affectionate ribbing.

In the year that's past, I've reflected on McCain's legacy more times than I can count, both on a personal level and a political one. But mostly I've noticed just how big a whole he's left, how noticeable his absence in the Senate, how conspicuous the silence where his voice should be, how important the clarity of conscience, how absent the decency and civility.

Tomorrow I know, I'll reflect on his legacy yet again and I hope that if just for a few minutes, you will too. That's it for us. David Axelrod hits the campaign trail in Iowa. Stick around for "THE AXE FILES" next.