Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Man Mistakenly Deported To El Salvador Back In U.S. To Face Charges; Trump Asking Aides About Musk Alleged Drug Use; Musk Turns His Twitter Focus Back To Trump's Bill; Trump Escalates Fight With State Of California; Trump Frees Proud Boys From Prison. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 06, 2025 - 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 VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, first they said deporting him was a mistake. Then they said he was never coming back. But now --
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice.
PHILLIP: Plus, as the trouble in paradise steepens --
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): The girls are fighting, aren't they?
PHILLIP: President Trump insists he's not even thinking about his former BFF.
Also, defunding the Golden State, President Trump's fight with California heats up and research universities are caught in the middle.
And they got a get out of jail free card from President Trump. Now, five Proud Boys are suing the government for $100 million.
Live at the table, Bakari Sellers, Scott Jennings, S.E. Cup and John Fugelsang.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip for a special edition of News Night. This summer, we are taking the show on some field trips. We're spending our Fridays right here at the Food Network's Kitchen in New York, our sister company. We have a fabulous chef serving friends of the show, and she has a special treat for us. Don't you worry about that at the end of the night.
But in the meantime, let's get right to what America is talking about, the return of Kilmar Abrigo Garcia. After saying that they mistakenly deported him to El Salvador, a prison there, and after saying that they had no way to get him back, the Justice Department has announced that he is back on American soil. But now he faces charges related to unlawfully transporting migrants for financial gain. And the news was even a surprise to his attorneys.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SIMON SANDOVAL-MOSHENBERG, ATTORNEY FOR KILMAR ABREGO GARCIA: We learned about it on T.V. just like the rest of the country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, why the sudden reversal from the Trump administration? Remember this post from the White House back in April? Their social media team edited the front page of The New York Times and changed the headline to say that Abrego Garcia was, quote, never coming back. And even after the Supreme Court said that the White House needed to facilitate his return, Trump at the DOJ said that their hands were tied.
But something over the last two months apparently changed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: That's up to El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us. The Supreme Court ruled, President, that if El Salvador wants to return him, this is international matters, foreign affairs. If they wanted to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane.
Our government presented El Salvador with an arrest warrant and they agreed to return him to our country. We're grateful to President Bukele for agreeing to return him to our country to face these very serious charges.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Even El Salvador's president said Abrego Garcia's return was never going to happen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NAYIB BUKELE, SALVADORAN PRESIDENT: The question is impossible. How can smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don't have the power to return him to the United States.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But now, President Bukele makes it sound like Abrego Garcia's release was a simple ask. He wrote this on X, we work with the Trump administration, and if they request the return of a gang member to face charges, of course, we wouldn't refuse.
Joining us at the table is Attorney Donte Mills. He is a law professor at Temple University's Beasley School of Law. And this was always a big question in this case, which is the accusation that he was a really bad guy, an MS-13 gang member, had been made by the Trump administration, but they never wanted to charge him, it seemed, with those alleged crimes. Now they have because, apparently, they've done an investigation, but they could have done this 2.5 months ago.
DONTE MILLS, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ATTORNEY: Well, they could have, and this to me, it's this political gamesmanship, but you don't want to mix that with our justice system. This is somebody who the administration deemed to be a bad person. So, what they're doing is saying, let's go back and dig until we find something that justifies that. So, now they're going to bring him back to the country where before they said they couldn't, right? There was no way that they can get him back here or help facilitate it.
Now, they put this indictment in front of a grand jury. He was indicted not for transporting or bringing people in and out of the country, but for moving people around inside the country.
[22:05:06]
Now, what they're saying is we're going to bring him back and prosecute him. That will trump any issues with immigration. So, if he's found guilty of this crime, he can be deported in whatever protections he had in place will go away so he can, in fact, be deported back to his home country.
PHILLIP: Right. Again, they could have done this --
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think a lot of people have had the same conclusion throughout this process. Republicans have made this a political football. And what Democrats have said is that this is about due process. And, yes, before we go down this really unique dark path of are illegal immigrants entitled to due process, the answer is yes.
The 5th and 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution says that everybody in the United States of America, regardless of your citizenship or status, has due process. So, that is a fundamental right that even illegal immigrants have.
So, my point to everyone under the sound of my voice for so long was bring him back, go through due process. And if you are convicted of a crime, if you committed a crime, if you are illegal here and have committed a crime, deport them. There is no one who is against that. Please deport him. But he deserves due process like everybody else. And the reason being is because if you don't give Abrego Garcia due process, then the next person they won't give due process is you, and that is a fact.
That always happens. It's happened through the history of this country. That is a fact. And if we want to rewrite the Constitution, I see my friend, Scott, I don't know if he's shaking his head or if he's shaking his head because of this guy, this guy that's behind him, that's over there eating, I like being able to see him, but this guy in the back eating his sandwich, he just got up. But you can see him in every shot. I don't know if you're shaking your head at me or him, but the fact is he deserves due process.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, I suspect that Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen, when he heard that Saint Abrego Garcia was coming back, took a shower, put on his nice suit, got on open table, found out what maybe party of two reservation they could get for tonight so they could continue the bromance they started when he went back to visit Saint Abrego in El Salvador.
