Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
New Evidence Against Trump In Election-Stealing Efforts; Trump Calls DOJ's New January 6th Evidence A Hit Job; Georgia GOP Sowing Doubt About Dominion Machines In 2020 Sequel; "NewsNight" Panelists Discuss The Walz-Vance Vice-Presidential Debate; Trump Sells $100,000 Watches. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired October 02, 2024 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, Jack Smith puts his cards on the table for the American people to see. The evidence spells out how Donald Trump and his allies were just fine with riots in 2020, as the GOP is again reviving a conspiracy about the coming election.
Also the MAGA model, the vice presidential debate previews the GOP's future.
SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I believe that we have the most beautiful country in the world.
PHILLIP: The same MAGA messaging in more pleasant packaging.
And a riff from Eddie Vedder sounding off on Donald Trump for shilling $100,000 watches.
Live at the table, Bakari Sellers, Scott Jennings, Ashley Allison, Bryan Lanza, and Bomani Jones.
With 33 days to go, Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening, I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America is talking about tonight. Jack Smith makes his case in public just one month before the election. The special counsel is demanding that Donald Trump stand trial for his quest to cling to power. It is a revealing and damning new accusation in a major filing and it shows that the former president knew the conspiracies were B.S., he peddled them anyway, and he did so illegally in his personal capacity.
But here are some of the newer headlines from Jack Smith that you should pay attention to. Donald Trump was told many times, many, many times by many people that these claims were false. He even acknowledged that one of his favorite conspiracy theorists was crazy. He was told that the conspiracies were, quote, effing nuts, and he plotted to declare victory, even if he had not won. He and his allies looked to spread conspiracies to create chaos, one even saying, quote, make them riot. When Trump was told that Mike Pence was in danger at the Capitol on January 6th, Trump responded, so what? And the testimony, the phone evidence, shows Trump refused to take action during the insurrection.
But here is the big picture. There is a chance that the Supreme Court could throw this whole immunity case out. So, effectively, is this the last chance that voters will have to see the evidence that Jack Smith has before they cast their ballot?
Take that to the table here. I mean, it is kind of unusual, first of all, for this to happen at this particular juncture, but some of it is because this case kept getting pushed back. And now we have basically Jack Smith putting all his cards on the table and saying this is what we have. This is why we need to go to trial.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I guess the reality is like even if it goes to trial, the chances that we would get a verdict at this point before the election are very slim. I think the American people deserve to know what happened in this instance on January 6th. Many of us watched it with our eyes. Many of us watched the January 6th hearings and heard people who were close to Donald Trump on that day, people who still haven't really come out against Donald Trump in terms of being a candidate, saying that he did things that were not to uphold the Constitution, and yet four years later, we still have this big question mark. I wish this case had been resolved months ago, even before the Republican primary, but here we are.
So, I still want to know all the facts, even if it feels a little late because the reality is January 6th happened and we need to know exactly what Donald Trump's role was.
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This isn't new though. I mean, 11 days before, in 2016, 11 days before Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump ran for president, James Comey came out and had this new kind of recollection or come to Jesus, as we say down south.
And so this isn't a new type of October surprise or anything of the sort. In fact, when you read what Jack Smith said, when you look at the evidence that he put forth, it's actually very sound. But this is something that's already baked into the cake.
So, the Harris campaign, for example, is not looking at this as some advantage. This isn't going to be -- I mean, and the question I have for newsmakers and journalists and those people -- I remind people in a barbershop all the time, I'm not a journalist.
[22:05:05]
I get paid to give my opinion. I'm a commentator. Sometimes Scott thinks that he's a journalist too, but he's actually a commentator like me, but senior commentator, right? I remind people of that all the time because when it comes down to just asserting the facts of what happened, we have to look at the facts that Jack Smith laid out. And those facts paint a very, very desperate picture by somebody who was running for president of the United States.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I actually would like to ratify some of what my junior colleague.
SELLERS: Jesus, I got to get paid more for this.
JENNINGS: I actually agree. It is baked in. Look, January 6th happened. I agree with you too. We all saw it. And people have formed opinions about it. This case has been going on for quite some time. There was the whole hearings on Capitol Hill, which everybody had a chance to watch. I don't think this filing is going to change anything. I think if you're mad at Donald Trump over this, you still are. And I think if you think he got a raw deal, you still think that.
You know, the issue of, democracy in the election was high up in the CNN poll this week, but that means different things to different people. There was a poll in Georgia this week that more voters thought Trump would strengthen democracy than Kamala Harris. So, I think it's gotten muddled as a political matter. But I agree with Bakari. I do not see this changing the flow of the water in this campaign right now.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, look, there is a degree to which people understand if they have a strong opinion about Trump, they understand what he's about. But one of the things about this is that Trump is actually running to be president again. And some of this information, I think, is pretty damning.
