Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Light Rail Murder Sparks Debate On Crime, Race, Crackdowns; Supreme Court Lifts Limits On ICE's Immigration Stops In L.A.; House Democrats Bring The Receipts. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 08, 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, a vicious murder on public transit sparks a national debate on crime, race, and how to crack down.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: If we don't handle that, we don't have a country.
PHILLIP: Plus, the Supremes give a green light for ice to continue stopping people based on their skin or what language they're speaking.
Also, they swore it wasn't real.
TRUMP: I don't even know what they're talking about now.
I don't do drawings.
PHILLIP: But the Epstein birthday letter featuring Donald Trump is revealed in a new wave of documents.
And one of America's most famous movie stars gets Castaway by MAGA canceled at West Point for being too woke.
Live at the table, Van Jones, Brad Todd, Neera Tanden, Arthur Aidala and Kara Swisher.
Americans with different perspectives are talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, a flashpoint in the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on crime in American cities, a Ukrainian refugee stabbed to death at random while riding the light rail in Charlotte.
Now, I want to tell you and warn you that this video that we're about to show you is very disturbing. Police released this surveillance video of the attack as it happened. It was a 23-year-old woman who boarded the train in her work uniform. She sat in front of the man who would be her killer. And after a few minutes he pulls out a blade and stabs her multiple times. She died shortly after that.
The suspect had a lengthy criminal history, including convictions for armed robbery, felony larceny, and breaking and entering. His mother tells CNN that he suffers from schizophrenia and has been living in a homeless shelter.
The president is now weighing in on this attack.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Give my love and hope to the family of the young woman who was stabbed this morning or last night in Charlotte by a madman, a lunatic.
Just viciously stabbed, she's just sitting there. So, they're evil people. We have to be able to handle that. If we don't handle that, we don't have a country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: This is a horrible attack and one that is random. I think it strikes people in a place of fear because you want to be able to ride the light rail and not get stabbed to death.
I think the question here tonight, Brad, is, you know, people are murdered every single day in every city in America, and every single one of those murders is terrible and a tragedy. But this particular one I'm trying to understand why this has become such a flashpoint on the right.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think first off, the man who committed this crime was out on cashless bail, which has been a crusade of the political left. He also has a repeat offender, career criminal, 14 times he was arrested. His mother tried to have him involuntarily committed to the -- because he's schizophrenic, he attacked his sister just five years ago. He clearly is someone who should not have been out on bail in January when he was released on bail.
And every one of these murders is a tragedy, but every one of them that's let out because of a soft judge is a tragedy.
PHILLIP: I think that --
ARTHUR AIDALA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYER: But the video --
PHILLIP: But hold on.
AIDALA: The video.
PHILLIP: Yes, I understand that there's a video, but, you know, the offense that he committed in January where he was let out was that he called 911 and he told them that he -- you know, that he was being controlled by, you know, whatever. He's clearly mentally ill. So, I mean, you're a lawyer, right? So, if you're -- if some --
AIDALA: Allegedly,
PHILLIP: Allegedly a lawyer. I mean, look, if somebody commits an offense like that, are you going to throw him in jail for calling 911 and exposing his mental illness? What's the recourse from a legal perspective for that?
AIDALA: So, Abby, it's a subject here in New York City, we struggle with all the time. The rule is if you believe someone is a danger to themselves or others, they can be involuntarily hospitalized for up to 72 hours.
[22:05:02]
But after the 72 hours, if they're not threatening anybody, including themselves, then they have to be released.
There's a lot of questions about whether, and this is a perfect case, is that really what it should be? Should it be more than 72 hours? Should they have to be in there for a week or two? I mean, this guy just gave us a warning in January, like I'm being controlled. That's mental illness.
PHILLIP: It's also a cry for help. And, obviously, to your point, there was no help to be found. I mean, this strikes me as a horrible tragedy, but it is about our societal failure to deal with people with serious mental health issues, who should not be on the street. I completely agree with that, should not be on the street. But where should they be?
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Anyone who (INAUDIBLE) has seen this, and we don't know if the person's going to be violent or not violent. And, unfortunately, we don't have services that they used to have for mentally ill people in terms of dealing with them. And I think the problem here is I'm guessing the Trump administration was looking for an example. This video was quite disturbing. You have the combination of social media at the same time blowing it up. And so it creates sort of the perfect storm to point to something. Just like when Dukakis, when he was running for president, (INAUDIBLE) took advantage of that one incident that was terrible, that got -- that was very troubling for voters once they called attention to it.
