Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Hegseth, Lawmakers Spar Over Whether War is Quagmire; Gas Prices Hit Highest Level Since Iran War Began; Comey Appears in Court After His Second Indictment. Court Rejects Louisiana's Current Congressional Map; U.S. Supreme Court Restricts Ability to Challenge Racial Gerrymandering. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired April 29, 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 VIDEOTAPE)
SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, a war reckoning.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Shame on you for that statement.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): You've betrayed a lot of that MAGA base.
HEGSETH: Who are you cheering for here?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): It's the most convoluted bullshit I ever heard in my life.
SIDNER: A defense secretary turning partisan when confronted for answers.
Plus, a Trump foe turns himself in himself.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: 86, that means kill him. I think of it as a mob term.
SIDNER: Do Americans approve of the latest stop on the president's retribution tour?
Also --
TRUMP: That's the kind of ruling I like.
SIDNER: -- the Supreme Court accused of gutting a landmark civil rights law by striking down Louisiana's voting map.
And --
ERIKA KIRK, CEO, TURNING POINT USA: Every morning I wake up to a new headline lying about me.
SIDNER: -- Erica Kirk speaking out after a new round of conspiracies following the shooting at the White House Press Dinner.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Neera Tanden, T.W. Arrighi, John Avlon, Ana Navarro and Donte Mills.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
SIDNER (on camera): Good evening to you. I'm Sarah Sidner in New York tonight.
And as the war with Iran crosses into its third month, the exit plan is as clear as mud. For the first time since the war began, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth went to talk to Congress about it that what was supposed to be an opportunity for lawmakers to try to get some answers about the war quickly devolved into a partisan food fight. For his part, Hegseth, during this war with another nation, said that the true enemy was lawmakers questioning the war effort.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of Congressional Democrats and some Republicans. Two months in, I remind you, two months in to a conflict, lest I remind you and my generation understands how long we were in Iraq, how long we were in Afghanistan, how long we were in Vietnam, two months in on an existential fight for the safety of the American people, Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb. We are proud of this undertaking. I am proud that President Trump has had the courage to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: He didn't stop there. Hegseth quickly took issue with how one Democrat characterized the war with Iran.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JOHN GARAMENDI (D-CA): The president has got himself and America stuck in the quagmire of another war in the Middle East. He's desperately trying to extricate himself from his own mistakes.
HEGSETH: My generation served in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The way you stain the troops when you tell them two months in, two months in, Congressman, you should know better, shame on you, calling this a quagmire two months in, the effort, what they've undertaken, what they've succeeded, the success on the battlefield that could create strategic opportunities, the courage of a president to confront a nuclear Iran, and you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies, shame on you for that statement. And statements like that are reckless to our troops. Don't say, I support the troops on one hand, and then a two-month mission is a quagmire.
Who are you cheering for here? Who are you pulling for? Our troops are doing incredible work.
(END VIDEO CLIP) SIDNER: Look, he is calling people who criticize the war saying they're against the troops. Is that anywhere near fair (ph)?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, he's saying that what their rhetoric is not matching reality and their rhetoric doesn't certainly help the war effort. I mean, it's not a quagmire. That is ridiculous. We've been there two months. Obama was in Libya for seven or eight months. I don't recall Democrats worrying about the word, quagmire back then. And also Democrats, I think, have had a hard time grasping the mission, which Hegseth was quite clear about today, the president's been clear about, which is we're not going to let Iran have a nuclear weapon.
And Democrats and Republicans have traditionally agreed on this goal for a very long time. Now, it's only Trump who's decided to do something about it. The blockade is working. We're draining the Iranian economy. They've got nowhere to put their oil. A little patience here, and this may turn out with exactly what we want, which is Iran not having a nuclear weapon. That's the goal. That's what we're headed for.
NEERA TANDEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS: The people who think it's a quagmire are actually the American people. That is why the approval for the president's war effort is in the 30s, not the 50s, the 60s, like most military engagements, but in the 30s because a broad majority of Americans are concerned about the costs of the war, but they're also concerned about these goals you just laid out not being achieved in any way, shape or form.
[22:05:06]
We all want -- we are all against a nuclearized Iran. Just to remind everyone, we had a system where we had no nuclear -- Iran had no nuclear access, no nuclear weapons.
JENNINGS: False.
TANDEN: No, they had no nuclear weapons. They do not have nuclear weapons. That is your line. And when you say, did they not have said, did they have nuclear weapons? They did not.
JENNINGS: They enriched uranium.
TANDEN: They did not nuclear weapons.
JENNINGS: And they're on the brink of having 11 bombs. That's what Obama left us.
TANDEN: The brink -- what is a brink? A year, 2-year, 10 years? Regardless --
JENNINGS: The experts say weeks.
TANDEN: The issue right now is, because of this war, the Iranians have something they never had before, which is a chokehold on the global economy. That choke -- you're laughing, but you know what? You laugh at the pain that is causing people at the pump. It's causing farmers.
JENNINGS: I laugh at you cheering for Iran.
