Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Links Greenland Takeover Threat to Nobel Prize Snub; Trump Invites Putin to Join His $1 Billion Board of Peace; DOJ Investigates Anti-ICE Protesters Who Stormed Church; Bruce Springsteen Annoyed by ICE; Lawmaker's Complete 180 on Epstein Files. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired January 19, 2026 - 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)
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST (voice over): Tonight, give peace a chance, unless I don't get a prize. Why the president suggests he's threatening to invade a NATO ally over a Nobel snub.
Plus, the separation of church, state and megaphones. The DOJ vows to prosecute anti-ICE protesters who stormed a house of worship.
Also --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you believe you don't deserve to be murdered for exercising your American right to protest.
BERMAN: The boss stands up against ice in American cities, as the White House tells local police to surrender.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Get the (BLEEP) out of here.
BERMAN: And Republicans suddenly don't care about the Epstein files, as the feds drag their feet on releasing them.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Leigh McGowan, Tim Parrish, Cameron Kasky and Stacy Schneider.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN (on camera): All right. Good evening. I'm John Berman in New York in for Abby.
And to misquote one of Donald Trump's favorite Rolling Stones songs, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get Greenland. Tonight, the president himself is telling the prime minister of Norway that, in part, if he can't have the Nobel Peace Prize, at least one, that he actually won himself, he wants Greenland. He made the link himself in an actual text to the actual Norwegian prime minister. In it, he blames that country for not winning the Nobel. He claims he stopped eight wars and added that he no longer feels obligated to think purely of peace because of the snub. He went on to, again, question Denmark's, ability to protect Greenland and ended by writing, the world is not secure unless we have complete and total control of it.
The backdrop of course, is Trump's near obsession with the Nobel Prize.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: They will never give me a Nobel Peace Prize.
Do I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you (INAUDIBLE).
TRUMP: Well, maybe for the Abraham Accords.
They gave it to Obama for doing absolutely nothing but destroying our country.
I should get the Nobel Prize for every war, but I don't want to be greedy.
I can't think of anybody in history that should get the Nobel Prize more than me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: So, Norway's prime minister responded by reminding Trump that an independent committee awards the Nobel Peace Prize, not the Norwegian government.
Over the weekend, Trump escalated his takeover bid by threatening new tariffs on European allies until a Greenland deal is reached. And in a new phone interview with NBC, the president again refused to take U.S. military intervention off the table as a means to get his way.
Joining us now in our fifth seat, Suzanne Nossel, a senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. And, friends, Cameron, let me just start with you. I mean, who among us hasn't lost a Peace Prize and demanded an island?
CAMERON KASKY, PARKLAND SCHOOL SHOOTING SURVIVOR AND CO-FOUNDER, MARCH FOR OUR LIVES: Well, Trump is being very transparent about what he wants here, and he did the same in Venezuela and Venezuela. He said this was about oil. And with Greenland, he's saying this is a personal grievance for which I am threatening military action. And he's basically playing Risk because people hurt his feelings or people ostensibly hurt his feelings.
So, I am appreciative that the president is being transparent about this. I would love it if he was more transparent about the human sex trafficking network that he was a part of, but you can't win them all. BERMAN: Cameron's grateful that the president is being transparent about the Nobel Peace Prize and his desires for Greenland, Scott. What do you think about that?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Are you going to let that sit? Are we going to claim here on CNN that the president is part of a global sex trafficking ring, or --
BERMAN: Well, I mean, we're going to talk about the Epstein file. Scott, I will do the fact-checking as we go along here. Repeat what you said about the global sex trafficking ring?
KASKY: That Donald Trump was provably very involved with it.
BERMAN: Okay, we'll get to that later. I mean, Donald Trump has never been charged with any crimes in relation to Jeffrey Epstein. But we --
KASKY: Yes, but let's be adults.
BERMAN: We'll talk about the Epstein later.
KASKY: Let's be serious.
BERMAN: Satisfied?
Now, answer the question about Greenland. Do you think the president's desire now for Greenland, in his text to the Norwegian prime minister, reveals perhaps something about Donald Trump?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it is true that the government of Norway doesn't award the Nobel Peace Prize. That's true. It's also true that he would very much like to get one. It's also true that he probably deserves one. So, all of those things are true. I also think that he very much wants Greenland for national security reasons.
He has stated this time and again, he's worried about Russia, he's worried about China, he's worried about protecting this island. It is a vital area.
[22:05:00]
They have critical minerals, we already have a military base there. We're already obligated to protect it anyway. He doesn't believe that Denmark can adequately protect it.
So, he's got an idea that it would be better under U.S. control, so did Harry S. Truman, so did Secretary of State William Seward. This has been an island that has been recognized by American presidents and diplomats for 150 years, but it would be a good idea for us to control. We bought stuff from Denmark before, the Virgin Islands, so it's not unusual for us to engage in these kinds of transactions. Whether this text exchange helps him get to a deal to buy it, I don't know. I want him to be able to buy it. I think the best way to get it is to buy it. BERMAN: Why? Leigh, why bring up Greenland then? I mean, why bring up the Nobel Peace Prize? If it's about this well-thought out Truman- esque process, as Scott is suggesting to get the island, why say, and I was snubbed for the Nobel Peace Prize?
