Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Hegseth Vows To Fight Like Hell As Nomination Teeters; Manhunt Underway For Suspect Who Killed CEO In New York City; Court Appears Read To Back Tennessee's Ban On Minor Trans Care; "NewsNight" Tackles Ban On Transgender Procedures For Minors; Transgender Actress And Activist Peppermint Believes Lawmakers Should Not Be Arbiters Of People's Health Care; President Biden Pardons Son, Hunter. Aired 10- 11p ET
Aired December 04, 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, a media blitz.
PETE HEGSETH, TRUMP'S PICK FOR DEFENSE SECRETARY: We're going to fight like hell.
PHILLIP: A mother --
PENELOPE HEGSETH, PETE HEGSETH'S MOTHER: Pete is a new person.
PHILLIP: -- and a confused jury --
SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): It's not 100 percent clear to me who he wants as secretary of defense right now.
PHILLIP: -- leaves Donald Trump's Pentagon pick in No Man's Land.
Plus, if the son gets protected by a pardon, what about those on MAGA's enemies list?
REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC): They all should be preemptively pardoned.
PHILLIP: Also, one of the most heated issues on the campaign trail --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT-ELECT: We will get transgender insanity the hell out of our school.
PHILLIP: -- hits the Supremes.
And the manhunt for a cold blooded killer in the streets of Gotham after an apparent assassination of an insurance exec.
Live at the table, Chuck Rocha, Coleman Hughes, Julie Roginsky and Abel Maldonado.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do. (END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP: Good evening, everyone. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America is talking about. Promises to remain sober and fight like hell. Pete Hegseth, whose nomination for defense secretary, is now teetering on the edge tonight, is not only courting lawmakers over on Capitol Hill, he's defending himself with a media blitz.
In The Wall Street Journal, Hegseth addressed his past, which includes allegations that he mistreated women, abused alcohol, and mismanaged a veterans organization. Hegseth also sat down with former Fox Host Megyn Kelly, suggesting he's being Kavanaugh'ed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MEGYN KELLY, HOST, THE MEGYN KELLY SHOW: Do you think you're being Kavanaugh'ed right now?
HEGSETH: I had a member not 45 minutes ago look me in the eye in private, just he and I, and say that's what they're trying to do to you.
You're a threat to all the things in Washington D.C., the swamp, the things that people have rejected, you're a threat to that. And so they're coming after you. And I know that, he knows that. And when you stand firm on that, it's not difficult to just continue to fight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But are you in a good place if you're promising senators that you won't drink on the job?
Joining us in our fifth seat is Iraq war veteran Allison Jaslow. She's the CEO of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
Allison, this is quite a pickle that Pete Hegseth finds himself in. It's very serious, the allegations that he's facing, and, frankly, I don't think it's that hard to find a lot of people who don't have these things in their background who could be Kavanaugh'ed, if that's what's happening to him.
ALLISON JASLOW, CEO, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA: Well, Abby, first of all, thank you for having me. And I'd actually like to draw attention to something that I don't think gets enough attention. And the fact that he lobbied to get convicted war criminals pardoned by the former president, who is now the president-elect.
These are men who were turned in by men who were serving alongside of them. And so do we want to put somebody in the secretary of defense role who seemingly thinks war crimes are permissible? To me, that's the most like a disqualifying factor.
I can talk all day long about why I think women should stay in combat roles and why we shouldn't have somebody who potentially has sexual assault allegations and/or has committed sexual assault atop the Defense Department when we're already trying to wrestle the military sexual assault issue inside the military. But, again, I double down the fact that he seemingly thinks war crimes are okay should be the single most disqualifying factor for Pete Hegseth, and I wish more people were talking about it.
PHILLIP: Yes. Abel, I mean, that is an important point. And the fact that there's that there's all the things that he's addressing in these meetings with Capitol Hill, and his own mother had to go on Fox News to explain why she wrote in an email to him that he was an abuser of women.
FMR. LT. GOV. ABEL MALDONADO (R-CA): Well, she did say today that she wrote the email and she was upset at the time. And within two or three minutes, she responded with another email saying, I'm sorry. She was just -- it was haste. So, let's be very clear, Abby, of what the real story of what mom said today.
Obviously, Pete is in the fight of his life. There's no doubt about it. Look, President Donald J. Trump is the 47th president of the United States. He chose Pete Hegseth to run his Department of Defense.
[22:05:00]
The president nominated him. Now, he's got to get 51 votes.
There's no secret. He's having a hard time in the Capitol because no one has given him a fair opportunity to go to offices and talk to the senators. They're just on him. Look, there's a bunch of unnamed sources out there on him every day, Abby. Every day, there's more unnamed sources. Pete's got to clear his name as well. I mean --
JULIE ROGINSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: But do you know why they're unnamed?
MALDONADO: Well, why are they unnamed?
ROGINSKY: Because Pete Hegseth has bound his accuser to an NDA. She cannot come forward because he will not release her from her NDA.
MALDONADO: That's the one person, Julie. That's just one person, Julie.
ROGINSKY: There are people at Fox. Well, I'll tell you more. There are people at Fox News. We're used to potentially work at Fox News or people who are there now who may be bound by NDAs as well. They may not be able to speak, so maybe Fox News should release them from NDAs.
