Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Platner Faces New Allegations Days Before Maine Senate Primary; Platner: Allegations In NY Times Report Are "Politically Motivated; Many Dems Divided Over Platner's Senate Run Amid Scandals. Trump Backs Sanders' A.I. Ownership Proposal; Trump Presses Republicans to Make Daylight Saving Time Permanent. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 05, 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]
PATRICK RADDEN KEEFE, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Corrupting. The interesting thing for me was when I published this book in the UK it went straight to the top of the bestseller list in the UK and people there, in all the reviews, there's not a lot of people pushing back. There tends to be a reaction that says no, this seems more or less correct as a critique of what we've become.
KAITLIN COLLIN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes. The book is excellent. Patrick Radden Keefe, thank you for joining us to talk about it.
KEEFE: Thank you.
COLLIN: Really appreciate it.
DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you so much for joining us. CNN Newsnight with Abby Phillip starts right now.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voiceover): Tonight, is Graham Platner too much for the Democrats to handle? James Carville says no.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAMES CARVILLE, AMERICAN POLITICAL CONSULTANT AND AUTHOR: We got a up guy who he could be 100 times more up than he is. He'd never be as up as what we got in Washington.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (voiceover): The Democrats dilemma with the primary just four days away. Plus.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: I would say that Bill is a guy that will be able to figure it out very quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP (voiceover): Donald Trump tells his new man overseeing intel
agencies to start taking them apart. Also, what do Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have in common?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The American people can benefit from the success of AI.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (voiceover): The president's latest plans to embrace populism with a stake in an AI company. And the next test the GOP will face, ending, falling back and springing ahead as Trump tries to end daylight saving time.
Live at the table, Charles Blow, Rob Bluey, Lydia Moynihan, Ashley Allison and Terry Moran. Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here they do.
PHILLIP: Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. We are just days away now from Maine's primary election and Democrats are facing a dilemma tonight. As the party is navigating a series of controversies surrounding Senate candidate Graham Platner. The latest blow published by the New York Times, alleging unsettling and in at least one case, physically threatening behavior toward his former girlfriends.
Platner denies the accusations. And tonight he is plowing forward with his campaign.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRAHAM PLATNER (D) MAINE SENATE CANDIDATE: When hurtful things I said on the Internet a decade ago came out into the public, as I shared my personal journey through PTSD and darkness of recovery and accountability and growth, Maine had my back. Now as every single piece of that past and journey gets dug up, litigated and weaponized, you have my back. And when politically motivated, serious and false accusations are made against me, Maine, you have my back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP (voiceover): And he got some backup from Democratic Senator Ro Khanna. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CAL): He understood that those years that he came back were not the best years of his life. He was ashamed of some of the things he said and did. And then he, unlike others took accountability for it. And he's worked to be a better man, a better human being.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Democrats see Maine's Senate race as a must win in order to take back the chamber in November. And with Platner on the defense, sources tell CNN people are now urging Maine's governor, Janet Mills, to reenter the race after she dropped out in April.
It might be a little bit too late. And I think many people acknowledge that even if she were to get back into it, she had just suspended her campaign. It may not make a difference.
But you know, what was notable to me listening to Graham Platner just now was just how scripted he was in that moment. Suddenly he is like a politician, just like any other person trying to turn water into wine effectively. And I think that tells me a lot about this particular incident, is that it's the same playbook.
It's deny, deflect, defend, and then try to move on. And I'm just wondering if that's okay with Democrats, given the circumstances.
CHARLES BLOW, THE LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Oh, that for me.
PHILLIP: Charles.
ROB BLUEY, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE EDITOR, THE DAILY SIGNAL: I'm not a Democrat.
BLOW: I don't think people are saying that it's necessarily okay. Right? So, I don't think that any abuse of anyone is legitimate right, defensible. If what these three women allege is true, it is condemnable. But that said, that conversation has to happen with the voters of Maine. I will not be lectured by anybody who supports Donald Trump about the abuse of women ever.
[22:05:03]
So when Republicans try to enter that discussion with me. You cannot, unless you are going to say that you are also upset and unwilling to support someone who has bragged on tape about assaulting women.
PHILLIP: But what about the discussion with other Democrats?
BLOW: Right, that's what I'm saying.
PHILLIP: Because I think other Democrats are saying --
BLOW: And it's a primary.
PHILLIP: Hey, this is a problem.
BLOW: So the Democrats make the decision. And when it's over, whoever is against -- goes up against Susan Collins, I'm for. If you go to the floor of the Senate when Kavanaugh has been accused and you say Christine Blasey Ford, she's been traumatized. This is her words.
She's been traumatized. I'm sure she's been assaulted. However, I do not believe her and I'm going to vote for him anyway.