Look, he was not deported because he was a bad guy. He was deported because he was an illegal immigrant living in the country illegally for 14 years who had gone through due process, who had an existing deportation order. It so happens that it turns out he may in fact well be a really, really bad person that we would not want in the country.
Here are his possible outcomes. Number one, he gets convicted of this stuff and goes to prison for a long time. Number two, he gets acquitted and goes back to El Salvador, which is what I suspect the White House would do with him if he somehow gets out of these charges. Either way, it's what the White House said all along. There's no future where the Maryland man goes back to Maryland to live quietly in the suburbs. That is --
SELLERS: but that's not the point though, Scott. And I'll let you chime in. I mean, you're a better lawyer than I. I took the bar a couple times. You are probably only had to take it once. So --
MILLS: I took it once.
SELLERS: Yes. I had to take it a couple times, so we haven't -- so we'll deal with that. But my point is, Scott, like due process, I mean the 5th and 14th --
JENNINGS: He had some, he got some.
SELLERS: You don't get some, Scott. That's the thing. Like you don't get a chance to give me some due process, I mean, all or nothing.
MILLS: Everybody has due process that they're owed. I think we all should agree with that. But there's a second component here where we're talking about selective prosecution. Now they're bringing him back and charging him with this crime for facts that they've known since 2022. There's no new evidence.
JENNINGS: Who knew them in 2022?
MILLS: It's on video.
JENNINGS: Who knew them?
MILLS: But, Scott, it was on video?
JENNINGS: What administration?
MILLS: It wasn't anything illegal. JENNINGS: The Biden administration, and they chose to let him go on. We have a new administration.
PHILLIP: Hold on one second.
MILLS: No, this is selective prosecution. That's not fair.
PHILLIP: What you're saying that this happened in 2 20 22 is true. But I do think that the idea that the Trump administration chose only very recently, it seems, to go down this road of actually investigating alleged crimes, that is also something that seems to be pretty clear. And there are some questions about that. I mean, if this guy were on their radar for deportation, for being an MS-13 member, why didn't they investigate this, charge him and deport him for those, charge those crimes?
S.E., I want to make sure you get in. I just want to note one of the interesting things about this that we found out today, a 15-year veteran of the U.S. attorney's office and the chief of the criminal division in Nashville, a guy named Ben Schrader, he resigned from his position the same week that this went to a grand jury. And according to our reporting, there are concerns that there are cases like this, perhaps this case, that is being politicized.
Now, we don't know what that could entail, but, clearly, the question is being raised.
MILLS: And we want to get you in, but he also said very cryptically, when he resigned, he said, the years that I've been here, I've done things the right way, the right thing.
[22:10:02]
PHILLIP: He says the only job description I've ever known is to do the right thing in the right way for the right reasons. That's what he wrote on LinkedIn.
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, there's a reason I'm not yelling to jump in, and that's because what no one is saying is we don't know who he is or what he's done. You don't know that he's a bad guy and you don't know that he's a good guy.
I'm not saying either of you have said that. I'm just saying this man has become a poster child for the left and the right while no one knows who he is or what he did. That's the problem because this case was handed -- I'm not done -- handled so badly.
And the incompetence, putting aside the emotional aspect on both sides of this, the incompetence in the way that this was handled, we'll shoot first, ask questions later. We're going to deport him first and then find the crime. We're going to say we can't bring him back and then we're going to bring him back. We don't know what he did.
Now, he got indicted by a grand jury. A grand jury, as we all know, can indict a ham sandwich, but this is our process and I'm willing to trust the process if they find through this process that he broke the law, in addition to breaking the law by coming in here illegally. I grant you that, Scott, he should be punished for that. But everyone has decided who this man is before anyone knows what he did.
PHILLIP: Can I just play one thing? This is Texas representative Vicente Gonzalez, who actually raised some questions for Democrats about how they've handled this case. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. VICENTE GONZALEZ (D-TX): And I've said from the very beginning, from when I read, you know, cases and complaints against him, I knew that he was no little angel and I thought we had a potential criminal on our hands. And if this turns out to be a legitimate indictment, which I assume it would be, he's going to have to face charges here in the United States.
So, certainly, I don't think we should be advocating for Abrego Garcia as if he's some, you know, Johnny Appleseeds, as I said, because he's not. But we should be advocating for rule of law in America and that we respect federal judicial court orders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SELLERS: That's my point. And to S.E., just to push back on S.E., I'm not saying that he's a great guy. I mean, I know you said that wasn't attributed to us.
CUPP: Right.
SELLERS: No one is saying that.
CUPP: Well, no one, because --
JENNINGS: I am. I will literally say that.
SELLERS: How about this?
CUPP: He's a family man.
SELLERS: What I am saying is family man, illegal, undocumented, whatever.
CUPP: Criminal.
SELLERS: What I am saying is that he deserves due process.
CUPP: Of course.
SELLERS: And that is my only point. That's maybe my point from the beginning.