PHILLIP: So, certain people have been looking for an opportunity to find a case like this, to make a point like this. I want to play, this is Charlie Kirk, why he says this hasn't gotten a lot of attention.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARLIE KIRK, HOST, THE CHARLIE KIRK SHOW: A white Ukrainian refugee was murdered just because she was white. Everybody knows that obviously. If a random white person simply walked up to and stabbed a nice law-abiding black person for no reason, it would be an apocalyptically huge national story used to impose national, sweeping political changes on the whole country. Instead, Meghan Basham, no one seems to care when a white woman gets stabbed to death. (END VIDEO CLIP)
SWISHER: Wow. He said white a lot.
AIDALA: Well, we are talking about it here. So, I guess --
SWISHER: It's true.
AIDALA: I don't think that's fair. Look, being in the system, because I have represented people who are mentally ill. And here's the balance. The balance is taking away people's freedom versus evaluating their mental illness. In New York City, there are a lot of programs for people who are mentally ill, but they have to want to be there. It's about forcing to be there.
PHILLIP: When you are mentally ill, you have a hard time knowing that you are mentally ill. But also, I mean, people like Charlie Kirk, Van, they've been looking for opportunities to make this some sort of like reciprocal George Floyd situation. And that's the part that I think he's almost giving away the game. It's sad to see a lot of people going along with it.
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You know, let me just say a couple things. One is, I mean, what happened to that young woman was horrible, and it's everybody's nightmare. If you're in any public space, a subway, whatever, that something bad is going to happen to you or somebody you care about. So, it does strike a chord.
We don't know why that man did what he did. And for Charlie Kirk to say, we know he did it because she's white, when there's no evidence of that, is just pure race mongering, hate mongering. It's wrong. Then he says that if something like that had happened the other way, there would be sweeping changes imposed on society.
Where is the George Floyd Policing Act? It didn't pass even when you had a white police officer murder a black man on live television, the whole world saw, there were no sweeping changes. In fact, not one law was passed at the federal level. So, I think that's an important thing to point out.
The other thing is you mentioned the thing about cashless bail. I think this is a big challenge that we have. Would you have felt better if there had been cash bail and the mom had come and put down a thousand dollars to let him out? It's not about cashless bail or no cashless bail. It's about the fact that we don't know how to deal with people who were hurting in the way this man was hurting. Hurt people, hurt people. What happened was horrible, but it becomes an opportunity for people to jump on bandwagons.
And then for someone like Charlie Kirk, he should be ashamed of himself. No one mentioned the word race, white, black, or anything except him. What people mention is the horror of what happened to this young woman.
TODD: Van, I'm going to agree with you, that I don't care who was white and who was black. And I don't know how Charlie Kirk got into it. I agree with you on that.
But the reason there were no changes passed after in Congress, after George Floyd, is because the Democrats wouldn't pass Tim Scott's bill. That's the reason. It was a -- Chuck Schumer decided he'd rather have the issue in the election than let Tim Scott get credit for it.
I think there is one thing else we haven't talked about here, though, and that is the magistrate who let him go in January. It's not a lawyer, it's not a law enforcement professional, it's not a judge. She was a magistrate appointed after her -- a lot of experience in the addiction and recovery area. And she's probably really well-motivated and her own family had suffered from that. She probably has had a great reason for being interested in this.
[22:10:02]
But that doesn't make her a judge who can put criminals back on the street.
PHILLIP: I guess I wonder, Brad, what do you think -- like, truly, like let's look at -- I don't want to talk in generalities because there's a real case in front of us. What is the penalty for calling 911 as a mentally ill person and saying that people are hearing my thoughts? So, what is --
TODD: But he's been arrested 14 times, including for assault.
PHILLIP: But in this democracy that we live in, right, and we have a system in which when you commit a crime, you pay a time for that crime. He committed an armed robbery. He served five years for that crime. He has committed other offenses. He has served time for those offenses. When you commit that particular offense, what do you think that the law should do to you? Is the law punishing you for all the other things you've done in your past or is it punishing you for the thing you're doing?
TODD: We do know that he was dangerous. He had proven himself to be dangerous. And so the judge then has to weigh what are the tools available to me to keep him from hurting someone else? That's the job of the judge.
PHILLIP: Yes. And that's a -- but that's a question to me of -- okay, the judge is going to then say, what do I do with this guy? Do I throw him in jail for a couple of days or a week or two? Do I put him in a mental institution? What are we doing with this person? I don't know that the answer is that we throw him in jail for the rest of his life, which is what some people have suggested should have happened here.
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: I mean, I think honestly, people have pointed to a real problem in the law. You referenced this. And that is that there are people who are -- who have mental illness, who have a level of mental illness where they can't really even tell whether they need to be in care.