There are plenty of people out there who I'm sure would be happy to come forward, starting with the accuser. You can't get Kavanaugh'ed if the other side hasn't had a chance to speak. Brett Kavanaugh, his accuser, was able to come forward and testify. Unfortunately, Pete Hegseth's accuser is not able to say a word because he will bind her by an NDA, bound her by an NDA. So, therefore, if you want to hear from her, first and foremost, everybody here, including the senators who are supporting him, should ask Pete Hegseth to release her from her NDA. And it's not clear to me as to why that's not happening.
PHILLIP: Should she be released from the NDA?
MALDONADO: You know what, at the end of the day I don't know that she needs to be released. He needs 51 votes.
ROGINSKY: They need to hear from her.
MALDONADO: The Senate's going to decide, Julie.
ROGINSKY: But they need to hear from her. They need to hear from her. Do they need to subpoena her and have her testify? I mean, that's the problem. You're asking somebody who is potentially raped, okay, let's have a little sympathy for this person, to have to come in under subpoena of the Senate and testify under oath, as opposed to just having private conversations with senators, which she could be having if she were released from her NDA, and that's not happening right now.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, let me just --
MADLONADO: Julie's line of potentially raped, and, I mean, it's -- what we're hearing out there every day, Abby, this person, unnamed sourced this, unnamed sourced this.
ROGINSKY: She's unnamed because he won't let her come forward.
PHILLIP: Well, just, I mean, I'm not sure, honestly, if you're familiar with the facts of that case. But there was a police report. She received a rape kit. So, the allegation of rape is there. She didn't make that up. It's part of the case. So, Julie's not just like calling her an alleged rape victim. She went to a hospital and received a rape kit.
MALDONADO: Well, let's say potentially.
PHILLIP: Well, yes. I mean --
MALDONADO: Of course.
ROGINSKY: I wasn't there.
PHILLIP: She went to a hospital and received a rape kit. So, look, there's all of that. He has gone on the Hill now. He said -- well, let me play what he said on Megyn Kelly, and then we'll talk about what he said on the Hill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: I've never had a drinking problem. No one's ever approached me and said, oh, you, you should really look at getting help for a drink. Never. I've never sought counseling, never sought help. I respect and appreciate people who do.
By the grace of God, I found my chapters of purpose that pulled me out of that. I found -- in many ways, I found two things, my two Js. My Jenny, my wife, Jennifer, changed my life, saved me, there's just no doubt about it, and my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, there's that, and then there's also the fact that in several of his meetings today. He told senators that he was going to abstain from drinking at all, if he is confirmed.
So, we don't know what his personal situation is, but, obviously, he felt like he needed to address that.
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST AND FOUNDER, NEUSTRO PAC: I think if anybody here at this table has ever been to just a simple job interview and you lead with, I'm not going to drink on the job, or did you get a call from my mama, she didn't mean what she meant back in 2018, I think you're in bad shape. His nomination is in bad shape.
You could take all the things that Allison said. People are like, did that really happen? She didn't make that up. That's real. That's just one more thing that is so obnoxious. It's not even being talked about because there's all this other stuff out there.
And I'm just saying that he's in bad shape. And anytime you got to bring your mama into it or bring in somebody else saying, I'm not going to drink on the job, then I think it's a tough time for Mr. Hegseth.
PHILLIP: Yes. So, one of the people that he had to sit down for an interview with today, critically important, Senator Joni Ernst, ironically, she may also replace him if Trump decides to move away from Hegseth onto another pick. One of the interesting things about her is that she is a veteran herself and she's also said a couple of interesting things about Pete Hegseth's core, you know, platform, if you will, for being defense secretary, which is this idea of women and wokeness.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JONI ERNST (R-IA): I fully support providing women the opportunity to serve in any military capacity. As long as standards are not lowered, our combat effectiveness is maintained.
When it comes to wokeness in the military, I always push back because our military is not woke.
[22:10:07]
I would say that there is civilian leadership of the military that is woke.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Allison, I'm going to get your take on this in a second, but, Coleman, I wonder, do you think that would be a problem for Trump, hearing that from Joni Ernst?
COLEMAN HUGHES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I don't think so. I mean, I think, ultimately, if Trump forgoes Hegseth, which would be a wise choice, and replaced him, I think he could replace him with someone a lot more moderate on these issues, and I don't think he would suffer with his base.
I think he has a lot of choice. We've seen that with his secretary of state pick, his national security adviser pick, that he's willing to pick people that are more standard Republicans and aren't really pandering to the isolationist wing of the base, or the anti-woke wing of the base. So, I think he has a lot of options.
Hegseth is not just an unwise choice because of the personal baggage he trails, but let's remember, his job is going to be to manage the Pentagon, and he has almost no management experience. So, it's not as if -- you know, if there was some great candidate, you might be tempted to defend them on the basis that innocent until proven guilty, and so forth and so forth, but this is not a great candidate to begin with.
MALDONADO: But wait a second. He's going to the Pentagon. There's an undersecretary, there's a chief of staff, there's a lot of people there that's just not going to be Pete Hegseth. So, this notion that he can't run a big department, he's not Maddox.
ROGINSKY: What does he bring?