CUPP: That's your only point. It's not in the narrative that Democrats and Republicans have been --
SELLERS: That's fine. And I get an opportunity in front of, you know, a million people watching Abby right now. MILLS: Also, you can just make me some kind of poster child and turn the Justice Department against me. That's what's happening here. This guy wouldn't have been --
JENNINGS: You all are completely downplaying what we know. We know plenty about this person.
MILLS: What?
JENNINGS: We know that he lived in the country illegally for 14 years.
CUPP: I said that.
JENNINGS: That's okay with you.
CUPP: I said that.
JENNINGS: That's number one.
SELLERS: Time out. No, no, no.
JENNINGS: We know --
SELLERS: That is not okay with me, but that's not a -- but that is literally --
PHILLIP: First of all, we all know that you both interrupt each other.
SELLERS: That is not a crime.
JENNINGS: To live in the country illegally?
SELLERS: That's not a crime. That's a status offense. Stop telling people, Scott, that's not true.
JENNINGS: I am just -- my mind is so blown here --
PHILLIP: Go ahead and finish.
JENNINGS: -- by the last two nights about illegal immigration.
SELLERS: It's not a criminal offense.
PHILLIP: Bakari, just give -- can we give --
SELLERS: It's a simple violation.
PHILLIP: Bakari, can we give Scott --
JENNINGS: He's in the country illegally, 14 years. That's number one. We also know what his wife told the courts and law enforcement about him, that he was violent, that he beat her, that he was --
CUPP: That's hearsay.
JENNINGS: That he -- so you said, we don't know if he's a bad guy. CUPP: We don't.
JENNINGS: I trust his wife when she runs off and says, please protect me from this man.
CUPP: What if his wife said, this is man's great? You wouldn't trust her. That's insane.
JENNINGS: So, you're acting like we don't know things.
SELLERS: Prosecute him.
JENNINGS: And so, at a minimum, what we know should be more than enough for anybody at this table to say, yes, please get in the hell.
MILLS: Let me ask you this.
(CROSSTALKS)
MILLS: Let me ask you this. Do you think they charged him to try to save face? Yes or no? Honestly --
JENNINGS: I think they charged him because he committed a crime.
MILLS: -- do you believe they charged him a crime to try to save face, yes or no?
JENNINGS: I think they charged him because he committed serious crimes, apparently.
SELLERS: Scott, can we agree on this? He should be prosecuted for domestic violence. He should be prosecuted for every crime he committed. And when he's found guilty, he should be deported.
JENNINGS: I think he should be deported anyway regardless of this other stuff. The only issue that really mattered whether he was in the country illegally.
SELLERS: Does the Constitution work or not?
JENNINGS: Yes. And he had a deportation order.
MILLS: But now we're bringing him in to where the Justice Department is being used for political reasons, and that shouldn't happen.
PHILLIP: We're going to hit pause on this conversation, but, look I mean, you're right, he had -- well, he was in proceedings and the proceedings were determining where he could go. They sent him to the wrong place. Honestly, the judge just said, bring him back so that he can finish that process and be sent to the right place. And the Trump administration could have done this 2.5 months ago. They didn't. And it is perplexing. Now we have charges.
[22:15:00]
We'll see what happens to the charges. In this country, whether you're legal or illegal, you're innocent until proven guilty. We'll let this play out. We'll continue to follow it.
Donte Mills, thank you very much with your first pass at the bar exam. That's why you're at this table. Thank you very much.
Coming up next, the bad breakup is getting worse with the president's agenda on the line. And now a source tells CNN that Trump is asking his aides if Musk's behavior could be related to his alleged drug use.
Back in a moment from the Food Network Kitchen.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: New details tonight on that Very bitter, very public divorce between President Trump and Elon Musk. The president is now privately trying to understand why his relationship with his now ex-BFF imploded. A source tells CNN. The Trump is asking aides of Musk's behavior is related to the tech billionaires alleged drug use. The New York Times had previously reported that Musk was using drugs, including ketamine, more often than previously known.
Meantime, Trump is playing it cool in front of the cameras. He's insisting repeatedly that he's moved on past the meltdown.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What's your view on Elon Musk as of today? I mean, have you heard from him at all as of today?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Honestly, I've been so busy working on China, working on Russia. I'm working on Iran, working on so many that. I'm not thinking about Elon.
REPORTER: Do you have any plans to speak with Mr. Musk? This was one of your closest advisers.
TRUMP: No, I don't have any plans.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: For his part, Musk is shifting the attention back to what started the spat in the first place, and that's Trump's big, beautiful bill. He posted today on social media Congress is bankrupting America. There's that. He also just a little over half an hour ago posted that he will apologize profusely as soon as there is a dump of the Epstein files, apologizing to Donald Trump.
So, not exactly backing off some of the most salacious accusations here, but I don't know, S.E. Let's start with the Trump of it all. I mean, he really is trying to not turn up the volume all the way up. Why do you think that is?
CUPP: First, can I just say, and I don't usually talk like this because I'm not persuaded by identity politics, but can we get some women in charge of shit? PHILLIP: Amen.
CUPP: I'm sorry.
PHILLIP: Yes.
