Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
New York Attorney General Indicted After Trump's Order; Judge Halts Trump Sending Troops to Chicago, Fuel to the Fire; Judge Condemns Use of Chemical Agents By Feds in Chicago. Judge Stops National Guard Deployment To Illinois; MTG Blames Speaker Johnson And Leader Thune For The Shutdown; CBS Correspondent Julie Watts Interview With California Gubernatorial Candidate Katie Porter Goes Viral. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired October 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 ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, the retribution tour intensifies. The person who charged Donald Trump's business gets charged by his Justice Department after his order.
Plus, the president's attempts to put troops on the streets of Chicago meets the court as the state's governor lashes out at Democrats for not fighting back.
GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D-IL): Do I see enough people doing it? No, I don't.
PHILLIP: Also, the shutdown standoff hits the anger stage after rage in the hallways.
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): You are a complete and total embarrassment.
PHILLIP: There's now rage on the airway.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm very disappointed in you because you do have the power to call the House back.
PHILLIP: And she's been the front runner to lead California, but now Katie Porter is leading viral videos.
FMR. REP. KATIE PORTER (D-CA): Get out of my (BLEEP) shot.
PHILLIP: Is this an implosion explosion?
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: That's a nasty question.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Christine Quinn, Tim Parrish, Dan Koh, Judge Shira Scheindlin and Tara Palmeri.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Philip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, two for three. President Trump's retribution tour hits another stop, and tonight the DOJ is charging another of his political opponents. This time it's the person who charged him and his family businesses and won. New York's attorney General Letitia James is facing bank fraud charges and charges for making false statements to a bank.
Now, those are the ones that Trump and his prosecutors say he couldn't -- Trump's own prosecutors say he could not prove. That's according to sources. Now, Trump says that because of that, he fired him.
Now, remember, this comes just three weeks after Trump publicly demanded that his attorney general charge three of his rivals, James, Adam Schiff and James Comey. Now, five days after that, as you know, Comey was actually charged with lying to Congress. And Letitia James posted this reaction to the indictment online. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LETITIA JAMES, NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL: This is nothing more than a continuation of the president's desperate weaponization of our justice system. He's forcing federal law enforcement agencies to do his bidding, all because I did my job as a New York State attorney general. These charges are baseless and the president's own public statements make clear that his only goal is political retribution at any cost.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: All right. Judge Scheindlin is here. I mean, Judge, what do you make of the fact that, A, this is happening, and, B, the strength of this case that it sounds like Trump's own prosecutors had a lot of doubts about?
SHIRA SCHEINDLIN, RETIRED U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: Well, first of all, there is no question in my mind that it is retribution. It is a vindictive prosecution. He's still angry that attorney general went after him. Of course, that was a civil case and this is a criminal case with potential jail time. So, it's quite a different thing.
As far as the charges themselves, it wasn't what we were first hearing. We first thought it was something to do with, was it a first home or a second home, and had she said it was primary, but then she said it was secondary, then she said it was primary. That's not what happened. So, maybe the earlier prosecutors didn't have what later turned out to be some serious evidence, namely that she got a bank loan saying that she herself was going to live there, but, in fact, she turned it into a rental property.
Now, that said, because that doesn't sound right, it is a very small amount of money at stake, and no prosecutor ever would've bothered with a case, that maybe at most it's worth $18,900. But on the other side of that, she was the attorney general of the State of New York at the time of making the alleged false statement. So, that's -- it's a different case.
PHILLIP: I mean, I looked at the documents that her attorneys sent to DOJ before all of this, and they have an email between her and her banker, the banker that originated this loan, saying, this will not be my primary residence.
[22:05:04]
And that's probably one of the main reasons that prosecutors would've looked at this and said, it's going to be hard to prove that she intentionally deceived the lender when there is an email exchange in which the lender confirms that this is not going to be her primary residence.
But at the end of the day, Scott, it seems like none of that really matters because Trump said in his text message or his social media message to Pam Bondi, which The Wall Street Journal says was meant to be a direct message to Pam Bondi, that there's been all talk, no action, nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam Shifty Schiff, and Leticia? He just told her to prosecute these people and they're doing it.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. Well, they went to a grand jury. They showed them evidence. A grand jury decided to bring charges, just like in the case of Comey. And in both cases, they'll get to go to court and have their day in court, and we'll see if the evidence ever makes it to a jury of their peers.
Look, I mean, Letitia James is the absolute worst possible poster child for the argument of selective prosecution. Her entire political career has been on the idea of selectively prosecuting one person, Donald J. Trump. Whether you think the merits of the case are strong or weak or how you think it's going to play out, going out tonight and crying and whining and fussing about selective prosecution when it comes to Letitia James, who ran an entire campaign saying she was going to go after Trump, the cases she brought, it was only because of Trump. I don't think the American people are going to have too much sympathy for it.
But she'll get to go to court, she'll get to make her arguments, and we'll see what happens.
DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CABINET SECRETARY, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: I think we need to take a step back and look at the contrast here. When I worked as deputy cabinet secretary in the White House, we could talk to every single cabinet except for one. That was the Department of Justice. We couldn't even send holiday party invites because we believe in that independent DOJ.
The Trump administration and Donald Trump is sliding into the D.M.s of his A.G. to choose who to prosecute. He railed against people of color, saying that they were unqualified, DEI hires, when he just promoted an associate staff secretary to become U.S. attorney. That's the equivalent of a Pop Warner quarterback starting for the New England Patriots, okay?
He's accusing Letitia James of this mortgage fraud. There are three cabinet members who committed mortgage fraud that he's just letting fly. So, any other president would've been impeached long ago for this kind of action. Somehow we're disregarding, it's a disgrace.
CHRISTINE QUINN (D), FORMER SPEAKER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: And, you know, the case that Tish brought against the president and his sons was, she was victorious in court. So, whether or not she raised him in campaigning, which lots of people do and other attorney generals have done, she won in court.
I also think it's important to be clear that in the documentation and the effort to buy this home, she was always very clear she was buying the home for her niece. So, the idea that it then may have been rented to three individuals would have been her niece who she always said she was buying it for.
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: Isn't it a different situation now?
PHILLIP: It's the same property. It's the same property. But the allegation deals with the loan, and as I noted earlier, she write in an email to her loan originator, right? This the person that the government is claiming, she defrauded, she wrote in an email to them, this property will not be my primary residence.
She also checked a box in another document that indicated that the property would not be her primary residence. So, there is actually -- you know, you talked about a grand jury. That's a fair point. But in a grand jury, they don't get to hear contrary evidence. And the contrary evidence here, at the very least, cloud's one huge part of this, which is that you have to prove that she meant to defraud. And if she didn't mean to -- how could she mean to defraud when then she writes in an email that it's not going to be her primary residence?
TIM PARRISH, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: Well, I mean, here's the problem here. The Letitia James and those folks on the left, like let Letitia James have set the standard in how we handle these types of cases. When Donald Trump was in the hot seat, they said six words. They said, no one is above the law. And there was no qualifier. They said, no one is above the law. They didn't say, no one is above the law except with Tisha James. No one is above the law.
PHILLIP: I get it. Let's apply the law. Let's apply -- I'm actually asking you to apply the law to the legal standard in this case. If you're claiming that there was an intent to lie, to cheat, whatever, then you have to explain why she wrote in an email the opposite.
PARRISH: Well, I'm sure they explained that in a grand jury. As Scott said, this --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: It probably didn't come up. QUINN: In grand jury, there would not have been counterevidence. There would've one side. That's how a grand jury works. And, right, no one is above the law. So, the evidence doesn't bear out if you see all of there what we know that Tish did anything wrong.
But beyond that, not being above the law also means not misusing your Department of Justice, not telling the attorney general who to prosecute because they're political enemies.
PHILLIP: Judge?
SCHEINDLIN: Well, I was just concerned about the difference between primary residence and second home. That doesn't seem to be what this indictment is about.
[22:10:00]
It's about whether it's a rental property, whether she deducted the rental payments and the expenses on her tax return. That's why it's a little bit troubling.
That said, I agree entirely with everything you said, it's still a vindictive and selective prosecution because this would've been resolved out of court for something so small with anybody else.
QUINN: If it even happened.
SCHEINDLIN: If it even happened?
QUINN: Right.
SCHEINDLIN: Well, I'm reading the allegations in the indictment, you know, so I don't know if it happened. But this is what the indictment tells me that there were forms filed on the tax returns that would show that it was a rental property and deductions were taken a second.
PARRISH: I find it so interesting that we hone in on this term, vindictive prosecution, which since 2018, when Leticia James was running for office, her main goal was, I'm going to go after Donald Trump. She told us in public, she said, I'm going to go after --
SCHEINDLIN: And she couldn't indict anybody.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let me go ahead and play what she -- I think we have that sound, right, what she campaigned on that he's referring to. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES: What is fueling this campaign, what is fueling my soul right now is Trump and his abuses, abuses against immigrants, against women, against our environment. We need an attorney general who will stand up to Donald Trump, and we need an attorney general who understands and knows the law and who recognizes that no one is above the law, including the president of these United States. (END VIDEO CLIP)
JENNINGS: You know what's interesting? She named all the things she was mad at Trump over, but then she went after him on mortgage fraud as a civil case, which just always struck me as I've just got to find something here to satisfy my political base.
Also, I don't understand why being --
QUINN: And yet she won.
JENNINGS: I don't understand why being a political foe of Donald Trump makes you immune from having to follow the law. I mean, if she did it, then a jury will, you know, adjudicate her.
SCHEINDLIN: Take about $18,000 case, was it? It was millions case if you buy the --
PARRISH: Yes. But, Judge, there's not a qualifier.
