Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip

Trump Zeroes in on V.P. Pick, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND), Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) Top List; Joseph McCarthy Portrayed as Victim at Conservative Event; Bragg Asks Judge to Extend Trump Gag Order Over Threats; Many Conservatives Desire The Mixture Of Christianity, Politics And Government. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired June 21, 2024 - 22:00   ET

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

[22:00:01]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: So, don't miss the finale of secrets and spies and nuclear game this Sunday at 10:00 P.M. Eastern and Pacific right here on CNN.

Thanks for joining us. CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip starts right now. Have a great weekend.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: The MAGA world melee over who should be Donald Trump's running mate, that's tonight on NewsNight.

Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.

Tonight, family, friends, and MAGA countrymen are all playing the ponies, except the horses are men, three men. New CNN reporting shows the constant cajoling and lobbying and pleading from people in Donald Trump's orbit to pick their guy to run alongside Trump atop the ticket. The short list is seemingly shorter now, Marco Rubio, J.D. Vance, and Doug Burgum. They are all reportedly at the top of the list of Trump's choices to tap.

Now, that doesn't mean that the others are ruled out, including Tim Scott, Elise Stefanik, Byron Donalds, Ben Carson, who will join me later on this show. All of them, CNN is told, have received some level of vetting paperwork.

And the Veepstakes power rankings are in constant flux, according to our sources. Why? Well, it depends on Trump's mood, of course, and it depends on how Trump thinks everyone in his V.P. casting call is performing on television, quote, their standing really depends on the day, who he speaks with, and who he sees on T.V.

Let's bring in CNN's Senior Data Reporter Harry Enten. Harry, so walk us through it. We've got three contenders. What are the pros and cons of each of them?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Yes, we'll walk you through the three of them. We'll start off with Marco Rubio from the state of Florida. All right, what are the pros for Marco Rubio? Well, we know that Trump wants to outreach. He's doing better with Hispanic voters. Marco Rubio could help with that. How about foreign policy chops? Marco Rubio can help with that as well. Donald Trump, of course, the businessman, not necessarily known for his foreign policy chops. Marco Rubio can help there.

What are the cons though of Marco Rubio? Well, he lives in Florida, Trump's home state. So, you know, you can't have a V.P. and a pres being from the same state. So, he'd have to quit the Senate, maybe try and move somewhere else. So, that's a whole issue. And of course, there's this 2016 failed presidential bid where, of course, he and Trump went after each other quite often. So, there are pros and cons with Marco Rubio.

How about Doug Burgum, who's, of course, a governor from North Dakota? Well, what are the pros? Well, he is no drama. I mean, there's not really a whole heck of a lot you could kind of throw onto Doug Burgum. More than that, you know, Donald Trump, not exactly known as being establishment friendly. Well, Doug Burgum is pretty well liked by the establishment, specifically the business establishment.

What are the cons for Doug Burgum? Well, first off, who is Doug Burgum? Most folks have no real idea who he is. He wouldn't exactly be an exciting pick for the base. And, of course, he failed in his own presidential bid earlier this year, so he doesn't exactly have that great of an electoral track record, nationally speaking.

Finally, let's go to the state of Ohio and J.D. Vance, all right? Pros, well, he's a populist, just like Donald Trump. I think he could really excite the populist base of the Republican Party. Also, if you're looking for someone who might play decently well in swing states, like Pennsylvania and Michigan, well, Ohio, if you know your map, is pretty close to both of those.

How about the cons? Well, he's untested nationally. Who knows how he'll actually do when the lights are shined upon him. And, finally, there's 2016 opposition to Trump. He was very much against Trump. It'd be very interesting to see some of those tapes played if, in fact, he was chosen, Abby.

PHILLIP: Yes, actually pretty wide range there among those three that he's picking from. Harry, thank you, as always.

For more on this, I want to bring in Michael Smerconish, the host of Smerconish, right here on CNN. Michael, good to see you. Thanks for joining us.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN HOST: Thank you, Abby.

PHILLIP: So, looking at these top three contenders right now, which candidate do you think actually brings the most to a Trump presidential ticket?

SMERCONISH: I don't know that any of the three are particular standouts. I think that Trump's criteria have changed since 2016. I think then he needed to balance his lack of governance, and Mike Pence became a natural type of selection. He also wanted someone who had a more steady demeanor. Actually, that would describe a lot of folks. This time around, because he served as president, I don't think that he needs someone with governmental experience. I just think that he needs someone who gives him an edge, somebody who's going to bring something to the table. Because if all of these polls are accurate, it's a game of inches, and the question becomes, who can deliver some votes?