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: Well, first of all, Donald Trump is being transparent about what he wants. He wants a Nobel Peace Prize because he wants what he wants when he wants it. He's being a brat. And as a mother, I'm telling you, this is a boy that's never been told no, and this doesn't belong to you.
To Scott, I would say Greenland's not for sale. That's nice that America wants to buy it. They have said, we're not for sale. We do not want to be bought. The people in Denmark are saying, we're not selling it. So, I don't know why we keep talking about it like America's the biggest boy in the room and we have the most money and we'll come in here and take it.
And I would also say, if it is for sale, where are they getting the $700 billion they're suggesting they're buying it from? Because that would come from the American taxpayer. And we want things like healthcare and education and new roads and bridges and those kind of things, and we're going to spend, what, $700 billion to buy an island that isn't for sale?
I think it's ludicrous. I think we're acting like the biggest brat. We look terrible on the world stage. And if you're part of NATO and then you start acting like you're not going to back up NATO, you're going to actually take things from them, then it makes us look terrible and it's just poor leadership.
BERMAN: Talk about the world stage, Suzanne.
SUZANNE NOSSEL, SENIOR FELLOW, CHICAGO COUNCIL ON GLOBAL AFFAIRS: Yes. Look, nobody is in disagreement that Greenland is a strategic island, that we have interest there, that the protection of U.S. and European national Security is implicated in Greenland, but we have all the access we need.
I mean, the reason we did a deal with Denmark to put bases there, to put U.S. troops there is because they recognize that and they're willing to expand that deal, to renegotiate it, to give the U.S. the rights that it may need to implement if Trump wants tourists and is able to a version of the Iron Dome that would protect the United States and North America.
So, the idea that we have to have complete control, he's admitted it's a psychological need that he has, not a need that is driven by U.S. national interest. He said that to a New York Times reporter. And so the cost that this is exacting, extorting the Europeans and threatening to impose these tariffs that now have Europe on edge, looking at a complete withdrawal and breakdown of the NATO alliance, the most successful alliance in world history, that has lasted for, you know, now nearly 80 years, you know, that is an appalling cost to pay, price to pay for the American people for a kind of flight of fancy that's ego-driven. He admits that. You know, I think it's great he's owned up to it because we can then size him up. But the Nobel Peace Prize is not a participation trophy. This is not, you know, something that you're entitled to because you stomped your feet.
BERMAN: And just one last thing in the Nobel Prize, this is what he told NBC today, of course, even after Norway told him, they're not the ones who pick it. Norway totally controls it despite what they say, he told NBC News. They like to say they have nothing to do with it, but they have everything to do with it, the president added. And then he goes on to say, I don't care about the Nobel Prize. It's a pretty strange way of saying you don't care,
TIM PARRISH, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: John, I would agree with the president that he quite frankly doesn't care about the Nobel Peace Prize.
BERMAN: What evidence you have. Is there any evidence you have --
(CROSSTALKS)
PARRISH: Wait a second. We all were quiet when everyone was talking. If he did care so much about it, he would've stopped on this eight times victory that he's had in playing in global affairs and stopping conflicts around the world. I know some people at this table may not agree but the president has in fact utilized his place as a leader of the free world to stop conflicts around the world.
And I would disagree with the point you made earlier. We just heard two people at this table refer to the president as a brat and conflated him removing a murderous dictator, which hundreds of thousands of people from Venezuela who call America home now cheered on and agreed with. That's what we just conflated that the president is doing, which I agree with Scott, is a national security, as you said, yourself, strategic move. And if we don't get it, our near peer enemies, Russia and China, absolutely have the same exact thought in mind that they want Greenland.
I think the president doesn't care about this Nobel Peace Prize business.
BERMAN: He just said he doesn't want one. If he doesn't care about it, why did he bring it up? If he didn't care about it, why did he write the Norwegian prime minister and say, I'm linking the Nobel Prize to --
PARRISH: The president United States, and I'll remind you, he is the first president of the United States in contemporary history to not put us into a long-term land conflict around the world and has played in eight different conflicts around the world as his position leader of the free world and stop conflicts from around the world. So, I don't think he cares as much as he's saying, sure, I'm deserving because I've done things more than what people have done and gotten it for much less.
[22:10:05] KASKY: Wait. So, if Russia's one of our enemies, do you agree with the president's decision to invite Vladimir Putin onto the peace board for Gaza?
PARRISH: So, now you don't want the president to negotiate? You don't want --
(CROSSTALKS)
KASKY: What on earth are you talking about? Do you believe that Vladimir Putin, a war criminal, like Netanyahu and Trump, should be on the peace board?
PARRISH: I'm not going to dignify that with an answer. You're conflating --
(CROSSTALKS)
PARRISH: Of course I do have an answer, but that's ridiculous. To conflate the things that you're talking about in one bucket is absolutely ridiculous and it's not deserving.
KASKY: It is a bucket. It's called war criminals.
NOSSEL: The larger question is really whether there's a strategic interest to be so heavy handed to put the NATO alliance at risk for U.S. domination over this territory when we have a long history of working with the Danes, working with the Europeans to use the territory as needed. They've said, we're open to what else may be needed, what you may need to base or headquarter there, what technologies you may need to bring in.
