Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Files Libel Lawsuit Against Wall Street Journal Over Epstein Report; MAGA Stars Defend Trump After Criticizing Him Over Epstein; DOJ Moves To Release Grand Jury Testimony In Epstein Case; Paramount Cancel's Stephen Colbert's Late Show; More And More Former Biden Aides Invoke The Fifth Amendment. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired July 18, 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, they asked for details. They demanded details. Now, after details emerge about Jeffrey Epstein, MAGA rejects them.
CHARLIE KIRK, HOST, THE CHARLIE KIRK SHOW: This thing was obviously a hit job, obviously a drive-by shooting, trying to go after President Trump,
PHILLIP: The abrupt about-face from Donald Trump's base.
Plus extinction or extortion.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is textbook authoritarian rule. Paramount and CBS should be ashamed of themselves.
PHILLIP: After Stephen Colbert's shocker, Republicans suddenly love cancel culture again. And critics suspect a bribe.
Also, Democrats used to insist Republicans who pled the Fifth are guilty, but a rising number of Joe Biden's aides are now giving him fives.
Live at the table, Roy Wood, Jr., Kelly Jane Torrance, Dan Koh, Mercedes Colwin, and Pete Seat.
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 Philip for a special edition of NewsNight. This summer, we are taking the show on some field trips, spending our Fridays right here at the Food Networks Kitchen in New York. They're our sister company. And we have, of course, a fabulous chef serving the friends of our show, and she has a special treat for us at the end of the night.
But, first, let's get right to what America's talking about. In the middle of a P.R. crisis, Donald Trump turns to the playbook he knows best, attacking the media. And suddenly his base is happy to play along. The president tonight is suing The Wall Street Journal for libel. Trump is furious after the paper reported that a report that linked his name to a suggestive birthday note given to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003.
Now, Trump's legal team is accusing the Journal's parent company of, quote, glaring failures and ethics and standards of accurate reporting and adds that the journal didn't publish either the note or the drawing.
Just minutes before the lawsuit dropped, another major development, the Trump Justice Department asking a federal judge to release the grand jury testimony against Jeffrey Epstein. Now, in this filing tonight, the DOJ is arguing that it's a matter of the public interest in its push to convince the judge to release all the documents.
Now, it's not clear how long it will take for anything at all to be made public, nor is it clear, of course, what is even in those documents. But let's start on this libel suit, because he is asking for $10 billion in this libel suit, and also making a very detailed and straightforward claim that this image doesn't exist, the note doesn't exist. He's saying this is all fake, it does not exist. So, does the Journal just need to like release the whole thing and this lawsuit goes away?
MERCEDES COLWIN, TRIAL ATTORNEY: Great question, Abby, because it really boils down to this. He's a public figure. He has to show that there's malice that, number one, that was false, so it's not -- doesn't exist, number two, he has nothing to do with this letter that -- this birthday note, and, three, the malice part is that the Journal knew that it was false and published it anyway with reckless disregard to the truth. So, the fact that he is a public figure, it's a higher burden for President Trump to win.
And I find it pretty curious that the Wall Street would go through the extreme, report on something and say, and then at the end of the day, it doesn't exist.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, and, Kelly, he has said that this is -- he's taken on these news organizations. He wrote In Truth Social that he filed a powerhouse lawsuit against anyone involved in publishing the false, malicious, defamatory, fake news article in the useless rag that is, The Wall Street Journal. He's threatened Rupert Murdoch personally. He said he's proudly held to account ABC George Slopadopolous, CBS and 60 Minutes. Is he throwing his weight around here to intimidate news organizations?
KELLY JANE TORRANCE, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, NEW YORK POST: I think it's possible, Abby, and I think this might be a very bad idea for Donald Trump. I mean, first of all, Wall Street Journal, most of their content is behind a pay wall. Now, yes, other outlets have been reporting on this, but how many people didn't know about this allegation, about this, you know, supposed birthday letter until Donald Trump said he's going to sue The Wall Street Journal and its chairman? [22:05:07]
You know, it's the Streisand effect all over again. Donald Trump is bringing so much more attention to this story than if he had just, you know, ignored it or, you know, just started talking about something else. There's plenty of other things to talk about, as we all know, right?
PHILLIP: And you're -- okay. So, you're at, we should disclose, at the New York Post, which is another Murdoch publication.
TORRANCE: That is right.
PHILLIP: Trump has had a pretty close relationship with Murdoch over the years. What do you think he's thinking right now?
TORRANCE: I mean, it's been a mixed somewhat over the years. You know, they've had their back and forths.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, when I say close, I mean, they --
TORRANCE: They know each other.
PHILLIP: They know each other.
TORRANCE: Exactly.
PHILLIP: They communicate with each other, yes.
