Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
High-Stakes Primaries Underway In Six States, Results Coming In; Supreme Court Allows Alabama To Use GOP-Friendly House Map; Trump Taps Housing Official Who Targeted Trump's Foes As DNI; Trump Taps Bill Pulte As Acting Director Of National Intelligence; CBS Fires Scott Pelley. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 02, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, live at the table, Van Jones, Jason Rantz, Xochitl Hinojosa, Brad Todd, and Ana Navarro
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
And we're standing by as results are starting to roll in for several key primary races that are going to shape the landscape in the midterm elections in November. Polls are now closed in five of the six states, Iowa, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, and South Dakota. In California, voters have about one more hour to cast their ballots in two of the most closely watched contests, including the battle for Los Angeles mayor, where conservatives are betting on a former reality T.V. star, and showdown to replace Gavin Newsom as governor, where voters will choose from a very crowded field.
Now, the top two finishers are going to move on to the general election regardless of party. We'll get to all things California in just a little bit, but, first, let's get right to CNN's Chief National Correspondent John King who is tracking all of these results, John over at the Magic Wall.
Let's start with Iowa. We just got some results there in that Senate race. Talk to us about what happened in that state on the Democratic side, and why we're even paying attention to Iowa at this moment.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Let's start with the why part, because it's a great and important question. Democrats have this on their list as a possibility. Iowa is a Republican state. It's been Republican for a while, but Democrats have this as a possibility in their quest to take back the Senate.
They've nominated a candidate tonight. Josh Turek is their candidate. You see they're a runaway in this primary. Some people thought it might be more competitive. He's a member of the Iowa Legislature. His district is out here in Western Iowa. Zach Wahls, a member of the Iowa Senate, his district over here. You see this one blue, darker blue dot. He won the area. He's winning the area, at least right now anyway, where his Senate district is.
But a big win for Josh Turek. He had the backing of Chuck Schumer and the Democratic establishment in Washington. A lot of national money went in there. Some Iowans didn't like that, but that money clearly helped. Josh Turek to a runaway victory there.
You say, can a Democrat win a Senate seat in Iowa? The retiring senator, Joni Ernst, is not up for this seat. The Republicans picked their nominee tonight. This was an easy one. Ashley Hinson is a Republican congresswoman. This is her district up here in Northeast Iowa. Even the Democrats will tell you, Abby, she is a very strong candidate. But what they are hoping for is that the national headwinds, anti-Trump, the affordability crisis, they hope to tie her to Trump, and they hope to pull off this Senate seat. Their hope is in part based on they have a strong candidate in the governor's race as well.
PHILLIP: Yes. Well, speaking of the governor's race, I mean, we're talking about two big races in Iowa. And, you know, John, I feel like a lot of times these states like Iowa, maybe they are not so into a Democrat on -- for a Senate seat or what have you, but for the gubernatorial seat, that's where you might start to see some action. What are we seeing tonight there?
KING: The last Democratic governor in Iowa left office in 2011. It's been that long since they've had a Democratic governor. But let's go over to the governor's race here, and let's just start with the Democrat quickly.
Rob Sand was unopposed, 100 percent. You always love to get 100 percent in an election, right, Abby? He's unopposed in the primary. The reason -- one of the reasons Democrats are optimistic is he is the state auditor right now. He has already won statewide in the state of Iowa, which is rare for a Democrat these days.
In the Republican primary, take a look at it, it was a messy campaign, and right now it's a messy night. A farmer and businessman, Zach Lahn, you see him with 37 percent. If you round that up, he's 900-- it just changed, 933 votes ahead of Republican Congressman Randy Feenstra.
Randy Feenstra's district is over here in Northwest Iowa. Randy Feenstra got a late endorsement from the president of the United States, Donald Trump. Normally, that's the difference-maker, right? It has been of late in Republican primaries. But if you look at this right now, 38 percent of the vote in this one's going to go on for a while. As you can see, it's a very close, competitive race.
And, again, that's one of the reasons Democrats -- let's be careful about this, but you've had a Republican governor for a long time in Iowa, Republican senators for a long time in Iowa. Democrats think the national climate plus maybe a little exhaustion, this time for a change, put the Republicans in timeout mood in Iowa might help them. And the Democrats are hoping here the messy Republican primary gives their candidate, again, who's already won statewide, a little bit of a boost. We'll see.
[22:05:00]
PHILLIP: Yes. Those are going to be two really important races as we look toward the November elections.
John, one last thing, New Jersey, there is a peculiar race happening there where one of the candidates has not been seen, a sitting Congressman, hasn't been seen in many months. What's happening there tonight?
KING: Nice gentle word, peculiar. It's a very, very different race. First, let's start with the Democratic nominee. It's New Jersey's Seventh District. You see Newark here. It's west of Newark and goes all the way out this way here. Rebecca Bennett is a former Navy helicopter pilot. She was the candidate of the Democratic establishment.