PHILLIP: So, there is an op-ed by Michael LaRosa. He used to work for the Biden administration.

[22:05:00]

He said in The New York Times that he believes that Senator Rubio actually poses the biggest threat to Biden, perhaps because of what you're alluding to, the draw of Latino voters in swing states, potentially. If you were working in the Biden campaign, would you agree with that? Would you see Rubio as more of a concern, perhaps, than some of the others, Doug Burgum or J.D. Vance?

SMERCONISH: I'd be concerned about Marco Rubio for that reason, because I think that the Latino vote is a critical constituency. I would also be concerned about some of the African-American potential selections, Tim Scott, for example, not so much Ben Carson. Because, you know, if the polls are accurate, Abby, and if currently Donald Trump is getting somewhere between 18 and 22 percent of the vote, that would be a huge setback for the Biden campaign.

I think it explains why tomorrow former President Trump is coming to Philadelphia and doing an event at Temple University. That's North Philadelphia. That's the heart of the African-American community, because I think he really is trying to make this play.

PHILLIP: So, do you think that Rubio, though -- he's kind of thought of as a bit of an institutionalist in the Senate. He's the vice chair of the Intelligence Committee. Would he go along with some of the more kind of outlandish things that Trump personally wants to pursue, and then also this Project 2025 plan that's being put together by outside allies of Trump's that aims to upend the federal government and effectively weaponize it?

SMERCONISH: He's very conservative, you know, and he's, and he's been in the Senate for a while and he has a track record that's going to please that base. Is it necessarily going to swing independents? Probably not Democrats. What's interesting to me is that, politically speaking with Donald Trump, you're, you're not dead until you're really gone. Because each one of these three, and in particular, you'll remember, of course, Marco Rubio, all the things that were said between them, it got vicious, right, when they were opponents on that state back in 2016. And yet Donald Trump, I guess, in the end, very transactional, very much forgive and forget if it suits him.

PHILLIP: But would Marco Rubio go along with it? I think that's what I'm wondering is would Rubio be the one to say, sure, Donald Trump, like let's go after your political enemies, if he finds himself in the White House as Trump's vice president. SMERCONISH: No, I don't think that he would. To be specific and answer your question, I think that he would be more Mike Pence-like. I mean, in the end, Vice President Pence didn't do what Trump was asking on that critical day in January of 2021. And if Marco Rubio were in similar position and the facts were otherwise the same, I think he'd probably be the same way that Pence had been.

PHILLIP: Which might be a pretty big problem for Donald Trump, considering that seems to be --

SMERCONISH: For Donald Trump

PHILLIP: -- a litmus test for him. Yes, sure, absolutely. Michael Smerconish, great to see you. Thanks so much for joining us.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Abby.

PHILLIP: And you can catch Michael's show tomorrow at 9:00 A.M. Eastern Time right here on CNN.

Also tonight, conservatives are resurrecting one of history's villains as a victim. Just take a listen to former Trump Official and Fox personality Monica Crowley at the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference. She was defending Joseph McCarthy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MONICA CROWLEY, FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, TREASURY DEPARTMENT: Senator Joe McCarthy was right. And he was trying to ring the bell in the 1950s about communist infiltration in our government, and the same deep state that is now going after Donald Trump, the same deep state that removed Richard Nixon, the same deep state that went after Ronald Reagan, and anybody else who stood up to them, that deep state because very insidious, and in the 1950s, smeared and attacked Joe McCarthy for speaking the truth about godless communism in the very halls of our government.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: I'll let my next guest get into the history, the real history of McCarthyism, but it is worth noting McCarthy's chief counsel was a man by the name of Roy Cohn. Roy Cohn was also Donald Trump's mentor.

Let's bring in CNN Contributor Leah Wright Rigueur. She's also an associate professor of history at Johns Hopkins University. Leah, McCarthy -- first of all, I thought that we had settled this about McCarthyism --

LEAH WRIGHT RIGUEUR, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think we actually have settled this.

