Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
DHS to Shut Down Tonight as Noem Under Fire For Behavior; ICE Chief Suggests Agents Led About Shovel Attack by Immigrants; DON Lemon Pleads Not Guilty To Charges Over Church Protest; Don Lemon Pleads Not Guilty To Church Protest Charges; Trump Lashes Out Privately To Republicans Who Condemned His Racist Video; AOC Says Trump Is Withdrawing U.S. From The World. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired February 13, 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)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, the DHS shuts down and Congress is nowhere in sight, as the behavior of the department's chief is once again under fire, this time firing someone over a blanket.
Plus --
DON LEMON, INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST: I will not be intimidated. I will not back down.
PHILLIP: Don Lemon is arraigned as a video may contradict the government's case against him.
Also, he's made sexist, racist, and anti-Semitic remarks. Now, an alleged white nationalist is a nominee for Trump's State Department.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The white church is very different than the black church in terms of its tone and style. Food waste could often be different,
PHILLIP: And a potential 2028 candidate connects inequality to the rise of authoritarianism.
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): And we're starting to see this with some of the billionaire class throwing their weight around.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Tara Setmayer, Pete Seat, Dan Koh, Tim Parrish and Judge Glenda Hatchett.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Let's get right to what America's talking about, the Department of Homeland Security is on the brink of shutting down tonight. In less than two hours, DHS will run out of money unless Congress strikes a deal. But tonight, lawmakers are not only divided, as they ever have been, but they're on vacation. They are gone. Democrats are refusing to back a DHS funding bill unless major changes are made to ICE.
Now, some of the things that they're demanding are signed judicial warrants banning face masks, requiring body cameras and targeted enforcement. Republicans say though that the wish list goes too far and ignores agent's safety.
So, now as the shutdown deadline is approaching, we are learning that two ICE officers are now on leave as the federal government investigates whether they lied about a shooting of a Venezuelan man in Minneapolis. The official line from DHS was that the officers were ambushed, attacked with shovels and brooms. They even attacked Democrats in a social media post that is still up right now.
Now, compare that to the real story. After ICE and the DOJ reviewed video evidence, they say that what happened actually is contradicted by evidence that they have, and those officers may have lied in their sworn testimony. That would be a serious federal crime.
All of this is layered on top of a really terrible month politically and practically for the Trump administration for DHS and for Kristi Noem in particular. She had this to say when she was sort of asked who is in charge now that Trump has effectively layered her with Tom Homan. Here's what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTI NOEM, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: No, I'm still in charge of the Department of Homeland Security. That includes all 23 different agencies under our umbrella, including ICE and CBP, but also FEMA, TSA, Secret Service, the Coast Guard, many, many more.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The fact that she has to say it, Tara.
TARA SETMAYER, CO-FOUNDER AND CEO, THE SENECA PROJECT: Yes, when you have to remind people of what you're still in charge of. It's not a good day. When you're explaining, you're losing.
Listen, Kristi Noem has been an absolute disaster as Homeland Security secretary. She never should have been confirmed in the first place. She has zero experience in virtually anything that has to do with Homeland Security. And yet here we are in with one of the most important departments that does have the purview of all of these agencies and very important ones, from FEMA to Secret Service.
And here, we have now the completely out of control ICE and CBP operations, has been an absolute calamity, and she's trying to justify her job. That's why they're sending her out to do everything else except deal with this. Whether it's, you know, the election integrity issues, with whether it's FEMA, all of these things to try to make her look like she actually knows what she's doing, but she doesn't, and she's in big trouble.
Now, the idea that ICE agents or Border Patrol agents would lie, or the government would lie in situations like this that are so important is a very serious thing. And the fact that we're starting to see this as a pattern, and thank God for the courage of the regular folks who are out there filming and documenting this, because you can't trust a word that comes out of this administration's mouth.
[22:05:06]
They've been admonished by numbers of judges already in different cases besides just this one. And we're seeing a really disturbing pattern develop here.
PHILLIP: And you see, Judge, so many judges have actually said they've never seen the federal government defying or flouting so many orders or lying, misrepresenting things in court documents?
JUDGE GLENDA HATCHETT, HOST, THE VERDICT WITH JUDGE HATCHETT: No. And the thing is that if you are really committed to democracy, there has to be a separation of powers. You have the judicial branch, you have the executive branch, legislative branch.
But for there to be such a defiance, if I had done one of the things that Pam Bondi has done, I would be disbarred. I mean, I'm just saying that straight out. You can't just set -- justify that I'm not going to obey these orders because I don't like the orders. Where is the accountability and where are the safeguards? And we are on a really serious downward slope on this that I'm very concerned about.