I mean, let me just read an excerpt about -- this is the part about the rioting that was being discussed. When a colleague suggested that there was about to be unrest reminiscent of the Brooks Brothers riot, a violent effort to stop the vote count in Florida in 2000, one of the conspirators, who's not named, P5, responded, make them riot and do it. The defendant's campaign operatives and supporters used similar tactics at other tabulation centers.
Part of this is about the conspiracy around Trump that was maybe they were welcoming violence at this point,
BOMANI JONES, PODCAST HOST, THE RIGHT TIME WITH BOMANI JONES: But you're not going to affect people with something that they have to read. Like that's maybe the most disheartening part about this. The time to get people really charged up about what happened was on the day of January 6th, where it seemed like everybody involved in terms of conveying the message of what actually took place realized, hey, we can't tell people it's this easy to overthrow the government, and the message was tamped down at that point.
After that, we saw more, we saw the coverage from other countries. We saw more videos and saw how crazy it was, not just some kooky people walking around with funny hats and doing stuff, right? That was the time to affect people. Now, this just feels like another time that Donald Trump has gone to court. Because the truth is, if you still need somebody to convince you one direction or another about what happened on that day, you're done for. People have decided, no, we are willing to vote for the dude that tried to overthrow the government the last time, and even if he tries to stick around for the rest of his life, there are some people who have decided that they're willing to go from that. It's crazy to me, but it's where we are.
PHILLIP: Yes. In this filing, the special counsel puts on paper a lot of what Trump was saying about the 2020 election, about whether he was going to accept the results of it. This was months before the election even happened. And it would be impossible to hear that without also hearing what he's been saying recently. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: I hope it's going to be a fair election. If it's a fair election, I am 100 percent on board. But if I see tens of thousands of ballots being manipulated, I can't go along with that.
If I see that we had a fair and free election, which I hope to be able to say, but if I see that, I will be -- you will never see anybody more honorable than me.
REPORTER: But you didn't accept the results of the last election.
TRUMP: Well, that's right, because there were many problems with the last election.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, Bryan, is he ceding the ground to do what he did in 2020 again?
BRYAN LANZA, SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: No. Listen, what he is saying is like, we definitely want a free and fair elections. What we don't want were the rules changed at the last minute, like what happened last time in 2020, where rules were changed --
PHILLIP: I think that one of the things about this document is that it pretty definitively debunks that.
LANZA: No, it doesn't.
PHILLIP: Yes, it does. I mean --
LANZA: Hold on. That's his interpretation without any stress. There's no way it debunks anything.
PHILLIP: It debunks it in the sense that --
LANZA: The stress test is what's going to debunk it. And you're not giving the Trump campaign opportunity to stress test.
PHILLIP: What it clearly states is that Donald Trump was told that he was going to lose and was also plotting before the election to say he was going to win. And it turns out in the January 6th hearings that they had the audio of Steve Bannon talking about this exact strategy. This is also in the document. Let's play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: And what Trump's going to do is just declare victory, right? He's going to declare victory, but that doesn't mean he's the winner. He's just going to say he's the winner.
The Democrats -- more of our people vote early that count. Theirs vote in mail.
[22:10:00]
And so they're going to have a natural disadvantage and Trump's going to take advantage of, that's our strategy
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, they have evidence and testimony that Trump was told that about how the voting works and that he talked to people like Bannon and others about a strategy to claim victory when he knew he lost. So, that has nothing to do with irregularities. That's a strategy to lie.
LANZA: What they have is a document from a prosecutor that's put in his pipe dreams of everything that he wants to do to try to influence an election. What we've learned over the years in these documents and other cases that they very rarely make it to the court because when there's stress tests they fall off. Either there's a disgruntled employee, either things were confused, all these other things.
So, Jack Smith has presented his document. That's the best it's going to get. Now it's going to get stress tests between now and the court dates and it's going to continue to diminish.
PHILLIP: But my point is that Donald Trump knew he lost, claimed victory even though he knew he lost. That is true.
SELLERS: Let me just -- I actually agree with Bryan on the surface, because as somebody who practices law in federal courts around the country, you're absolutely right. I do a lot of criminal defense work, I do a lot of civil rights work, I do kind of both sides of the table in the civil and criminal work, but no one's ever seen the depth of which Jack Smith actually presented his case. The depth, the nuance, the detail, it's fascinating, it's different.
And, yes, I am actually decently sympathetic as a Democrat for somebody who says that Donald Trump has a right to defend himself in the court of law. The difference is that he cannot be treated as different. He's not anybody else. And so, yes --
LANZA: The whole point, Bakari, is he has been treated differently.
SELLERS: How? Explain.
LANZA: Let me explain. The courts, first of all, changed New York. This is a different, this is the state courts.
SELLERS: No, we're not talking about different. Let's keep -- because right now when you say we're going to change, now you're talking about apples and Cosamigos. I want to talk about apples and oranges.
LANZA: Let's do it. The fact that the judge said we definitely need to hear this hearing, or we need to hear this case before an election, why does the judge get to make that determination? Hold on, you're asking me a question and you're not going to let me finish?
