Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Epstein Files Bill Heading To Trump's Desk; Trump Gives Saudi Crown Prince Red Carpet Reception; Trump Denies Ties With Family Business In Saudi Arabia; Federal Court Blocks Texas From Using Newly- Drawn Republican-Friendly Map In Next Year's Midterms; Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez's Push To Reprimand A Lawmaker In Her Party Sparks Backlash. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired November 18, 2025 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, unity on Capitol Hill. The House and the Senate overwhelmingly stand together on the most divisive of topics, the Epstein files.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: And I threw him out of my club many years ago because I thought he was a sick pervert.
PHILLIP: The public is one major step closer to knowing what secrets those files contained.
Plus, a royal reception for the Saudi Crown Prince complete with some revisionist history when it comes to murdered journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
TRUMP: You're mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial.
PHILLIP: As Trump touts his guest's record on human rights.
TRUMP: I'm very proud of the job he's done.
PHILLIP: And when the best laid plans fail in court, the redistricting battle and what happens when Republicans don't go along with President Trump.
And a rare move, a Dem calling out one of her own.
REP. MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ (D-WA): Election subversion is wrong no matter who's doing it.
PHILLIP: After fishy timing of a retirement.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Josh Doss, Lydia Moynihan, Tezlyn Figaro and Franklin Leonard.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, a rare sign of bipartisanship in a city defined by gridlock. Congress sure moved fast on this one, sending a bill to the president's desk to release those Epstein files. 427 members of the House voted for it and only one opposed it. And just moments later, senators agreed by unanimous consent to send that bill straight to President Trump immediately.
But that news may have been a surprise to how Speaker Mike Johnson, despite voting for the bill, he made it clear in a news conference earlier today that he expected the Senate to make some changes. That didn't happen. Republican sent Congressman Thomas Massie slammed Johnson for how he handled this whole saga.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): These bozos here, they -- like they pretend like, okay, now we're ready to pull the Band-Aid off after five months of shooting themselves in the foot, politically and morally.
Speaker Johnson's press conference shows that he is unrepentant. They have a backup plan, and I think it's going to work poorly for them, by the way. By the time they get done with trying to cover up, by having these other investigations or having amendments in the Senate, they're just going to make more people complicit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But here we are, a moment that looked impossible. Just a week ago, President Trump, he had called it a Democrat trap, and he's still calling it a hoax. He told Republicans they were weak and stupid if they crossed the aisle. But then he reversed course and encouraged them to vote for the bill. He said he would sign it if it got to him.
Still, the pressure does appear to be getting to the president and he's taking it out on, of course, the press.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Mr. President, why wait for Congress to release the Epstein files? Why not just do it now?
TRUMP: You know, it's not the question that I'm on, it's your attitude. I think you are a terrible reporter. It's the way you ask these questions.
Your company, your crappy company, is one of the perpetrators. And I'll tell you something, I'll tell you something, I think the license should be taken away from ABC.
I think the way you ask a question with the anger and the meanness is terrible. You ought to go back and learn how to be a reporter. No more questions from you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Of course, Mary Bruce is a very good reporter and that answer from Trump, it's very reminiscent, Scott Jennings, of a lot of other moments of pressure for this president, where when he's feeling the heat, he takes it out on the media and especially on female reporters, as we saw there. But why is he so angry when he just said the other day he wanted to release the files? Why not just celebrate what was about to happen, what did happen today?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I think he's sick of being asked about it. I think he's sick of being accused by Democrats and a lot of people in the media of having had something to do with Epstein when he had nothing to do with Epstein. There's not a shred of evidence he ever did anything wrong. I think he's probably frustrated with some people in his own party for going along with all this.
[22:05:02]
But, look, they've decided to put it behind them today, perfectly fine. We'll see what comes out in the files. I'll tell you what I think we're going to find out, though, that a heck of a lot more Democrats had more to do with Epstein than Donald Trump ever did.
PHILLIP: Well, do you think -- you said the Republicans for going along with this, in some cases, it was the Republicans' idea, Thomas Massie, Marjorie Taylor Greene. So, I mean, is it right or wrong that they decided to release the Epstein files? It seems like everybody in the Congress, except for one guy, thought it was right.
JENNINGS: Well, and that guy, Clay Higgins, actually made some interesting points about sort of upending the way we normally handle files like this. But, look, it's fine. Transparency is good. The victims should get whatever they want out of this because they are the victims. I do wonder, I mean, they've now held press conferences. They've spoken to Massie, they've spoken to Ro Khanna. I wonder why they don't just go ahead and tell us the names that they have, or the Congressmen can tell us what they have heard. But I guess we'll see what happens in the days ahead.
FRANKLIN LEONARD, FOUNDER AND CEO, THE BLACK LIST: I think we know why they're not doing that, and it's because they're under a great deal of pressure from all corners of the sort of Trump movement with real threats and threats of lawsuits, and I think that to the extent that they have been standing up. And, by the way, only a small number of them have been standing up. They've done so with a great deal of bravery.