DAN KOH, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SENIOR AIDE, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: I wish that Kristi Noem had as much passion for Homeland Security as she has passion for Cory Lewandowski. I worked with the cabinet in the White House, and this is a very deeply unserious person in a deeply serious position. Instead of keeping Americans safe, she's letting them get murdered on the street. Instead of helping Texas flood victims, search and rescue teams couldn't be placed because they couldn't hear back to get permission from her office. And instead of doing things on the job, she spent $200 million in taxpayer money to cost play as a cowgirl in a movie, all right? This is a dereliction of duty and it's making us all unsafe.
HATCHETT: Not also mention the jet and the money.
KOH: Not to mention the jet.
PHILLIP: Well, to that point, I mean, The Wall Street Journal, what he's referencing there, for those who haven't seen it, there was a pretty bombshell Wall Street Journal story about Kristi Noem and Cory Lewandowski, who is a senior aide to her, even though he doesn't really have a real job there, and their personal and professional relationship --
HATCHETT: And that he's limited to 130 days.
PHILLIP: Right, which he has gone way beyond. HATCHETT: Exceeded.
PHILLIP: Yes. So, Kristi Noem, Cory Lewandowski frequently berate senior level staff, according to the Journal, give polygraph tests to employees they don't trust and have fired employees. In one incident, Lewandowski fired a U.S. Coast Guard pilot after Noem's blanket was left on the plane. The story describes chaos at DOJ with this bizarre leadership arrangement where it's not just Kristi Noem, who's actually the Senate-confirmed person, but Corey Lewandowski, who's very much not Senate confirmed, calling the shots and doing it in a way where they seem to be prioritizing their personal comforts.
TIM PARRISH, CONSERVATIVE STRATEGIST: Yes, Abby. I want to kind of unpack a few of the points that we talked about here. I agree with Tara that DHS is very, very important. I agree with you on all the things you listed out there, and that's why it's extremely disappointing to see Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats use the safety and security of the American homeland as a bargaining chip and to play politics with.
This is not -- first of all, the one big beautiful bill already secured funding for ICE and those operations that they're doing. So, this idea that we're going to play politics and hold up DHS funding and all those critical and important functions that you listed is totally irrelevant. And the administration is already taking steps with body-worn cameras, and they've already taken steps with targeted enforcement.
SETMAYER: But not enough.
PARRISH: They've already taken steps in saying that these things that the Democrats are asking for are already being done.
This is a political stunt. This is Chuck Schumer, first of all, being afraid of being primaried from his left by someone we're going to talk about later in Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez. And this is pure and simple, Democrats playing political games with the safety and security of the American people.
One thing that we have to be certain of is that the Homeland Security and all those important things that you listed are not some of Chuck Schumer's toys that he can take out of the sandbox because he's upset. This is not politics. This is the safety and security of the American people and all those critical functions that you just listed.
KOH: I don't think MAGA has the high ground on this when they're stripping TSA agents of their --
PARRISH: I'm not -- I don't -- yes, you could ask MAGA about that. But what I'm telling you is that these important critical functions that you just listed are hanging in the balance because of political games that are being played by Senate Democrats.
SETMAYER: But you are also --
PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN, PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: There are Democrats inside the caucus who are saying that their party doesn't have leverage in this debate. And that's why, in my mind, it's a shutdown in name only. It's really not a true shutdown for the reasons you just articulated, Tim.
And if you go to -- I have the quote here from John Fetterman. He said, and I'm going to clean it up, sanitize it for the audience at home because there is some salty language, what the F is the Democratic off-ramp on this? Once you set this in motion, ICE already has all the big, beautiful bill money that it needs. Where's our leverage?
Also adding to that, John Thune made very clear, the Senate majority leader, that this is not a blank check situation for Democrats. They came in with a list of three demands, initially, it ballooned to ten, and demands are, their word, that is not hyperbole, they said, this is a list of demands.
[22:10:04]
And that's not really how you start a negotiation with the other party is to say, this is what we're demanding. A negotiation is about give and take. Democrats are going to have to give some things in order to take some things, but Chuck Schumer seems to believe that whatever he puts on the table, he should get all of it.
What's going to end up happening is the two New Yorkers, Donald Trump and Chuck Schumer, are going to have to decide to dispense with the Broadway drama and cut a deal, but they're not going to get all ten items. That's not happening.
PHILLIP: What -- okay. So, what is the argument for Democrats? What leverage do they have? And do you think this is a worthwhile fight?
