Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Says, I Don't Think About Americans' Financial Situation Amid War; War Drives Inflation to Three-Year High, Prices Rising Faster Than Salaries; Trump's Behavior Gets More Erratic With Online Rants, Outbursts; Intel Says Iran Still Has Missile Sites And Launchers; Kash Patel Denies Allegations Of Excessive Drinking. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired May 12, 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)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, Americans are broke and fed up. A damning new look shows an overwhelming majority are feeling financial pain and are blaming Donald Trump.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.
PHILLIP: Plus, as pressure mounts, the president's rants and behavior become more unhinged.
TRUMP: I doubled the size of it, you dumb person.
PHILLIP: Also, an explosive new report undercuts Trump's war claims, and even the hawks are getting frustrated.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): No wonder this damn thing is going nowhere.
PHILLIP: And the embattled FBI director faces the heat.
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): Come on. These are serious allegations that were made against you.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Adam Mockler, Jason Rantz, Ashley Allison, Elizabeth Pipko, and Rana Foroohar.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
We're in President Trump's economy now, and most people aren't happy with it. Tonight, the president is heading to China as the Iran war is driving inflation to its highest point in years. But as Trump pushes toward a peace deal with Tehran, he's made this stunning admission about Americans who are struggling to get by right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: When you're negotiating with Iran, Mr. President, to what extent are Americans' financial situation motivating you to make a deal?
TRUMP: Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about Americans' financial situation. I don't think about anybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Today, for the first time in three years, inflation has outpaced wages. That means that life is getting less and less affordable. And just to keep up with inflation, the average U.S. household now has to spend $319 more every month for the same things compared to January 2025.
And tonight, new polling is showing that people are fed up with this. 77 percent say that Trump's policies have increased the cost of living. Another 70 percent don't like how Trump is handling the economy. And despite all of that, Trump continues to claim that things are booming.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Now we're the hottest country anywhere in the world.
Inflation is plummeting. Incomes are rising. The economy is roaring back.
Thanks to these pro-growth policies, our economy is roaring.
We have the greatest economy we've ever had.
We're the hottest country anywhere in the world.
The economy's going great.
Gas prices are way down, and the stock market is way up today.
Our country now is the hottest country anywhere in the world.
We have this unbelievable economy.
Grocery prices are way down. Used car prices are way down.
The hottest, the best country anywhere in the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: When we see inflation jumping up to a three-year high, Rana, and now eclipsing wages, that is a predictable outcome of raising input prices, particularly gasoline. RANA FOROOHAR, CNN GLOBAL ECONOMIC ANALYST: Yes, 100 percent. I mean, gas, food, these are the things that people really pay attention to when it comes to inflation. And what's interesting is even if we were to get some kind of resolution to the Iran situation in the next few weeks, which personally I don't think we're going to get, the pain would keep coming because gas takes months to get where it's going. The supply chains that feed, you know, the economies that depend on that energy, these are things that are like dominoes.
You know, if you remember way back to COVID or the beginning of the Ukraine war, the pain of those disruptions lasted for months, even if there were solutions. And so this is something that's not going away anytime soon. Gas is also the one price that Americans, all Americans almost, see every single day. So, it's a big deal.
PHILLIP: And the president saying -- I understand the point that he's making that Iran not getting a nuclear weapon is important to him, but the idea that he would also say that he doesn't think about the cost to Americans, that is beyond just a gaffe. It's also an admission of something that he's not paying attention to right now.
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: No, I don't think it's an admission of anything beyond how you negotiate. You would not give this kind of power to Iran.
[22:05:00]
I think they're two separate issues. You've got the political issue, and I think he made a mistake politically in saying it in that way. But the reality is when you're negotiating with a terrorist regime, you're not going to tell them, I'm hanging onto this one piece so you can exploit it, thus we can't actually get to any kind of resolution. Strategically, from purely a standpoint of negotiation, it was a smart move, but he's taking it at a political cost.
And I think that also points to him truly believing this, that he's not going to do what's politically right for him right now or for the Republican Party because what he knows is an actual threat coming from Iran in the long-term. And to the point that all the polling seems to indicate that we all kind of understand, Iran can't have access to nuclear weapons, period, ever. And so he's taking some short-term pain, he hopes it's short-term, for some long-term gain.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think he's taking short-term pain. I think the American people are taking short-term pain. And I don't think the president has to say whether he cares or not about the American people in terms of -- he's the president of the United States. I would hope he cares about the American people.
RANTZ: He does.
