Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Documents Show Suspect Told Parents That Kirk Spreads Too Much Hate; Kirk Suspect Faces Aggravated Murder Charge, Death Penalty; Bondi Sparks Backlash After Saying She'll Target Hate Speech; Trump Suggests Negative Media Coverage Of Him Could Be Considered Hate Speech; Conservatives Argue Harsh Rhetoric And Name-Calling Mostly Comes From The Left. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired September 16, 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 ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, confessions of a killer.
JEFF GRAY, UTAH COUNTY ATTORNEY: Quote, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it.
PHILLIP: The alleged assassin is charged as we learn his motive, his radicalization, and his politically divided home.
Plus, the left accuses the right of cherry-picking violence to fit a narrative.
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO (D-PA): Doing that only further divides us.
PHILLIP: Also, the podcast cabinet stirs the pot.
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: You are a political buffoon.
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.
PHILLIP: Trump officials find themselves on defense facing flack from inside the MAGA House.
And on the heels of his lawsuit against the Times, Donald Trump suggests coverage critical of him is prosecutable.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It's hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Montel Williams. Brianna Lyman, Neera Tanden and Elie Honig.
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, understanding why. Tonight we're getting our clearest indication yet of a motive behind the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Tyler Robinson appeared in court tonight for the first time since the attack where he faced several charges, including aggravated murder.
Now, prosecutors say that they plan to seek the death penalty in this case, and officials also released new evidence against him, including a series of text messages where he confessed to his roommate and trans partner. Court documents show that the suspect left his partner a note that read, quote, I had the opportunity to take out Charlie Kirk, and I'm going to take it. In another exchange, the roommate asks, you weren't the one who did it, right? To which Robinson responds, quote, I am, I'm sorry. Now, later when Robinson's roommate asked why, the documents show that the suspect -- relied, quote, replied, quote, I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can't be negotiated out.
Now, before we get started, we want to note that CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig has a new book out today. It's called, When You Come at the King. Elie is in our fifth seat tonight.
Elie, I want to play really quickly something that Pam Bondi, the attorney general, said last night about this. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: Who killed Charlie, left wing radicals, and they will be held accountable, so will anyone in this country who commits a violent crime against anyone?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: She's saying that, but at the same time, we know who killed Charlie Kirk, and it's this man who, more or less confessed.
Now the federal government, it sounds like tonight from Todd Blanche, they're looking to see if there's a way they can try this federally and I'm curious what you think about that, but it seems pretty clear cut. What do you make of her saying they did it when we know who did it?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Right. I noticed the plural there, and I'm very interested to see. Is there anyone else involved? Could there be someone who's involved as a conspirator, as an aid or an abettor, I think we need to wait and see about that.
Now, today, we saw the Utah state charge, aggravated murder. I always try to be careful when we see an indictment because it's only one side of the story. But let me tell you, the proof in this case is beyond overwhelming. I mean, you have --
PHILLIP: It's in black and white ink, it seems. HONIG: Exactly. And you have written digital confession. So, this isn't like you have to call the roommate as a witness who says, well, we had a one-time a conversation. It's in writing. DNA hits, a motive, you have the confession to the family member. So, I think I'm not taking sides here when saying, thankfully, this is a very strong case.
But there's a really important question, will the feds be able to charge? Now, it's really important to understand, not every murder is going to be federally chargeable.
[22:05:02]
There has to be a federal hook. And I have been talking endlessly with John Miller and others about what could the federal hook be here. Sometimes if the firearm was illegal, that doesn't appear to be the case. If it's in furtherance of a racketeering, a gang or a mob family, does not appear to be the case.
I don't know that the hate crime statute kicks in because it has to be an act based on religious hatred. Political doesn't do it under the hate crime. It has to be religious. I've not seen, and I'm sure they're looking for this, I'm not seeing any evidence.
So, it's clear that DOJ wants to bring federal charges. It's clear they're working on it. I'm not entirely sure they're going to get there.
PHILLIP: Let me play more about what the prosecutors said. The Utah County attorney said about what was going on in Robinson's family, which, from our reporting, they are registered Republicans, pretty conservative. Listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAY: Robinson's mother explained that over the last year or so, Robinson had become more political and had started to lean more to the left.
This resulted in several discussions with family members, but especially between Robinson and his father who have very different political views.
Robinson, since Trump got into office, my dad has been pretty diehard MAGA.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Montel, the conflict started right in the house, it seemed.