And in that same speech, she said that Kavanaugh was not. And she assured voters in America that Kavanaugh was not going to vote to overturn Ro. And what did he do? Exactly that. So at the end of the day, I'm going to support whoever comes out of that primary.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, NEW YORK POST: It's interesting you mentioned the Christine Blasey Ford incident. And Ro Khanna, who is speaking tonight at Graham Platner's event, was very supportive of her. And the Democratic ethos for a long time was believe all women. Believe all women.
And of course, Christine Blasey Ford was lauded. She was hosted on the View. She was on the cover of Time magazine. She was on CBS. She was a celebrity for the left. And there was no evidence actually to suggest that she had even met Brett Kavanaugh.
And yet the Democrats embrace that hook, line and sinker. And now that has changed. And it's only changed because the act, the accuser against Graham Platner is a Republican. That is it.
There is no difference. The only reason they want to discredit her and the very people who were defending Christine Blasey Ford are now attacking. Are now attacker her.
BLOW: So the exact same (inaudible). He came on this show on Saturday and went after E. Jean Carroll and tried to discredit her because she was a woman attacking a Republican. Is that the same reason? Are you --
MOYNIHAN: Those accusations -- so let's be clear.
BLOW: No, you pick this on Saturday. You said this on Saturday.
MOYNIHAN: Lets be clear about E. Jean --
BLOW: What -- you want me to read back what you said on Saturday?
MOYNIHAN: Feel free.
BLOW: Okay, please. Thank you.
MOYNIHAN: You're free. But --
BLOW: Because I come -- I come prepared. Okay, so first thing you said --
MOYNIHAN: There is no --
BLOW: The first thing --
MOYNIHAN: Okay. I would be careful here because people have had to pay millions of dollars for --
BLOW: Okay. Who?
MOYNIHAN: -- making the same comments that you're about to make.
BLOW: Okay. MOYNIHAN: Because they're not sure of --
BLOW: So let -- let me read animal thump with the quote. "I actually do think that if you look at E. Jean Carroll's case now there is a new evidence. There is new evidence coming to light. She says that Reid Hoffman has nothing to do with it. It turns out that it may have --
MOYNIHAN: Yes. Reid Hoffman didn't have that (inaudible).
BLOW: And then Abby had to correct you and let you know -- and let you know on Saturday --
MOYNIHAN: Reid Hoffman did actually --
BLOW: -- what I'm going to let you know today --
MOYNIHAN: Okay.
BLOW: -- which is that has already been (inaudible).
PHILLIP: Okay. So let -- let me -- let me just try to distill what this conversation seems to be about. Hold on. Hold on a second. This is not about -- this is not about Reid Hoffman.
But I do want to -- I do want to observe something about this interaction. Because if you're a regular non-red shirt, blue shirt wearing American, what you're basically seeing is that Democrats have decided that sometimes it's okay to believe the accuser and sometimes it's not. And then Republicans have decided that sometimes it's okay to believe the accuser and sometimes it's not.
And it really depends mostly on the partisanship in the moment. To me, that is like everything that people think is wrong with our politics.
BLUEY: And Abby, you saw it on display at Grant Platner's rally tonight. You had Ro Khanna get up and basically say we should believe the women who have come out and disclosed these allegations. And then you had Graham Platner saying the exact opposite, that it was a politicized attack, his campaign went on the offensive and went after Lyndsey Fifield in that New York Times story.
And so they can't even get their own message straight on the same stage in which they're appearing.
PHILLIP: So let me --
BLOW: Do you believe -- do you believe that women should be -- their stories should be credited and they should be believed?
BLUEY: Well, you know what, Charles? I actually worked with Lyndsey Fifield for many years.
BLOW: Okay.
BLUEY: She was my colleague. I was her boss. And so in this particular case, yes, I think Lyndsey is a credible person and I do believe her. BLOW: But not Christine Blasey Ford. You don't believe that or do you credit it at all?
BLUEY: There were a lot of questions about --
MOYNIHAN: Let's also be clear, this is happening in the (inaudible).
BLOW: I want to ask because when you interviewed Lyndsey Graham in 2018, you didn't ask a single word about her. You literally prompted him to repeat what he had said in the Senate and did not say anything about the case that she was presenting. I don't believe that. You do care about what women are saying.
BLUEY: Oh, okay.
MOYNIHAN: I just think --
PHILLIP: Well, let me -- let me ask -- I mean, well, okay. Let's just be transparent about this. You don't believe Christine Blasey Ford. Is he right about that?
BLUEY: I think there are many holes that were poked in Christine Blasey Ford's story, not only by Senate Republicans at the time, but also in all of the information that was revealed. I mean, it was clearly an attempt to try to take down justice.
[22:10:06]
PHILLIP: So that's a no. But -- but Charles -- Charles -- so, Charles, you said the people of Maine will decide. Sure they will.
BLOW: Right.
PHILLIP: Do you believe Lyndsey Fifield?