TORRANCE: Exactly. And, you know, it's interesting because obviously I can't speak for Rupert Murdoch, but it seems pretty clear that Donald Trump knew the story was coming. I'm sure they went to him for comment and it seems very likely from what he's saying, what Donald Trump is saying, that he went to Rupert Murdoch and asked him, it seems not to go forward with this, and whether it was because he said it doesn't exist or not, I don't know the conversations between those two men. But this is certainly -- this is one of the more interesting relationships between a politician and a media mogul of our time.
PHILLIP: And a media mogul who has plenty of publications that are very friendly to Donald Trump. He just wants this one to be that thing.
ROY WOOD JR., CNN HOST, "HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU": Yes. And I think also as a great defense strategy. Like nobody read the paper. Why would you sue the paper? Brilliant.
PHILLIP: I mean, I've never heard that one, but it's --
WOOD: I don't see how Trump loses in this scenario because Trump has the streets, Trump has the favoritism of his base.
So, let's say that he sues, number one, part of what motivates this is getting CBS to bend the knee with the whole 60 Minutes Paramount situation. Now, who's next? Ah, Wall Street Journal. So, now if you sue and they release everything and there is a picture and there is a letter, then Trump can just go, ah, that's fake, they made up that letter, but you won this one, you see how the cricket media conjured up something to beat me?
Elect me for a third term. I just think there is a way which dovetails into all of the Epstein, it's not real, there was no list, he could run that same playbook, even if they are able, which I hope the Journal does, I agree with you, and its name of journalistic integrity, you've got to put everything out there that you have.
PHILLIP: Now, back in the day, the sitting vice president, J.D. Vance said, if you're a journalist and you're not asking questions about this case, you should be ashamed of yourself. Now, he's saying, doesn't it violate some rule of journalistic ethics to publish a letter like this without showing it to the victim of a hit piece? I mean, does he want journalists to dig into what's in the Epstein files or does he not?
PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN, BUSH ADMINISTRATION: I think it's a fair question. We're being asked to take the journal's word for it. I agree. I think Rupert Murdoch actually gave President Trump a late birthday gift with this story because it's very politically powerful to bring the MAGA movement back, fully back in Donald Trump's corner. I think it's been overblown how much of MAGA was turning on him, this quote, MAGA revolt. Well, now you have a MAGA resurrection, because they are all back on Donald Trump's side. Because they want to fight the media as much as he wants to fight the media.
So, I think Vice President Vance is absolutely right. We should see this drawing, this doodling, this pre-presidential doodle that he did. And if I were Donald Trump, look, I've seen a lot of questionable things that people call art. He should just say it was art.
PHILLIP: So, do you -- I mean, but do you think that it's real? It sounds like.
SEAT: I don't know if it's real or not, but, I mean, even if it is. What -- so what's the point? What are what are they trying to prove with this?
PHILLIP: I guess that's the thing. It's like, first of all, is it real or is it not real? But also I do think that it does -- first of all, it is newsworthy because part of the question here is what is the nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein, who we knows friends with Donald Trump and Donald Trump? Like what does that relationship look like? What did it look like back in 2003 before Epstein was prosecuted?
And it seems that this note, the argument is that, well, it doesn't sound like Trump. Well, he doesn't draw well, we do know he does draw. He does draw. And does it need to sound like him to be something that he either signed or approved?
COLWIN: Not at all, Abby. I mean, look the stages of actually proving a defamation case, number one, is exactly what we're all saying. Does it exist? Does this letter exist? Number one. Number two, hey, Wall Street Journal. What did you do to establish all the due diligence you're supposed to do? Now, apparently, it's being reported that they did go to President Trump and talk to them about it. Whether or not it was shown, who knows? He's saying it wasn't shown.
But The Wall Street Journal did go to President Trump, according to the reports, and that there was this back and forth where Trump said, it's not mine. And if you publish it, woe was you because I'm going to sue you. And that was what would happen in a defamation case anyway? We write those types of cease and desist letters for clients on a regular basis.
[22:10:00]
PHILLIP: But also --
COLWIN: If you're going to publish something that's not true, we're going to sue.
PHILLIP: But, Mercedes, you know, this is also a moment where the courts have been allowing these frivolous lawsuits to go farther than they used to. Do you think this is another case where even though maybe it is that Trump might ultimately lose this, that it would go so far as to cost the Journal tons of money and drag it out?
COLWIN: That's a great question. Well, first of all, it's venued in federal court and these are lifetime appointed judges, so, hopefully, we have a judge that doesn't have constituents and doesn't really have any -- curry any favor with the president. They're already sitting for a lifetime appointment. So, you would get a fair play in federal court if you're a defensive -- if you're a defendant. So, hopefully, that's what's going to happen.
And we hearken back to when President Trump sued The New York time for an op-ed years ago in his first presidency, that ended up being dismissed. So, hopefully, there's a judge out there that will see through this and actually render the right result.
TORRANCE: You know, it's a Friday. I can't help but have a little fun and remind everyone when Oscar Wilde sued the Marcus of Queensbury for libel, he ended up not only dropping the charges, but he ended up getting convicted and spent two years in running jail, and it was a pretty, pretty terrible outcome.