MONTEL WILLIAMS, ACTIVIST AND FORMER TALK SHOW HOST: But you know what, I got to tell you, there's so much more that needs to be said. You read a couple of excerpts from some of his texts. One of his texts said, when asked, how long have you been thinking about this? A week and a half. It wasn't, I've been thinking about this for the last year and a half. He said, a week and a half. If we're going to believe what he said and other places in this text, why not believe that? PHILLIP: What does that say to you?
WILLIAMS: What it says to me is that I think we are -- there are people who are trying to pigeonhole this as a leftist thing and a right thing and what we're really talking about, hear me because I'm going to throw you when I say this. We're talking about a love torn child, a kid. This is probably his first real relationship, and somebody was disparaging the person that he loved. He sat on that building for 30 minutes before he took the shot. Why did he wait until the first word trans came up then he took the shot?
PHILLIP: You think he heard it? You could -- he could hear it?
WILLIAMS: I think he could hear it. I think he also -- I don't believe he was motivated politically. I think this was motivated emotionally. I think this was an emotionally studded (ph) person who literally, when I say it this way, just hear me, tried to defend his significant other, not trying to defend some ideology.
PHILLIP: But although I do think there -- I mean, there's clearly an ideological difference. That's why I played about what they said about the family. I mean, the ideological difference that he was reacting to wasn't just Charlie Kirk. It was also maybe his dad. I mean, his father was, according to him, MAGA. So, that conflict was there, clearly.
WILLIAMS: But this is a young man who's dating a person in transition. And I'm a conservative father and I question let's say my daughter brought home the first guy that she brought home. I question the guy that he brought home -- she brought home. Was the dad questioning him politically? Is this a political motivation or was this a psychological kind of thing?
NEERA TANDEN, DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: I guess. I don't know that we'll ever get into fully the minds of what happened here, but it is really horrible that Charlie Kirk was murdered by this person.
WILLIAMS: Absolutely.
TANDEN: Like full stop, end of sentence, horrifying, and whether he had, there are plenty of people who have conflicts with their parents who don't murder people. And, you know, I just think like we should all just acknowledge that it was a horrifying, terrible thing and he deserves punishment for what he did because he took the life of a person.
And, you know, I just think it's a little complicated to look back and, you know, say he has a conflict with his father, lots of these things happen and they don't result in just the end of a life of a father who had children.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Guys, guys, the evidence here is overwhelming. He said, Charlie Kirk, I can't stand this hate anymore, I'm going to take him out. The testimony from and the statements of his family, he had become more left wing. He etched the statements that are made by the left about Republicans and conservatives and Charlie Kirk fascist on the bullet casings.
WILLIAMS: He made a joke about it in his last text.
JENNINGS: Well, it doesn't sound like a joke to me because someone's dead and about to be buried. So, it doesn't sound like a joke to me.
So, I'm just telling you. There is an effort, there was an effort all weekend long on the left to try to make this guy sound like he was a conservative that failed. That was passed around all over the weekend. That has now failed. The evidence has now come out. He was motivated by hate. He was motivated by left wing radicalism. He got mixed up with some trans ideology in his life. We'll learn more about that, I'm sure, when more evidence and testimony comes out.
[22:10:00]
We are looking around the edges of this for something other than what's staring us in the face, left wing radicalism got this kid, he went up to a roof and he murdered our friend, and that's what happened.
PHILLIP: Let me just say, I don't think that anybody is disputing -- I mean, I'm certainly not disputing. It's written there that he had -- Montel, I think it's clearly political. You can't take politics out of it. But I think the question is, you know, when you take that and then you extrapolate from that and you say, as Pam Bondi said, left wing radicals killed Charlie Kirk, and then she says they will be held accountable, doesn't she have to actually produce evidence that there were other co-conspirators, that there was something organized rather than, first of all, saying that this is representative of all of the left wing, which it is not, and then suggesting that there's going to be DOJ action against unsaid individuals?
BRIANNA LYMAN, REPORTER, THE FEDERALIST: Well, I think it's representative of a large part of the left. And I say that because look at the reaction we have seen from the left. They are cheering, they are celebrating his death. You have outlets saying, Charlie Kirk shouldn't have died but he said some pretty hateful things as if they're on some moral high ground to say that.
PHILLIP: But I wonder, have you seen any evidence of any prominent mainstream Democrats doing what you just described, celebrating Charlie Kirk's death? Did anybody actually celebrating --
LYMAN: I probably can't think of the name. I saw it on Twitter yesterday.
PHILLIP: Okay. I know what you're talking, hold on. I know what you're talking about because I've seen it too. He did not. In fact, he started that tweet saying that Charlie Kirk should not have been killed. So, have you have any evidence of mainstream Democrat celebrating Charlie Kirk's murder?