TANDEN: I'm not. I'm saying nobody -- actually, the person who's -- the people who've strengthened the IRGC are the people who have engaged in this war and given them that chokehold?
JENNINGS: Do you think they're strengthened?
TANDEN: Yes. I think the IRGC is strengthened. Actually, their hold on the Iranian people are stronger than ever. You know, if they were so weak, why wouldn't they have run to get a negotiation already? We are weeks into this with no final resolution. If they were so desperate, why haven't they caved?
JENNINGS: Well, how long should it have taken? Three hours, six hours, nine hours?
TANDEN: I don't know.
JENNINGS: What's the real military strategy time here?
TANDEN: It's not my military strategy. It's Donald Trump's military strategy. I mean, you may call it unbelievable but people are suffering in this country and I know --
(CROSSTALKS)
TANDEN: What's ridiculous is you laugh at the pain. You laugh at the pain of Americans. Okay, I'm concern about the people of America and you are --
(CROSSTALKS)
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Can I just say (INAUDIBLE) or makes a critique to, turn that into cheering for Iran is just as disingenuous --
JENNINGS: She said their IRGC was strengthened. Do you agree with that?
(CROSSTALKS)
NAVARRO: Listen, I know that there hasn't been regime change the way that Donald Trump wants to tell us that there is. I don't know if they are strengthened or not. I think when this is over, we will know.
But I do know that asking legitimate questions, and I think a lot of the people in America have questions about what we are doing, what is it's costing, questions that were asked in this hearing today, that doesn't mean you are cheering for Iran. That means you are cheering for America.
And let me just say this. I don't think this hearing today served much of a purpose. I think we've gotten used to the spectacles and performances -- JENNINGS: I agree with you about this.
NAVARRO: -- in Congress, where there is a lot of screaming often on both sides. It's often Congress people screaming at the person testifying and the person testifying screaming back at Congress.
In this case, it was a lot more one-sided. It was Pete Hegseth doing most of the screaming. I think Pete Hegseth bringing up how long we were in Vietnam or Iraq may not be as helpful as he thinks to his argument because people have very bad memories about that. You know, I don't think we learned much. As an American people who want answers, I don't think we learned much.
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT, PUSH DIGITAL GROUP: The president doesn't have the luxury all the time in making foreign policy decisions to weigh against all gas prices and polling. When there is a threat, he has to act on it. He has to make a series of decisions that lead him to that. Right now, two months into this, we have had a ceasefire for over a week, and we are talking to the Iranians. We have a blockade that has now 23 ships parked in Iran. Do you know where that oil goes? It goes to China. It goes there. And that's what basically -- it would be very interesting to see what happens in Beijing when Xi and Trump meet.
Now, I don't know what him and Vladimir Putin talked about, but what I do know is this, Secretary Hegseth tried to just pump now. He, obviously, robustly defended the president, pushed back, made a bit of a spectacle, to be fair. And I think it's not wrong for liberals and other Americans to have questions. I think the administration should answer all of them.
NAVARRO: It's not just liberals that have questions.
ARRIGHI: But I do -- no, I agree, and I said all Americans. But what I'm saying is I don't believe hyperbole in using quagmire fits.
By the way, let's just note, Scott, you brought up a great point, the economy is crashing, and the truth is the Iranian military is a mess right now. And noted in that Wall Street Journal article, when the economy collapses, the people rise up, and at the end of the day, we want the people to have control of that government.
JOHN AVLON (D), FORMER U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, NEW YORK: But the problem here is that the issue in the history of modern warfare, regime change is never achieved by air power alone, right? But neither are they achieved by --
JENNINGS: What about when we throw in the Navy? Does that help?
TANDEN: I mean, historically, it does not help.
JENNINGS: We're destroying their economy. We're destroying their currency.
AVLON: Scott, just for one second, stop with the talking points. So, look -- JENNINGS: The blockade is a talking point? Is it not really happening?
AVLON: Let's try to imagine what you would say if a Democratic president attacked Iran suddenly without making a case for war to the American people, you know, and did it without any allies.
[22:10:08]
The problem is --
JENNINGS: You seem to be mistaken about my views on Iran. I think they're butchers and terrorists. And I think we're seven presidents too late. I'd have been happy for anybody to drop anything but pallets of cash on, John.
AVLON: I think the Islamic Republic of Iran is a force for evil and obviously can't be allowed to be nuclear power.
JENNINGS: Congrats, welcome to the party.
AVLON: But what the strike was in June seriously degraded their forces.
JENNINGS: Agreed.
AVLON: The problem is that the United States all of a sudden joined Israel very quickly without any case for war being made, and now there is no plan to get out of this. It is easy to blunder into war. It is very hard to get out of it. And that's why our allies are saying, we're not with the U.S. on this because no case was made. That's why the war's unpopular at home because no case has been made. And as Teddy Roosevelt once said, it is unpatriotic and servile to not criticize your leaders even in the time war.
TANDEN: And I also think the fact is that Americans are paying for this war. They are paying -- gas prices went up again today to over $4.25 on average and over a hundred dollars barrels of oil.