Republicans spent some money trying to help her opponents because even they concede she's the strongest candidate in this race. She's winning the nomination tonight by a pretty healthy margin over those two opponents. So, Rebecca Bennett will be the Democratic candidate against the Republican who was unopposed in the primary, Tom Kean Jr.
That's a famous name in New Jersey. Tom Kean was the governor. This is the son of the former governor here, 100 percent of the Republican primary. But as you noted, peculiar, Abby, is a great word. He has not been in Washington to vote in March. He's missed more than 100 votes. His campaign says he has a mysterious illness, and we'll learn more about this down the road.
This was already on the Democrats' list of seats as they try to get back a House majority. It was on there anyway. They think tonight, the fact that Mr. Kean, they give him grace for some illness, but he hasn't been seen and active in a long time, plus the fact that they've nominated what they believe is their strongest candidate Democrats happy about New Jersey 7 tonight.
PHILLIP: All right. John King, lots to get to tonight. We'll be back with you as the night progresses.
Meanwhile, here in New York, my panel is with me. Let's start with what's happening in Iowa because I think this is maybe the place where you can kind of encapsulate a lot of the big themes. This is a relatively rural state, but it's a pretty red state, and there are a lot of problems, economic problems, that they're sort of dissatisfied with the administration and the current status quo on. And now Democrats are looking at a Senate seat and a gubernatorial race, and they're thinking, hey, we might actually be able to compete here.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, that's right. And Donald Trump won this state by 13 points. Now he's underwater by 7 points. If I had a dollar for every time John King said, deep red state, X state, and Democrats have a chance in winning it this cycle, you know, it would -- I mean, Democrats at this point are doing very well in these states.
This isn't the first time. We were just talking about Texas last week. And it is for the first time in a very long time that the Democrats have done a few things. One, they've put up great candidates in some of these, in most of these states, in most of these districts. And as much as Chuck Schumer gets a lot of crap from his party, you have to give it to him that in some of these states, they are competitive because Democrats are -- they're good candidates in these places.
The economy is a huge factor, no matter where you go. No matter how much Republicans try to distract and want to play culture wars, it is the economy that voters care about, and Donald Trump is not delivering on it. And when it comes to Iowa, that is the number one thing. That is why Donald Trump is --
PHILLIP: I mean, first, they got hit by tariffs, then they got hit by agricultural issues.
HINOJOSA: Yes, exactly.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, farmers have been hit so hard, first, by tariffs that devastated the way that they could export their crops, then by the skyrocketing price and scarcity of fertilizer, which has made it impossible for them to secure their crop yield for next year.
So, I think for farm -- the price of fuel in a place like Iowa where the distances are so great, these are things that are disproportionately affecting places like Iowa. And I think it's been a good night so far for the Democratic establishment in that -- in Turek, they have a guy who is seen as more moderate, who has a history of being able to win in Republican-leaning districts. And so they've got themselves a good candidate.
PHILLIP: Yes, a good night for Chuck Schumer and the establishment, a not so good night for the progressive left.
NAVARRO: So far.
PHILLIP: In Iowa specifically.
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: But, look, I mean, you know, Donald Trump has basically been stomping on the people of Iowa. As you just said, why can't they get the fertilizer? Because the Iran war has made it impossible for farmers to be able to fertilize their crops around the world, including in Iowa. You got a state that was there for Donald Trump, was there for him three times in a row, and is getting just stomped in the face by this president.
And so now the Democrats have Turek. His personal story as a paralympian, this guy wheels himself up to people's houses, throws the wheelchair up the stairs, crawls up the stairs to knock on the door. I don't want to run against somebody who's got that kind of heart, and that's who -- give Chuck Schumer his due tonight. That's who Chuck Schumer picked, and that's who won tonight.
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I got to give you all credit. You guys have come up with a really compelling story about a state that's 14 points Republican. If I had tried to sell you this story about Oregon in a good Republican year or a neutral year, you'd have laughed me off the set.
[22:10:00]
JONES: Well, maybe so, but --
TODD: And Iowa and Oregon are about comparable on either side of the spectrum.
JONES: That's how bad you guys are. That's how bad off you are. That's how bad off you are.
PHILLIP: Brad, but --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Brad, the Republicans are talking about needing to defend these seats. So, that's not spin. That's real, right?
TODD: We have three competitive House seats in Iowa, and so we're going to work hard for those.
Chuck Schumer, by the way, give him credit. He spent $10 million to get the least crazy person nominated tonight in Iowa because left to their own devices, Democrat primary voters right now, as they're proving in Maine with Grand Platner, would pick the absolute nuttiest fool. And so Chuck Schumer stopped it with $10 million. That's what it took.