LYMAN: It does not need to be a mainstream top dog Democrat when the majority of the comments online from the left have been celebratory or cheering on political murder majority. TANDEN : How do you know it's a majority?
LYMAN: A million likes on its tweet is a lot of people. That is not a fringe or outskirts.
TANDEN : There's like 7 billion people on social media today. Half a million people --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: People social media, by the way, are not even real people. So, I do think we have to kind of -- the internet is not --
JENNINGS: Can I ask though? Everybody here acknowledges that there have been thousands upon thousands of people, ordinary people who have taken to social media to celebrate this, yes or no?
PHILLIP: I don't know about that.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second. Hold on. I just think we should just -- there's -- we got to be factual about this, right?
JENNINGS: Yes.
PHILLIP: I don't think you know the scope. I don't know the scope. But I do think that we have to distinguish between random people in the world and something that is a dominant issue.
JENNINGS: Why? Because the person who shot Charlie Kirk was a random person in the world, was he not?
PHILLIP: Well, here's the thing. Here's the thing.
JENNINGS: That's the danger there. You dismissed the random people of the world. They have access to --
PHILLIP: There have been political assassinations in this country. There have been political assassinations in this country before, Scott. Wouldn't you agree? And they're all reprehensible. And in this country, do you believe that in those political assassinations in the 60s and the 70s and the 80s, assassination attempts, that there were no Americans who cheered that on?
I think the question is whether or not -- it's not whether or not it happens. The question is whether or not we need to place that at the very center of our political world right now and categorize half the people in the country according to those random people that we now just happen to see because of the internet.
HONIG: If I can, Pam Bondi needs to be a little more careful with what she says. And this is not her first time misspeaking, overspeaking as the attorney general of the United States. But let's focus on the county prosecutor in Utah. He has been an absolutely straight arrow on this case. He has played this case straight down the middle. He is not a political ideologue. And when he stands up behind the podium and says there's a political motive, I credit that, and that's relevant, by the way. He's not trying to score political points because he wants to be able to explain to the jury why, why.
So, I give that a lot of credit. I think that prosecutor has earned, as well as the governor of Utah, a lot of credibility for himself.
TANDEN: I think it is abundantly clear that this person had a politically political motive, and that is a terrible tragedy. And I think what, I don't know, most Americans are wondering is why we have politicians running to the T.V.s trying to score points on who did what and when. This is a terrible tragedy. I'm willing to say it was a terrible tragedy. I think it's horrific that someone did not like the politics of Charlie Kirk and decided to murder him, end of story.
PHILLIP: To your point about everybody having a come to Jesus moment on this, let me place out, Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican, who responding to just the rhetoric that's been flying around this past week. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. THOM TILLIS (R-NC): There is clearly a problem with some of the voices of the left, and I'm not necessarily saying any members of Congress, that need to tamp it down. Having said that, within 24 hours of Mr. Kirk's shooting, we had the guy that does the podcast for the War Room and another guy who's denied the Sandy Hook shootings, say we're at war.
[22:15:08]
I'm just saying that there are people out here on our side of the aisle that still need to look in the mirror.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I think what he's asking is, are we ramping this up or are we trying to turn it down?
LYMAN: I think it's easy for people who are not a conservative, and I know not everybody at this table is a conservative, but Charlie Kirk was murdered because he talked about God, family, country. Those are views that people like Scott and I hold dearly. If Charlie Kirk, a private citizen, can be targeted for those views, it makes us all feel like we have a target on our back.
So, it's easy for people who have constant security who are in high places and don't think they're ever going to be targeted to speak like this, but to the average conservative like myself, this is a scary time because one of our own was taken out.
And I think what people have to realize about left-wing violence is it's not some made up fantasy. There are three court cases going on today for assassinations, Luigi Mangione, Ryan Routh, and Tyler Robinson. What do all three have in common?
TANDEN: I mean, there are lots of political trials for violence.
LYMAN: They're all left wing.
TANDEN: Yes. Also, obviously we went through -- I mean, look. I actually think this whole debate of there's only right -- there's right wing, there's left wing. We should all say, I don't know why it's so complicated to say political violence of any kind is wrong. But we have obviously had massive levels of political violence on the right. There's actually a Department of Justice actually suppressed an article about it.
PHILLIP: Yes. There's a -- DOJ deleted a study showing that domestic terrorists are more -- most often right wing, and here's what that study said. Since 1990, far right extremists have considered -- committed far more ideologically motivated homicides than far left or radical Islamist extremists, including 227 events that took more than 520 lives. In the same period, far left extremists committed 42 ideologically motivated attacks that took 78 lives.