Now, people here, you can say that's no big deal to the American public. It's okay for them to bear that burden.
JENNINGS: I didn't say that. It is a big deal.
TANDEN: You -- okay.
SIDNER: Hold on. Let's --
TANDEN: I'm saying, the point here is that people are bearing a burden and I don't think Republicans who cheerlead are acknowledging that pain.
SIDNER: The cost of the war is an issue with the American people, and I think always has been, just looking at how much things cost in comparison with what the problems are in the country, which is why a lot of people and you, I think you can agree with this, Scott, why there are a lot of Republicans or those who were very diehard MAGA supporters are concerned, if not angry about going into this war because the president did say no new wars.
Let me let you hear the Pentagon CFO says that the cost of the war has been about $25 billion so far. Let's listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JULES HURST III, ACTING PENTAGON COMPTROLLER: So, approximately at this day, we're spending about $25 billion on Operation Epic Fury. Most of that is munitions. There's part of that it's obviously ON&M and equipment replacement. We will formulate a supplemental through the White House that will come to Congress once we have a full assessment of the cost of the conflict.
SMITH: Sure. Yes, okay. So, you're saying the full cost of this point is $25 billion?
HURST: Yes, that's our estimate for the cost.
SMITH: Okay, interesting. I'm glad you answered that question because we've been asking for a hell of a long time and no one's given us the number.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: So, we're getting a number there and an answer there.
To you, T.W., is the cost worth it? Do you think that the American people will look at this and say, this has been worth it?
ARRIGHI: Well, I was glad to hear him say that a lot of that was for munitions replacement, especially after recent reporting and the vice president saying, I am concerned about it. We should all be concerned about it. There's a whole array of things that we have to deal with. But we've also spent how much in Ukraine, $300 billion over several years, by some estimates. Look, Russia's a threat. I support Ukraine. We should support Ukraine. But this threat to from Iran directly impacts the United States of America.
And I'm sorry, I don't think imminent means it's sitting on a rocket launcher waiting to blow. And one of the great things I think that the Trump administration is pushing that wasn't in the JCPOA was ballistics, making sure they can't get the technology to get it to our country and to our men and women.
TANDEN: Do you have that deal? Do they have that deal?
ARRIGHI: That's what we're working on.
TANDEN: Have the Iranians agreed to that deal? I mean, I hope they get the deal, but you don't know --
ARRIGHI: We're trying to figure out who's in charge because we've killed so many of them. TANDEN: Okay, but we don't have a negotiating partner. So, I think that's an issue here, which is you are laying out a series of goals, and, of course, we all want to denuclearize Iran and not having a nuclear weapon, but there is no assurance we're getting that at the end of the day. In fact, their most recent negotiating tactic is to open the Strait of Hormuz and just put the nuclears aside. Who knows if we'll do that or not, but that would be a strategic loss.
NAVARRO: Like that (INAUDIBLE) and I really appreciate --
ARRIGHI: I'd ask China's opinion on that.
NAVARRO: I really appreciated having a specific number and answer to that question. Pete Hegseth had been asked the question before during the hearing, and he arrogantly and too cute by half answered with another question.
And I just think that lack of seriousness. You know, he's now secretary of defense, whether I like it or not, and he needs to behave as such, particularly at a time of war. He is no longer a Fox News host. If he gets asked in a Congressional hearing what the cost of war is, for the love of God, answer it. The American people must know, want to know and deserve the truth.
AVLON: Yes. But the problem is this is a kakistocracy, where somebody who doesn't really have the gravitas or the experience to typically be in that position, but is -- hwe have a Fox News weekend host is now playing secretary of defense in a time of war.
Of course, $25 billion, that's an important number to lay out there, multiples, by the way, of what was saved by DOGE, for example. And, obviously, none of which was the case was made to the American people about -- you know, this man campaigned against foreign wars.
[22:15:03]
With Ukraine, I've got to say that the U.S. expenditures have been primarily from munitions and through allies, so indirect spending. But to your point, and I think that we're probably not in disagreement about this often, making sure that war doesn't expand, saves money and time down the road. Maybe this $25 billion will save money in time down the road.
But the problem is it's open-ended. The problem is that we don't have the money to spend on childcare, which the president campaigned on.
JENNINGS: So, saving money and time, I agree with you. It's important. Also, saving American lives is important. For 47 years, these people have terrorized western civilization. They've killed Americans, they've maimed Americans. They're the principal father of terrorism in this world. And if they ever obtained a nuclear weapon, which our negotiators were told by them, they had enough material to make 11 nuclear bombs --
AVLON: Before or after that?
JENNINGS: That's been confirmed.
TANDEN: And is that after (INAUDIBLE) we wiped them out?
JENNINGS: If they ever got it, you know what they would do. And we found out in the course of this conflict they have ballistic missiles that can reach most of Europe.
Now, Europe should be more interested in this, but, once again, it falls to the United States of America to stop the worst people in the world from getting their hands on things to kill millions of people. That's our job. That's what we're doing, standing up for the west.