SCHEINDLIN: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that was the case -- that's a case at any prosecutor -- I was a former federal prosecutor, okay? No prosecutor would've brought this case for $18,000. It's just too small. That's the way it works. But for millions, which it wasn't brought, this was not an indictment against Trump, it was civil case.
JENNINGS: She tried to bankrupt him. She tried to ruin his life and tried to make it so he couldn't run for president.
PARRISH: So, what are we going to do?
JENNINGS: Come on.
QUINN: She brought forward a case that she thought was meritorious, and it was found that it was meritorious.
JENNINGS: By the way, thank God she failed in her ultimate goal. Otherwise, we wouldn't be bringing these hostages on Monday.
PHILLIP: But, Scott, I mean, wasn't the argument about that case, that civil case that she brought, that there were no victims to the alleged wrongdoing? Wasn't that the argument? So, then wouldn't -- if you were to apply that to this situation, how do you justify then charging her over $18,000, which allegedly -- which, by the way, again, like those are allegations. We don't know if there were communications between her and the mortgage company about a change of status for the property or anything like that. We don't know about that. But do you think that this is more of a victim -- a crime with a victim than the one against Trump?
JENNINGS: I can only read back to you her own words. When powerful people cheat to get better loans, it comes at the expense of hardworking people. That's what James said. The standard she applied to Trump.
PHILLIP: So, you think that applies to Trump then? JENNINGS: I mean, she thought it did.
PHILLIP: So, Scott, hold on, do you think that applies to Trump? If you think it applies to her, fine.
JENNINGS: I'm giving you her justification for prosecution was that I don't know why they wouldn't want it.
PHILLIP: Listen, as they say, two wrongs don't make a right. She's either wrong about Trump or you are wrong about Trump. Which one is it?
JENNINGS: No. Look, it she brought the case. She went through the process in New York. What happened, happened. Now, she's got a case against her. The process will play out.
PHILLIP: So, Trump's case is legitimate then in your mind?
JENNINGS: Oh, I don't think it should have ever been brought. I think it was a -- I think it was a travesty but --
QUINN: But you can't have it both ways, one way with Trump, one way with Tish. They are not. You cannot have those two different ways.
PHILLIP: Go ahead.
PARRISH: I totally agree with that. And this video that you showed is even premature. This goes way back to 2018 when she ran. The quote she said is, I'm going to bring -- I'm going to shine a light in every dark corner of Donald Trump's real estate dealings. And now that's what's happening to her. A prosecutor is shining that light in all of her real estate deals.
SCHEINDLIN: Well, she wasn't a real estate developer.
PARRISH: It doesn't matter.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on one second. Hold on. Let me let her --
SCHEINDLIN: Corrupt business. I'm saying that case, civil case, was about a corrupt business, a man who spent years and decades in New York with real estate and she knew that. And a lot of folks have had a lot of doubts about Trump for a long time when it comes to finances. This wasn't new. So, she had a basis.
JENNINGS: I mean, in her debate, though, she wasn't complaining about his real estate. She was complaining about all the political issues.
PHILLIP: She's talking about the --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: She's talking about the quote that Tim brought up, which was about the real estate. QUINN: But what was wrong about what she said in that campaign? She said the issue she believes in, the issue she's concerned about and the issues like the environment that she was going to defend as an attorney general. Isn't that what a candidate for attorney general should do, tell us what they care about, tell us who they disagree with and tell us they're going to fight it?
[22:15:01]
She didn't say, prosecute. She says --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: All right. Last word to you.
KOH: We are trying to justify authoritarian behavior of people going after political enemies. Put Letitia James aside for a second. James Comey, you can go down the list, we are trying to justify with every one of these things what we should not be able to justify, which is that this is an attorney general who is taking orders via D.M. from a president who is trying to save her job because he's upset about what's happening with the Epstein files. That's what this is all about.
PHILLIP: All right, everybody. Next for us more breaking news, a judge is halting Trump's attempts to send troops to Chicago and is condemning the tactics of ICE.
Plus, cracks are emerging among Republicans over the government shutdown and anger is shifting from the hallways to the airways.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: As a Republican, I'm very disappointed in my party and I'm very disappointed in you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: A federal judge just delivered a major blow to the Trump administration's crackdown on American cities by blocking the president's push to deploy the National Guard in the state of Illinois, at least for now.
Now, it was just one of the two courtroom showdowns today as Trump takes aim at Democratic-run cities to root out what he says is rampant crime. And other legal battles are raging in Portland, where an appeals court is weighing whether to block Trump from calling up the National Guard to respond to protests outside of an ICE facility.
Now, an attorney for the state of Oregon argued the Trump has other non-military options to deal with the protests, but the judge wasn't buying it. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDGE RYAN D. NELSON, NINTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS: The problem that I have with this argument that I'm just trying to struggle with is, you know, the president gets to direct his resources as he deems fit. And it just seems a little counterintuitive to me that the city of Portland can come in and say, no, you need to do it differently.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, that's a very skeptical judge in a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit, which led a lot of people to believe, Judge Scheindlin, that they're going to reverse the lower court and uphold Trump's ability to have the Guard there. Do you think that's the right call?