Now, what you're saying about those three cases is important and relevant, that those things happened, but I think we need to not confuse the most recent, for the most common and essentially, and also, by the way, the most prominent for the most common, because there's a lot of violence happening that doesn't hit the headlines.
And so are we -- it feels like we're -- there's a desire, obviously, on the right, because this is so painful in this moment, obviously, for them and rightfully so to address this part of it, and we should. But I don't think we should lose the forest for the trees here. There's a lot going on in this country and we don't always talk about it on this show, but it's still happening and it's being tracked by the federal government, or at least it was until yesterday.
WILLIAMS: Can we, for one second, understand that as we continue, Scott just got all angry, got real mad, it's got to be this, got to be this, it's got to be this. Why can't we have a discussion about how long is it going to take for us --
JENNINGS: Yes. And, by the way, I am angry. Just to be clear, I am angry.
PHILLIP: Can we just let him finish, Scott? PHILLIP: Scott, I'll let you talk in just a second. Go ahead.
WILLIAMS: Could we spend as much time figuring out how we bridge this and come back together again? You know, I used to have a note on my producer's desk when I did my show, I said, we don't belabor what happens. We try to figure out why it happens and come up with solutions. Right now, all we're doing is belaboring what happened over and over and over again. We're not going to sit down and try to figure out how do we stop it.
LYMAN: You got to go after left wing terrorist. That's actually exactly the conversation we're having, is we're acknowledging there's a problem.
WILLIAMS: So, anybody who disagrees with you, you're a left-wing terrorist?
LYMAN: Absolutely not. But if they target a conservative and murder him in brutal fashion, he's probably a left wing terrorist.
JENNINGS: Let me answer your question.
TANDEN: Yes, that person is a murderer. We can all acknowledge that.
JENNINGS: You said I am angry. And I'm just telling -- I am channeling the emotions of millions of conservatives who are angry. They knew Charlie. They loved Charlie. They viewed Charlie as a mainstream conservative Republican voice who talked about issues that millions of Americans believe. He also talked about his faith. And he did it by going to college campuses, which are not normally hospitable to conservatives and offering his opponents a microphone to have what we always say --
WILLIAMS: In support of what? In support of what?
JENNINGS: Civil discourse.
WILLIAMS: Not only that, but support of the First Amendment. And guess what? He made sure that people had an opportunity and to stand in a room and talk.
JENNINGS: He was murdered trying to do what we always say, why don't we talk to each other? So, yes, there is -- it's not even been a week. So, you're going to have to give us a little grace on being angry about somebody who did what you always say that we should do, let's talk, and he got killed.
WILLIAMS: And he got killed more than a week's grace over. So, two Michigan elected officials who were murdered, did we give -- was it three weeks before we decided to say that there was something wrong with Speaker Pelosi's husband's being hit in the head with a hammer?
[22:20:00]
JENNINGS: By a homeless drug addict? I mean, it was terrible that that happened. This is not the same kind of case. This is, according to the local officials, as Elie just told us, a clear political motivation of a guy that a lot of us held dear, that a lot of us consider to be somebody who -- he was not an extremist. He was a mainstream voice.
PHILLIP: Pelosi's attacker may have been mentally ill, but he was also politically motivated. I also think -- hold on. But also --
TANDEN: All over the internet, including the president, including political leaders.
PHILLIP: But here's the thing, Scott and I think it's important to say this. I don't think anybody wants to take away the anger that people feel about Charlie Kirk's murder because I, that is completely justified. He was gunned down in a public sphere, literally a public sphere. He had two children. His family was there. It's awful. It's awful. And so nobody is taking that away. But the question is, where do we go next? And I'm just going to hit pause the conversation here because we have a lot more to talk about on this and some other issues around free speech.
But next for us, Pam Bondi is trying to walk back the threats that she made to target hate speech as MAGA influencers want her fired.
Plus, another Trump official facing heat from both sides, spars with lawmakers in a hearing that goes off the rails.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. ADAM SCHIFF (D-CA): Do you want the American people to believe that? Do you think they're stupid?
PATEL: You are the biggest fraud to ever sit in the United States Senate. You're a disgrace to this institution and an utter coward.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:25:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, is MAGA losing faith in the attorney general? Pam Bondi is getting major backlash from the right over those recent comments, including this one.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: There's free speech and then there's hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people so we show them that some action is better than no action?
BONDI: We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything, and that's across the aisle.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: In response, the National Review had this headline calling Bondi's last 24 hours, quote, ridiculous. Fox News' Brit Hume says, someone needs to explain to Bondi that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment, a right wing influencer that posted that Charlie Kirk literally died defending the principle that Pam Bondi is trashing.