BLOW: I believe that her story should be taken at face value to say this is what she believes. I don't know what (inaudible).
PHILLIP: Yes.
BLOW: I think it has to be litigated. We have to look into it.
PHILLIP: I mean, does -- but does it?
BLOW: I believe so.
PHILLIP: Because, I mean --
BLOW: I believe in every case. I believe in every case.
PHILLIP: Because -- because at the end of the day, I mean, Brett Kavanaugh's situation was not going to be litigated. The ask from Democrats was take it at face value and don't vote.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, no, no. There was testimony.
BLOW: No. She had -- there was testimony.
PHILLIP: Yes, but that's not -- that's not litigation. That's a testimony in a confirmation hearing.
BLOW: Right.
ALLISON: Investigating at least.
PHILLIP: So the ask was, let's listen to this woman, believe her and vote against his nomination. That was the --
ALLISON: Here's what I'll say. I think to your point, if you feel like you do have a blue or a red jersey on, I think we are living in a hypocritical political environment right now. And it is hard to take any accusation and any stance of moral clarity with any real validity because of who is our current president, quite honestly. And I think that he has been convicted by a jury of his peers.
He has said he was going -- he has said, called most people everything but a child of God. And then people are asked to hold themselves to a higher standard than the leader of our nation. And I think that is hard for people because we are all flawed humans.
What I will say, and I've been saying this for the last 24 hours, the accusations that came out in this investigation are very disturbing to me. I will never, in this iteration of the political cycle, get to vote for Graham Platner. Mainers will decide.
But what I will say is that sometimes, and the American public actually did this in 2024, sometimes people's immoral character flaws are less consequential to their life circumstances. And in this instance, I think Mainers are saying Susan Collins is not representing them and the way that they want to be representative and they are willing to overlook that. And quite honestly, so did 79 million Americans in 2024. And that is --
PHILLIP: So did tens of millions of Americans who voted for Donald Trump.
ALLISON: That's what I'm saying. But the question is --
PHILLIP: Let me -- let me play --
ALLISON: And all I just want to say is the question is in that is, why are we there? Why is our economy, why is our international affairs so turbulent, so unstable that we have to overlook really flawed acts on our leaders because their other people's leadership is worse.
PHILLIP: Overlooking those things is a choice. You know, a permissive culture happens when people allow themselves.
ALLISON: But having to feed your kids is not a choice.
PHILLIP: That's what happens. But let me -- all right, I just want to play the James Carville thing because we, you know, we heard a little taste of it, but here's how he reads the situation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARVILLE: We got a up guy who he could be a hundred times more up than he is. He'd never be as what we got in Washington now anyway. And I just saw this tut tut, and oh, and we got to do this and we got to be fair.
You know, James, if a Republican did. With Graham Platon did, you would be outraged. Yes, I would.
But what I'm more outraged about and what I have to consider first is this country is about delusion. The whole God --
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Again, I mean, you could swap the word, the name Graham Platner for Donald Trump, and it would be the exact same rationale and we realized that, right?
TERRY MORAN, VETERAN JOURNALIST: But the accusations against Graham Platner are very serious and need to be taken seriously. I don't think any accusation carries a conviction. They need to be examined. They're far less serious than the accusations against Donald Trump, not just by E. Jean Caroll, but by many, many other women.
Confirmed in his own attitude. You can grab him by, you know what? Okay, so there are two different cases, and we should distinguish between them. What?
Carville says he's onto something. Americans are not as interested in some ways in class issues as they are in vulnerability. Issues they recognize in candidates like Marjorie Taylor Greene and in Graham Platner, the precariousness of life in our country. We are one divorce away from being in the toilet.
We're one illness away from being in the gutter. And that is not the American way. And they hear the shiny people tut, tutting as he says, get this candidate out. Get that candidate out. Don't vote for this person. Don't leave it up to the people of Maine. I trust them.
PHILLIP: Yes. Well, okay, then we can say pretty definitively, no more talk about character. Whether it's Donald Trump or Graham Platner or Marjorie Taylor Greene or anyone.
BLOW: But what it's --
PHILLIP: Why not?
BLOW: I mean, it's not that.
PHILLIP: Let's not talk about it.
BLOW: I understand what you're saying. I understand that you're saying. PHILLIP: Because if the policy is the thing that is the most important to you, and the policy from the left looks a certain way to you, policy from the right looks a certain way to you, then all the other moral issues should just be off the table.
[22:15:13]
BLOW: But I'm saying this, I refuse. I've watched enough cycles since 16 of Democrats being judged by a different ruler. And I'm not saying that the worst ruler should rule the day. I'm simply saying this idea of that there are different measurements for the same sorts of behavior that some people just ignore, and other people drop out and say, okay, well you're supposed to be the better, the more moral group that is played out.