SCHEINDLIN: No, I don't, I actually read the judge's opinion that the district judge, it was very well-reasoned, very well-read. It was meticulous and in the fact finding, and usually an appellate court defers to the district judge on fact finding. So, I was disturbed that they were questioning her finding of the facts because she said in great detail, there had been no recent violence at all, everything was under control, the local police were handling everything, the streets were empty. There was just no basis in the law to call out the National Guard in Oregon. So --
PHILLIP: And that may be -- I mean, that -- look, first of all I also wonder, I mean, the court there also seemed to be saying the president's the president, he gets to do whatever you want. I mean, is that going to be the argument?
SCHEINDLIN: Well, that is not true. That is not true. There is a statute that governs, calling the National Guard into federal service. And there's two sections of it that would be important here. One is if there's a rebellion or a danger of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States, and both judges in Chicago now and in Portland said there's no rebellion and there's no danger of rebellion. The only other possible prong is the president is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. And that didn't seem to be the least bit true, that the laws were being enforced, everybody was going about their business. Yes, there's peaceful protests, but we're allowed to do that in this country.
JENNINGS: Peaceful?
SCHEINDLIN: Peaceful, yes, sir.
JENNINGS: In Oregon?
SCHEINDLIN: There were protests in June, in June, that were not particularly peaceful. There was some violence then, but by September, there were 10 or 15 people marching rounds with signs. I'm sure you believe in First Amendment right to protest, don't you?
JENNINGS: Yes, but I don't believe in people attacking ICE facilities. I don't believe in people attacking ICE agents. And when you talk --
SCHEINDLIN: That wasn't going on in September.
JENNINGS: What's happening now? You got a T.V.? I mean, turn it on. There is violence in Portland and they're attacking federal facilities. They're attacking federal facilities. And the Portland police do nothing. They do nothing now.
SCHEINDLIN: Because the National Guard is being called out, it is ramping up the situation. It's creating the exact --
JENNINGS: Is that license to commit violence?
SCHEINDLIN: It's creating the chaos and danger that this administration wants to create, so then it has an excuse to suppress it. It's a provocation.
QUINN: In Portland, the Department of Homeland Security thanked the local law enforcement for doing such a good job, which is a clear indication that they had things under control and they didn't need DHS. Things have calmed down. No one is endorsing violence against anyone but things have calmed down, not at this table.
PARRISH: This takes you back to 2020 during the Summer of Love, when everyone said no, they're just peacefully protesting. They are -- people are destroying federal government.
QUINN: Right now in Portland, today?
PARRISH: People are absolutely hindering federal law enforcement from doing their job.
SCHEINDLIN: Did you read the judge's findings?
PARRISH: And the president of the United States absolutely has the authority to activate the National Guard and to bring the National Guard in to keep the peace and to protect federal facilities.
PHILLIP: Hold on one second. Hold on one second, Christine. Hold on one second. Let her finish.
SCHEINDLIN: He has the authority if that were the facts. But if you read the recitation of the facts that the judge found, there's no records of that. The local police facilities had a day to day --
PARRISH: You just said it yourself, Judge. You just said that when the National Guard showed up, people became enraged. It's not a license --
SCHEINDLIN: Oh, no, that's not what's after federalizing the Guard.
[22:25:00]
PHILLIP: Let me just let you finish your statement, because you were saying the police had a day-to-day recitation. SCHEINDLIN: They did, and it's in her opinion. They produce logs and they show what happened every single day for the last 30 days. There was no violence at all. There was no destruction at all. They walked around with their signs, 10 to 15 people walking in front of the ICE facility.
JENNINGS: If there's no violence and there's no mayhem and there's nothing going on, why would people be so enraged at the idea of a handful of National Guardsmen standing around?
SCHEINDLIN: Because we don't want the military -- we don't believe in the military controlling our cities and --
JENNINGS: They're not going to control anything. They're just standing guard. They're just standing guard.
SCHEINDLIN: We also have the Tenth Amendment, we reserve to the states the police power side (ph).
KOH: Let me ask Scott's question. I helped lead disaster response under Joe Biden and we -- the thing that kept us up at night was when there was a bridge collapse, when there was a shooting, when there was a hurricane, which thank God there has not been a major hurricane so far this year. The time in which the National Guard could be deployed in an expeditious way was critical to saving lives.
When you look at what's happening in D.C., you have National Guard members, shagging foul balls and little league practices. You have them marching around Georgetown. We need them trained and ready to go in the incident of a disaster. Every minute we're distracted by sending the National Guard away from where they're based to all around the country to do things like that makes us all less safe. That's why it's a problem.
JENNINGS: I don't think it makes anybody in Washington less safe.