And I think that what this really points to is how we need actually somewhere between jail, actual mental health service delivery. But sometimes that will be against the will of the person, right, involuntary care for some people.
PHILLIP: And Trump has -- but can I just say, Trump has talked about this and I think that he is onto something in a sense that when we deinstitutionalized mental health --
TANDEN: Yes.
SWISHER: We didn't. It was the Reagan administration.
PHILLIP: Sure. I'm saying as a country.
SWISHER: I'm saying --
TODD: There's been a lot of administrations in Congress since then.
PHILLIP: There is not an alternative we did. We took people out of the mental -- out of mental institutions created no other place to put them, or no other system to deal with them.
So, I do think that Trump does talk about this a lot, and he's not wrong in identifying that as a core part of the problem. Because if you've represented people, maybe not like this guy, but who have mental illness, a lot of times --
AIDALA: (INAUDIBLE) guys who are even more often deep end than this.
PHILLIP: Okay. And just --
AIDALA: No. And he killed somebody killed, he killed his landlord. But he thought, you know, well the landlord was piping in oxygen that had poison in and he was trying to kill my granddaughter. It was all -- but he was -- it was so scary. And what did the prosecutors do? They did not got -- to their credit, they did not send him to prison. They allowed him to plead guilty by reason of insanity, mental disease or defect. And in the state of New York, when you get that, you are incarcerated longer than if you plead guilty to murder. You wound up saying in a mental institution longer than if you get -- take a plea to murder in the first-degree, second-degree.
PHILLIP: And the recourse for people, this guy had a family who tried to get him help --
TANDEN: Which is a very common --
PHILLIP: -- which is very common. Then what we have as a system right now is that people have to do horrible things like murder somebody in order to be forced into a place where they can get help? I don't want to overstate it, but my point is that there's no alternative to this.
SWISHER: But you're right that Donald Trump is on to something. But he's on to something, he wants to use this as a political pawn, not a solutions based.
What is the act? If he would suggest a solution rather than throw them away back in these mental institutions, there were innumerable investigations and how horrible they were. So, what is the actual solution, not what is the political point you want, whether --
PHILLIP: And I don't think that that's what they're doing in this case. I mean, this case is about the politics.
TANDEN: There are states that are actually experimenting and trying to change this so that they actually deliver services. They're not all big institutions or like clinics that people go to, and sometimes they are there for a period that is involuntary, but many people get much better and actually never have the situation.
I mean, we should, at the end of the day, say if like we had actually -- if there had been an intervention that had worked, this person would've been alive. And then we should all acknowledge at the end of the day that it is a horror that this woman was murdered, but it's also the case that we can do something between prison and something else of to give services.
AIDALA: A lot of them get better, Abby, because they get on medication.
TANDEN: Yes.
AIDALA: A lot of the medication works. But you know what happens. They get off their medication, and that's when these horrible things happen. So, there's this balance between people's liberty to be out on the street. Look, if I want to stay on the street and be homeless and freeze, I have the right to do that. You have a right to do that until the government says, well, you're going to freeze to death. So, now we have the right to take you and put you in a shelter against your will.
[22:15:00]
So, there's this balancing between people's liberty and the safety of everyone around them.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, look, this is such a tragic, sad story all around, but it has become this political football about left and right when it's really about all of us as a society and what we --
TODD: But they can both be true.
PHILLIP: -- do and don't do.
TODD: They can both be true, that we have neither party has found an answer to people who are seriously mentally ill and choose to be homeless, and perhaps won't reject all efforts to help them. We haven't figured out as a society how to handle that. It can also be true though that we have a political movement in this country on the left that's taking far too lightly the need to punish and keep people away from others or threats.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, ICE agents can now make immigration stops based on someone's skin color as part of the factors. But why critics say that the Supreme Court just green lit racial profiling.
Plus, breaking tonight, Trump and his allies swore it doesn't exist, but we're getting our first look at that crude letter that he apparently wrote to Jeffrey Epstein.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, the Supreme Court just gave the Trump administration the green light to allow masked ICE agents in Southern California to continue to target Latinos, including sometimes picking up U.S. citizens to check their immigration status. It is a major win for the president as he ramps up his immigration crackdown across the country.
Now, the court did not explain its decision, but Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that it's reasonable to question people based on certain criteria, including ethnicity. Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the dissent, writing, we should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish and appears to work a low wage job.
Van Jones, I mean, this is your state of California where you live in my city and your city. I mean, what do you make of the Supreme Court's decision to even weigh in in this way without really explaining the legal rationale?
