Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
GOP Speaker To Cities, Yield To Trump, Allow Troops in; U.S. Overcounted 911,000 Jobs During Biden And Trump Months; Dimon Warns Economy's Weakening, A Recession May Loom; A Heated Debate Erupts Over Accusations That Trump Administration May Have Committed A War Crime; Trump Insists He Is Not Happy With Putin's War. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 09, 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, one of the leaders of the Don't Tread on Me crowd delivers this message to American cities.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Yield, man. Let the troops come into your city and show how crime can be reduced.
PHILLIP: This as we learn crime isn't the only thing that went down in Washington during Donald Trump's takeover.
Plus, did the president inherit an economy worse than originally believed, or is the massive over count of jobs just the norm of the number?
Also, New York Socialist is surging in polls despite the wealthiest efforts to stop him, something he's happy to point out.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Hamptons is basically in group therapy.
The plutocrats are panicking.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Jim Schultz, Keith Boykin, Caroline Downey, Kat Abughazaleh, and Ana Navarro.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. Let's get right to what America's talking about, dinner and a show, the president staging a photo op at a steakhouse tonight in D.C. just two blocks from the White House despite facing protesters inside that restaurant. He says his visit is proof that his takeover is working, and the data shows that it is. Crime is down, including violent offenses, but also down is tourism and restaurant reservations, according to a CNN analysis.
And as Donald Trump threatens to send troops to other cities, one of the leaders of his own party, in which many adopted the Don't Tread on Me mantra, has this message to Democratic mayors.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHNSON: This is common sense and I cannot, for the life of me, understand how the Democrats think this is some sort of winning political message. Yield, man. Let the troops come into your city and show how crime can be reduced. It's a morale boost for the country and it's safe and right for everybody involved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Yield, let the troops come in.
I am really surprised to hear conservatives kind of arguing for troops to be marching in American cities and for states and cities to yield to a federal government. Whatever happened to Federalism? I ask that question a lot here.
JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: I just came through Union Station this week. And I travel through Union Station all the time, without question, feels safer going through Union Station now. You know, it's just better feeling. You go through, you feel safer. You're not getting approached by folks. You don't feel like you're in any jeopardy. And, look, I'm a big guy. I don't feel in jeopardy often, but going through there late at night before, definitely, you know, watching over my shoulder. I don't have that issue anymore.
Whether that needs to take place in every other city in America, I think it depends upon the circumstance, and it really depends upon the mayors and the governors of those states, inviting them in. D.C.'s a unique situation. So, I know in Pennsylvania, Shapiro has said we got it under control. I think the mayor has said the same thing in Philadelphia, where I'm from. We do have a homeless issue. We do have crime issues in Philadelphia, but crime is certainly down there.
I think it depends in places like Chicago where you see this fight going on time and time again, where crime is rampant in the city of Chicago. I think they should probably consider it.
PHILLIP: But should they just yield to the federal government and to troops?
KEITH BOYKIN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE: No. I live in Los Angeles and we didn't invite federal troops to come in. Donald Trump just sent them in, the same way he's trying to do in Baltimore and Chicago. And even though D.C. is different, D.C. didn't ask for this either. I lived in D.C. I've lived in Chicago, L.A., New York. I've lived in a lot of big cities. I've never really felt unsafe walking through Union Station.
And maybe it's different. Maybe I'm different from you or something. I think the idea that having National Guard troops, armed men and women standing around, is threatening to me as a black man. It doesn't make me feel safer. It makes me feel less safe. It makes me feel uncomfortable. And, quite honestly, it's unsustainable. You can't continue to have National Guard troops or federal troops standing outside federal buildings or local city buildings for a continued period of time and expect people to feel safe like that. That's the reason why tourism is down.
[22:05:00]
It's not a productive method to solve crime.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, listen, you know, I just came from out of the country. Tourism is down for all over the United States. I'm from South Florida, I'm from Miami. They are hurting terribly as well. Tourism is down because people from across the world are seeing the way brown people are treated in America, are seeing the persecution of immigrants and Latinos, are hearing about the civil rights violations, are hearing about the difficulties in getting visas, the penalties, and they just don't want to come to America, people who used to come to America a lot for shopping, for tourism to go to Washington, to go to Disney World, are not coming to America.
We have had now tens of billions of dollars of loss of tourism revenue, and it's part of what we're seeing in this economy.
KAT ABUGHAZALEH (D), ILLINOIS CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: I want to talk about something that's happening like right now, though. I'm running for Congress in Chicago. We have our -- Trump has set his sights on Chicago. People are preparing for an invasion by federal troops, by the federal government in Chicago, and we're already seeing this with ICE.
This is scary. Crime is down. And if we actually want to address crime, we would address meeting people's material needs.
The other week, or last weekend, I was at the Broadview facility, which is this detention center where ICE is basing most of its operations. And they are detaining pregnant women and grandmothers. It's supposed to be a processing facility where people only stay for 12 hours at a time, but that's not the case. So, people are staying there without beds, without hygienic products. They are sleeping on concrete.
