Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
Democrats Fight to Stay United After Defectors Blindsided Leadership; Jury Deadlocked After Day Five of Deliberations in Clancy Trial; New Legal Fight Over Mail-In Ballot Restrictions Ahead of Midterms. Trump's First Midterm Ads Focus Heavily On Himself, Not GOP; Trump: "I Will Go To Alaska To Help Dan Sullivan Get Elected". Aired 6-7p ET
Aired September 02, 2026 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.
This hour, with just 62 days until the midterms, you'd think Democrats would be laser-focused on taking the House and Senate back from Republicans. Instead, tonight Democrats are fighting amongst themselves, trying to decide whether to punish two of their own for crossing party lines. How big of a problem is this really for the elections and maybe after?
Plus, the jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial once again telling the judge they're deadlocked and cannot come to an agreement.
[18:00:05]
But the judge has given them a special final instruction to see if they can reach a verdict. CNN's team's in the courtroom will give us all the latest details ahead.
Also, should the U.S. Supreme Court have more than nine justices? A handful of Democrats -- after a handful of Democrats floated the idea in recent days, Republicans put up a vote today to block it. The results coming up.
The Lead tonight, to punish or not to punish? That's the key question among some House Democrats on Capitol Hill, some of whom are livid over two defectors, Congressman Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington. They split with Democrats on a procedural vote that unlocked the GOP's ability to put legislation on the House floor, including a bill to help lobstermen, a key priority for Golden.
Last night, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries says the party was, quote, blindsided by the defections, quote, that created a significant breach of trust. When asked by CNN today, Jeffries wouldn't say if the two members should be stripped of their committee assignments.
We start things off with CNN's Lauren Fox, following this kind of burst of drama on Capitol Hill. Lauren, Jeffries seems unusually animated about this, leadership very frustrated. Where does this go from here?
LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, two things are true, Phil. The first is that no one is happy about what happened yesterday with these two Democrats. On the other hand, no one is exactly clear on what the next step should be, because this is a really delicate balance for Democratic leadership.
On the one hand, they want to make sure that there are consequences for members who vote with the Republicans on procedural votes. This is not about a piece of legislation, the underlying bill. This is about a procedural vote, and, typically, that is a moment where Republicans vote with Republicans, Democrats vote with Democrats, and Democrats have typically been unified on those votes. Yesterday was a clear exception, and that is what was so frustrating to so many Democrats.
But whether or not there should be punishment, that's another question entirely. Here's what a couple members said.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): The idea that there will be consequences depending on how that is laid out could create a slippery slope.
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): I mean, we're not kids, you know? We're not -- we don't have a parent that's going to punish us. We are all elected. But we have to have some unity.
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): I think there should be consequences. I think at the end of the day, the reason we have a caucus is to be united against what Republicans are trying to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
FOX: And, Phil, this isn't happening in a vacuum. Let's just set the stage for what this is really about. In just a couple of months, we will know whether or not Democrats have control of the House of Representatives, whether or not Speaker Jeffries is in fact going to be the speaker. And one of the key questions is, do you need to set a precedent now so it is clear to all these new Democrats coming in, including Democratic socialist candidates who are coming into this body for the first time, that there are consequences if you aren't part of the team?
And I think that is what Democrats are really working through right now. They had a more than hour-long caucus meeting this morning. I'm told that there weren't any clear conclusions. It was really an opportunity for members to vent some of their frustrations, some of their concerns. But, again, this isn't just about what happened yesterday, Phil. This is about what happens if Jeffries becomes the speaker of the House.
MATTINGLY: It's such a great point in terms of what the meaning is longer term, bigger picture.
Lauren Fox, as always, my friend, great reporting, thank you. Well, let's get the perspective from another member of the caucus, Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado. Congressman, thanks so much for coming in.
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Thanks, Phil.
MATTINGLY: You flipped a district in 2018. You are the battleground chair for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Frontliners are your business. Do you think that this was a betrayal by two of your colleagues?
CROW: You know, there's really important context here, and here's that context. I know these two members, Marie and Jared very well. I came into Congress with Jared Golden. The reason we've had majorities in the past are because of members like Jared and Marie, right? They hold two of the toughest districts in America, deep Trump districts, for Democrats to hold and win, right?
So, they voted their conscience. Would it be the vote that I would take? No. I wouldn't have taken that vote, and I was disappointed that they did. But they are not defectors. They have not betrayed anybody. These are patriots. By the way, Jared Golden is a multiple combat veteran, a Marine Corps veteran that served in the heaviest combat in Fallujah, right, an enlisted infantryman. So, these are people that are friends of mine. They're patriots. They're trying to do the right thing.