So, why disrupt the whole global order in order to get single-handed U.S. control when it's clear the Greenlanders don't want that? The Europeans don't want that, the rest of the world sees that as an incredibly intrusive, disruptive move that undercuts the rule of law and the norm against the use of force. So, what is the purpose? What can be achieved by kind of blowing up the whole system just to get single-handed control? Just it -- there isn't a logic there.
PARRISH: One of the things that The Wall Street Journal was reporting earlier is that the vice president did host all of these countries that involved and they had a healthy conversation. They created a working group to talk about this. I think if the president does go after the island, he will utilize -- it's my hope that he will utilize all of the correct avenues and approach with our -- with NATO and members of Congress and those types of things.
Look, I'll be honest, in my opinion, I don't agree with using -- weaponizing tariffs for this purpose. I don't agree with that. But I think the president will use the diplomatic channels and the proper ways about going acquiring Greenland when the time comes to that.
NOSSEL: You know, no one's actually objecting to that. I mean, I think everyone's saying --
PARRISH: Well, I think there's two people in the state who are absolutely neglecting that.
NOSSEL: And there can be a give and take if we can come to terms with the Danes and we need greater access, you know, so be it. And the European --
MCGOWAN: That would be diplomacy, which I think I would be totally for. What we're doing here now is not diplomacy. It's biggest guy in the room will take what he wants when he wants, and that seems to be a Donald Trump thing.
BERMAN: Can I, because Cameron brought it up, this peace board for Gaza, is Vladimir Putin the right guy for that board, Scott?
JENNINGS: Well, We have to be in the United Nations with them and we have to be on the United Nations Security Council with them, which I don't love that they get vetoes over us in the United Nations Security Council. So, I guess we have to deal with them. Do I love it? No. But they're already part of the U.N., they're already part of --
BERMAN: (INAUDIBLE) one of your top five choices?
JENNINGS: Top five choices.
BERMAN: Yes.
JENNINGS: No.
BERMAN: 10, 20?
KASKY: You know, it sounds like it should be in the top ten choices is a Palestinian person, which does not appear on this peace board. And that's how we know that Donald Trump's alleged ceasefire, which the State of Israel has violated countless times, by the way, is just a facade, and it is --
JENNINGS: You're going to let the aggressors in this war onto the peace board? I don't think so.
KASKY: Who are the aggressors in this war?
JENNINGS: Hamas, the Palestinians, Hamas that invaded Israel, that raped, murdered, kidnapped, and tortured the Israelis, that took hostages.
KASKY: Are you claiming right now that the State of Israel has never committed rare torture or murder against innocent Palestinians? Can you make that claim?
JENNINGS: The entire reason we had this war is because of October the 7th. So, no, I don't think they should be invited to be on the peace board until they, I don't know, demilitarize and do the rest of the things they're supposed to be.
NOSSEL: But I don't know if they're exactly on this peace board, but there is a group of Palestinian leaders, technocrats, who've been named to assume some role to bring forward the leadership of the implementation of the peace agreement in Gaza. I'm not saying that we should all be sanguine about how that's going to go. I don't know exactly where it stands. But, you know, there is a group of individuals who've been named. So, I think, you know, that's a positive step.
MCGOWAN: The question is if -- oh --
BERMAN: Go ahead.
MCGOWAN: The question is, if they're named, can they pay the billion dollar entrance fee to be in the club, because that's the price --
NOSSEL: Well, I don't think the Palestinians are being asked to pay that.
MCGOWAN: That's to pay to play for this board.
BERMAN: Billion dollars to join.
All right, next, the Department of Justice investigating a group of anti-ICE protesters for rushing into a church in Minneapolis. Did they break the law? Another special guest joins the table.
Plus, as the White House tells local police there to surrender to the feds, Bruce Springsteen sends a message to Donald Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If you stand against heavily armed mass federal troops invading an American (INAUDIBLE) citizens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: All right. Tonight, the Department of Justice is valued to prosecute anti-ICE protesters who stormed a church service in Minnesota over the weekend. Dozens of people rush into city's church in St. Paul Sunday morning interrupting the service and leading to a tense confrontation.
Demonstrators say they were there to protest David Easterwood, who was listed as a pastor at the church, and who appears to be the same individual as a top ICE official in the community. With hours of that protest, DOJ officials accused the demonstrators of desecrating a house of worship and attacking law enforcement.
Today, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said those protesters will face the full force of the law.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: We are absolutely investigating. Our civil rights unit has already sent experts out to Minneapolis today, the civil rights unit, the U.S. attorney's office, the FBI, DHS is investigating this, because what you saw, you saw the fear in the eyes of the members of that church.
[22:20:06]
It's a crime. And so they will face a jury. If they're convicted, they will go to prison.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: And Stacy Schneider joins the table. And Stacy, let me start with you, Counselor. What does the law say about protesting in a church like this?
STACY SCHNEIDER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR, U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT: Yes. The law says that these protesters are in trouble. There's a federal statute called, FACE, that says if you interfere or physically obstruct another person's First Amendment right to exercise their freedom of practicing their religion, it is a federal crime.