Last Friday morning, we were out there protesting, we were singing songs, holding signs. I was knitting. And these ICE agents -- I bring my knitting in places.
PHILLIP: Okay.
ABUGHAZALEH: So, ICE -- hold on. Hold on. These ICE agents are terrorizing our community. They're going in with masks because they're cowards. They're boarding up their windows for peaceful protesters. And I encourage anyone in Illinois watching this to join us at 1930 Beach Street this Friday at 7:00 A.M.
CAROLINE DOWNEY, COLUMNIST, NATIONAL REVIEW: What you said is something that's very troubling. It's been debunked extensively. I've been seeing a lot of discourse online about this, this idea that poverty somehow drives violent crime. We're seeing this now in the wake of the horrific tragedy against that poor Ukrainian woman in North Carolina.
The studies are very clear on this. Poverty does not drive violent crime because if you apply social services and income transfer programs, minimal impact on violent crime. So, really, it has something to do with the fact that a lot of these blue cities are extremely accommodative of criminals and deinstitutionalization.
BOYKIN: First of all, time out. What research are you talking about? All the research that I've seen shows that socioeconomic factors do contribute to crime. If you want to reduce crime permanently, you don't just send in troops and police officers. You give people jobs and healthcare, and mental healthcare services and substance abuse treatments, and affordable housing. Those things --
DOWNEY: I hear you on those substance abuse treatments.
BOYKIN: Those things -- it's not just one thing. It's not just poverty. It's a combination of different factors that contribute to stability in communities that discourage crime in North Carolina. You can't say that's not true. I want to see what data you're --
(CROSSTALKS)
DOWNEY: No. Unfortunately, when income transfer programs are applied to low income communities, there is a --
PHILLIP: What do you mean by income transfer programs?
DOWNEY: As in like giving them resources to fix the fact that they are poor because, for saying that poverty --
ABUGHAZALEH: Chicago has had. You're about talking like welfare? What are you saying?
DOWNEY: Yes, like stipends of that nature to appease, or to basically fix their --
BOYKIN: Because it's not just about giving somebody money. You know, look, if I grew up in a community where I don't have a family that has the same educational background as you do, they don't have the same healthcare access that you do, they don't have the same access to schools that you do. Just because you give me some money, that's not going to solve the problem. I'm still going to have structural inequities that have to be dealt with. All those things had to be resolved.
If you could just send more cops into a community and solve crime, then New York City would be one of the safest places in America, even though it is one of the safest places in America before that. But --
DOWNEY: But New York City doesn't have enough.
BOYKIN: But New York City has 40,000 police officers, more than any other city in country.
DOWNEY: And they're overwhelmed and they're being asked to do things that are not their duties, to do things like responding to mental health calls.
PHILLIP: Well, I think that --
BOYKIN: And I agree with you on that.
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. I mean, this is actually -- you're actually making an argument that many liberals make, including one of the people running for mayor of New York, which is that police officers shouldn't be responding to mental health calls.
BOYKIN: Exactly.
PHILLIP: In fact, in the case of that guy who murdered that young woman, when he was arrested for that offense in January for calling 911, the police came and said, we're not equipped to deal with this. You have a -- this is a medical issue.
And so a lot of liberals have been accused of appeasing crime by saying, actually, maybe cops shouldn't be answering those calls. Maybe there should be people who actually have expertise in mental health who should be answering those calls.
[22:10:03]
DOWNEY: Or we bring back institutionalization, which there's been a taboo and a stigma on it for a long time.
PHILLIP: Who's going to call? Who's going to take the call, Caroline?
DOWNEY: Honestly, I'm not sure who's going to take the call, but I do know that they should go to institutions.
PHILLIP: I think that's my point is that where they go after the call is made is a whole other story.
NAVARRO: You're going to fund the institutions where Trump is cutting funds for all of these thihngs.
ABUGHAZALEH: Let's talk about this executive order with institutionalization where it essentially says anyone that's homeless or deemed mentally ill by the state can be institutionalized. First off, Trump is cutting almost every single service that would go to actually getting people mental health services or medical care. Second, that means that anyone could be deemed unhoused or mentally ill and thrown wherever Trump or an administration thinks they belong.
SCHULTZ: What programs have been shut down in Chicago?
ABUGHAZALEH: There's actually a lot.
PHILLIP: Kat, let me ask you a question about that, though. If someone is in fact homeless or mentally ill, what do you think should happen to them?
ABUGHAZALEH: We actually -- in my campaign office, we use it as a mutual aid hub. So, we have a lot of food and water, clothes hygiene products that people can access at any time. We actually work a lot with homeless people and we connect them with resources in our community. There are tons of groups in every major city, but especially in Chicago, that are looking for direct action. The Niles Township --
PHILLIP: But you recognize --
NAVARRO: Mentally ill (INAUDIBLE), they're the same thing.