PHILLIP: -- that we have decided that McCarthyism was both unsuccessful and also a shameful chapter in American history. Monica Crowley now saying that he was right? RIGUEUR: You know, what's really fascinating about this is that there's a long list of people that Monica Crowley mentioned as she's defending and championing Joe McCarthy. And all of the people that she mentioned were part of the insistence that Joe McCarthy was, in fact, a very bad person and McCarthyism was deeply bad and hurtful and harmful for the country.

[22:10:00]

And, in fact, you know, I think one of the things that's really interesting to point out is that McCarthyism isn't just attacked by the left. Certainly, of course, you know, I think the left during the 1950s and well into the 1960s saw McCarthyism as something that was deeply judgmental, hurtful, destroyed people's lives. You know, there were senators who committed suicide over this, but it was also the right. Ronald Reagan says in the 1980s that McCarthy, Joseph McCarthy's cause actually undermines the anti-communist cause around the world, that it's bad for democracy.

So, to see the revival of this and to see it cast in a light when, for the past 60 some odd years, there's been pretty much consensus that McCarthyism was not a great thing and Joseph McCarthy was really a rabid kind of ideologue is deeply concerning.

PHILLIP: It is very bizarre, but perhaps not out of the blue. I mean, she talks about godless communism in her speech today. Back in the 50s, McCarthy, he argued that a communistic atheism was at war with Christianity. Now you've got a lot of people, she's speaking at the Faith and Freedom Conference today, a lot of people who want to establish the United States as an explicitly Christian country. Is this just a part two of trying to kind of rewrite that, redo that chapter of American history?

RIGUEUR: Yes. Well, I think it's part of a larger attempt to really rewrite the ideas of what America is rooted in and what it would mean to be a Christian nation. It is part of a larger movement and trend that we've seen over the last couple of years towards Christian nationalism that presidents actually has historically been very successful at mobilizing and rallying around. There's a reason that it's not just Joseph McCarthy who gets a shout out in, in Monica Crowley's speech, it's also Richard Nixon. So, we know, right?

PHILLIP: Donald Trump saw himself as being mentored by in a way.

RIGUEUR: Right. But what's really fascinating about Richard Nixon is even as he holds an enormous amount of disdain for the very religious kind of groups that he cultivates, he also works with people like Billy Graham, evangelical churches, and this kind of Christian -- this budding Christian right in order to really expand executive power and to get away with essentially undermining democracy.

So, I don't think it's that strange that as we are seeing the re- emergence of Christian nationalism as an effort and tied explicitly to Donald Trump, that we're also seeing a rewriting of history in an attempt to really harness people that have done this before. PHILLIP: Yes. And newsflash to Monica Crowley, it was not the deep state that denounced Joseph McCarthy or Richard Nixon. It was actually bipartisan lawmakers. Both parties denounced both of those men and their actions. Leah Wright Rigueur, thank you, as always, for being here.

And up next, I'll read to you some of the vile threats against Donald Trump's prosecutors as they fight to extend the gag order against him.

Plus, Ben Carson is one of Trump's vice presidential contenders and he joins me on why he supports states forcing schools to post the Ten Commandments in their classrooms.

And why are some conservatives trying to cancel Dolly Parton?

This is NewsNight,

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:15:00]

PHILLIP: Alvin, I'm going to kill you. That is just one of the threats that Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg has recently received since Donald Trump has been charged and convicted in the hush money trial case. And tonight he is listing all of these threats in detail to convince a judge not to end the gag order on Trump. Hundreds of emails and calls to Bragg's office are now under security review. And in the last three months alone, the NYPD found 56 actionable threats against Bragg, his family, and his office staff.

I'm going to read a few from the past year, and I'm going to warn you that they are pretty disturbing. So, here's one. Back in March of 2023, leave Trump alone or Bragg will get assassinated. A few days later, another note, just wanted to say, I can't wait to watch you swinging from the rope in your military tribunal. You better get on your knees and pray to Jesus Christ. You're going to find your maker soon. In April of 2023, when your fat F word D.A. is more interested in a witch hunt on President Trump than prosecuting crime in your shithole city, it's time to get rid of both of you N word. The next day, Alvin Bragg is nothing but a racist N word.

And it's not just verbal or written threats. In March of last year, the office was sent a letter with a white powder and a threatening note. And the next month, more white powder, but this time with pictures of Bragg and Trump and the words, you will be sorry.

It was around this time that a Trump supporter in Utah posted on Truth Social, heading to New York to fulfill my dream of eradicating another of George Soros two-bit political hack D.A.s. I want to stand over Bragg and put a nice hole in his forehead with my nine-millimeter, and watch him twitch as drops of blood ooze from the hole as his life ebbs away to hell.