CUPP: Like this is the cringiest, pettiest, most childish fight. For all of the concerns that we're too emotional, I am so embarrassed for men in this moment. I think that just needs to be said.
But, yes, the Trump of it all, it's really interesting. Trump doesn't need Elon's money per se, but Republicans do. I'm not sure why Trump is kind of being a little bit restrained. I don't think I would call him restrained yesterday. I think they all went to DEFCON 5 pretty quick. And this idea of like mutually assured destruction, it's a really good concept when you have two powerful actors. They agree if we attack each other, we're both going down.
That usually works unless you have two people with like no impulse control, and these two people have no impulse control. So, it went from like detente to DEFCON 5 in a matter of hours.
PHILLIP: And Elon is still there. He's still all the way up at ten.
But, John, is with us at the table. I mean, Elon --
CUPP: Sorry, men, but like get it together.
JOHN FUGELSANG, SIRIUSXM HOST, TELL ME EVERYTHING: No, I'm with you. Believe me,I can't wait for the women to take over. I wish they would.
CUPP: I mean, Elon is --
SELLERS: But just -- can I just -- I mean, respectfully, I did try to get a woman elected in 2016 and 2024. So, I mean they --
FUGELSANG: the American people picked one in 2016.
SELLERS: Well, and I'm just saying that there were a lot of -- for different reasons, a lot of reasons we don't have women elected president of the United States, exactly. Go ahead.
FUGELSANG: Of course. I think we're seeing that men are too emotional to work together. It's very sad. I'm a fan of morality and comedy, so I spent the day enjoying this. I think a lot of people had 135 days of a pressure valve emotionally ready to release. And for a lot of folks it was a bit cathartic.
I don't know how much good is going to come from this, but it was like porn for the angels. What we saw yesterday was like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic with the Benny Hill theme playing as a soundtrack. The comedy was beautiful. Two narcissists with no impulse control, everyone thought they'd get along just great.
You've got Trump accusing him of being a junkie. You have Mr. Musk accusing Mr. Trump of being a pedophile. And the Republicans are like, guys, can this just wait until we gut Medicaid first, please? It's not going to go away. It's not going to help anybody.
And I think Trump is confident because he's already won. He knows the Republican Party will stay with him and not go with Musk. And I don't think he wants to add too much more sunlight to these accusations by responding.
PHILLIP: I just feel like at this point they're just trying to keep Elon from burning the whole house down.
CUPP: Yes.
PHILLIP: And he could.
CUPP: Yes.
FUGELSANG: Yes.
PHILLIP: You know, rather rhetorically or whatever. I mean, he controls a major platform of disseminating information and sort of influencing how people feel about things.
JENNINGS: He's already made his feelings known about this legislation. I mean, he's already --
PHILLIP: But now it's not just the legislation. It's also Trump and Republicans and all of that.
JENNINGS: You think one more person making salacious accusations against Donald Trump is going to change the last ten years? I mean, I don't --
PHILLIP: This isn't just one person.
JENNINGS: I don't really believe that. And I think if there were really bad things about Donald Trump, we would already know about it. This is the most thoroughly vetted American in political history. And so I guess I just don't buy that piece of it.
I think it's extremely regrettable that this relationship has splintered and, you know, hopefully someday cooler heads will prevail.
CUPP: But are you surprised, Scott? Because, I mean, you know, you're inside MAGA circles.
[22:25:00]
Are you surprised that these two couldn't coexist forever? I mean, I'm not surprised.
JENNINGS: You know, I'm not surprised at the friction actually between the more libertarian, newish Republican --
CUPP: The policy stuff, yes.
PHILLIP: -- wing and what Trump represents his, these are two different sort of economic theories. I mean, they just are. That friction has existed in the party. So, that doesn't surprise me. The personal escalation is surprising.
PHILLIP: Hold on. But is this really libertarianism or is this not like classic conservatism? Like classic Republican ideology is you want to reduce the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government? Like I feel like -- I'm saying this not just truthfully. I think Elon is trying to hold Republicans accountable to their own statements.
SELLERS: But there's about Donald Trump that is a classic conservative. If you go back and you look at conservatives throughout history or Republicans throughout history, there is nothing that Ronald Reagan has in common with Donald Trump. There is nothing.
JENNINGS: Peace through strength.
SELLERS: What?
JENNINGS: Peace through strength?
SELLERS: No. I mean, but that's facade and that's a slogan that, that actually Ronald Reagan attempted to uphold. Donald Trump does not. There's no George H.W., there's no George W. Bush. There's no John McCain in Donald Trump.
So, to say that he is trying to be this conservative is cosplay. He's reformed -- he has drastically shifted the paradigm on what Republicans really are.
The problem though with this -- that this battle between Elon and Donald Trump is something Republicans can't grasp, which is this fundamental fact, MAGA-ism, or MAGA, whatever you want to call it, politics is non-transferable. It belongs to one man. It belongs to Donald Trump. And what Elon Musk is doing is tearing down everything else around that.