SETMAYER: Well, I mean, as someone who worked for Republicans for years who threatened shutdowns all the time performatively back in the day, and usually had to concede at some point, it's usually for political points at this point. And for Democrats, the midterms are coming up and the constituency wants fighters.
And there are legitimate things here for Democrats to point out that are not okay with what's going on in this administration. So, they're using this as a way to point out that, yes, you need to have judicial warrants. We don't want these masked agents snatching people off the streets without -- you know, without probable cause.
And all of these things that are going on inside of Homeland Security, it is a way to try to get something. They're not in charge. It's funny to me that somehow this is all Democrats' fault. It's their fault. Donald Trump and Republicans control the government and this is going to be the third shutdown.
HATCHETT: (INAUDIBLE) on basic constitutional rights.
SETMAYER: Yes. No, I agree with you. It's a distraction.
HATCHETT: Probable cause and not -- shouldn't be something that we're talking about in a negotiation. That is a guaranteed right for citizens in this country.
PARRISH: I agree with you.
HATCHETT: And so why are we talking about that? Probable cause, having warrants, snatching people off the street is not legal, nor should it be anything that anybody, regardless of party affiliation, should be accepting in this country. It is a dangerous place.
PHILLIP: It's a very good point because a lot of the things that they're asking for really do kind of fall into the category of things that are already unlawful and stopping them from doing that.
When you ask the American people, should it be allowed to use a person's looks or language as a reason to check immigration status, which we know is happening on the ground, 72 percent say that is unacceptable. You ask them, should the following be required (INAUDIBLE) ICE agents body cameras? 92 percent say yes. They have all the money in the world for body cameras, and yet they did not deploy them until Minneapolis. Masks, should they be wearing masks? 61 percent say no. Deportations without due process, 61 percent oppose it.
So, the demands -- we can debate the politics of a shutdown or not, but the demands are broadly popular with the American people and it is a question of whether Republicans are even making the right political move to ignore that.
PARRISH: And, Abby, I agree with that poll. I would say that you could add law enforcement officers to that, including myself. I think that most law enforcement officers totally agree with these things, and we've seen, as we've talked about before, when Tom Homan got on the ground, they took a lot of these steps and they reversed course on a lot of these things and they came in and did body cams and they did targeted enforcement. And they're now even removing ICE agents from that situation there. And --
SETMAYER: Because who Americans were executed on film. That's why.
PARRISH: I agree with your point. And, look, law enforcement officers put their pants on one leg at a time just like everybody else, and they are held to a higher standard.
HATCHETT: And I respect --
SETMAYER: Not in this administration, apparently.
PARRISH: And so I am -- everywhere across the country.
SETMAYER: Not in this administration. It's only what has happened.
PARRISH: We should applaud the fact, should they be held to a higher standard that law enforcement officers are being held accountable where there were shortcomings. We got to --
HATCHETT: Right. And also the fact that they're moving out of Minnesota does not mean that there are other problems at other places. So, I don't want us to do the shell game of saying, okay, so they're withdrawing here.
PARRISH: That's just one aspect.
HATCHETT: But what else is happening?
And, for me, I am sick and tired of the conversation about things that are guaranteed as rights in this country. I am sick and tired of it.
PHILLIP: We're going to let that be the last word.
Next for us, Donald Trump is privately furious with Republicans who criticized him over the racist video of the Obamas, including saying that one senator is dead to him.
Plus, Don Lemon is arraigned on federal charges for the church protests in Minneapolis, but does video contradict the government's claims about what happened?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Not guilty, that's the plea that Don Lemon made at his arraignment in a Minnesota courtroom today. Lemon is charged with conspiring to violate constitutional rights and violating the FACE Act, which bans the use of force or threats to interfere with religious practice. All of this stemming from this protest inside a St. Paul Church last month.
Now, the indictment, prosecutors say Lemon and other defendants engaged in a, quote, takeover-style attack of the church and engaged in acts of oppression, intimidation, threats, interference, and physical obstruction. But Lemon's own live-streamed video of the event appears to contradict that. His legal team says that lemon's First Amendment rights were violated and they indicated a motion to declare the case unconstitutional is forthcoming. The indictment makes no mention of Lemon being a journalist despite Lemon making clear that is why he was there.
[22:20:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: I'm just here for -- I'm not. I'm just here photographing.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you a part of --
LEMON: I'm not part of -- I'm not part of the group. I'm just here you photographing. I'm a journalist.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Lemon warned that his arrest is just part of the Trump administration's crackdown on the free press.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) LEMON: I wanted to say, this isn't just about me. This is about all journalists.
