Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Majority of Trump-Backed Candidates Win Indiana GOP Primaries; DOJ Apologizes to Judge After False DHS Attacks Against Her; NYT: Judge Mulls Contempt Over "Patiently False" DHS Allegation; Democrats Demand Trump Reveal Israel's Nuclear Arsenal. Aired 12-1a ET
Aired May 06, 2026 - 00:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[00:00:41]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice-over): Tonight, a special second hour of NewsNight. Live at the table, Van Jones, Scott Jennings, Xochitl Hinojosa, Joe Borelli, and Tim Naftali.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP: I guess it's officially Wednesday for us here on the East Coast. I'm Abby Phillip.
Donald Trump promised retribution in the state of Indiana. And tonight, in a major test of his political power, Republican voters in the state have delivered what he wanted. So far, five of the seven candidates that were endorsed by Trump have all won their primary challenges against Republican state senators who rejected the president's redistricting call.
Just one incumbent, Republican State Senator Greg Goode, will hold off Trump's hand-picked candidate with one race too close to call tonight. According to Politico, Trump's allies in the state spent more than $6 million to oust Republicans that Trump deemed RINO losers.
So the redistricting wars continue, and I think, you know, Trump gets a clean win here. He picks off the folks who defied him. But I just want to remind people that these Republican state lawmakers, they were facing enormous pressure. And the reason that they didn't do it is because a lot of their constituents were opposed to the principle of essentially eliminating Democratic representation in the state and doing so just because Donald Trump wanted more seats.
JOE BORELLI, FORMER REPUBLICAN LEADER, NEW YORK CITY COUNCIL: Well, if they were facing pressure from their constituents, certainly that didn't materialize in the Republican constituents who voted overwhelmingly to support five of seven of them. You called it retribution. I think it's more about accountability, and I think it's more about the direction of the Republican Party. I think it's clear from tonight whether it's Indiana or perhaps what
we'll see in Texas play out or with Massie down the road. But I think Republicans want the party and its elected officials to be on the forward foot -- on the fighting foot, you know, when it comes to redistricting. I think, you know, this is a process that was started, and everyone is going to argue with me, by Kathy Hochul in 2024. I know --
PHILLIP: It was not started by Kathy Hochul.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It was -- no.
BORELLI: But 2024 is still before 2025, despite everyone's rewriting of history. Right? But it was started by Democrats. It continued by Republicans. And I think the party is saying through the vote here in Indiana that we want to maintain our fighting posture.
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Look, I just think this is just a sad day. This president is losing a war. He's -- the country is in turmoil over these gas prices. And what's he doing? He's going smacking around little state senators someplace because they didn't do what he said. Like if it's just a regular, everyday person, this is the most important thing for the president of the United States to be doing in the middle of a war?
BORELLI: 94 percent of his endorsements are incumbents.
JONES: Look, I --
BORELLI: You picked a few people out that really upset the base. The base voted.
JONES: Well, listen, you have, you know, you and I both know you have a narrower group of people that are passionate partisans, and they come and vote. But the constituents at the time, otherwise Republicans wouldn't have done it, said, hey, why is Donald Trump telling us what to do in our state? We like our lines. We like Democrats having a fair shot.
And so the president of the United States, with everything going on in the world, comes all the way down from his little high post in Washington, D.C., to smack around little local elected officials. It's really embarrassing. It's really not good for the country.
PHILLIP: I just want to play so that people can hear. This is State Senator Spencer Deery, who broke with Trump over redistricting. Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE SEN. SPENCER DEERY (R-IN): First office I ever ran for four years ago, so I'm new to politics, and I swore that I was going to lead by principle and strong conservative principles. And the idea that the government should be able to draw new maps anytime it wants, not after a census, takes power from the people and gives it to the government. And that's far from conservative. And so there was never any question.
But I also overwhelmingly heard that my voters didn't want it. They didn't want me to do it. And so that only reinforced me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And just to note, I mean, his race is too close to call. It won't be called tonight. But I mean, he's making, I think, just a fairly basic principled point about the census and the process for redistricting and what it means for the country to be doing this willy nilly whenever a political party wants an advantage in the next election.
[00:05:13]
TIMOTHY NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I think that we should differentiate between hardball, which is something Americans have always played politically, and retribution, which is something that some presidents have engaged in, but usually covertly. I don't think it's healthy for our country when our leader revels in retribution.
What happened in Indiana today was retribution. Not an argument over the principles of how best to engage in hardball political competition. But you go against me, I will destroy you. That to me is unhealthy. And I'm sad for that reason today.
PHILLIP: Would that seem a little Nixonian to you?
NAFTALI: A little?
(LAUGHTER)
PHILLIP: I asked because you are a scholar.
NAFTALI: I didn't -- no, no, no. No, no, no. No, I try not to always mention Nixon but --
PHILLIP: No, but I mean --
NAFTALI: You know, when I said covertly.
PHILLIP: Because when you say, you know, if you go against me, I'll destroy you. That sounds like something that I would expect to hear from Nixon. And which, by the way, Trump was kind of a student of his.
NAFTALI: Well, indirectly.
PHILLIP: Indirectly, yes.
NAFTALI: Indirectly through Roy Cohn. But sure. I mean, if you need this kind of entertainment, you can listen to the Nixon tapes where he goes off on and on again about how important it is to destroy, destroy his enemies. One thing that makes him different from President Trump is that Nixon generally focused on Democrats when he talked about his enemies, whereas what's so interesting about tonight is that Donald Trump described his Republicans as enemies. He uses a new term for them, RINOs. But these are Republicans.
HINOJOSA: Well, and how long does this last? Donald Trump will be a lame-duck president next year. It is likely that they lose the House. Maybe the Senate. And with that and with very little power in Congress, and at what point will Republicans continue to listen to these attacks? Because one thing is true, with the redistricting fight, it's not over.