JONES: I'm just going to say it's really heartbreaking. I think if you're, you know, not in L.A. and you just kind of think about, oh, well, you know, should the Supreme Court step in, should judges be micromanaging the actions of the executive branch, very, very theoretical stuff. If you're in Los Angeles, it is a nightmare.
I have relatives who are Mexican American. They live a completely different life than I do. I'm African American. Nobody's bothering me. I can go wherever I want to. There are people who are U.S. citizens, multiple generations, they are living in terror.
And the behavior of these officers, I don't care if you're on the right or on the left, is appalling. They are so rude. They are so aggressive. They are so violent. They are so disrespectful. It's not making people only feel like they're creating any more safety, for sure, in fact, the opposite. And they're going after people who they have no business going after.
Listen, there are people in L.A. who are criminals, that sort of stuff, that's not who they're going after. This dragnet is going after nannies. It's going after everyday people who should not be treated this way in any country. It is so appalling. That's why people went to court. God, can you please stop this kind of behavior?
And for the Supreme Court say, we have no problem with it, and, by the way, the fact that they've admitted that they're going after people because they're Latin, because they're brown, is okay with us because that can now be a relevant factor. It feels now like open season.
AIDALA: But that's not what the decision that was written by Judge Kavanaugh.
JONES: It's a relevant factor. He said race can be -- (CROSSTALKS)
TANDEN: He's only concurring.
AIDALA: Well, he's concurring. He's giving the reasoning for his reasoning.
JONES: How do you see it?
AIDALA: But, Abby, what he said was, we don't think the person who brought the suit is going to win on the ground of standing. Yes, he addresses some of the factors that Van just spoke about, but in the -- to go into any court, you need to be a victim. You need to be someone who is personally in harm's way. I can't say bring a case on behalf of Abby. Abby's got to bring the case on behalf of herself. And Kavanaugh says, I think when they come to the court, they're going to lose that. They're going to lose that factor.
Because now -- here's the Catch 22. Is an immigrant who gets thrown down by an ICE agent, they're going to go to the Supreme Court of the United States? Probably not.
PHILLIP: I mean, that's part of -- that's a huge part of the problem, right?
AIDALA: Correct. That's the Catch 22.
PHILLIP: Because those people are there --
AIDALA: But the law is -- but as a fundamental law, you have to have standing to get into a courthouse.
TANDEN: With all due respect, the Supreme Court did not even deign to give us an opinion on this issue. So, that is --
AIDALA: Well, Kavanaugh did.
TANDEN: That's Kavanaugh's explanation for Kavanaugh's vote, which is only one vote.
And I have to say, the fact that they are providing these decisions without any explanation, why Justice Amy Coney Barrett has time to write a memoir, but not a decision on an issue that affects all of our rights is frankly outrageous. And the truth is. we have no idea whether the Supreme Court is basically sanctioning a system where everybody who's brown has to come with papers because, basically, ICE officers can really go after any single person. We don't know if that's the limit of this decision or not, because they didn't give us any rationalization.
TODD: It's not a decision on the merit. So, this is only on this stay from the lower courts. I mean, the court -- the case will come back on the merits.
TANDEN: We don't know if it applies to Los Angeles, to California or to the country. TODD: Right. But we will when it comes back. When they hear the full case on the merits, we'll have it.
TANDEN: Maybe.
PHILLIP: I think it's important sort of technical context, right, that -- but both of you can be right at the same time in a sense that the court is sort of -- they're kicking this back down, allowing the conduct to continue on a technicality, and then they're not explaining that to the public.
[22:25:13]
So I do think --
TODD: I asked to describe on a technicality. That's what the appeal was based on.
PHILLIP: I think the lack of explanation continues to be an issue.
TODD: But that is their job. Their job in this case read is to decide the emergency state or not. That's their job.
PHILLIP: Let me read a little bit more from what Kavanaugh did say, because he did dabble in the substance here, okay? He says, reasonable suspicion means that only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U.S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter.
Now, he wrote that knowing that is -- I mean --
SWISHER: I don't know if he knows.
PHILLIP: But I know, and you know, because if you read the news that is not true. Here are some headlines. A U.S. citizen was picked up by ICE despite proof that he was born in this country. Another one, a Latinos report raids in which U.S. citizenship is questioned. We are not safe in American today. These American citizens say they were detained, not briefly stopped, detained by ICE.
SWISHER: There's story after story of this happening. And they're fully -- pretend the Supreme Court isn't fully aware of these things or isn't paying attention is ridiculous. They're paying attention. And as you said, they're out and about selling books and whatever they happen to be doing.