ABUGHAZALEH: No, but one exacerbates the other. And so we --
PHILLIP: Sure. Kat, hold on, but you have to acknowledge that there are some people who do need a long-term care and they need wraparound services, not just, you know, piecemeal stuff. And I think one of the discussions that we've had earlier this week is that one of the failures that we have is that we have not figured out how to provide -- actually provide that kind of care. That, you know, if someone is actually seriously mentally ill, maybe on the verge of violence, where do they go?
ABUGHAZALEH: We're unwilling to accept --
DOWNEY: For North Carolina, not on the verge of violence, actually demonstrated violence in the past and nobody flagged it. Actually, the police to your point, said, we're going to refer you to more resources, and that went nowhere. So, there were multiple --
PHILLIP: What do you mean nobody flagged it? He served time for his violent offenses in the past.
DOWNEY: Not for his schizophrenia.
BOYKIN: That's not a crime.
DOWNEY: No, I know. But I'm saying that that was compounding this entire issue the fact that he lashed out violently on that woman.
PHILLIP: I know. I'm just saying he did actually serve time for the violent offenses that he committed.
DOWNEY: But he was a career criminal, a repeat offender who was let back onto our streets despite a really bad criminal record that suggests he should have been locked away for life because he was threatening the public. He was a menace to society.
PHILLIP: He should have been -- I'm sorry, he should have been locked away for life for what now?
BOYKIN: Schizophrenia.
DOWNEY: He should have -- schizophrenia.
PHILLIP: You want him to --
BOYKIN: You actually said that. I can't believe you actually said that. Somebody should be locked away in jail forever for schizophrenia. Did you really say that?
DOWNEY: Isolated in an institution.
PHILLIP: Is this actually --
(CROSSTALKS)
DOWNEY: What you're saying on a second is that this man should have been roaming streets. Is that your position?
BOYKIN: I'm saying that you don't lock people in prison for schizophrenia.
DOWNEY: An institution.
BOYKIN: Well, what kind of Institutions, in terms of mental health care services?
DOWNEY: Yes.
BOYKIN: If you're talking about providing wraparound, full wraparound services for people, I understand that. But at some point, you know, people do get out when they have been treated and rehabilitated.
DOWNEY: True, but that didn't happen here. He didn't go to an institution at all.
BOYKIN: Yes, but you're advocating --
(CROSSTALKS)
NAVARRO: There's thousands and thousands of people in America, more than, you know, tens, hundreds of thousands who have been diagnosed with schizophrenia that are walking around and that are leading fairly normal lives because they are under treatment.
DOWNEY: A lot of people who are mentally ill --
NAVARRO: So, are we going to lock up everybody with schizophrenia for life?
DOWNEY: He demonstrated violent proclivities repeatedly.
ABUGHAZALEH: You said he should be locked away for life for schizophrenia. That is what you said.
DOWNEY: He should be institutionalized, yes. And if you're saying he should not, you are saying that young women like you and me are basically just -- we are lambs into the slaughter. You go on public transportation in this city. That could happen to any single one of us.
ABUGHAZALEH: I use public transit constantly. That is completely unhinged, frankly. People shouldn't be locked away for mental illness. They should be treated for it.
DOWNEY: In an institution, yes.
ABUGHAZALEH: For life?
(CROSSTALKS)
DOWNEY: As long as they're a liability to the public safety, absolutely, absolutely.
PHILLIP: All right. We're going to leave it. We're going to leave it there because I don't think we can fully unpack this entire conversation, but to be continued.
Next, more on our breaking news, a federal judge just blocked Donald Trump from firing the governor of the Federal Reserve. Another guest is going to join us at our table.
Plus, did the Trump administration commit a war crime with their strike in international waters? At least one Republican senator is raising that possibility, and he is furious about it. We'll debate that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, did Donald Trump inherit a weaker economy than everyone thought while a revised labor report shows that the economy added nearly a million fewer jobs than initially estimated for that year ending in March?
Now, that is the biggest revision since 2009. Jamie Dimon says that this should serve as yet another warning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMIE DIMON, CEO, JPMORGAN CHASE: The economy's weakening. You know, whether that is in on way to recession or just weakening, I don't know, and that just confirms what we already thought kind of.
That's a big revision. Consumers tend to react to that. So, the consumers weaken, commerce, weaken, you know, corporate profits go up, and there's a lot of different factors in the economy right now. It's hard to figure out what it all means.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Joining us at the table is Natasha Sarin. She's a professor at Yale Law School and the president of The Budget Lab at Yale.
[22:20:03]
And, Natasha, there is some truth to the statements coming from the White House that they did inherit a weaker economy than we originally thought. I don't know that that justifies what they did next, which is then throw tariffs into the mix. But in this moment, are we misjudging where we are economically and is it potentially a much worse place than we originally thought?