Texas will do redistricting again before the 2028 election. And if Donald Trump -- especially if Donald Trump goes and asks them, it will be interesting to see what happens and what plays out in Texas and in other states, whether or not they want to actually listen to the president. But I'm not sure how much Donald Trump has this sort of gravitas to kind of make these decisions and force people to do these things.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, I think that there are going to be plenty of places in the country where he is going to get what he wants. I think the question I really have is honestly like, let's really look at where we are today, in which again, if Xochitl is right, we could have Texas redistricting every two years. Any state could do that. Democrat or Republican.
How is that good for our democracy? I don't want to play the blame game, but where we are right now is demonstrably worse than where we were a few years ago.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, we'll have a census in a few years, and then states will have new data through which they'll have to redraw these things again anyway.
On the Indiana situation, I guess I see this a little more simply. First of all, it's hardly anything new for a president to be the boss or the leader of their party. It's not new at all. Every Democrat and Republican in the modern era has been the head of their party, and their prerogatives and their priorities have prevailed.
In Indiana, you can't have it both ways. You can't say, oh, the people were overwhelmingly opposed to drawing the maps. Well, if that was true, why didn't they show up and vote for the people who stopped the drawing of the maps?
PHILLIP: This is a Republican primary. It's a completely different electorate.
JENNINGS: OK, well, here's the thing. Here's the way I see it. When you're a state legislator, when you're a congressman, when you hold any office, every decision that you make, every vote that you cast is then subject to the decision and judgment of the voters. We had --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Of the voters, of your constituents.
JENNINGS: We had an election. We had an election tonight. And that's what happened. PHILLIP: -- Republican primary voters. This is the problem.
JENNINGS: You can dislike primaries or close primaries.
PHILLIP: No, no, no. I'm not saying --
JENNINGS: But this is the system in Indiana.
PHILLIP: Listen, I'm not saying I dislike primaries. All I'm saying is what is the responsibility of a representative in this country? State representative --
JENNINGS: To be accountable to their voters which I'm with you.
PHILLIP: State representative, a federal representative. It is, yes, the primary plays a role in the system, but they are accountable to all of their constituents.
JENNINGS: I'm with you. I'm with you. I'm with you, guys.
PHILLIP: And so that's how it's supposed to work.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I'm with you. But here's the thing. If you believe as an elected official that you're casting the correct vote, you shouldn't really care what happens in the election.
PHILLIP: That's exactly what happened.
JENNINGS: And everybody is bemoaning this. But you should --
PHILLIP: That's exactly what happened.
JENNINGS: But you should also have eyes wide open when you cast those votes because there are obviously a lot of people in their districts who did want them to redraw the map.
JONES: I just want to say like, you know, President Barack Obama didn't do stuff like this.
[00:10:02]
Like he didn't. He didn't go around and try to knock off people in our party. And I just think we're way down a rabbit hole, that's not a good rabbit hole to be down. We're spending a lot of time and energy trying to police the Republican Party all the way down to like the state level. At some point, it's going to be, you know, Trump is going to be knocking off dog catchers and county clerks just so he can be the boss of the party. That's really not traditionally what the president --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: You can't put this in a silo. Like it's just, you know, Republicans doing it. You mentioned Nixon, obviously Trump. You know, this is the mantra of the left wing of the Democratic Party. It's if you don't do what I say, we're going to come after you. Now, that's more collectivist. That's --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Hey, I don't understand what is the --
BORELLI: That's a group --
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: The MAGA wing of the Republican Party is doing essentially what the socialist wing of the Democratic Party is in major states. They're saying, if you don't support us, we're going to come after you in primaries. That is how --
PHILLIP: Is that -- are you saying that that's bad or that's good?
BORELLI: I'm saying --
PHILLIP: It sounds like --
BORELLI: It's a refreshing thing for each party to have a primary system where they elect the people that they choose. They don't listen to media pundits. They don't listen to Democrats who say maybe the Republican candidates for office should be different. They vote for the candidates that they are registered to that party in their district.
PHILLIP: All right. Let me -- on the redistricting issue, let me play, this is Benny Johnson, a conservative podcaster making the case for reparations for white Republicans.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENNY JOHNSON, HOST, THE BENNY SHOW: In New England, where no doubt you are broadcasting this program, there is 27 different congressional seats. There's 40 percent Republican population. Zero of those congressional seats go to Republicans. Those 40 percent of Republicans have zero representation. And so my encouragement to the Republicans is to grow a pair and to deliver back some reparations for Republican voters.
We deserve reparations for being dis-enfranchised by the racist Democrats who stole the civil rights of American voters and rigged our districts racistly. So time for reparations for the Republican Deep South.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Anybody want to take that on? Van?
JONES: I don't know why I have to talk about it. This is like transparently foolish. Look, he did that so that we would talk about it. And I think that obviously in general, Republicans don't believe in reparations for black people or Native Americans or anybody else. So he's just doing -- he's playing a little game.
BORELLI: Why is he wrong about New England?
JONES: Well, I just don't think -- he's doing that on purpose to get a little attention for himself. So I try not to reward people who put little rhetorical stunts like that. I don't like extreme gerrymandering. 40 percent of Republicans getting zero percent of the seats is wrong. And they should get more representation. I'm pretty consistent about this stuff. I'm like a voting rights fair, voting fanatic. So, but I think he's, you know, uh, putting the reparations card in there is just an attempt to get attention, which I don't want to give.
NAFTALI: There's a fix you know? It's not reparations. It's a fix. We could do what Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, in fact, most every other democracy in the world does. We get an independent commission that would divide up these congressional districts and then you wouldn't have your problem.
BORELLI: All of these states do it in name. Most states have a commission.