And after this criticism, Bondi quickly tried to walk it back on X writing, hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is not protected by the First Amendment. Then she blamed the left for normalizing those threats and calls for assassinations and cheering on political violence. It strikes me that Bondi, Kash Patel, Bongino, Kash Patel had his moments in the last week, you know, saying he'd gotten the shooter when he didn't. It's a lot of governance by podcast right now, which is, I guess not surprising for the podcast host among them, but there's some clear pitfalls in that.
HONIG: The job of the United States attorney general and the director of the FBI is stability, leadership, conservative, and I mean lowercase C, conservative. Be careful, protect your people, and neither of them is doing that right now, Pam Bondi nor Kash Patel.
I mean, for Kash Patel to tweet, we've got the guy, and then have to retract it is humiliating. It undermines his own credibility and the credibility of the entire bureau. I know more FBI agents than I can count, many of whom are Trump supporters who are horrified by the job he is doing. He is unqualified. He is -- both of them are much more concerned with getting a viral tweet or a clip. And with providing steady sound, stable leadership for DOJ and the FBI.
PHILLIP: Well, unless you think that this is all made up, let me just read a tweet. This is MAGA influencer Matt Walsh. She says, get rid of her today. This is insane. Conservatives have fought for decades for the right to refuse service to anyone. You also have others, actually Dan Bongino responding to a report from Fox News that he's on thin ice with people in the Trump administration, perhaps including the president. Here's how he reacted.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAN BONGINO, FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: An off the record, who person who was not willing to put their name to any of this, who may not like what the director and I are doing here, off the record, off the record, said, wow, these guys are in a lot of trouble.
You really believe the president's not just going to call? And just to be clear, I don't mean to get personal, but you know the president like I do. Do you think he's the type to not call you?
So, I'm a little skeptical of garbage reporting about unnamed sources who may not like what I just told you, who are saying, oh my gosh, the knives are out, when everybody on the record is saying, what are you talking about? Everything's going great.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I don't know. And maybe everything's going great, but it certainly sounds like there's griping. I mean, some of the people griping are doing so publicly.
LYMAN: Yes, and there's, of course, people griping. And I think to Elie's point, I don't think Cash Patel or Pam Bondy could tarnish the reputation of the FBI or the DOJ better than they targeted or they trashed themselves over the past four years.
When it comes to Pam Bondi, I think she recognizes that free speech, so-called hate speech is not prosecutable, which is why she walked back her statement. And I think when it comes to Kash Patel, to your comment, look, he may have had to retract some statements, but this is the first time in a long time that we are getting consistent transparency.
[22:30:01]
The method he took is, when I have the information, I'm telling you what I know. Could you make --
TANDEN: But he didn't know it. I mean, it's not transparent --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: That's a clown show.
TANDEN: That's not - it's not transparent. I'm sorry. Just a sect. It's not transparent to actually give misinformation.
LYMAN: Okay.
TANDEN: That is not transparency. That is misinforming people.
(CROSSTALK)
LYMAN: Okay, so, as the investigation develops, there are obviously, of course, developments that may change something about first to last.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Okay, and you know what actual FBI directors do in those situations? They wait till they have confirmation. That is what --
(CROSSTALK)
LYMAN: Actual FBI --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: No, they actually -- you know, people who have actually done the job and I take your point. I mean, we've heard from Trump supporting FBI officials who also have disagreements with Kash Patel and think he's done terrible job precisely because he's tarnishing the reputation of the FBI.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Actually, I'm sorry, I'm -- I don't -- I'm so sorry, but actually in the world, people do respect the FBI.
(CROSSTALK)
LYMAN: Oh, my God. Where?
TANDEN: You know not in MAGA influencing --
(CROSSTALK) LYMAN: It's not about -- it's not about MAGA influencing --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Actually --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: The public actually supports the FBI. You're denigrating an entire --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: This is an important -- this is an important is an important point. The idea that the FBI is profoundly distrusted and hated by a majority of Americans is definitely what MAGA world believes. But I also think people trust the FBI to get to the bottom of things, generally speaking.
(CROSSTALK)
HONIG: Why are we calling --
TANDEN: Yes, a hundred percent. And --
PHILLIP: Otherwise, yeah. I mean, otherwise, we wouldn't call them.
HONIG: There are some cases that call for increased transparency, increased public communication. This is absolutely one of them, the assassin of Charlie Kirk.
TANDEN: But it should be accurate.
HONIG: But heaven help us if the approach of any FBI agent I ever worked with was, something comes into me, boom, right on Twitter, I'm being transparent about, oh, new tip here. New tip, we got the guy, no we don't. That's a -- that's a clown show. That's --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: That's also -- creates distrust in the FBI.