NATASHA SARIN, PROFESSOR, YALE LAW SCHOOL: You know, we have known for quite some time that we have been with a labor market that is weakening. It's true that we saw a downward revision of about 900,000 jobs today, but what we also know is approximately this time last year, we had a downward revision of about 800,000 jobs. And so what we know is that the labor market has been cooling for quite some time.
The thing that's important to understand here is, you know, I understand there's an impulse to be thinking about is this. President Biden, is this President Trump? How do we think about the economy going forward? Only one of those two people is president at the moment, and that's President Trump.
And looking at this economic data, it is hard to argue why in a world with a labor market that is clearly weakening, what makes sense to do is to pursue an economic policy agenda. That means that we have the most inflationary policies of our lifetimes, that we have a labor market that's going to have 500,000 fewer jobs as a result of these tariffs. It's just like hard for me to look at this data and make that type of an economic argument.
PHILLIP: But the White House, Jim, is also using this as a way to continue to attack the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But as Natasha just pointed out, it's not the first time that there's been a massive revision almost at this magnitude, not quite at this magnitude, but almost. There was a huge one in 2009, and then there was another one just last year, so 818,000 fewer jobs last year in 2024, and in 2010, they reported 900,000 fewer jobs. So, it's not actually unusual, nor is it new for there to be revisions of this size.
SCHULTZ: It's 2025. We should be looking at a new model for this. The birth rate and death rate of businesses coupled with kind of the unemployment tax -- unemployment compensation tax rates in the states and applications for unemployment compensation. When you look at those, sometimes they file for -- those are filed late. I just think that we have to build a better model here and, you know, to be looking at making improvements to the Bureau of Labor Statistics so that we have more certainty. It's certainly not a bad thing.
And as, you know, I think if we would've had more certainty, the Fed probably would've acted earlier. I think they're going to -- they're probably going to knock it down a quarter. I think they should probably knock it down a half. I think that would be good for mortgage rates. When you see the home ownership is declining because people can't afford mortgages at this point in time. And that'll also help businesses, but it'll really home ownership.
So, I think as we're looking at this, it all -- you have to have accurate information and then you have to use that information to make decisions. The Fed needed more accurate information. We probably wouldn't be in the position we are now.
SARIN: So, Jim, I like so deeply agree with you that actually it's been very hard in this economy to be able to have a true understanding of what birth rates and death rates are looking like from an economic perspective. And the reason for that is that the way that the BLS tends to model that type of information, we've known for many years that that model needs updating and revising.
The thing that's true there is that when you know that you need a -- you have to update and revise your model and start to better understand the way that the labor market is evolving, the way you do that is by investing in the agency and making it capable of doing that type of work. And, in fact, that's exactly the kind of structure that existed when the Trump administration walked in and it's one of the first things they disbanded, an attempt to make the economic data better, not worse.
SCHULTZ: There was an investment, but there was no change.
PHILLIP: Hold on. This is what the Journal says about the staffing at the BLS. This year, a federal hiring freeze prevented BLS from replacing staff who leave a particular burden on the data collection for the inflation report, which typically relies on hundreds of workers who visit, I mean, literally going to visit these businesses around the country to check prices and that the shortfalls in staffing have forced BLS to stop collecting prices in several cities, Lincoln, Nebraska, Provo, Utah, Buffalo. In the rest of the country, the Bureau is also missing an average of about 15 percent of the price data that it usually collects.
I mean, this is the -- I mean, Trump could fix this tomorrow by staffing and funding the agency that he wants to collect better data.
DOWNEY: I fully agree with you that data collection is an essential government function through the BLS. We should be investing in the BLS, not stripping it of resources. And to your point, downward revisions are unfortunately part and parcel to this collection partially because of that, but also because the business reporting fell off a cliff during COVID, and it hasn't recovered since. So, I think we need to improve how businesses are reporting the data to the BLS in order to get more accurate numbers so that economic actors can actually, you know, work with accuracy.
[22:25:08]
That being said, the macroeconomic picture here, you know, this is a warning sign, for sure, for the job market. And I'm a young professional. I know anecdotally that young professionals are worried right now. It's a bizarre job market. But, you know, in inflation is still stable. Our grocery prices not -- you know, are they as higher than we want them to be? Yes. But consumer spending is still pretty high. So, as much as my friends are worried about jobs, we're also spending a lot.
NAVARRO: Vegetables are up 40 percent. I mean, everybody is complaining about the price of groceries. You know, you've got some very dramatic things that have happened in America since Trump has been president that are affecting the economy. We have lost -- I've seen figures as high as $23 billion in loss of tourism. There's not a Canadian that's coming to this country. We have tariffs, which have, you know, you feel the uncertainty everywhere because of these tariffs. You see the extra charges. Small businesses are incredibly impacted.
You have what's happening on the immigration front. All of those immigrants on TPS, all of those immigrants that are getting report deported, well, they were spending money here. They had jobs. They were consuming. They were eating at restaurants. They were paying rent or paying mortgage and car payments.