NAFTALI: But why don't -- why don't we encourage that throughout the country then you know it would stop this race to the bottom.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: They have one in Virginia.
HINOJOSA: Here, everyone should endorse a commission.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, I think that we're getting close to the point where that might be the only option to take us back from this brink. But the thing is, Republicans don't want a commission. They want partisan.
BORELLI: Well, look, I don't think it's just Republicans.
(CROSSTALK)
BORELLI: Which states don't have some independent commission drawing the lines that ultimately get voted on by the state legislature?
JONES: Look, I think --
HINOJOSA: Wait, sorry. That's --
BORELLI: Most states have some sort of independent commission that form a state line and then --
PHILLIP: Texas -- clearly Texas doesn't.
BORELLI: It doesn't mean that the state legislatures can't usurp the power back.
HINOJOSA: And the Democrats in Texas actually introduce legislation. PHILLIP: Many states do not have independent commissions. It's not --
BORELLI: It often starts with a drawing from an independent commission that goes to the legislature.
PHILLIP: Many states do not have independent commissions that create the lines. And so if that were the case, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.
BORELLI: The other standard by the court --
PHILLIP: So, I mean, but do you support a nonpartisan redistricting that just draws the lines based on a fair balance of power politically?
BORELLI: Where I was getting to is, for example --
PHILLIP: Yes or no.
BORELLI: Here in New York, we have an independent commission. It's as crooked as a cane.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well --
BORELLI: It's as crooked as it came because the Democrats control it. So --
PHILLIP: But hold on. But here's the thing.
BORELLI: You're saying things that are like rainbow sprinkles.
PHILLIP: Even here in New York -- but even in your New York example.
BORELLI: They have an independent commission.
PHILLIP: You blamed Kathy Hochul.
BORELLI: That makes crooked rule of pushing districts --
PHILLIP: And this was overruled in the courts. So --
BORELLI: The first time.
PHILLIP: There was a part of the system that actually did work.
BORELLI: And the second time. Not the third time.
PHILLIP: But also -- but, Joe, there are ways to do this that are -- that are truly nonpartisan, that divides up the states based on the partisan divisions, that uses technology to make sure that these districts are evenly matched according to the way that the state ought to be.
[00:15:03] If it's 60 percent Democrats, 40 percent Republican, it's divided that way. Would you support something like that?
BORELLI: You stand by the Supreme Court in the Louisiana case.
PHILLIP: I'm just asking you.
BORELLI: You said -- so yes, communities --
PHILLIP: No. Can you answer a question or no?
BORELLI: I'm answering the question. You gave a great framework for how we should divide districts.
PHILLIP: Are you -- OK. Let me ask you one more time.
BORELLI: Which is actually similar to what the court in the Louisiana case said.
PHILLIP: Are you willing --
BORELLI: We shouldn't make race the primary factor.
PHILLIP: Do you that Republicans, as on principle, if fairness is the issue, should abandon this idea of partisan gerrymandering? Democrats should abandon this idea of partisan gerrymandering, and we should aim for a redistricting system that is -- that is as fair as possible to the partisan dynamics in each particular state? That there are lots of details to it. But --
BORELLI: Yes.
PHILLIP: Yes. OK.
BORELLI: But partisanship is a great model.
PHILLIP: OK? Yes.
BORELLI: I'm glad you agree with that.
PHILLIP: OK. So --
BORELLI: I think -- I don't think you see what you're saying. You're agreeing essentially with the Louisiana court.
PHILLIP: Well, no, I mean --
BORELLI: That partisanship is a better model than racial demographics in drawing district lines. You have to see that.
PHILLIP: Well, hod on a second. Well, that may be so, but in Louisiana, the --
BORELLI: They use communities of interest, which is --
PHILLIP: Hold on, Joe. Can you let me -- BORELLI: Factors in demographics is one factor.
PHILLIP: Can you let me get a word in edgewise?
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: In Louisiana, if they get rid of one of these black opportunity districts, black representation goes down to something like 15 percent or 20 percent in a state where, or you can, or you can call it Democratic representation goes down to 15 percent to 20 percent in a state where it's more like 30 percent to 40 percent. So that's not really fair, right?
BORELLI: Well, the courts use another standard called communities of interest, since I want to say, the 1990s. Communities of interest in voting rights law allows for cultural differences, geographic political lines, you know, different income demographics to determine where district lines are drawn, and partisanship. Those are all better models taken as a whole than what you had the ACLU, what you had Eric Holder's group is talking about in Louisiana saying, we must create a district that empowers blacks, essentially at the expense of other people. That's what the court decided.
PHILLIP: But that's also not what's happening now in terms of how Trump and Republicans are pursuing redistricting. They're pursuing redistricting based on minimizing Democratic representation, period.
JENNINGS: How are Democrats pursuing it in Virginia and California?
PHILLIP: They're following the model that Trump and Republicans have set.
JENNINGS: They had -- they had the independent commissions that you covet, and they blew them up.
PHILLIP: Yes, no, I mean, I agree. They are totally -- they took what Trump did in Texas and they said, we're going to do the same thing in California and we're going to do the same thing in Virginia. It's bad. That's exactly what I'm saying. So I mean, I'm just saying --
JENNINGS: You could go back in time further and say Illinois.
PHILLIP: If you think Virginia and California are bad, then you should definitely think that Texas is bad. And you should think that this ball rolling down a hill situation that we're in is bad.
JENNINGS: Why are we so hostile to voters?
PHILLIP: Florida.
JENNINGS: I feel like voters -- look, state legislatures making decisions is a big topic tonight. State legislatures make decisions about maps. We drew them. We didn't draw them. Ultimately, they are accountable to voters. If people in certain states don't like the way maps are drawn, they can -- they can deal with that in an election.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: We have to have some trust in the voters on the state legislature.