PHILLIP: Montel.
WILLIAMS: I agree with what you said, Elie. I mean, it's ridiculous if you're investigating or researching, you don't give your final report on the first --
(CROSSTALK)
HONIG: Say you got the guy.
WILLIAMS: I got the guy. Oh well, I didn't really get the guy. I got it today. And now know everything about that guy. Well, I really don't. This is what we're going to get for the next week and a half. Well, you know what? It's all political. Really? Let's wait and see when this really comes out.
JENNINGS: August 2025 Pew Research Center. Thirty-nine percent of Americans view the DOJ favorably, 46 percent view it unfavorably, similar to where it was --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: There are other -- there are other, actually, other polls that show 60 percent, but I will get them in the commercial.
JENNINGS: It's the Pew Research Center. I mean, do you have to debate everything?
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: So, do you -- no. I'm just saying -- so your point is --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: So, your point is it's okay to the DOJ all the time in FBI?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on, Neera. What is your point, Scott?
JENNINGS: My point is that there are some mixed feelings about this particular institution. It doesn't mean it is universally hated, nor does it mean it is universally loved. But I do think some Americans have some questions about what has gone on there. Some of it may be driven by who's in office at the time.
PHILLIP: But how does it help? I mean --
JENNINGS: They're not universally beloved or hated.
PHILLIP: But if they were brought in presumptively -- if they were brought in presumptively, the (inaudible), right? Don't you think Pam Bondi should understand what the law is on not just free speech, but also, let me play what she said here about whether you can prosecute a business for refusing to print Charlie Kirk posters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: And employers, you have an obligation to get rid of people. You need to look at people who are saying horrible things. And they shouldn't be working with you. Businesses cannot discriminate. If you want to go in and print posters with Charlie's pictures on them for a vigil, you have to let them do that. We can prosecute you for that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JENNINGS: So --
PHILLIP: Last I checked, okay, conservatives went all the way to the Supreme Court to say that you could in fact do exactly that, that you don't have to
JENNINGS: Yeah.
PHILLIP: -- do anything that violates your religious or deeply held beliefs.
TANDEN: First Amendment breaks.
JENNINGS: Just bake the cake. I mean, look.
PHILLIP: But listen, look. A lot of Americans disagree with that. I want to just be clear. But conservatives are the ones who have fought for that.
JENNINGS: So, the Patel-Bongino stuff, the palace intrigue interests me a little less. The free speech stuff interests me a lot more because it has been conservatives who have, I think, been defending the absolute right of free speech. And we believed during the last administration that there were attempts to suppress our speech, and we have fought vociferously for free speech rights all the way, you know, to the hilt. To now, say there may be limits on free speech is not -- is not --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well, I don't think -- I don't think that's what she's even saying. I just think she doesn't -- I just think she doesn't -- she didn't -- she doesn't know the law.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: She did -- she did --
PHILLIP: I mean, my point is that the question is, I don't know that she's trying to break new ground here. I think she's just not applying the law as she should as an attorney general.
HONIG: Well, look.
JENNINGS: Sure.
HONIG: Last thing Pam Bondi said is we can prosecute you for that if a first year AUSA said that to me.
[22:35:00]
I said, are you nuts?
JENNINGS: She ended up --
HONIG: We can prosecute Kinkos for not printing up flyers? Come on.
JENNINGS: She ended up walking back some of this and she did wind up listing out things that you legitimately cannot do. But my sincerest advice would be on matters of free speech, defend speech. Speech is good. It's the first amendment for a reason. TANDEN: My advice was to learn the law.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
TANDEN: That thing and attorney general.
PHILLIP: Learning the law would be a good first step. We have a lot more to discuss though on that very issue. Coming up next, is criticizing the President, prosecutable. While Donald Trump thinks that it is, we'll debate next.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:40:21[
PHILLIP: On the heels of Donald Trump's $15 billion defamation lawsuit against "The New York Times", the President is suggesting that negative media coverage of him could be considered hate speech.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: And what do think Pam Bondi's saying she's going to go after hate speech? Is that, I mean, a of people, a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: She'd probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It's hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart.
UNKNOWN: Would that be appropriate?
TRUMP: Maybe they'll come after ABC. Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech, right? Your company paid me $16 million for a form of hate speech, so maybe they'll have to go after you.
(END VIDEP CLIP)
PHILLIP: Trump sued against "The Times" claims that four of their reporters sought to undermine his 2024 election bid, falsely portraying him as an unsuccessful businessman. And the question now, I guess, is, Scott, you were just talking about free speech. Are we really going to go down this road where Trump says, you're mean to me, you hate me, so we're going to prosecute you, too?