The broader issue here is that we need to win the majority, and we need to win the majority with a big enough margin that we have the ability for members to vote their conscience, to be independent, to serve in districts like this. And I am relentlessly focused on delivering a majority big enough for us to have a coalition like that's broad and diverse.
[18:05:03]
You know, I've set up a leadership fund, Service First Leadership Fund, that is supporting dozens of candidates around the country, just like these members that are battling it out on the frontlines of the midterms who are going to fight and win.
MATTINGLY: Lauren, I think, made a really important point contextually to understand the dynamics here, which is, this isn't measuring the drapes, but this is thinking through what a majority would look like, a majority that even if you guys have a great night on November 2nd, 3rd, the first Tuesday in November, the 3rd.
CROW: Yes, 62 days.
MATTINGLY: There's just not enough races up for grabs right now for it to be a 2018 majority type of, situation or a 2008 majority type of situation. And that means that there are going to be clashes between different wings of the party.
CROW: Yes.
MATTINGLY: What is your sense of how those dynamics resolve, or do they, before the election?
CROW: Oh, I think we can go deep. I think we can go deep into red territory, and I think we should, right? We need to be aggressive. We need to fight hard. We need to go to places in the country, and we are going to places in the country where we haven't been for cycles and years, right? We are going to be confident. We're going to be aggressive. We are going to flip seats that nobody thought we could flip, right?
The Service First fund is going to be a part of that. We are going to be relentless and ruthless about it because our democracy depends on it. Americans depend on it. So, that's number one.
Number two is I don't want to ever belong to any organization where, you know, ideological purity and lockstep with any president is a requirement for membership. No business, no family, certainly no political party. And I am proud of the fact that the Democratic Party is a big tent. We are expanding that tent to represent this country, right? And I am never going to go to my fellow Democrat and say, you've got to, you know, vote this way and that way. I'm going to whip for my causes, and I. But at the end of the day, if you're holding a district that's a Trump-12, Trump-15 district, and you are helping deliver a majority that's going to save this democracy, then I'm going to be behind you.
MATTINGLY: Switching gears a little bit to, you are an Army veteran. You're an Army Ranger. What's happening right now at the Department of Defense, including the recent resignation of the secretary of the Army, there were not a lot of people at the Department of Defense that had great relationships on Capitol Hill with either side, let alone Democrats. Dan Driscoll had some of those, was well thought of --
CROW: Well, that's an understatement, yes.
MATTINGLY: Was well thought of in the administration as well. He's out. Secretary Hegseth has also dismissed several top military officers. It's in the couple dozens at this point in time.
CROW: Yes.
MATTINGLY: I think one of the questions that I've had throughout is Trump obviously likes Hegseth. Hegseth's obviously not going anywhere. How do you think about what you in the majority and what your caucus in a majority would approach Hegseth in this Department of Defense based on all of the issues that they're currently involved in?
CROW: Well, you know, let's look at some of the numbers here. There have been 80 general officers who have been purged at the senior levels. 10 percent of the top military officers across the branches have been purged. And these are some of our most senior experienced public servants, lifetime warriors. We are at a 25-year low for the number of women that are on the promotion list, right?
Pete Hegseth does not like women, does not like people of color, and he is purging them to remake the military in his own image, and I'm going to do everything possible to stop him, which is why we need to retake the majority.
You know, talk about Dan Driscoll, right? Here you have somebody who's smart, who's competent, and I had some policy disagreements with Dan Driscoll. I have some political disagreements with him, but that's the process, right? That's legislating. That's what should happen. You know, Congress should have the debates, and I actually could have debates with this guy because he's smart. He knew his stuff. He was working hard to modernize the Army and to bring it into the 21st century.
And for Pete Hegseth, that's the original sin, right? You can't have somebody who does the job, knows what they're doing, and is competent sitting next to you because it just points out how bad you are and how incompetent you are. He doesn't want competent people around him because it makes him look bad, right?
So, the Army and the country is worse off because Secretary Driscoll is no longer in that position. So, when we retake the majority, which we're going to do, we are going to be relentless about pursuing corruption and nepotism and incompetence in the Department of Defense, because our service members deserve nothing less.
When I took off my uniform years ago, my oath to this country did not end, and my commitment to my fellow service members and their families did not end. So, I'm going to be relentless day and night, to make sure we clean up the Department of Defense and we deliver the services, and the leadership that our men and women deserve.
MATTINGLY: Oversight, an effort to find recourse for some of the things the Democrats have had issues with, including allegations of illegality on some level with some individuals.
CROW: On many levels.
[18:10:00]
MATTINGLY: On so many levels. You were involved in the impeachment process the first time around.
CROW: Yes.