And I think the issue is people want the Supreme Court, even if it's a technical standing thing, even if it's something not to feel like it's ignoring the actual issue in some fashion. I know it does work its way up to the court, but that doesn't help these Americans that are being detained. It doesn't help the behavior of the ICE on whether it's in Los Angeles or if it's with the Hyundai factory or anything else. It seems brutal. And that's the images that the Supreme Court should not be ignoring when it's deciding how to move forward on these things?
TODD: Well, any law enforcement officer should be civil and respectful no matter what. But I think you're --
SWISHER: From the get-go with the masks, it doesn't.
TODD: To your point, though, that that's why Justice Kavanaugh wrote his concurrence, is because he wanted to give more explanation. The court's not obligated to give you a long opinion on this. It was not argued with oral arguments because it's not a substantive hearing on the issue. Justice Kavanaugh did what you're asking. He gave --
SWISHER: Except perhaps you should say, do not do this.
TODD: He gave a lot more context.
TANDEN: There was a dissent. They bothered to write an opinion, but others can write. There's nothing stopping this Supreme Court from writing an opinion on this matter. They choose not to. That's why it's called the shadow docket.
PHILLIP: So, let me just make one other note. I mean, because I think this is in the context of Trump. I mean, they're celebrating this as a win. But meanwhile, Trump's disapproval rating on immigration, on deportations is up to 57 percent. His disapproval rating on border security is up to 53 percent. And that's not as bad as it is on the economy, but this is supposed to be one of his best issues, maybe his winning issue. This is supposed to be a common sense thing, according to Trump and his allies. But the American people are dissatisfied with how this is going.
AIDALA: Well. I think Van's point earlier about how people are being treated, unlike what Justice Kavanaugh wrote, that's the issue. I don't think officers are approaching these people and having a polite parlor conversation and saying, excuse me sir, I was just wondering, can I see your identification, which they may be allowed to do under certain circumstances, even here in the state of New York, if they believe criminal activity is afoot. That doesn't seem to be what's happening. They seem to be coming in guns blazing, throwing people down and that's --
PHILLIP: And, in fact, they're advertising that that's what they're doing.
AIDALA: Yes. But, listen, I'm worried (INAUDIBLE) going to show up at the farms tomorrow, how many people are going to show up at the construction sites tomorrow, at the landscaping companies tomorrow. Watch out how this reacts.
JONES: Yes. So, much of what makes America work are working people who were born in other places. If you got a grandmother right now who's in a nursing home, I guarantee you the person who's helping her right now probably was not born here. If your roof is leaking, probably the person who's going to fix your roof probably wasn't born here. I'm agreeing with you.
So, the thing is they're going after the wrong people in the wrong way for the wrong reasons. And the Supreme Court seems to, at least right now, be blind to that. And if this is an indication of what's to come, it's terrifying for people.
TODD: Well, Justice Kavanaugh said that they didn't compel stricter enforcement under Biden v. Texas, so they were not obligated to dictate how enforcement is when it's too much under Trump.
But I will say, politically, you're right about the politics on this. I mean, Donald Trump, this is his very best issue and it's his greatest success. Immigration under Joe Biden was completely out of control. Tens of thousands of people coming across week after week after week, and Donald Trump's basically closed it. If he wants to keep his advantage on that, he's going to have to prove that they're using rational basis in enforcing on the interior. They've got the border closed.
TANDEN: Can I just say --
PHILLIP: Brad, I mean, you think it's still -- because as the numbers show, he is underwater significantly on this issue.
[22:30:02]
TODD: Not where Democrats are. It's a big advantage about wasting on where Democrats are. That's the delta. The question is the delta of how do people trust him versus Democrats -
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But he is executing his immigration strategy the way he advertised it. And people are saying, no, I don't like it.
(CROSSTALK)
SWISHER: think -- I have a lot of conservative relatives. And a lot of them -- and believe me, I think as you were saying, he's onto something here with the mental -- mentally ill people. He was onto something here with immigration, obviously, and crime. Every single person that I know that's very (inaudible) including very close relatives is, I agreed, but not this. They're all doing a lot of this like not this.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: It is a risk. That is a risk.
TANDEN: Yeah, I mean that is a risk like they have a plan. The plan is they're driving quotas. What's actually happening in the -- in the cities is that they're basically saying to ICE officers, you have to meet your quotas of numbers. And that's why they're going into communities where they don't have any evidence.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: They don't have any evidence of criminal activity. They're actually going into the Home Depot's to round up as many people. It is a campaign that is based on terrorizing communities. I'm sorry.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: And so, I guess --
AIDALA: Last point, New York City, Midtown is a very better place since Donald Trump came in and the immigration policies. My office is one block away from the Roosevelt Hotel and I am definitely safer now without all those crazy kids on the mopeds zipping around Midtown 42nd, 43rd Street. That has definitely gotten better. How they did it, I don't know, but they're not there anymore. The Roosevelt Hotel is closed and we're safer.