MOYNIHAN: I want to point out though. This is a primary so Democrats have the opportunity to select a candidate. They can take out Susan Collins, right? This isn't about a question do I vote for Graham Platner or do I vote for Susan Collins?
This is a question. Do I vote for somebody who's normal or do I vote for somebody who has a Nazi tattoo.
PHILLIP: Let me -- let me just ask you one last thing and then we have to go. Given everything that was said here, especially about the allegations against President Trump, many of which were validated in court, right. Given all of that, I mean, is that disqualifying for Donald Trump?
MOYNIHAN: I mean it's -- it's --
BLOW: Tongue tied. Tongue tied.
MOYNIHAN: And a lot of them are not -- look, I mean --
ALLISON: And that's the problem.
PHILLIP: I think we just have.
ALLISON: Yes, they are.
BLOW: Tongue tied.
PHILLIP: I think we just have to decide what we're going to -- what we're doing here.
ALLISON: Just saying. You can. You'll still be allowed on television and they'll soon (inaudible).
MOYNIHAN: I might say that I might be. My point that I'm taking is --
PHILLIP: Yes, either you care about it or your don't. Do you care about it?
ALLISON: No, no. Lydia --
MOYNIHAN: The point I'm making is that --
ALLISON: Lydia.
MOYNIHAN: -- in a primary --
ALLISON: There are moments.
MOYNIHAN: -- you have the option to vote for a Democrat.
PHILLIP: Hold on. Let her finish.
MOYNIHAN: You can select a normal person or a Nazi.
ALLISON: Had an opportunity.
MOYNIHAN: And Republican selected Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: Sure, just like Republicans had an opportunity to vote more and against Donald Trump. Not once, not twice, but on three occas. And they ignored.
ALLISON: Ignored it. Just like --
PHILLIP: They ignored the allegations against Donald Trump.
ALLISON: (Inaudible) right now in Texas. People ignore stuff. And so the reason why Americans look and are willing actually to do it is because we do it too, because we're flawed and we're human.
MOYNIHAN: I think a Nazi tattoo is a little different.
PHILLIP: No. I think Donald Trump, there was also --
BLUEY: And Bill Clinton, how could they go on whole (inaudible)?
PHILLIP: That is -- that is true. That is true. James Carville knows a little bit about that as well.
BLOW: More important than being accused of raping a woman.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us. The President says that Bill Pulte's acting status for Director of National Intelligence means that he is less shackled and he wants him to start cutting back on staff right away.
Plus, what do Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have in common? Well, they both seem to want America to own a piece of the big AI Boom. That's ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:22:05]
PHILLIP: Tonight, Donald Trump is urging his new intelligence director, who has no national security experience, to fire away. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal, Trump says that he's encouraging Bill Pulte to slash a large number of jobs as part of a necessary shakeup in the intelligence community. Pulte's appointment is only temporary, but today Trump suggested that his acting status might secretly be an asset.
"You're less scared," he said. But news of Pulte's appointment may already be causing a headache for the president, with just one week until a powerful surveillance law expires.
Early this morning, Democrats who are concerned about Pulte's appointment moved to block consideration of that bill. They were joined by seven Republicans. It's already having an impact, and I'm not sure if this is really going to fly. And I think Trump knows it, honestly.
I think he's aware. That's why he said today that he's interviewing five people or whatever for the job. I think he knows that this might not ever happen.
By the way, the current DNI, Tulsi Gabbard is still in her job until the end of the month.
MORAN: And he knows that Bill Pulte has opposition within the Republican Party because he isn't qualified for the job by a long shot. But I think he wants him in there for a little while so he can pilfer the nation's secrets, as Trump wants, right?
I mean, that he's basically said that he'll look into the election stuff. Just as Tulsi Gabbard showed up to, you know, rifle through the ballot boxes of Fulton County, Georgia, he wants Bill Pulte to do something similar. And just as Bill Pulte did at the Mortgage Finance Agency that he ran, he wants him to rifle through the confidential information of American of his political enemies to see if he can get anything on that.
He'll take the stuff, give it to Trump and go away.
ALLISON: I think the thing that makes me the most like, elections have consequences of when you are the president of the United States, you get to elect your senior officials, your cabinet. But in this instance, our enemies don't actually care about Democrats and Republicans. They care about destroying America. And this is such a critical.
This is the individual that every morning briefs the president on the security of this country. We need a qualified person. I don't like most of, or any really of Donald Trump's Cabinet secretaries, but that's his choice. And if they're not like, the HUD secretary is not actually putting our national security at risk.
But this, this role, this elapse in judgment here while he's thinking about rigging the election and our enemies come after. I think at this moment, everyone as Americans need to say, Mr. President, take a beat and let's, like, do what's best for this country.
BLUEY: So the reason I'm not surprised by this is Donald Trump's been talking about draining the swamp since he was elected in 2016. BLOW: And didn't expected it.