MATTINGLY: Is that something you're -- you think Democrats should be thinking about planning for, mapping out?
CROW: Well, I wasn't just involved in the impeachment process. I was an impeachment prosecutor.
MATTINGLY: Yes.
CROW: I prosecuted the first impeachment trial as one of those handful of Democrats that sat on the floor of the Senate for weeks and looked in the eyes of those senators and said, Donald Trump is a danger to this country. This is not going to end well. Here's how it's going to play out. And I did not want to be right, by the way. I deeply wish that I wasn't right. But I have been proven right, and here we are. So, they've been warned. Impeachment is one of those tools. There are many tools available to us. So, what I want to do is I want results. I want accountability. I want people fired. I want people taken out of leadership positions who aren't doing their job. And I will use any combination of those tools available because that is our constitutional duty, right? That is what Congress is designed and what our duty is under the Constitution and what we are designed to do. So, we'll look at what tools we have and which ones to bring to bear to accomplish that result.
MATTINGLY: Congressman Jason Crow, Democrat from Colorado, thanks for coming in.
CROW: Thank you.
MATTINGLY: I appreciate it. Good to see you, sir.
Well, jurors in the Lindsay Clancy trial have gone home for the day, once again telling the judge they are deadlocked and cannot reach a verdict. So, what will happen when they return tomorrow morning? We're live outside the courthouse next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:15:00]
MATTINGLY: Breaking news in our Law and Justice Lead, a last-ditch effort to avoid a hung jury in the Lindsay Clancy case. Today, jurors once again said they could not reach a unanimous decision on whether Clancy is criminally responsible for killing her children in 2023. Late this afternoon, the judge read the jury the so-called Tuey/Rodriguez charge, the final legal effort to avoid mistrial, urging jurors to reconsider their positions to reach a unanimous verdict.
Let's get straight to CNN Legal Correspondent Jean Casarez. She's outside the courthouse in Massachusetts. Jean, deliberations continue tomorrow. Is there any expectation the Tuey/Rodriguez charge will change anything here?
JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, let's put it this way. A week ago, Thursday, last Thursday, is when the jury started deliberating, so tomorrow is Thursday, one week later. They continue to deliberate. You know, they are working so hard, and Kevin Reddington even said today that they are -- he's so proud of them, because whatever happens, they are giving it all that they've got.
And it started this morning. You know, yesterday, they sent out a note saying that they could not reach a unanimous decision, but they kept at it after the judge informally told them, go back in. Keep going. So, they came in today, deliberated all day, but then early afternoon, another note saying they could not reach that unanimous verdict level.
The judge then read the official, as you said, the Tuey/Rodriguez charge which is an instruction based on Massachusetts law, case precedent. So, they went back in, they continued to deliberate, and they wanted to deliberate till 4:00 P.M. today, which is sort of a change, and they are coming back tomorrow.
But Kevin Reddington, the defense attorney, said that if there's a mistrial, he'll be ready to retry this case next week. And then he talked about his client, Lindsay Clancy. Because, remember, the defendant, she's having to go through all this too. Listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: How is she feeling today leaving the court?
KEVIN REDDINGTON, LINDSAY CLANCY'S ATTORNEY: She's upset. I mean, she's sad.
I just sit there and try to keep her up, you know, just try to talk and discuss different issues and things and just try to keep her mind occupied.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CASAREZ: Now, in some other news, while the jury was deliberating today in their room, a retired nurse faced an arraignment for allegedly trying to intimidate or harass the jury yesterday. Yesterday, the jury left at 3:30. At 3:40, the Massachusetts State Police confirmed with us they had in custody a 56-year-old retired nurse who allegedly was taking pictures of the jury.
Now, in court today, the defense attorney said, no, she just wanted to see Lindsay Clancy. But the prosecution said, we got her phone, and there were deleted videos of the jury. So, she is facing 20 years in prison because this is a first-degree murder case that allegedly she interfered with. She'll be to court again, but we don't know how that will end up either. But tomorrow, this jury, 9:00 A.M. sharp, they'll be deliberating right here in Plymouth.
MATTINGLY: Jean Casarez, absolute best in the business. Thank you, my friend. I appreciate it.
MATTINGLY: Well, a hearing is scheduled tomorrow on President Trump's efforts to curb mail-in voting. What should we expect? Our Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig is here to walk you through it all next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:20:00]
MATTINGLY: In our National Lead, there's been a lot of movement on mail-in ballots. Last week, the Supreme Court allowed the administration's executive order to move forward while the legal fight in lower courts continued. Then this week, a lower court stepped in and blocked parts of it, raising new questions about that order, postal service changes, and possible voter impact before Election Day.