PHILLIP: We've got to leave it there. Coming up next for us, the birthday letter that Republicans said didn't exist. It was just released. And the message from the President? Well, don't believe your own eyes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:36:21]
PHILLIP: Tonight, House Democrats bring the receipts. Back in July, "The Wall Street Journal" reported on a book of letters given to Jeffrey Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2023. Now, that letter included a message from President Trump. He has denied having anything to do with the letter, but now Epstein's estate has given a trove of documents to the House Oversight Committee. That included a birthday book, including this page that you see right there.
It's a sketch of a woman's body talking about enigmas never aging. A wonderful secret, and of course, down at the bottom there that looks very much like a Trump signature. Now, after the initial MAGA report, the initial report MAGA jumped all over this. They called it bullshit, fake, bogus, insanity, defamatory, trash, all of that. All of them taking a cue from Trump himself.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't even know what they're talking about. Now, somebody could have written a letter and used my name.
TRUMP: I don't do drawings. I'm not a drawing person. I don't do drawings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Maybe he doesn't do drawings.
SWISHER: He does drawings.
TANDEN: He does do drawings.
PHILLIP: But it does look like his signature.
SWISHER: Yeah, I mean, this is really interesting because they immediately went online and started to try to do that detective thing. Like when something happens, everyone's like trying to prove signatures and this and that. What "The Journal" did, and let me just pay a compliment to Rupert Murdoch, who had a very good day. He settled with his family. This came out. And its editor, Emma Tucker, they've stuck by their -- they've stuck hard on this thing.
And I think what they did in the second story is a visual representation of all the different things. And so, where Trump said, don't say that word, they showed eight or nine examples of him using the word, eight or nine examples of him using just Donald. And I think they've just done a great job here. And it's going to be very hard for Trump to deny this, although that's exactly what he's going to do. He's just going to -- don't believe your lion eyes strategy.
TANDEN: I mean, can I, people should look at what he writes here. I mean, he's talking about sharing a secret and the way this is written, it's like, it's like he's writing it to like a high school boyfriend or something. It is very disturbing and creepy how close he was to Jeffrey Epstein just once again, a sex trafficker.
And I have to say I just don't understand how Republicans can't say let's release the files. Why can't we release the files he literally turned to Americans and said this picture never happened it obviously did happen they have no credibility release the files so we can actually deal with all the people who are involved in a pedophile sex trafficking ring.
PHILLIP: There's a second piece of, I guess, evidence of the oversight committee Democrats released today. This is a picture of Jeffrey Epstein, but a few other individuals. And the photo shows a check that is signed by Donald Trump for $22,5OO, and it says, Jeffrey showing early talents with money and women sells fully depreciated blank to Donald Trump for $22,500.
So, look, there's a lot going on here that is unclear. But there's -- it is also clear that there are embarrassing things that the President doesn't want out. And instead of just saying, this is embarrassing, they were friends, they're no longer friends, the White House is saying, well, none of this exists. This is all a hoax. This is all a scam, like the Russia investigation that they also say is a hoax.
TODD: Well, I think we had a typo in front of us, 2003 when the letter was allegedly given to him, not 2023.
[22:40:03]
PHILLIP: Yeah.
TODD: Donald Trump says it's not him, he's filing suit against "The Wall Street Journal". I guess the court will let us know if it's true or not. I think a bigger question here is, Democrats have suddenly taken an interest in this when they didn't have an interest in it just when Joe Biden was President. The Department of Justice didn't release any of this. No Democrat was calling for any of it to be released but then --
(CROSSTALK) TANDEN: I've heard all about this. This is a great point -- talking point from people.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Has anyone met -- has anyone met Attorney General Garland? Do you think he was like rooting around in Epstein? Of course he wasn't because he was so petrified of Republicans attacking him as partisan in any way she performed. He should have. Absolutely, he should have.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: House Democrats didn't say a peep about a thing.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: That is not -- that is not an excuse for not releasing --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: These same Democrats on the House Oversight Committee didn't say anything.
TANDEN: Donald Trump -- Donald Trump campaign, his campaign said, his attorney general said they'd release the files. Release the files. You have the picture --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: Where House Democrats wrong to keep silent in the Biden era?
TANDEN: Anyone was wrong to be silent ever.
TODD: Okay.
TANDEN: A hundred percent. So, does that mean --
SWISHER: But that ship has sailed a long time ago.
TANDEN: -- are you for releasing the files now?