And I think that, look, this is one step along the way. We still need to see if Trump signs it, and we still need to see how his executive branch will actually roll these files out, if they do at all. Personally, I'm not optimistic, but I'd be very happy to see Trump prove me wrong.
I think the bigger issue here, and I really think it's important that we step back from the Democrats versus Republicans versus Trump thing, I'm talking about the fact that what we're talking about here is over 1,000 women, according to the Trump FBI, who were victimized by Jeffrey Epstein, young girls and women. And, you know, I try to put that in perspective. Imagine your average American high school, every girl at that high school and the high school at the town over and the high school at the town over from that.
And I really don't think this is a Democrats versus Republicans versus Trump issue. This is a powerful man who did very bad things and they're victims. And there's really only one side that, at least the way that I was raised, it makes sense to stand on, and I really have real questions for anybody who is trying to obfuscate or diminish what's actually going on here.
And again, Scott, you keep saying, well, he didn't do anything. There's no indication of criminality. If that's true, he should be elated that we're putting these things.
JENNINGS: It's not if that's true. It is true. Can you name any evidence?
LEONARD: I would like to see the evidence. What I'm saying is --
JENNINGS: (INAUDIBLE) ten years of public life, you wouldn't know it already?
LEONARD: No, I don't. That's exactly the point.
JENNINGS: Oh my goodness.
LEONARD: Scott --
JENNINGS: This is an I.Q. test. Don't fail it. Come on, man. Ten years, Donald Trump has been in public life.
LEONARD: That's embarrassing, Scott. For --
PHILLIP: Scott, it is an I.Q. test. I mean, for ten years, we haven't heard any names. So, you really think that no one's involved?
JENNINGS: No. Obviously, Larry Summers was involved. Stacey Plaskett was involved. There's kinds of people involved with Jeffrey Epstein.
PHILLIP: If someone was involved, we would know about it. They would be prosecuted. It would be done and dusted. The last ten years, no one has been prosecuted for this. Is that a sign that nothing has happened?
JENNINGS: No, absolutely not.
PHILLIP: So then why do you think that that is the case?
JENNINGS: My question directly -- my question directly to him is, if you think after ten years, three presidential campaigns and Democrats unleashing holy hell on him you wouldn't know about --
PHILLIP: Scott, answer your own question. LEONARD: That's exactly what I'm saying. We have --
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: Biden's DOJ did everything to bankrupt Trump, to put him in jail for four years. Don't you think that if there was any kernel of anything that they found troubling in those documents we would know? They did everything else they did to weaponize the DOJ.
LEONARD: I believe that.
MOYNIHAN: Why? If they had that smoking gun, would they have not released it?
LEONARD: Because there was an out there was outstanding appeals on Ghislaine Maxwell's case that resolved when the Supreme Court refused to hear her appeal on October 6th, 2025, which happened to be roughly five days after the government shut down.
So, yes, the normal course of sort of DOJ operations would dictate that you would not roll out all of this information and you can say, oh, well, they did everything they possibly could to damage Trump. That does not necessarily mean that there would be a significant break in normal DOJ operations specifically for this case.
And, again, I want to come back to the fundamental issue here. We're talking about over a thousand girls and young women victimized by Jeffrey Epstein. I don't care if it's about Trump, I don't care if it's about Larry Summers. Put it all out there and let the chips fall wherever it may, because the powerful men here are the problem.
PHILLIP: What about with this argument that the Speaker Johnson is making that, essentially, the risk of this is that there will be non- credible allegations against people and it risks creating new victims, meaning people who are maybe named but not -- haven't actually done anything wrong and that their names will get dragged through the mud as a result of this?
TEZLYN FIGARO, PODCAST HOST, STRAIGHT SHOT, NO CHASER, BLACK EFFECT NETWORK: Lawyer up. I mean, that's about the best I can tell you to lawyer up. I want to put something -- yes, Scott, lawyer up. I want to put --
JENNINGS: Do you think innocent people should have to get lawyers?
FIGARO: No. Actually, I don't, because that's the --
[22:10:00]
JENNINGS: That's her question to you. That's what happens with innocent people --
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: If innocent people get their name through the mud, you say, get a lawyer? FIGARO: You need a lawyer because the files are getting released. So, get a lawyer to the defend you. I don't think it's right, but I know you're not talking to my community about me and my community.
JENNINGS: I'm asking if innocent people need to get lawyers.
FIGARO: Oh, I know plenty innocent people that end up getting in the wrong place, wrong time. So, get lawyers.
But let me -- excuse me. I want to put something on the table that I thought what representative Ro Khanna said today, Abby, that I found very disturbing when he was talking about this is not what our country's founded on. It actually is. There's another president by the name of Thomas Jefferson who raped 14-year-old Sally Hemmings. He was 40 years old.