ALLISON: And he doesn't need to. So, he doesn't -- I mean, whether you say it one way or not, the reality is Americans are suffering and the actions that he is taking makes it seem like he's not going to do the things to stop them from suffering. Now, two things can be true. He could not do that, and he could also believe, as I believe, that Iran can't have a nuke, and yet Americans don't want to suffer, and they are fed up with it. And the political cost will be consequential, maybe not to him, I mean, he'll become a lame duck, but to the people of his party. And the question is, when will they turn on him when they won't. He'll still have his seat in the Oval Office but many people won't on the Hill.
RANTZ: Your point, I think, is very fair, but also looking at the CNN poll today is I think kind of interesting. While it's not good news for the president, undoubtedly so, but his numbers aren't actually moving in any real direction. He's been stagnant on his approval rating since I think it was October.
ALLISON: The dumps.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Let's take a look at -- let's take a closer look at the numbers. When you compare April 2025 to today, Democrats continue to disapprove, shockingly, of President Trump on the cost of living issue. Independents, more independents, 18 percent more disapprove now of the president than a year ago. Republicans, it's a 25 percent increase over a year ago. So, there is definitely a shift happening, including among independents and within his own party, people who are blaming him for making their lives more expensive.
ELIZABETH PIPKO, FORMER TRUMP 2016 CAMPAIGN AIDE: I think, though, when you're the President of the United States, I mean, you said it right, they're blaming him. Who else are they going to blame? He is 100 percent responsible, and that means he's responsible if things continue to get worse, or he's responsible and deserves all the credit if we exit Iran and things end up remarkably well.
And I think when you look at the polling, obviously, he's seeing it as well, right? He knows exactly what he was doing when he went into Iran. He's very worried about midterms. Yes, he'll be in the Oval Office, but he knows what happened the first term, right? He remembers getting impeached time and time again. He wants to win these midterms 100 percent.
And I think the polling is accurate. I think we all want a better economy, whether you love Donald Trump or not, you want the numbers to be better. But two things can be true at once. You can want a better economy, and yet still believe that when we're out of Iran and this is behind us, he is the only person, hands down, that could actually get costs down and bring us back to where we want to be.
ADAM MOCKLER, COMMENTATOR, MEIDASTOUCH, NETWORK: I absolutely agree that Donald Trump is responsible for the current state of the economy. It seems like the Trump administration has been operating with the sole goal of inflicting as much damage on working Americans as possible. He took office and spiked 2.9 percent inflation up to 3.8 percent. Gas prices are up to $4.50 in most states, and he did this all while stripping insurance away from 10 million Americans. I think the most impressive part is the deficit hasn't even decreased at all. The deficit is still increasing year over year. And one more point I want to make is when Donald Trump took office, he and Elon Musk immediately gutted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, right? This protected people like us from fraud, from predatory actions from banks or businesses. He gutted that. So, Americans are not only worse off, Americans are not only struggling in their pocketbook, but we're more prone to fraud. I don't get how this makes us safer or better off at all.
FOROOHAR: You know, one of the things about Iran that really worries me, and I actually kind of agree with you in terms of how he -- what he had to say on air at that particular moment, but, you know, the whole Iran war is just bad news. It's bad news politically. It's bad news economically. It's not going away any time soon. And interestingly, you know, we're about to go into a summit with China. The Iran war just handed China a huge weapon because America is depending more on fossil fuels. China's trying to become a clean tech leader, and this is only going to make them move faster in that direction and sort of push them into owning the industries of the future while the U.S. is stuck paying more for gas, and the rest of the world is angry with us.
[22:10:00]
PHILLIP: And also the question of when will this end is on everybody's mind, not just the Iran war, but the subsequent economic pain. Let me just play what some Americans across the country have been saying about what they're dealing with economically right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
URSULA SPENCER, MARYLAND RESIDENT: It's survival mode, and that's a mode that I haven't been used to.
LILY GILBERT, NEW YORK RESIDENT: For me, a financial stressor is groceries.
CLARA SIMONE, ATLANTA RESIDENT: Everything's gone up, from the beef to the eggs.
THOMAS BOYCE, ATLANTA RESIDENT: I'm a junior, and I missed a whole semester of school because I couldn't afford housing. I want to have a house and have a family and, you know what I mean? Like my parents did.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, what that young man just said at the end there it, that's also backed up in the numbers. 47 percent believe hard work is enough to get ahead. 38 percent believe they will ever buy a home. 34 percent say that they can't comfortably afford $1,000, and just 28 percent say that they can afford to take a vacation.
The number one thing that this president was elected on was bringing the cost of living down, making people's lives better. And I think one of the core issues, and we'll get to more on the Iran war later in the show, but one of the core reasons this war is so unpopular is because many Americans don't believe that this was a necessary move right now. And they see themselves, by contrast, paying a pretty steep price at a time where they don't feel like they can.