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: Well, I think --
TANDEN: Yes or no? Yes or no?
TODD: I'll tell you -- I think they're going to be -- I think that they should do what a judge will allow them to do to protect the privacy of innocent people.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Redact the women's names and release the files.
(CROSSTALK) TODD: So, the judge should decide, but there -- it will be released. More things will be released.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Why should -- can I ask you a question?
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: You keep saying that.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: It will be released. We'll get more.
PHILLIP: Why should there -- because they're two separate things. There are grand jury materials which a judge has to decide those things. But there's also things that are fully in the custody of the federal government.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: The Department of Justice released them all.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: As far as I'm aware, I don't know. First of all, should say as a caveat that Arthur, you are one of the attorneys that represents Ghislaine Maxwell, right? But as far as I know, would a judge have a jurisdiction over what is in the custody of DOJ in terms of their investigative files around Jeffrey Epstein?
AIDALA: Well, they would definitely have a decision-making power over the grand jury minutes, which DOJ has. And the judges have already ruled that, number one, no, we tell the whole world a grand jury secret and that's what allows people to go into a jury and tell the truth. Because they don't worry that the whole world is going to know about it, and we're not violating this. But then the judge also tipped his hand and said I read the grand jury monies.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
AIDALA: There's nothing in there that's so explosive that's going to change anything, so, we're not going to change any laws because of this, that's number one. But number two, Abby, I went through the law books. I know the facts are pretty, pretty closely. Let's just say Donald Trump did all this. We are not talking about a President George H.W. Bush. We're talking about a president who was elected after he's talking about grabbing women by their private parts. We're talking about a president who's married four times.
So, he sent them a lewd letter. Like, we've spent months -- the two topics we've covered about on this show, a poor civilian getting executed, about maybe immigrants getting thrown to the floor and all their rights violated. Those are important topics. I can't get over the fact that a guy who died in August of 2019, we are just spending so much time and effort and energy. So that -- everyone was --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
AIDALA: And Bill Clinton was on his own.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
AIDALA: He was a multi, multi-millionaire.
TANDEN: I'm sorry.
AIDALA: Everyone knew him.
TANDEN: He was a -- I'm sorry that you're defending Ghislaine Maxwell but --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Americans --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: -- okay --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Hold on.
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: Why are you sorry? I'm thrilled I'm --
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: -- all these men who have probably used women, there's one person in jail -- a woman, for life.
TANDEN: Well, Jeffrey Epstein as in jail. Jeffrey wasn't -- Epstein was in jail because he's a sex trafficker. And for you to minimize the victimization of these women is really outrageous.
AIDALA: I'm not minimizing it.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Yeah, you were because you're like -- no big deal.
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: How am I minimizing it?
(CROSSTALK) TANDEN: It's outrageous.
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: How people knew Jeffrey Epstein? How many people were on his island? How many people went to his home? All of them.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: All of them should go to jail.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Anyone who says sex traffics --
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: Well, that's not the country we live in. That everyone who knows a criminal should go to jail.
TANDEN: That's what's upsetting to the American people, honestly.
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: Everyone who knows a --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: That kind of statement that powerful people can just get away with it.
PHILLIP: Hold on.
TANDEN: That's what's upsetting.
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: Get away with what?
PHILLIP: So, Arthur --
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: What did Bill Clinton do wrong?
PHILLIP: Arthur, just a second.
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: He just knew him?
PHILLIP: Arthur, the Deputy Attorney General met with Ghislaine --
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: Yes -- (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- and then she was probably thereafter moved to a --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- prison.
AIDALA: Yes.
PHILLIP: Why?
AIDALA: Well, there are things I'm not, you know, I'm not allowed to talk about, right? So --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Right.
AIDALA: I can't talk about it.
PHILLIP: But let's just -- let's just --
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: Obviously, I've been talking generalities.
PHILLIP: Let's just pause it.
AIDALA: Wait.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
AIDALA: When somebody -- anybody who's represented by a lawyer who knows what they're doing, goes in and meets with the government, there's always a quid pro quo. You don't just take your client in and say, let me talk to you about something. They wanted information from, hypothetically, any time the government wants an information from a citizen, the citizen says, well, I have a right to remain silent. If you want me to give up that right, I need something in return.
Usually it's a plea bargain. Usually your charges are to be lowered and your exposure -- why are you laughing?
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: because you just--
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: I've done that for 35 years.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: You just admitted to a quid pro quo.
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: But that's how the whole system works. The whole system works on a quid pro quo.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Would this had happened before or after the interview? Would this have happened before or after the interview? Would they have said to her, we're going to do this interview and in exchange for it, you're going to go to this other prison?