So, what we're talking about right now has been going on, not just the thousands of women, you're talking about in high school. It's been going on since the beginning of time with powerful men who have taken advantage of young girls and then tried to make it be a love story.
So, no, I don't think innocent people should have their name disparaged. What I'm trying to tell you is the files are being released. So, if you know if you're in the file and you didn't do anything wrong, then, yes, lawyer up because it's coming out and people need to know what's going on.
PHILLIP: Let me just -- let met let Josh get a word and then you can --
JOSHUA DOSS, POLLSTER AND POLITICAL RESEARCHER: Just real quick, I just want to bring it back to something that just happened. I feel like I just heard Scott calling into question this black man's intelligence with the I.Q. test. I feel like I heard that. And so I just want to say something. This is what it sounded like.
JENNINGS: You want to make it racial, go ahead, but it's ridiculous.
DOSS: Well, I mean, I think that there --
JENNINGS: By the way, we know each other and we're friends. I know this man. He's a smart guy and we're having a debate. We're having a debate.
DOSS: I would love to finish what I'm saying.
JENNINGS: Don't make it into something -- we don't even know each other.
DOSS: This actually relates back to the topic that we're having, Scott. There is a -- you are sitting here with so much confidence without seeing all of the documents that Donald Trump is innocent. There is a presumption of presumption of guilt that a black man walks around the United States that I have been watching Donald Trump navigate this situation with the presumption of innocence that is never, never afforded to us, right? This is the same guy that is trailing 29 rape allegations, and we have videos of him saying things like, grab him by the, you know what. Just the very fact that he's connected, documented, connected to the country's most egregious pedophile enough, that fact alone is enough for us to ask questions about if it's a disqualifying factor for leadership.
So, I just don't know why you're so fervent right now saying that, I know for a fact he has nothing. Can we see the files and make that decision?
PHILLIP: Scott?
JENNINGS: Look, here's what I think it's been going on for ten years. If there was a shred of anything to know about Donald Trump, we would already know it. What do we know? We know -- I'm answering your question.
DOSS: Evidence is not the evidence of absence.
JENNINGS: We know that Donald Trump knew Jeffrey Epstein, and we know that he excommunicated him from Mar-a-Lago and his life. We also know that after Epstein was convicted that powerful Democrats continued to stay in touch with Jeffrey Epstein. This is not a story about Trump. It is a story about powerful men. Many of them are in the Democratic Party. We're going to find that out. You can't wash away the politics.
PHILLIP: We got to hit pause on this conversation.
LEONARD: People turning to this Republican versus Democrat.
MOYNIHAN: It's because every Democrat goes on T.V. and accuses Trump for having done something untoward.
MOYNIHAN: They only reason that any of these files, by the way, are being released is because of the MAGA base that basically tried to push this for four years.
PHILLIP: I actually --
MOYNHIAN: Joe Biden released zero --
PHILLIP: I actually totally agree it is because of the MAGA base. It is the MAGA base that asked for it. It is also, you know, Donald Trump who said he was going to do it. Now he's the one who has been flip- flopping back and forth on this.
One thing I would also note, Donald Trump was a Democrat back when he was hanging around with Jeffrey Epstein. So, talk of all the Democrats hanging around Jeffrey Epstein includes him.
Coming up next, Texas Republicans' effort to paint the map red, it hits a legal snag with a Trump-appointed judge saying that the lines were racially gerrymandered.
Plus, President Trump is rolling out the red carpet for Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince, and defending the man who Trump's own CIA said, ordered the killing of a journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Foreign policy or a business meeting? The lines are getting blurry after President Trump, welcome Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince to the White House. Tonight, Trump posted a lavish black tie dinner from Mohammed bin Salman, also known as MBS. It capped a day that saw the president give the prince a red carpet reception at the White House. There were horses and trumpets and a flyover with fighter jets. And by his own account, Trump's relationship with the Crown Prince is as warm as ever.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: A friend of mine for a long time, a very good friend of mine.
And what he's done is incredible in terms of human rights and everything else.
Because he's my friend.
We've been really good friends for a long period of time.
It's an honor to be your friend.
As far as this gentleman is concerned, he's done a phenomenal job.
What an honor it is to be your friend.
He's a good guy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Never mind the fact that the CIA assessed that the Crown Prince likely ordered the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident and journalist and U.S. resident who was dismembered in 2018. But when asked about the killing today, Trump took offense at the question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Your Royal Highness, the U.S. intelligence concluded that you orchestrated the brutal murder of a journalist. 9/11 families are furious that you are here in the Oval Office.
TRUMP: Who are you with? Who are you with?
REPORTER: Why should Americans trust you?
TRUMP: Who are you with?
REPORTER: And the same to you, Mr. President.
TRUMP: Now, who are you with?
REPORTER: I'm with ABC News, sir.
TRUMP: You're with who?
REPORTER: ABC News, sir.
TRUMP: Fake news.