HINOJOSA: Yes. But also you have places, like in Texas, where the NRSC was spending money to elect Jasmine Crockett, and there have been in other places where Republicans have tried to meddle -- like New Jersey, where they tried to meddle in elections where they can to get their candidate of choice, and it hasn't always worked.
And instead, what has happened --
TODDY: You mean like Democrats are doing in Montana tonight?
HINOJOSA: And what has happened --
TODD: Should we talk about that?
HINOJOSA: What has actually happened is now Republicans are not only going to have to spend significant amount of money in both of these states, which is going to hurt them in other states as well, given that they're going to have to spend money to defend these seats.
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: Republicans actually have the money, and the Democrats don't. I mean, that's the other issue.
HINOJOSA: Our candidates are raising money.
RANTZ: Not nearly as much as the Republicans are, and they don't have the same bankroll right now. That's the reality. Well, except for the one running in California and trying to buy that election. But this is a narrative-driven race right now. We're seeing the same thing in Texas, where it's wishful thinking amongst Democrats that they're going to be able to win in these deeply red states. They're not going to be able to win in these deeply red states.
PHILLIP: Can I ask you --
RANTZ: It might be a little bit closer than maybe some Republicans would like given some of the issues that you raise, absolutely. But I don't think it's an actual threat at all.
PHILLIP: Well, look, I mean, a race that is closer in a state that is deep red is still a problem politically for Republicans.
I want to also just take a moment on Congressman Tom Kean, who is MIA in his job, running unopposed, endorsed this morning by President Trump, who says, get out and vote for Tom. He will not let you down. But he hasn't been seen in Washington in months and then won't even explain what the issue is. He says, right now, I'm focused on my recovery and under the advice of healthcare professionals, I'll transition from virtual work to in-person work in a matter of weeks. At that time, I will be completely transparent to the nature of my medical condition.
NAVARRO: This is insane.
PHILLIP: At that time? Not at this time?
NAVARRO: Honestly, listen, I'm all for privacy, but not when you have a duty to your constituents. You know, I remember John McCain telling us all about his glioblastoma, Teddy Kennedy telling us all about his glioblastoma, John Fetterman telling us that he was missing because he was, you know, dealing with his mental health challenges and in treatment for that.
You owe it to the people that you are supposed to show up for, vote for, represent in Congress to tell them why you are missing. And if you do, a lot of times people are very understanding.
JONES: But do you wait until after the election?
NAVARRO: But it is the height of entitled --
TODD: Or in Joe Biden's case, after everybody sees it on the stage at the debate.
NAVARRO: Well, forget Joe Biden. Let's talk about the guy who won't forget election --
TODD: I will not forget Joe Biden. I want to keep reminding you all about it every day.
JONES: That's all you go to. It's all you got.
(CROSSTALKS) RANTZ: The reason why he's not there, when we actually get that information, can completely change all of this. When you are dealing with something, we obviously don't know what it is and we shouldn't speculate. But if it's something that people can understand and maybe experience in their own family, they're going to give you a lot of leeway when you actually tell them.
JONES: But wouldn't you have preferred him to do it before the election? I mean --
RANTZ: He is doing it. The election's in November.
JONES: I mean, we're --
RANTZ: It doesn't, but it -- no, not -- I mean, whether or not I would prefer it, I don't know if that's the right question. The question's political. Did he need to do it before tonight? No. He's running unopposed. There was no threat.
NAVARRO: He has missed 100 votes. Well, he needs to tell his constituents why he's not showing up. His constituents want that.
PHILLIP: But what Ana's saying is --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: What Ana's saying is the point I was going to make, which is it's not all political. It's like he has an actual job. He's been absent from his actual job, which is on behalf of his constituents. That deserves an explanation.
HINOJOSA: So, also can I just remind you that --
RANTZ: He's going to give it. I just think the timeline might be forgiven specifically on what the --
PHILLIP: Maybe, maybe not, but I think some people would say if you can't do your job for three, four months, then maybe you can't do your job.
RANTZ: Some would, and they're going to get -- explain that.
HINOJOSA: Lloyd Austin went to the hospital, by the way, and he was dragged to the Hill, and it was the scandal of the century for him to go to the hospital and not disclose that. And you know what? He should've disclosed it, and there were Democrats and Republicans who all said he should've disclosed when he did that.
What is interesting here is that --
RANTZ: What were the consequences?
HINOJOSA: He got called to the Hill, and they were talking about potential impeachment.
RANTZ: Well, so, here, the consequences could be that the voters will be upset and decide not to re-elect him.
[22:15:02]
Right now, we don't know --
(CROSSTALKS)
TODD: Look, I just don't buy that you all are upset about the Republican primary voters not getting the chance to vote for Mike Johnson tonight.
PHILLIP: Well, look, I mean, listen --
TODD: I mean, I don't buy that.