Now, I'm not saying that Donald Trump is going to go to jail after this, but, again, if that letter exists you know, again, be careful when you sue and why you sue.
PHILLIP: It's hard for me to believe that the Journal would -- knowing this threat, because you better believe he threatened them in private, that they would go ahead and publish this thing if there was any shred of doubt in their minds that it was -- that it existed at the very least.
WOOD: Yes. I feel like, at minimum, there's something that has to exist. And to the point of why it matters, I think that it matters in the sense that in trying to connect whether or not there's a cover-up from the Trump administration regarding Epstein and the files and all of that other stuff, if they can make an earnest connection to whether or not this was your boy, yes or no. Because, to me, I have friends, I'm not handwriting happy birthday. You're getting a text.
PHILLIP: This was a different era.
TORRANCE: With emoji too.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: I have a lot of questions about the leather-bound handwritten book of notes, but that's for another time.
Mercedes Colwin, thank you very much for joining us.
Let's continue this conversation because after a week of criticizing Trump over his handling of this, MAGA is now coming to his defense. Another special guest is going to be with us at the table.
Plus, Hollywood writers are calling the cancelation of Stephen Colbert's show a bribe after the company's settlement with Trump. Stand by.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: And we're back from the Food Network for our summer Fridays. MAGA is standing United behind Donald Trump after that Wall Street Journal report that claimed that the president sent a suggested birthday note to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump completely denies the story, but you'll also remember not too long ago, MAGA was starting to crack because Trump had promised the Epstein files and his DOJ didn't deliver. So, now they have suddenly made a sharp U-turn.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KIRK: This thing was obviously a hit job, obviously a drive-by shooting, trying to go after President Trump.
STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE CHIEF STRATEGIST: Heck, this is the deep state. This is the ruling class in America. They're trying to use it to destroy President Trump.
JACK POSOBIEC, POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The MAGA hat stays on. The MAGA hat is fully on. We're locked in.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Dan Koh is with us at the table now. So, Dan, that was easy.
DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CABINET SECRETARY, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: I think Jack especially, who looked like an absolute buffoon as a result of what Pam Bondi did with the binder that said Epstein files phase one, when there wasn't anything new in there and he was selfieing it like it was some revelation, should be the one most enraged at this. And to your point earlier, in the earlier segment, there were so many other parts of this where Donald Trump said it was a lie, and then it was debunked. You know, Don Jr., for example, tweeted That this doesn't sound like my dad And that he never used the word, enigma. And then immediately a video comes up of him calling Tucker Carlson an enigma, Right?
And then on top of that,
PHILLIP: Someone was like, I asked A.I. if he'd ever used Enigma.
KOH: And it's like, yes, okay, That's a real zinger there. But on top of all that, only when he started to feel the pressure, all of a sudden he starts calling this the Epstein hoax, Right, Which is not only insulting to all of the people who have supported him, who have been trying to do this. I can't even imagine what it would be like If you were a family of a victim or victim yourself and the president of the United States whose job it is first and foremost to support the most vulnerable and protect them is saying things like that. And I think we should all be embarrassed by a president who goes about it like that.
SEAT: I think he's calling the hoax Democrats who are feigning that they care.
KOH: But listen to what people are saying. They say, you are calling this a hoax, right? He says a whole thing's a hoax. That's what he's saying, right? His tweets do not say what Democrats are doing to me. He says, this is an Epstein hoax and he's implying that there's a falsity to this that is just not true.
SEAT: Well, the falsity is that there's no list. We -- I think we know that. I don't believe there's a list. I don't think there ever has been a list. And I agree, I don't know what the party line is right now. It's 10:19. It could change at 10:20, but what I want to say is Bondi botched this, without a doubt.
KOH: I think that's absolutely true.
SEAT: Not just with the binders, but she botched it because she thinks her credibility comes with her title and association with Donald Trump. Credibility in this era comes by delivering the message to the audience that they want to hear.
[22:20:01]
And this audience has wanted to hear that there's a list of Democrats who went to the island and did things they shouldn't have done with young girls, and they're not going to hear that.
PHILLIP: Right. But, I mean --
WOOD: But they're not going to hear it because there might be --
PHILLIP: -- the last I checked let Donald Trump is the president, okay. SEAT: Yes.
PHILLIP: And Pam Bondi works for him. So, could he not have said to her, release everything, release it? Redact the names, redact the victims, redact it all, but release it.
SEAT: Yes. And there's going to be so many redactions that neither the right nor the left is going to be satisfied. They're always going to want more information.
WOOD: But that's better than just saying it's not real. When you ran on it is real and I will prove to you it is real, and then you just, Jedi, no, it's not real, you can't do that to the voters.
SEAT: How real was it during Biden's administration when they did absolutely nothing? They did absolutely nothing to seek justice for those victims.
WOOD: Even if you --
SEAT: They never even talked about releasing the files.
WOOD: Even if with Trump --
SEAT: This didn't happen just six months ago.