So, for answers about what's actually happening, let's bring in CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. Elie, what is the state of play right now? ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Phil, I think a lot of people are trying to figure this out. Now, back after the president issued his mail-in ballots executive order in March, a group of 23 Democratic-led states brought a lawsuit. They said, this violates our constitutional right as states to run our own election. This is the president, the executive branch, interfering with that.
Last week, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the legality or illegality. They said, this lawsuit is premature. It's not ripe yet, as we say, because the harms that you're worried about have not come to pass. They're too remote. They're too hypothetical.
Now, separately from that, a few days later, the Postal Service issued its official final rule, and then a separate case went to a district court judge in Massachusetts. That district court judge said, okay, now we have a final rule. Now we're farther along. Now we're closer to the actual harms that are feared. Therefore, it's not too soon. Therefore, it is okay for me, so I'm going to block the Postal Service from doing what it's been told to do under the executive order for now, and there's another hearing on that tomorrow.
MATTINGLY: I presume this ends up back in the Supreme Court sometime sooner rather than later?
HONIG: I think your presumption is right, and the question, once again, for the Supreme Court will be, first of all, is it still too early or have things progressed far along enough now that the Supreme Court can rule on the legality of it? And if it gets to that second question, I think the states have a very good argument. The Constitution is crystal clear. The states run their own elections, or Congress can legislate, but the president and the executive branch have no role whatsoever. So, don't be surprised if this gets back to the Supreme Court real quick.
MATTINGLY: Okay. Switching gears a little bit, but still Supreme Court adjacent or related, House Republicans tried to put a constitutional amendment on the table to cap the Supreme Court at nine justices. The measure failed today in the House, on the House floor. Do we need an amendment to keep the Supreme Court at nine?
HONIG: So, the number nine is actually not set in stone.
[18:25:00]
It's not in the Constitution. The Constitution says there will be a Supreme Court, there will be a chief justice, but that number is based on legislation. We actually, long time ago, had as few as five justices. One point we actually had ten justices, but we've been at nine since the year 1869. So, there actually could be some work to be done. If we chose to amend the Constitution to say nine, then that would set it in stone for all time.
MATTINGLY: And just to be very clear, it takes more than just a House vote, majority vote, for that to actually occur. So, I guess question, is it your sense in the legal community that there's a real threat of the court being expanded right now? HONIG: So, first of all, it's almost impossible at this point to amend the Constitution, as you said, Phil. It takes a two-thirds vote in the House, a two-thirds vote in the Senate, and then three-quarters of the states. I don't think there's any real chance of that happening. I also don't think there's any real chance of the Supreme Court being expanded.
Remember, this was a big issue in the 2020 election. Joe Biden had been opposed to this for 40 years, but then in 2020 he said, actually, I'm open to it now. He became president and did essentially nothing to push it along during his four years. So, I think the reality is we've been at nine for 157 years, and I think we're going to be at nine for a long time moving forward.
MATTINGLY: If I recall correctly, there was like the old blue ribbon commission --
HONIG: Yes.
MATTINGLY: -- play, which --
HONIG: That's exactly how you kill something in D.C.
MATTINGLY: Which is Washington for saying, we're not going to do this ever, but thank you for playing.
Elie Honig, thank you for playing, my friend, always good to see you.
HONIG: Thanks, Phil.
MATTINGLY: Thank you.
Well, the bipartisan duo is pushing for the release of more Epstein files. They say the Justice Department is still keeping secret. They join us to explain, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:30:00]
MATTINGLY: Breaking news in our National Lead, a heavy police presence in the heart of downtown Minneapolis tonight as police respond to a shooting near the convention center. Initial reports show there are multiple victims, including two officers. We will keep you updated as this develops.
Well, in our Law and Justice Lead, you know them pretty well at this point, a bipartisan duo is back with a new effort to force a vote on a second Epstein files bill. Republican Congressman Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California, they argue the Trump Justice Department is violating the law by withholding millions of its files on Epstein. Now, they want it to become law for states attorneys general, survivors, and others to sue U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche for improper withholdings or redactions.
And the two Congressmen join me now. I appreciate you guys coming in. Just to start, as you kind of think through the process, your ability to whip, to find support, to attach that to what had become a national moment, I think, as well was remarkable as somebody who covered Congress for many years. Let's start with you, Congressman Massie. What's your sense -- one of your three Republicans is no longer in Congress one has signed on. I believe Lauren Boebert has not yet. What's your sense of where Republicans are on this?
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Well, you're right about the math. It's the same as it was a year ago. We need me and three other Republicans. Nancy Mace has already joined. And so I need two more Republicans now.
The pitch I'm making to my Republican colleagues who are running statewide for governor in purple states or in purple districts is, Do this now before the election. Take credit for it. Be a hero. You'll do better if you do. But they're still reluctant because of Trump and the pressure from the White House not to do these kind of things.