AVLON: I thought Trump did campaign explicitly not undoing those sorts of things.
JENNINGS: He campaigned explicitly on stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It's been a red line for his entire adult life.
ARRIGHI: Similarly as he campaigned about getting rid of ISIS in his first term, and he went there and destroyed the caliphate.
JENNINGS: Also, by the way --
ARRIGHI: Along with 500 Russians, I believe.
JENNINGS: -- we're not dropping any bombs right now. We haven't dropped any bombs in days and days. What we have going on right now, which the president has said maybe even more effective, is we have a naval blockade, which is bringing this country to its knees. And also, I think you're right, also --
TANDEN: But not to the negotiating table.
JENNINGS: And so we'll see in the next few days. A little patience here could be useful.
TANDEN: The hard thing about the nuclear goal is we were immediately -- we were told in June, just last summer, that they'd wiped it. We've wiped out their capacity.
AVLON: And there was wide support for that strike because it was tactical.
JENNINGS: Well, except Democrats wanted to impeach the president.
AVLON: Well, no one at this table, Scott.
SIDNER: We'll move on from this. Next, as James Comey turns himself in after getting federally indicted, President Trump is renewing his attacks, calling him a dirty cop.
Also, if you thought the nationwide redistricting battles were about go down, a new Supreme Court ruling will likely just heat things up again. Details on that ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [22:20:00]
SIDNER: Tonight, the former FBI director charged with making a threat against President Trump for photographing seashells on a North Carolina beach last year has turned himself in. James Comey surrendered to law enforcement before his first appearance in federal court today, and he was allowed to leave with no conditions of release after a hearing a hearing that lasted just under ten minutes.
Earlier today, Donald Trump said Comey's post was intended as a threat to his life.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Anybody knows anything about crime, they know 86. You know what 86 is? It's a mob term for kill them, you know?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Do you really think your life was in danger because --
TRUMP: Probably. I don't know. You know, based on what I'm seeing out there, yes. The -- people like Comey have created tremendous danger, I think, for politicians and others. He -- you know, Comey is a dirty cop. He's a very dirty cop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: John Avlon, 86, now, I worked in restaurants. I was not good at it. I was terrible at it. Bless you. I worked in restaurants and we used 86 all the time to send something back or whatever.
AVLON: Yes. It comes from 86 Bedford Street, by the way, a restaurant called Chumley.
SIDNER: I knew you'd know this, so I'm going to -- have you ever heard it in this reference that it means kill someone by mobsters?
AVLON: I mean, this is a stretch on every level, right? This is a physical -- this is allegedly plot against a president by a former FBI director for taking pictures of seashells on a beach. Nine months later, the prosecution comes in after the president, we know, as called for the prosecution of James Comey. So, it's a vengeful prosecution.
Normally, if someone's threatening the president, it's not a nine- month delay for an indictment. It's something done pretty rapidly because there's a threat against the president. And we already have Supreme Court cases that say words are not the same thing as a plot.
So, this is just -- this is complete partisan B.S. and it's not going to hold up. And it's an embarrassment. It actually degrades the real threats to the president that do occur occasionally.
SIDNER: Is this a vengeance tour, Scott? Is this part of that?
JENNINGS: Well, it's not occasionally. I mean, they've tried to assassinate him three times. You could forgive him for being a little on edge for all the rhetoric that's out there.
AVLON: Well, clearly, he called for Comey's prosecution before.
JENNINGS: Look, I'm not a lawyer. I mean, a lot of the lawyers I follow say this case isn't going to go anywhere, so that's number one. Number two, I mean, I think Jim Comey has become a silly weirdo with these posts and the way he acts, he's become hyper-partisan. I think it actually tarnishes his law enforcement career the way he has acted since he left the job. Does that mean he should go to jail for that? No.
So, on this case -- and also I've also heard lawyers say today there may be other charges, which I guess we'll have to watch for. So, my view is some of the lawyers I follow say it's unlikely to stick. My view of James Comey is very dim right now based on the partisan activism in which he has taken part. He's been a -- he's become, frankly, a silly goofball.
SIDNER: But you're allowed to be partisan and not be charged with a crime and again taken --
JENNINGS: Yes, I say it's not a crime to be a weirdo. Thank goodness for him. Otherwise, he'd have a thousand charges.
NAVARRO: I mean, listen, I actually agree that I -- you know, when I -- first, I didn't know what the hell 86 meant.
[22:25:00]
I got to tell you, English is my second language. They never say 86 in La Carreta, Eighth Street in Miami, to send anything back.
SIDNER: I can confirm that.
NAVARRO: So, I have no idea what it meant.
What I -- and I do agree. I think the whole Jim Comey walking down the beach and posting seashells, regardless of what he was posting with those seashells, is stupid and unseemly for somebody of his position.
That being said, it's so rich that Donald Trump and his supporters and minions are doing this when Donald Trump himself has been the culprit and perpetrator of some of the most divisive and heated rhetoric. Let's remember the stuff he said about Liz Cheney and pointing a gun at her and nine barrels at her face, and let's see how she feels. Just remember the things he said about --
ARRIGHI: He didn't say that.