He's going to make it entirely difficult for people like J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio, or Nikki Haley, you all remember her, or people like Chris Christie who want to find this vein to come in. Maybe not Chris. But who want to find this vein to come in and try to slice that off, Elon Musk is going to make that really, really difficult.
CUPP: But does anyone here believe that Democrats, and I'm not in neither party anymore, Democrats will be dumb and craven en enough to try and woo Elon back to the party ala Ro Khanna's big idea?
SELLERS: No. I think, like I said last night, I'll say it again, I think that Elon Musk is a necessary asset for particular battles. I think we're --
CUPP: Excuse me, this Democratic Party, I think, rightly accused him four months of being a Nazi, a lunatic, a drug addict.
SELLERS: Yes.
CUPP: Killing children with cancer with his job cuts.
SELLERS: Yes. CUPP: This is a man they are going to welcome back into the fold for his money?
SELLERS: No. I want to be particular. Nobody says --
CUPP: Gross.
SELLERS: First of all, nobody said money, S.E.
CUPP: No. Ro Khanna did say money.
SELLERS: You asked me a question, so I'm answering you.
CUPP: I'm wondering.
SELLERS: And what I am saying is that for this particular political moment, will I take him back to kill the big, beautiful bill? The answer is yes. You know why? Because this bill is garbage. You know why? Because this bill will kick 11 million people off Medicaid.
CUPP: No. Well, Democrats will use him to get Democrats elected.
SELLERS: Oh, I don't know about that, but I'm going to use him today in this moment.
PHILLIP: It's worth noting that but the reason the big, beautiful bill is something he doesn't like is not because it cuts Medicaid.
FUGELSANG: Thank you so much. It is not.
PHILLIP: It's actually perhaps because it doesn't cut enough.
FUGELSANG: No. But it's very important.
PHILLIP: So, we have to keep that in mind, the priorities are not the same here between Democrats and Elon Musk.
SELLERS: No, I know. But if he wants to kill a bill kicking 11 million people off of Medicaid, you're not going to take it?
FUGELSANG: I'll take it. What I'm saying is he doesn't get virtue for. He doesn't care about the people kicked off Medicaid. He cares about the E.V. tax credit.
SELLERS: We're trying to kill --
PHILLIP: We got to go here.
FUGELSANG: I got you. This bill's not going to happen.
PHILLIP: We got to go.
FUGELSANG: But he may have helped make it happen.
PHILLIP: Up next --
CUPP: Men.
FUGELSANG: Oh, save us, Ryan Paul.
PHILLIP: I know. We need a mute button for you guys. President Trump is urging the first steps to cut a research funding for California state colleges, and Governor Newsom is now responding. We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:33:36]
PHILLIP: Welcome back. It's our summer Friday edition of the show. We are at the Food Network's kitchen right here in New York with friends of the program and a fantastic chef with a special dinner dish for us. We will enjoy some of that very soon.
But first, tonight, Donald Trump is escalating his fight with the state of California. Sources tell CNN that the administration is considering large scale federal funding cuts for the state. Agencies are being told to start identifying what should go. Among the moves being considered, fully canceling federal grants and funding for the University of California and the California State University systems.
Earlier this week, California was warned of fines after a trans high school athlete competed and won in a championship. Last month, the administration slashed over $120 million in flood prevention funding projects. And earlier this year, Trump threatened California for its handling of devastating wildfires.
Sometimes -- all the time with Trump, it is hard to distinguish what is the personal vendetta against the state and perhaps its governor from the issues that they write in the press releases. And I think this is one of those times because the potential consequences to wide swaths of the American population seem to far outweigh what is being talked about, the issues -- the specific issues they're talking about in here.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think they have good reason to go to war with California because they've done terrible things.
[22:35:00]
The university system there, maybe worse than any other system in the country, terrorized Jewish kids allowing for Jew exclusion zones on campus and refused to take responsibility for it. That's number one. They're violating the president's executive order and the administration's views on Title nine regarding, boys playing girls sports.
And I'll give you a third one that's breaking tonight. The mayor of Los Angeles is saying she's not going to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security and ICE as they try to round up illegal aliens. And so, you have a state right now being run by a bunch of people who do not want to comply with clear federal law and clear federal mandates, and somebody needs to confront them. The President is doing it.
PHILLIP: The President is, on the -- the trans athlete, which we discussed right here last week. That -- this is a high school athlete, and they're trying to punish the entire state over that that one student?
JOHN FUGELSANG, SIRIUSXM, "TELL ME EVERYTHING": Yeah. Yeah. Let's hurt as many as we can. You ever notice nobody hates other Americans more than the Americans who keep boasting about how American they are? California gives our country $80 billion more than it takes back.
Is this Donald Trump's way of saying he'd like to see California keep that money and not send it to red states where it can be good welfare cash for everybody else? This is not even legal. Congress owns the purse strings. He can't even do it. It's all a complete distraction. I swear the only thing this administration hates more than the New Testament is the constitution.
S.E. CUPP, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Let's say, though, let's say, I agree with you, Scott, about your diagnosis of California's problems, and I mostly do. And I don't know anyone, including Californians, who think that that state is being run well. I don't. But this is an affront to states' rights. This is big government. This isn't conservatism, and we don't have to relitigate whether he's conservative. He's not. He doesn't care. That's fine. This is not the way government should work, punishing children, fire victims, flood victims --
UNKNOWN: Sick folks.