PARRISH: So, there's a lot of, there's a lot of academic pontificating and things going on up here, but I wore both uniforms, as both the police officer and a member of the military. You don't wait until after the crime has happened and then you say, oh, we're going to send the resources in after something's already happened.
You read, Judge, in your order there that if there is the thought that there's danger, if there's the intelligence, that there's danger, if there's the chance that there's going to be danger --
SCHEINDLIN: Catch the word, danger of a rebellion.
PARRISH: You put resources there to prevent those things from happening. That's what we do.
SCHEINDLIHN: Excuse me, danger of a rebellion. There's no rebellion or danger of a rebellion.
(CROSSTALKS) PARRISH: Anytime you are stopping federal law enforcement from doing their job, they're breaking property, federal property. It's a rebellion.
PHILLIP: To the judge's point in Chicago, there was a different ruling today. They halted President Trump's ability to bring the National Guard there. There, the district court judge says, I have seen no credible evidence that there has been a rebellion in Illinois. The deployment of the National Guard may lead to civil unrest and will only add fuel to the fire that the Trump administration has started as part of its immigration enforcement action.
SCHEINDLIN: And on the last quote, she said the DHS assessment of the protests are unreliable.
JENNINGS: By the way, this judge is so out of line, blaming the president of the United States for enforcing federal immigration law and saying that's the problem?
PARRISH: Yes. That's not how law enforcement works, unfortunately.
JENNINGS: He enforces the laws and she's saying it's a problem that he's choosing to enforce laws that have been on the books for --
PARRISH: Law enforcement, unfortunately, doesn't work that way. You don't send resources in and say, hey, Mr. President, don't send those National Guard troops there because it's going to make people upset and they're going to break the law. That's not how public safety works in this country. And in Texas, we've already seen the Supreme Court say in Texas that the president of the United States has the ability and the authority on immigration law. The National Guard is going in to protect these ICE facilities that people are --
SCHEINDLIN: They don't seem to be needed. They were protecting themselves quite well.
(CROSSTALKS)
QUINN: And DHS said so.
SCHEINDLIN: The INS people themselves are federal officers.
PARRISH: Here's the problem, Judge.
SCHEINDLIN: They were protecting their own facility as well as the local police.
PARRISH: From our ivory towers, we can say they don't need it because it's mostly people down there. But the people that are on the ground --
SCHEINDLIN: I said they were protected --
PARRISH: The policemen that are being on injured and that are on the ground, absolutely --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Hold on a second, guys. Hold on a second, Tim. You just talked about policemen being injured. I mean. There have been policemen from in Chicago and in Portland who have been actually victims of, you know, chemical agents being sprayed in the vicinity of, while they're trying to do their jobs to protect ICE agents and also to protect the First Amendment rights of protesters as well. So, that's also happening.
I mean, I think that there is a law enforcement imperative to allow everybody to exercise their rights, both the protesters -- yes, both the protesters and the ICE agents who are doing their jobs. But I think the question is, what is the balance here?
And, you know, when I look at the -- we have reporters on the ground in Portland. And when you look at the video, you kind of have to wonder, I mean, this is basic crowd control stuff, like a fence could do a lot to help here. And I think some of the question that is being asked is, are they doing everything that they can short of bringing in the National Guard and using overwhelming force to allow protesters to protest and protect the safety of the ICE facility?
PARRISH: Well, I mean, on the first point that you made, actually, every police officer in this country who goes through the police academy gets O.C. sprayed, so that if they get exposed in the field, they know how to respond and still react. So, that's -- no police officer is falling apart because --
[22:30:00]
PHILLIP: Yeah, I understand that, but I -- the issue -- hold on. But just to respond to that. Look, the issue is in part that they're showing up at the scene at the request of federal officials. And without warning, they are being subjected -- without warning and without the proper equipment, they're being subjected to that. And some of the complaints from local police have been that there's no coordination. There's no cooperation between ICE and --
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: Well, yeah. If the mayor -- if the mayor and the governor who has said you will not cooperate with ICE tells you not to do that --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: That's not --
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: Of course.
PHILLIP: That's not the type of cooperation that they're talking about.
(CROSSTALK) PARRISH: And you saw actually the police chief --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Tim, that's --
UNKNOWN: That's not right.
PHILLIP: That's not the type of cooperation that they're talking about. They're talking about ICE enforcement. They're not talking about cooperation that basically said --
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: No, no, Abby. That's not true. The mayor --
PHILLIP: No.
PARRISH: -- the mayor has explicitly said -- as a matter of fact the police chief came out.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: The mayor -- I know what you're talking about. He was talking about immigration enforcement. He was not talking about responding to calls for help when there are violent incidents happening. That is not what you're talking about.
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: Abby, I appreciate your point. That's patently false because the police chief is on -- the police chief is recorded saying
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Saying --
PARRISH: -- saying, we will respond to assist ICE agents and our federal law enforcement partners.