MALDONADO: What do you mean, what does he bring?
ROGINSKY: What does he bring? If everybody else under him is doing the job, what does Pete Hegseth bring?
MALDONADO: I'm not saying that everybody's doing the job, Julie. I'm just saying you, it's a leadership position.
ROGINSKY: What does he bring to that leadership position?
MALDONADO: He brings -- he's served in the military.
ROGINSKY: So is Allison. So have millions of other people. What does Pete Hegseth bring uniquely? There are others. Sure, Joni Ernst brings something, right?
PHILLIP: I mean, Allison, on that front, I mean, what do you think of that critique that Pete Hegseth doesn't bring anything? I mean, I know the other part about the war crimes, but just on the management of it all.
JASLOW: I mean, he brings his lived experience to the role, but otherwise I'd say it's quite the promotion for Pete Hegseth. I mean, it is a huge agency. It's got the largest budget than any other federal government agency, millions of into the workforce. And that's just not just people who are wearing the uniform, but also the federal, you know, public servants who stay in the bureaucracy for many, many, many years. And, you know, I think we want somebody in that job with chops.
If you look at the secretaries of defense that have preceded him, you know, four star generals, you know, many people who've served in other positions of leadership and government before they got there. So, I think that there's a lot of risk at putting somebody who hasn't proven themselves to be a competent manager.
MALDONADO: I don't see the risk there. There's no risk. I mean, this guy served. I mean, he's -- I mean --
JASLOW: So did I.
MALDONADO: I understand that. But this notion that it's quite a promotion, everybody who's nominated to a cabinet position is quite a promotion.
ROGINSKY: No.
MALDONADO: So, not just for Pete Hegseth.
ROGINSKY: No. It would be quite a promotion for Senator -- for Joni Ernst to be promoted. She's a sitting senator. She's managed and she served, right?
MALDONADO: Look, I like Joni Ernst.
ROGINSKY: Ron DeSantis, not my cup of tea, but he's the governor of a state and he's managed a state and he has served.
JASLOW: Joni Ernst, importantly too, also commanded. She commanded -- a company commander, she commanded as a battalion commander.
MALDONADO: And her daughter serves, and her son-in-law serves. She's involved. She said today, it was a great conversation with Pete Hegseth today.
PHILLIP: We got to go. Allison, I appreciate you being here. Thank you very much.
JASLOW: Thank you.
PHILLIP: And everyone else, stick around.
Coming up next, a new report that says, Biden's White House team is now considering preemptive pardons for MAGA enemies, people like Anthony Fauci, Liz Cheney as well.
Plus, we've got some breaking news tonight in that manhunt that's underway right here in New York after a brazen assassination of a health insurance executive right on the streets. Hear what was found at the scene.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Breaking news tonight, here in Manhattan, an urgent manhunt is now entering its 16th hour for the assassin who killed the CEO of America's biggest health insurer. This is video of the gunman following the executive just before he opened fire on the streets of New York. This is a new picture of the suspected killer. Police say it was taken at a nearby Starbucks.
Now, detectives are telling CNN that he used a silencer and his motives suggest, his move suggests that he is an experienced marksman. There's no word yet on that motive, but we are told that there were threats against the company.
Retired NYPD Sergeant Felipe Rodriguez is here with me. So, Felipe what do you think the police know right now about where he moved after committing this crime? This is New York. There are cameras everywhere. So, do you think they have a decent sense of what direction he was going in?
FELIPE RODRIGUEZ, RETIRED NYPD SERGEANT: Of course, the direction is going to be obvious. We have so many cameras these days, both private and NYPD cameras. It's just basically now -- it's footwork. Detectives have to go now and canvas building by building. They have to actually be able to pull this out. What they have is the Technical Assistance Response Unit, TARU, that's going to assist with that. And that good detective work, they have to go building by building and get whatever they can.
PHILLIP: The fact that this gunman left a cell phone, potentially, and it sounds like a water bottle, first of all, those are two big clues. What does it tell you, and what can detectives learn from them?
RODRIGUEZ: They're great clues, you know, at this point, but we also have to get into that phone and we have to jailbreak it, right, and try to be able to extract the information.
[22:20:06]
DNA is great. It's good for movies. It's good for everything else. And believe it or not, once we get to trial, once we get to identification of individual, it's really good. But if his DNA is not in a database, we're not going to get much now.
PHILLIP: Do you think that phone was intentionally dropped?
RODRIGUEZ: I think so. I think there's very little on it, maybe just the picture of the deceased and because it looks like it was well- orchestrated, old-fashioned hit.
PHILLIP: Yes, this guy is a professional.
RODRIGUEZ: Definitely.
PHILLIP: Yes. So, the company, UnitedHealthcare, says that they were aware of threats against the company, against the executives at the company. Do you think that that helps in terms of determining a motive here?
RODRIGUEZ: Of course. We're going to go through, as you know, all the records and computers at the company, at the healthcare. But also we have to see why didn't he go out and try to get an executive protection package. You know, a person at this level easily could have gotten it.
PHILLIP: Yes. One last thing, I mean, should people be afraid that this just happened in broad daylight, basically?