PHILLIP: I don't know that that's the best argument because you guys are --
JENNINGS: Letting voters make decisions?
PHILLIP: Yes, because in California, voters decided to redraw the maps. You didn't like that. In Virginia when they decided to redraw the maps, you didn't like that.
BORELLI: Well, they broke the law.
PHILLIP: The voter -- you clearly don't think that the voters are enough.
JENNINGS: No, I'm saying state legislative districts, they're small. People know their state legislators. When they make votes, they're held accountable by their local voters, just like they were in Indiana, just like they will be in a lot of other states. I'm sort of a -- I believe in voters, you know, call me crazy, but I think.
HINOJOSA: But Donald Trump doesn't. That's why he decided to do redistricting.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I don't think -- let me just say for the record, Scott, I don't think that you believe in voters, but go ahead.
JENNINGS: I'm sorry, but why?
PHILLIP: Because as I just pointed out, you disagreed with the voters' decision in California and in Virginia. You can't have it both ways.
JENNINGS: But disagreeing with them doesn't mean I don't believe in their right to vote. I believe in everyone's right to vote.
PHILLIP: All right. So, Van --
HINOJOSA: But Donald Trump doesn't believe in their right to vote.
PHILLIP: Van, Van, go ahead. Please.
JONES: Look, the problem is the maps really matter. And if you have no principles and you have no good rules, you can draw maps that lock you in to power. And then some voters wind up mattering less than others which is why I don't like all this stuff. I think there needs to be a grand bargain on voting in this country. I think the direction that we're headed now, I mean, everybody can point to the other side to excuse a bunch of stuff that's not good for the country, but this is not good for the country. I think that the Republicans have legitimate concerns around things
like voter I.D., and I think that we should come up with a fair way to deal with that. I think Democrats have legitimate concerns about people pretending what they're doing is partisan, but actually what it looks like they're doing is racial, and we need some ability to kind of sort that out. There's a lot of things, but so some fix on the Voting Rights Act, some fix on voter I.D. There are things that I think reasonable people could come together and agree, but what's happening right now is everybody is just in this vicious cycle that I think is very bad for the country.
[00:20:02]
NAFTALI: Can I just add? Let's make it easier for American citizens to vote. Why don't we give ourselves a holiday? I was just -- I was in Hungary for the election. Why don't we make it a holiday? Why -- if you look at the rules state by state, and because I was a federal officer in California, I know a lot about the rules and how many hours I could give people to go and vote. Well, in states where you have long commutes, that's really hard.
What you end up having is all these people trying to vote just before they close the vote at night. Why don't we make it easier? I agree with you, Scott. Let's make the voter decide. But why do we make it so hard to vote in this country?
JENNINGS: It has never been easier to vote. Look at all the states and all the time and all the weeks and all the ways. Early voting, mail-in voting.
NAFTALI: But, Scott --
JENNINGS: Weeks and weeks and weeks of voting. Literally we vote all the time.
HINOJOSA: The president is trying to limit that. The president is trying to limit that.
NAFTALI: Let's have a grand bargain. Let's vote on one day, but just give everyone a holiday.
JENNINGS: You would -- you would like to restrict voting to one day?
NAFTALI: I don't want to restrict --
JENNINGS: I'll shake hands on that right now. Let's just have election day. How about we kill the mail while we're at it?
JONES: No.
NAFTALI: No, no, no, no.
HINOJOSA: Again, you guys, this would make it harder to vote. These people, there are workers who can't, yes, you -- in an ideal world, in an ideal world, that would happen. But unfortunately, businesses won't allow for that. NAFTALI: A lot of --
HINOJOSA: And there are people --
NAFTALI: A lot of countries do that, though.
JONES: Target would still be open.
NAFTALI: Why can't we do it? Other countries do it.
HINOJOSA: There are people -- and there are people who don't have childcare. There are all sorts of issues like that. Like my kids' school is closed on election day.
JENNINGS: I'd like a day-off. I wish we had.
HINOJOSA: But I mean, there are --
JENNINGS: But you all agree. It's easy to vote. Does everybody agree that it's pretty easy to vote in America?
HINOJOSA: It has been easy to vote. What I will say is they're trying to make it harder to vote.
JENNINGS: They who?
HINOJOSA: The Republicans when it comes to Donald Trump.
JENNINGS: Where?
HINOJOSA: Everywhere.
JENNINGS: Where?
HINOJOSA: They're trying to --
JENNINGS: Give me an example.
HINOJOSA: Across the country.
JENNINGS: Give me an example of how we're -- where?
HINOJOSA: What he's been trying for -- he hates vote by mail. He believes that there are --
JENNINGS: Where have we made it harder to vote?
HINOJOSA: The president does not want vote by mail in this country.
JENNINGS: Where has it gotten harder to vote?
PHILLIP: Are you going to let her respond?
HINOJOSA: I'm saying.
PHILLIP: She's trying to answer your question. JENNINGS: OK, I'm sorry, I agree.
HINOJOSA: Yes. He has put proposals forward that would restrict vote by mail. He wants to completely do away with it. He wants to ensure, and in states voter I.D. laws, not all voter I.D. laws are -- they do restrict. In some instances, women would have to have like if you're -- if my name was changed on my passport or my I.D. and it's different than what it, you know, says otherwise, I'd be limited.
There are things like that that the president is trying to do every single day to limit it. And he's doing it this year because he knows he's going to lose the midterm elections. This is why this whole entire thing has been happening with redistricting in the first place. And it's not about, you know, whether it is racial fair, whatever it is, it is because he knows he's going to lose. And we have to just come to an agreement.