MATTINGLY: Congressman, what's your sense -- if this is something that doesn't get done before the election or lame duck afterwards, would this be a priority if Democrats were in the majority in the House, especially, a new majority has a lot of priorities, a lot of things that were promised, a lot of things that are expected? Where do you think this ranks?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): Absolutely, but I believe we're going to get this done. I mean, we're going to deliver all of the Democrats, and then it's just two more Republicans. One of them I was talking to today, I don't want to give the name out because then the -- it will just incite the White House to do a full court press. But there are a few Republicans who are on the fence, and they understand the power of this issue, that you don't want rich and powerful men who abused young girls to not face justice. I mean, we have Leon Black supposedly coming tomorrow. He has huge allegations against him on sexual abuse. We'll see if he shows up. But this is about holding people like him accountable.
MATTINGLY: Yes, I think it's important, and I should be very clear, I'm not trying to frame everything through a political or whip count perspective. This is about survivors, and things that were promised, and things that are in statute that have not been complied with at this point from the Justice Department.
But, Congressman, to that point, you know, we've heard no new DOJ investigations. Todd Blanche has very clearly operated as if the page has been turned. They're moving on. On the House floor on Monday, you named 14 people who you say are Epstein co-conspirators. What was the thinking behind that? What do you hope will come from that?
TMASSIE: Well, I'm trying to shame the DOJ into delivering some justice. And the information that I have is -- comes from beyond the files. People are saying, oh, we already saw those names in the files. Yes, what I'm trying to tell you is these men are guilty, and they -- I know this from other sources. So, they need to be investigated and prosecuted.
Now, I don't think Todd Blanche is ever going to do it because you had the FBI director tell us in a hearing that there were no co- conspirators. Now, even Melania Trump doesn't agree with that. So, one of the main things about this bill that Ro and I have written is it allows state attorneys generals, like you said in the beginning, to bring cases in state courts for crimes for which the statute of limitations has not run out. They just need Todd Blanche's cooperation, like the state attorney general in New Mexico.
So, we wrote this in conjunction with him to make sure it would give him the tools he needs to bring justice in the state court.
MATTINGLY: Which, for context, an ongoing investigation, a very significant investigation in New Mexico that's been playing out in parallel to your efforts as well.
I want to switch gears to something else that I think is of interest to, to both of you guys. Congressman Khanna, there's major concern about this Trump administration rule that has come out related to the U.S. Postal Service and vote by mail. It's in process right now. Obviously, there's a court fight over it, but the final rule is out. It's 60-plus days until the election. No one's exactly sure where this is going to end up. What's your level of concern about this?
KHANNA: I'm very concerned. Put the partisanship aside. Who made the Postal Service the arbiter on who a citizen is or who should get a ballot?
[18:35:03]
The Postal Service is just supposed to administer the mail. And what you have now is a potential effort for them to be giving the ballots to whoever they think are on some list. I mean, that's just un- American.
Look, the reason Trump is in this position is because he's the one who chose to go to wars after promising no more wars. He's the one who chose to cover up the Epstein files after promising to release the Epstein files. He's betrayed some of his central promises, and now they're in a panic to try to see how they save the midterms. It doesn't matter. They're not going to save the midterms. I mean, the Democrats are going to win the House of Representatives.
MATTINGLY: Do you think that's true?
MASSIE: That they're going to win?
MATTINGLY: Yes.
MASSIE: I'm worried that that's going to happen, you know? And as far as vote by mail, I'm on the other side of Ro on this. I would prefer they don't vote by mail, but I don't think you can do this by an executive order. And it's the purview of state law, really, about how their elections are handled, not federal law. But if you're going to do it, it has to be a law either at the state or federal level.
MATTINGLY: Yes. It was a point that I made, you know, you could support the SAVE America Act, which would put into statute some of these regulations. By the way, you supported the SAVE America Act.
MASSIE: I did.
MATTINGLY: I know I asked you a question at some point randomly during your primary race. You always did. But the question that I've had about this rulemaking in particular is whether you like it or dislike it, even if there's a statutory basis for it or not, the mechanics of a government agency trying to put this together in 60 days, where in certain states there is no grace period for postmarks, if they have to -- if clerks have to take ballots back, correct them, send them back out again, you could have constituents who've done absolutely nothing wrong, but all of a sudden they might not have their ballot counted. Is that a concern that you have?
MASSIE: It is a concern, but I'm also concerned about the -- I brought this up many years ago. You have some that are backdating the postmark on these ballots, and that's something they do. It's not against the law. I actually offered an amendment to say you can't backdate ballots if they're sent in the mail, I think. But I offered it as a law, not a rulemaking.