PHILLIP: But let me just add a little bit of context here, because Donald Trump actually -- the reason we are even having this filing is because the Supreme Court stepped in to say Donald Trump gets to be treated differently. They have to adjudicate.
LANZA: The reason we're having this filing is because Jack Smith said Donald Trump does not deserve to be treated like everybody else and let's accelerate his case. That's why we have this filing, Abby. Let's be clear.
PHILLIP: It's because the court now has to decide which of these allegations actually get to be tried, because Donald Trump, as a former president, has, according to the Supreme Court, some presumption of immunity for some of his actions. That is literally the definition of being treated differently.
LANZA: No, that's the definition of every president.
PHILLIP: So, he's actually benefiting from that.
LANZA: That is the definition of every president getting that benefit, not just President Trump. That's the definition of President Biden getting that benefit. That's the definition of everybody going forward. The Supreme Court said every president gets that benefit.
PHILLIP: All I'm saying is that the only proven evidence of Donald Trump being treated differently is that the Supreme Court has said there are some things that he can do that might be illegal that our official acts that he can do.
LANZA: Do you think Joe Biden doesn't have the Supreme Court's coverage on this? Do you think the next president's not going to have that?
PHILLIP: My only point is that, what's the evidence other than that, that he's actually being treated differently in this case?
LANZA: Well, the evidence is Jack Smith wanted to accelerate this case. We've all heard about it. We've all seen it. And that's never happened before.
PHILLIP: He's going to a judge and the judge decides.
JONES: But is that about Donald Trump in particular, and we're in the face of an election, and he's actually running for it in the face of all of this. Like the absurdity of the idea that this is not disqualified to run in the first place, we skip all over that step and we get to right here. It kind of has to be accelerated because we got this thing that's coming --
LANZA: But that's not how our judicial system is supposed to work.
ALLISON: Can I just say this? You guys said the cake was baked. I think it's at the point where if you open the oven, the cake could still fall. And I think Donald Trump should fall as a candidate. Because last night we watched his running mate refused to acknowledge whether or not Donald Trump has won or lost the election. And I think the issue is that if you can't even acknowledge that you lost in 2020 -- I'm curious to see, do you think that Donald Trump lost the election? Let me finish, Bakari. Did you think Donald Trump lost the election in 2020?
LANZA: Listen, I'm not going to focus on that.
ALLISON: There we go. So, this is why this case -- look, wait.
SELLERS: I disagree with you.
ALLISON: I know. I'm not -- you can disagree with me, but I want to finish my point. I got my point. Let me cook. Let me cook. Let me cook. Since we're talking about cakes, let me cook.
Okay, so if you don't want to talk about, that's why it's so important that this case actually be litigated, is because the reason why we're in this situation is because you all can't accept the facts of democracy. And when you can't accept the facts of democracy, you try to overturn it. Because you aren't behaving as good quality Americans who are -- belief in what this country was founded on. It's quite dangerous. It's quite dangerous.
SELLERS: I wholeheartedly agree. But I --
PHILLIP: Go ahead and have your last word.
[22:15:00]
SELLERS: I love Ashley.
PHILLIP: Tried to interrupt Ashley multiple times now.
SELLERS: With all my heart. I know, multiple times.
JENNINGS: Let me just give you some advice. I wouldn't go down this road if I were you. She's fierce.
SELLERS: No, I'm not. I disagree with her because I think that we're at a point now where the only way that you can preserve democracy is to beat Donald Trump at the ballot box. And I think that as much as we want to say that the judicial system in the court and the rule of law have a role, and they do.
ALLISON: Yes.
SELLERS: The timing of that, as fast as you want to say, as Jack Smith is trying to move it, et cetera. The only day that we have to determine whether or not democracy is what it is November 5th. And it's actually -- PHILLIP: I notice why --
SELLERS: And the most amazing thing is, if Donald Trump wins the presidency of the United States, again, then maybe our comments about what democracy is and who he is, maybe we have to rethink those things.
ALLISON: But here's the difference, is that if he wins by the rules, I won't storm the Capitol.
PHILLIP: Here's the thing.
SELLERS: I might be there.
PHILLIP: Here's the thing, Bakari. We started this segment by saying, this is in the hands of voters now. That's actually what this is about. This is not actually about this getting solved before Election Day. This is about voters and the facts will matter to some voters.
JENNINGS: The jury here, the people are looking at this case, they're looking at the New York case, but they're looking at it holistically, like all the cases he's been involved in and, you know, we'll see what the people want to do. They have the facts.
PHILLIP: Yes. Everyone stick around.
Coming up next, a sequel to 2020 is underway right now in one key state as Republicans are pushing Dominion conspiracies yet again.
Plus, is what we saw from J.D. Vance the future of MAGA just packaged a little differently? We'll discuss that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Republicans apparently plan to run it back. MAGA allies of Donald Trump were already seeding Georgia with one of the most baseless, bogus, and bananas conspiracies from 2020 that Dominion voting machines will decide the election.