WOOD: Even if Trump and them were just said, we did an investigation and we looked and we checked all the computers and you know what, there was no Word Document, sorry about that, instead of just going hoax, which suggests --
SEAT: No, they did -- Pam Bondi did exactly that. She said, there's no list. She said the list was on her desk.
KOH: She said the list was on her desk, okay? She said the list was on her desk, not the file, the list. She said, the list is on my desk.
SEAT: She was asked about the list, she said, it's on my desk. She did not say the word, list.
KOH: She said, it's on my desk.
PHILLIP: You just said it. She was asked about the list and she said, it's on my desk. So, most rational people will assume that she was responding to the issue about the list.
TORRANCE: That was one of the stupidest things she's done as -- you know, for her credibility. I agree, that was a very dumb moment. And I think she just was talking out of her butt. She didn't know what she was talking about. She's just assuming there must be something. And then she actually looks into it and then there's the release of the binders with absolutely nothing in them.
KOH: And this is why I think all of the top influencers for Trump should be absolutely enraged at that whole scene because she was betting on their ignorance, right? Pam Bondi was betting that the stuff in there would be manipulative to those influencers to go out and say that something new when she knew full well that it was nothing new. They went out and claimed it was new and it was immediately debunked. They looked like buffoons. They looked like buffoons again,
PHILLIP: But now they have a new enemy and it's The Wall Street Journal. Congressman Randy Fine is so pissed off, he says, he has legislation that would end House of Representatives subscription contracts to The Wall Street Journal. He said, Americans shouldn't be paying for disgusting and filthy rags. I've also directed my entire staff to delete their taxpayer-funded Wall Street Journal accounts.
WOOD: And it's going to work. It's going to work. To your point in the first break, the idea that Trump, that they had infighting about whether or not to release it within MAGA, there was infighting, that's a family fight. But then when somebody comes from outside and goes, oh, you don't mess with the family, then MAGA united again, let's go attack The Wall Street Journal, or whatever media threat is out there that's creating the -- and that it's a perfect play.
PHILLIP: I mean, I think one of the other crazy parts about this is that Trump is trying to -- and you alluded to this, he's making the entire Epstein situation, which we know is very real, has very real victims, we know that there are other people involved, and he's saying the whole thing is a Democrat hoax. And I can't think of any reason why he would be doing that, except because he thinks the only way to bury questions about him is to bury the whole thing.
SEAT: Well, he's pointing out that Democrats are trying to exploit this wedge, one, in the MAGA movement, and, two, the fact that they just want to attack Donald Trump because they hope that there's some smoking gun about him in there, when, again, I want to finish this point. Joe Biden was president for four whole years. Whether he knew it or not, I don't know, but he was president. And what did he do? Zero. He did absolutely nothing about this.
PHILLIP: But Joe Biden did not run on releasing all of the Epstein files.
SEAT: It doesn't matter. He still has an obligation. If there were people who should have been prosecuted, why didn't he do it?
PHILLIP: First of all, can I just say what real quick? I mean, I'll have -- let you talk because you worked for Joe Biden, but Joe Biden didn't run on the Epstein files. He also -- as you have pointed out yourself, there might be very good reasons why those files have not been released, including that if you're going to release the names of people who you're alleging are involved in child sex trafficking, maybe you should have the goods on them before you release their names. So, there are potentially some very good reasons to not release it.
However, the people who wanted it released are conservatives. Those are the people who pushed for it. And so the ball's not in Joe Biden's court on this one, or the Democrats.
TORRANCE: Yes, Abby, makes a great point. I mean, releasing the files, I mean, those are lawsuits waiting to happen, a ton of lawsuits possibly, depending on how many people are named them waiting to happen. And you can't just release things without the goods.
[22:25:03]
You know, you could be accusing people of things that they may or may not have done.
But let's also keep in mind though that, you know, I do think that if there's something on Donald Trump in there, it would've leaked at some point. You know, we've got his taxes leaked, other things. And let's -- you know, let's face it, I don't think anybody should have been friends with Jeffrey Epstein at any point in time. The guy seemed sleazy from the get-go, but Donald Trump did actually kick him out of his club. He ejected him from his club and he ended the friendship, something that Bill Gates certainly did not do.
PHILLIP: Well, we know the birthday book did somehow get to the Wall Street Journal.
KOH: I think it's ironic that we've just heard for the past year everyone accusing Democrats of gaslighting everybody with Joe Biden. Then you turn around and all of the bunch was saying, oh, just because we was endless videos of him cavorting with Jeffrey Epstein, just because Virginia Giuffre was at Mar-a-Lago and recruited by Ghislaine Maxwell. But, no, he doesn't really know Jeffrey Epstein and it wasn't a big relationship. Do we really think that he didn't wish him a happy birthday? I mean, like whether or not he drew it or typed it is like semantics to me. The notion that like --
SEAT: So, wishing him a happy birthday is criminal behavior?