MATTINGLY: Yes.
KHANNA: Look I'm for voting by mail, but I think it shows that Thomas and I have many disagreements. A lot of times people see us on debate, and they think --
MATTINGLY: After the last seven months, everybody's like, oh, they're like -- they agree on everything. I'm like, no, they don't.
KHANNA: No. I actually think that should provide some hope that you can disagree, you can have substantive disagreements. But when it comes to this Epstein issue, when it comes to people who have harassed, trafficked, abused young girls, wealthy and powerful people who aren't following the law, we should come together as Americans to get justice.
And we should look for areas like stopping foreign wars, like Thomas' bill on the Flock camera that's violating privacy, look for more areas where you can find common ground and common sense.
MASSIE: By the way, I think once we forced a vote, it was 427 to 1 in the House and 100 to 0 in the Senate.
MATTINGLY: It's amazing what happens.
MASSIE: We created bipartisanship across both chambers you've never seen before.
MATTINGLY: Safety in numbers an amazing thing on the House floor.
Before I let you go, I wanted to ask you about beef tariffs.
MASSIE: Yes.
MATTINGLY: Today, some Republicans I think met with Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. I'm not sure if you were among them behind closed doors. There's a lot of frustration in the Republican conference about this. There's also a lot of frustration about what the order actually applies to, who gets the benefit from it. What's your sense of kind of the -- I understand the affordability issue. Hamburger prices are high. This being the response, what do you think of it?
MASSIE: Well, I'm for the free market. And actually high prices send a signal to the farmers that it might be worth farming beef cattle again. And so it brings people into it. I think it's wrong to try to artificially suppress price, especially right before an election, without a long-term solution.
I have a legislative solution that's bipartisan called the PRIME Act that sort of right sizes the regulation so that you could regulate it at the state level, and we've got that in the House Farm Bill. They could put it in the Senate Farm Bill.
But here's my concern. The biggest donor to Trump's inauguration was the Brazilian meat packing company. They gave $5 million to his inauguration. I can guarantee you whatever room there was a discussion in, they were in that room or somebody that works for them was. That's what they did. They bought access.
So, I'm afraid money is buying an outcome here that's not good for Americans, particularly American farmers.
MATTINGLY: Yes. The White House is more than welcome to release the country allocations for the 300 tons anytime. They have not yet.
KHANNA: Yes.
MATTINGLY: Notable point. Congressmen, I appreciate your time. Thank you, guys.
MASSIE: Thank you.
KHANNA: Thank you.
MATTINGLY: Well, today we're getting a first look at new midterm ads launched by a pro-Trump dark money group. Is their message enough to earn your support? We're going to show them to you next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:40:00]
MATTINGLY: In our Politics Lead, our first look at two new midterm ads launched by a pro-Trump dark money group. Here's the first one. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He is the toughest, most resilient person that I've ever met, and nothing was going to stop him from fighting so hard for the country he loves. DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Now our top priority will be to create a nation that is proud, prosperous, and free.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: Shermichael, honestly, like if they're spending, Republicans will be happy, like if any Trump-aligned groups are spending, they'll just be like, great, thank you, finally, like, for getting up the silence. Like he -- I don't -- that's a very like Trump focused.
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. But, look, I think some of these ads are important, particularly in states like Texas, for the reasons that Jonah gave in the previous segment. You may indeed see some slippage in the base for a candidate like a Ken Paxton. We have got to supercharge the president's base and get those folks excited to turn out for a candidate that they may not like.
And I think ads like that targeting those individuals will accomplish that. They like Trump. They mostly agree with some of his successes, immigration, et cetera. And so I think if you can remind them of some of the good deeds the president has done, then I think they ultimately turn out come November.
MATTINGLY: There was another ad released in parallel. Jonah, we were just talking about this. It's an accomplishments ad which is different than just a Dana White Trump is awesome ad. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We gave you no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security, the largest tax cuts in American history.
[18:45:03]
The price of eggs is down 60 percent.
I took prescription drugs from the highest price in the entire world to the lowest.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: I will venture and say knowledgeably, there is some hyperbole there on some of the percentage facts that are thrown out there, but I can tell you, and you were saying this, I am going to steal it from you. Republican watching that, who is up for reelection is saying thank you.
JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, that --
MATTINGLY: Over and over again.
GOLDBERG: If they run a lot more of those kinds of ads than the "I am strong like bull, I am king of America" ads, which are, you know, the ones Trump likes, right? And so, I think this is the right strategy on paper insofar as if you look at the, if you just every midterm election of this sort is always a referendum on the president and the White House. Always Obama wanted to do it. Bush wanted.