Now, already in court documents, GOP officials are alleging that these machines will be manipulated by someone, anyone, to flip the election away from Donald Trump.
Now, let me just take you back down to memory lane in case you forgot what the whole Dominion conspiracy is all about. Here is it explained by the one and only Sidney Powell.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNEY POWELL, FORMER ATTORNE FOR DONALD TRUMP: The Dominion voting systems, the Smartmatic technology software, and the software that goes in other computerized voting systems here as well, not just Dominion, were created in Venezuela at the direction of Hugo Chavez to make sure he never lost an election after one constitutional referendum came out the way he did not want it to come out.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, four years later, more of this. I mean, it is a little baffling if it weren't so serious, but this is nonsense, actually.
JONES: The idea that they could tell you, hey, we already got the plan in case we lose to say we didn't lose, and to say it in public, and, again, this is not disqualifying or an obvious red flag that, hey, these are maybe people that you should not trust, is maddening and mind blowing to me.
PHILLIP: I mean, I find it really baffling that this is even being allowed to happen. One of the interesting parts about this lawsuit is that they're relying on one of the things that Trump allies were indicted over, which is tampering with the voting machines in Coffee County as a predicate for this lawsuit. That makes no sense.
JENNINGS: Yes. I mean, I guess, I mean, you would know, I guess people can say anything they want in lawsuit documents.
SELLERS: Jesus Christ, I'm --
JENNINGS: Well, you're a lawyer, I don't know.
SELLERS: I'm a good one, though.
JENNINGS: But that doesn't make it true and it doesn't necessarily make it real.
PHILLIP: But are we going to be sitting at this table on November 20th, hearing, hopefully not you, Scott, but Republicans saying, well, there was a lawsuit about this and that lawsuit was so improper for now?
SELLERS: There are two things.
PHILLIP: I mean, that was the playbook the last time around, file a bunch of frivolous lawsuits and then after the fact say, well, we litigated this and so it's an issue and so that is improper.
JENNINGS: Look, I have the highest hope and regard for the diffused nature of our elections, the people who run them at the county level, at the state level. There's a reason I strongly oppose the federalization of elections because I think the diffused state level network the way we do it. I think it works. I think it strengthens it and I think it fortifies it against people who would try to do it harm. That's my view. I think that will happen again. I think we're going to have a free and fair election. I think we should be able to trust the results. That's my belief.
SELLERS: I think there are two things. One is there are things that are more serious than what's happening with this lawsuit. I mean, for example, you have a number of people who were thrown off voter rolls in the state of Georgia, the same state this lawsuit was filed immediately after they registered to vote at a Kamala Harris rally, right? You have the purging of voter rolls that is happening in Texas. I don't mean to disclose any like personal conversations, but, you know, somebody, and he knows my heart, but somebody I talk to often is Bishop Jakes, and Bishop Jakes was even tossed off a roll, a voter roll in Texas.
And so you're seeing this purging of the voting rolls, state after state after state, and you're seeing what's happening in Georgia, you're seeing what's happening in places that really matters, Oklahoma, for example -- or, excuse me, Nebraska, for example, where this will --
[22:25:03]
PHILLIP: Arizona.
SELLERS: Arizona, where this matters.
ALLISON: In Ohio.
SELLERS: So, you talk about those things. And I think that that matters just slightly more than frivolous lawsuits.
And so the other thing --
PHILLIP: Well, yes. I think that you're exactly right. It's not just this lawsuit, but this lawsuit is part of all of those things that you're talking about. And this is the landscape that was actually eerily -- so I was covering this stuff in 2020. The lead up to the 2020 election looked a lot like this.
SELLERS: Let me also say this, though, and this is my naivete. This is my -- I just turned 40 last week, so this is my youthful naivete. I humbly believe that the best day for the Republican Party is going to be somewhere around November 6th through the 8th of this year. Because I firmly believe that after they get beat at the polls, which matters the most and then a lot of them will cut loose of Donald Trump, they'll cut loose of these lawsuits that you'll see, the people who -- and I see the face that you're making. I said youthful naivete at the beginning of this. But I just -- let me have some faith and hope and democracy and what that looks like.
JONES: So, the logic is that Trump has no power after that point because he can't run again, and so then they'll break free?
SELLERS: I just think they're looking for their own Juneteenth. What do we call it when a lot of white people have Juneteenth?
JONES: Do you think they're looking for it?
SELLERS: No, I think they'll have it, though.
PHILLIP: There's a lot of skepticism at this table.
ALLISON: Yes. I guess, you know, I do agree with Scott that the power of our --
SELLERS: Oh, now you're agreeing with Scott?
ALLISON: Bakari?
JENNINGS: You're the third wheel in this relationship, buddy.
ALLISON: That our election systems are powered by local people who are public servants who don't get paid a lot of money, but every year look for in primary and general election seasons and counting the votes, but those people can only be as strong as the folks like a Rudy Giuliani or people who do things and say things like a Sidney Powell who actually put their life in danger, like a Ruby Freeman or a Shaye Moss.