A few months later, that man was killed by FBI agents while attempting to arrest him for threats against President Biden just ahead of Biden's trip to his state. And on the first day of the trial, just two months ago, there was a bomb threat to the homes of two people involved in this case.

Joining me now are former counsel to President Trump during the first impeachment, Robert Ray, also with us, Civil and Criminal Attorney Donte Mills.

[22:20:00]

Robert, the attorneys for President Trump want -- or, I'm sorry, the attorneys for President Trump want this gag order to go away, but the prosecutors are making the case that the threats are still active, even though the case is over and pending sentencing. Do they have a point?

ROBERT RAY, FORMER COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT TRUMP DURING THE FIRST IMPEACHMENT: The case isn't over until the sentencing is heard and sentence is imposed and then, presumably, President Trump's lawyers will file a notice of appeal, at which point the trial court will be divested of jurisdiction.

I have absolutely no problem, frankly, with the prosecutor's real concern about safety. And, look, there are wing nuts out there in, in the period of time between now and when the trial court's role in this case ends. I don't think it's worth taking the chance that anybody could do harm to any of the court personnel, the judge's staff, most importantly the judge and certainly the district attorney and his staff.

We've all been there. This is this is the probably going to be -- I mean, in addition to the trial, this is probably the second most pointed, pitched battle that will occur here about what the sentence will be. And I think my view of that is better safe than sorry. And so any gag order that would help lend itself to calming the temperature here and getting us safely through this proceeding I think is the right course.

DONTE MILLS, NATIONAL TRIAL ATTORNEY, MILLS AND EDWARDS: They may think their actions will make a difference. So, with the sentencing coming up, they may act thinking, if I do this, then the sentencing will be different.

RAY: I have no toleration for this nonsense.

MILLS: Listen, we went through -- my firm --

RAY: I'm not going to put up with this.

MILLS: My firm went through this situation. We had a very high- profile case. Both my partner, Lennon Edwards, and I and our firm started getting calls, and they were actionable threats, we had to bring in U.S. Marshals. We had not only our safety, but we had to talk to our staff and say, when you get a call, someone saying, I'm going to kill you, just hang up the phone because their mental state is impacted.

So, this has a huge effect. RAY: And I had the same situation as well as independent counsel had for a period of time, Marshal's protection with regards to things that happen, you know, in just a day-to-day thing. And on a high-profile case, it gets heated. I understand that, people are entitled to their views, they're not entitled to fly off the rails, and the wing nut stuff has got to stop.

PHILLIP: It's actually somewhat related to this. So, down in Florida, there was a pretty important hearing, partly because just having a hearing in that case of the documents trial is a novelty because there have not been many, but it's about whether or not Jack Smith is actually allowed to be the special counsel in this case. What do you think of the argument that is being made here that Merrick Garland shouldn't have or couldn't have appointed him?

RAY: I think it has more credibility than apparently the mainstream media seems to think. I mean, it depends on what your view is about whether or not -- I don't want to talk legal shop here, but it goes back to Morrison versus Olson, which is the case that decided the constitutionality of the independent counsel statute.

It was decided in 1988. The Supreme Court found 7-1 Independent Counsel Statute was constitutional, that an Independent Counsel was not a principal officer of the United States, but was instead an inferior officer, therefore did not require that the Independent Counsel be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate. A similar argument is being made now.

Now the law of the land is Morrison versus Olson and we're in a regulatory regime as opposed to a statutory regime, which are the special counsel regulations. But there are a lot of people, many conservatives, and including myself, who think that Justice Scalia had it right all along, and that the Independent Counsel Statute is, in fact, unconstitutional.

PHILLIP: And just to be clear, you were a part of that independent counsel's office --

RAY: Yes, correct.

PHILLIP: -- in the 1990s.

RAY: I was appointed pursuant to that statute. So, it's a little weird to be arguing that the statute was unconstitutional. But Justice Scalia was the sole dissenter in that case. And the legal community, not just conservatives, have, with the benefit of experience, I think, come around to the conclusion that Justice Scalia may well have been right.

PHILLIP: Just as a point of clarity here, Judge Aileen Cannon is, it seems, litigating that issue in her courthouse in Florida. Why?