NAVARRO: You want me to read you what he said?
ARRIGHI: No. He said, if you're going to send people to war, well, how would you like it if you had barrel of gun --
NAVARRO: Okay. Let me say what it said.
ARRIGHI: They apologize. CNN apologize for how they phrased that.
NAVARRO: Let's put her with a rifle standing there with nine barrels --
ARRIGHI: No, go up. Go up earlier. Go up earlier.
NAVARRO: Let's put her --
ARRIGHI: Give the full context. Give the full context. That's not accurate.
NAVARRO: Now, we're going to give the full context? Okay. Then give the full context on Comey. He took it out. He said he didn't know what the hell it meant, and he apologized.
ARRIGHI: I know. I would -- I didn't say I would press charges. I'm just saying that was wrong.
NAVARRO: How about the stuff he said about Mike Pence, and then afterwards there were people who wanted to hang him? How about the stuff he said about --
ARRIGHI: You put words in my mouth now. I didn't say any of that.
NAVARRO: How about the stuff he said about the veterans in Congress who made the video, and he said were seditious and should be -- and, yes. What about what he said about Mark Milley when he said that the things he had done in a long -- in another day would have been punishable by death?
ARRIGHI: You're saying you're putting words in my mouth. I have criticized many times the president on these airwaves.
NAVARRO: What I'm saying is that what they are doing to call me is hypocritical and rich coming from a president who has said some of the most heated, divisive rhetoric that can be interpreted as a call to violence.
ARRIGHI: I have long sought that every, everybody, every one of us as Americans, have a role to play and bring down the temperature, and that includes the president. This president, as Scott pointed out, has been attempted to be assassinated three times in two years. That ain't nothing.
But, look, to Scott's point, I want to just reorient this discussion back to this case. Look, I didn't know what 86 meant mostly because it was a song by Green Day. So, that was sort of my foray into it. But, look, to Scott's point, most people don't think it's going to go anywhere. Trump doesn't like losing. So, why is this even going forward?
Look, I have many complaints with James Comey, the way he conducted the stuff with Russia, how he's become holier than thou to the American people. But this --
NAVARRO: It's going forward because Todd Blanche wants to be attorney general, and you know that in order to suck up to Trump.
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: A grand jury did return this in the --
(CROSSTALKS)
NAVARRO: To which they ran two days after the White House Correspondents' Dinner Association attempt.
TANDEN: I think the fact is that the Pam Bondi was fired by this president for not prosecuting enough people, as far as we know. And now we have Todd Blanche and now we saw this prosecution and it's not very hard to get a grand jury. What is shocking is that we have found a very few grand juries to say no to DOJ prosecutions, but the fact that a grand jury has gone along with this does not really mean it's a justifiable prosecution.
And so I think the real issue here is I think it's like surprising that more people don't worry about a weaponized DOJ going after the president's enemies. I mean, there will be a Democratic president --
JENNINGS: You don't believe in your fellow citizens and the role they play in this process?
TANDEN: Look, I believe that prosecutors in most cases, I know the facts, which is 99.9 percent of grand juries go along with prosecutors. They do that does not mean -- and that is not -- not everyone is found guilty. But the fact that James Comey has to be dragged into court because the president has a vendetta against him and he's weaponized the DOJ, I think, should be a concern to most Americans.
AVLON: And the president has publicly called upon Pam Bondi and others to prosecute his enemies. We've never -- by the way, just reality trick here, we've never seen that kind of a direct targeting of enemies from the Office of President, from the president himself.
JENNINGS: You don't think the Biden DOJ targeted their political enemies? Like --
TANDEN: I do not think the president --
(CROSSTALKS)
TANDEN: When did Joe Biden call on Merrick Garland to go prosecute any individual case?
AVLON: Right. The criticism of Garland is that he wasn't prosecuting folks aggressively.
JENNINGS: The pro-lifers and the Christians who were (INAUDIBLE) would disagree.
TANDEN: Did Joe Biden call for their prosecution? Did he announce we're going to go -- please, Merrick Garland -- JENNINGS: It was obviously a priority in his administration.
TANDEN: The answer is no. You can't say no, but the answer is no.
NAVARRO: Is it a priority of the administration to prosecute Donald Trump?
(CROSSTALKS)
TANDEN: never happened.
SIDNER: All right. we're going to move on because this is another big case of Supreme Court's historic voting rights opinion sending shockwaves. What does it mean for the Voting Rights Act itself?
[22:30:00]
We will debate that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
SIDNER: Tonight, a Supreme Court ruling that could have major ramifications for future elections. In a six to three decision, the court rejected Louisiana's current congressional map that added a second black majority district in a state that is roughly a third black.