RODRIGUEZ: No, this was an isolated incident. I think it has to do with something -- you know, he stepped on the wrong -- someone's wrong feet and they decided to take him out for some reason. And that's going to be the -- you know, we would like to capture this individual, because it's nice to have a motive behind it.
PHILLIP: All right. Felipe Rodriguez, thank you very much for being here.
Coming up next, the culture war goes to the Supreme Court. Two trans activists will join us at our table to talk about states trying to ban gender-affirming care for children.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:25:00]
PHILLIP: It's the question that was put before the nation's highest court today. Should children be allowed to get medications and treatment to affirm their gender? And should states be allowed to ban that care?
Now, you might recall, it is one of those big culture war issues that played a role on the campaign trail in this last cycle, as Donald Trump pushed hyperbolic and false claims about the trans population. Here is a taste of what unfolded today at the Supreme Court.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MATT RICE, TENNESSEE SOLICITOR GENERAL: The question of how many minors have to have their bodies irreparably harmed for unproven benefits is one that is best left --
JUSTICE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, U.S. SUPREME COURT: I'm sorry, counselor. Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin.
JUSTICE ELENA KAGAN, U.S. SUPREME COURT: Encourage minors to appreciate their sex and ban treatments that might encourage minors to become disdainful of their sex sounds to me like we want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls.
JUSTICE BRETT KAVANAUGH, U.S. SUPREME COURT: If you prevail here on the standard of review, what would that mean for women's and girls' sports in particular? Would transgender athletes have a constitutional right, as you see it, to play in women's and girls' sports?
CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS, U.S. SUPREME COURT: It seems to me that it is something where we are extraordinarily bereft of expertise.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Joining me at the table now, transgender actress and activist Peppermint, along with the film producer, Shane Diamond, a transgender advocacy consultant for GLAAD. Good to have you both here.
Peppermint, walk us through this. What is the case for gender- affirming care for minors specifically?
PEPPERMINT, TRANSGENDER ACTRESS AND ACTIVIST: I think it really does revolve around access to healthcare between a doctor and their patient and the parents of the child, being able to have access to the type of healthcare that is available for all types of people, whether they're trans or whether they are cis, which is non trans.
And this court case specifically is asking the question, is it fair to discriminate against transgender people and limit access to care because they are trans? And that's basically what's at the crux of this court case.
PHILLIP: Coleman, your thoughts on that?
HUGHES: Yes. Well, I think it's a controversial procedure. We've seen in the past few years places like Norway and the U.K. have reevaluated their guidelines on it, which goes to show that the science is not settled on whether this is the best way to approach gender dysphoria in minors.
You see in states, you know, states are allowed to regulate lots of things. You're not allowed to get a tattoo. You're not allowed to get certain procedures. You're not allowed -- you know, states have banned all kinds of medical procedures for minors. And so I think it's an issue that is probably best left with the states at this point in history until the science becomes much more settled on what actually is the very best gold standard scientific protocol for kids with gender dysphoria.
PEPPERMINT: What do you mean --
SHANE DIAMOND, GLAAD TRANSGENDER ADVOCACY CONSULTANT: I think we have that gold standard. This is medical best practice as determined by a number of national and global health organizations that says this type of healthcare is life-saving and medically necessary.
So, we have the data and the receipts, as it were, to show that this actually is the care that is necessary for young people.
HUGHES: I don't think that's true. I think, I mean, again, if you look at countries like Norway, Sweden, Finland, U.K., France, they've changed their guidelines just in the past two years because they've looked at that old evidence again and said that actually when you take out the bad studies and just look at the best studies, we're really not sure if this is on net better than psychotherapy for teens.
PEPPERMINT: But do you know what the result of that was?
HUGHES: Go ahead.
PEPPERMINT: What's the result of them reevaluating? It's not a ban on any healthcare.
HUGHES: Yes, it's a tightening of the standards.
Yes, I just --
PEPPERMINT: And it still is available.
PHILLIP: Let me just add a little bit of context here, because I think what you're discussing in the U.K., it's not a ban, which is different from what we're talking about here.
PEPPERMINT: We're talking about a ban. We're talking about a ban.
PHILLIP: But they did -- as Coleman said they made it much more difficult for most minors to get particularly hormone therapy and other kinds of medical sort of procedures that are related to this.
[22:30:09]
So, I think that's kind of the -- the question is, I mean, is there a case to be made to just wait for minors, just for this population of people under the age of 18, to wait until they are older. They're fully developed. They have agency over their own lives and can make those decisions. And also, for the science to develop much more clarity on the consequences?
SHANE DIAMOND, GLAAD TRANSGENDER ADVOCACY CONSULTANT: I think that's a great question. And can we think of any other circumstance in which medically necessary care is denied to someone until they turn 18?
PEPPERMINT, TRANSGENDER ACTRESS AND ACTIVIST: Based on their sex.
PHILLIP: I think the dispute --
COLEMAN HUGHES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: -- is over whether it's the medical best choice. That's precisely the question.
PHILLIP: Yes.
HUGHES: My point in bringing up Western Europe is not to draw a direct link to the ban. It's to say, if some of the most advanced societies in the world have changed their scientific understanding just in the past two years, how confident can we be, how confident can you be that your view is perfectly settled science right now?