PHILLIP: This has happened before on both sides of the aisle where members have gone missing, and it's not really acceptable to anybody, whether you're a Democrat or a Republican. I think voters have a right -- members of Congress are not just there for their own vanity. They work for the American people. They are casting votes on behalf of their constituents. So, when they're not there, it is a problem. It's not --
TODD: Ask Mike Johnson. It's been a problem.
PHILLIP: Yes, it's a problem for Mike Johnson.
Can I just make one quick point for Van?
NAVARRO: Do you remember when Republicans went nuts over the secretary of defense under Biden --
PHILLIP: Yes, that's what --
NAVARRO: -- Lloyd Austin --
PHILLIP: Yes, that's what I was going to talk about. The Supreme Court just a few minutes ago ruled that Alabama can move forward with their Congressional map, which, by the way, they ruled unconstitutional just a couple of years ago, now saying that that effectively, this new gerrymandered map, can move forward before this election.
JONES: Bad maps, rigged maps, precedent doesn't matter, your own precedent doesn't matter. This is a lawless court, and they're playing a dangerous game. You need the Supreme Court to be seen as a referee and not as a partisan, a hack body, and they've now moved into that territory for an awful lot of people. If you can't respect your own precedent, why should the country respect you?
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, we've got more breaking news tonight. The acting attorney general says that the slush fund is officially dead, but he won't put that in writing. He also says that the IRS can't investigate Trump's past still. We'll discuss that.
Plus, backlash from both sides of the aisle is growing tonight over the person the president wants in charge of coordinating the nation's intelligence.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Welcome back to CNN special coverage. Just a reminder, we are watching the results come in for half a dozen primaries, and very soon, the polls are going to close in the hotly contested California races.
But, first, the man that Donald Trump is appointing to serve as the nation's top intelligence officer has never served in an intelligence or defense or a national security role ever. The president announced via social media that Bill Pulte, who currently leads the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and who pressed for investigations into Trump's political enemies, will be in that role and will serve as acting director of national intelligence. Pulte will replace Tulsi Gabbard, who announced that she's stepping down last month, and he's set to oversee 18 intelligence agencies, as well as the production of the president's daily brief.
Now, reaction to this decision to appoint Pulte, whose qualifications arguably begin and end loyalty to Donald Trump, Republican leadership had trouble defending the controversial move. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD): I'll defer the chairman on that. We were just made aware of made aware of that appointment this morning. Obviously, it's something that if the administration decides to pursue a permanent appointment to that position, have to come through the Congress and have confirmation hearings and ultimately a vote here in the Senate.
SEN. TOM COTTON (R-AR): We have four more weeks with Director Gabbard as the DNI.
REPORTER: Pulte, Pulte's --
COTTON: I have no observations on the matter.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: That's got to be one of the funnier things I've seen today. I mean --
JONES: You know, Tom Cotton is so shy.
PHILLIP: I was going to say.
JONES: He doesn't have that much to say ever.
PHILLIP: He's usually not one to not have much to say, no observations on the matter. This is one of the rare things. I would say it's like the slush fund and this are two things that I think really have put Republicans in such a tough spot, and have actually shocked them, truly shocked them.
RANTZ: Well, you know, the observation has been the system is working when Republicans push back and then the Trump administration ends up rescinding something. I don't know the reasons behind Pulte being chosen here. It doesn't make sense on the surface, but we also haven't heard directly from the administration. I'd want to at least listen to it. But, yes, on the surface, I don't think it's the best move.
The problem I think with a lot of this is you have all the Democrats saying exactly what they would've said no matter who was the choice. And that's where --
JONES: No, that's not true.
RANTZ: That is 100 percent the case. How many Democrats supported Tulsi Gabbard? There were none. It doesn't matter -- it does not matter who was chosen. The response was always going to be negative.
I think it's more impactful when we're hearing from Republicans or not hearing from Republicans. That's what really matters here. And --
PHILLIP: Jason, you don't -- let me be honest. You don't really believe that.
RANTZ: Oh, so you're telling me that it would be celebrated?
PHILLIP: Well, let me --
RANTZ: They would put him back against Markwayne Mullin.
PHILLIP: Well, hold on. You tell me, is there -- even between Tulsi Gabbard and Bill Pulte, is there even an equivalence between those two?
RANTZ: Do you hear me supporting Pulte? I'm simply saying that the Democrats are getting into the problem --
PHILLIP: We haven't even talked about the Democrats. We're talking about the Republicans right now.
RANTZ: I agree, and I'm saying that's the part that matters.
PHILLIP: The Republicans are the ones saying --
RANTZ: The Democrats do not.
PHILLIP: We don't see any qualifications for this guy, okay? John Cornyn, I don't see any qualifications. John Thune, we don't need a weaponized DNI. Lisa Murkowski, Gabbard had a level of background that you would say, okay, I understand that. I'm not sure he does.
So, I don't think this is really about knee-jerk partisanship, and I don't think you think it's about knee-jerk partisanship.