CUPP: -- to make a political point. And so, even if we agree with your issues with California, do you really think that this is the best way, this blunt object that is both personal and political, is the way to force California's hand on this?
JENNINGS: I -- I do think the confrontation is necessary, but I'll take one part of your argument that I think is worth discussing, and that's the idea of states' rights. So, you're saying that in the name of states' rights, we should allow the California University system to set up Jew exclusion zones --
(CROSSTALK)
CUPP: No. I granted you.
JENNINGS: -- because they believe it's okay as a state?
CUPP: No. I granted you those points.
JENNINGS: This is the confrontation not worth having on behalf of those students alone.
CUPP: Well, the confrontation is Donald Trump saying adopt MAGA values or I'm going to punish you with -- by taking over all the way.
JENNINGS: It's not MAGA values to eradicate anti-Semitism. It's not MAGA values to --
(CROSSTALK)
CUPP: You're picking issues. You're picking issues.
JENNINGS: It's not MAGA values to deport illegal aliens. It's just American law and American values.
(CROSSTALK)
CUPP: I'm not disagreeing with your issues with California.
UNKNOWN: And Donald Trump doesn't care about anything.
CUPP: I don't think this is the right way to do it. And I think five or six years ago, you wouldn't have either because you also believed in conservatism.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I don't know about five or six years ago. I would -- I would -- I would say maybe, like, one and a half years ago.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But I mean, look. I -- I think that S.E. raises a very important point.
JENNINGS: No, what do you mean by that?
PHILLIP: I -- raised --
JENNINGS: One and a half years ago or five, I would not have condoned a state or a university terrorizing a Jewish kid.
((CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
JENNINGS: I absolutely would never condone it. And I don't condone it today.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: The issues with anti-Semitism on -- on college campuses are very serious and very important. But S.E. is asking a very, you know, important and basic question. Is this the best way to rectify that problem? And is the punishment commiserate with the allegations of wrongdoing? And I think there are questions on both of those fronts.
If -- if Trump wants to actually fix the problem, why not come up with a plan to work with the system and with the -- the -- meaning, the university system and get them to fix it as opposed to just saying, well, no more funding for you, California.
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The great irony in all of this is that while Scott and I were having a discussion about the fifth and 14th amendment in the last segment. We're now having a conversation about the 10th amendment and states' rights and things that matter in the Constitution and eviscerating that.
This is a very slippery slope, because when there is a Democratic House or when there is a Democratic president or a Democratic citizen -- Senate, excuse me, and they take on the South, and they take on some of the -- the policies and procedures, people talk about Baltimore and Chicago and New York. Do you know that the -- the highest rates of murder and violence happen to be Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana? States that are run by Republican legislatures.
And when you see individuals who are in -- who wield that power, who are in Washington D.C. dropping that hammer, and when all of a sudden, they do it against the Alabama or the Mississippi or the South Carolina or the Georgia, then Scott and S.E. and everybody else, well, S.E. is actually -- has common sense in this argument, are going to be upset.
[22:40:00]
And that's my biggest problem with this. This is a slippery slope.
PHILLIP: I do think that there is in -- in these -- these times, and perhaps all the time, a failure to put yourself in the shoes of the other party here, right? Not just political party, the other side of any particular argument. So, you know, to Bakari's point, if a Democratic president decided to withhold all federal funds for the state of Texas because they banned abortion, would you be okay with that?
SELLERS: You're comparing abortion laws to new exclusion funds at UCLA?
PHILLIP: I am -- I am saying that any particular issue, it doesn't matter what the issue is, that a president decides, your party, the Democratic Party, decides is important enough that they want to withhold federal funds from a state, would you be okay with it? I think that's the fundamental question.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Abortion laws passed by legislatures. Anti-Semitism and radicalism on college campuses designed to terrorize Jewish kids are not laws.
PHILLIP: Well --
JENNINGS: It's just radical on campuses that are allowed to get away with it in a blue state.
PHILLIP: I think that that's -- hold on. That's a great point.
JENNINGS: That's a totally different point. PHILLIP: They are not -- they are not laws. They are actions of
individuals who should be punished. But you are acting as if they are laws and trying to punish the entire state for it.
JENNINGS: I'm acting as though the state and the university system run by the state has condoned it. They clearly have, and they fostered it. They fomented it.
PHILLIP: Okay.
JENNINGS: And that is wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: So, I hate to --
PHILLIP: I guess, just to close the loop here. It doesn't seem like you think that this is something that can be weaponized against Republicans in the future?
JENNINGS: I -- I would not expect Republicans in a state to set up situations where we're clearly violating and terrorizing children on college campuses, people on college campuses.
PHILLIP: That -- that you --
JENNINGS: That is happening in blue states that have been used to recognize that by progressive radical candidates.