It is just the rule. The White House always wants to turn it into a choice. It never works. So, their theory here is my -- Trump's approval rating is so low. If I can get it up for the reasons that Shermichael was talking about, that will help.
I am just -- it's the right idea. I am just not sure it is going to work. I think Trump fatigue is real. Trump is the establishment now. He still wants to talk as if he is running against the establishment.
I think there is -- there is an enormous amount of like, what have you done for me lately? These issue things, again, it is the right thing to lean into. But then people are just feeling. We just know from the polling, we know from everything else.
People think the economy is not going well. They think we are on the wrong track. They do not like the war. And I just do not think that that stuff is going to overpower it.
MATTINGLY: What do you think?
ASHLEY ETIENNE, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, VP HARRIS: No, I think Jonah's absolutely right. I think on paper, it's the right strategy. And they needed to do more of this and needed to do it earlier, in fact. But the really the but the problem is, is it comes up against the reality of how Americans are experiencing this country, this nation, their lives.
To Jonah's point, you've got 94 percent. I have never seen a number this high -- 94 percent of the country believes that we are in an affordability crisis, 90 percent of the country believes that the white house is corrupt, and it is affecting their pocketbooks. These are unprecedented numbers here.
So, I agree with Jonah. I don't believe that this is actually going to work, but it is, in theory, a good strategy.
MATTINGLY: Michael, there -- we were talking about this before as well. There is a dinner tonight, a rose garden dinner. Several battleground Republican lawmakers believe, who are in some tough midterm races. Wisconsin Congressman Derrick Van Orden, Iowa Congressman Zach Nunn, Michigan Congressman Tom Barrett, Georgia Senate nominee, Congressman Mike Collins. These are really -- I mean, this is frontline as frontline gets.
Trump has a big political opera. I feel like we talked about this all the time. When is MAGA Inc. going to start --
SINGLETON: A billion will.
MATTINGLY: -- start rolling out. The numbers toggle, depending on where Trump is on the day could be $400 million, could be $800 million, could be $10 trillion. It is more money than anyone else has. And they have not really opened the spigot yet.
Do you think this dinner is part of that process? SINGLETON: I think that is a part of the process. I think the
president's advisers are making him aware of the realities that we are about to face after November. You want to, at a minimum, keep the Senate. The House is going to be difficult. You have history against us. The president's party typically loses seats going all the way back to World War Two.
So, President Trump is not unique, when you look at the facts and history here. Now, what number of seats will Democrats win? I am skeptical about this huge significant wave. There are far more competitive congressional races than there have ever been in the history of our country. You have to factor that in to the assessment.
That said, wherever the president can spend dollars to help some of these members get across the finish line in these very tight races will absolutely matter. But fundamentally, it is important to focus on the Senate. You can lose the House, I would argue. You cannot lose the Senate. And I think the president gets that.
MATTINGLY: Jonah, to that point. There is a fascinating today, when Trump was in the oval office and he said he is going to personally actually listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I will go to Alaska to help Dan Sullivan get elected. He would call me all the time because I think, no, I definitely know -- nobody has helped Alaska like Donald Trump. I will be going to Alaska. I am going to be going the last 30 days before the election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: So making Shermichael's point, the Senate is what matters. The Senate is where we have to win. Alaska is going to be a tight race. There is like 13 Dan Sullivans currently on the ballot right now. Presumably, Trump is going for the incumbent one.
How much of a difference do you think the physical presence in -- Texas is one thing. Going to Alaska 30 days out, does it matter?
GOLDBERG: I honestly -- I think they have to be seeing some numbers. I was looking for Alaska polling. Alaska is very difficult to poll. Yes, I spent a lot of time in Alaska. My wife is from Alaska.
And, but they have to be seeing something. There is no way Trump's going there over the wishes of Dan Sullivan.
MATTINGLY: Yeah.
GOLDBERG: Right? So, they see something there that they think is going to work. I personally think -- I like Dan Sullivan. I think he is in real trouble in Alaska, regardless of the doppelganger Dan Sullivan.
[18:50:00] But I just do not know how many places are like that, that Trump can be additive, right? It is more, it is almost more interesting the number of places he does not go because it does not help.
MATTINGLY: Sure. Yeah.
SINGLETON: Texas is -- if I can just add, Texas, I think is a big one, Jonah.
MATTINGLY: Yeah.
SINGLETON: I think the president stays out of Maine. I think the president stays out of Michigan. I think we win Maine. I think Rogers has a potential path to Michigan.
North Carolina is going to be a difficult one, Ashley. I think the president could go there. I am just not certain.
MATTINGLY: Ashley, where do you not want the president to go? Like as a Democrat looking at the race, like, where would his appearance be a problem?