RANTZ: I don't. I'm saying for the Democrats, they do.
PHILLIP: There are either qualifications or are there not?
[22:25:01]
But are Democrats right to push back?
RANTZ: Yes. No, that's my point is I'm saying that --
PHILLIP: So, yes, they are?
RANTZ: Yes, in this case, I believe that they are.
PHILLIP: Okay. So, then --
(CROSSTALKS)
NAVARRO: Listen, the graphic you just had up --
RANTZ: This is not a fair assessment of how Democrats have treated every single appointment from this administration.
NAVARRO: Okay. Well, listen. The graphic you just had up of Republicans -- the graphic that we just saw of Republicans talking against this included John Cornyn, included Thom Tillis, included Bill Cassidy.
RANTZ: People who the Trump administration have called out and said is not the best.
NAVARRO: Right, who are now free to exercise their conscience.
PHILLIP: Including John Thune, who's the Senate majority leader.
NAVARRO: But I think -- listen, I think a lot of Republicans held their nose, bit their tongue, gave Donald Trump a lot of leeway and grace, and voted for people who they thought were clearly unqualified, people like RFK Jr., people like Kristi Noem, people like Pam Bondi, and it has turned into an absolute disaster for the administration. I think that five months away from an election, with all of these folks who are now free to speak and do what their conscience is asking them to do, you are not going to get the same level of complicity from the Republican Senate.
PHILLIP: Go ahead, Brad.
TODD: Well, I would agree that what the Democrats say about any Trump nominee doesn't matter, because they're against Trump. If he cured cancer, they'd be against Trump.
Now, the Republican senators, their current objections to this nomination or caution on it, and, frankly, their position with regard to several things with the White House is noteworthy. Last week, I sat in that chair and said that the Republicans are leaving town rather than approving reconciliation in protest of the slush fund was a big deal. I was laughed at on this table. In fact, it was a big deal. That's why the slush fund is not there anymore.
PHILLIP: You were laughed at?
TODD: Yes, I was. Yes, I was, last week at this show.
The Republican Senate -- there's 100 parties in the U.S. Senate, right? There's not two. And they all have the ability to shut the place down and pull the fire alarm.
And so I think that the White House has a problem with this nomination. I don't think that they're going to be able to sell it. I think if, as John Thune said it, if he's an acting secretary, that's great. Now, the --
(CROSSTALKS)
TODD: No. John Thune is saying, if you want to run him through, then run him through.
PHILLIP: I guess what I'm I guess what I'm asking you, and I'll let you get in a second, but what I'm asking you is like, putting aside the politics, can he get confirmed, can he not, this is an actual national security job. He has a real role in this administration. Does it not concern you even in the slightest that even on an acting basis, someone who has zero qualifications --
TODD: The first job qualification in any national security job is, does the president trust you? Every president --
PHILLIP: Hold on. No. Actually, the --
HINOJOSA: The statute for this one says that you have to have a national security background, and therefore --
TODD: And the president has to trust you or he won't put your name forward.
PHILLIP: Hold on.
HINOJOSA: But the statute says --
PHILLIP: Yes, the statute says the director of National Intelligence shall have extensive national security experience.
TODD: That's why John Thune says he'd have to go through the committee.
PHILLIP: And so my question -- again, the question really that we're facing is not just can he be confirmed, because he probably can't be confirmed. But if he doesn't meet the statutory requirements for the job, should he be placed in a job of sensitive national security importance?
JONES: And I think people at home may not understand how central this particular person is. The reason we have this person is because all of our intelligence agencies forgot to coordinate and we had 9/11. So, this is really the traffic cop for all of the intelligence that comes into the country from our allies and all of it that our 13 different agencies are collecting.
This is the most sensitive job. It's the most important job. If he does his job badly, Americans could die. This is not something to fool around with. This is not something to play around with. And what you're seeing the president do is abuse this kind of acting. Everybody knows he's not going to get this guy through the U.S. Senate. And what he's going to do is put Americans at risk for four months, five months, six months, while a complete crackerjack candidate, I mean, literally you could just open up a Cracker Jack box, pull anything out, and that would be more qualified than this candidate.
And so this is a very dangerous moment for America. And if something bad happens, remember this night. If something bad happens to America, remember this night.
HINOJOSA: Well, and it's also, yes, our national security, but the reason why Trump wants him in this role is because we have an election coming up, and he knows that Democrats are likely going to sweep the House and potentially the Senate. And he needs a DNI director there that will potentially cast doubt on the election, whether it is foreign interference. He can use any tool at his disposal to potentially not only cast doubt but to question the results of the election.
And he doesn't need to have him there for a year. All he needs to do is have him in that position from now until the end of the year or until the new Congress is certified to potentially stop certification, and this is what people are worried about.
[22:30:00]
And when I say people, this is what outside groups and others are worried about when it comes to this.