KOH: This notion that somehow he's disconnected from Jeffrey Epstein that he never knew him, that he barely knew him, like Trump likes to say, I haven't talked to him in all this time, I think that is gaslighting the American people.
PHILLIP: And, look, wishing him a happy birthday is not a crime, obviously, but Donald Trump thinks it's worthy of a $20 billion libel lawsuit. So, he clearly thinks that it's a bad fact pattern for him in this particular moment.
Coming up next, did CBS cancel Stephen Colbert or bend the knee to Donald Trump? The company is saying, no, they did not, but the optics are really, really suspect. Is this just a money issue or the slow death of the First Amendment? We got to hear Roy's opinion on this one. Back in just a second.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Welcome back, it's our summer Friday edition of the show. We are at the Food Network Kitchen in New York with the friends of the program and a fantastic chef with a special summer dish coming up for us.
But first, Republicans are back to loving cancel culture again. The right is celebrating Paramount's cancellation of Stephen Colbert's late show, but was the move ultimately a bribe? Well, that's the question the Writers Guild of America, which represents the writers on the show, is asking tonight. They argued on July 15th, Colbert -- Colbert called Paramount settlement with Trump over "60 Minutes", Kamala Harris' interview, a quote, "big fat bribe". And then, just two days later, the show was canceled.
So, the WGA says that it's quote, "dangerous and unacceptable if they ended the show because of political pressure". Now, Charlamagne Tha God took it one step further and said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLAMAGNE THA GOD, "THE BREAKFAST CLUB" HOST: It's so obvious that Paramount is doing this to appease Donald Trump. This is textbook authoritarian rule. Target your critic, centralize power in a few hands, intimidate through punishment or removal. And you know what that usually does? Shuts people to F up. Okay. Tightens control over public discourse, sends a message to all media outlets that criticism of Trump could cost you access, approval, editorial control, all your job.
This is what authoritarian regimes do. I thought this was the administration that didn't believe in censorship. I thought this was the administration that believed in free speech. They do, until you criticize them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: There's a lot going on here, including that, okay, yeah, television is in a difficult spot, but it also is in the context of Trump actively going after these news organizations and Trump in the past saying that he thinks that Stephen Colbert should be fired.
WOOD: Let me just first say that yes, there's a lot of shifting in late night, but "Have I Got News For You" on CNN is perfectly safe, and we will be back this fall at some point. Charlemagne Tha God is right. Charlemagne Tha God is right. And I think part of it is because of how quick the hammer came down on Colbert.
If you look at the ecosystem of "Late Night', yes, "Late Night" as a whole, fiscally has been on life support for some years. I would even argue pre-COVID, there was already figuring things out. James Corden leaves, they don't replace them, they put in a cheaper show. And on top of that, it's a show that wasn't even a new idea. It was "After Midnight" was based on "At Midnight" and even our show was a British rebate. People don't like new ideas. They want to do something that's safe.
Seth Meyers has to cut his band. Jimmy Fallon goes to four nights a week. Jimmy Kimmel takes time off in the summer which I imagine is probably cheaper on ABC's bottom line and even with "The Daily Show". When Trevor Noah left, we did our guest host run and I would imagine part of that help save the company money.
So, there are ways if you want to keep a late night show around for a little longer and figure out, well, what if we trim here, what if we trim there? Stephen Colbert, would you take a little less? None of these suggest, you cut the band. None of this came up, they just went go home.
So, I think for that reason, yes, it was definitely some level of political duplicity going on underneath the surface, but we cannot act like "Late Night" was flourishing and making a lot of money and that this came out of left field. I think both things can be true. I just think that these are all people that were -- all of these shows were varying degrees of triage and somebody snuck in and just snatched the life support off of Colbert.
[22:35:01]
KELLY JANE TORRANCE, NEW YORK POST EDITOR AT LARGE: Exactly, Roy. And you know, I have to admit, I'm skeptical that this was such a political decision. But yeah, ratings have been down for late night TV. We don't have this shared culture we used to do. I mean, it used to be everybody watched David Letterman.
I mean, I remember everyone I knew was watching David Letterman. I don't know anybody who watches every single night, Colbert or Jimmy Kimmel or Jimmy Fallon. We just-- we don't have that same culture. People are streaming, they're doing different things.
WOOD, JR.: You're absolutely right in that regard. But what I'm saying is that no network is going to kill a behemoth that has been around for decades without a plan in place. Normally, when you cancel something, you go in lieu of that, we're going to do this. Are they going to give 11:30 back to the local affiliates and we just start watching deep fryer commercials and high school football highlights? I don't think that's going to happen.
PHILLIP: I mean --
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD, JR.: So --
PHILLIP: But also, this is also about all of a sudden cancel culture is okay. Because whether or not this actually was a quid pro quo with Paramount, Donald Trump and conservatives are celebrating it. He is celebrating this as a move that is right because he doesn't like what Colbert has had to say about him.