PHILLIP: That is not the only issue that the federal government might decide they want to get involved in. Anti-Semitism is terrible and it's wrong and it's important to address. But there are all a whole host of other things. The Democratic president could easily say, on the issue of women's rights and abortion, we are going to penalize a red state. If they try to abridge what a Democratic president believes are their rights.
JENNINGS: I don't doubt that they could try to do that, and I'm sure much of this is going to wind up in court. The reason I appreciate the confrontation is because it brings these issues to light, and it gives everybody a chance to discuss what S.E. said.
Is this state being run properly, and is it being run to the detriment of the people who live there? I would say the Jewish kids and the people who want the illegal aliens out, and all the people who are affected by these blue state policies might say, thank God for the president.
PHILLIP: All right. Coming up next, President Trump freed five Proud Boys from long prison sentences, but they say that's not enough. They're suing the government now. We're going to discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:23] PHILLIP: Tonight, President Trump freed five Proud Boys from prison, but they don't think that's enough. Those members are suing the U.S. Government, and individuals, members of the FBI and the Justice Department. They're demanding $100 million for what they call a political prosecution. Four out of five were convicted of seditious conspiracy, and all were sentenced to more than a decade in prison.
But when President Trump returned to office, the former leader of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, received a pardon. The rest received commutations, including Dominic Pezzola, who prosecutors say was the first to break into the Capitol window and let the mob into that building. In this iconic video, I'm sure you would remember that, because we all saw it with our own eyes. This is incredible, to think. It's incredible.
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: It's amazing. I mean, what they're saying is they're going to try overthrow our democracy, for a lie, fail, plead guilty, beg forgiveness, and now they want a reparations participation trophy. This is like if Godzilla sued Tokyo for emotional duress.
What's happening here is these Proud Boys who are so lucky to be out, and that's still not enough. If this happens, if they go through with this after wiping their boots on this constitution and now appealing to this constitution to give them money, if they settle this case, then literally, terror -- treason will be cheaper than college.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It'll be so interesting to see the Trump administration -- it'll be interesting to see them defend themselves against a $100 million lawsuit against the people that they - already --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: --their sentences.
SELLERS: This will never --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: Silly. But I -- I'm still taken aback by a dude named Enrico Tarrio being the leader of a white supremacist organization. Like, that's that just makes me giggle.
UNKNOWN: Boys get so woke.
SELLERS: I don't know. I mean, just having -- just having a Cuban as your leader of the white supremacist organization is kind of wild to me.
CUPP: They're also complaining that they're getting harassed.
SELLERS: I just -- CUPP: Listen. There's no tixie backsies. You admitted it. You pled guilty. You apologized for it. That --that's it. You did the time. Now, you -- it's --it's done. You don't get to go back and say, well, hold on a second. Now, we're being persecuted. Please.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean, one of this would be happening if Donald Trump had not pardoned and commuted these sentences.
FUGELSANG: Or if he ever lied in 2021.
PHILLIP: Well, that too. But -- but certainly, the -- Trump believes the lie, whatever. But he chose to pardon the people, the violent people who planned an insurrection against this country.
JENNINGS: Yeah, I don't know what the likelihood of the various probable outcomes here are. I mean, it it seems like these cases are hard to -- hard to do.
[22:50:00]
I mean, you -- you would have more experience with it than me. So, I -- I don't know whether this is like a -- a sort of a last gasp kind of thing or if there is a likely outcome here. Truthfully, I'm not -- I'm not really sure.
SELLERS: I mean, I -- listen. Legally, this isn't going anywhere. And I mean, I that that we can we can all I mean, if you plead guilty to a crime, the likelihood of you getting a malicious prosecution, getting past a motion to dismiss, let alone a summary judgment motion is --
PHILLIP: Yeah.
SELLERS: Is highly involved.
PHILLIP: I guess the real question is, does this not offend the moral sensibilities of this great country?
CUPP: Of course.
PHILLIP: I mean, that is really what we're asking.
SELLERS: I was more offended by them assaulting police officers.
PHILLIP: Well, yeah. I mean, there is that, but there are layers to this. You -- you do the thing. You get pardoned for it, and then you ask for $100 billion?
FUGELSANG: Yeah. The toddler is suing the babysitter for enforcing bedtime.
CUPP: But I -- I think they see in Trump, like, this is possible. And it sounds crazy to us, you know, that that he would use taxpayer dollars to pay these people that were rightfully prosecuted and -- and jailed in some cases and admitted to this. But I think they see a possibility in this because --
PHILLIP: Yeah.
CUPP: -- of everything Trump has done --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: - is just a -- he is a fascinating individual in that, it's like a Uncle Ruckus character from the Dave Chappelle shows, and that he doesn't he's not able to see himself.
(CROSSTALK)
CUPP: He's the blind white supremacist.
SELLERS: He's the blind white supremacist. Yeah. And not only that, but his intellectual capacity, I mean, he -- he has the depth of a shallow bathtub. And this is -- this is where we are in in people who are now forming in, like, leading these movements today. Because not only is he -- is he -- not only is he just not indicative of what American values should be, but he has followers.
PHILLIP: Well, not just that, but he's also emboldened now. There was some reporting that, that Trump's new, pardon, officials are looking into new pardon requests by some of these very people like Dominic Pezzoli and others who were commuted and not pardoned.