MILLS: And not only is she litigating that issue, she's inviting outside people to come in and add to the argument when it's well- documented. This case has been determined to be the law of the land. And what we see is, after that case, what the special counsel's office has done is they've changed the way they operate. So, now they make sure that they oversee special counsel, so now it's no question.

So, why is the judge wasting time on figuring out an answer to something that's already been answered?

[22:25:04]

PHILLIP: I also wondered -- so in that hearing, she was also quizzing the prosecutors about how much the attorney general was involved in the case. I mean, there is oversight in terms of the org chart, essentially. But there is --

RAY: But I think those questions get -- true.

PHILLIP: Why is she ruling down on that?

RAY: Because it gets to the question of whether or not Jack Smith really is an inferior officer of the United States, which the Supreme Court held in Morrison was the only way that you could have a functioning Independent Counsel Statute and Special Counsel Statute that would survive constitutional muster. If, on the other hand, a special counsel has such power in the executive branch that that person should be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, and more importantly, that the Constitution requires that, then you're dealing with an unconstitutional appointment. It's appropriate for the defendant to challenge that at this stage.

PHILLIP: That seems like a little bit of a of a trap here, because what the Trump folks are arguing is that this is a political prosecution that Merrick Garland is pulling the strings on behalf of Joe Biden. And so if they answer that question and say, we are supervised by Merrick Garland, then the Trump team is going to say, you're biased.

RAY: And it's difficult to have it both ways is the problem.

MILLS: Yes. So, they're saying Merrick Garland oversees this and he's politically motivated because Joe Biden is pulling his strings so special counsel is politically motivated. Now they're arguing that special counsel has nobody overseeing him. Therefore, he should have been confirmed through the Senate. You can't have it both ways, but the judge is entertaining it. That's what's current --

RAY: Can I just answer your original question though?

MILLS: Why is the judge entertaining this?

RAY: Why are we entertaining this? It's a legitimate question. I think it's appropriate for the defendant to make that argument, preserve that issue. I would think that the judge would probably be well-advised to say, look, I'm a trial judge. I don't have discretion to decide what the law is. The Supreme Court -- I may or may not agree with the Supreme Court's decision on Morrison, but I am bound to follow it, and therefore I am going to have to rule.

PHILLIP: She's not doing that. MILLS: She's not doing it. And nothing is happening on this case, except you're having full days worth of hearings where you're bringing out outside people to argue on an issue that's already been decided.

PHILLIP: It's very fascinating.

MILLS: So, that's what she chose to litigate.

RAY: It hasn't been decided insofar as it concerns the special counsel regulations.

PHILLIP: But it is not something that -- as you just pointed out, she doesn't really have the authority to decide this issue.

RAY: No, I think her decision probably should be. Look, I'm bound by the Supreme Court's -- whatever you may think of it, I'm bound by the Supreme Court's decision, Morrison --

MILLS: But why have a whole day hearing to get to that point and say, I'm bound by a different hearing?

RAY: Because it wouldn't be the first time judges would make a record so that when the court of appeals considers this and ultimately the Supreme Court, they'll have something to say about it. By the way, this issue, I think, has been preserved in the immunity case before the D.C. Circuit, which is now before the Supreme Court and which will be decided in all likelihood next week. And I imagine that issue may well be addressed in that opinion, too.

PHILLIP: All right. Everybody, Robert Ray, Donte Mills, thank you very much. We'll be back with you, I'm sure, next week at some point.

Next, conservatives at the faith and freedom forum pretty explicit in their desire for a Christian nation. I'll speak with one of Donald Trump's vice presidential contenders, Ben Carson, about his rationale for having the Ten Commandments inside of classrooms.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:32:45]

PHILLIP: Last night on this show, we told you about Christian nationalism and how many conservatives desire the mixture of Christianity, politics, and government. And today, it was on full display at the Faith and Freedom Forum where Donald Trump is scheduled to speak tomorrow.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): We don't need less Christian witness in our society. We need more in every part of government, in every part of society.

KARI LAKE (R), 2022 ARIZONA GUBERNATORIAL ELECTION NOMINEE: Sit your butt down and start talking politics at church. I know, you're going to ruffle some feathers, but are you guys willing to do that? HAWLEY: We ought to take the pride flag out of schools and put the

Bible back in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: This, of course, comes as Louisiana now requires the Ten Commandments to be posted inside of every public classroom, a move that Trump himself says that he supports. Joining me now, Dr. Ben Carson. He served as Housing Secretary under Donald Trump. Dr. Carson, thank you for joining us tonight.