BLUEY: So I don't think that we should be surprised that he wants to fire the intelligence. The U.S. Intelligence community is the swamp of American life. Russia, Russia, Russia? All of that came from the Russia.
Wait, wait a second.
MORAN: Are you -- are you saying, Russia attacked the election. You don't believe the question --
BLUEY: This has been debunked here.
[22:25:07]
BLOW: Not true at all. You can laugh about it, but it still doesn't make it true. That's actually a lie. It was not debunked. That Russia did not try to interfere with our election. That was never debunked.
That was never. Can you just acknowledge that has never been debunked?
BLUEY: This was an effort on the part of President Barack Obama to derail --
LOW: That's another lie.
BLUEY: To derail President Trumps' --
BLOW: We would like us to get the truth at the table. That's another lie.
ALLISON: Barack Obama.
BLOW: That's another lie.
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean I -- I think --
BLUEY: Well, President Trump was coming into office. Did you (inaudible).
PHILLIP: I think that you're -- I think you're conflating. Hold on a second, Rob. I think you're conflating two things. And I don't actually necessarily agree with the one -- the thing that I think you're trying to say, but I'll explain what you're trying to say.
The President believes that the part of the whole Russia idea that he was colluding with the Russians to meddle in the election was weaponization. Right. He believes that that's separate from saying that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, which is a fact that was corroborated by a bipartisan Senate committee and a report that was coauthored by Marco Rubio, who is Trump's current Secretary of State.
So those are two separate issues. And on the fundamental issue of whether Russia was trying to interfere in the election of 2016, that is actually not in dispute. Whether Trump was collaborating with them. That's the part that I will give you.
BLUEY: Yes, that's my point.
PHILLIP: Is in dispute.
BLUEY: And it was believe --
BLOW: You say that. Don't lie about the rest of it, though. Don't tell us that it was debunked that Russia was trying to interfere. Which is exactly what you just said.
So do you want to roll that lie back or do you want to keep it going?
BLUEY: Right, right. No. What I'd also like to point out that James Clapper -- no, I acknowledge. I acknowledge that.
BLOW: Oh, thank you. I appreciate it.
BLUEY: I acknowledge what you're saying.
BLOW: That's what I'm trying to get. That's what I want to get to.
BLUEY: The intent was the intelligence community -- was the intelligence community that was trying to derail.
BLOW: We're going to be buddy by the end of the evening because you telling the truth.
BLUEY: Then, let me --
PHILLIP: Let's go back to what the DNI really is supposed to be, okay? Because the world did not begin in 2016 or in 2015 when all of this was happening.
The DNI position was created after 9/11 to resolve one of the main causes of 9/11, which is the idea that the intelligence agencies were not sharing information, were not talking to each other, and we were caught flat footed in the most devastating terror attack of many decades. So, what is the real rationale for gutting that agency today by President Trump.
MOYNIHAN: Well, so first let me say I think Pulte is a bizarre and unqualified choice. I'm glad he's not at FHFA anymore. But alarmed to see that he's at Dni.
But I think I actually am aligned with the mission and it's sort of the Department of Redundancy Department over at DNI. And Tom Cotton has actually introduced legislation that is trying to accomplish something similar.
He made a comment that at DNI, you have coordinators coordinating with coordinators who are coordinating. And it's become so bloated that it's not achieving the mission that it set out to be, to be a nimble, lean agency that was at the very top overseeing the intelligence whole juggernaut. So, I think the bloat, the fact you have 2,000 people doing a job that probably 600 people could be doing is actually problematic for that.
PHILLIP: I also think that's a fair point. But I also think that you also made an important point that Tom Cotton is a member of Congress. That's their job. They created the agency. They outlined the qualifications for the person who ought to run it.
They can streamline it if they feel like they need to, and they should. Why not do that as opposed to Trump? Trump seems to be saying, I want to do an end round -- end run around Congress.
ALLISON: Surprise, surprise.
PHILLIP: Surprise, surprise. Yes.
BLUEY: But that what happens is, and I give credit to the Democrat administrations that have been in power because what they do is they hire individuals for a lot of these government agencies and then they burrow in. I mean, there's been study after study done that shows that the Democrats stick around and run these agencies even when a Republican president is in office. And I think that's what I was getting at with the frustration that Trump has with some of the political appointees who end up in these positions.
ALLISON: Every president has five --
PHILLIP: We have to leave it there, unfortunately. Sorry.
ALLISON: Darn it.
PHILLIP: Wish we had more time. Thanks for us. Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump seem to be on the same page. You heard that right.
How they see Americans profiting potentially from AI. We'll be right back.
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, an idea that both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders can get behind. No, really. Aboard Air Force One, Trump announced in a meeting with artificial intelligence leaders next week and he floated the idea for the government to own some stake in those companies, something that Sanders had proposed just this week. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Senator Bernie Sanders proposed this. 50 percent managed public-private partnership.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I've been talking about it last year.