People are finally realizing what this administration is all about. The process is the punishment with them. And like all of you here in Minnesota, the great people of Minnesota, I will not be intimidated. I will not back down. I will fight these baseless charges and I will not be silenced.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, a couple of key interactions between Lemon and members of the church are used in the indictment to claim that he was trying to physically impede them or threaten them or what have you. But then when you watch the video and The Washington Post did a great breakdown of this, it shows essentially the opposite. How important is that going to be in this case?
HATCHETT: It's very important, and I think it's very strategic on Don's attorney's parts that they've asked for the transcript from the grand jury. I don't think they'll get it. But what they're basically saying is that what did put -- what evidence did you present to the grand jury to get this indictment against him?
I think this is going to be a long legal battle, and I think we're going to see it played out in the courts over the time. But the First Amendment is very, very clear. And if we go down this road and this happens, and he is found guilty on this case, it is a dangerous precedent.
PHILLIP: Do you think he could be?
HATCHETT: I think under the situation of them going after him, I think they're making an example of him.
Ultimately, I would hope that the guardrails will prevail in this case and that the courts will not find him guilty.
KOH: But that's exactly what they're trying to do, right? No movement in modern history has tried to tamper free speech more than the MAGA movement. We're talking about Don Lemon, making an example, tweeting from the White House account, making an example of him. What happened with Alex Pretti when he was exercising his First Amendment rights? And there are so many other further examples, the Washington Post, CBS News, TikTok, all down the line, our information is becoming more and more dominated by right wing extremists and anyone who wants independent thought should be pretty concerned about this.
PARRISH: So, Abby, I actually did a deep dive on this, because we talked about this story before and I wanted to get some facts. And so I did a little bit of a deep dive on this. And, you know, first of all, let me just start by saying I absolutely respect and would hope history would show that I've been a champion of the First Amendment for journalists and individual Americans and everybody.
So, I want to start by that. But every time that this has come up -- actually, I won't say every time. In most cases, that this has come up pre-Donald Trump, pre-MAGA, as you put it, actually, the Supreme Court has said every time that journalists' First Amendment rights do not trump the First Amendment rights particularly of parishioners.
There was a 1972 case that came out. There was case law, it was Branzburg v Hayes, the Supreme Court specifically said that the First Amendment right of journalists are not -- give them some supreme authority over people who are on private property. And they point out, even in that case law, particularly parishioners, if you don't have a reason to be there for the reason that that private property is being used for, in this case, of church, and if someone on that property asks you to leave in authority, which in this video we see several times he's asked to leave along with everybody else, you're violating the law, so much so that we created special laws in this country, the FACE Act and the KKK Act, which I believe he's being charged with both, to protect parishioners --
PHILLIP: It's just the FACE Act.
PARRISH: Just the FACE Act? Initially, I think they were talking about the KKK Act as well, but the FACE Act, that is specifically created for the situation. And the Supreme Court has said time and time again, you don't, because you're journalist, particularly in this case where you're like a YouTube journalist or you have a badge on, it doesn't give you the right to tamper with other people's First Amendment rights, other Americans who are worshiping --
(CROSSTALKS)
PARRISH: He said, we come to church to worship Jesus, not for politics or to cover it on your YouTube story.
HATCHETT: And that Supreme Court, I know, and you are absolutely right in quoting it, but that does not apply in this situation because he was not interfering with their right to worship. And that is the distinction and that is what he's being charged with. And I think, ultimately, that's going to be sorted out. That case that you, with reference now, I understand and I believe that that's the right decision. I do not think that that applies in this.
SEAT: So, I think the administration was overzealous in how they pursued this indictment to the points that have been made, the way they portrayed some of what we've seen on video is not accurate. That's for the court to sort out. But what we're also kind of not paying attention to, you showed that clip of him saying, I'm a journalist, I'm a journalist, but when he was asked by the pastor to leave, which it took him seven minutes to leave, his story changed.
[22:25:02]
He was no longer a journalist. He was now a worshiper. He was changing the story based on the situation.
Also in that Washington Post analysis that you referenced, they mentioned that the producer with Don Lemon on video, demonstrated on video, started to join the chants and the heckling of those protesters who did go into that church.
So, I don't know the circumstances there. I don't know if he got approval from Don to do that. I don't know if he just got caught up in the moment, but the guy who was there attached to Don Lemon's hip was part of what took place.