RANTZ: I think that's fair. I mean, the problem here is when is it the right move? When do you actually get involved? When they have --
MOCKLER: Maybe in January.
RANTZ: -- nuclear weapons capability? And the answer is, of course, no. So, it is a fine line of trying to figure out when you're supposed to get involved.
We've been having this conversation for decades, specifically on what to do with Iran, and the president decided now is the time.
Now, that could be the wrong political move, and there are consequences economically for that, but we also have to look at the big picture. Everyone, every president has said, we need to do something. He took a stance.
ALLISON: Yes.
RANTZ: Debate the stance, totally fair. Debate the results of that, totally fair.
MOCKLER: Obama took a stance, and Trump seems to be getting us to a worse point.
RANTZ: The stance that he took led us to a point where they were this much closer --
MOCKLER: What does it tell you that Trump is getting the worse deal?
RANTZ: -- to not just have -- hold on, not just have more ballistic cover for their actual nuclear program, but also getting closer to that. That is a result of that failed plan.
MOCKLER: Well, the CIA just came out with a report saying that Iran could maybe spend three to four more months with this blockade, and that would turn the global economy into a recession.
ALLISON: But when you're the president of the United States, you have to look at the totality of circumstances, right? And so if, yes, Iran is one piece on the playing -- on the chessboard, but the American economy, you could say, was your queen, right? And like the Iran might -- I mean, I hate to put it like this, but might have been like your front row of pawns, but the economy to the American people were your queen in chess and he exposed this queen. And so you lose the game when your queen becomes --
RANTZ: But, politically, I think it exposes the queen.
ALLISON: It's a good way --
PIPKO: Not just politically, but like --
RANTZ: Well, we have 2 percent -- I'm sorry, we have 2 percent GDP growth, we have 10 percent increase in business investments in this country. That does matter.
PHILLIP: 2 percent GDP growth, just to be clear, is not some blockbuster number.
FOROOHAR: No, it's not.
PHILLIP: We are not in --
RANTZ: But we're pretending it's going in the opposite direction.
PHILLIP: Hold on, but it is not -- that's coming off of a period in which GDP growth was less than 1 percent. Don't -- we can't gaslight about the actual history. A whole year of virtually zero private sector job growth, GDP growth that was below 1 percent and only went up to 2 percent is not a victory. It's a sign of an economy that is --
MOCKLER: It is struggling.
(CROSSTALKS)
RANTZ: I'm sorry, but when you say that there's growth and then we're struggling, it doesn't add.
PHILLIP: Let me put it this way. It's a sign of a resilient economy, which suggests that it is taking headwinds. This economy -- let me let Rana weigh in on that.
FOROOHAR: Well, also, you know, I like your framing of the chessboard. I would actually say Iran's sort of a bishop, you know? It's important, you know, the U.S. economy's the queen, but here's what -- if you're going to take the bishop -- and I agree, you know, you can say this is an important thing to do, you've got to get it just right. Iran is not Venezuela. Iran is a tough nut, maybe the toughest nut, aside from, say, the South China Seas, to crack. You go in, you know, you knock out everybody we could've negotiated with, but the judges are still in place, the repression state is still in place, so people can't rise up.
This was, you know, an absolute screw-up in terms of how it was done, and it is going to be a legacy for a decade for this country. It really is.
ALLISON: And there might've been reasons why other presidents did it in different ways, because when you actually look at the totality of circumstances, you end up with an economy that is so fragile that your party can't stand.
RANTZ: But then you end up with nuclear power.
PHILLIP: Well, look we're going to have another discussion about Iran just coming up in the show. But next for us, the president's behavior and his outbursts have been getting more erratic, from these late night posts to yelling at reporters at the White House.
Plus, breaking tonight, The New York Times is reporting new intelligence shows that Iran has retained most of its missile sites and launchers. That undercuts the administration's claims. We'll discuss.
[22:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, erratic and unhinged, that's what critics are calling Donald Trump's behavior over the last 24 hours, from a social media repost accusing Barack Obama of treason to his outburst against reporters. Over the course of an hour and 15 minutes overnight, Trump posted more than 50 times parroting debunked claims and firing off personal attacks, prompting critics to question his mental state.
But today, as the president departed for one of his most consequential foreign trips in recent memory, a reporter's basic question about the ballooning cost of his ballroom seems to have set him off.
[22:20:01]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have a ballroom that's under budget. It's going up right here. I've doubled the size of it because we obviously need that, and we're right now on budget, under budget, and ahead of schedule.
REPORTER: Sir, you doubled it.
TRUMP: I doubled the size of it, you dumb person. I doubled the size.
REPORTER: What about the people?