Now, had these protesters stood outside the church, been on the sidewalk, been on the street, they likely would have been protected by their First Amendment right to protest. But you're allowed to protest in a public forum, but that right is not absolute. They crossed the line when they went inside a church. And I think of it almost like, you know, a church's public property. Imagine if protesters went inside a hospital to protest Medicaid or health policy and interrupted treatment of patients. It's really not that different. This is --
MCGOWAN: But ICE officers do that. ICE officers have been going into hospitals. They have been going into churches. Donald Trump said they were allowed to go into churches. They're going to schools. They're picking out parents from drive-by lines. And these people in the neighborhood just found out that their pastor of the church is a high ranking ICE official. So, I think if you're a church that has an ICE person as a pastor, it's already political and he's running the church. Like at the end of the day, I don't think this has --
SCHNEIDER: Well, politics and law don't cross.
MCGOWAN: I know, but I don't think this has anything to do with faith, and I think that the community is making it a faith issue. I think it's about politics and power.
SCHNEIDER: Well, it does have to do with faith, and I'll tell you why. It was inside a church. And religious practice was going on inside the church. They basically allegedly stormed into the church, interrupted it, disrupted it, physically blockade it.
And not only is the federal law possibly involved, and I don't think the state is going to pursue this, but they could be found guilty of a trespass allegedly for entering that church with the intent to commit at an unlawful activity. I don't know that the state's going to pursue anything. The feds definitely have signaled they are.
MCGOWAN: Yes.
SCHNEIDER: And I think they need lawyers at this point. MCGOWAN: But I think the feds are signaling that they are in many ways, like Todd Blanche is here saying the full weight of the law, we're sending the FBI, the DHS, all these people in because these people stormed a church. This is the same Todd Blanche that's saying, we are not investigating our officer shooting someone in the face. Like if you are more upset about a group of people storming in and chanting in a church than you are about a civilian being shot in her own car, in her own neighborhood, then I think we've lost the plot here.
SCHNEIDER: I agree with you that the way the government has executed their entire business in Minneapolis has been disgraceful and, frankly, un-American, the way they're behaving, but ICE is law enforcement. They do have rights to be in certain places at certain times. You have the right to free speech, but the manner and place of your speech can be controlled and is controlled by First Amendment guidelines and case law. So, I think they have a problem from what they -- the way they did it, the way they did it.
PARRISH: And, Leigh, I have loads of respect for you and absolutely take your point, but if I disagreed with what my local pastor did for a living, does that give me the right to like storm in his church and say, I disagree that you work at Home Depot because they give lots of money to Republicans, so I'm going to disrupt your service.
MCGOWAN: Well, no, I mean, that would be cuckoo bananas, but I think that if --
PARRISH: Yes, this story is cuckoo bananas.
MCGOWAN: No. Well, I mean --
PARRISH: I agree with you.
MCGOWAN: Sure. But I think that the difference would be working at a Home Depot versus working for ICE if you are a Christian pastor and the point of Jesus himself was taking care of the homeless, welcoming the poor, welcoming the stranger, and you are preaching that to your service and then you go out on -- in the middle of the week and you round up the poor and the helpless and the stranger and you throw them into prisons without their due process, then those things are incompatible. That would be what I would --
SCHNEIDER: But that's an opinion though. I don't mean to interrupt you.
PARRISH: Sure.
SCHNEIDER: But that's your opinion. I'm not saying ICE has behaved properly in the state. I think they've behaved atrociously, okay? I think we've all seen that. There's been a death, there's been a shooting of a civilian, and there's been an announcement by the government that this is some kind of domestic terrorism before any kind of investigation has been undergone. And that's not the way the government normally behaves. The government normally says, we're going to investigate and we're going to let people know what happened here. If it was wrong, if ICE's behavior was unlawful, we will get to the bottom of it.
MCGOWAN: But they're not going to.
SCHNEIDER: But to accuse the citizen, they're not doing that.
But this is a whole new issue. This is a group of protesters whose intentions might have been good, but they didn't turn out to be good when they entered a private building. That church has property rights and those property rights trump the First Amendment rights of the protest.
BERMAN: And a productive protest, do you think it's a productive protest, Cameron, what they did?
KASKY: I personally would not protest horrific evil activity in somebody's church. That's not how I would go about the matter. I personally understand why so many people feel moved to insert themselves into certain spaces because these are horrific times and horrific times called for unprecedented actions.
[22:25:04]
But that is simply not how I would choose to conduct myself in that matter.
PARRISH: John, can I make a point? You know, I think it's very interesting because I totally disagreed because of what a pastor does for a living or what they're involved in politically gives no one the right. There was a child in that video who was sitting in their father's arm shaking, confused, trying to figure out what's going on when these people burst into this church.
And, Leigh, what I'll say is people have a First Amendment right and the ability to go and protest against ICE. If they don't like ICE, be my guest, go protest. But those people in that church, I would say, and not but, those people in that church absolutely have a First Amendment right to gather and worship the God of their choosing.
And I'll say a pointed a point here is it is actually Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with the day that we recognize his contribution to the country today, his mother in 1974 was killed, shot and killed in a church because of political violence, because the KKK wanted to insert their political will over a community. This is remarkably similar to that. I remember my great-grandfather telling me stories about church bombings in the south, remarkably similar to that.