TODD: Are you already pre-selling post-election chaos?
HINOJOSA: I am telling you what the President has his eye on. The President doesn't have his eye on the national --
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: How do know (inaudible) has his eye on?
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Because we already had Tulsi Gabbard go in and look at boxes in Georgia --
TODD: From six years ago.
HINOJOSA: -- when that is not the role of the DNI director. We know that the President likes to cast doubt on elections as he has done before. TODD: Wait a minute, wait a minute. Let's don't project that forward.
Let's presume -- let's presume everybody's going to turn around this election on the --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: We know the President will use every tool in his disposal to put doubt in the election. That should concern everybody. And not only that. But not only that.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: There were Democrats who said the entire time that he was going to cancel the election, so --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Hold on, I am not done.
PHILLIP: Hold on. Jason, Trump raised the issue of cancelling the election. Don't put that on Democrats.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: Democrats said he wasn't going to allow the election --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on, Jason.
RANTZ: They said that from the beginning.
PHILLIP: Hold on, Jason. Hold on, Jason. Just to be clear, the only person who has talked about cancelling elections is Donald Trump.
RANTZ: That's not true.
PHILLIP: He has put that in writing. And also, and on top of that, I mean, what Xochi is talking about is not just supposition. Trump has repeatedly already, before this moment cast out on the upcoming election. So, it's not just the past, it's also the present, it's the future. It would be, I think, disingenuous to suggest that he doesn't have that top of mind.
TODD: I thought we'd focus on having this election in an honest and fair way.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I agree with you. I agree with you. But the President has this on his mind. There's no question about that.
NAVARRO: Something that has gotten precious little attention that also we learned about today is that this was not the only troubling appointment today, right? He also appointed Elias, what's his name, a insurrectionist from January 6th, appointed him to a very high profile position within the Secretary of Defense, within the Defense Department, that's going to be in charge of counterterrorism, embassy security and hostage rescue policy. So, we are talking a guy convicted for a misdemeanor during January 6th is now appointed by Trump to have Elias Irizarry.
PHILLIP: All right. Let's leave it there.
RANTZ: Well, it's not a high profile position. But it's important.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: Well, it should trouble the hell out of you that somebody that was convicted as an insurrectionist --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: He wasn't convicted as an insurrectionist. It was a misdemeanor. I don't think he should have the job. But I also find the inconsistency with the left that tells us that if you are a felon, you should be getting second and third and fourth chances when you come here.
HINOJOSA: So, you think January 6ers should serve in the administration.
RANTZ: No, I literally just said I don't think it's --
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: What's the inconsistency with left? The right gave a felon second chance as president.
PHILLIP: Okay, all right. We're going to leave it there. We're going to leave it there. Next for us in an about-face, the president's former lawyer and now acting attorney general has testified that that slush fund isn't happening anymore. But the President's tax audit protection is going to stay in place. We'll discuss next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:37:27]
PHILLIP: It went out with a whimper, not a bang, but tonight a major provision of Donald Trump's settlement deal with the IRS is no more. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche confirming today that Donald Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund to compensate people he claims are victims of government weaponization is being abandoned.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL: So look, we're not moving forward with the fund. You're right that there's a date that in the case -- in the East District of Virginia in June, but we are not moving forward with the fund, period.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: During a House panel hearing today, Blanche said that the fund, which was negotiated as part of Donald Trump's out-of-court settlement with the IRS, will not be revived, but he wouldn't commit to putting anything in writing. And what's more, the provision of Trump's agreement banning the agency from investigating his family and his businesses for past tax issues remains on the table
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLANCHE: Anytime the IRS settles with an individual taxpayer or another company as part of the settlement, it's standard, it's typical for -- to get rid of past ongoing audits. It's not a forward-looking document.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: All right, so he's back down on the settlement, the fund.
JONES: He got back down.
PHILLIP: Got back down. That's another way put it. But this idea that there should even be a settlement at all, I think, is the big issue here, which is that why was there a settlement? I mean, the judge in the case is asking the plaintiffs to respond to charges of collusion, respond to charges of the case was promised on deception by the parties.
And that maybe the court was a victim of fraud because it all seemed to be baked in a cake, that Trump would file a lawsuit for $10 billion and then get a settlement that gives him essentially, immunity.
NAVARRO: And you know what, when I watched this testimony today, I almost wondered if this entire thing wasn't a red herring. Because the part about the $1.8 billion slush fund for anti-weaponization preparations was so clearly unconstitutional that even Trumpers on this network were saying that it was unconstitutional. So, that's a very high bar. And yet, let's go of that, which was indefensible. It was not going to be held up in court under any circumstance
[22:40:00]
But was maybe the entire subterfuge here, maybe the entire purpose was what Trump really wanted, which is the immunity and amnesty from any auditing of him and his family for eternity.
PHILLIP: Well, just to be clear, it's past looking. So, anything that had been filed up until the date of the supposed settlement, that's what that would cover.