So, you know, Ed Martin, who said leave no MAGA behind, is now looking at this. If this comes to Trump's desk and he carries out a pardon. Scott.
JENNINGS: Well, it already did come to his desk. He already made a decision on it once, and he made some pardon decisions and some commutation decisions. I assume because he was presented with bearing information about each case.
I mean, I guess at some juncture, you know, the -- the law and the process here has played out. The action happened, people were arrested, people were convicted. People pled guilty. People did time. Pardons, which were legal, did occur. Now, they're able to go to court. I mean, people sue for all kinds of things.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Pardons were legal, Scott.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Pardons were legal, Scott. But was it right? I think is the other part of the question. Was it right?
JENNINGS: Was it right to pardon all these people?
PHILLIP: Yeah.
JENNINGS: I'm not a fan of pardons for people who commit violent acts. PHILLIP: That's the right answer. Coming up next, the panel gives us their night caps inspired by the Food Network's executive chef who is, at this very moment, coming over with some real night caps for us. Don't go anywhere. Hi, chef. Good to see you.
CUPP: My favorite thing.
PHILLIP: You come bearing gifts.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:57:49]
PHILLIP: We are back here in the Food Network's kitchen with executive chef, Genevra Iverson. She is here with some really delicious plates for us. So chef, tell us --
GENEVRA IVERSON, FOOD NETWORK EXECUTIVE CHEF: Sure.
PHILLIP: -- what you got here for us.
IVERSON: This is one of the recipes we just developed for our test kitchen, and it's, classic porchetta, but it's using all pork belly. And we stuff it with fennel and onions, some rosemary sage, roll it all up, cook it for six hours and -- until it's super tender, blast it really hot so the skin gets crispy, and slice it up. Usually, we serve it as a sandwich, but tonight, we're serving it like this.
CUPP: I love all the work you do.
PHILLIP: That's my kind of food. I love -- I love food that cooks for, like, between three and six hours.
CUPP: Me, too.
PHILLIP: It's the best.
CUPP: And I love fat that gets crispy.
IVERSON: There you go.
CUPP: It's like nothing's better.
SELLERS: I just want to say --
CUPP: Crispy fat.
FUGELSANG: Wolf Blitzer never feeds anybody on his show. This is amazing.
PHILLIP: Best show in America.
(CROSSTALK)
FUGELSANG: -- get canceled. PHILLIP: So people, you can actually scan the QR code that's on your screen in the corner for this recipe. And for our night caps tonight, the question for our crew here is if you had to eat one thing every day, what would it be? Chef, what's your choice?
IVERSON: Some days I feel like I do eat one of everything all day here at the test kitchen, so it would be hard to pick. But I think I have to go with pizza, probably. If there's one thing that I had to eat, I love cheese, so that's great. And pizza comes in a million forms. It's one of those things. You can have a -- things on top. You can have a (inaudible) pizza.
(CROSSTALK)
CUPP: It's all --it's like all the food groups.
IVERSON: Yeah.
CUPP: Well, this isn't hypothetical for me. There is a thing I eat every day. It's pickles. I eat pickles every day.
PHILLIP: Wow.
CUPP: Every day.
PHILLIP: That was a surprise.
CUPP: There's not a day that goes by that I don't have pickles. So, there you go.
PHILLIP: Wow. There you go. I was not expecting that. Okay.
CUPP: What were you expecting?
PHILLIP: Just something other than pickles.
CUPP: Okay.
PHILLIP: Okay.
UNKNOWN: Every day?
CUPP: Every day.
FUGELSANG: Well, I'm a man, so I would say, my feelings and emotions.
(LAUGHTER)
FUGELSANG: Every day. Yes.
UNKNOWN: Lean in. Lean in, John.
PHILLIP: Bakari?
FUGELSANG: Here to help.
SELLERS: I like turkey wings. I like oxtails, but if I had to do something every day, it would probably be, tequila.
PHILLIP: Oh, Lord.
PHILLIP: Scott.
SELLERS: You stress me out, Abby. This is what I'm doing. Abby and Scott stress me.
JENNINGS: Why aren't you disclosing that you already started?
(LAUGHTER)
SELLERS: You got me drinking this stuff. It tastes like communion wine over here.
JENNINGS: I said last week to the question about best home-cooked meal, omelettes. I'm going to say the same thing this week. I think I would eat one every single day if I had the chance because we have the eggs at home and everything. And I just -- I just think it's like one of the best things you can -- and it's versatile, too.
CUPP: Expensive nowadays.
PHILLIP: He also has chickens on his socks. Just for the record.
JENNINGS: Not for me. I reach under the Jennings family chickens.
CUPP: Chickens. Abby, did you see the chickens on his socks?
PHILLIP: He's got chickens on his socks. Okay. Everyone, I would probably eat pasta or -- or omelets. I don't know. Okay. Either one will be fine with me. Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight". Catch us tomorrow morning, 10 A.M. with our conversation show "Table for Five". And you can catch me on your favorite social media -- X, Instagram and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" is right now.