JENNINGS: With respect, my friend. It has never, ever, ever been easier to cast a ballot in any state in America than it is right now. We have opened up all sorts of pathways. Early voting. We vote on the weekends. We have expanded mail in all kinds of places. And yes, I agree with you, and I admit that the president has his own opinions about that, but his opinions are not the law and the laws in the 50 states of America is you have to work hard not to vote. We got people getting 18 ballots in the mail in some places. There's a lot of ballots out.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: It's not the law until he wants it to be the law. Because let's not forget, he has this whole thing where he wants to make the SAVE Act about restricting voting, restricting mail in voting, adding more barriers to people being able to use certain forms of identification to vote. It's not true that Trump is just spouting off. He is trying to change the law.
I would argue, to be honest, he can't really -- he would like to do it by just signing his name on a piece of paper. He can't do that. And there's a reason that Congress hasn't passed the SAVE Act, but there's no indication that he's not going to keep trying. That's what he wants.
JENNINGS: Yes. He would like to pass a SAVE America Act, principally because he believes in voter I.D., just like 80 percent of the country.
PHILLIP: Principally because he wants to restrict access to voting.
JENNINGS: I reject the argument that asking for I.D. is an impediment to voting. I just totally disagree.
PHILLIP: The president wants to be able to vote by mail, but he doesn't want other people to be able to do so easily. He does it all the time. Just because he doesn't want to go to Florida when he could easily go to Florida. But he doesn't want other people to be able to utilize it as well. So that's unfortunate because it's actually bad for Republicans. But there you go.
Next for us, the DOJ is issuing a rare apology to a judge, and now she's thinking about holding the administration in contempt. We'll tell you why. Plus, Democrats are demanding the U.S. reveal Israel's nuclear arsenal after decades of keeping it a secret.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:28:26]
PHILLIP: Tonight, the Justice Department is apologizing to a federal judge for a terribly embarrassing mistake, that's a quote, after DHS accused her of knowingly releasing an immigration detainee who was wanted for murder. According to "The New York Times," the Trump administration did not inform Judge Melissa Dubois that the man that she was setting free on bond last week had an arrest warrant for homicide in the Dominican Republic. But two days after she ordered the man's release, DHS attacked her as an activist judge on the basis of the information that they withheld from her.
In a filing on Monday, a DOJ attorney apologized for the consequences of his lack of disclosure, and the judge says that she's referring him for politically -- for potential misconduct and an investigation.
And she's also saying that this whole situation put her at risk. And, you know, I remember when this was really blowing up a couple of days ago, you know, certain conservative folks gleefully posting pictures of her on the internet calling her an activist judge, saying that she let a murderer free. And again, these are the same people who argue that doing the same thing about ICE officers and CBP officers was -- is bad and justifies them wearing masks and should be a crime. All of that stuff. How does that work?
BORELLI: I'm sorry for the judge. I don't think the judge should be singled out for making a decision that she was unaware that she was making the decision. Obviously, there was some -- there was some error in the DHS process that caused this, which was acknowledged.
[00:30:00]
But I find it hard to believe that American is more outraged by the judge being upset and having some tears rather than the fact that a person who was accused of murder is being released. I mean, I think that's a far bigger issue for Americans to contend with.
And --
(CROSSTALK)
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But that's DHS'
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Well, yes. I mean, actually I think that the outrage here --
BORELLI: But again. So when you got --
PHILLIP: -- the outrage here is the misconduct on the part of DOJ to withhold critical information that actually has to do with public safety. That's actually the issue. They knew that this man had or had --
BORELLI: I think the issue is the murder release, just for the record.
PHILLIP: Hold on. Yes.
BORELLI: Yes.
PHILLIP: Yes. But here's what I'm saying. They knew that this man had an arrest warrant. They withheld that information. They didn't even give it to the judge under seal. And by doing so, they created the conditions that allowed him to be released back onto the streets. They were responsible for that.
BORELLI: So, why is the outrage that we're -- that you're indicating -- this is real, right? Over creating the situation that allowed his release? Why doesn't that translate into the dozen or so states that have bail reform where you have people who are convicted of 40 arrests at a time --
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think the question --
BORELLI: -- who are just routinely released into the public? We had -- we've had some heinous cases. We had people getting caught with human body parts that were released. We had a person get -- get released after 40 arrests, murdering a nurse.
JONES: And do you want to answer the question? You just wanted your --
BORELLI: I was giving you a --
JONES: -- your -- your parade of horribles.
Look, people do bad stuff when they're out on bail, not on bail. That's not the issue.
The problem is this extra thing that they did, which is very scary. The government publicized the name of a judge and directed real threats against her.
All -- as you and I both know, all kind of dumb stuff happens in our court system all the time. People get away with stuff. The wrong people go to jail. Other people get out. That's normal.
It is not normal for the government to direct this level of -- of -- of hostility toward an individual judge based on their own mistake or any mistake. And that's not good for the country.
HINOJOSA: Well, this is their pattern.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, they -- the -- the press release read, activist Biden judge releases violent criminal illegal alien. It's a press release released on April 30th. It's still up on the website, even though it's inaccurate.
HINOJOSA: Well, and also, there have been threats to public officials that have been on the rise since the 2020 election. And there have been about, I do believe, 500 threats to judges every year since 2020.
And when I was at the Justice Department, the Marshall Service is the entity that protects them. And we had to ask for more resources from Congress because the threats to judges were out of control. And that is without the federal government that is without the federal government going after these judges.
She made a very good point. She said that press release is still up on your website. We can face threats. But the problem here is that the narrative is so one-sided right now that it is only the left that is causing threats.
No one actually looks to see the overall threat landscape and threats happen to everybody. They happen to public officials. They happen to judges. They come from the right. They come from the left. They come from all of these places.