PHILLIP: Well, look I mean, I think that that producer is going to have to answer for his own.
HATCHETT: That's right.
SEAT: Absolutely will.
PHILLIP: So, every person is being charged individually.
HATCHETT: As well the demonstrators. The demonstrators --
PHILLIP: And the demonstrators as well --
HATCHETT: -- will be charged differently.
PHILLIP: You brought up the FACE Act, and as you pointed out, it protects religious sites, but it also protects abortion.
SETMAYER: That's the point I was going to make.
PHILLIP: And President Trump, I think this was maybe the first or the second day that he was in office, he pardoned 23 anti-abortion activists who had been charged under the FACE Act. And just to give you an example of what some of these individuals were charged with doing, forcibly grabbing a patient's body, intentionally crushing a staff member's hand in a door, broke into a clinic, pushed a nurse who sprained her ankle, accosted a woman having labor pains, barricaded doors of clinics with bicycle locks, threatened women entering a clinic. This is the same law, right, the very same law, and 23 people have been pardoned for conduct that you -- at least what I just read, these are physical acts of violence.
SETMAYER: Right, which is why the FACE Act --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Yes.
SETMAYER: Correct, which is why the FACE Act was passed in the first place. I remember, because I was in interning during in 1994 when this was passed. And the reason why the religious aspect was added in was because it was a way to get the Republicans to compromise.
So, it was originally to protect women who were going to abortion clinics to stop them from getting accosted like this because they -- it was their constitutional right, it used to be, and now it wasn't anymore. But -- and then the right wing Republicans said, okay, then we're going to put in churches.
Now, the hypocrisy here is what you just pointed out, is that Donald Trump pardoned people who actually physically accosted folks in an abortion clinic. That did not happen here. Yes, did they disrupt? Okay, fine. But is it really necessary to throw the book like this at these folks because it's, oh, now it's their people in a religious -- of a religious institution, so now we're going to go after them hard and fast. But when, you know, Donald Trump wants to pardon people, that's okay.
But this is the pattern of that. It's hypocrisy and it's to try to send a message to squash descent from anyone who speaks out against him, particularly journalists and people he doesn't like. There is an established pattern here of it. We started to go down The Washington Post reporter's house who was -- you know, they came in to seize her devices and information because of whistleblowers speaking to her. You have what's going on with corporate media and a lot of other places with Donald Trump suing people because he doesn't like edits. And now you have him going after Don Lemon, who is a friend of mine and yours. We all know Don. But he's using him as an example --
HATCHETT: And universities.
SETMAYER: That's right, universities and law firms.
HATCHETT: And law firms.
SETMAYER: So, I mean, that's a pattern of that.
SEAT: Don to put himself in this situation.
SETMAYER: No.
SEAT: When he says things like, after we do this operation.
SETMAYER: Are you kidding?
SEAT: He's putting himself in the middle of it.
KOH: Do you think he deserve to go to jail?
SEAT: That's for the court to decide. Honestly, I don't know the legalities. I just think it looks bad and I think it was beneath the standards of what is considered journalism for him to have acted in the way that he acted.
(CROSSTALKS)
PARRISH: We can do the whataboutism all day, but at the end of the day, fundamental to everything that we all believe in as Americans, the very bedrock of why -- a part of why our country was even started was even began is the ability for people to worship safely and secure. There was a pastor there who said --
(CROSSTALKS)
PARRISH: They were absolutely being prevented from doing that.
KOH: The First Amendment is not whataboutism. This is exactly the problem with MAGA, right? They write off these violations of our civil rights and call it whataboutism. I'm sick of it.
PARRISH: Well be sick of it. But there was a pastor in that video who said -- there was a pastor in that video who said, when we come in this building, we come to worship Jesus. We don't come to hear Don Lemon's political proclivities and what he cares about in politics. We don't care about that. We came in this building to worship Jesus. That's sacred in this country and that should be something that all of us at this table could agree on, and I'm sorry that it's not.
SETMAYER: Nobody has argued that --
(CROSSTALKS)
PARRISH: That is something that's fundamental to people around this country and religion to have a right to and worship the god they choose to.
[22:30:04]
SETMAYER: And that's --
PHILLIP: All right, look. We got to leave it there. I just want to note that others have pointed out that there have been protests at black churches that have not been prosecuted by this administration. So again, there's a question of consistency. The FACE Act is not being upheld by this administration equally according to how the law is written. In fact, a DOJ memo is also telling its prosecutors they actually can't prosecute cases that relate to abortion clinics without special permission from the front office.