[22:35:00]
The court says the lines were drawn through race-based discrimination, which violates the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution. But critics say the ruling severely limits a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 and opens the door for states to redraw maps to eliminate majority black or Latino districts. This is breathing new life into a nationwide redistricting battle ahead of midterms, and some Democrats say the Supreme Court ruling won't slow down that fight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): We have to all abide by the same rules and so, if Republicans are going to redraw North Carolina, if they're going to redraw Texas, if they're going to redraw and gerrymander every one of their states, then unfortunately, we have to provide balance to that until we get to the day where we can all finally agree to put this behind us and pass non-partisan gerrymandering federally.
[END VIDEO CLIP)
SIDNER: All right, joining us at the table, Donte Mills. He is in our fifth seat right now, and we're going to start with you. Give us some sense about what this ruling actually means.
DONTE MILLS, NATIONAL TRIAL ATTORNEY: Absolutely. Just so we have an understanding and a background, in Louisiana, a third percent is black, African-Americans. However, the way the lines were drawn in the last previous map, only one of the six districts was represented by that 33 percent. That means the 33 percent African-Americans only had 17 percent of the voting voice. So, what they did is they re-drew the map so that the 33 percent of African Americans would get two of the six districts that's roughly their percentage.
The Supreme Court had to decide if you can use race-based redistricting to comply with the Voters' Rights Act. So, can you use race-based redistricting if you're trying to fix a problem? The conservatives on the court said you can't. They said the rule says, the law says, you cannot use race when you are drawing lines no matter who is intended to help.
The other people the on the other side, the liberal judges, said wait a minute if there's a problem and you're trying to fix it, an exception should be created so that you can use race-based districting to fix the problem because otherwise how do you fix the problem? And that's where we are with that decision. The majority are conservatives who said we're going to follow the law. The Black Letter Law says you can't use race. No matter who you're trying to help, we're going to stick with that. Now, we have a problem of what do you do when you have these people who are not represented appropriately in their states and in their districts.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And I have to tell you, you know, coming from Florida, I remember in the late '80s, early '90s, when African American Kerry Meek, a Democrat, and Lincoln Diaz- Balart, a Republican Latino Cuban American, joined forces because there was no adequate representation for the Hispanics in South Florida or the African Americans in South Florida. And they joined forces, and we got those districts.
And today, there's three Cuban Americans from South Florida in part, thanks to that decision and the fact that those two different parties and the partisans joined and banded together and fought for that equal representation.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: So, be careful what you wish for, because they just might get it.
MILLS: Because it worked there, what the majority, the judges on the majority decision said, those issues don't exist anymore, right? They said the problem is fixed. So, we don't need these exceptions because these issues no longer exist in our society. They no longer use race. So, everybody should be equal now, and you can't use race to fix a problem. But that's just not the case. You still have underserved communities, underrepresented communities that you have to have some solution for so they can have a voice.
SIDNER: Scott.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it's an interesting proposition you raised that they're not represented. My friend Patrick Ruffini sent out an interesting statistic tonight. There are 58 members of the House who are black. It's a record, actually. A majority are actually elected from plurality white districts. We're still a racist in America. You've got white people electing African Americans to Congress in record numbers. Inherently --
(CROSSTALK)
NEERA TANDEN, FORMER DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: Are these people in the south? They are not in the south.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: That's one. That's one example.
JENNINGS: And so --
TANDEN: That's not 58.
JENNINGS: And so, the issue is racism. It is inherently racist to draw lines and divide people up by race. I mean, the definition of it would be we're going to divide ourselves up by race and say only a black congressman can represent black people, only a Hispanic congressman can represent Hispanic people. That is patently illegal under U.S. law.
(CROSSTALK)
MILLS: But the issue is they we retrying to fix --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: And it also makes no sense when you consider that we're all Americans and we can vote for whoever we want. And often, according to the statistics, we do.
MILLS: But the issue is here, the map that they were fixing put all of the black people in Florida in one district, right? That's not right either. You can't do that and say you have fair representation now.
[22:40:00]
Yes, white people should vote for black people. Black people are going to vote for white people.
JENNINGS: And they do. And they do.
MILLS: They should. But you also shouldn't put all of one race in a whole state in one district and say we're going to operate, we're going to allow you to operate here, and we're going to operate outside of you everywhere.
JENNINGS: Interesting, interesting debating point. So, your issue is with percentages and representation. So, you're saying that you can't put all the people who effectively have the same political persuasion in one district. Let's take -- TANDEN: They may not -- they may not.
JENNINGS: Let's take --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Well, but by voting historically, recently, they voted 80- 90 percent Democrat. I think we can all acknowledge that. (CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: No, you should not. That is not an assumption you should make. You just literally said.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: In New England -- well, it' a statistic that I can read. So, if you applied that logic to say I don't know New England where 40 percent of the people in New England vote Republican and literally have zero congressional districts, what problem should you be trying to solve there?
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: You could slice and dice this any way you want.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: The point is, the court is trying to solve the issue of should we be dividing people up by race? Should we be saying only a certain race can represent a certain racial demographic? That is inherently racist. We've been doing it this way for decades. That's the racist piece. This is fixing it in my opinion.