So, we can believe in the power of our public servants to protect our democracy, but we also have to call nonsense, nonsense and call out lawsuits like this when we know they are frivolous when they put those public servants at risk.
PHILLIP: And that's actually what the Republican secretary of state in the state of Georgia is saying all the time, because it's his job to keep these people protected.
Everyone hold on for us, because coming up next, from complimenting his opponent to presenting policies, did J.D. Vance show what the future of MAGA might look like maybe in that post-Trump world, but in different wrapping paper? We're going to discuss that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:32:07]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a look at what you might call MAGA 2.0. J.D. Vance taking Donald Trump's rough and sometimes aggressive rhetoric and delivering it maybe more smoothly, more palatably last night during the V.P. debate. Let's give you an example here. Here's both Trump and Vance talking about Haitian immigrants.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE (R): Look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk. Not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs -- the people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there.
SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OHIO), VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: In Springfield, Ohio and in communities all across this country, you've got schools that are overwhelmed. You've got hospitals that are overwhelmed. You have got housing that is totally unaffordable because we brought in millions of illegal immigrants to compete with Americans for scarce homes.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: It's quite the contrast. And it looks like based on some of the information that we have that maybe it worked. CNN's polling of that night found Vance saw a 19-point jump in favorability from his pre-debate to post-debate.
Back at the table here. I mean, that was just one of the many moments where you know, it's laundering, in a way, Trump, and washing it up a little bit and then presenting it in a different way but it's very different and it's meant to move people who are independent voters into a place where maybe they can consider the Trump-Vance tandem.
JENNINGS: What are we mad about? That he's running a campaign? That he is effectively communicating and articulating the Republican Party platform as it relates to illegal immigration or any other issue?
PHILLIP: Well, yes.
JENNINGS: J.D. Vance did the most effective job of any Republican this year of laying out what a future administration would look like and people are like --
PHILLIP: But here's the other thing.
JENNINGS: Oh my gosh, you shouldn't be allowed to do this.
PHILLIP: But he --no. But it's also, I mean, it's incredibly misleading because first of all, let's take another example. He tried to claim falsely that he never supported a national abortion ban. He did. He literally said, I never supported that, and he actually did.
LANZA: Yes, listen. I think what you saw last night with J.D. and I think the criticism you have today is that he's actually very effective communicator. And you're right. He saw --
PHILLIP: You can call it effective but if it's not true. It's also just not true.
LANZA: I mean, listen. I think -- I think, Governor Walz has the issue of saying not true statements, as well.
PHILLIP: That might be true. Yes.
LANZA: They both have these things but at the end of the day, J.D. was an effective communicator through the debate and Tim Walz wasn't. And that's what the voters look like and that's what you see in the polling that's improved.
SELLERS: I disagree with you on the latter part because I do think, actually, that J.D. Vance was an effective communicator throughout the debate. I think that's why poll after poll you see his favorability rise because there are a lot of things that you saw in the deepest, darkest parts of the Twitter -- Twitter sphere and internet that showed that he was this weird guy and I fundamentally believe that he is this weird guy.
[22:35:00] PHILLIP: That he is or isn't?
SELLERS: That he is.
JENNINGS: Why?
LANZA: He wants to believe that.
SELLERS: But I think he's --
JENNINGS: What's weird about him?
SELLERS: I think he's so slick that he's intellectually dishonest and I think that it oozes off of him. But that's fine. I think last night, one of the things that J.D. Vance did last night which people do not give enough credit for -- oh, he didn't help Donald Trump. Like, let's not even talk about that. Like he did nothing for 2024. What J.D. Vance did though, was solidify himself for 2028.
And so, anybody who thinks that he helped out the person who he's running as vice president for is silly. And I think both of you all know that. I think -- I think Tim Walz did. Tim Walz -- Tim Walz --and let me just stick up for my guy for a second.
LANZA: Of course.
SELLERS: Tim Walz did a more than admirable job. He showed up. He was affable. People liked him. And I actually, before Scott weighs in, I actually -- and what irks me to my core is when people talk about individuals with language that I don't think suffices, buffoon, just ignorant, et cetera, for somebody who served in the military, for somebody who's been in the classroom.
And look, we can disagree on policy. But my fundamental issue with that is that he gave a life to service. And yes, you can say that he misspoke, you can say that he lied, you can say all of these things. I just don't like or appreciate the caricatures.
JENNINGS: Wait, J.D. Vance served in the military and you just sat here and called him weird without being able to tell me why?
SELLERS: No, I can actually tell you why.
JENNINGS: Okay.
SELLERS: I think the reason that I would call him weird --
JENNINGS: Does that -- does that prohibit you from being called a name? I'm just asking.