You're mentioning somebody that was extremely controversial. A lot of people didn't like that gentleman that you're talking about. Whether you like him or didn't like him, things happen, but he knew nothing about it and we can leave it at that. You don't have to embarrass our guests by asking a question like that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: I mean, it's one thing to, I guess, maybe let bygones be bygones, maybe that's what he wants to do, but it's another thing to praise MBS's human rights record and then suggest that a dissident, a journalist, was not very well liked and maybe deserved his fate of being dismembered? I mean, why?
MOYNIHAN: Part of President Trump's job is to have positive diplomatic relations with some of the most important countries in the world. Look, when he met Xi Jinping, he didn't bring up the Uyghur Muslims. He didn't bring up I.P. theft. He was focused on making deals and having a positive and working relationship.
PHILLIP: Are you okay with that?
MOYNIHAN: That's part of being president. You have to work with these other politicians. You're talking about Biden, when he got into office, his first instinct was to call Saudi pariahs. A couple years later, fast forward, he had to basically go hat in hand to Saudi because he realized they are an important ally for the U.S. And when we talk about affordability, having a relationship with the country that has the second largest oil reserve, that matters. And Trump got the prince to invest an estimated $1 trillion building factories, bringing jobs back here to the U.S.
And I would also note President Trump does not get nearly enough credit for the Abraham Accords. He's working right now to bring Saudi into that in a way that would ultimately reestablish a new working order in the Middle East.
PHILLIP: Sure. So, the Biden administration was also working on that Saudi deal before October 7th, but she makes a good point about the Biden administration. President Biden also basically kind of kowtowed to MBS at one point, despite, you know, at one point, you know, criticizing him for what happened with Khashoggi. But, again, what is happening with President Trump? It's not just that. He's like, let's not talk about it. He's denigrating the person who was murdered and then also praising the guy who had a hand allegedly in the murder. DOSS: And praising the record on human rights. I mean, that feels like a slap in the face. I think Trump's stance is he wants to look like a strong man, make the country look like we are strong, and I'll let the geopolitical experts decide whether we were stronger or weaker with Trump. But one thing I will say is, to me, this is when we look our weakest, when we buddy up with people who have had abhorrent records on human rights violations, particularly towards the women in their countries. And instead of doing what might be a little politically difficult, what might be a little politically inexpedient what actually might not be the best economic approach, we kowtowed.
And I think I'll say this too. The Republican Party is attracting a ton of young men in this country right now. Like I don't necessarily want it to be that way, but that's the way that it is, young black men and young Hispanic men. What responsibility did that party have to stand up to people who treat women the way that Saudi Arabia has treated there?
MOYNIHAN: Actually, Saudi Arabia is moving forward in terms of women's rights. When you look at the Middle East landscape, Afghanistan, women have acid poured on their face when they try to go to school. In Saudi, they are slowly loosening and coming into the 21st century and allowing women to get their driver's license. They're headed in the right direction. Don't we want to encourage that as opposed to basically twiddling our thumbs?
FIGARO: This is not about --
PHILLIP: I'm not sure that the right comparison is Afghanistan under the Taliban --
MOYNIHAN: I'm talking about the Middle East landscape.
JENNINGS: I mean, this is a criticism of Islamic governments, is it not?
DOSS: It might be.
JENNINGS: So, who in the Middle East would you say is the most progressive on women's rights and other human rights?
DOSS: That's so far from my point. I don't know how we ended up --
JENNINGS: You said we're buddying up the people who were bad to women. Who's good to women?
DOSS: My point was always --
JENNINGS: It's Israel. We can answer it. It's Israel.
LEONARD: Look, I --
FIGARO: The bottom line is because, Abby, you were talking about how he was talking to the journalist. The bottom line is, just as Scott was over here in shambles, Trump is in shambles. He doesn't want to get questions asked about, how he treated today. He didn't want -- he was under pressure with Epstein. He's on the plane calling people, piggy. The bottom line is he doesn't want to be questioned about anything because they're in shambles.
MOYNIHAN: Don't you think Donald Trump answers more questions than any --
(CROSSTALKS)
FIGARO: No, I agree. And Scott said he's in shambles. So, MAGA is in shambles.
JENNINGS: You keep insulting me, but I'm not -- no matter how many times you do it, I'm not going to --
FIGARO: No, you're my friend. You're my friend. Scott said friends and we're --
PHILLIP: Scott said that President Trump is in shambles?
FIGARO: Pretty much. Ask Scott.
JENNINGS: Did I say that?
FIGARO: I almost had a nervous breakdown?
JENNINGS: Are you living on any different --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: President Trump was asked about the fact that his family is doing business with Saudi Arabia right now, as we speak. Let play what he said about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I have nothing to do with the family business. I have left and I've devoted 100 percent of my energy. What my family does is fine.
[22:25:00]
They do business all over. They've done very little with Saudi Arabia, actually.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, he's basically saying I guess I don't really know about it, but it is happening. We all know about it.