NEERA TANDEN, FORMER DOMESTIC POLICY ADVISER, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: Just to be clear, this is a congressionally passed law. It's 60 years old. It's implementing a constitutional amendment, the Voting Rights Act. The problem that with this -- with this -- with your description here is that you were presuming that we do not still have instances where states will choose to basically eliminate the voice of black communities or Latino communities?
UNKNOWN: How is it eliminating it?
UNKNOWN: By lumping them together --
TANDEN: Yes, by basically saying --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Yes, because what they do -- yes, hold on, hold on. Let me just say, let me just say, if you take a district and you basically say it was going to be 80 percent black district, and then you take that entire district and give 10 percent to everyone else, there's the voice of the black community is in a sense --
(CROSSTALK) UNKNOWN: We're missing a point here.
JENNINGS: But you're assuming they would all vote --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: But the real issue here is --
NAVARRO: No, no. Scott, listen. As somebody who's lived this in Florida, Florida, you know, at one point was governed by a lot of good old boys who didn't want Cubans elected, who tried to dilute that vote despite the fact that it was Republican. And if it hadn't been for efforts like this, you know, I remember times in Florida, I remember the signs in Florida, no blacks, no dogs, no Cubans.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: That was a decision.
NAVARRO: Right. Hold on. It was in my lifetime. It was in my lifetime.
JENNINGS: Was that yesterday or was that like 50 years ago?
NAVARRO: It was about 40 years ago, 30 years ago.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: You think there's no racism?
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: I'm sorry but you do not get to decide that racism is over yet.
JENNINGS: The people have.
TANDEN: No they haven't.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNAER: Okay, hold on a second. It is not true that the people have decided there is not racism. Let us please not say that because that's just, it's incorrect. It is incorrect, Scott. It's not true.
JENNINGS: But how is it --
SIDENR: As a member of the black community, I'm telling you, it's not true.
JENNINGS: Are you saying our congressional districts are inherently racist today?
TANDEN: No, I'm sorry. The Voting Rights Act was passed by Congress. It's up to Congress to determine whether it should be amended or not. It's not up to -- (CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: No, no. I'm sorry. Six Supreme Court justices who all dined with the President last night made this decision. And they --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: You're saying they went and wrote it?
TANDEN: No, no, I'm saying that they're political atrocious. I'm saying that they are acting, I'm sorry, it looked like they're acting in response to the political demands of Republican Party. Because this has been a law for 60 years.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: No, my view is that they, I actually, can I just defend myself quickly here to say the following, which is I think a court that actually cared about the independence of the Supreme Court instead of politics, would not have six people, all appointed by Republicans, go dine with the President yesterday. They do not care about how they love or --
(CROSSTALK) MILLS: For the last 30 years, the Supreme Court has said you can use race-based districts to fix a problem. This is the first time in this decision where they went against that and changed it and said we're going to enter this court.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Hold on. We're going to pause here because we're way over time. We're going to pause here, but we're going to come back and we're going to discuss this because clearly, there's more debate to be had. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:49:19]
SIDNER: All right, we're back and we're discussing the Supreme Court's decision that basically gutted another big piece of the Voting Rights Act in a six to three ruling. Let's go ahead and start here because you didn't get a word in edgeways. T.W.
T.W. ARRIGHI, VICE PRESIDENT, PUSH DIGITAL GROUP: Well, I was so captivated by the discussion happening around me. How could I jump in? Look, so the Supreme Court in reading Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas's dreading opinion, I was quite struck with the detail they went into about specifically why they have -- why they believe that the government should be geared toward individual rights, not the collective rights of a specified group. Samuel Alito laid out the ways the Constitution could deal with race.
[22:50:01] I thought that was really well-stated. Clarence Thomas goes a step further and says none of it should be taken into consideration at all. I believe the Civil Rights Act was a monumentally great thing in 1960. I believe in the pillars of it still to this day, but racial gerrymandering as with any gerrymandering is not where we are to be headed.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Then Congress should change it or amend it. It's not up to the courts that have said for 60 years this is constitutional to just up and change it this year.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: You said gerrymandering. So you're also against partisan --
(CROSSTALK)
ARRIGHI: Yes, I've said that here.
SIDNER: John, you've done a lot of work on this.
(CROSSTALK)
JOHN AVLON (D) FORMER U.S. CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE, NEW YORK: The pillars of this have been eroded by a series of decisions by this court.
(CROSSTALK)
AVLON: But the larger belt really since the last decade --
(CROSSTALK)
AVLON: But the real problem is the same court has said that partisan gerrymandering is effectively fine. And so if you -- partisan gerrymander which has a political -- a group benefit which too often in our politics also has a racial overlay particularly in the south, then you get things like attend to gerrymandered North Carolina. You obviously were off to the races with retaliatory gerrymandering because Donald Trump said you wanted to get five more seats.
But this court has said partisan gerrymandering is fine, but they're going after racial gerrymandering in a way that undercuts representation inequality especially in the south. And that's where, when you've got 25 percent of the population is African American, but they're going to end up having one-tenth the representation or decreased representation, that's a problem.