PETE SEAT, FORMER WH SPOKESMAN, PRES. GEORGE W. BUSH: He's celebrating it because he likes to think that he's the culture, I'll be honest about it. But I want to go back to what Roy said. They're canceling this, quote, "behemoth" because it's losing $40 million a year.
WOOD, JR.: But why didn't everyone else just -- why wasn't Seth Meyers just chopped off? Why wasn't Jimmy Fallon just chopped off given those options? (CROSSTALK)
WOOD, JR.:
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: But also -- but also, Colbert was given a heads up based on reporting. He was given a heads up as early as the fourth of July, around that time frame, is when he was told the show was in jeopardy. I agree the timing of all this is very suspect. It doesn't look good that he made his comments and the very next day announced that --
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD, JR.: There has been no late night show that has been straight out canceled without there being tactics of trying to reduce costs to see if you can still keep it afloat because it is harder to develop a new idea than to save an old --
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: And I don't disagree --
TORRANCE: Again --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Let me lay out the playbook. This is September 24th, 2024. "CBS should terminate his contract and pick almost anyone right off the street who would do better and for far less money. We also know that there are parts of this deal that he made in order to get the Skydance merger to happen, that they don't want to talk about.
Skydance went over to the FCC, which is in charge of approving whether or not this deal can even happen, and they had a conversation. And guess what the conversation was about? " -- we discussed Skydance's commitment to unbiased journalism and its embrace of diverse viewpoints, principles that will ensure CBS's editorial decision- making reflects the varied ideological perspectives of American viewers."
That sounds good but it also is a clear message that they were talking about what types of things CBS should broadcast. And I think just on a basic level, that's notable. That shows --
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD, JR.: - journalism is jokes.
PHILLIP: Well, that's exactly my point.
TORRANCE: They're supposed to be jokes.
PHILLIP: They're jokes and should there be an ideological litmus test for jokes?
TORRANCE: That's the thing. Sure, go ahead.
(CROSSTALK)
DAN KOH, FORMER WH DEPUTY CABINET SECRETARY UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN: I don't think so, but look. I think that all of these late night shows unfortunately are on life support. And Matt Belloni (ph) reported on "The Puck", the ones that are not making the right transition to digital are all going to be on life support.
If you look at the viewership today on YouTube, let's look at today's viewership. Midas Touch is number one. Fox News and CNN are up there. The first time CBS shows up is number 63. They've got a real problem with how they're evolving in this media landscape, and people are noticing. And it's only a matter of time for these other networks. And new -- the cost for new entrants are just so much lower, and that's a huge issue.
WOOD, JR.: I will never argue that this show was losing money and that late night is struggling. I'm saying the way in which you try to figure out how to stop that, even with the "After Midnight" show which they had on in replacement of Corden, they gave it a second season, they retooled it after the first season. When that young lady, Taylor Tomlinson, decided not to come back, CBS saw fit to just abandon 12:30 instead of even ideating something new. That's how wild it is. So, you can't --
(CROSSTALK)
TORRANCE: But Roy, you made a great point when you said it's jokes. Because I'll be honest, think Stephen Colbert was a lot funnier 20 years ago. And a lot of late night comedy now, it's really, you know, totally predictable jokes about how bad Donald Trump is.
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD, JR.: It's still --
(CROSSTALK)
WOOD, JR.: -- journalism.
(CROSSTALK)
TORRANCE: And it's not as funny as --
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: It's back, and not everyone loved Johnny Carson. I know it's easy to reminisce --
(CROSSTALK)
TORRANCE: Yeah.
SEAT: -- and make him sound perfect, but he adhered to the gridiron philosophy of, singe, don't burn. He poked fun at politicians, so did Mark Russell with his silly piano songs on PBS.
TORRANCE: And it was a lot of equal opportunity.
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: And politicians played along.
TORRANCE: Yeah.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I guess -- this nostalgia -- this nostalgia is honestly, can I be honest, I think it's a little tiresome. Times change.
UNKNOWN: Right.
PHILLIP: Times change.
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: Times change and late night won't always be there.
PHILLIP: Times change and media is segmented. You've got liberal comedians and you've got conservative comedians.
UNKNOWN: Yeah.
PHILLIP: Don't we live in a society in which if you want to be a liberal comedian, you're allowed to be that? If you want to be a conservative comedian, you're allowed to be that? Why is it that we have to force this sort of fake even-handedness on people just to say that we're doing it?
SEAT: And Colbert will find an audience wherever he goes. He will have an audience, whether it be on YouTube or Substack or some other platform.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And if he --
SEAT: But if he's losing money for CBS, why are they going to keep him around?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Maybe the corollary to that is, why is it that the President of the United States feels like he ought to dictate that? Who's telling jokes? What kind of jokes they're telling? Who's hiring them? Who's not hiring them? Why is that?
WOOD, JR: Why wouldn't he do that if he's already gotten the same network to bend the knee on something else?
PHILLIP: Fair enough. WOOD, JR.: When I can just bully you all and kick you all out of my
press room because I don't like your organization. And i can move somebody else down front. So, the idea that we're going to sit here and act like well, because i don't like the premise of the joke.