REPORTER: But is it odd to be kind of on the same page as Senator Sanders? TRUMP: No. When Bernie Sanders lost, you know that I got many of his people, they voted for me. Because on the economic plan as far as economics is concerned, we have certain things that aren't that far apart.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:35:04]
PHILLIP: Earlier this week, Sanders announced his plan, and it does differ from Trump in a major way.
Sanders' bill would give the public a 50 percent stake in the largest A.I. companies. He says that would block oligarchic decisions that harm the American people. Through voting shares and equal representation on each company's board, the federal government would be able to block certain decisions that the A.I. companies make.
And Trump's plan, as far as we know, would be just a financial stake in the companies, and perhaps a small one. But now he's, Lydia, seemingly just cribbing from Bernie Sanders openly.
LYDIA MOYNIHAN, CORRESPONDENT, "NEW YORK POST": I wouldn't go that far. I mean, Donald Trump puts a lot of trial balloons out there.
I was a little alarmed by the Bernie Sanders piece. I think his whole premise that he doesn't want a few oligarchs to have all of this power in Silicon Valley, so his solution is that a few people in Washington, D.C. should have all of the power.
I don't think that big tech and big government should be united, and nationalization of these things is always problematic. We saw a lot of censorship with YouTube, Facebook, under the Biden administration. But I just generally want to say, as well, with Bernie Sanders, I have a lot of questions about his motivations.
We know that he hosted an event with CCP-linked officials on Capitol Hill last month, and so it kind of raises the question of, if he's aligned with the CCP, they want what's best for China, not what's best for the U.S.
PHILLIP: Why would you question Bernie Sanders' motive, but not Donald Trump's, when he's proposing effectively the same thing? And by the way, for the same reason.
MOYNIHAN: We don't have a lot of detail. We never do.
PHILLIP: President Trump said there that he thinks that this will be beneficial because Americans would then start to like A.I. more. His former A.I. advisor also spelled it out this way, "I'm no fan of socialism or arbitrary confiscations of wealth, but I can see why the Sanders proposal resonates, including with many on the right. The CEOs of the leading A.I. labs have told us repeatedly there will be massive job losses.
This is not a story that I believe, nor does the data bear it out, but it's what they've told us. Similarly, they've hyped the risks of A.I. without putting equal or greater emphasis on the benefits or readily available mitigations."
And the American people, Sachs points out, he's not supportive of, but what he's pointing out is that the American people are kind of scared of what's coming down the road. And so a smart populist politician would address that, and that's what Trump and Sanders are trying to do.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think we all need to wake up on A.I. It is here and it's not going anywhere, but it is going to be so disruptive to our way of life. It already is.
It's going to disrupt Republican voters and Democratic voters, and it's going to disrupt white-collar voters as well, not just blue- collar voters. And so when you eliminate a whole sector of jobs, what happens to the economy?
I do think it's interesting, I don't know all the details of Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump's proposal, but I will say A.I. will be a part of a public good that the American people should have some agency over, and we should not just be like, this is a way for people to get wealthy.
PHILLIP: Do you like the idea of a small state that's owned by the government, so that if there's benefit-- the benefit comes back to the American people as a return on an investment? Well, not an investment, because it sounds like maybe you're not purchasing it.
ALLISON: I think it's an interesting option to explore.
PHILLIP: Go ahead, Terry.
TERRY MORAN, VETERAN JOURNALIST, AND SUBSTACK AUTHOR, "REAL PATRIOTISM": It reminds me of what Einstein said when he was told about the successful first test of an atomic weapon. He says, now everything has changed except human nature itself.
And the people who work in A.I. believe that this won't disrupt a sector. It will be the economy, and it will be life. And it could be, there's a non-zero possibility that it will be the dominant force on the planet.
I think the public should have a say in that kind of technology. And that's basically a unanimous opinion among humanity. If you asked every single person in the world, do you want a non-human future, or a human future?
CHARLES BLOW, SUBSTACK AUTHOR, "BLOW THE STACK" AND THE LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: But I don't want to glaze over and pretend that every American is going to get a vote in what A.I. does. I mean, the money is going to go into the treasury, politicians are still going to dictate what happens, and the partisanship will still be in Washington, and it will dictate how that money is spent.
I understand the idea, the Bernie side of it, wanting to grab some of the income. Taxes on corporations, they find all sorts of ways to get out of it. Big corporations pay zero in taxes.
This would be a way to capture some of that. I get that. I'm very worried about what is going to happen with the deficit, because the Big, Beautiful Bill takes away $4.5 trillion in tax revenue over the next 10 years.
Elon Musk said he was going to make up $2 trillion of it. He made up, by their own estimates, only 10 percent of that. And if you look at how other people have analyzed that data, it's far less than 10 percent. So I'm trying to figure out where is the money going to come from just to run the country? So maybe capturing some of that makes sense on that level. I don't know all the details.