SELLERS: No. I just think that the reason I would call him weird is the infatuation he has with women who have no children. I think the infatuation he has with my wife's vagina or her uterus, or her cervix. Or the fact --
JENNINGS: Come on. SELLERS: No, it's not a come on. I mean that is exactly why I would call it weird.
JONES: No, but the reason that I think he has such a jump in favorability -- it wasn't that he was that damn likeable or impressive is that he was a weirdo to America prior to this. That kind stuff is whatever it is. But the way that he is fixated -- yes, but that's not the point. The point is whether or not it's true.
The point is whether or not it's at the forefront of people's minds, the way that he's talked about women in this. All that stuff was there at the forefront of his mind and the debate allowed him to talk about things that mattered a little bit more, even if he was up there and not necessarily telling the truth all the time, without the things that people find to be weird, to be so prevalent. So I don't think he looked, I don't think he was great. I think he came off so bad before this.
PHILLIP: I already came away from this debate saying, okay, they were so nice to each other. They were so cordial, this, that and the other. And actually to Bakari's point about the tone of politics. Okay, here is J.D. Vance today not on the debate stage talking about Tim Walz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
Vance: Now, it's funny because, you know, we did this debate and then I talked to the president afterwards and we talked a little bit about, you know, what actually happened and you know, some of the points that I made, some of the points that Governor Walz made. And he made this observation, he said that Tim Walz said that he was friends with school shooters twice. And I said that was probably only the third or fourth dumbest comment Tim Walz made that night.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Okay. So, just first of all, that was clearly a mistake. Tim Walz had actually just talked about how his son had witnessed a shooting and J.D. Vance admirably expressed shock and condolences about that. But -- but he was looking down at a piece of paper reading that comment. I mean, it's apples and oranges.
ALLISON: Yes, I think -- I don't want to call names, but I do have other adjectives to describe J.D. Vance. I think he is dishonest. I think he is disingenuous. And I think he is disrespectful. I'll start in the reverse.
I think he is disrespectful because he does talk about women like me who are single without children in a very disrespectful way and says that I'm like a second-class citizen. And I don't have anything invested in this country when I have been a public servant for almost 20 years of my life.
And I think you consider me a friend and you would think I do have a lot to give to this country. I think he's disingenuous because he thought Donald Trump was Hitler and now, he's his running mate. Now, you can change your mind but that's a big leap, okay? And I think
he's dishonest -- is because he was up on stage and he is fact-checked over and over and we know that the lie that he made about Haitian immigrants was so hurtful and dangerous to that community that if you want to have a conversation about immigration habit, I don't even call him a buffoon and a weirdo or anything but that is not the type of person I want to be second-in-command and maybe take over because we have an old president in office.
JENNINGS: Okay, so everybody seems to be worried about J.D. Vance and dishonesty or Donald Trump and dishonesty. I never hear the same concern about Harris and the lies that she tells about Trump, or in Walz himself, who gave the most disastrous response to a question about his own dishonesty about being in Tiananmen Square that I've ever heard in a debate. He also did the same thing with Dana Bash when questioned about dishonesty a couple of months ago and effectively what he has said is, sorry guys, I'm too dumb to tell the truth.
[22:40:07]
I mean, he called himself a knucklehead, I have bad grammar. This is a guy who holds himself up to be a school teacher and a coach. Is that the life lesson he's giving the kids that are under his care? Hey, you can lie and then you can just kind of slough it off as being, you know, too dumb to tell the truth.
I think it's -- we spend 99 percent of our time going down rabbit holes about Vance and Trump and honesty in campaigns and we spend no time no time -- no time at all holding Walz and Harris to the same standard. I don't understand it.
SELLERS: I'll explain to you the difference. The difference is that when you lie about whether or not you're in Tiananmen Square and where you were in Honk Kong or China during that summer --
LANZA: Or your military service or receiving an award --
SELLERS: But the difference is that Amber Thurman is dead. And so, there's a big difference. And so, when you want to say -- but you want to say that somebody embellished about their record or where they were during a particular time, when I tell you that someone wants to determine what a woman does with her body and her reproductive rights, when I tell you that someone talks about having a national abortion ban and then gets on the stage and lies about it.
And then when I tell you that Amber Thurman should be alive today, right? And so yes, I would castigate right now if Tim Walz was in front of me. And I would say, you know what? That was the poorest answer you gave in the debate. In fact, I said that this morning. I said on Casey's show, I said, look, that was the poorest answer he gave.
But if you want to talk about the gravity of the decisions people make when they're vice president of the United States, I would rather have someone who misspoke and caught themselves up in rhetoric and said I'm a knucklehead than somebody who actually lies about an issue that would determine whether or not my wife, daughter, aunt died during childbirth because those things fundamentally matter.
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, I think that seems like a fair point.
LANZA: Well, here's what I would say to that.
PHILLIP: The lie about Tiananmen Square and all of that is, first of all, it was a terrible answer. But that is not, you know, relevant to Americans' lives going forward.