LEONARD: Yes. I mean, look, I'm not naive enough to think that like presidents don't have to engage in a certain amount of like geopolitical real politic with unsavory figures, right? That's just a reality. It's not going to change tomorrow. What I do have a great deal of concern about is the fact that the Saudi Arabian state is basically bankrolling the Trump family business in the form of a private equity fund, underwriting their golf course business. And, I mean, just to put it in, in private market context, if a Fortune 500 CEO was negotiating with a regime that was doing business with a private family business or his family's private family business, any board, any corporate board in the country would tell you that would be a governance nightmare. It would be a scandal of the highest order. And for some reason, because it's the chief executive of the country, it's not -- we're just like we're sweeping it under the rug. But, again, if it was a Fortune 100 company, there's not a board in this country that would not have a real problem with it.
JENNINGS: Look, I think what we have to remember here is that it's the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has clearly done things we don't approve of.
LEONARD: I agree with you.
JENNINGS: Qatar has done things we don't approve of, the guy who's running Syria now, we used to have a $10 million bounty on his head. But the job of the president of the United States is to deal the hand -- play the hand he's dealt.
LEONARD: I agree with you.
JENNINGS: That's what he's doing.
LEONARD: I asked you -- I was talking about his private family business and the conflict of interest implicit in that? Again, ugly, real politic, geopolitical, real politic, it's necessary, we know that, but it's gets odd and it becomes a real scandal when that same person who is engaged in that real politic is taking on as part of this private family business billions, if not more, dollars.
JENNINGS: He's not running the family business. Now, he has family, that is in the family --
LEONARD: Scott, again, let me ask you --
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: He's elected president.
MOYNIHAN: There has been presidents actually who profit hugely from their time in the White House.
LEONARD: And they shouldn't. Let me --
MOYNIHAN: The Obamas, the Bidens, who only have very little money --
PHILLIP: Wait.
LEONARD: Let me ask the question again. If it was a Fortune --
PHILLIP: None of those people, none of those people had their family actively doing deals with foreign governments while they were president.
LEONARD: Look, simple question. PHILLIP: None of them.
LEONARD: If it was a Fortune 500 CEO engaged in the same behavior, would a corporate board consider it a problem?
MOYNIHAN: President Trump's family was doing business overseas before he was president.
LEONARD: Would a corporate board --
MOYNIHAN: And I think at the end of the day, the American people would much prefer that Trump --
LEONARD: That Trump get rich?
MOYNIHAN: All these people have working relationships in the Middle East so they're able to broker --
(CROSSTALKS)
LEONARD: There's a difference between a working diplomatic relationship and private enterprise.
PHILLIP: We do have to go here, guys.
LEONARD: No. I would have him not do private business while he is the president.
PHILLIP: We got to go here.
The president's attempt to redraw voting maps in both Texas and Indiana are coming up short tonight. What it means for the party's plans for these midterm elections, that's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:32:41]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a federal court in Texas blocked Texas from using its newly drawn Republican-friendly map in next year's midterms, and instead it ordered the state to stick with the old one. The judge said it's because the map is probably racially gerrymandered. And in Indiana, the state Senate voted to adjourn in January, pausing the redistricting conversation until then. And Republicans have been resisting pressure from Trump to redraw these congressional lines, even after he threatened them with primaries.
This all adds up to a big question mark around these redistricting efforts for President Trump. I do think, Tezlyn, that it almost might be a case of the best laid plans backfiring in the case of Republicans, because it looks like California's -- although they will be challenged, but California's done through a ballot measure, might get through. But Texas is on hold. Indiana's not happening. Where does this go from here?
FIGARO: Yeah, I love it. It looks like Republicans are taking their party back. I mean, to be quite honest, they're pushing back on that. They're pushing back on the Epstein files. Perhaps the folks are actually deciding that the rule of law is very important. I was surprised to see that Texas did the right thing, and it's made me very inspired. I lived in Texas for about 10 years, so to know that they're making the right decision to say, let's make sure stuff is fair --
PHILLIP: Well, not the legislature, the courts.
FIGARO: Yes, the courts, of course.
PHILLIP: Yeah, although it's worth noting that one of the judges, the judge that wrote this ruling, is a Trump appointee.
FIGARO: Right.
PHILLIP: Yeah, so Scott, I mean, for Republicans, again, like this could really backfire. I mean, they launched this sort of mid-decade redistricting effort, and now they don't really know how it's going to land, and it could land with Democrats actually redistricting more.
JENNINGS: Yeah, there's some uncertainty here. I think Governor Abbott in Texas will appeal this ruling and probably has a great chance of getting it overturned. I don't know what's going to happen in Indiana. That one's been a huge roadblock. Some other states have moved to pick up a seat here or there.