[22:40:09]
PHILLIP: I think that's actually a really important point, because I think right now A.I. isn't showing up in the jobs reports. We just had a very good jobs report in May, 172,000 jobs.
But that's not to say that they won't show up, because once all the data centers are built and they're out there, and then those machines get working, that's probably when we'll start to see this. And then when you don't have people working anymore, you just have computers working or robots working, then where do the taxes come from?
So these are hard questions. It's easy, especially if you're a conservative and certain liberals, to be reflexively against Donald Trump saying anything, literally, or Bernie Sanders saying anything. But they're trying to address a real problem. I think that's on the table.
ROB BLUEY, EXECUTIVE EDITOR, "THE SIGNAL": Well, I'd say I'm reflexively opposed to the government taking a stake in companies, whether it's Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump, as a conservative. I mean, that's just a fundamental principle that conservatives hold.
I agree with you, though. I mean, we have a massive problem with our debt, and it's rarely addressed and discussed in Washington, D.C. I mean, there are opportunities for this particular Republican Congress to still do something about that when it comes to the reconciliation bill. You saw how little was actually cut with the DOGE effort that Elon Musk spearheaded last year.
And so there's a whole series of debates when it comes to A.I., and one of the most interesting ones that's playing out among Republicans right now is do they take the Federalist approach, do they let the states be the laboratories of democracy and have some A.I. regulation, or do they concentrate it out of the White House?
ALLISON: The challenge with that is the same challenge with technology, is that data doesn't stop at a state line. And it definitely doesn't even stop at a country's border. So trying to put it to the state level is just not a feasible path forward, there has to be some bigger policies.
The thing I'll just say is that I actually think one reason why Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump actually are also paying attention to it is because young people are terrified by A.I., and they are going to be the largest voting bloc. And if folks start to just capitulate to these big A.I. companies, you want to see a swing, they will be looking for people who feel like they're fighting for them and not the Republicans.
PHILLIP: Yes, the NBC poll recently said that 57 percent of Americans say that the risks of A.I. outweigh the benefits. I think that's probably even maybe an understatement, actually.
MOYNIHAN: I would like to inject just a little bit of techno-optimism into this, because I do think there is a lot of doomerism, and I think that's been way too messaged. I think there's already benefits that we're seeing in terms of making getting a mortgage more efficient.
There's so many applications that's going to make people's lives better, and we're seeing at a local level some sort of clever ways for people to benefit. Some data centers, and I'd like to see more of this at a local level, are basically trying to win over communities, get the approval to expand and build, and in return, they're either giving a little bit of a dividend, they're promising to spend more investing in that community.
So I think that's something that's very neat to see-- at a local level. I don't want the federal government, every time the federal government gets involved, if you hate Donald Trump, why do you want him managing A.I.? If you hate Donald Trump, you don't want that.
PHILLIP: Let's hear some radical agreement across the table.
BLOW: I agree with this, because I can look at, my mother lives in a very small town. There's hard to get to see doctors. There are a million different ways I can see how A.I. could help people in small communities get services that they could not get with human beings because there are no human beings around.
The problem, however, becomes, if they're also out of work, then that is still a doom scenario.
MORAN: This is a reversal on the part of Donald Trump, and we've lost time because of it. The Biden administration brought all the A.I. people and venture capitalists to Washington.
They said, this is such a powerful technology. It's like nuclear weapons and nuclear power. So we are going to regulate this.
And they all became MAGA Republicans. They elected Donald Trump, and last week Trump basically issued an executive order saying the same thing. You've got to show us your models first.
MOYNIHAN: It's voluntary.
PHILLIP: Yes, voluntary. They're not reading it as voluntary.
MORAN: And now he recognizes their vision is there's going to be eight to nine multi-trillionaires in the world, and then the rest of us. Bernie's right.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, is time running out on Daylight Saving Time? The President wants to end the falling back and springing ahead. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: President Trump is reportedly renewing his push to save daylight. According to Politico, the President is lobbying GOP lawmakers on a plan to make Daylight Saving Time permanent. That means you'll no longer have to spring forward or fall back.
It's an issue that Trump has been fixated on for a while now. In a post last month, he argued that the twice yearly clock adjustments are costly and inconvenient.
It's an interesting thing for him to be expending some political capital on, but he is doing it, and it's actually surprisingly dividing Republicans, because some Republicans from some rural states, like Josh Hawley, he's for it, but Tom Cotton is not. He doesn't want his farmers getting up and having to work in the dark for 3 or 4 hours.
MORAN: They did for 10,000 years before daylight saving. And it's harmful to human biology. The data is in, right? It's not good to switch the sun around at the human's willing.