Everyone at this table should have --
KASKY: So, the protest is similar to the person getting shot --
PARRISH: Let me finish, please? Everyone at this table, please, should have absolutely no issue saying that this was wrong, it was reprehensible behavior, and this is not the appropriate way that we address our grievances in this country. So, stop.
KASKY: So, which innocent people are and are not allowed to get shot as far as you're concerned?
PARRISH: Well, that's not what I'm talking about. People have a right in this country, regardless of what your political convictions are, to worship freely and safely and no one should watch a child on camera, like what we saw trembling in their father's arms, because of your political conviction --
KASKY: Wait until you see what ICE does to children and their families.
PARRISH: I'm sorry. Your political convictions do not overstep someone's ability to worship safely, securely --
MCGOWAN: No, but stop making it about worshippers.
(CROSSTALKS)
KASKY: Did I call that into question?
PARRISH: I'm sorry, guys, but there's no but. There's no but here.
SCHNEIDER: It is a bit of a different issue because, look, law enforcement has guidelines. They have to behave appropriately. They can't use excessive force. They have to make appropriate judgments under the law whether or not they can pull their pistol out and fire on a U.S. citizen.
MCGOWAN: Unless they do it --
SCHNEIDER: All of that is involved. But this is really a new issue in the mix of what's going on in Minneapolis. These are people going onto private property to give -- to shout their message and obstruct a church service. And there is protection for that under the law. And whatever the politics are and whatever ICE behavior is, you can't get around what the law says.
BERMAN: Tim Walz, the governor of Minnesota, said, the governor -- or this is a statement from his office. The governor's repeatedly, unequivocally urged protesters to do so peacefully. While people have a right to speak out, he in, no way, supports interrupting a place of worship.
MCGOWAN: I don't think anyone supports interrupting a place of worship.
PARRISH: I applaud the governor's comment and I agree --
MCGOWAN: But that's not argument. I don't think that's the argument at all.
BERMAN: You've been quiet here, Scott.
JENNINGS: Yes, I've been thinking about a couple of things. One, last summer, if I were sitting in a church right now in Minneapolis and a bunch of people burst in, I'd be on edge because, last summer a shooter showed up at a Catholic church in Minneapolis and shot a bunch of kids. Two died, I think 30 people were injured. 26 were kids. And so the terror in that church, I think, is probably warranted. If for no other reason, then we've seen radical violence at a church in the not too distant past.
We've also seen, I think, attempts to create violence and mayhem and fear in churches around the country, synagogues and other places. And so I feel like the radical left is somewhat emboldened right now to go up to and now into places of worship. It sounds like the FACE Act is what they're going to use. I've also heard today from some sources that the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, they may look at that for bringing charges to Don Lemon and these radical leftists that went into this church.
I think if they don't, if they don't do something to these people who did this, you're going to see it proliferate in churches across the country, and that will be very regretful.
SCHNEIDER: You make a good point about the issue, but it isn't necessary to say the radical left did this. It's protesters.
JENNINGS: Why? Is it not necessary to tell the truth?
SCHNEIDER: You're making it political. It's legal. They -- how do you know? You know who was there? You went through the videos and looked at all videos already?
JENNINGS: I watched the video I also looked at the list of people that they themselves published. It looks like the radical left to me. I mean --
SCHNEIDER: Like, you know, all the people in Minnesota who are on the radical left, or the left.
JENNINGS: I mean, they published a list of the Black Lives Matter activists and Don, who I think we all know here is the radical left.
BERMAN: Don says he was there covering it.
JENNINGS: Okay.
BERMAN: Don could speak for himself on this, but that's what he says he was there for.
JENNINGS: There, yes, I wouldn't speak for him.
MCGOWAN: I think I have to say, I'm just so astounded that we're having this conversation, like these people overstepped their bounds, they trespassed, they scared a child. No one wants anything like that. But the reason the people in Minneapolis are so amped is because 3,000 officers have descended on their city. They have terrified multiple children. They have taken the mother of one child that was dropped off at school, a six-year-old whose parents had to drive around the block multiple times because he's so afraid to leave his parents and they'd wave to him every time, then they came out and his mother got shot in the face by an ICE officer.
[22:30:05]
We have seen children get smoke bombed in their car where a baby almost died because they couldn't breathe.
So, to say this poor baby in the church, like it's not happening all around Minneapolis right now, the thing is, is that no one thinks the best way to do it is to run into a church and protest in the middle of a service. No one would make that argument. And if they can come up with a, Todd Blanche wants to bring charges to all of these people, it's possible he will win.
My concern is, why isn't Todd Blanche looking into the officer who shot a mother in the face? Why is there no investigation into that? Why are we more angry about a bunch of people protesting the radical left protesting, than we are about the situation?
BERMAN: Hang on second. We're going to take a quick break here because we're going to keep on talking about Minnesota at some different angles. Bruce Springsteen speaking out against ICE on the streets. And Trump advisor Stephen Miller tells local Minneapolis police to surrender to the feds.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN, SINGER-SONGWRITER: ICE should get the fuck out of Minneapolis.
[22:35:00]
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Tonight, the boss is standing up against ICE. At a surprise performance, Bruce Springsteen had words for Donald Trump and dedicated a song to Renee Good.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPRINGSTEEN: If you believe in the power of the law and then no one stands above.