UNKNOWN: So, you disagree with Trump's pardon of those --
PHILLIP: All right, we got to go, my friends. Next for us, the President is privately furious at the Republicans who criticized him over that racist Obama video and it comes as the administration puts an accused white nationalist up for confirmation in the Senate. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:34]
PHILLIP: Tonight, not letting go. Sources tell CNN that Donald Trump is privately lashing out at Republicans who publicly condemned a racist video he shared on social media that depicted the Obamas as apes, questioning their loyalty and even vowing consequences for them. Among those senators is Katie Britt, who Trump has declared is dead to him. Her office slammed that account as fake news.
And then there's Senator Tim Scott, the Senate's only black Republican, whose response Trump has privately claimed fueled nationwide attention to this story. One senior Trump administration official tells CNN that Trump felt that Scott could have handled the matter privately, adding quote, "He was like, we work together all the time. He didn't need to comment publicly." Now, Senator Scott's office declined to comment. However, CNN's intrepid reporters do have this reporting about it. It
says, "As the video was first gaining traction, Scott, who speaks to the President regularly, privately reached out at first, a source familiar said he was unable get a hold of the President so he took to X. That got Trump's attention. He later called Scott, with whom he had a close personal relationship and told the South Carolina Republican he was planning to have his team remove the post."
It is not true that Tim Scott is the reason that this blew up. The reason it blew up is because it was racist and it was posted on social media.
PARRISH: Yes, this is bad. I mean, full stop. This whole thing is bad. The video is bad. The President posting it is bad. The response that we're seeing right now is bad.
UNKNOWN: And no apology.
PARRISH: Look, I put out a statement on this and summarizing is that what we saw in that video, it was gross and it was beneath the dignity of the Office of the President or any person who holds office in this country. As a matter of fact, even if you're not in politics, that video was beneath the dignity that we should all interact with each other as Americans.
PHILLIP: What does that say about Trump though? That it's not the fact that the racist video was posted, but the fact that people called him out for it, that he is -- that is putting them on his enemies list. That's wild.
KOH: I think what is most disturbing is the number of Republicans who didn't condemn, right? It's horrifying that in this day and age that even racism seems to be partisan these days.
And by the way, this is a large scale trend with Donald Trump, whether it be pardoning January sixers who are wearing shirts that say Camp Bosch, what's on it, whether he dines with Holocaust deniers. This notion that Donald Trump is some tolerant human being is completely dispelled every day and people need to wake up.
HATCHETT: I think he's playing to a base that really loves this and that's really, really tragic.
SETMAYER: I mean, this -- I'm sitting back going, yes. I mean, Donald Trump has been doing things like this for longer than we've all been alive, okay? Donald Trump is a racist. He's been a racist his entire life. And yet people are still shocked when he does things like this.
HATCHETT: I'm not shocked.
SETMAYER: How many times? I mean, Dan, you're right. Where the hell are the rest of the Republicans? The Republican Party that I was once a part of would have never tolerated this. At least most of them wouldn't have. All the way back to when they ran the John Birch Society out, way back when. This was -- none of this was okay. And for those who did think it was okay, they were quiet and over there in the corner and nobody really talked to them.
But mainstream Republicans, they should be ashamed of themselves that they're sitting here and not standing up and defending Tim Scott and everyone else saying, this is absolutely unacceptable. The President of United States is once again sullying the office of the presidency. And but yet they're the ones that are going to a have to live with the legacy of supporting a blatant racist, not once, not twice, but three times now that he is -- he ran for office and now he's our president.
PHILLIP: There is a broader trend also of turning a blind eye to people who have, you know, alleged or arguably white nationalist sentiments. In this case now nominating one of them for a top post at the State Department. I'm going to play this interaction that Senator Chris Murphy had with a man named Jeremy Carl, who is up for a post and he's been found by our "K File" to have said all kinds of you know, sexist, racist things, all sorts of things. Here's the exchange.
[22:40:02]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEREMY CARL, NOMINEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: I would say that the white church is very different than the black church in terms of its tone and style on average. Food ways could often be different.
(CROSSTALK)
CARL: Music could be different. Well, if you look at the Super Bowl halftime show, which was not in English this year.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY (D) CONNECTICUT: So our ability to access white churches or white food, or white music is being erased?