BEN CARSON, FORMER HUD SECRETARY, TRUMP ADMINISTRATION: Thanks for having me, Abby.

PHILLIP: So, you've said that you back Louisiana's new law that requires that the Ten Commandments are posted in public school classrooms. I wonder, would you favor a federal law requiring the same thing?

CARSON: Well, you know, the Ten Commandments is the basis of civilization. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with teaching kids morals and values. I don't think that anybody could come up with a reason why we shouldn't teach children not to steal, not to kill, not to envy, not to lie, to respect their parents. These are all good things. These are things from which civilized societies depend.

PHILLIP: Well, Dr. Carson, I mean, you're describing it as the basis of civilization, but what it actually is, is a part of your faith, which is perfectly fine. I was raised as a Christian, as well. I understand that. And in this country, though, there is such a thing as a separation of church and state. I think that's the main reason why people would oppose it being put up or forced to be put up in public schools.

CARSON: Well, separation of church and state does not appear in the Constitution.

[22:35:03]

And the whole concept arose when Jefferson was trying to assure the local churches that the government would not be trying to control them, nor did they want the churches trying to control the government. But do recognize that the First Amendment says you don't want to prohibit the free exercise of religion, otherwise --

PHILLIP: It also says, Dr. Carson, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion -- the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So, that's the part, I think, that people are referring to. I mean, before you continue, there have been a couple of court cases that have addressed this in different ways.

One of them dealt with the reading of the Bible in public schools. Another one dealt with almost exactly this issue, which is putting up the Ten Commandments in schools in Kentucky. The Supreme Court ruled against both of those instances of religious teachings being brought into the classroom. Were those cases wrongly decided?

CARSON: Well, is it religious teaching to know about our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, which says that our rights come from our Creator, also known as God? Is it establishment of religion when you go to the store and you buy something with a dollar bill that says, "In God We Trust?" You know, I think we can get to a point where we're parsing things too carefully, and we ought to be looking at the overall goal.

PHILLIP: Well, the counterargument to that, the counterargument to both of those examples, Dr. Carson, I mean, first of all, on the Declaration of Independence, that was a document that was, as it says, a declaration of independence from Britain. The Constitution, which actually establishes the United States government, doesn't mention God.

It doesn't mention any particular religion at all. And "In God We Trust" is also, you know, an artifact really of modernity. In the post-Civil War era, that's when it became a part of the coinage. In the 1950s, that's when it became something that was on the dollar bill.

CARSON: There are a lot of things --

PHILLIP: So, I think that -- I guess, my point is, Dr. Carson, a lot of people would and do disagree with you that the idea that the founding fathers believed that the government should be putting its thumb on the scale for any particular religion versus saying to whoever has a religion, they can exercise that however they want.

CARSON: But are you saying that the Ten Commandments are a religion?

PHILLIP: I'm saying that the Ten Commandments comes from your religious belief in the Christian Bible. I mean, would you be comfortable, for example, with --

CARSON: But are you saying --

PHILLIP: -- would you be comfortable, for example, with a public school hanging, you know, the five pillars of Islam in a classroom?

CARSON: I wouldn't have any problem with that if that's what the people wanted.

PHILLIP: So, I wonder, would you -- you have called the separation of God from the public square as a form of schizophrenia. I am curious about what you mean by that, considering that, you know, as we've been discussing --

CARSON: Okay, I can tell you.

PHILLIP: Yeah, but as we've been discussing, the founding fathers deliberately made no mention of God in the Constitution.

CARSON: What I meant is, if our founding document talks about our rights coming from God, if our pledge of allegiance says that we are one nation under God, if many courtrooms on the wall it says, "In God We Trust", if every coin in our pocket and every bill in our wallet says, "In God We Trust", but we say we're not supposed to talk about it, that's a form of schizophrenia.

PHILLIP: Do you acknowledge, though, that there's a difference between, let's say, let's take all those examples just at face value. There are a lot of people who believe in God who are not Christian, Dr. Carson. The Ten Commandments is a part of a particular type of religion. Don't you see a distinction between those things?

CARSON: Well, the Ten Commandments says nothing about Christ, does it?

PHILLIP: It doesn't need to. The question is, where does it come from? It comes from the Christian faith.

CARSON: Well, it doesn't. It's a code of conduct. It says nothing about Jesus Christ.