To me, the real ballgame is whether the Supreme Court's going to throw out Section two of the Voting Rights Act, and if it does, that will enable states in the South to redraw maps to the tune of possibly 12 to 20 seats that you would imagine would favor the Republicans. Until we know that, I don't think we'll know how this is all going to wash out. But obviously, there's some uncertainty laying out there tonight.
[22:35:00]
PHILLIP: Let me just read this statement from a Indiana State Senate Republican. He said, "I've been a legislator for 42 years. I'm not going to change my vote." That's what she said after she received 750 calls opposing redistricting and 37 in favor. "Hoosiers are not used to being sort of in blackmail position. It does not vote well."
And she's saying that because Trump basically said, you know, he called out all their names. They'll soon have a primary problem. Any other politician who supports him with the stupidity will also. I mean, the threats are very explicit coming from the President to these --
DOSS: Yeah, his threats are really barking this week. He's been drawn out the last week --They're not really working this week. I mean, I don't know. This is maybe the lame duckification of Donald Trump. We might be in late stage here. I don't see the fear that he used to strike into folks eyes anymore, probably because let's take, you know, the folks in the House of Republicans in the House.
What is Donald Trump really giving you to run on, right? You're going back to your district. They're losing their Medicaid. Their affordability is absolutely in the trash. We just had 150,000 layoffs, the most in one month ever, right? We don't even know the other economic numbers. I mean, I just think that so many Republicans are starting to see, like, do I get out of Donald Trump's -- the subservience to Donald Trump? What I thought that I could have gotten --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Lydia, what do you think is behind the pushback?
MOYNIHAN: Well, I would reject this notion that Donald Trump is a lame duck. I mean, he has more than three years left in office, and I think there's a lot of things to point to gas prices coming down that are very positive for Republicans. But look, on this gerrymandering issue, I mean, I think Republicans felt that they needed to be on the offensive because they were looking at states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont -- all these states that didn't have any Republican representation.
But I think taking a step back here, you know, to Scott's point, there's still a lot of questions to be answered. But I think the bigger thing that Republicans should be focusing on and this is Arnold Schwarzenegger's idea, actually, is to basically enact a sort of framework that's going to make sure that everyone feels confident about the elections have an independent redistricting commission in each state, make election day a holiday, and make sure that we have voter I.D. I think these are the bigger issues that we should be talking about.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Two quick things. I still want to know why you think Republicans are pushing back on Trump if you don't think that he's in lame duck mode. But secondly, on those points, I mean, Democrats have been calling for -- at least two of those points for years now. They even had a vote on it that Republicans didn't join them in.
And actually on the voter I.D. in the 2020 election cycle, we saw Democrats talking about that they actually might be comfortable with voter I.D. as long as there were guardrails to protect students. So, are you saying that Republicans should suddenly adopt the Democratic position, which is to have independent redistricting commissions?
MOYNIHAN: I didn't realize that Democrats were cool with voter I.D. That's great to hear.
PHILLIP: Stacey Abrams, hey, Stacey Abrams in 2020, came out and said voter I.D. is actually not terrible if you protect students and other people who have other forms of I.D. and elderly people. That actually --
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: I think Republicans would be thrilled to hear voter I.D. --
(CROSSTALK) PHILLIP: I was paying attention because I was covering -- so --
(CROSSTALK)
FIGARO: Democrats would be thrilled --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So in other words, you're basically saying election day a holiday, independent commissions to stop gerrymandering -- again, these are Democratic ideas that they put on the table. They've had votes on. Republicans have repeatedly said no. You think that they should back it now?
MOYNIHAN: I think if we can get voter I.D., that has been a huge priority for Republicans in elections.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: That sounds like a great compromise.
FIGARO: What about the holiday part?
PHILLIP: I actually think that sounds like a great compromise, don't you?
FIGARO: Yeah, what about the holiday part? You want the holiday as well?
MOYNIHAN: I think if we can get voter I.D. laws in place.
FIGARO: So let me ask again, do you want the holiday also? You said voter I.D.
MOYNIHAN: I think we should absolutely do that if we can get voter I.D. laws in place.
FIGARO: OK, so we got voter I.D., so I'm going to ask one more time. Do you want the holiday?
MOYNIHAN: Sure. If we can get voter I.D. --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Look, I mean, I do think there are paths forward. We have our elected officials.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Elected officials haven't taken them because -- I don't want to say nobody. But in particular, I think Republicans have not been willing to take redistricting off the table, partisan gerrymandering off the table. But this fiasco seems to suggest that we are either headed all the way to rock bottom or we've got to fix this system once and for all. LEONARD: Well, I think, you know, Scott sort of glossed over Section
two of the Voting Rights Act. And I think it's important that we go back to that because of what Section two of the Voting Rights Act is. It's not just partisan gerrymandering. What the Texas court found is that it was specifically racial gerrymandering designed to dilute the voting power of black and Latino voters.