LANZA: Well, here's the answer, Bacari. You know, when Kamala Harris says, listen, I no longer support fracking because Joe Biden supports fracking, we say we have to believe it is biblical. Donald Trump does not support a national abortion ban. His administration is not going to go anywhere near that. And so, why aren't we giving J.D. the same benefit that we've been asked to give Kamala Harris?
PHILLIP: But he didn't say that. He said I'm never supporting the national abortion ban which was a false statement.
LANZA: Kamala Harris, by the way said, I want to ban -- I want to ban fracking. Kamala Harris herself said, I want to ban fracking. It's my values to ban fracking is what she said.
SELLERS: Bryan, Bryan. I'm literally giving you a story about a woman who died while trying to give birth to a child. And your response is fracking.
LANZA: No, my response -- my response is you have to treat both of them the same way. If you're saying -- if you're saying Tim Walz's lies don't matter and I think they do because it goes to this -- the first decision she made as it -- as it as the nominee.
She chose someone who's clearly can't be stress-tested, who has clearly lied about his military experience, who has clearly lied about awards he's received so much that the Chamber of Commerce in Nebraska had to come back and say listen, you need to stop doing that. Who's now lied about his experiences in human-swing (ph) --
SELLERS: I'm sorry.
LANZA: That was a bad choice by him.
PHILLIP: We got to go. So --
LANZA: Yes. No, I was about to say --
PHILLIP: All right, but let me give you a second to --
JONES: I would just say the argument that Trump's not going to do this when he gets in office, that is a dangerous phrase that I thought that by now we had learned. Not to say that we know what Donald Trump will or will not do. Then what is too far? I don't know. You sure you know that?
LANZA: I do.
JONES: Good for you, buddy.
ALLISON: You sure he listens to you?
PHILLIP: All right, everyone, hang tight. Off he goes. Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder goes off on that $100,000 watch -- Trump watch, at that. We'll discuss that next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EDDIE VEDDER, LEAD SINGER PEARL JAM: This election is about time and it's about precious time and this precious planet.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:48:19]
PHILLIP: Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder has some thoughts about Donald Trump's $100,000 watch that he's now selling. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VEDDER: For the low price of $100,000, you can own a gold watch. The same person who is every day telling us that citizens in America cannot afford eggs is somehow selling $100,000 watches. So, which one is it? This election is about time. And it's about time that we say, we're not going to take this anymore. We're not going to take this bullshit (ph) anymore.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Leaving aside another celebrity weighing in on politics. But I think the substance -- I'm curious -- is Trump stepping on his own message by selling, you know, six-figure watches at the same time that he's saying that the country's struggling financially?
LANZA: I mean, I think the country is struggling financially. If you look at the middle class, if you look at the working class, they've been wiped out in the last three and a half years of Biden. But there's also some people who've experienced tremendous success. That's America. Some people excel, some people, you know, struggle. That's just the way it's always been.
PHILLIP: Is the middle of a campaign the best time to be hawking $100,000 watches where he --benefits from the royalties off of his name?
LANZA: I mean, we'll find out in November how the American people feel, but I suspect they'll be selling those $500 watches pretty fast.
JONES: They are $100,000.
PHILLIP: Well, there are --there are several more --
JENNINGS: I don't understand what Eddie Vedder is -- I mean, can he show us? Can he point to where the watch hurt him? I mean, I don't understand. Like, what did the watch do to him? He seems to be so upset with the watch.
[22:50:01]
He doesn't have to buy one, he's not being forced to wear one. Celebrities sell crap all the time.
JONES: Yes, but sometimes the intelligence gets insulted to the point that you just feel like you got to say something about this, right?
JENNINGS: At a concert?
JONES: Like the idea of this $100,000 watch, honestly, well one of the --
JENNINGS: This is the one -- this is what pushed this guy over the edge?
UNKNOWN: The watch!
JONES: Well, one of the beauties of having a concert is you can say whatever you want. Once you got the microphone, you can do it in charge.
UNKNOWN: I'm a First Amendment guy.
JONES: But, I mean, honestly, I hear him sell $100,000 watches. And your question is, is there a money laundering angle to this? Because who else is going to give you $100,000 and just get a watch back? Like, even if you talk about real fancy watches, $100,000
JENNINGS: Let me introduce you to Hunter Biden's art sales.
JONES: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Like it feels like -- it feels like it's on that same level of stuff, but I can understand how somebody sees this. And it is the thing that makes them roll their eyes and just say, are you kidding me? You got to admit it's good.
JENNINGS: Okay, then don't buy one. Who here is buying one? Nobody? Okay, good. We've established it. Nobody here is getting a watch.
PHILLIP: It is very peculiar that Trump is doing these things, literally, while he is running for president.
SELLERS: don't find it to be peculiar at all. In fact, I find this to be who Donald Trump is. One of the most amazing things or fascinating things that we will explore probably 10 or 15 years post-Donald Trump is how someone who uses the bathroom on golden toilets is able to convince poor people that he speaks for them.