PHILLIP: So, speaking of code of conduct, Donald Trump, the former President, he said last night that he loves the Ten Commandments. He says that he loves that they are in public schools and that he urges people to read them. He is holding it up as a moral code, just as you have, as well. But it also seems to be a moral code that he doesn't follow. He doesn't even try to follow.

[22:40:01]

Does that seem right to you?

CARSON: I wonder, does it seem right that people put up codes? I was talking to a young lady a few weeks ago and she said in her school, they're having Pride Day and everybody must agree with it. And you can be expelled if you say something contrary to it or if you don't use the proper pronoun. I wonder if that's kind of a totalitarian attitude to take.

PHILLIP: Well, I mean, I don't even want to get into the pride issue because I think that's a separate topic. The question was about --

CARSON: It's the same kind of issue, though, isn't it?

PHILLIP: Well, where -- are there laws that are forcing people to put up, I don't know, I guess, pride codes of conduct on the walls?

CARSON: They were forcing the kids to comply with that particular --

PHILLIP: Who was "they"?

CARSON: Whether they believed in it or not. And I said, what if you don't believe in it? And she says, you've got to keep your mouth shut.

PHILLIP: But who are you even referring to? Are you talking about the government?

CARSON: A 12-year-old that I was talking to - no, I was talking to a 12-year-old that was what was going on at her school.

PHILLIP: Okay, I'm not sure what you're referring to, but it seems like there's a difference between that and an entire state saying, we need to put up -- we are going to force the classrooms and teachers to put up a tenant of a particular religion up on the walls. But just as a point of curiosity, have you ever --

CARSON: Well, I would agree with you. I would agree with you if you can tell me what is wrong with "Thou shalt not kill", "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not lie", "Thou shalt not envy." Can you just explain to me what's wrong with those things.

PHILLIP: There is absolutely nothing -- there's absolutely nothing wrong with those things.

CARSON: So, why wouldn't we want to teach our children -- why wouldn't we want to teach our children those?

PHILLIP: I think the issue at hand is a legal one. It's about whether or not the government can be in the business of telling public schools that they have to put up those words that, as objectionable as they may be, come from a particular religion. That's the question.

CARSON: And I'm saying that those are codes of conduct that have universal application. Do you know you can go to the darkest jungle of Borneo and you see a thief? What does he do? He waits until nighttime when nobody can see him. That means he knows it's wrong. It's a universal code of conduct.

PHILLIP: Have you, for example, ever seen the Ten Commandments up at any Trump properties?

CARSON: I haven't specifically seen them. I don't know if they're there or not.

PHILLIP: Shouldn't they be?

CARSON: I wouldn't object to them being there. I don't object to them not being there.

PHILLIP: But I'm saying if they're such universal, you know, tenants, why are they not up where, you know, former President Trump controls what happens? I mean, he owns those properties. He operates them. He could put them up. Shouldn't they be up?

CARSON: Well, this is not about President Trump. This is about what is happening to the moral fiber of our nation. This is happening because people no longer respect other people. And these are rules of conduct that can help people to start understanding that we have an obligation to treat our fellow man in a certain way. And when we begin to teach that at a young age, it makes a big difference.

PHILLIP: Well, you know, I think that's great, actually. We do want to teach people values. But I think what people object to is the idea that those values come from any particular one religion. For example, there are parts of the world where they do not believe in the Ten Commandments as a text, as a historical text, as a religious text. Are those places not civilized? Are those places not teaching values?

CARSON: Well, if the people of the state of Louisiana don't believe in it, they can do something about that, can't they?

PHILLIP: One last thing before we let you go, Dr. Carson. On the vice presidential search, have you received that vetting paperwork that we are being told are being given to the candidates to be considered as Donald Trump's vice presidential nominee?

CARSON: Certainly, there's been communication.

[22:45:01]

PHILLIP: So, yes, you have received the paperwork?

CARSON: I haven't filled out any paperwork myself, but, you know, my staff and the Trump staff have been in communication.

PHILLIP: Okay. And have you met with President Trump specifically about being the potential to be his Vice President?

CARSON: No, I have not.

PHILIP: All right. Dr. Carson, thank you very much for joining us.

CARSON: Okay, a pleasure. Thank you.