TRUMP: You are not a smart person.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Nothing gets him more worked up, it seems, than criticism of his ballroom, of all things? What's going on with the president? And why shouldn't Americans be concerned about a president that is re- tweeting unhinged things in the middle of the night then waking up the next morning and screaming at reporters, calling women, in that case, a black woman, for the second time in a week, a dumb person?
PIPKO: I think we have to be honest here. Whether you like him or hate him, this is not a new Donald Trump, right? We have seen this man speak the way that he speaks, post the way that he posts. I think he was famous for his tweets long before he ran for office, and yet 80 million Americans voted him right back in. So, I think the question is, why did America think this is the president that we need, right? We can debate whether you like it or not. For some reason, the majority of the country thought this was the man for the moment. They like the way he speaks, they like the way he posts. They like what he puts out there.
PHILLIP: Is it okay?
PIPKO: The majority of the country thinks so.
PHILLIP: If the -- oh. So, if the majority of the country thinks that like the Earth is flat, that's okay? Well, that's why we have elections, right? We both know the Earth's not flat, but I think voters have the --
ALLISON: And we both know that behavior's not okay.
PHILLIP: Look, Republicans for a long time were telling me, you know, Joe Biden couldn't do the job. A majority of Americans elected him too. That didn't stop you from criticizing him for everything under the sun, and perhaps rightfully so, but I'm just wondering, why is there a different bar for this president?
RANTZ: I don't see it as a different bar. I think people are criticizing it. You're criticizing it. It gets criticized by Republicans and Democrats all the time. I think the concession is that this is just not new. The idea that people now are calling him unhinged, you've always called him unhinged with his tweets.
MOCKLER: And it's not a new story, you're right.
RANTZ: And I think it is a fair, it is a fair criticism, right, that it's not presidential. I don't think it's particularly presidential, and I wish he wouldn't do it because I think it ends up causing him a lot more headache than he needs. But it's also a case of you can't change that. That is who he is.
MOCKLER: I mean, you guys are right that this is not a new Donald Trump, but the situation that we're in is new. It is unique. We've never had a war going on while gas prices are spiking, while inflation is spiking, and while the debt is just ballooning.
I mean, DOGE at the beginning of Trump's term was purported to cut costs, right? Cost overruns were supposed to be cut. Not only did they miserably fail at that, but now the deficit is up, and now he's pursuing a billion dollar ballroom. He's pursuing a $1.2 trillion --
RANTZ: Private dining room.
MOCKLER: The ballroom?
RANTZ: Yes. The ballroom is privately funded.
MOCKLER: Well, they're not asking for the Secret Service --
RANTZ: You're talking about security, and it's 20 percent --
PHILLIP: Well, okay, let's talk about that.
MOCKLER: We can talk about the security piece, yes.
PHILLIP: Let's talk about that because I think this is also a big topic on Capitol Hill today, lots of Republicans skeptical. There is a $1 billion price tag that was labeled as being for the president's ballroom project. And when you look at the details, it's really $220 million for the White House complex which includes some things that seem to be related to the ballroom and perhaps things that are not.
And then the rest of it seems to be hundreds of millions of dollars, to the tune of nearly $800 million for things that seem to be part of the normal job, frankly, of the Secret Service of DHS. And look at those numbers and just remember that the Department of Homeland Security received a budget last year that was two times its normal budget. It was $190-something billion that they just received in funding, and now they're trying to justify a billion dollars for all of these things.
FOROOHAR: Yes. Well, you know, I think we may have lost our ability to see outrage here because there's so much every single day that is coming out of this White House that is outrageous, that is, you know, potentially corrupt. I mean, you know, it's interesting about the private donors. I'm actually not so keen on the private donors, you know? You know, it's just horse trading, you know, that we know has gone on.
But I think people -- and this is very worrisome, I think something we've all touched on, people's pain, which is economic right now, big time, coupled with the turning away from, you know, reliable news sources and the fragmentation of news and the ownership of the control of information by a handful of very powerful people, some of which I'm sure have donated to the ballroom, that's all part of a very worrisome turn towards oligopoly in this country.
ALLISON: And I think --
PHILLIP: It's such an important point. And I just want to note, like what you're pointing out, the connection between this ballroom and the economic pain that people are feeling, you're not the only person who made note of that.
[22:25:09]
Jim Justice, let me just read this quote, he says, I can't get my hands around the fact that a lot of people are really hurting, and they see a billion dollars, and a billion dollars is an awful, awful awful lot of money. When you see that B in front of a number, it's like, what?
ALLISON: What? Yes. It's almost too hard to conceptualize for most people. A million dollars is almost too hard to conceptualize for some people. Quite honestly, $100,000 in most Americans' lives right now feels so far out of reach.