It could be five years from now -- actually, the picture changes and states should have the flexibility to react to that and we're not going to -- not every state's going to agree. But I think it should be left with the states at this point.
PEPPERMINT: But you're talking about -- when you talk about the states, are you talking about government and lawmakers?
HUGHES: Yes, yes.
PEPPERMINT: Because I think that lawmakers should not be the arbiters of people's health care. That should be between the patient and the doctor and their parents, in this case, of their minors. Those are the people who should be making the medical decisions for their family, not a governor.
HUGHES: The law bans lots of procedures.
JULIE ROGINSKY, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: But do you know what I think is ironic actually if you're a conservative? Conservatives constantly talk about the fact that they want parents making decisions for their children. That's why they sometimes don't want schools, books in certain schools, because they want the parents to be able to tell their kids what they can and can't read.
They sometimes want parents to be able to say whether their kids can take sex ed classes or not. The state shouldn't be able to do that. The parents should be able to do that. And here, conservatives are the ones saying, no, the state knows better than the parents. And you tell me, who knows your child better than the parents?
And if a parent says that their 16-year-old child, for example, is at the point where they desperately need this, psychologically and physically, then who is the state -- from a conservative state, I'm asking you as a conservative to come in, or you as a conservative, to come in and say, no, actually on this one issue, we, the state know better than the parents.
PHILLIP: Abel?
ABEL MALDONADO (R) FORMER CALIFORNIA LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, TRUMP SUPPORTER: You know, it's a tough issue and it's, you know, I listened to every word you said, Abby, on the 18-year-old. And that's kind of where I come from. I come from the standpoint -- my grandma -- I was raised in a household where my grandmother said, son, every mind is a different world. So, we're all different. I get that.
But the question is -- the question is, is when does that young child, when their brain is developing, when they're growing as a baby to 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, when do we make the decision that it's their choice? And in my mind and in my heart, you've got to be 18 years old. Because even if you ask mom and dad, now you're putting them in a position where down the road there's regret.
PHILLIP: But can I ask you, what about the bans? I mean, I think that there is almost --I don't want to lionize what Europe did, but just to contrast it, a ban with guidelines that state clearly when this is appropriate, why are states going straight to bans as opposed to doing something more thoughtful?
MALDONADO: Abby, I'm a states guy and I feel that way. And I think it should be up to the states. I think the states will make the decision. Let the voters make that decision and we're going to see what the Supreme Court says.
HUGHES: Can I push back a little bit on that, though? Because usually, when you have to wait until 18 to do something, we don't describe it as a ban, right? Because a ban would imply you can't.
PHILLIP: Well, I think that that's true, but in this case, there are penalties for people who provide this care. HUGHES: Well, there are penalties for someone who sells alcohol to a
minor, too. I'm not saying it's comparable.
PHILLIP: Well, there is a ban on --
HUGHES: But I'm saying --
PHILLIP: I mean, I would say it's at least a week from now.
HUGHES: That's not a ban.
PHILLIP: You don't describe you'd have to be 18 to purchase cigarettes.
PEPPERMINT: And there's no doctor that's telling anyone that it's medically necessary to consume alcohol at all.
HUGHES: Yes, but other procedures are banned, right? Lots of other procedures are banned.
DIAMOND: What we're talking about, though, when we talk about health care for trans youth, we're not necessarily talking about surgeries. The only medical intervention recommended for trans kids is social support. There's no medical intervention recommended.
HUGHES: Which is also gender for me. But we're talking about puberty blockers and hormone therapy.
DIAMOMD: Yes, so, for children, it's only social support. There are very clear-cut recommendations when adolescents hit certain developmental marks, where there are another set of recommendations. And we're not talking about blockers. We're talking about delayers.
And so, when we talk about hormone therapy, puberty delayers, all of this is giving young adults a little bit more time to make decisions. It's blocking, it's slowing down temporarily, the onset of natural puberty, which makes it a lot more comfortable to be in your body if you're trans.
[22:35:05]
It gives you a lot more space if you want to have --
PHILLIP: Can I ask a question about that? I mean, just to be educated. You said it delays it. I'm wondering how sure you are of that, because I think that's the critique is that, do we know that if you do it, and it actually delays it if you're in puberty, if you're not an adult?
DIAMOMD: I, Shane Diamond, am not sure about that. However, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health is sure about that. This is a delay. This is fully reversible.
PHILLIP: One thing I want to ask you both, Peppermint and Shane, the conversation that we are having here is actually not a conversation that happens very often. And one of the things about this issue is that there is fear on both sides.
There's a reason you both are here today because there's fear of people who are trans coming in settings where they have to defend themselves and their identities and who they are, and fear of people who may not know much about this issue even talking about it, but they have feelings about it.
So, how do -- how do we address that? Because it feels to me like this is an animating issue in the country, and everyone is walking on eggshells talking about it.
PEPPERMINT: It is and I do think it's important to try to have a respectful discourse and understand that there are so many strong feelings. And I think part of the reason why there's so many strong feelings is we're talking specifically when talking about trans issues, this is something that relates to gender and sexuality, something that all human beings have an inherent connection to.
And also feel like they are the authority on. But every person is different in their own gender, in their own sexuality, in their own expression. And I want to go back to the gender affirming care aspect. You know, we're talking about, even for older teenagers, people 17, 18. We're talking about services, medical services, medical care that cis people get all the time.