JENNINGS: I don't think anybody's going to be prosecuted for hating the President or covering him in a way he doesn't like. But it is true. He has gotten some accountability from some media outlets who probably covered stories in a way that was dishonest and they paid for a reason. And so --
PHILLIP: One man's accountability is another man's shakedown.
JENNINGS: Well, they paid him for a reason. Are you -- I mean, that -- my view is they don't want to go to discovery.
HONIG: We had the deputy attorney general Todd Blanche on air last hour, Kaitlan Collins show, and he tried to argue that the people in the seafood restaurant who taunted, protested the President, might have been a racketeering enterprise, all right?
PHILLIP: I mean, what --
HONIG: I mean, racketeering enterprise is what I used to use to prosecute the Gambino and Genovese family. You know, other people used to prosecute MS-13. And the deputy A.G., who I've known for 20 years, we were at the SDNY together and have defended him publicly at times, said with a barely straight face that those people in the fish restaurant could be prosecuted under RICO? Come on.
PHILLIP: Hold on, Elie. But this is serious. I mean, this is not just rhetoric. I mean, Todd Blanche said it, A, but B, I mean, other people have said it. Stephen Miller have said it.
HONIG: Yes, same thing.
PHILLIP: They are suggesting that people who protest, whether they are organized or not, can and will be targeted for prosecution. Do you expect that to actually start to happen?
HONIG: Oh gosh, I don't know. I'm not going to vouch for what anyone at DOJ is going to do, but I hope not. And if they do, it will fail. I mean, I don't know how you would even obtain an indictment for that from a grand jury and it's easy to indict someone. So, I hope that this is just talk, and by the way, free speech also.
But it's a little different when it's coming from DOJ. But that's, to me, look. We can have good conversations about what people should and should not be saying, what's good, civil and civic discourse. But when you start throwing around the prospect of handcuffs and indictments, that's over the line. And I think they know, Pam Bondi, let's hope she knows.
She walked it back appropriately. Hate speech is not a crime. Hate speech is not illegal. That's why we have a First Amendment. But they're very loose. This is a theme tonight. They're very loose with the talk of you're going to be indicted, you're going to be arrested.
TANDEN: I mean, you know, the President is throwing around a lot of libel suits against the various media entities. You know, another one was "The Wall Street Journal", that he had a $10 billion lawsuit to stymie them for the allegations around the picture that turned out to actually come to life. So, I sort of expect, I wonder what's going to happen with that libel suit. Just like I wonder what will happen with the $15 billion libel suit in "The New York Times".
PHILLIP: Of course they produced the email that Trump said did not, or sorry, the birthday letter that Trump said did not exist. But you know, I wonder, you know, you were saying Pam Bondi walked it back, but again, it's not just Pam Bondi. I mean, Stephen Miller has made it clear that the charge, I guess some of this is all in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination, is going to be to systematically track down left-wing groups for funding magazines, for funding protests, for pushing ideology. Where does that end when it comes to speech?
LYMAN: Well, I reject a little bit of the premise of your question. I think what the Trump administration has made clear is they want to target people who are engaged in violent grouping, so violent protesters, people who are encouraging things like this Tyler Robinson. There are questions, was he radicalized in a certain discord chat? What was going on? I think that it's well within the administration's right to try and go after groups like Antifa or other radicalized groups that could foment violence and lead to violence.
[22:45:08]
PHILLIP: So then, why did the Vice President bring up George Soros and bring up the Ford Foundation when he was talking about views that he thought that the government should -- or entities that the government should penalize for funding left-wing activities? If it's about violence, why are they talking about speech?
WILLIAMS: But didn't the President just ask the question of a reporter, I should go after you for the question that you just asked me?
PHILLIP: He just said that.
WILLIAMS: It's a very simple question.
PHILLIP: He just said that.
WILLIAMS: I get the idea of speech that threatens or endangers a person's life. You can't walk into a movie theater still to this day and scream fire. But I can walk into a movie theater and say, this place stinks. You can't say --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I hate this movie.
WILLIAMS: I hate this movie.
PHILLIP: Yeah, you can say all that. Yeah.
WILLIAMS: I can yell it out as loud as I want. But if I walk in and let's say it's a movie a year from now that supports the President and I stand up in the back and say, oh, I think this movie sucks. Does that mean that I can get arrested?
LYMAN: I don't -- I think that's a little bit of a dishonest premise to make it seem --
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: He said it to a reporter.
LYMAN: That seemed like a very flippant remark. Come on. I think that the point that Donald Trump and his administration --
(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: That was a fact.