PHILLIP: Okay.
PARRISH: Say that out of the blue. He said it because the mayor gave them explicit instructions not to support the federal government.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: No.
PHILLIP: No.
UNKNOWN: That's not correct.
PHILLIP: Tim, just a second. He said that because he was reiterating a plain fact, which is that if they are called to help, they will show up. They -- hold on. The mayor does not have the authority to stop police from actually doing their policing work. The mayor talked about ICE enforcement on immigration. That is what he was talking about.
PARRISH: It's the only existing policy in Chicago. The police don't assist.
PHILLIP: Exactly.
PARRISH: The local police don't assist with immigration entry.
PHILLIP: He's talking about -- I know that you're confused about this, but he is talking about ICE enforcement on immigration. Don't conflate the two issues. They're not the same thing. The CPD is responding to calls. Portland P.D., they are responding to calls. It is not true that they are not responding. All right.
PARRISH: That was not my point.
PHILLIP: We got to go. Judge Shira Scheindlin, thank you very much for being here. Next for us, Marjorie Taylor Greene says her party is to blame for the shutdown as the Speaker gets an earful from live TV from Americans. Are there cracks emerging in the Republican coalition right now?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:36:53]
PHILLIP: Tonight, anger over the government shutdown is reaching new levels, including on live TV, when Speaker Mike Johnson fielded questions from Americans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: I have a husband who actively services country. He suffers from PTSD from his two tours in Afghanistan. If we see a lapse in pay come the 15th, my children do not get to get the medication that's needed for them. As a Republican, I'm very disappointed in my party and I'm very disappointed in you because you do have the power to call the House back. I'm begging you to pass this legislation. My kids could die.
UNKNOWN: Representative Johnson, I've heard you say that President Trump wants to open the government back up. When your words are different from his, when he says this is his opportune time to fire people, to close up different organizations and things that have been able to help people, please explain that to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: This comes as one Republican is blaming her own party for the shutdown.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R) GEORGIA: I'm actually putting the blame on the Speaker and Leader Thune in the Senate. This should not be happening. We control the House. We control the Senate. We have the White House. I'm a Representative. I don't have to be a cheerleader for my party. I have to represent my district because those are the people that hired me and sent me here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Tara Palmeri is joining us in our fifth seat. Tara, it does kind of seem like Republicans are having a little bit of trouble holding it together in the shutdown, even though technically, you know, by the rules of conventional politics, maybe they should be the ones with the upper hand.
TARA PALMERI, "THE TARA PALMERI SHOW" PODCAST HOST: Right, I think that the healthcare issue is certainly sticking. Democrats, they bet on the right one. It seems like they're winning this fight. I mean, they can totally fumble it and mess it up. But for now, I think that they have the ability to do that because the Obamacare subsidies, I mean it's a real thing. You just heard Marjorie Taylor Greene speak out against it.
I do wonder how much of this is political though for Marjorie because yeah, she's listening to her district, but maybe she's starting to bet on the fact that this, you know, administration is not as popular as it seems.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
PALMERI: And that Republicans are taking the blame for this. And she sees her own career and her own future. She's 51 years old -- maybe in 2028. She's as MAGA as it comes. It'd be pretty hard to prove that she's not MAGA. She's like the --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But I mean, that's politics, right? That's politics as it is supposed to be in a sense where if she feels like the political winds are shifting, she's going to say something. But I also think perhaps it has something to do with the fact that, especially on the healthcare issue to your point, this is something that affects red states and blue states.
I mean, the marketplace enrollments, the increase from 2020 to 2025, take a look at some of the biggest states where they've had increases in the people on the marketplace. Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, that's Marjorie Taylor Greene state, Tennessee and West Virginia.
[22:40:00]
So, you're seeing a lot of red states that are -- that have huge increases in the number of people who are affected by marketplace issues. And they want these subsidies to be extended more than likely because they're going to be facing cost increases.
PARRISH: Yeah, Abby. I think it's important in this conversation that we sort of pause and -- for second pause the politics and really appreciate the impact this has on daily. You know, it broke my heart to hear that woman talk about her disabled veteran husband who was going to -- who's going to suffer through this issue.
So, I think it's important that we do that. But I also think it's important that we highlight that while we talk about the Republicans and we talk about Marjorie Taylor Greene, there are people who are celebrating this. I think that we have a quote today from Leader Schumer where he says, this gets better for us every single day.
And I think that it's important that we sort of pause, don't do the politics, don't celebrate as this is getting better for Democrats every day, because it's not getting better for the American people back at home.
(CROSSTALK)
DAN KOH, FORMER WH DEPUTY CABINET SECRETARY, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: You're refusing to negotiate on this right now.
PARRISH: Well, no. But what changed? What changed from March --
KOH: Here's what --
PARRISH: -- when Leader Schumer said we should not have a shutdown, no shutdown ever? That was his quote in March. What changed between now and September?