And I mean, I think the judge here should be angry. And the fact that there was a press release that went out like this and they did not give her the information, I believe they also leaked it to Fox News ahead of time, the information about this individual --
PHILLIP: And then the Fox reporter tweeted out--
HINOJOSA: Tweeted out. Yes. But it's just -- it's also show you --
JONES: Very dangerous. Very dangerous.
PHILLIP: -- the judges' photo along with --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: It also shows you a bigger problem with DOJ and DHS in this administration, which they care more about headlines and framing a narrative about a judge or trying to make the judge look bad than they do actually about the facts in the law. And that has just been the case throughout the time.
They get ahead of themselves on facts. They did it with Epstein. They do it all of the time because they care so much about that narrative. And they don't care about governing and law enforcement.
PHILLIP: So just to your point, it's not just that the press release is still up. The DHS public affairs responded to a request for comment about this by rescinding the initial post with the attacks on the judge and then saying, quote, "An activist judge appointed by Joe Biden released those -- this wanted murderer back into American communities." That's according to Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis in a statement.
This is frankly unscrupulous behavior, Scott. SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. My view is that when mistakes are made, it's -- it's proper for mistakes to be acknowledged and apologies to be made, which it sounds like the Department of Justice did in filings. And even I think I read that the Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche was part of that.
You know, I -- I do think the administration has had a problem, frankly, with a lot of judges in this country at the federal and at the state level who have, in fact, released people who shouldn't be released, violent people.
Now, if a mistake was made in this case, as I said, it's proper for it to be acknowledged, apologize for and dealt with. I don't -- I don't debate that.
But generally, I think there's a view on the right that there are some judges out there who are more interested in releasing violent people to promote their politics than in thinking through, OK, do we really need to put this person back on the street?
[00:35:13]
This one instance, the facts of it may not support that, but in a lot of instances, we have had heinous cases where violent people have been released and then committed to other crimes and the administration, I think, is rightfully concerned about it.
JONES: Look, we have -- we have -- we have an imperfect criminal justice system. Sometimes the wrong people get let out. Sometimes the wrong people get kept in. And so this is something that we, you know, our concerns tend to be a little bit more on the other side.
I don't think we can have a perfect justice system, which is why we need a lot of scrutiny. But I don't think it's ever appropriate for a -- for the government to be sending out press release. This is not just filings. Press releases going after judges. We know that's not a matter.
HINOJOSA: We didn't do it with Judge Cannon when we disagree with almost everything she did in the classified docs case. We didn't do it with the Supreme Court after the immunity decision.
JENNINGS: May I -- may I ask you a question about that?
HINOJOSA: We did not do it. And I will say, the federal government did not attack Judge Cannon or the Supreme Court when those things happen.
JENNINGS: Well, can I -- can I just refresh your memory about what Chuck Schumer and other Democrats did (INAUDIBLE).
HINOJOSA: That is not the Justice Department. Those are politicians. Those are politicians. That's not the Justice Department.
JENNINGS: Can I remind you -- can I remind you that Brett Kavanaugh had somebody come and try to murder him?
And so the criticisms for the fiduciary --
HINOJOSA: Yes. There have been court justices and there have been hundreds Supreme Court justices who have also had threats all of the time.
PHILLIP: Her -- her -- her statements -- her statement still stands. So he federal government --
BORELLI: So politicians can release --
HINOJOSA: Hold on.
PHILLIP: Hold on. The federal government didn't --
BORELLI: The politicians --
HINOJOSA: The Justice Department --
PHILLIP: Hold on. The federal government didn't do it. OK? They're -- they're different -- can we just agree that those are different things?
Chuck Schumer is a politician. He's an individual. He's responsible for himself and -- and his conduct. And then the federal government is a whole other ball game, because that's an entity that is the government --
HINOJOSA: law enforcement.
PHILLIP: -- of the United States of America.
Tim.
TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: I'm just going to elect the people aren't. I'm just not glad by that. I was just going to raise this point, which is that it is a scary thing when the federal government goes after a person because it disagrees with them.
And there must be a way for the federal government, the White House, the Department of Justice, to disagree with a judicial decision without using poison.
Because the consequences of that are enormous. After all, I know, I'm not a -- I'm not naive, but justice is supposed to be blind. And the Justice Department, at least historically, has supposed to be somewhat distant from partisan politics.
Chuck Schumer shouldn't have said the things he said. The madman or whoever it was who wanted to hurt Kavanaugh, terrible. That's all bad. But that doesn't mean that the federal government should start sending vitriol out when it disagrees.
And I think that's the conversation to have. Everybody needs to take a calm down and look at the consequences of language in stirring up the -- the -- the cauldron that we have in this country today.
JONES: If something had happened to that judge, I think we'd be having different conversations.
And listen, and I -- listen, you got to know, I am pretty consistent about this. I don't like either sides stirring up and -- and this stuff has gotten too personal and too nutty. And not only is it dangerous for individuals, it means we don't solve real problems. So I'm an equal opportunity critic on this stuff.
PHILLIP: Let me play -- this is Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker. He just today, he made the claim that the person responsible for the drive in uptake of violence is actually the president.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D-IL): I think the environment -- look, our -- our leaders set the tone in this country. And I think that the president of the United States has set a tone where political violence is OK. He's advocated it himself before. It's a terrible thing. He's experienced.
JOANTHAN MARTIN, SENIOR POLITICAL COLUMNIST, POLITICO: He's a target of it too, obviously.
PRITZKER: That's what I'm saying. He -- he -- he's experienced the other side of that. We got to stand up against this. We -- we need to be speaking out against political violence.
I'm a big believer in it's OK to disagree, but not be disagreeable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: You know, both things can definitely be true. It is very true that President Trump has been the victim of political violence too many times in this country. But it is also true that he has explicitly advocated for violence going all the way back to his 2016 presidential run.
And even more recently, you know, celebrating the death of Rob Reiner at the hands -- who was murdered by -- allegedly murdered by his son.