Puberty blockers are used outside of people who are transgender and hormones -- HRT, are used for people who are of all ages to avoid precocious puberties, things like that. And there aren't -- we're not seeing bands or people saying, oh, well, no one in the state can get HRT if you're -- if you're female and you're trying to avoid a precocious, you know, puberty.
This is only with regards to people who are transgender and it's being implemented that way. And that's the way -- that's what is being argued at the state level in Tennessee.
PHILLIP: I'm curious, Coleman, about that.
HUGHES: The reason none of those other uses are controversial is because those are long-standing, highly evidence-backed, non- politicized issues that have been -- conditions that have been treated that way, going back a very long time. The protocol for gender- affirming care for children, the evidence is very not -- it's very weak.
That's why it just changed two years ago in all -- in half the Western European countries. And it's a politicized issue, which means the advocates of the science are not always representing the science accurately.
DIAMOND: I think it has been politicized. I don't think being transgender or seeking medical care is -- is political. I think it has been politicized largely by the right to create this type of conversation, to create these wedges. And we have now pigeonholed transgender people as the crux of what so much is hung upon in political discourse. But trans people make up such a small percentage of the population and
trans youth make up an even smaller percentage that we are having these huge national televised conversations about a group of people that actually is a very small percentage of the population.
PHILLIP: But is the alternative to not have the conversation? Because I mean, I think one of the reasons the conversation has to happen is because the numbers are growing, of young people who identify as trans.
DIAMOND: I wouldn't say that there's necessarily more young people who are trans. I think we have more language to describe who we are and how we feel. I think we are seeing transgender faces like Peppermint and myself on TV, in film, in movies.
And young people and older people are finally seeing themselves represented and are having -- they have the language now to identify how they feel, how they felt. So, I don't think we are seeing more transgender people. I don't think this is like an influx of trans people.
ROGINSKY: Can I also add just one thing to that if you don't mind?
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, I think the question was about, shouldn't we, I mean, I'm wondering, do you think it's better to talk about it or to not? Because I'm wondering about the --
PEPPERMINT: I think it's better to learn about it because we are hearing a lot of conversation. It has been highly politicized. And most of the conversations, with maybe exception of this one and a few this week, have not involved transgender people in any way, shape or form. But major decisions that impact our bodies, our lives, our families, our health are being made without us being considered at all.
HUGHES: Would you agree it would be even better to have a conversation with trans people at the table and people who have de- transitioned and have a conversation with all the stakeholders?
[22:40:02]
PEPPERMINT: Absolutely, but I think --
HUGHES: Well, that very rarely happens.
PEPPERMINT: A hundred percent. I mean, you can produce that. There's -- what we're talking about here is people -- in this situation with regards to the Supreme Court case, we're talking about people being able to make -- have bodily autonomy, the right to make decisions about their own body and their own health in conference with their medical providers and their families. And that is where the decisions -- and the impact of that decision will play out. And so, those are the people who have the highest stakes.
ROGINSKY: Yes, just one thing I want to add. I mean, we're talking about children and young adults who are going through an incredibly difficult time in their lives. And the fact that this has been so politicized, and the fact that these people have been dehumanized and used as political footballs and political wedges on the right, and they have been throughout this entire election.
And the fact that these people are not made to feel like people but are made to feel like political props is disgraceful. And, you know, that's why it's been politicized. It's been politicized because people forget that they're talking about human beings and only start thinking about them as props.
And this is exactly what it felt like for people 20, 30 years ago who were gay. That's exactly the same movement that happened back then. It's become more acceptable now, and now it's happening to the trans community.
And I think as somebody who is not trans and somebody who's a straight woman, I've seen this trajectory and I think it's disgraceful and I just want to say, for the record, I'm glad we're having this discussion. And I'm glad that, for once, that this is not being used as a political football to try to go after vulnerable people who are going through an incredibly difficult time in their lives.
PHILLIP: All right, we do have to leave it there unfortunately. Peppermint and Shane, thank you both very much. We'll continue the conversation. Coming up next, days after President Biden pardoned his son, new calls for him to pardon a few more prominent figures. We're going to discuss who is on that list, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:46:15]
PHILLIP: Breaking news in the pardon corner tonight, just days after President Biden pardoned his son, "Politico" is now reporting that his team is also discussing preemptive pardons for prominent figures of the MAGA enemies list, including Dr. Anthony Fauci, Senator-elect Adam Schiff and also Liz Cheney, who of course endorsed Kamala Harris and led the January 6th investigation on Capitol Hill. Chuck, is this a good idea?
CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST & FOUNDER: I think so. Democrats lean into it. I promise you, Donald Trump's going to pardon everybody. I made a list in the back while ago, and I'm wearing what I call my Steve Bannon outfit. I got on so many layers because it's so cold in New York, I look like Steve Bannon. That's just one name, Steve Bannon.
What about Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, Charles Kushner? If you get pardoned by him, you can become the ambassador to the France, evidently, as well. Democrats, in all seriousness, I'm tired of the pearl clutching of we're better than that.
If he's going to do it, let's make sure that we do it, as well, because we're going to be there at the end, having to make up all this other stuff.