And what the Trump administration is hoping is that they can sort of peel back Section two of the Voting Rights Amendment and then racially gerrymander in every state that they control, inherently reducing the voting power of the black and Latino vote, which they have and will continue to consistently lose.
[22:40:11]
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: We actually saw a state --
PHILLIP: We have to leave it there.
(CROSSTALK)
MOYNIHAN: -- that just did racial gerrymandering. It was California.
PHILLIP: Up next for us, a House Democrat calls out one of her own, enraging her own colleagues. Why the timing of a retirement announcement is causing a huge uproar in the party? That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:05]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a Democrat goes after one of her own. The House passed a resolution condemning the retirement announcement of Illinois Democratic Congressman Chuy Garcia. According to the resolution, the Illinois representative coordinated the timing of his announcement to all but ensure that his chief of staff would win the seat. Fellow Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington triggered the vote, which came to the shock of Democratic leadership in rank and file.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ (D-WA): If you're not going to run, you don't get to choose your successor, no matter how noble the work you have done beforehand. You cannot win the right to represent people through subversion. All you do is engender distrust in the government and apathy in citizens of this great country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Garcia has denied the allegations in his office, says his abrupt decision came after he received troubling health news. However, what they don't deny is that he gave his chief of staff a heads up. He did. So the chief of staff had time to collect the signatures and get ready to go. And I mean, I think this is A, I think why a lot of people hate politics.
But the question that's tearing Democrats apart is, should they have done this resolution to censure him? And you have people like AOC saying, "I loathe machine politics and got into office defeating an incumbent who got in that way. However, there are quite a few problems with choosing to grind the entire House to halt to force all 435 members across the country to do a rushed vote on this one individual instance, of many, mind you," she says.
FIGARO: No, I love it. I think it's very important that Democrats do, whether they think the reason for it is valid or not. I love putting things on the table, which is why I criticize Democrats on a lot of things. We can go back and talk about the primary, you know, not having a primary when Joe Biden should have actually sat down and allowed somebody to do a full primary instead of just even picking on V.P. Harris. So I am for, you know, calling things out, saying you don't just get to choose. Let the people make the decision.
PHILLIP: Do you think it was right to censure him?
FIGARO: Yeah, I'm OK with it.
PHILLIP: Yeah.
FIGARO: I'm OK with it. I mean, I'm OK with what parties holding themselves accountable to Democrats --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I mean, what does it say about Democrats that they're fighting with themselves over whether they should condemn this or not?
DOSS: I don't even like the term fighting. I didn't like how we positioned it as one going after another. I think that, you know, this week has kind of showed us that maybe there's some room in both in our party, but on both sides of the aisle for us to just vigorously fight for transparency, for ethics to do the things the right way and ultimately for us to kind of just lower the temperature in politics. And I think a lot of that that heightened temperature comes from our like radical partisanship.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But I mean, I guess I agree with you, but that's not what's happening here. I do think that there are many Democrats who are basically saying this is bad, but not now. Is that the right response?
(CROSSTALK)
FIGARO: And that's the problem, though, Abby. This is why I don't like affiliating with any party. This blind loyalty of you can't call out a Democrat, can't call it a Democrat, Republican can't call out a Republican. I'm OK with saying that they're fighting. I'm OK with saying that there is some disagreement. I'm OK with saying, let's just call it out for what it is and not have the blind loyalty. I think that's healthy, don't you? LEONARD: Look, I agree. I think that what the congressman did was frankly ridiculous and pretty embarrassing. And he's right. It's right for us to say so. But I'm also not going to sit here and act like him doing that is the same danger to democracy that racial gerrymandering in Texas and Indiana is. I'm not, you know, when forced on his party by a President who has already tried to overthrow an election once. So, I think there needs to be some consistency in how the Congress comes together to censor people.
I do think it's interesting that, you know, when it comes to issuing a censor for subverting democracy, we've managed to find the energy to do it for a Latino progressive from Chicago. But the many, many members of Congress who have engaged in similar election subversion, you just can't quite muster the energy to do that.
So, again, what he did was wrong. I have no problem admitting it. But I would also love to see some consistency when we when we talk about the subversion of election and trying to choose your own voters. And I don't see that anywhere in the Congress right now.
PHILLIP: Go ahead.
MOYNIHAN: I think you folks are in the minority of the Democratic Party. Only 22 Democrats voted with her to reprimand Garcia. And now there's actually an effort to introduce a retaliatory measure against her. And I think this is the issue for Democrats is they want to be the party that's all about democracy. They want to have the "No Kings" Protest. But the reality is they didn't really pick Kamala Harris.
(CROSSTALK)
FIGARO: Just so we're clear --
MOYNIHAN: They didn't really pick Kamala Harris in a Democratic fashion.
FIGARO: Right, right.
MOYNIHAN: And they're quick to now introduce a retaliatory measure against this woman? So --
FIGARO: Well, you did hear me just say that a little while ago, didn't I? I said I didn't like that.
MOYNIHAN: Yes, yes.