PHILLIP: And there is some indication that some of this is possibly related to the crackdown in immigration, plus a bunch of other factors.
But I want to just note there's some breaking news tonight that a judge has now blocked Trump's effort to fire the Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, saying that she is substantially likely to prevail in her challenge of Trump's attempt to fire her. This is going to continue as a legal fight, but it's just interesting to me that Trump did all of this, fired the BLS chair, you know, tried to fire a Federal Reserve governor just to get an interest rate drop. And that might happen anyway because -- not because the economy is so strong but because the economy might be weaker than he even thought.
SCHULTZ: So, as it relates to the fed to Governor Cook, there are some serious allegations there that those types of allegations always call into the question the credibility of that organization. But on the other side of it, you have to be very careful about being too hasty about moving her along. And I think that's for the same reason.
Politicization of that organization will just create more instability. So, you have to be very careful about how you approach dismissing Fed governors, you know, based upon allegations. But, again, serious.
NAVARRO: When you're speaking about allegations, are you talking about the mortgage?
PHILLIP: Yes, that's what's we're talking about. I mean, and, look, the mortgage allegations are just that. And I think that's a huge part of her challenge is that they haven't proven anything. They haven't even charged her. And there are several cabinet members of Trump's that are accused of, at least on paper, doing the same thing.
NAVARRO: Trump was accused of lying in his backlogs (ph). I mean, it is the height of hypocrisy.
BOYKIN: Well, well the other thing I just want to say too is that, that this judge actually did Trump a big favor, because getting rid of the Federal Reserve chair of Federal Reserve appointee Lisa Cook by this process was a horrible thing for Trump because it undermines confidence in the Fed. Just like firing the BLS director undermines confidence in the statistics from the Labor Department.
The one thing that Trump has done is -- grave damage has done to institutions that he's question -- he's forced people to question the credibility of all the evidence that comes from the government now, whether it's scientific data or labor statistics or Federal Reserve data. Nobody believes anything. This is what happened during COVID when people were afraid to use the COVID vaccine at first because they thought COVID -- that Trump was doing something to gin up the process.
SCHULTZ: I think this one's different than the labor statistic issue. The labor statistic issue is an issue.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Yes. But I will say, again, Trump has accused -- it's not -- it would be one thing. I think you are totally right. Everybody at the table agrees there are some data collection issues, but the problem is that Trump is saying that this is because Biden appointees hate him, and that's not the reason that we have problems with data collection at the BLS. And that's where the politics starts to infect the process and erode trust and all of these institutions more.
To be continued on this story that we keep following. Natasha Sarin, thank you very much for joining us.
Ahead, is socialism catching on among New Yorkers? A surprising poll result as the city's elites are said to be freaking out.
Plus, a Republican senator is livid, accusing the Trump administration of potentially committing a war crime. We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:34:22]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a heated debate is erupting over accusations that the Trump administration may have committed a war crime. It's all over that unprecedented strike on a boat in international waters that killed 11 people. The White House says that they were a Venezuelan gang, bringing drugs into the U.S., but so far there has been no evidence publicly provided. And they canceled briefings to Congress about the strike.
So, when pressed about the legal justification for this, there has been a collective shrug from the Trump administration. When a critic said killing civilians of another country without due process is a war crime, the vice president, J.D. Vance, says he doesn't give a (EXPLICIT).
[22:35:01]
Senator Rand Paul does, and he wants answers.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R) KENTUCKY: If he's already been killed, shouldn't somebody say who you were and what the evidence was that you were a drug dealer and what is the evidence that you were coming to America? These are important questions. It would mean havoc -- is the new Coast Guard policy off of Miami to shoot and ask questions later.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Kat is back with us at the table. But Jim, I want to ask you since as an attorney, you might have a view on this. I mean, Rand Paul seems to be raising a legitimate question. I mean, is the policy going to be just a shoot and then we just shrug our shoulders about who was and whether they actually were doing the thing that they were accused of?
SCHULTZ: Look, it's well within the province of Article two, Powers for the President, if it's in the interest of country, to take that action short of war where you need congressional approval. Secondly, there's a U.N. convention that deals with this issue. It's called the Law of the Sea. We didn't sign on to that particular convention as a country.
Thirdly, you have last year 100,000 people dying from fentanyl -- from fentanyl coming into this country. And if an -- interdiction efforts aren't working. So, if these folks are bringing drugs into this country on fast boats and they've been labeled a terrorist organization, and if the intelligent bears out that they are part of a terrorist organization -- it's a terrorist organization, yes, well within their province to do that.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It is doing a lot of work there, but can I go back to what you, the first thing you said. You said it's well within the President's article to Paris to do what exactly?
SCHULTZ: To make that strike, if it's in the interest of the United -- if he deems it to be in the interest of the United States --
UNKNOWN: Okay, all right.
SCHULTZ: -- a hundred percent with his province to do so.