Just to continue on your point, this is part of the strategy though. I actually don't think -- I think Donald Trump is a bit unhinged at times, and I also think he's pretty strategic. I think he wants --
RANTZ: We're talking about it.
ALLISON: I think, yes, we're talking about it. We're flooding the zone. And so we could either talk about these tweets or him calling a reporter unjustifiably and disrespectfully dumb and stupid, or we could keep our eye on the ball and that we're in a war that we have no plans to get out, that Americans are suffering, and there's a B in front of this thing called a ballroom. Not just the ballroom, the B is for billions.
And so I just -- 80 million Americans did vote for him, but I'm not exactly sure if they voted exactly for this. And I just implore the American people not to be distracted, Democrats or Republicans, not to be distracted, because we deserve better than what we are getting right now from our elected officials.
PHILLIP: The ballroom, the triumphal arch, even the renovation of the Reflecting Pool, which, you know, the Reflecting Pool always needs to be renovated, it seems. All of these are things that seem to be distractions.
ALLISON: They are, yes.
MOCKLER: Young people get a lot of flack for having a lack of focus or being easily distractible, but I see the president of the United States as a more distractible person than any young person right now. Again, he's pursuing this ballroom. He's pursuing the Reflecting Pool, but he also wants a 60 percent increase in the military budget to refund and repay for the missiles that we used against Iran to get nothing in the first place. So, it is economic calamity, and Donald Trump is focused on side projects, very, very unfocused right now.
PHILLIP: Well, that's a good segue for our next topic. Next for us, breaking tonight, a new report calls into question the president's claims about decimation in Iran. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:32:05]
PHILLIP: Tonight, explosive new reporting severely undercutting President Trump's claims about Iran's missile capabilities. According to "The New York Times," assessments show that Iran has restored operational access to the 33 missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz, which could threaten U.S. warships and oil tankers. Only three of the missile sites are totally inaccessible. The Times also notes that Iran still has about 70 percent of its mobile launchers and has retained another 70 percent of its pre-war missile stockpile. And as the war drags on, even some of the biggest hawks are beginning to lose patience.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R) SOUTH CAROLINA: I don't trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them. If they actually do have Iranian aircraft parked in Pakistan bases to protect Iranian military assets, that tells me we should be looking maybe for somebody else to mediate. No wonder this damn thing is going nowhere. So, you know, I appreciate all you've done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: He says it's going nowhere. And Jason, we've talked about this with you on the show for several months now at this point. And we have been told that by this point, they would have to capitulate, that the blockade alone would force them to the negotiating table. That really has not happened. And not only that, but they're rebuilding their missile capabilities. They still have all the nuclear material in their possession. So, as Adam often asks, what are we getting from all of this bombing?
RANTZ: Well, we might get more bombing if they actually do get close to what "The New York Times" is reporting. I mean, obviously the White House has pushed back on some of the claims about their capabilities and their access. I think one can reasonably look at how they're acting right now, and they're certainly not using those missile sites at this point, if they do, in fact, have access to it. I think the President doesn't want to get involved more so militarily. He's giving them every opportunity.
The blockade is, in fact, working. Their economy is weakened. It's going to take some time. And I think that's the one thing that the President just from a messaging standpoint is in a really tough spot. He's not going to come out and say this is going to take six months or you cannot put that kind of, you can't, you cannot put that kind of timeline on any of this because you're basically telling the enemy that all you have to do is wait this out for X amount of time.
So, politically that puts him in a tough spot. But as I've said, and I do think that this is bearing out as truth, he's willing to take political hits because he thinks what's happening now, the end goal is the right thing. And I agree that the end goal is the right thing. It is reasonable and you've made a very good point about whether or not it's worth it, the pain that the American people are feeling. We should be having that conversation. It's important to have that conversation. He's taken a stance.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: But the problem is, is that he can't say six months or a year, but he did.
[22:35:00]
He said a week. Like everything you're saying he can't do, he already has done it he's done it incorrectly.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: And so, that makes people feel confused. And then you get reporting, you hear in June that their stockpile was under rubble. Like, well, just no he didn't say under rubble he said it was basically eliminated, obliterated, thank you. That does -- that reporting doesn't match up. So, I think, I think that American people actually agree, you and I agree and probably everyone at this table that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.
And I think if the President from the very beginning was more honest and said, you know, we're committed to this until the end and not put premature, unnecessary or just ambitious deadlines that we all knew were false and said, and you know what, Americans, I need you to go with me on this because you will experience some pain, but I am committed. But he hasn't done that. And he said it's fine.
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: Sure. That's what we're here for.