(APPLAUSE)
If you stand against heavily armed, masked federal troops invading an American city, using Gestapo tactics against our fellow citizens. If you believe you don't deserve to be murdered for exercising your American right to protest, then send a message to this president. And as the mayor of that city has said, ICE should get the fuck out of Minneapolis.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: The beep not working there. As the mayor of Minneapolis accuses the federal government of enforcing an occupation, the White House is proposing an extraordinary escalation. Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller is calling on local police to stand down and surrender.
So back to Minneapolis here. What do you all think of Bruce Springsteen getting involved?
STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE TRIAL ATTORNEY: He has his First Amendment rights as freedom of speech.
BERMAN: As long as he's not in church, he can say that. Unless he was invited to the church, he just can't kick the doors out.
SCHNEIDER: It's actually kind of refreshing and nice. Finally, somebody with a public stature is standing up and expressing what many people across the country are feeling about what's going on in Minneapolis and the stress that everybody is under. And I think the rest of the people in this country are feeling the stress of what they're under to have people shot in their community and killed.
And to have the government say, we're not going to investigate this. We're just going to declare that this was self-defense by the officer. That is not the procedure of the DOJ, the federal government, law enforcement. That is not the procedure. You investigate first, and then you give conclusions later. You don't make a conclusion based on five minutes of video testimony that appears in the news.
So, there are a lot of problems. It's nice to see Bruce Springsteen stand up, and he is born in the USA. So, it all works. It's a nice image.
TIM PARRISH, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: John, I wish that these celebrities like Bruce Springsteen and others that are expletives toward the president and all that kind of stuff, I wish that they would get a group or take their money and invest in these protesters going to Washington and addressing these with their members of Congress.
The reason I say that is these law enforcement officers, their title is just that, law enforcement officer, not lawmaker. They are enforcing the laws that are on the books. They are enforcing the laws of the land in this country. And so, they're not lawmakers.
The people that Bruce should be yelling at and the people that these protesters should be going after are not the law enforcement officers who are simply enforcing the law. They should be going to the members of Congress who for the past 40 years have failed to, in fact give us an immigration system that is efficient and works for people, hardworking and oftentimes good people who are trying to come into this country.
So, I think this is misdirected energy at the law enforcement officer who's just on the ground. When I was a cop, if every time I pulled someone over for speeding, I got a protest, I would say, no, the city council made this a speed law. Not me, not the individual law enforcement officer.
KASKY: Well, that guy shot someone. That's very different. That's not pulling someone over for a ticket. That's shooting someone.
PARRISH: That is a, I agree with you, someone got shot. And if you've watched me on this show I don't politicize someone losing their life so I'm not going to go down a political debate wrote over someone losing their life. It's a horrible thing. It never should have happened and I hope it doesn't happen again.
(CROSSTALK)
KASKY: She didn't have to lose her life better life stole.
PARRISH: OK, but what she -- OK semantics if you want to play semantics --
KASKY: No, there's murder. Someone lost her life, shot.
PARRISH: That should never happen. And I will tell you there's another and versus but here. I want people to be able to go protest. I'm like super passionate about the First Amendment people going to protest. I also want law enforcement officers to be able to execute their duties and who are also humans and who are also Americans be able to safely go home back to their families. They are not mutually exclusive. Both things can happen.
Americans can exercise their First Amendment right publicly and law enforcement officers can execute their duties as law enforcement officers, not makers.
[22:40:00]
MCGOWAN: Except Stephen Miller told law enforcement officers to surrender.
PARRISH: And then we've done a really good job --
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: We're talking about what ICE is doing.
BERMAN: Not cutting each other off.
MCGOWAN: No, but I'm saying like --
BERMAN: Finish so we can get in.
PARRISH: And I want police officers, law enforcement officers, to also go home at night just like I want people to be able to protest and exercise their First Amendment rights.
MCGOWAN: I would love that. I would love that.
BERMAN: Stephen Miller says the local police stand down and surrender.
MCGOWAN: Yes. We're not talking about local police. We're not talking about people that pull you over for a ticket. We're not talking about people who are going to go and do their job in a law enforcement facility.
PARRISH: It's both. They're the same.
MCGOWAN: No, they're not the same. They have totally different training.
PARRISH: What ICE officers made a law.
(CROSSTALK)
MCGOWAN: ICE officers are immigration. I'm not saying they made a law.
PARRISH: OK.
MCGOWAN: Don't do that.
PARRISH: I'm just asking.
MCGOWAN: I'm not saying they made a law. I'm saying they have completely different tactics. There are law enforcement officers who have gone to police academies or they are in the military academy. And then there are immigration officers. Immigration officers are there. They say they're going after the violent criminals who are here illegally. They're here for the safety and success of America. Right. That they're looking at the actions and they're going to find people that are bad and evil.
And what they're doing is going arbitrarily from door to door, from car to car, from place to place, and just pulling people out. They are going up to people who are filming and saying, haven't you learned anything from what you saw happen to that woman? These people are threatening an entire community now. They are firebombing with whatever flashbang things up into communities with people who are just exercising their First Amendment right.