PHILLIP: Adam Schiff, who is on the list, he said he doesn't think it's a good idea. He said it looks defensive.
ROGINSKY: Well, Adam Schiff -- listen, the question is, would they accept a pardon? Because if you don't think you did anything wrong, which they didn't, they might want to not take a pardon. But I will say this, you're talking about an unprecedented crew of people coming in.
They're -- they're -- listen, even if they don't indict you, they can investigate you into bankruptcy, torture you with FBI investigations. Kash Patel is evidently going to be our next FBI director. Is that what you want to be dealing with for the rest of your life?
MALDONADO: What they did to President Trump during the time he was out of office?
ROGINSKY: President Trump got actually indicted by a grand jury.
MALDONADO: They tried to bankrupt him. They tried to -- raided his house. They did the same thing, Julie.
ROGINSKY: They raided his house because he had -- he had documents that he stored there. I don't think that Liz Cheney has any secret documents stored. If she does, obviously, they should be raiding her house, too.
But look, they have already said that they're going to come after these people. And so, from my perspective, I like, amen to everything Chuck just said. I'm tired of the pearl clutching, too. I'm tired of the -- complete --
ROCHA: If all the Republicans weigh in, just for the record, if they're handing out pardons, I'll take one.
ROGINSKY: Yes. I'll take one, too, because by the way, they're coming --yes, because any --
ROCHA: I talk a lot of trash on TV. I could take a pardon.
ROGINSKY: I talk a lot of trash on TV, too. Yes, so, that's all of us.
MALDONADO: In 2016, they said he was going to go after Hillary Rodham Clinton.
ROGINSKY: He tried.
MALDONADO: He never did.
ROGINSKY: He got --
MALDONADO: He never did.
ROGINSKY: He got mad at his first attorney general for not going after her.
MALDONALDO: So, this notion, always, you know, enemies this, enemies -- come on. Come on.
ROCHA: But with all the folks that I mentioned, we didn't go after them. He was just trying to protect them all, evidently. He broke the law in the court -- the Paul Manafort, the Roger Stones and that group --
MALDONADO: There's no secret that Joe Biden's going to pardon people, there's no doubt. I mean, obviously he did. No one's questioning him on pardoning Hunter Biden. No one.
ROGINSKY: No one is questioning him? Everybody's questioning him.
MALDNADO: The problem he had was when he said that he wouldn't do it and then he did. Because I can go down the street here in New York and everybody will say, you're damn right he should have pardoned his son.
ROCHA: You better be careful if you're in New York, I'm just saying. There's 140 other people that got pardoned, as well.
PHILLIP: Just to understand, do you think that Biden, I mean, the pardon power is the pardon power. Do you think that he has the power, he should just do what he wants on that front?
MALDONADO: He's the president. He can pardon whoever he wants, Abby. I'm sorry, he can. That's what he can do.
ROCHA: And in his first term, he pardoned 143 people, just so we're all clear, so people can realize it's not just three or four people.
PHILLIP: You're talking about Trump?
ROCHA: About Trump.
PHILLIP: OK.
ROCHA: Hundred and forty-three.
HUGHES: Which is a pretty normal number for president.
ROCHA: It is. Absolutely.
UNKNOWN: That' why you don't see me -- go ahead.
HUGHES: Yes, look, if he really wants to be magnanimous and go down in history, here's what he should do, is he should pardon Trump's enemies and he should pardon Trump. He will go down as the great uniter that stopped the cycle of tit for tat prosecutions, greatest uniter since Abraham Lincoln.
PHILLIP: Does Trump need a pardon, though?
HUGHES: I mean, in principle, I mean, what Jack Smith said in dropping the charges is that it left open the possibility of bringing them back up after the term.
[22:50:03] ROGINSKY: All right, here's the thing.
HUGHES: So -- mostly symbolic.
PHILLIP: And do you really think that Trump is going to take that and say, well --
ROGINSKY: Jesus.
HUGHES: No, not Trump.
PHILLIP: I'm going to disarm.
HUGHES: I don't care about Trump. I care about the country, people.
PHILLIP: Yes. No, but I'm saying what is he going to -- because you're saying if Biden stops it for Trump, there's not going to be a tit for tat. Do you think that that's going to happen?
MALDONADO: I think it's a message of uniting America. That's what he's trying to say.
HUGHES: It could. It could.
ROGINSKY: Why are Democrats always the ones who are being asked to unite America? Why is the onus always on us? There's always two standards, right? The Democrats have to be the uniter, the Democrats have to behave ethically. Democrats can't, you know, Joe Biden, ooh, Joe Biden lied. Donald Trump lies as easily as he breathes and nobody even pays attention anymore.
PHILLIP: So, are you implicitly suggesting here that there is a degree of kind of like not playing by the rules that would be happening here or behaving unethically?
ROGINSKY: I'm saying outright that I think Democrats need to take the gloves off. Evidently America voted to break the paradigm, to break everything that happened before. And so, Democrats need to stop being in a defensive posture as to what the mainstream media is going to say that Joe Biden, ooh, he lied, oh, no.
Or that Adam Schiff, oh my goodness, he might look guilty, he took a pardon. Take the pardon because these guys are kind of come after you. The norms have been broken and they've been broken by Donald Trump. Evidently the country wants the norms to have been broken.