JONES: But the whole thing is a scam. It's just a scam. Basically, he sues himself. So, you know, in law school, you have to have a case in controversy. In other words, you have to have two parties that are adverse to each other to actually have a controversy to even go into court. When you control both sides of the deal, that's not a case in controversy. So, it is fraudulent to go before the court with that. And then you
come out with surprise, surprise, I'm going to settle with myself, give billions to my friends, exempt me and my family from any harm going forward. And why is everybody mad? Who is advising the President? Who told him this is a good idea?
PHILLIP: Well, you know what? Todd Blanche, I mean, Todd Blanche has made it clear at his position and at the position of the administration is that, yes, everyone in the government works for Trump and they work on behalf of him --
JONES: Not the American people. Not the constitution.
PHILLIP: -- and at his behest. And so, this makes perfect sense in that context. But it also seems to be the American people who are at a loss here when they kind of pull something like this. And there's really there's a little bit of accountability on the fund but no accountability on the IRS.
TODD: And you know, 16 years ago, or 15 years ago, the IRS had to admit that it was targeting conservative groups for their political persuasion in its audits and its enforcement mechanisms. And conservatives really never trusted the agency since then. I think if you ask conservatives across America, they would tell you that there's a pretty good chance that the IRS has pursued malicious audits and investigations of Donald Trump and his family.
That doesn't mean there needs to be a $1.8 billion slush fund or repayment fund or anything. But I think the idea that the IRS is certainly, absolutely clean in this. I'm not ready to sign off on --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Well, they prosecuted Hunter Biden on tax. Justice Department prosecuted Hunter Biden on tax allegations and charges, and that was because of an IRS investigation. , to say that it is one party or one sided, it is -- that is not true. I think the interesting part about this is that Todd Blanche, A, would not put this in writing. And B, he needed to get Republicans off his back for a little bit. He was getting not only the heat from Democrats, but heat from Republicans, and that was causing him some major headaches.
What the Justice Department could do potentially moving forward and why there needs to be continued oversight on this is that now there are January sixers and other Trump allies who believe that they should -- they were wronged and that somehow that the federal government owes them something. And I would not be surprised if many of them file lawsuits with the Justice Department, or file lawsuits to the federal government, and the Justice Department can settle those secretly
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Well they've already -- they've already settled with some, you know, Ashley --
HINOJOSA: That's right. PHILLIP: Ashley Babbitt's family, as well. So look, at the end of the day, I mean, is this on the up and up? Is this something you're comfortable with? Even this idea of the IRS giving this immunity to the Trump family and his business.
RANTZ: I was not comfortable with the fund. I am comfortable with this agreement. I think of all the presidents to come out there and say they're concerned that they would be politically targeted in the future by the Democratic Party that has actively said that they're going to target him and wanted to do everything that they could to keep him out of office to begin with, I think that is a valid concern.
PHILLIP: So basically you're saying, it's fine that he's effectively pardoned himself from any IRS. I mean, that's effectively what this is.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: I don't think he's pardoning himself. I think what he's doing is ensuring that anyone doesn't just open up an investigation for political purposes. And let's be clear, if the President today announced that we're doing this deep dive investigation into the finances of Joe Biden, this would be called going after your political enemy.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: When the Democrats do this -- when the Democrats do this --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: One thing I want to note is that there have been allegations that the Trump --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: But they investigated Joe Biden.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: By the way, I don't know if you -- I want you to realize that.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: The Trump administration?
HINOJOSA: No.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: That's my point.
HINOJOSA: Hold on. No. Garland Justice Department investigated Joe Biden. You will never see --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Hold on, hold on. You will never --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Hold on. You will never -- that's the point. You will never see -- you will never see the Trump --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: You will never see the Trump Justice Department ever investigate any Trump ally or Donald Trump because they are loyal to the President. And the part -- the whole part about this is that moving forward in order -- if they've, if politicians, they also conduct crimes. There are crimes that have happened that, and we have seen indictments of Donald Trump. They are not innocent. Not all politicians are innocent people. Just because they're of the opposite party doesn't mean that they should be able to get away with it.
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: If Todd Blanche announced today that he was going to investigate Trump, would you then just say that this is all of a sham?
[22:45:03]
This is all a sham, that this is all a show? That would be the response.
PHILLIP: Wait.
RANTZ: I would be okay with that as a response --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: I'm not sure -- I'm not sure what point you're making, but I think the point that she's making is that Joe Biden's own --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Hold on. The only point that she's making is that Joe Biden's own DOJ not only investigated the President himself, produced a special counsel report on Joe Biden, but also investigated the President's son. So, I mean, you can say it's been weaponized all you want, but it's been weaponized apparently against the President by his own Justice Department and toward his own family. What?