LYMAN: I think --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: He also sued "The New York Times" over articles that were negative about him.
LYMAN: I think to be clear, and to Scott's earlier point, it is not a secret that the left-wing press which i call the propaganda press hates Donald Trump. Whether or not the succeeds in a court of law, I'll leave that up to Elie.
HONIG: It's not going to.
LYMAN: But the point is -- the point --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: But do you point from a free speech perspective? I mean, this is the question. I mean, I think Scott just eloquently talked about being critical of Pam Bondi because he's willing to say free speech is a principle that we should support. And I like, heard a lot of conservatives over last couple of years talk about the importance of free speech and how it's an important principle for everyone. So, I guess I'm just wondering, isn't that an important principle for literally everyone, including the President?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Can I ask -- but --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Should you be able to just --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Can I ask you the corollary to that? I mean, on this hate speech question, I mean, Democrats are typically the ones talking about hate speech and wanting there to be consequences for it. In fact, they were on the other side of that, you know, gay wedding baker case. So, are Democrats realizing, a second, actually the shoe is on the other foot now, maybe we need to all agree that hate speech is not prosecutable, A, and that, B, businesses should be allowed to refuse service for -- under certain circumstances.
TANDEN: I think it's really actually important, and in this moment, I think it's a good reminder that free speech protects everyone. It protects people with minority views that are different from the majorities. And I would agree that I actually think this is an important time to remember and progressives, liberals should remember that free speech is an important principle for everyone. And you may disagree with people and you can argue that out with people, but we shouldn't like run to the federal government. Okay. Who is -- is anyone advocating --
(CROSSTALK)
LYMAN: Charlie Kirk was killed for free speech.
TANDEN: No, he was killed because a radical person disagreed with him.
LYMAN: Because he killed for free speech? Because he disagreed with his speech.
TANDEN: But he was --
LYMAN: Charlie Kirk was killed for his free speech.
TANDEN: Was he killed for free speech? I mean, I just think that's really --
(CROSSTALK)
LYMAN: He was killed because of the things he spoke about. That's free speech.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: That's a level of glibness that doesn't really respect the moment that we're in, frankly.
LYMAN: I think --
PHILLIP: Hold on. I mean, look, nobody's disputing that this deranged person shot Charlie Kirk because he did not like what Charlie Kirk was saying. But again, in the context of what she is saying, you know, there is clearly a difference between people who act on violence and people who simply disagree. And I think what the point is -- that she's making is that it's fine to disagree with people and that is not violence.
LYMAN: Of course it's not violence, but I also think there's a --
TANDEN: And the government shouldn't come in and tell you, you can't have those --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: You would be jailed or you'd be prosecuted or harmed or physically obstructed in some way. In fact, we should respect, like liberty interests of individuals for freedom of thought. That's what I heard from the conservatives and I agree with it.
LYMAN: I 100 percent agree in freedom of thought. I agree in freedom of speech. But I think what we're getting wrong here at this table is Trump is not saying, if you say you hate me or you call me a fascist, I am going to completely jail you. Republicans are not taking that position. And when we talk about --
TANDEN: Stephen Miller is basically saying --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We really do have to go. We are really up against the clock here, unfortunately. But thank you, everyone for joining us. Next for us, the right suggests that calling political opponents fascists and enemies is exclusive to the left. But the tape proves otherwise. We'll show you it next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:54:14[
PHILLIP: More and more conservatives argue that harsh rhetoric and name calling mostly comes from the left and that debate in America shouldn't devolve into hate.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R) HOUSE SPEAKER: Leaders cannot call their political opponents, Nazis and fascists and enemies of the state because they disagree with their policy priorities. I mean, this is something we should have learned in grade school. This type of language spurs on depraved people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: It's a good message, except everything the speaker just laid out could also describe his party's leader.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It is the enemy from within, and they're very dangerous. They're Marxists and communists and fascists. It's a choice between communism and freedom.
[22:55:01]
They've done very bad things to this country. They are indeed the enemy from within. This is communist, this is Marxist, this is fascist. It's the enemy from within. That's a bigger enemy than China and Russia. There's a radical left, Marxist, Communist, Fascist. She's a Marxist. She's a Fascist. These far left Fascists, led by Harris and her group. If comrade Kamala Harris gets four more years, you will be living a full blown banana republic ruled by an anarchy and a tyranny. They're scum. They're scum. And they want to take down our country. They are absolute garbage.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: We'll be back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:00:12]
PHILLIP: Tonight, four people are in custody in England after this stunt projecting video of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein on Windsor Castle. Trump is set to visit there tomorrow on his state trip to the U.K. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