They're not approaching them. They're not being violent. But the people who are our law enforcement officers are being violent, are being aggressive, have shot someone, have hurt babies, and this is why people are protesting. And when somebody comes down from the federal government and says, if anyone stands in the way of the officers we sent there, they should surrender, they should step down. That's a problem.
BERMAN: It's a practical matter. Drawing that line between the local, the state, and the federal government, is that productive? Is it productive to piece on the streets? if you're going after the Minnesota law.
SCHNEIDER: OK. It's probably one of the most abominable, horrible statements I have ever heard come out of the federal government. I take that statement to mean stand down and surrender to local state law enforcement is surrender means give up your authority, we're taking over here, you have no role.
Minnesota's law enforcement is there to protect the people of the state they live in. These are working law enforcement and to have a federal government come into the state and say all local law enforcement stand down and surrender your authority to the feds. It's atrocious. It's almost a sick statement. I find it disgusting. I, hearing something like that coming from our government is a real turning point in this situation and should not be ignored. SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, you know, this could all come to an end right now if Tim Walz and Jacob Frey would simply cooperate in cities and states across this country, you have local officials, local law enforcement, local political leaders who are simply cooperating with the federal government, with DHS, and with ICE.
What does that mean? It means you get to go into the jails and you get to take custody of illegal aliens in an administrative way, in the hallway, as opposed to having to send ICE agents into a community and chase them down because the local politicians in Minnesota have let them out into the street. This can all end today if the Democrats in Minnesota -- you're not seeing this chaos anywhere else. The ingredients that are causing the chaos are unique to Minnesota. It's called Walz and Frey cooperate and listen.
SCHNEIDER: That's kind of silly considering people died at the hands of ICE, of law enforcement.
JENNINGS: It all ends -- it all ends if they cooperate.
SCHNEIDER: One person. I'm sorry. And one person was shot. Here's the thing, Scott.
JENNINGS: Everywhere else the corporation you have smooth operation.
SCHNEIDER: You have a point, dialogue is necessary here but the federal government to double down on every activity they do, they have a horrible situation happen, a woman dies in her car from law enforcement. He could have pursued and apprehended. He chose to use his weapon and that will not be investigated now, although it should be. Maybe they'll change their minds.
But the federal government, when they see that mistakes were being made on their side, what about the federal government going to the governor of Minnesota and the local mayor and saying, we need to sit down and figure out what's going on here. We need some leeway here. We'll back off there.
JENNINGS: Stacy?
SCHNEIDER: Has the government ever done something like that?
JENNINGS: Stacy, the government has privately and publicly every day of this begged for cooperation from the state officials in Minnesota. They beg every single day.
SCHNEIDER: If they've done that, Scott.
JENNINGS: And they won't.
SCHNEIDER: Then why aren't they telling the American people that they've done that? Why are they --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: They do it on their --
SCHNEIDER: -- instead, wait a minute, the image --
JENNINGS: -- public statements every day.
SCHNEIDER: -- the government wants the people to see is you don't listen to us, you're going to disrespect ICE, we're going to send more ICE. We're going to send 2,000 agents. Now we're sending another agents.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: They have to chase down the illegal.
SCHNEIDER: Now we're going to tell law enforcement stand down and surrender.
(CROSSTALK)
KASKY: You said illegals as if they're only targeting --
SCHNEIDER: How about the government comes clean if you're saying they're doing that. It doesn't seem like they're doing that. Their actions do not speak to those words.
JENNINGS: I recognize you haven't reviewed all the material.
KASKY: You don't get to say the word illegals anymore.
SCHNEIDER: And you have.
JENNINGS: I don't.
KASKY: But the -- the percent that --
JENNINGS: Who are you to tell me what I can and can't, I've never met you, brother. I can say whatever I want. They're illegal aliens, and that's what the law calls them, illegal aliens. That's what I'm going to call them. As for our conversation, we had a really reasonable debate last week, and you made an impassioned plea for cooperation.
[22:45:01]
The feds are begging for cooperation. And by the way, --
(CROSSTALK)
SCHNEIDER: They're not begging. They're demanding.
JENNINGS: They're getting it in states and cities all over the country.
(CROSSTALK)
SCHNEIDER: Then why not tell us that if that is begging for cooperation from the governor of Minnesota, why not let the people know instead of jacking up the force?
BERMAN: Quick last word, Cameron, we're getting a break.
KASKY: Listen, you can't say illegals anymore because ICE is directly targeting legal citizens of this country and I --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: How are you going to enforce your edict on me just out of curiosity?
KASKY: Listen, I understand.
SCHNEIDER: But just listen to his point about illegals.
JENNINGS: No, I want to know why he gets to instruct --
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: Hang on. You're making --
SCHNEIDER: You're changing the topic.
JENNINGS: No, no, I want to know.
BERMAN: You're making a point about people being arrested. Go ahead.
KASKY: I understand that your job is predicated on just getting increasingly more demanded every single week and that the audience comes back to see if perhaps you'll get --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Make your point.
KASKY: My point is that you're saying the word illegals, but you don't even really know what's happening. Or actually, I think you do.
JENNINGS: Sure, do.
KASKY: And you're doing this on purpose.
JENNINGS: Yes, because I want the law enforced.