KOH: Because he grew a spine and realized he needed to stand up for health care. Look, here's the reality. Let's take Kentucky. A hundred thousand people are going to face higher costs than their premiums. Eighteen thousand people are going to lose healthcare altogether. A 45-year-old couple with a kid is going to see a 300 percent increase, 2500 more a year.
A 60-year-old is going to have 100 percent more. This is on top of the one big beautiful bill, 200,000 people losing their Medicaid. This is real people and real issues. I think Leader Schumer realizes that. They are humanizing this data. They are showing what's happening to the premiums. And nobody likes that rhetoric.
(CROSSTALK)
CHRISTINE QUINN (D) FORMER SPEAKER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: He realizes. Wait, no, Leader Schumer realizes he made a mistake. And now, he's doing the right thing. I run, in my day job, a homeless service organization basically between the Big Bill and this potential AAC issue.
PARRISH: I think you forgot to say beautiful. Big Beautiful Bill.
QUINN: I know, I'm pretty sure I didn't. I had another word, but we're on television and I try to be nice occasionally. You know, and the ACA issue, almost all of the people we house, 7000 people a night, almost all of them will end up with no coverage. And this is children with asthma, people with serious health conditions. That's what is on the line here. And if the Republicans want to deal with this, come to the table and negotiate. PARRISH: So, with all that perspective which I totally appreciate,
what did the Leader mean when he said this is getting better for us every day? I mean, you just gave us a very bleak --
(CROSSTALK)
QUINN: That's -- I don't know when --
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: But what did he mean by that? Who is he getting better for?
(CROSSTALK)
QUINN: I'm not going to defend some quote Chuck Schumer made. This, what he is doing and Hakeem Jeffries are doing is the right thing, and if the Republicans want to help that, what woman's husband to help those children, come to the table and negotiate, period.
PHILLIP: Scott.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: A few things. One, you did a -- eloquent job of explaining just what a disaster Obamacare has turned out to be. It's neither affordable and there is no care. It was an act. That's the only thing operable --
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: Tell that to the 20 million people --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Number two. Number two, Republicans -- many Republicans have said they'd love to negotiate on this. Now, many, many very rich people are getting these subsidies and it may be that they end up negotiating on income caps, but the government does not have to be closed in order for those conversations to take place.
That's what's so jarring about this. Thirteen times Democrats voted for CRs under Joe Biden. And now, they say we have to close the government to negotiate on an issue that doesn't even become operable until the end of the year.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Final point. Mike Johnson went on C-SPAN today. He is the Speaker of the House, that is the People's House, and he took questions from the American people. It takes stones to do that. And I'm glad he did it. And where are Schumer, and where are Jeffries? They're doing what Tim raised, which is celebrating some cynical, political, tactical issues here. And while Mike Johnson's outlisting the people of the United States, I think that's good politics.
PHILLIP: I do think Mike Johnson does deserve credit for taking those questions. And I just want to highlight something that I don't think it was in the clip that we played. But that woman whose husband, as an active duty military member, she
also said that they can't even use credit cards to pay for her kids' medication because they have so much medical debt -- medical debt that they cannot even afford to do that. So, that's just a picture right there of what's going on in the country in terms of healthcare and how much of a burden American families are under.
Next for us, she's the Democratic front runner to be California's next governor. But a couple of viral videos are testing her campaign. Is there a double standard at play here? We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:49:11]
PHILLIP: MAGA is losing it after Katie Porter's campaign for governor of California goes viral for all the wrong reasons, including newly uncovered video that shows the former House Democrat snapping at a staffer who interrupted her during an interview to correct a point Porter had made. Now, a warning to children in the room. You probably should cover your ears for this one. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KATIE PORTER (D) CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: That we're going to lose more than half a million Californians dying prematurely to air pollution and other problems, and the state could lose four (BEEP) get out of my (EXPLICIT) shot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
JENNINGS: Abby, I think you beeped the wrong thing.
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: There's also this fiery exchange border had with a local journalist in Sacramento. Listen to this.
[22:50:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JULIE WATTS, CBS INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: What do you say to the 40 percent of California voters who you'll need in order to win, who voted for Trump?
PORTER: How would I need them in order to win, ma'am?
WATTS: Well, unless you think you're going to get 60 percent of the vote. You think you'll get 60 percent? All of -- everybody who did not vote for Trump will vote for you. That's what you're --
PORTER: In a general election, yes. If it is me versus a Republican, I think that I will win the people who did not vote for Trump. I'm saying I'm going to try to win every vote I can. And what I'm saying to you is that -- WATTS: Well, to those voters. OK, so you --
PORTER: I don't want to keep doing this. I'm going to call it. Thank you.
WATTS: You're not going to do the interview with us.
PORTER: No, not like this. I'm not. Not with seven follow-ups to every single question you ask.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Oh, look. Bad behavior for sure, Tara. But I feel like we're in an era of politicians behaving badly when it comes to journalists and reporters.