RANTZ: So, had he said that from the beginning, would any of the reaction from folks on the left, his critics, been any different than --
(CROSSTALK)
ALLISON: Probably not, but at least he would be upping with some integrity and honesty. Right now, if you don't believe in the war, maybe you don't believe in the war, but I think that right now, he's talking out of two sides of his mouth, and so it is much easier for me to be a lot critical of him because he's being inconsistent.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But here's the thing. I mean, I think it feels to me like it's a lot simpler than this. You just said that at least he took a stance. Well, it seems like the stance that he took may have been a massive miscalculation. And if that is the case, that's a leadership test. Leaders either make good decisions or they make bad decisions. And it's possible that right now, we are living through a bad decision and the consequences of it. That seems like the simplest contrast that's out there.
FOROOHAR: I think so and I think it's going to have ramifications not just at home but really for America's place in the world because a lot of other countries' adversaries and allies alike are looking at this decision and being like, wow, this was so off base.
This was, you know, even -- and we've seen reporting his own cabinet was saying unless you can be sure that people are ready to rise, and there is a figure, an internal figure within the country, which there isn't, that can rise up and kind of really, you know, own what could be a counterrevolution, it's not going to work and it's going to just carry so much pain.
It also makes us look, frankly the U.S. military look as though they're not prepared for a new age of warfare in which drones can simply take out, you know, billions of dollars' worth of battleships in which, you know, there's a commercial aspect to this.
The insurers that actually back the ships that cart the oil through the Strait of Hormuz don't want to be there, you know, they just don't want to be there at all there all kinds of geo-economic considerations that just don't seem to have been thought of at all and it makes us look very naive.
PHILLIP: Yes.
MOCKLER: I just want to address the absurd reframing that I heard here one second ago. This idea that Donald Trump is willing to take some political hits as if this is all some intentional strategy on his part. When this war started, we heard three or four different things -- no missiles, no nukes, no terrorists, and maybe regime change. That's what -- that's he was going for. Regime change has not happened. The IRGC --
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: Not going to happen.
MOCKLER: It's not going to happen. The IRGC -- listen. The IRCG is so deeply.
RANTZ: Cardboard cut-out.
MOCKLER: The IRGC is in Iran and they're in charge. They are so deeply embedded in Iran's institutions that you can't just get them out unless you go boots on the ground. Who's in control right now? The IRGC. Number two, on no nukes. What they did was scatter the scientists around the country and put all the blueprints into the cloud, so it still exists. Yes, the nuclear is, their uranium is buried under rubble but it's still in Iran. They can just rebuild, get the info from the cloud, and then rebuild again.
So, that takes me to know terrorism. They can still fun terrorism. They'll likely get money from this deal and the Strait of Hormuz will likely be told three months from now. So, they're going to keep taking money. When was last one? No nukes, no terrorists, no missiles. Okay, we just talked about that right there. They clearly still have missiles. In fact, our own supply has been depleted.
(CROSSTALK)
MOCKLER: Our own supply has been depleted by one-third to one half.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: They don't have to use them because we have a ceasefire, because they successfully convinced Trump that they're at a negotiating table, and yet it's been a month and there's been no deal. Actually, several of you brought this up. Who are they negotiating with and what is the actual strategy? The son of Iran's last Shah just spoke earlier and he says there are too many mixed messages coming out of this White House. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REZA PAHLAVI, SON OF LAST SHAH OF IRAN: You have to have a clear message. You have to have a clear strategy of aiming for putting an end to this regime, allowing for people to revolt, allowing for elements within the military and security forces to defect and join with the people. All of that has to be coordinated as a core strategy. You cannot send mixed signals. On the one hand say people need to rise and at the same time say, wait, we are negotiating. It's confusing the head out of everyone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ALLISON: And you can't rely on it. And like you said, who are we going to be negotiating with, a cardboard cut-out?
[22:40:02]
That does not look good for the President.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well, one of the earliest signs, Elizabeth --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: But I actually, that's exactly what I was going to ask you about. Because one of the earliest signs of a potential miscalculation from the administration was that they acknowledged that all the people that they thought they could potentially work with, they had killed. And so, when you start the conflict saying that, actually we eliminated all the people that maybe we could talk to. And now we don't even know who's running the country. Isn't that a bad sign that they are not really sure how this is going to go?
PIPKO: I mean, I will never say it's a bad sign if those that want Americans murdered are no longer on the face of the earth. I'm never going to think that. And I think, look, you brought up amazing points. There's nothing good that Americans can point to thus far that we can say, hey, this is going to end tomorrow.