ETIENNE: Well, I mean, I think to some degree, you want the president, you want Democrats want to center this this election on the president of the United States. I mean, that is the objective.
You know, you want to remind people of the reason why you are being hit economically as hard as you are, blame the president. Why we are in Iran, blame the president. Why your gas prices are too high, blame the president. That is the real -- the strategy is an anti-Trump strategy with no sort of proactive vision.
So, you know, as many states that he can show up in Iowa, North Carolina, Michigan, it plays to our advantage. This this dinner tonight plays, plays right in the hands of the Democrats.
GOLDBERG: It's worth pointing out, the good sound bites stay in the state where he is campaigning. The bad ones get amplified across the entire country.
MATTINGLY: Thank you, guys, very much. Appreciate you.
Well, a new CNN film tells the story of the legendary restaurant that once stood atop the World Trade Center before the 9/11 attacks. The executive producer behind the film joins me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[18:55:40]
MATTINGLY: In our national lead, next Friday will mark 25 years since the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil. On September 11th, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial planes, killing 2,977 people. Most victims were killed in New York, where American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 struck the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, causing both buildings to collapse. A new CNN film called "Top of the World" tells the story of Windows on
the World, a legendary restaurant atop the World Trade Center, one of the country's most celebrated restaurants and a symbol of New York's resurgence in the 1970s. Its story came to a devastating end on 9/11 when 79 employees and 91 guests were killed.
Here is a preview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Then in the '80s, the city came back. Money is rolling in suddenly. Windows on the world was like a metaphor for what was happening to New York. You had the very wealthy and you had the very poor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: I want to bring in top of the world executive producer Katie Lee Biegel.
And, Katie, thank you so much for joining us.
I guess just to start, what made Windows on the World so significant, both to New York City and to the people who worked and dined there.
KATIE LEE BIEGEL, EXECUTIVE PRODUCER, TOP OF THE WORLD: Thank you for having me, phil. You know, Windows was such a special restaurant, not only for New York city, but also for the country. And it changed the way that we dine. In many ways, it was a way to get people to go downtown in New York City. People were not excited about the Twin Towers.
Downtown was very different than it is today. It was dirty, it was dangerous, and Windows was a way to get people excited to be downtown New York. And it really changed the city's dining landscape.
And also, Joe Baum, who was the founder of the restaurant, he founded many great restaurants. He was really the first great American restaurateur, Tavern on the Green, the Rainbow Room, the grill, so many restaurants. And it is because of Joe that your waiter comes to your table and
says, hi, I am Katie, I will be your server. Or when you get up, your waiter comes and folds the napkin. So, there were many things that Windows left an imprint for the future.
And of course, there were immigrants from all over the world that worked there as well. And we really wanted to shine a light on these people's stories.
MATTINGLY: Yeah, I think when I was watching the trailer, the reference was like the United Nations of restaurants. At one point at its peak. What inspired you to get involved with this project? Why is this an important story to tell right now?
LEE BIEGEL: Well, I first read Tom Rothstein's book, the most spectacular restaurant in the world in 2019, and it is the story of Windows, and I was instantly taken with it. I could not put the book down. I gave it to my husband. He was the same.
My husband is a television producer and the two of us said, we have to make this a documentary someday. And years went by and then finally, one day, about three and a half years ago, we said, we are doing this, and we put together a great team with our partners at producing with Time and Tribeca Films and our directors, Betsy West and Julie Cohen, who both Oscar-nominated. And of course, our partners, CNN films.
MATTINGLY: What do you want? There is so much has been done on this topic. There are so many incredible stories, heartbreaking stories, remarkable stories from what happened 25 years ago. What do you want audiences to take away from this uniquely incredible story?
LEE BIEGEL: I want people to remember the American Dream and how anyone can come to America and make it. And there were people -- there were over 400 employees at Windows, and there were people from all over the world speaking all different languages.
And restaurants cannot run without immigrants. They could not run without them then. They cannot run without them now. And these people were special people and they were a family within this restaurant. And I want people to remember them. And I want to tell their stories.
MATTINGLY: It is a story that absolutely needs to be told. I cannot wait to watch it.
Katie Lee Biegel, thank you so much.
LEE BIEGEL: Thank you so much for having me.
MATTINGLY: And the all new CNN film "Top of the World" premieres Monday night at 8:00 Eastern and Pacific. And then next day on the CNN app.
Join me for my video series, "CNN Breaks It Down". We tackle some of the most pressing questions in business and politics. Find new episodes on CNN.com/watch.
And you can follow this show on X and Instagram @TheLeadCNN. If you ever missed an episode of THE LEAD, you can watch the show on the CNN app.
"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.