Therefore, the joke is not justified and has no presence at all on this network. I think we're trying to -- you cannot equate late show to "60 Minutes" and that's what they're trying to do with this man's show to not even give it an opportunity to be triage, I think it's disingenuous. Yes, it's losing money. Yes, it cannot stay this way forever. But there should have been seen that old the conversation.
PHILLIP: So, I learned this today, apparently there's a study about Jay Leno's jokes --apparently. So, from 1992 to 2014, Jay Leno told the most jokes about Bill Clinton. And then next is George W. Bush, we understand why. But it's a lot of Democrats in here. So, I mean, I don't know, back in those days, comedians were telling jokes about --
(CROSSTALK)
KOH: But it's about how you tell them. Past presidents had a sense of humor and laughed at themselves, right? They would go to the White House Correspondents' Dinner. You were their best host ever, but there were other hosts, too. And people would laugh, and it was a sign. It was an endearing sign.
President Trump has never had that mentality. He takes any allusion to him or his performance as a serious thing and an affront, and he loves taking victory laps and tap dancing on people who get what he feels like they deserve.
PHILLIP: The media and now the comedians. Trump wants to have his hand in all of it. We'll see where this one ends. Next for us, more and more Biden aides are pleading the fifth about his mental fitness. Perfectly legal, of course, but a few months ago, it wasn't cool with Democratic lawmakers. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:06]
PHILLIP: Tonight, more and more former Biden aides are invoking the Fifth, declining to testify about his mental fitness in office. She becomes the third before the House Committee -- Oversight Committee, to plead the Fifth, which is completely legal and doesn't mean that anyone is doing anything wrong. The Supreme Court said that multiple times, that it's an option for innocent people. Only, even as recently as a few months ago, Democrats actually seem to disagree with that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): He may be the first nominee for FBI director in history who felt it necessary to plead the Fifth.
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): You testified under a grant of immunity after taking the Fifth Amendment, as you're privileged to do, and the appearance here is that you have something to hide.
SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): You can't plead the Fifth unless you have a reasonable expectation that could put you in jeopardy of a crime. What crime?
REP. ZOE LOFGREN (D-CA): If he was afraid that he'd done something that would incriminate him criminally, that's a pretty big deal, I think.
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): The Fifth Amendment is meant to be used selectively. It's not a magic wand that you wave over the whole proceeding.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP))
PHILLIP: So Dan, was it a mistake for Democrats to go that far in all of those clips that we just played?
KOH: I just want to quote a validator. When all of the people in your orbit have become targets of an unfounded, politically motivated witch hunt, you have no choice. That was Donald Trump in 2022 when he pleaded the Fifth 400 times, okay? James Comer auto-penned the subpoenas for a lot of these testimonies.
And since Truman, Republican or Democrat, the auto-pen has been used. And you know what? All of this investigation is not making inflation go down. It's not making healthcare more affordable. It's not making housing more affordable. This is what the American people actually care about, not this ridiculousness from Republicans.
PHILLIP: The first part of what you read in this 2022 tweet is, I once asked, if you're innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment? Now, I know the answer to that question. So, Donald Trump understands perhaps what some of these Biden aides are feeling. And Republicans are doing what Democrats did months ago and saying that this is all an attempt to hide wrongdoing. I don't know. I mean, it seems to me that this has just become a partisan kind of football here between the two sides.
SEAT: So, we're surprised that politicians are politicking. Got it. There are real questions about the cognitive decline of the former President of the United States and whether or not he and he alone was making decisions in the White House. Plenty of books have now come out. We know at best that we were being misled about what was taking place in the West Wing. The American people deserve real answers and I understand the Fifth Amendment is a constitutional right. They can certainly do that.
[22:50:00]
But there's also the court of public opinion. And when you hear all these staffers from folks who are in the West Wing to the physician of the President all pleading the fifth, it really makes you wonder what they're trying to hide, what they know and what they don't want us to know.
PHILLIP: I mean, does it --
(CROSSTALK)
KOH: Let me ask a question. When Charlie Kirk or Roger Stone or Michael Flynn all plead the fifth, when Charlie Kirk pleads the fifth about his involvement in January 6th, do think that raises questions about Charlie Kirk's involvement?
SEAT: Was he in the West Wing working with the President --
(CROSSTALK)
KOH: We don't know what he --
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: That's what we don't know.
PHILLIP: To the point of taking the fifth, why does it matter what the allegation is? And actually I would argue that around the issue of January 6th, it's pretty freaking important to understand people's role in that. So, why does that matter? On the issue of taking the fifth, you either think that it's incriminating or it's not.
SEAT: Well, look, I'm not condoning that they took it, but I think there's a huge difference between Charlie Kirk and the President of the United States.