[22:45:04]
AIDALA: The truth is, Abby, I don't know -- I don't know the answer to that question.
(CROSSTALK)
AIDALA: I don't know the answer to that question. I don't have knowledge of when that decision was made. But usually for me, because I did not walk Ghislaine into that particular proceeding, but before I go in and meet a prosecutor, with my client, I say fine, she'll come in and tell you Van also was involved. But before she pours the finger at Van, I want some assurance from you that she's going to get a benefit.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Go ahead, Kara.
SWISHER: Number one, if I do a bad thing, I'm hiring you, which I'm planning to do. Two, I think this is all water under the bridge. Trump campaigned on releasing the files. This has become a political thing. Whatever happens here, there's going to be a push. And by the way, the people that care the most -- I spent a lot of time in these MAGA conspiracy theory areas.
This is a pillar of that group of people. It's beyond -- whether it happened in the Biden administration, that boat has sailed. Whether it should be released or not, that boat has sailed. It has to be released at this point and they have to figure out a way to do it because Donald Trump is going to get enmeshed in this forever.
PHILLIP: Okay, we got to leave it there. Everyone, thank you very much. Coming up next West Point alumni are canceling an award ceremony for Tom Hanks and getting cheers from President Trump for doing so. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:51:11]
PHILLIP: I want to introduce you to someone who is one of CNN's "Champions for Change". Now, all-week we are highlighting people who are quietly working behind the scenes, finding new ways to make life better for others. And that is what my champion, Myla Flores, is doing right here in New York, specifically in the Bronx, where maternal mortality rates are significantly higher than the national average. Myla is working to change that by providing holistic support to women in her community.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Part of like my anxiety when I was pregnant was that there was no birth center that was close by.
PHILLIP: I didn't realize how much support I would need with breastfeeding after.
UNKNOWN: It's nice having a space to be able to let go.
MYLA FLORES, DOULA: One of the things I noticed about being a doula in the Bronx was that people didn't have access to the kind of care that they wanted.
PHILLIP (voice-over): Myla Flores' journey to becoming a doula started when she was just 12 years old. Her teenage sister was pregnant and they were so close that she was there for every step of the way.
FLORES: I was involved in the pregnancy, the labor. I had no idea at the time that great care was rare.
PHILLIP (voice-over): Myla saw firsthand the disparities that play out all across the country. In the Bronx, the maternal mortality rates are significantly higher than they are in the rest of the United States. And so she started the birthing place.
UNKNOWN: When I started coming here, it felt like I was getting personalized care and it was more like holistic.
UNKNOWN: I felt really grateful for the services here because it made it accessible.
FLORES: We're creating a mini version of a birth center so our clinic offers all of the services just short of being able to catch babies and have people stay for a period after they've given birth. So, I just place my palms here. Hold that for the whole length of the contraction.
PHILLIP: When you train doulas to provide culturally responsive care, how does that change the experience of childbirth for your community?
FLORES: It really helps people feel more seen and heard and connected.
PHILLIP: This is like a workout.
FLORES: There are statistics that show that culturally aligned care as well as access to midwives and doulas help reduce mortalities and morbidities and unnecessary interventions.
FLORES: It feels good even when not pregnant, right?
PHILLIP: It feels so good. I'm inspired by the work that Myla is doing because having a doula changed my childbirth experience. When I was pregnant with my daughter, that was the first time I learned that many black and brown women were choosing that option to find safer or supported birth options.
STEPHANIE VIDAL, NEW MOM: I think that women in the Bronx don't get the care that they deserve because it's expected that you will just take what you get and that's it. You have no options.
FLORES: Hi.
VIDAL: Going to the birthing place for my prenatal care, I felt like I was being seen by people who look like me.
FLORES: I'm just going to check your blood pressure real quick, okay?
VIDAL: Everybody needs a Myla. She's family forever.
PHILLIP (voice-over): They're also taking this wraparound care into the community using the "Wombus".
FLORES (voice-over): We're able to have outreach opportunities where the doulas in the community can connect with the people seeking a range of support.
PHILLIP: You have big dreams for a birth center.
[22:55:00]
What does a birth center look like for the birthing place?
FLORES: I want families to step into our future birth center and feel a sense of home, comfort, no judgment. All people deserve access to this kind of care.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Be sure to tune in on Saturday at 10 P.M. Eastern for the "Champions for Change", one-hour special. And we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:00:08]
PHILLIP: A quick programming note. We spent our summer Fridays doing the show live from the Food Network and some good news tonight, that will continue. Don't miss our debate roundtable at the Food Network on Fall Fridays, that starts this week.
And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media -- X, Instagram and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