Of course, people are worried. People are panicked. At the same time, everything you mentioned is still worth it if we make sure they can never have a nuclear weapon. It is very easy to sit here while we're all still on the face of the earth. We're all here and America is as strong as possible. But it's not that easy to say to God forbid they throw that bomb at us. We have no idea what could happen.
(CROSSTALK)
MOCKLER: Can I really quickly clarify what the Iranian regime is? It's not one person, it's not their Navy, it's not their Air Force, is the Islamic, it is the IRGC. The IRGC Navy absolutely does exist. That's why the Strait is still closed. But the IRGC is deeply embedded within the institutions and former IRGC members actually inhabit the banks, colleges, all the institutions within Iran. And they have an incentive to never let their power go because they were seen committing awful acts. So --
(CROSSTALK) PIPKO: I think we all agree on that.
FOROOHAR: The IRGC is absolutely built for this moment.
(CROSSTALK)
FOROOHAR: Let me just say, I think the President is used to dealing with other transactional individuals and even other transactional countries, frankly, like China This is an ideology that we're talking about here. These people have all the time in the world to wait. They'll take all the pain.
ALLISON: And one agreement will not -- does not kill an ideology. And so, even if we come to an agreement and they say we will not build nuclear weapons, the next day they can start again --
PIPKO: Why do we celebrate Obama's deal?
ALLISON: I'm not saying Obama's deal was perfect but --
(CROSSTALK)
PIPKO: A lot of people celebrated that deal.
ALLISON: But it steps forward. What I'm saying is that you're not going to bomb out an ideology unless you eliminate a whole country and I think we all would say that.
MOCKLER: You can do to de-radicalize is often times integrate a country into the global economy and that's what the nuclear deal did. We integrated Iran. we had oversight in Iran, and it was better than whatever the hell we now.
PIPKO: And we delayed their ability to get a nuclear weapon to the United States of America.
PHILLIP: Let's leave it there. Coming up next. Kash Patel's appearance on Capitol Hill quickly turned into a shouting match as he fiercely denied reports of excessive drinking. We'll discuss that testimony, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:30]
PHILLIP: Tonight, in an explosive Senate hearing, embattled FBI Director Kash Patel denied recent allegations that he has drunk himself to excess while on the job. Under oath, Patel denied claims made in an Atlantic piece that alleged that he alarmed colleagues with episodes of excessive drinking that interfered with his work. Lashing out at Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen, Patel opted for the offensive.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-MD): There have been no occasions when your security detail had difficulty waking or locating you, is that right?
KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Nope, it's a total farce. I don't even know where you get this stuff, but it doesn't make it credible because you say so.
VAN HOLLEN: I'm not saying it, Director Patel. It's been written and documented.
PATEL: You are literally saying it.
VAN HOLLEN: No, I'm saying that these are reports, Director Patel.
PATEL: Unlike her baseless reports, the only person that was slinging margaritas in El Salvador on the taxpayer dollar with a convicted gang-banging rapist was you.
VAN HOLLEN: You know --
PATEL: The fact only person that ran up a $7000 bar tab in Washington, D.C. at the lobby park was you.
(CROSSTALK)
VAN HOLLEN: Are you polygraphing? Director Patel, come on. These are serious allegations that were made against you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: CNN has not independently corroborated some of the anecdotes and episodes told in that "Atlantic" piece, and Patel filed a $250 million defamation lawsuit in response. "The Atlantic" is backing the work of its reporter, Sarah Fitzpatrick, who wrote that story, promising to vigorously defend her against that lawsuit. Kash Patel is dealing with that. He's also dealing with allegations that he's basically turned the FBI into a retribution house, essentially. Is he on thin ice? Should he be?
PIPKO: Look, I think that's up to the President, obviously, of the United States. I think these reports are interesting considering he is so dead set on standing up against them, considering he has filed a defamation lawsuit. I think it's good because we're actually going to get to the bottom of it and find out what our FBI director is doing.
I think as much as you might like him, I think if this comes to be true, if this comes to light, we would all agree that he doesn't belong there. But I think he should be judged based solely at this point on his work as the FBI director. And I think that's how Donald Trump should judge him. And I think at this point, he has no reason to be disappointed in him.
MOCKLER: Even if we judged him based on his work as the FBI director, I'm not sure he gets quite a good score. He's fired a bunch of long time people who were incredibly, incredibly qualified for their job and basically got at the FBI.
[22:50:04] I just, I think that if anybody in any workplace acted how Kash Patel did today, they would be fired and justifiably so. The worrisome part is people across this administration have acted in the same way. Pam Bondi acted this way. Kristi Noem acted this way. I have friends who are still in college and are half drunk all the time, and they're still more competent than half of the people in this administration, I swear.