KASKY: They are not just targeting illegal immigrants.
JENNINGS: They are.
KASKY: They are targeting natural born U.S. citizen.
JENNINGS: They are not.
KASKY: That is a fact.
JENNINGS: They are not.
KASKY: You cannot deny that. I mean you can on national television deny facts all the time.
JENNINGS: They are not.
KASKY: You can a couple times in this very episode.
JENNINGS: I still want to know how you're going to enforce your law.
(CROSSTALK)
BERMAN: All right. We'll take that up.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: How are we're going to enforce it.
BERMAN: We'll take that up in the break. Coming up, as promised, the Epstein deadline has come and gone in still just a fraction. One percent, says the Justice Department, of the documents have been made public. And now some of the Republicans say they don't care about the files anymore.
[22:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: After playing a key role in the fight for the release of the Epstein files, Congresswoman Lauren Boebert is now backing off. She told Politico, quote, "I don't give a rip about Epstein. There are so many other things we need to be working on. I've done what I had to do. Talk to somebody else. It's no longer in my hands."
It seems like a fairly sharp reversal from someone who once said this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. LAUREN BOEBERT (R-CO): This is something that we need more information on. We want transparency.
I committed to do this for the victims.
We need to continue this investigation, release the files, and the truth shall set us free.
Do I want the Epstein files released abso-freakin'-lutely? Right now, we do have a substantial amount of information. I do not believe that it is enough. I've been demanding answers and I would like to see what's actually there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BERMAN: Right, today marks one month since the Justice Department was required by law to release all of the Epstein files. So far, it's released less than 1 percent. Lauren Boebert said something interesting there. She said the truth shall set you free.
The law, Scott says that the Justice Department shall release all the Epstein files not hand if it wants to or get around to it.
JENNINGS: Yes, what's the punishment if they don't?
BERMAN: That's a great point. I mean, that's a problem.
JENNINGS: There is none. So, here's a deal. I think they should release it. I think they should follow the law. I also have no idea how long it takes to prepare these many documents for this kind of release. The counselor may have some thoughts on that, but they should follow the law but let's not get our knickers in a twist here. There's no punch.
MCGOWAN: Yes, let's not get our knickers in a twist over child rape. Why are you talking like that? It's insane. Like it's insane. The Epstein files is a --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: What's insane?
MCGOWAN: -- multinational, multi-generational child and women sex trafficking ring. So, your attitude right now, you're sort of like, well, shucks devil begun is just horrifying to me. Every woman in the world that is watching this. Why are you acting like you have no idea what's happening here? Scott, this is --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: You ask me a question about following the law.
MCGOWAN: Yes.
JENNINGS: I said they should follow the law.
MCGOWAN: Yes, and they're not following the law. They're 30 days late on following law, and they didn't explain why they redacted the first things in the first place, which they were also supposed to do.
JENNINGS: I know you have a strong opinion about it, and I respect that.
MCGOWAN: Listen, at this point, this is not -- I have a strong opinion about it because it disgusting policy that they are doing this.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: But I think they should do it as best as they can.
MCGOWAN: They are hiding it. It is not the behavior of innocent people. And everything that is in these files is -- it could bring an entire house down. And if it has to, it has to. If it brings down Democrats, bring them down. If it brings down Republicans, bring them down. If it brings down princes, world leaders, Hollywood people, bring them down.
But what it feels like right now is that there's a giant cabal of people that do not have to listen to the law, do not have to oppose the law, and they were supposed to do something, then they didn't do something, and now they're trying to have a new law that says, don't even have to do it.
SCHNEIDER: And what's really wrong here is on Christmas Eve, while everybody's traveling and not paying attention, the government announced that we're -- that now there were suddenly 5.2 million documents in the Epstein file that they had to go through.
It would have been nice had they disclosed that while Congress was voting on the law, while it was in discussion, but now we're surprised that there are 5.2 million documents when in July of 2025, the DOJ and the FBI issued a public memo saying, reviewed all our investigative material on Jeffrey Epstein. And we've done a thorough exhaustive investigation and there's nothing left to see here. They seem to know then what they had, but all of a sudden now that it's law, they don't know what they had.
BERMAN: And look, they didn't bring it up between when the law was passed and they were required to release it. All new information.
SCHNEIDER: Exactly.
BERMAN: The law does say shall. We'll see if they do. Everyone, thank you for being here. Coming up, new details about plans to rebuild the White House top secret bunker. That's next.
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BERMAN: All right, tonight new details about a top-secret renovation at the White House. A decades old bunker beneath the East Wing. What's left of the East Wing? No, it's not the Situation Room. This is separate underground facility currently under construction. Officials say the bunker is being replaced with a modern, high-tech version as President Trump moves ahead with the new ballroom above it.
[22:59:58]
The space does have a long history from secret emergency planning on 9/11 when Then Vice President Cheney was evacuated there to sensitive presidential trips abroad. A source tells CNN the bunker is now being upgraded to meet evolving security threats. Again, it is under what is now the demolished East Wing.
Thank you all for watching Newsnight. You can watch me in just a few hours, 7 a.m. to 10 a.m. on CNN News Central. I'll be there with Kate Bolduan and Sara Sidner. Laura Coates Live starts right now.