BOYKIN: So, if Joe Biden decided that he wanted to take out some random ship somewhere in the international waters, because he decided there were some people who were doing something that he didn't agree with, would you support that in that case?
SCHULTZ: Has that not happened in the past where we've had elegant contempt where President has made a decision --
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: Yeah, I'm talking about civilians. I'm not talking about combat - combatants. I'm talking about civilians.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: No, these are terrorists.
BOYKIN: No, we don't know that. That's the point.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: You don't know that.
BOYKIN: Well, is there's -- anybody that know that?
SCHULTZ: You know that.
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: But you believe it?
SCHULTZ: But if our intelligence officials are telling us that they are terrorists, that they're bringing drugs in this country --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Is guess that's the --
SCHULTZ: I said that if it bears out that way --
PHILLIP: Well, hold on.
SCHULTZ: -- it's well within his province.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well, they've said nothing. They haven't said anything publicly. They haven't said anything to Congress. Don't you think congress should be the next person, maybe not the first but the next entity to be briefed. Why did they cancel that briefing? That's why Rand Paul's so upset.
ABUGHAZALEH: Yeah, I think that's kind of what Congress is supposed to do is be involved in these kinds of decisions. And like the party of law and order doesn't seem to give a damn about international or domestic law. And unfortunately, it looks like this could be the first --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: What international law was violated? What international law was violated?
ABUGHAZALEH: Firing on civilian boat in international waters.
SCHULTZ: Can you name the law that was violated? Please tell me.
(CROSSTALK)
ABUGHAZALEH: Don't you think firing on a --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Please name the --
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: I'm a lawyer too. What does that mean to name the law?
SCHULTZ: What law was broken? (CROSSTALK)
ABUGHAZALEH: Ok, wait. Real quick, real quick guys.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second, Kat. Hold on a second.
BOYKIN: You don't have the right to kill civilians.
ABUGHAZALEH: It feels like this is just the first of actions Trump will take against Venezuela. And I think what's really, really scary here is that Republicans seem like they are acting as if they don't have another election, because these are unpopular. War is unpopular. Immigration --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: It's unpopular to wipe out drugs being brought into country that killed 109,000 U.S. citizens?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Wait a second, guys. Let me let Ana have a word.
NAVARRO: Okay. A few things. Since schizophrenia seems to be the word of the night, the Trump policy towards Venezuela has been politically schizophrenic. When Trump came to power, Maduro was in the ropes. He was on the ropes. The entire world was rejecting him because he was trying to remain in power through stealing an election. Sound familiar?
Donald Trump sent his special envoy, Rick Grenell, to negotiate with Maduro, legitimizing him, treating him like the president of the country, negotiated hostage releases with him, negotiated Chevron operations with him, basically strengthening Maduro. The people in Miami, where there's a lot of Venezuelan Americans and Nicaraguan Americans and Cuban Americans who do give a (EXPLICIT) about policy towards Venezuela, were rather pissed off.
And I am sure the three Cuban American congress people from Miami have been screaming bloody murder at the White House because they are getting a lot of flak in my city for the way that Donald Trump has been conducting policy towards Venezuela. So, I think a lot of this is performative.
I think a lot of this is, one, you distract from the Epstein shark that's biting him. Two, You give, you throw a bone to the Venezuelan community and the exiled community, the anti-communist community. Listen, Nicolas Maduro is a very bad guy.
[22:40:00]
His government, he had been indicted for drug trafficking. I grew up in Miami in 1980s, okay? So, I'm a "Cocaine Cowboys", "Miami Vice". So if you think taking out a boat with 11 minions, assuming they were drug traffickers, or assuming they were Tren de Aragua, which is an assumption because we have seen no evidence proving that.
If you think taking out minions does anything to decrease drug trade, I urge you to go watch "Narcos". These people are expendable and they could have provided if captured information that may have led to the big fish.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well, let me just, I mean, I think we need to one more step back because we don't actually even know and this is what Rand Paul pointed out in a recent interview, we don't actually even know for sure that that boat was headed toward us versus somewhere else. Listen.
NAVARRO: That's right.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PAUL: This outboard boat was 2700 miles. How do we know it was coming to the U.S.? So they may be selling drugs in Trinidad.
(CROSSTALK)
WILL CAIN, "THE WILL CAIN SHOW" HOST: Well, we are the in -- we are the in-destination point for -- of whatever percentage of drugs coming out of Central or South America.
PAUL: Maybe, you don't think anybody in the Caribbean's using drugs? What if they're selling the drugs in Trinidad?
CAIN: Well, they always say --
(CROSSTALK)
PAUL: Are we now the police for Trinidad? Are we going to blow up every boat? It's just insane. You can't blow up if you think they have drugs on.
(CROSSTALK)
CAIN: What I want to say, Senator, is, I always get this --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I mean, he's asking another legitimate question here. Even if it was right to do it, maybe he has a power to, are we going to blow up every boat in the Caribbean that might be carrying drugs, maybe to us, but maybe to any of the many other countries in the Caribbean?