So, the president isn't responding to all of this increase in violence by saying, hey, let's take the temperature down. He is still pushing for the things that he's been pushing for, for a long time, since he's been on the political scene.
[00:40:04]
JENNINGS: Well, they -- he has faced three assassination attempts. And this conversation came in the wake of the third one. It's kind of interesting to me that a -- a Democrat running for president 2028, in the wake of a third assassination attempt against the president is saying, president is responsible for his own assassination attempts. I just -- I find that to be ludicrous.
I heard -- I heard a Senate candidate in Michigan this week, McMorrow say that she's thought -- she's still out there saying many -- many similarities between the Trump administration and -- and Hitler and Nazi Germany over and over and over again.
I'm in firm agreement with you that nobody should advocate for, endorse, or otherwise say political violence is an acceptable outcome here.
The polling on this though is quite clear. There is a cohort of younger radical Democrats who do believe that political violence is an acceptable thing. This guy who apparently burned down the palisades in L.A. said he was worshiping Luigi Mangione.
That is political violence. You -- you have this going -- there is a strain of it out there right now. I don't know that you can just lay it all at the feet of Donald Trump just because you want to run for president as a Democrat.
HINOJOSA: Well, I will say that there was a turn in our country after January 6. And the president did not tell people not to go and storm the Capitol. He didn't tell people to stop.
And I do agree with J.B. Pritzker. I don't think he was blaming Trump for his own assassination. To be honest with you, there are many Democrats who have come out for every assassination attempt saying how terrible it is, offering prayers for the president, et cetera.
I think what is happening here is that every president has a responsibility. Barack Obama did this where if there is an incident in our country, whether it is violence towards a Republican, a Democrat, a black man, a Latino woman, an immigrant, whoever it is, is killed on our streets is there is an attempted shooting, you know, whatever -- whatever -- whatever it happens there, is it is the responsibility of the president to address the nation and to bring down the temperature.
And I do think that Trump did that on Saturday of that shooting. The days after, that didn't happen. And I think that is where there was a disappointment, I think in me and in others and -- and people see that. People see his reactions.
And if he would have only just stayed where he was at and talked about how we need to come together as a country, the way Erika Kirk did after her husband was assassinated. Erika Kirk gave a emotional speech about how we had to come together as a country. I wish the president could learn from Erika Kirk.
And I wish if that were the case and he could -- he could potentially bring our country together.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us here, some Democrats have a new demand when it comes to Israel. They want the United States to expose its nuclear arsenal. We'll talk about that, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[00:45:51]
PHILLIP: Tonight, a demand for more answers on Israel's nuclear arsenal. Thirty House Democrats sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio urging the Trump administration to acknowledge Israel's nuclear program and for more assurances given the ongoing war with Iran.
They write, quote, "Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be fully informed about the nuclear balance in the Middle East and the risk of escalation by any part of this party to this conflict and the administration's planning and contingencies for such scenarios. We do not believe that we have received that information."
CNN has reached out to the State Department for comment on this.
It is interesting because this is sort of like an open secret. People -- everybody knows that Israel has nukes but we don't know how many.
Is it time for there to be more transparency around that?
NAFTALI: Well, it's -- it's not up to us. I mean, you know, this is a very interesting story because we were put in a bad, difficult position by the State of Israel.
Some people out there might not know this, but the United States government tried really hard to prevent Israel from having nuclear weapons. It was not in the -- the state and national interests of the United States under the administrations of Dwight Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson for Israel to have a bomb.
The French partic -- the French engaged in a secret and a covert operation with Israel to help Israel build its capacity. The French were not straightforward with us about it and the Israelis were not straightforward with us.
By the end of the 60s, you have a new administration that comes into town and the Israelis -- the French have changed their policy and they're now not selling weapons to Israel anymore. The Israelis come to our government and say we'd like to buy F-4s, the Phantom bombers.
We're willing to do that, but we say to the Israelis, but you've got to announce that you will not be -- you'll never introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East because we were very worried about an arms race in the Middle East.
And we were afraid that if the Israelis announced that they had nuclear weapons, the -- the Egyptians would go to the Soviets and say, would you give us a nuclear guarantee and we'd find ourselves in a Cuban missile crisis but in the Middle East.
So where -- the Nixon administration, which by the way, the Joint Chiefs of Staff didn't want Israel to have nuclear weapons, the State Department didn't want them, really none of the leaders in that administration wanted them to have nuclear weapons, but they had them.
And so the -- the U.S. government came up with this fix, which was basically, don't say to the world that you have them. And don't introduce them, in other words, don't assemble a weapon and we'll sell you Phantoms. Because the administration was afraid that if they didn't sell Phantoms to Israel, members of Congress who were supportive of Israel would say, why aren't you -- why aren't you helping the Israelis out? And the U.S. government didn't want to say, well, we're not helping them because they have nuclear weapons because we -- we don't do that.
You know, we don't talk about the number of nuclear weapons France has. We don't talk about the number of nuclear weapons that the U.K. has. Those countries announced themselves that they were nuclear powers.
[00:50:00]
So, it has never been our policy as a government to tell people about our allies, nuclear arsenals, if they don't say it themselves. And we're stuck in this policy because of the Cold War. It's a -- it's a problem for us.
PHILLIP: And now that there's a hot war in the Middle East, does that change the calculus?
JONES: What is the point? We already know that they have nukes. You -- if the United States forces them to cough up the furball, how is that in the interest of the United States? I just don't -- I'm sure there's some point. I just don't know what the point is.
Do anybody explain to me like what -- how does it -- it seems to me it's just another attempt to -- on the -- to the left wing of my party to throw a rock in Israel. And there's just like a whole bunch of people in my party just like throwing rocks at Israel and just like this rock.