FIGARO: I said I didn't like that they didn't pick her.
[22:50:00]
MOYNIHAN: Yes. But I'm saying there was only 22 Democrats.
FIGARO: Oh, no. I just want to clear up on that. I'm not a Democrat
MOYNIHAN: No. I know.
FIGARO: -- because you said --
(CROSSTALK)
FIGARO: Oh, OK.
PHILLIP: Let me play what Marie Gluesenkamp Perez has said about her colleagues condemning her as opposed to condemning Chuy Garcia. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PEREZ: Just hours before the filing deadline, Representative Garcia's chief of staff submitted the paperwork to run with at least 2500 signatures attached to it. And Chuy Garcia's signature was the very first one listed in the petition. He had at least three days of work that he is publicly acknowledged, where he knew that his chief was going to be running against him. And he did not communicate his intention to retire.
You know, one of the disturbing things is that, like, immediately after the news broke about how Chuy had basically chosen a successor, I saw a lot of members congratulating him on how clever and slick it was. And I think that galvanized me more to say that this is not something to be proud of or to emulate or copy, that we have to think critically about -- like what use is it to win an election at all costs, even your own integrity if you are in that process destroying Americans' confidence in government?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: OK, I have to say, the fact that Chuy Garcia's name is the first on the list is a little comical, can't make that up. But Scott, as you know, I mean, part of -- one of the AOC's post about this, she talks about how this happens. It's not the first time.
JENNINGS: Yeah.
PHILLIP: And so the kind of -- I don't know. There is a lot of outrage about something that is not unique to this situation. It's bipartisan in a way, and it happens with an alarming amount of frequency. But this is not new.
JENNINGS: No, I lived through one of these in 2008 in Kentucky. One of my oldest political consulting clients is in Congress today. But when he got the office, the outgoing congressman tried to do the same thing, file for the office. And then at the very last minute, wanted his chief of staff to run. And they sent the chief of staff's wife to withdraw the congressman and put it. I mean, it was all done.
Our guy that ended up winning filed with about 15 seconds to go, it was in 2008. And then we had a short primary. The chief of staff ended up dropping out. But this is a common thing. And it took some gut -- courage and guts to call it out.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us. The panel is going to give us their nightcaps, "Spokesperson" edition. We'll be right back. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:57:22]
PHILLIP: Last night, the cast of "Wicked" hit the red carpet, but Cynthia Erivo had no voice. Ariana Grande stepped in for interviews, urging her to rest. So tonight's news cap asks, if you lost your voice, who would you want to speak on your behalf? Lydia?
MOYNIHAN: OK, first, Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo. That is quite the relationship. But I would have Morgan Freeman --
PHILLIP: Wow.
MOYNIHAN: -- because who could be better than having Morgan Freeman be your spokesperson?
PHILLIP: That is not what I thought you were going to say.
(CROSSTALK)
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: OK. All right. Tezlyn?
FIGARO: Well, I am a proud, as I say all the time, FAMU College of Law student. And one thing that I've learned about the law is having somebody that is not just passionate, but also knows how to apply the law. So if I lost my voice, it would be attorney Ebony K. Williams. She knows who I am as a mother. She understands my passion and she's a kick ass defense attorney.
PHILLIP: We love Ebony. She's a great choice. OK, go ahead, Franklin.
LEONARD: I say Ancestor edition, James Baldwin, because, you know, first person on the team sheet. But Tressie McMillan Cottom. If you don't know, look it up. In my mind, one of the smartest thinkers about American society and systems of power.
PHILLIP: See, this is going in a different direction than I thought except for yours. I thought people would go for like voices. But we're doing something a little deeper.
LEONARD: In fairness, Tressie's got a good voice too, though.
PHILLIP: Yeah, that's yeah. OK, you can have both. We can have both things. All right, Josh?
DOSS: I'm going with Tracee Ellis Ross mainly because I feel like she'd be able to, you know, take any normal thought that I have and make it hilarious. So I'm going to go with her.
PHILLIP: OK, that's a good choice. Scott?
JENNINGS: The most recent person to conduct an interview in our pop culture to exhibit message, discipline and a willingness to manhandle some ridiculous wolf reporter was Sidney Sweeney. And so I'm going to purposely lose my voice and see if I can get Sidney to take care of all my public interviews and speaking engagements. I think this would be a brilliant partnership.
And so, if you'd like to do it, the job is yours. I've been doing a lot of book sales this week. I could use an extra pair of hands. And so if Sydney wants to come on board, let's do it right now.
PHILLIP: You know, I thought -- speaking of your book, Scott, I thought you were going to say Donald Trump, but you surprised me with the Sydney Sweeney. Everyone, thank you very much. And as we just mentioned, Scott's book hits bookshelves today, "A Revolution of Common Sense" is out in stores and you can pick it up wherever you find books.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media on X, Instagram and on TikTok. "Laura Coates Live", it starts right now.