DOWNEY: Well, and Rand Paul is obviously a foreign policy restrictionist in the sense that he does advocate for restraint. And I think that is very much in -- that's popular with the MAGA base usually. And I think he's afraid that this will escalate to something much more like a hot war. I do think that Trump is absolutely justified to say that we are at war with the drug cartels. But to Ana's point, toppling one boat, the henchmen of the drug
smugglers is not going to exactly tackle the hierarchy and the problem of the Nicolas Maduro regime sponsoring narco terrorism, which is a much more deep seated issue. But Trump is diagnosing the heart of the problem, which is the demand for drugs in the United States is going nowhere. We are --
(CROSSTALK)
ABUGHAZALEH: How exactly --
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: -- addicted to drugs in this country --
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: So, the one thing -- the one -- no, it doesn't.
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: -- the demand?
DOWNEY: He's going after the supply.
BOYKIN: But how does that -- how does going after stop the demand? You say the heart of the problem is demand. How does -- how does --
DOWNEY: No, no.
BOYKIN: -- killing 11 people on a boat stop the demand?
DOWNEY: Sorry. No, I was saying that demand is going nowhere.
BOYKIN: Okay.
DOWNEY: There is -- there is a high demand for drugs and unfortunately, this country, we're --
BOYKIN: But that's point. You said that's the heart of the problem.
DOWNEY: -- very much addicted to drugs.
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: No, I said the heart of the problem is that it's a supply and demand calculus.
BOYKIN: Okay.
DOWNEY: So supply has to be targeted and that is what he's doing.
ABUGHAZALEH: But even with the conversation here, this is a war crime and if they're willing to do it to a random boat in the Caribbean, what will they do to us? This isn't working.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: You, too, said this is a war crime. You have no facts to support that. None whatsoever. No facts to support it.
(CROSSTALK)
ABUGHAZALEH: You have no facts to say these are terrorists -- this is it -- like, I don't understand how you think this is appropriate.
BOYKIN: Killing --
SCHULTZ: And please tell me -- this isn't a war crime.
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: Killing 11 civilians with no evidence that they've done anything wrong. That makes the president judge, jury, and executioner. If I'm the president of States, I don't get to decide that I get to kill 11 civilians.
(CROSSTALK)
ABUGHAZALEH: Isn't that a problem that the facts have come out and you're saying, they deserve to die? That's a war crime.
NAVARRO: And you know another aspect of this schizophrenic Trump policy towards Venezuela? At the same time that he's got navy boats parked off the coast of Venezuela and is making noises of war and is bombing, you know, taking out eleven civilians in a drug bonus --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Terrorists.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARO: -- whatever -- whatever.
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: Why do you keep saying terrorists? You don't know that.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: But at the same time --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Our government said they were terrorists.
BOYKIN: Do you believe everything the government says?
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Let me -- listen. Let me finish my point.
SCHULTZ: But you're telling me I should believe everything --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: At the same time that he's doing all of that against Venezuela, again for performative reasons, in my opinion, he is ending TPS -- Temporary Protective Status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who came to this country fleeing Nicolas Maduro and his dictatorship. So, which is it?
Is Venezuela so normal now that these people can return? They don't need Temporary Protective Status and asylum in the United States? Or is Venezuela so bad that we got to go to war with them?
BOYKIN: Schizophrenia.
NAVARRO: You got to pick one.
PHILLIP: So Jim, you keep saying that it's not a war crime. But let me just -- let's just disentangle this for a second. We don't know whether they were civilians or not, but if they were civilians, would it be legal for the president to order a military strike against them?
SCHULTZ: Probably not, but it's -- probably not. But okay --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay, so, I think that's the point that Kat --
(CROSSTALK)
ABUGHAZALEH: Okay, if the government decides --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: You're making the point. But at the end of the day, will the President be held accountable?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I think --
SCHULTZ: Will the President be held accountable about under any criminal penalty? Probably not, either.
PHILLIP: I just want to make sure that we're -- I don't want us to get confused about -- hold on a second. You're making a different point here. I don't want us to get confused because what Kat is saying is that these people were civilians and we don't know whether they were or not -
[22:45:00]
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: I'm sure they were boy scouts just coming in and just falling across -- (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- you're agreeing that would be illegal. You're also -- I just also want to underscore what you also just said because it's just -
(CROSSTALK)
ABUGHAZALEH: Due process. They are non- U.S. citizens.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Kat, just one second.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Jim, I just want to underscore what you also just said, which is that even if it was illegal, you're suggesting that it doesn't matter because there's no accountability. Is that your position?
SCHULTZ: No, I said no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that even if it were illegal, it's still within, you know, they're still given this recent immunity case that just came along. I don't believe there's any no problem. There's no process --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Even if -- even if it was illegal, there's no accountability. So, it doesn't matter.