KOH: I think --
SEAT: And if we can't see that distinction, there is a problem.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: None of these are the President of the United States that we're talking about. President Biden is not the one testifying. These are his aides who Republicans are trying to accuse of some elaborate cover-up which they can do. They can accuse them of that but they also -- these people have a right to not say anything.
WOOD, JR.: Is it the fact that they are pleading the fifth or is it the fact that it's the volume of people pleading the fifth that you believe they're pleading the fifth to hide something?
SEAT: That's a good question. You should do this for a living. I think the volume is what's most striking to me. If it were just one person, fine. Now, mind you, if it was, you know, the Vice President Kamala Harris pleading the Fifth, that might be a different story. But the volume of it is striking.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I don't understand. I truly don't understand why. Why does the volume matter?
SEAT: Well, because it's going to continue. PHILLIP: Because several --
SEAT: There are more interviews that are scheduled, and I'm pretty sure those same people are going to - or those people are going to do the same thing.
PHILLIP: Last word.
TORRANCE: Well, you know, you're saying that the Congress is busy with this, investigating this, or not solving any problems. But I do think we need to look at some of this stuff, for example, some of those pardons. You had people -- you had someone pardon who killed a mother and a child who were going to testify against him. That person got a pardon. Did Joe Biden really know he was pardoning someone like that, for example? So, I do think this is fair game.
PHILLIP: There are plenty of examples of presidents making pardons that end up being extremely controversial, as you know. So, this would not be - that's not that's not exactly uncommon in the pardon system that we have.
But next for us, the panel's going to give us their nightcaps and it's inspired by, you guessed it, that viral Jumbotron moment and of course, Chef Ginevra Iverson is over here with some nightcaps for us. Don't go anywhere, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:57:27]
PHILLIP: We are back and we're here with the Food Network Kitchen's executive chef, Ginevra Iverson. So, Chef Iverson, tell us what we've got here.
GINEVRA IVERSON, EXECUTIVE CHEF, FOOD NETWORK KITCHEN: All right, we have a classic -- this is Food Network's classic strawberry shortcake. But of course, we had to do a couple twists. The market had really nice berries. So, there's golden raspberries in there.
PHILLIP: Love it.
IVERSON: Red raspberries, some blueberries, but also strawberries. And then, my mom always gave us strawberries with sour cream and brown sugar, so I've marinated them in some brown sugar. The whipped cream has a little bit of sour cream and brown sugar.
PHILLIP: Did you say golden?
IVERSON: Golden raspberries. You'll see they're sort of a light yellow color.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay, I may not have gotten one of those.
IVERSON: Not the easiest thing. So, you can scan that Q.R. code on your screen for the strawberry shortcake recipe. We're going to dig in while we're doing tonight's nightcap. By now you have seen this viral video of the awkward moment at a Coldplay concert this week. Yes, I know you've seen it.
The tech company Astronomer announced tonight that its CEO is now on leave. In this Jumbotron moment, he is embracing the company's chief people officer. And based on their reaction, those two clearly did not want to be seen. So, now you each have 30 seconds to tell us where is the last place you'd want to be seen. Chef, we'll start with you.
IVERSON: I think I came up with, the Coney Island hot dog contest but that's the participant. For me it would ruin Coney Island, hot dogs, all the things I love.
WOOD, JR.: Well, I wouldn't want to be caught, just caught in general or caught cheating?
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: In general.
WOOD, JR.: Just sidebar, I notice that even when you ask me, if you're cheating, sit in the third deck. They never point the camera at the third deck. That's where you --
TORRANCE: Caught anywhere.
WOOD, JR.: Not that I've ever --
PHILLIP: I believe you. I believe you.
WOOD, JR.: I'll eat my shortcake.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: All right, Kelly.
TORRANCE: You know, I actually -- I was caught in a situation, thank goodness it didn't go viral, but it was posted to Twitter. I was at this hangout downtown here in Manhattan and it's a lot of young hipsters hang out there and they don't offer adult beverages like wine or champagne or even prosecco. They have beer and White Claw, and I'm not a beer drinker. I hate White Claw, it's terrible. But someone managed to snap me asking one of the speakers, it was a serious discussion of foreign policy. And I asking a serious question with a White Claw on my hand and some posted to Twitter. And I got a lot of--
PHILLIP: Dan --
KOH: I don't want to be caught -- something always happens to me where someone's waving and I'm like hey and it's the person behind me who was there actually looking to say hello to -- happens all the time.
[23:00:02]
Unfortunately, I got caught too much. PHILLIP: Pete.
SEAT: North Korea but with an asterisk. If Dennis Rodman asks me to go on one of his basketball missions, I'm going.
PHILLIP: Well, on that note, everybody, thank you very much for being here. Roy Wood, of course, will be back on Saturday night starting September 6th. Mark your calendars.
WOOD, JR.: Donald Trump, please don't cancel me.
PHILLIP: The third season of "Have I Got News for You". Three seasons? Wow, that's crazy. Right here on CNN, and he has a new memoir out, "The Man of Many Fathers", it's going on sale in October. Thanks so much for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" is right now.