But I'm -- I'm -- I try to be sure about this stuff. How does it advance the interest of the United States to force Israel to cough up this furball when everybody already does it anyway? What's the point?
BORELLI: Especially since the -- the ambiguity, the strategic ambiguity of this between Nixon and Meir at the time has led to 50 years of a lack of an arms race outside of Israel, right? Egypt does not, our knowledge have a bomb, Lebanon, you know, Syria, all these countries did not develop nuclear weapons as a result of us essentially looking the other way.
NAFTALI: Yes. But one of the things that has fallen away is our leverage. We -- we've never had a lot of leverage over the state of Israel when it comes to its decisions on national security. They're an independent country. They have different nationals. There are national interests and their national interests do, you know, overlap, but not completely.
And Israel, time and again, and it's a Republican Democratic administrations that have always been faced with this challenge, Israel does what Israel wants to do. And one of the things we haven't done as much of is that we could, is like a good ally who wants Israel to persevere. We haven't used our leverage to say to Israel sometimes, you know, the war you've launched against Hamas, Hamas deserves it, but the way you're fighting it, it's not good for the international system and it's not good for us.
That's what I think's going on here, which is a -- and it's a good debate to have, not on the nuclear issue. But how can the United States use its leverage to make the Middle East more peaceful?
PHILLIP: So -- so here are some of the questions that Joaquin Castro is posing on this issue. Maybe this might answer some of your questions.
What nuclear weapons capability does Israel have? Has the administration received any assurances from Israel that nuclear weapons will not be used? Has Israel communicated to the United States any nuclear doctrine, any red lines or thresholds for nuclear use in the context of the current conflict with Iran?
Has the administration assessed what circumstances could lead Israel to continue -- consider nuclear use? What contingency planning has the administration conducted for such a scenario?
I mean, we do -- I mean, look --
JONES: Is there any -- again, I'm asking an honest question. Why? I mean, it's --
PHILLIP: Well, I -- I guess --
JONES: If there's been some rumor that says --
PHILLIP: Well, I guess that the --
JONES: -- that said, Israel is going to nuke Iran.
PHILLIP: Here's the thing, I guess the question is --
JONES: I don't think there has some.
PHILLIP: -- the question is -- the question is -- again, now there's been a change of status quo. There's a war --
JONES: Sure.
PHILLIP: -- between the United States, Israel, and Iran that is going on right now in the Middle East.
And under those circumstances, that is actually different from what we've been experiencing for the last, you know, 40, 50 years. And so under those circumstances, there's only one power in the Middle East that has a nuke and it's Israel.
And so the question is, what are the circumstances? What are the boundaries? Are there any boundaries? They don't acknowledge that they have them. People know that they -- that they do, but are there any boundaries? I think that seems like a fair question to ask.
NAFTALI: I'm assuming that they're in executive session. The Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and certainly intelligence communities --
PHILLIP: Yes.
NAFTALI: -- are getting as much of a briefing on the state of Israeli nuclear readiness as -- as they feel they need. The issue here is whether it should be done publicly.
PHILLIP: Aren't they? Well, are they? Because I mean, I presume that the reason that they're -- they've released this letter is because they're not.
HINOJOSA: So, I think that's the question.
(CROSSTALK)
JONES: This is not about it nationally. It's just political.
HINOJOSA: No. But this is a question. Should they be doing a Gang of Eight? Should they be doing a briefing of some sort to members of Congress? I don't think that that is unreasonable at this point. And it makes it that letter made it seem like they actually don't have the answers to the questions.
And to be honest with you, I think what worries Congress and the Democratic members is, I don't know if the -- if the White House has asked themselves those questions.
And so I think that is the concern, is that has the White House done their homework? Do they know the answers to these questions? And if they do, can they do a classified briefing --
PHILLIP: The last question for you, Tim, because I think you laid out the history really. It was really fascinating.
JONES: Yes.
PHILLIP: If -- look, we're -- we're -- we've been in this place for a while because of all those things that you laid out. But if Israel, in fact, has a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapons, why shouldn't they behave the way other nuclear states that are good actors do when they have those nuclear weapons?
[00:55:09]
They have a certain degree of transparency. They -- they have a -- a, you know, a principle around their use of nuclear weapons. Why shouldn't they be subject to that expectation even if it's not a mandate?
NAFTALI: Well, I'm not going to tell the Israelis what to do, but I think they should, of course. I think -- I -- I -- I -- I know why we didn't, and -- and I respect that. I know why the United States doesn't -- doesn't say to talk public about it.
I think they should. It's not for me to tell them what to do, but of course I think they should. I think they should announce that they -- they have this capability and that they can protect themselves.
And I think that would be healthy because we don't have a Soviet Union to provide nuclear assistance to the Egyptians and then the Israelis would have these --
JONES: I beg your pardon. North Korea could provide immediately. Russia could provide immediately. I don't know what you're talking about on that regard.
Like there -- there is an axis of powers against us, the Islamic Republic of Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China. Three of them are nuclear power.
PHILLIP: Yes. But -- but the Egyptians are our allies. They're not allied with the North Korea.
NAFTALI: And -- and the -- the -- the chess board is not divided in half now. It's a dangerous world, but it -- I -- I would just say that I think it would -- would -- would be helpful for the -- for the Middle East -- to Is -- for Israel in a way to acknowledge it. But no country is going to say how many weapons they have.
PHILLIP: I guess I would -- I would pose -- I would pose the same question that you posed, which is, why not? If there's no reason for them not to acknowledge it, given all the things that you laid out.
JONES: Let's have another show about that.
PHILLIP: Yes. All right. Everyone, thank you very much for being here. And thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can stream the show anytime with an all-access subscription in the CNN app or at cnn.com/watch.
CNN's coverage continues, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