SCHULTZ: I didn't say it didn't matter. I just said there's no -- there's no prosecutable offense.
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: What happened to the rule of law?
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: The Supreme Court has found that that's -- it's non- justiciable on those instances.
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: I think this is dangerous step toward authoritarianism. The idea that we have a president, you give any president, I don't care if it's Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, or Donald Trump, the president just, the right to just go --
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: Wait.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: - If this bears out a terrorist organization, do you agree with my point?
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: No, because I still think there's a process to go about doing it.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: -- No, okay. All right, because we should give due process to terrorist organizations.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All right. I just want to --
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: I think it's just wrong to give any president of any party the right to go and kill people in international waters who are not posing any threat to the United States --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: No, I was not advocating for that.
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: -- and not providing any evidence -- not providing any evidence that they do.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: I was just merely stating what the law is.
BOYKIN: That to me is a danger. And we're just supposed to trust Donald Trump. It's not like trusting the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as you mentioned, because that's a non-partisan agency. Donald Trump is a political actor, and whether it's Democrat or a Republican, we don't just trust the president --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I just think that there's question of --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: That's a non-political agency.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: You know, you've decided that these drug cartels are terrorists and maybe they're enemy combatants. But I think there's a real question about whether that's a designation that can just be made out of the mouth of the President of the United States. Or whether other entities like Congress have to step in and say, actually --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: They don't.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well, look.
SCHULTZ: The law doesn't call for it.
PHILLIP: So, Trump is literally saying we are at war with an entity that may or may not be --
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: We don't know that. We don't know that.
SCHULTZ: Yeah. Article two of the constitution says he can do that.
(CROSSTALK)
BOYKIN: Article one of the constitution says Congress can declare war.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on, hold on, Jim. I don't want to say it.
SCHULTZ: Right, this is not a war issue.
PHILLIP: You guys are having a sad conversation. Just one second, okay? The issue here is whether or not we even can characterize these cartels. We don't, first of all, we don't know if they were in a cartel.
We don't know if we can characterize those cartels as enemy combatants. Even Trump's own intelligence agencies have called into question whether or not there is an actual -- he's claimed that there's an invasion by these cartels. They questioned that intelligence within his own administration. So then, he's going to say we're at war with them?
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: And let's remember, this is the same administration that rounded up a bunch of Venezuelans because they had tattoos of their mother or their father on their wrist, sent them to a gulag, a hell hole in El Salvador, and then when without any evidence that they were tied to gangs, and then when the press and others began investigating, most of them had no criminal activity and had no ties to Tren de Aragua. So, there is reason to be skeptical and question what this administration --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: Should always question what government says.
(CROSSTALK) UNKNOWN: I think --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHULTZ: But I said, if it bears a terrorist organization, then I have no problem.
(CROSSTALK)
DOWNEY: Congressional input is probably going to be a good idea if this escalates further. That being said, the astronomical death toll from the illegal drug trade is what's driving this distinction. And I mean, no one at this table should tolerate that death toll.
I mean, young people like my age are dying because of illegal drugs that have been trafficked over our border. There should be no excuse for that. And a lot of these cartels and smugglers are violent. And so, yes, the Trump administration, they took the prerogative to say they're a terrorist organization and that we should combat them as such.
NAVARRO: Most of those drugs are coming through the Pacific canals -- the Pacific pathway, and they're not coming from Venezuela.
DOWNEY: Well, cocaine --
NAVARRO: Venezuela is a bad, bad actor.
DOWNEY: Yeah.
NAVARRO: But that's not where most of the drugs that are coming to the United States are coming through.
PHILLIP: And those -- and a lot of drugs are being smuggled by Americans across the border, so that's another factor, too. Everyone, thank you very much for all of that. Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to bombard Ukraine, and if you ask President Trump about it, he's just not happy. We'll show you the trend, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:54:05]
PHILLIP: When it comes to Russia's Vladimir Putin, for the better part of a year, Donald Trump has insisted that he is not exactly thrilled.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I didn't like last night. I was not happy with it. Missiles were fired and I wasn't happy with it. I'm not happy with what Putin's doing. I'm very disappointed with the conversation I had today with President Putin, and I'm very disappointed. I was not happy with the conversation. I've been sort of letting people know I'm not happy about what's going on.
I am very disappointed with President Putin. I'm not happy about it, and I'm not happy about anything having to do with that war. I'm not happy about anything about that war. Nothing. Not happy at all. We'll see what happens, but I'm very disappointed in President Putin. I am not thrilled with what's happening there. I am not happy with them. I'm not happy with anything having to do with that war.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:55:00]
PHILLIP: That's been the line for months, but despite that, Putin was awarded a trip to the United States, a literal red carpet rollout, and still no new direct sanctions or consequences that Trump's been teasing and threatening over and over again, deadline after deadline. So, for as unhappy as Trump claims he is, he seems content with kicking the blues down the road. We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