PALMERI: Oh, yeah. I mean President Trump literally attacks reporters every single day, calls them, you're a nasty woman, you're this, you're that.
PHILLIP: He said -- he told me I asked stupid questions. So --
PALMERI: Yeah. It's a badge of honor, honestly.
PHILLIP: I've been there, didn't take it personally, but that's Trump, right?
PALMERI: People like that nastiness. They think it is strength. They think it is --
(CROSSTALK)
QUINN: They like it from a man.
PHILLIP: They think it's authentic.
PALMERI: And he curses like that behind the scenes. My sources tell me.
PHILLIP: For sure.
PALMERI: Yeah.
JENNINGS: I'm sure Katie Porter is not improving because in her previous negative interactions with other human beings, she once I think poured a pot of hot scalding mashed potatoes on someone. She didn't even physically assault this reporter. So, maybe she's actually in improving -- California, are you really going look at that face on your television screen for the next four years and tolerate this behavior? Do better. You've got millions upon millions of people.
PHILLIP: Scott, I think the question, one of the questions though for you, I mean not so much for other people who don't like this behavior, but for you, are you comfortable with that treatment of reporters from Trump but not from Katie Porter? JENNINGS: I don't -- I don't care what Katie Porter does to
reporters. I thought it was legitimate questions and any legitimate candidate for governor, especially in a state that size, I don't have a better answer.
PHILLIP: Okay. I mean --
PARRISH: Can I just make a quick comment about the behavior of candidates and elected officials? There seems to definitely be a double standard. I think it's like the East Coast versus West Coast, you know, how we treat each other, how we act. Because in Virginia, you have a candidate who's running for attorney general, who sent text messages out talking about he wanted a bullet -- two bullets for the Speaker of the House, his Republican colleague and talking about wanting to urinate on the grave of that person.
PALMERI: I don't think it's an isolated experience.
PARRISH: And so, no, no.
(CROSSTALK)
QUINN: I don't want to own that.
PALMERI: Yes.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But listen. But Tim, I mean, listen.
PALMERI: There are a lot of psychopaths.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Listen. First of all, I don't want to compare apples to oranges here. I mean, I think the question is, Katie Porter had these interactions with her staff and these interactions with the press. And it's so egregious that here's what some of the reaction from MAGA has been, "What a mean spoiled brat Katie Porter is," Meghan McCain says. Glenn Beck -- "She can't answer basic questions without exploding?" Clay Travis -- "Democrats are so upset at the media being propagandists that they totally lose it when they ask basic questions," so on and so forth.
I am old enough to remember when Donald Trump walked out of a CBS interview with Lesley Stahl because he didn't like the questions that she asked. So I mean, is that disqualifying?
PARRISH: Well, no. I don't think it's disqualifying. But I will say this is, is when you -- I've loved that you raised the points about those responses because it's been crickets from the other side on the Jay Jones incident where we see this.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: No, no. PHILLIP: Okay, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Listen. Let me just say -- let me just say the Jay Jones incident is terrible, but it's a completely different situation. That has nothing to do with Katie Porter's conduct in an interview with reporters, which Democrats are criticizing.
QUINN: Very much so.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean, Democrats are totally criticizing her.
QUINN: It's been called --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Okay. Let me, actually -- yes. Hold on. Can I name one? Yes, I can, okay? Xavier Becerra criticized her comments about the vote. She said, "I'm not interested in excluding any votes." Betty Yee -- "After watching the interview, it's clear Katie Porter doesn't have the temperament to be governor." Antonio Villaraigosa -- "We need a leader who will solve hard problems and answer simple questions."
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: There has been criticism.
PARRISH: No, I'm talking about the criticism --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: No, I'm talking about -- okay.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: I'm talking about California.
PHILLIP: You keep bringing up Virginia. It's a different topic. I'm just saying, you can have that conversation, but you're not going to bring it into this conversation when it has nothing to do with it.
KOH: But here's the reality. Hill staffers are grossly underpaid and horribly overworked. They will do anything for their bosses. That staffer was trying to correct a truth that was on record so that she wasn't looking badly when it was published. And her reaction was to cuss her out, by the way, in front of the sitting Energy Secretary, who is one of the most unbelievably nice people I've ever met in my life.
[22:55:02]
And so, I think when people see that and the way she treats those staffers, it gives people pause about how she will treat those less powerful than she will. And I think that's a legitimate conversation.
PHILLIP: Yeah, one of the fastest implosions of a campaign I think I've ever seen. Everyone, thank you very much for being here. Ahead, more on our breaking news. Donald Trump's Justice Department indict -- their indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James. We'll have much more on that story, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:00:06]
PHILLIP: A quick programming note. This Sunday, get a glimpse into the heartbeat of New Orleans and the music that influenced generations of genre-defying tastemakers. That's next on the new episode of "New Orleans, Soul of a City" this Sunday night at 10 P.M., right here on CNN.
And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media -- X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