ALLISON: I know that's right. And I just, I don't understand the psychology of it. And that's just my naivete. Again, I'm using that word for the, I studied for the SAT again, I guess, but I'm using it again. And I just really want to understand how he's able to convince people while selling them 100,000 --think about the juxtaposition. He was shaking hands with the union boss from the Longshoremen, who
have a noble cause and worthy cause, who I stand with and fighting against corporate greed. But he's also hawking $100,000 watches on the campaign trail?
LANZA: Well, I would say that Longshoremen executive lives in a multi- million dollar house.
SELLERS: Well, I would also say that you should not come to Charleston, South Carolina and say anything bad about our international Longshoremen.
PHILLIP: All right.
SELLERS: Because they are the people who make the country run.
PHILLIP: Everyone, stay with us. Bakari and his SAT words will be right back. The panel will give us their nightcaps, including the one state that could decide this election.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:56:57]
PHILLIP: We're back and it's time for the "NewsNight" cap. You each have 30 seconds, and I mean 30 seconds to say your piece. Bakari, you're up.
SELLERS: Yes, I was trying to wait and see. Oh, that's what it is. There we go. Oh, I can buy you a mansion. Oh, off in Wisconsin. You all don't remember that? Nobody knows T-Pain?
PHILLIP: Okay.
SELLERS: Anyway, the Marquette Polls came out today and that was good news for Kamala Harris. The Marquette Polls came out. Marquette University Polls came out. Wisconsin is looking very good for the Vice President of the United States. She's up five points in a three-way race, four points against Donald Trump. And that means that as Wisconsin goes, so goes Michigan, so goes Pennsylvania.
PHILLIP: That's a little lukewarm of a take, but I'll give it to you. Go ahead, Scott.
JENNINGS: Okay, the dock workers, the longshoremen have launched a strike. I feel like we're not talking about this enough, especially since the head of the union, Doggett, goes on television and talks as though he's a Batman villain and threatens to cripple the world's economy if he doesn't get everything he wants, which is a massive, massive increase in pay. This will create world chaos just as he promises.
And who threw in with the chaos today but Kamala Harris. This is not a time for more chaos. If I were in her shoes, I would have done the exact opposite and stood up to these bullies and stood up to this union thug and said, no, no, we're going to have a reasonable conversation here but that's Harris right now. She's struggling so much with union workers, she'll do anything they say and that has severe consequences for the United States.
PHILLIP: It'll be interesting to see how Donald Trump handles that. Byan.
LANZA: You know, go Pennsylvania. In the past two weeks, Pennsylvania has sanctioned female girls flag football at the high school level. As a guy who likes football, as a guy who has a daughter, I look forward to sharing that. And they're leading the nation in doing that. Other states will follow. NFL teams are sort of backing up, backing up them. And I think that's just a good thing for flag football for women in high school level. And we'll move it to more states.
PHILLIP: We love to see it. Go ahead.
UNKNOWN: Way better than you.
PHILLIP: Okay, go ahead, Ashley.
ALLISON: I wanted to say Moodang, the baby hippo, but I was told to do something else. So, I got it in anyway. Happy birthday, Jimmy Carter. I mean, whatever your politics are, what a blessing to make it into a century.
PHILLIP: Happy birthday.
ALLISON: Thank you for your service and God bless you.
PHILLIP: Happy birthday.
JONES: Bad enough that we watched the assistant manager debates and we feel like we have to, even though not once in my life has my vote been swayed by watching the two candidates for assistant manager duke it out. It's never gotten me there. But we do the post-game show afterwards. And even if they have very wonderful hosts who do them from time to time, you put her face up while I'm talking just to make this all awkward. I would just like to make the point.
PHILLIP: You know what Kamala Harris said, say it to my face.
JONES: I'm just saying -- all I'm going to say is this. We have to trust the public to be able to know what they saw in front of them and not us telling them what they saw. We don't have to tell them whether something was a good or a bad answer. They can figure it out. They know that dude was lying to them. They can figure it out for the most part, but we steer the conversation.
[23:00:00]
PHILLIP: All right, go ahead, Scott.
JONES: Don't let it go organically. It's not about you, it's about an industry.
JENNINGS: Tell him you think the same thing about sports games. JONES: But that's exactly my point. Tell him you want to act like
we're supposed to treat this like it's sports? Does that seem like a great idea?
JENNINGS: Tell him we don't need any more sports commentators. We can see the score for ourselves.
SELLERS: Hey, guys. Get him. Thank you for joining the show tonight. I want to thank you all. We'll see you this time tomorrow on Abby Phillip -- it's State of the Race. Thank you --"NewsNight".
ALLISON: This is what happens when you have so many minutes.
PHILLIP: Let me just say -- and let me just say, what people don't need is spin from people who are paid to spin things that they just saw. But everyone, thank you very much.
SELLERS: Why are you trying to fire me?
PHILLIP: Thank you for watching "NewsNight State of the Race." "Laura Coates is on right now.