CARL: I'm actually, of course, not a racial nationalist, which I'm not. I'm a civic nationalist. I am concerned with the majority common American culture that we had for some time that through particularly mass immigration, I think has become much more balkanized. And I think that weakens us. And again, I'm not running away from that comment. I'm not apologizing for it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: He says there as he tries to clean up, he's not a racial nationalist, he's a civic nationalist, but he has also said we either win or die. He has written in his book, "White Americans are increasingly second class citizens in a country their ancestors founded and in which until recently, they were the overwhelming majority of the population. We've come a long way from the days when we were securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity as the preamble to the Constitution put it."
I -- a lot of people are shocked that this is -- he's even sitting in a Senate confirmation chair.
SEAT: Yes, well, right when we're told that bipartisanship is dead, this guy is bringing Republicans and Democrats together and his nomination will likely go down in flames and not even get out of committee -- thanks to Republicans voting against him.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But what does it say -- but what does it say --
SETMAYER: Aren't Republicans supposed to be against someone like this? I mean, we were supposed to give Republicans a gold star for actually saying, you know what, we don't want a blatant racist in the taxpayer position in the government.
PHILLIP: He was nominated as well, right?
SEAT: Yes, he was and --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I take it that you don't agree with him but I'm just cartooning the process that gets someone like him -- yes --
SEAT: He's hiding something. There's no doubt about that.
PHILLIP: So, why is he nominated?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Why is this administration okay with nominating someone like him?
SEAT: I don't have the slightest idea. I don't have the slightest idea.
(CROSSTALK)
HATCHETT: That is the question.
KOH: And the way the White House works.
HATCHETT: And why do they keep doing these things?
KOH: The way the White House works is there is no senate-confirmed person without the president's approval, right?
SETMAYER: That's right.
KOH: So, here's the reality. As Pete mentioned, he deleted 5000 tweets. One, he's referred to Holocaust reflection as distasteful. He said George Floyd was looking up from hell. He said that black people in the 1930s were accused of attacking white people were better off than January sixers, okay? This should be disqualifying at start, and by the way, what he's being nominated for is setting our global policy with the U.N. --
UNKNOWN: Yes.
KOH: -- and overseeing a hundred diplomats. What kind of President would think that this person is qualified to do that?
SETMAYER: A racist one.
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean look, this idea, he tried to explain today. He said, "The white culture I was referring to was simply the culture of the overwhelming majority of Americans who lived here prior to the passing of the Hart-Celler Immigration Act in 1965. It incorporated everything from the sports we played, football, baseball, to the foods we ate, hamburgers, pizzas, to the music we listened to and the TV shows we watched."
So essentially, important culture from Germany and Italy is the American culture he's talking about not perhaps the American culture that is also part of the culture which is black American culture who also here at the beginning, who also created culture all around the country. None of that is American culture to this man?
PARRISH: Yes, actually, Abby, I agree with the panel. I don't know how this person even made it to the nomination process.
HATCHETT: I do.
PARRISH: And so, what can I --
HATCHETT: Sorry. Go ahead.
PARRISH: I don't know how this person made it through nomination process. I grew up in church my entire life. I still go, like I said in the last segment, we focus on worshiping Jesus. I don't know what this guy about the white church and the black church difference. I don't know.
PHILLIP: He doesn't recall that black churches existed because white people couldn't --
(CROSSTALK)
PARRISH: Yes, well, as you guys -- as you said, Pete, this guy's nomination, I think, is going to go down in flames and rightfully so. And I don't know how. I agree. He shouldn't have never even been nominated. Again, this is bad.
SETMAYER: Yes, well, but it's not a one-off. There have been several people in this administration that have very problematic record that shouldn't be anywhere near a government job paid for by our tax dollars including ones that brag about being a little Nazi like -- or you know, kind of like Hitler or go down the list of all of these people who are in government positions under this administration. So this guy's just par for the course.
PHILLIP: All right, next for us, AOC with a stark warning about Donald Trump and income inequality. We'll discuss next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:49:28] PHILLIP: Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has a warning for Western democracies as she hits the world stage amid speculation about her potential 2028 plans. She is urging democracies to deliver for the working class or fall to authoritarianism. Here she is speaking today at the Munich Security Conference.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D) NEW YORK: I believe we're seeing in economy, across economy, around the world, including in the United States, that extreme levels of income inequality lead to social instability and drives, in a sense, in authoritarianism, right-wing populism, and very dangerous domestic internal politics.
[22:50:09]
And that is a direct outcome of not just income inequality, but the failure of democracies over decades to deliver -- the failure to deliver higher wages, the failure to rate in corporations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: She is offering left-wing populism as an antidote to right- wing populism. Do you -- are you hearing a message, 2028 message there?