[22:50:07]
I mean, you're supposed to sleep when it's dark and wake when it's light. Now, school schedules and other schedules don't allow for that, and so out of safety reasons in some ways, because the farmers want it, just pick one. Pick a lane.
ALLISON: I mean, this could be the revolution to change how we actually function. Maybe kids don't need to go to school at 8:00 a.m. Maybe they should start at 10:00. Maybe we don't need to start our work to get some folks, working class people, to have to get up and take the bus at 6:00 A.M. This could actually disrupt some things. I just want it to be lighter outside longer. Whatever. I don't know which one.
BLOW: See, that's what I don't like.
ALLISON: What, Charles?
BLOW: The sun's going down, like, in the summertime, like, 8:30, 5:00.
ALLISON: I know.
BLOW: I don't even see the dark anymore. I go to sleep.
ALLISON: Why do you have to yuck-my-yum? I show up in the streets. Let me be in the streets in the light, okay? Come on, Charles.
BLUEY: I actually think this has a chance of actually making-- so I believe it passed a Senate committee 48-1, right?
PHILLIP: It did, yes. It did.
BLUEY: And a few years ago, it was Trump's Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who pushed this through on a unanimous consent in the Senate, and so the House just had to pass it, and it would have actually already been in effect. Now, there is a compromise for those of you who can't agree, and that would be to do 30 minutes. So you would-- you would just set it instead of an hour.
ALLISON: No, Rob, no.
BLUEY: No, okay. I'm not winning any fans for that, okay?
BLOW: I still have analog clocks. I'm trying to find them.
PHILLIP: No, that is terrible. That would be a terrible solution.
I mean, I do think that when you realize, like, other countries in this hemisphere don't do this, they just keep their clocks the way that they are, they still farm, they still have agriculture. It's fine. Nobody's hurting for not doing this.
MOYNIHAN: Right, and I think Arizona opts out of this, and they're fine. Yes, I think let's just be normal. Like, let's pick a lane, stick with it.
It's actually a somewhat popular issue, depending on what poll you look at. Most people are supportive of it, so I feel like Donald Trump is looking at this as, like, this could be my next 80-20 issue. I don't think it's quite that favorable.
PHILLIP: If you look at it, I mean, I guess only 12-- that's a small percent, 20 percent of Americans are supportive of Daylight Saving Time. So that means that most people either don't care--
MOYNIHAN: They don't even know what Arizona is.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, to most Americans, it's like, should we be moving our clocks? I mean, to me, what's interesting is also that Trump really clearly wants this.
He's pushing for it behind the scenes, which, honestly, he doesn't do for a lot of things. And the problem might actually be Republicans. And can he get them over the finish line? It might be just another test of that.
ALLISON: Would this be the thing? Lord, have mercy. Would daylight savings be the thing that destroyed the MAGA coalition? Won't he do it?
PHILLIP: I mean, if that were the case.
ALLISON: Have your way, Lord.
PHILLIP: I don't know about destroying the MAGA coalition.
ALLISON: Like, really? Daylight savings time is the thing that brings it up? Now we're in trouble.
PHILLIP: I don't know if it's about destroying the MAGA coalition, but it's definitely-- I mean, I think it could be something that Trump gets some credence on the other side of the aisle from parents who don't want to have to deal with their cranky kids.
ALLISON: They still going to be cranky.
MOYNIHAN: If the American people don't like it, change it.
PHILLIP: They don't like it.
ALLISON: They don't like it.
PHILLIP: Yes, so they might end up changing it.
ALLISON: I think we resolved that tonight.
PHILLIP: All right. We'll be right back, everyone.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Comedian Craig Ferguson hits the road going coast to coast to uncover what it really means to be an American today. Watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CRAIG FERGUSON, COMEDIAN, AND HOST, "AMERICA ON PURPOSE": Pre-America, capitalism is what? It's feudalism?
UNKNOWN: Yes. So capitalism actually stems from the end of feudalism.
Feudalism simply was just where the nobility would bequeath land to certain lords, and then they would have serfs who worked for them. If you did not win the dice roll of life and you ended up at the bottom of this system, you pretty much didn't really have that much of a shot to improve your station.
That's why capitalism became popular is because it was the belief that anybody could make their own destiny, they could start their own company, they could become a provider and make money.
FERGUSON: So it lines up with the American dream.
UNKNOWN: Correct.
FERGUSON (voice-over): From Scotland, I saw the land of opportunity as exactly that. Opportunity meant success, and success meant money. But it's more complicated than just that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Be sure to tune in a new episode of "Craig Ferguson, American On Purpose" premieres Saturday at 9:00 p.m. Eastern on CNN and the next day on the CNN app.
And thank you for watching "NewsNight." You can stream the show anytime with an all-access subscription in the CNN app or at cnn.com/watch. And if you did not get enough, you can catch our "Table for Five" show tomorrow morning at 10:00 A.M. Eastern right here on CNN. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