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: No, no. I'm asking if it can be weaponized.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: All I'm saying, listen. All I'm saying, Jason, hold on, Jason. All I'm saying is that, is that the only evidence that we have is that there's one administration that was willing to investigate itself. And there's another one that has said that we don't do that here because we work for one guy. And that's a big difference of perspective when it comes to administrations.
I'm not saying it can't be -- the Justice Department can't be weaponized. We know that. We lived through the civil rights era. But you have to have proof. You can't just say every investigation is weaponized. I mean, that's --
(CROSSTALK)
RANTZ: I'm not saying every investigation is weaponized.
(CROSSTALK)
NAVARRO: (inaudible) IRS audits are for a time period way before he had entered politics as a presidential candidate.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, we are just a few minutes away from polls closing in the state of California. We are going to bring you those results, of course. Plus, from tattoos to sexting. Democrats cannot quite figure out what they're going to do about the candidate with yet another scandal erupting.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:51:19]
PHILLIP: We're just minutes away now from the polls closing in California where two of the most anticipated elections of the night are coming to a close. First, the race to be the state's next governor, the top two vote getters, regardless of the political party, will compete in the general election in November. Three candidates have been leading in recent weeks. Two Democrats, former Health and Human Services Secretary Javier Becerra, billionaire Tom Steyer, as well as Republican Steve Hilton, a former Fox News host.
And in L.A., former reality star Spencer Pratt is trying to edge out one of the two Democratic front runners for a chance to be the city's next mayor. Pratt has made a significant group in this tight three- person race with incumbent Democrat Karen Bass and the Democratic Socialist City Council member, Nithya Raman.
California is facing a very interesting fall, no matter what happens tonight. But at least what we'll learn tonight perhaps is just who has some headwinds, who has some momentum, and what the big matchups are going to be, come the fall.
JONES: Well, look, I mean, in the state, you've got, you know, both at the governor's level and at the mayor's level, you've got an establishment candidate, you've got somebody to the left, you've got somebody to the right. It's because there's just a lot of discontent in the state. You know, I think Karen Bass has gotten a bad rap because of the Palisades fire that was a fire-hurricane. For the first time our fire season and our wind season kissed, and we had a fire- hurricane. We could not fly our air tankers. And so, if she had been in town and not in town you'd have the same
outcome. That said, there's a lot of problems that people are upset about. If a reality TV star winds up going head to head with Karen Bass, given how unpopular the reality TV star president is, Donald Trump, it just gives you a sense of --
NAVARRO: And Trump endorsed reality.
JONES: Yes, exactly. It just gives you a sense of the level of discontent. I think Karen Bass ultimately survives, but if they wake up call for Democratic Party establishment in the state of California that we've got two kind of wild personality types that are probably going to drag us into a beyond a, into a runoff.
NAVARRO: You know, I just spent a week in California and I interviewed Karen Bass for my podcast, and I interviewed Javier Becerra for my podcast. Tried to get Tom Steyer, couldn't get him. I saw a lot of organic movement towards Becerra. I will tell you that it's like, the turtle and the hare, right? Nobody was paying him any attention before the Swalwell implosion.
I think people are getting used to the fact that he's not going to set the world on fire, that he's not going to be Gavin Newsom going tweet to tweet with Donald Trump and cursing and doing the things that give a lot of satisfaction to Democrat activists all over the country when they see Newsom. I think they see him as steady. I will say this about Tom Steyer. He's got every Latino I know on his payroll. He -- and there was, I mean, he is just spreading money. He's now --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: He's literally spent $200 million of his own money on this race.
NAVARRO: Well, it's now like $600 million trying to get elected to something, right?
PHILLIP: Yes.
NAVARRO: And he spent 350 million trying to get elected president, 250 million so far. If Steyer and Becerra -- Becerra is going to be in today. If it's Steyer and Becerra, this is going to be a crazy expensive one-sided expensive race because I think there is no limit to what Steyer will spend. If it is Becerra and Hilton, Becerra is the next governor of California.
[22:55:01]
PHILLIP: All right, we have to leave it there. Everyone, thank you very much. We've got breaking news tonight. CBS has now fired longtime "60 Minutes" veteran Scott Pelley after an intense staff meeting in which he called out the network's leadership. We'll have more on that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:59:54]
PHILIP: Breaking tonight, CBS has fired "60 Minutes" correspondent Scott Pelley and terminated his contract for cause.
[23:00:03]
It comes after Pelley called out the network's leadership in his tense staff meeting. He said that they were unqualified for their jobs and accused the new editor-in-chief of trying to kill "60 Minutes." In the letter informing Pelley of his firing, the new executive producer called Pelley's outburst performative and an ambush. He said that Pelley had disparaged him with remarkable incivility and contempt. Adding, "your antipathy to the future of the show has come through loud and clear."
You can head to cnn.com for more updates on that story. But thank you for watching "NewsNight." Our special coverage continues right now.