KOH: Absolutely. Look, in the last year, this leader tried to take sovereign land unilaterally, use the justice system to jail enemies, and actively shut down independent media voices. And that was Vladimir Putin. The fact that so many people thought I was describing Donald Trump right now shows how much our democracy at risk. So, AOC has the right to sound the alarm because she's speaking what a lot of people are feeling right now.
SEAT: Look, I've been to a lot of these international confabs, both here in the United States and overseas. And there's always a level of anxiety about American leadership and whether and how the United States will lead, no matter who the president is. So, that anxiety is not anything new.
But listening to what AOC was saying, reading her comments, I do wonder what planet she lives on. Because one of the things she said is that Donald Trump and this administration are quote, "looking to withdraw the United States from the entire world. There are parts of the MAGA base that are living at Donald Trump because he has been more engaged and more assertive in global affairs than they anticipated he would be. And here you have AOC saying he's trying to completely retreat from the globe.
PHILLIP: I think she's referring to multilateralism.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: She's not referring to Trump bombing Venezuela or threatening to bomb Iran. She's talking about the system of multilateralism the United States created. SEAT: He prefers bilateral engagement and one on one relationship building. That's his preference.
PHILLIP: So, you agree with her then.
(CROSSTALK)
SEAT: No, because we're not leaving. We've been engaged in the Middle East. We helped bring a peace accord between Hamas and Israel and Gaza. We attacked the Iranian nuclear system. He has been engaged, but it hasn't been always through NATO or the United Nations, or APEC, or the G8, G7 or whatever number it is up to these days. He has done it sometimes unilaterally and sometimes in concert with a smaller group of allies.
SETMAYER: Well, AOC, who I do not agree with a lot on a lot of domestic policy, but I do agree with her on this. And what she's pointing out, the planet she's living on is the same one as a lot of our European allies. Because I, too, have been to these types of international confabs.
And I can tell you right now for years since Donald Trump became president and after our European allies have been scared to death about what's happening and what he's going to do and how unpredictable he is. And the fact that he's trying to reorder the 80-year history since World War two ended and our strategic allies don't trust us anymore.
(CROSSTALK)
SETMAYER: She's not wrong.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: They are specifically saying now that --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- her world in which the United States is no longer a key partner. But I don't want to just gloss over the income inequality piece of it. And it sounds to me that she's laying the foundation for an argument against, especially the second Trump administration. When you look at the cabinet of the President, you've got, I don't know, I think perhaps more wealth in a cabinet than any other President in history. And she is making this argument that that is going to be how Democrats run against a Republican.
PARRISH: I think what the Congresswoman is doing is testing her talking points and theories as she auditions to run for Senate. I think that's the fullness of what this is. I agree with Pete. The United States has been more engaged now with our European allies than we probably have been in quite a long time. And the Europeans, last time I checked, were we're helping them.
And actually, not even just the Europeans, around the world where we're engaged in helping bring peace and stability to the world, this is not the case. And she's conflating all these different things with income inequality, with global peace. I think she's auditioning for her Senate race, and I give her props for doing that. But she threw this at the wall, and it's not sticking.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone. Thank you very much for being here. Next for us, new leads in the search for Nancy Guthrie, including DNA that was found at her house. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:59:09]
PHILLIP: Tomorrow night, tune in for a new episode of "Have I Got News for You." Here is a sneak peek.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROY WOOD JR., COMEDIAN, "HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU": This week at the Olympics, does anyone know how the Norwegian biathlete, Sturla Holm Laegreid, oh, reacted when winning a bronze medal? So first, of course, she'd get the interview. All the reporter asked was, how do you feel about winning a bronze medal? And he said --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: (spoken in foreign language)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WOOD JR.: Would you take back somebody after a beautiful grand gesture? This is supposed to be my moment. And I made it about reconciling with you.
AMBER RUFFIN, COMEDIAN, "HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU": I might take back someone after cheating, but not after everybody knows. They know that before they know me.
[23:00:00]
He ruined -- he ruined it. And I'm so mad at him.
WOOD JR.: But I would counter Amber that maybe he wouldn't have gotten bronze without cheating. Maybe he should have cheated more.
UNKNOWN: Yes. Yes.
WOOD JR.: And he'd have got that gold.
MICHAEL IAN BLACK, COMEDIAN, "HAVE I GOT NEWS FOR YOU": It would be very funny if she goes out tonight and (BEEP) somebody who won a silver medal.
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: You can catch an all-new episode tomorrow at 9 P.M. on CNN and the next day on the CNN app. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight". Our Saturday roundtable, "Table for Five" is at 10 A.M. Eastern." Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