So, I appreciate the principle that folks are trying to work towards, but the practical reality of encouraging and allowing partisan gerrymandering is actually a step in the wrong direction. You wanted the whole thing? Let's get rid of the whole thing. Let's have non- partisan gerrymandering.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: I have a question. I have a quick question. Just a poll real quick here of you all. How many of you think that gerrymandering should just stop completely, that there should be none of that, that these districts should not be drawn because a Democrat or Republican is in power in state?
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Everywhere. Everywhere.
ARRIGHI: I don't know what the solution is, but we need to fix.
AVLON: A non-partisan, independent --
(CROSSTALK)
ARRIGHI: I don't believe they're ever non-partisan. I think most of them are bipartisan.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: We do have states. We do have states where all the districts --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: My view is that states ought to decide this, A. B, regarding John's argument, I just fundamentally think that the government shouldn't be in the business of dividing us up by race. It's fundamentally racist to divide us up by race. We have African American members of the House winning in districts across the country with plurality white populations. We are well beyond the issues that were played before --
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: The issue there is states themselves are dividing out by race by diluting the votes.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: The four black Republicans in Congress are --
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: Hold on. Ana? NAVARRO: I'm saying the four black -- there are four black Republican members in Congress. They're all leaving.
JENNINGS: Well, they ran for other offices.
(CROSSTALK)
TANDEN: Three of them.
JENNINGS: And of course, one of our --
ARRIGHI: There was a black member of the Supreme Court who ruled in favor with Alito.
NAVARRO: Clarence Thomas?
(CROSSTALK)
AVLON: We haven't had an African-American Republican governor since reconstruction. I mean, you know, there was unfortunately (inaudible) --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Republicans tried to elect one in Virginia.
AVLON: Okay.
(LAUGHTER)
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Then you got a white Democrat who gerrymandered the state.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: We're going to end this here. Everything is crumbling clearly at this table. Next, speaking of crumbling, the panel is going to give their nightcaps, Royal Visits edition.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:06]
SIDNER: The Royals entered their U.S. visit in New York City, including a visit to a Harlem urban farm and the public library. So, for tonight's news cap, who should the king and queen have visited or met? T.W., you've got the first answer.
ARRIGHI: Well, I would like to see for the comedy of it, Prince Philip meet the cast of The Real Housewives of Rhode Island, the funniest show on TV.
NAVARRO: It's not Prince Philip.
ARRIGHI: King Charles, oh my gosh, sorry.
NAVARRO: Prince Phillip is dead.
ARRIGHI: Anyway, matching with --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: -- stuff together would be great.
JENNINGS: Where's the ejection seat? ARRIGHI: I love King Charles.
NAVARRO: Okay, I've got to say, I have been very impressed with King Charles. I'm not a royal watcher, but I had no idea the man was so funny, and his speeches have been very effective. I'm going to take this to a serious front. I wish they had met with the Epstein victims.
SIDNER: Wow. That's serious.
AVLON: All right, I took this as a New York assignment. So, if you really want to see New York, don't go hobnob, go to Katz's Deli, Russ and Daughters and McSorley's Bar. That'll give you a good tour of the real New York.
SIDNER: Give you a good sense of New York people.
TANDEN: The Queen hung out today with Anna Wintour. And so, I thought she should hang back a couple of days, hang out with Meryl Streep and go see "The Devil Wears Prada 2," which I am personally very much looking forward to seeing.
JENINGS: I agree with Ana, by the way. He is funny.
NAVARRO: Hilarious.
JENNINGS: The jokes were -- I don't know who his joke writer is, but very good, particularly on the 250 years ago, or as we say, the other day. I thought that was brilliant. This is not a hoob, this is a what? Really should have taken him to a Buc-ee's. Because if you want the Brits to understand what they really lost in the War of Independence, you'll take him to a Buc-ee's. Nothing more American than going to a Buc-ee's because you've gotten him a package of beaver nuggets.
NAVARRO: What the hell is a Buc-ee's?
JENNINGS: What?
[23:00:00]
TANDEN: I don't even know what Buc-ee's is.
NAVARRO: I have no idea what a Buc-ee's is.
JENNINGS: None of you all know what a Buc-ee's is?
UNKNOWN: I know what a Buc-ee's is.
JENNINGS: This is the political divide in America.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: But I know Buc-ee's.
UNKNOWN: Oh my goodness.
NAVARRO: Do you know what a Folia Tropical is? Do you know what Versailles is?
SIDNER: I know (inaudible) --
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: I've been to both.
TANDEN: He doesn't want to go.
SIDNER: You know what? Forty years ago or 30 years ago, you know what he said instead of Buc-ee's? He was like, he said he should have met the Hamburglar. That's what you would have said.
TANDEN: Yes.
SIDNER: Almost guaranteed.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: I'll explain off camera but it's fun.
JENNINGS: Maybe. It's amazing.
(CROSSTALK)
SIDNER: All right. "Laura Cotes Live" starts right now.