PHILLIP: The right's attempt to cancel Dolly Parton, is anyone safe if they're coming even for Miss "9 to 5"? We'll discuss that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:50:08]

PHILLIP: Bud Light Barbie, Mr. Potato Head, he NFL, Taylor Swift and now, Dolly Parton. Tonight, the Backwoods Barbie herself is the latest target of the right's cancel culture. In a more than 50-year career with over a hundred million records sold, she has been the Switzerland of public figures, beloved by the left and the right alike.

But a few weeks ago, a conservative outlet labeled Parton's support of the LGBTQ community false gospel. And the backlash was swift against Parton. And the author actually had to apologize for her comments because of how harsh it got.

My guest tonight argues that if we lost Dolly to the partisan pitchforks, our nation is closer to civil war than perhaps ever before. Joining me now is Allison Hope. She's the writer and civil rights advocate. Allison, can you imagine that Dolly would suddenly be the person that the right is going after of all people?

ALLISON HOPE, FREELANCE WRITER AND CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCATE: We have -- we have crossed a line, Abby. It is -- it is a sad day in American history when we've come for something as American as apple pie or baseball. You know, Dolly Parton is the Queen of Country. She's been around for decades. She has been neutral. She is all about love and bringing people together. And it is -- it is a sad day.

PHILLIP: What makes this different from all the other controversies that we've seen around kind of like, you know, musicians and who's speaking out, who gets to speak out and who doesn't get to speak out?

HOPE: Yeah. You know, we are operating on such ideological opposing lines. And Dolly Parton for seven decades has remained neutral. She really has been Switzerland and she has spoken and preached love. She comes from a very Christian background and a very Christian Bible belt location geographically.

But her audiences have been very split along both sides of the aisle. And so, she's unique in that. A lot of artists have chosen sides, so to speak, just like so many Americans have. And she has somehow been the unicorn that has maintained her line in the middle.

PHILIP: I guess the argument that her detractors were making is that I guess preaching love for LGBTQ people is not neutral. But what's interesting is that the person who wrote this had to apologize. It just kind of goes to show how much cultural cachet Dolly has.

HOPE: Absolutely. Absolutely. And, you know, I'd say it goes both ways because it shows a little bit of a breaking point for America to see someone who has been able to ride that line and who has worked so hard not to alienate audiences get attacked in the way that Dolly Parton did.

And I think the author and seeing the vitriolic reaction that was so ferocious and so quick with so much volume realized the power of her words or really the weaponizing of her words. And that was not her intention.

So, I actually give credit to Erica Anderson, to the writer who wrote the original post. However, you know, misguided she may have been in some of her anti-LGBTQ posturing. But to come out and to try to calm the wave of armchair activists against Dolly Parton was admirable.

PHILLIP: That's a fair point. Sometimes apologizing and walking back something that you did is it's just such a rarity now in today's society. Allison Hope, thank you very much for coming in and joining us tonight.

HOPE: Thank you so much, Abby.

PHILLIP: And we've got some breaking news tonight. A new update on when the stranded NASA astronauts may be able to finally return home to Earth. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:58:24]

PHILLIP: Breaking news. If you think your flight delays are bad, listen to this. NASA has once again pushed back when Boeing Starliner will be able to return to Earth from the International Space Station. A pair of NASA astronauts arrived there on June 6th for a week-long stay.

And check the calendar. It's been much longer than a week, thanks to helium leaks and dysfunctional thrusters. This week, NASA said that the earliest they'll return was June 26th. Now, they say two astronauts won't be returning until July.

From space to Earth and our planet's sleeping giants, volcanoes, an unbelievable look at the shocking deadly ways that they can bring massive destruction.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: The fissure near Daryl was number 17.

UNKNOWN: Fissure 17 was the first one to really, really dump volume for a lot of it. Very explosive in nature.

UNKNOWN: It was hard for me to believe that anyone in their right mind would want to be there.

UNKNOWN: You're all right. When you hear the explosions and you're out on the lawn, what's the strategy?

UNKNOWN: Look up and watch him. Keep your eye on him.

UNKNOWN: That was the strategy. And it worked pretty well for him. Until it didn't.

UNKNOWN: Friday, we interviewed him. And on Sunday morning, we had got word that somebody had been hit by a lava bomb. And as soon as I heard that, I was a million percent sure that's Daryl.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:00:00]

PHILLIP (voice-over): You can catch more of Violent Earth with Liev Schreiber this Sunday at 9 P.M. Eastern, only right here on CNN.

PHILLIP: And thank you for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.