PHILLIP: Let me play, this is a former acting FBI director, Brian Driscoll, who spoke with CNN's Anderson Cooper exclusively and talked about what it was like to be interviewed by the FBI director, Kash Patel.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BRIAN DRISCOLL, FORMER ACTING FBI DIRECTOR: Who did you vote for?
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: Had you ever been asked that by anybody in a position of authority at the FBI?
DRISCOLL: No, no. I explained to him, like, listen, it's inappropriate. You have my resume in front of you, right? And so, you know I'm current FBI agent.
COOPER: What was the next question?
DRISCOLL: So, I might be out of order here, but when did you start supporting President Trump? Didn't answer that one either. Then he asked me, do I agree that the agents who stormed Mar-a-Lago, his words not mine, should be held accountable? I did answer that one with an absolute no. And then I explained to him they were doing their jobs pursuant to a predicated investigation and court order, and that we don't choose what cases we work. He said, okay, just tell me if you voted for a Democrat in the last five elections. This conversation is over and concluded the phone call.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Let me just clarify that he was asked those questions by Paul Ingracia, who was doing vetting at the time. The question is, a litmus test, an ideological litmus test, a voting history test, he's a decorated career FBI official. Should that be happening in our nation's top law enforcement agency?
RANTZ: If that is what happened, answer is no. We should also note he's suing. He was fired for insubordination, it sounds like, and so he has a financial interest in telling this particular story. We haven't heard anything from the White House at this point responding because they're in the middle of active litigation. But no, directly, if that was asked, it is inappropriate and people should not be in positions right now if that's the question that they're asking.
At the same time, I also understand the concern coming from this particular White House and president about whether or not he was the target unfairly, unjustly, or illegally from the previous administration. I think they have a very good case to be made. Now, does that mean that they should go into those kinds of questions? No, but I understand where they're coming from.
PHILLIP: They have to actually find real wrongdoing and not just purge people because they moved pieces of paper that were involved January 6th investigation.
ALLISON: You started by asking the question of is Kash Patel on thin ice. I actually don't think he is. He is actually doing exactly what Donald Trump wants him to do. He is making sure that the people that are in the FBI are loyal to Donald Trump. And if you remember at the very beginning of this administration, there were reports that people who were being appointed and career officials were going to have to take lie detector tests to see if they were loyal or going to support the President's approach. So, I don't think Kash Patel is on thin ice. That's one.
Two, this is an utter disaster if the loyalty test is what we -- we actually have career professionals to go above the political fray. Presidents get to appoint about 5000 political appointees to be in, to help move in agencies and in the White House to get to move their agenda. But the people, many who tried to fire and did fire, the people who are there, they stay there for Democratic and Republican administrations because they believe in this country.
They believe in the institutions. They wanted to be well. And what it feels like is that Kash Patel is trying to remove those individuals to entrench Donald Trump loyalists which goes against the --
(CROSSTALK)
FOROOHAR: Yes, it's part of this kind of kiss-the-ring, you know, vibe, that the administration has. It's a pattern. And to me, there's this really big picture question that much of our conversation tonight has been circling around. It's rule of law and how it works in this country. Rule of law is kind of, it's not handed down on stone tablets. It's a faith. It's a kind of a faith that we put in our government. When we start to lose it, it is such a slippery slope.
And you can see throughout history, other countries where this happens, boy, things can crumble very quickly. And I fear that we're at that point where, be it Donald Trump's tweets, the fact that our economy is controlled by a handful of people, or the fact that FBI director, you know, maybe this partisan is becoming, you know, taken for granted, very dangerous.
ALLISON: And don't drink on the job.
PHILLIP: Next for us, panel is going to give us their night caps, not real ones, "Roast" edition. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:59:40]
PHILLIP: "Variety" reports that Kevin Hart was the second choice to be roasted this weekend after Paul McCartney declined. So, for tonight's news nightcap, who would you like to see roasted? Elizabeth, you're up.
PIPKO: What a pressure. I think it should be Olympic gold medalist, first man on the moon, inventor of the microwave, George Santos. I think we're going to a lot of fun with this.
[23:00:00]
PHILLIP: Okay. Ashley.
ALLISON: Another George, my man, George Clooney, I'd like to say.
PHILIP: Good one.
FOROOHAR: I'm going to go with Jeff Bezos. Good target to roast -- the fashion, the wedding --
ALLISON: Everything.
FOROOHAR: -- the purging, the Washington -- whatever.
PHILLIP: Adam.
MOCKLER: I was going to say Kash Patel, if we could wake him up. But I think he got roasted enough today.
RANTZ: Oh. Marco Rubio, easily, because those memes make me laugh.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: The memes are good. Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can stream the show anytime with an all access subscription at CNN app and at cnn.com/watch. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