So, let's start behaving like them. I mean, I, from my perspective, I'm tired of always being asked to be the one to unite the country. No, he shouldn't ask. You shouldn't pardon Donald Trump. Absolutely not. But he should pardon Democrats because that's what Donald Trump would do. And if that's what America wants, Democrats should start acting like that, too.
PHILLIP: All right everyone, much more ahead. Coming up next, Democrats are trying to look for their future and new leadership. A few names are in the mix, including one person at the table. He'll announce his decision. Stand by.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:56:28]
PHILLIP: As Democrats consider their future, more names of potential candidates to lead the DNC keep popping up, including one person at this table. Chuck, you have some news.
ROCHA: Yes, you know, over the holidays, I promised everybody that I wouldn't drag this out. And I thought about it. I met with my family over the Thanksgiving holidays. I called both of the former chairmen because I want to make sure I knew what the job was because I really in all of my heart want to do something to change the brand.
What I talk about at the table with you all in debate, I really believe in it. You all know my story. I grew up in a trailer house in East Texas. I don't act like the normal Democrat. And when Jamie and some of the others said, look, most of the job is fundraising. It's not a job I really want to do.
So, I'm not going to run. And I hope somebody runs who really wants to reform the party, because at the end of the day, I don't want to be just a full-time fundraiser, I want to help rebuild a party that I love, that I joined 35 years ago because I wanted to drain the swamp. And I worked in a factory I was trying to save our jobs like, I want to get back to that.
And as I called around to people and for everybody on the internet for that matter who's called me and encouraged me to run, if they were the ones voting on this I would be in every day and I think I would win but it's 455 people in an executive.
PHILLIP: Very different.
ROCHA: And when I called them, they were like, look, we're going to be with one of the four white guys running. You seem fun in a cowboy hat.
PHILLIP: Let's talk about some of those, well, there are five guys running.
ROCHA: Five white guys, right? Just make sure I got that right.
PHILLIP: A lot of them have basically the same premise --fifty-state strategy you keep hearing about. Fundamentally, a lot of this is tactical. Do you hear anything that gets at the heart of what you think the Democratic Party needs to do?
ROGINSKY: Here's what the Democratic Party needs to do. We need our own GOPAC. We need our own Federalist Society. We have variations of it, but we don't actually have them to be as successful as Republicans. We need to go into the states and get the legislators back.
We need to fight for state Supreme Court seats where all these decisions are being made and not just focus on the shiny object. You know, Bill Clinton had this line, Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line, or something along those lines. We need to stop falling in love with the next Barack Obama or the next whoever and need to start doing the hard work of rebuilding this party from the bottom up.
And I mean that, and Chuck, I know you agree with me on this. We need to go into not just a 50-state strategy to elect members of Congress and Senate. We need to elect legislators. Two-thirds of the state Supreme Court used to be controlled by Democrats decades ago. Now, it's less than half. That's a big mistake.
PHILLIP: I was talking about the Obama era, but I think there's some critiquing there because the Obama era was the beginning of a major slide for Democrats. Steve Schell, who ran Obama's Florida operation, had a piece today, "I watched the Democratic Party collapse in Florida. I fear it's happening nationally." That fear is about the math. There's just the numbers.
MALDONADO: And Obama's team ran this last campaign. And then Joe Biden's team was on this campaign. So, they're done.
ROCHA: There needs to be a whole new group of leadership. I mean, everybody talked about this. To your point, Abby, under Barack Obama, people never talk about it. We lost a thousand legislative seats. It was starting to be the end.
MALDONADO: Since when did the Republican Party become the party of the working man?
ROCHA: This is what drives me crazy. Like, anyone knows how to make my eye twitch. This is the thing that makes my eye twitch.
PHILLIP: It is a good question, though. I mean --
MALDONADO: I'm asking you, since when? It's a D question. Look, I worked with him. No tax on tips, no tax on overtime.
ROCHA: It drives me crazy because there's only so many rich white guys that Republicans knew could vote for them, so they got to go figure out how to get workers, and it's smart. As a strategist, it's smart.
ROGINSKY: But you know how they did it? Because we don't know how to, I've been banging this drum. We don't know how to communicate. The Democratic Party has no idea how to communicate to normal people anymore.
UNKNOWN: Every community has got a master's degree and has it all figured out.
[23:00:00]
ROGINSKY: Well, I'm a consultant. I have a master's degree and I told you I have it figured out, but I also know how to speak to people like they're normal and not like I'm sitting there focus-grouping, talking to you in one way because you're a Latino guy from Texas. And talking to you in a different way.
MALDONADO: Chuck, you should be the chairman. I mean, she raised 1.3 billion.
ROCHA: If it was up to the general public, it would be there.
MALDONADO: She raised 1.3 billion in a hundred days.
PHILLIP: Let me give you -- let you get in here.
HUGHES: The hard truth is that Democrats need to marginalize the people on their fringe, the people that don't know how to talk, the people that - the people that are the reason why that they-them ad that Trump did, did so well. They have to make those people feel extreme and politically homeless and then win back the center.
PHILLIP: All right, guys, great show. Thank you very much for being here and thank you for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
