Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Cancels Iran Strikes, But No Details on Agreement Claim; Trump Names New DNI Pick After Backlash to Inexperienced One. Trump and Allies Discuss Pushing Lawmakers to Pass a Resolution Deleting His First Two Impeachments; America Awaits UFC Fight on the White House South Lawn. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 11, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, as the world spins, so does the fate of the Iran war.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's a very strong memorandum of understanding.
PHILLIP: Trump calls off more strikes with claims of an agreement.
Plus, the president bows to pressure over his pick to run America's intelligence while the House rejects extending his spy powers.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): It is shameful and it is very dangerous.
PHILLIP: Also --
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Maybe, you know, we'll just host weekly fights between people in politics.
PHILLIP: -- 60 million and seven agencies are needed to stage Trump's birthday fight night while someone etches 8647 at the National Mall.
And editing history, the president is reportedly pushing Congress to void his impeachments.
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Bakari Sellers, Carla Sands, Xochitl Hinojosa, and Max Boot.
Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
President Trump is backing off his new threats to strike Iran after a supposed breakthrough in talks on a potential deal to end the war. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran, and we're going to be subject to finalization of documents, which should get done over the next few days.
The documents are in pretty final shape, so we'll see. We'll see. Very good, should be done. That should be done pretty quickly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: But we have heard this before, and the president is making some big new claims here. He says that the final points have been approved, that Iran's supreme leader supports this deal, that Tehran has agreed to never have a nuclear weapon, and that it could be signed as soon as this weekend. Also, he says the Strait of Hormuz will reopen once the ink dries.
However, Iran's foreign ministry is pushing back tonight, calling reports of a final agreement speculation. A spokesperson adds, a large part of the text had already been finalized, but the U.S. kept changing its position. He said that Iran will not compromise on its red lines and reiterates it has not reached a final decision on any agreement.
And if that's not enough for you to tell you where things stand, at least from an Iranian perspective, here is how Trump described the great settlement, as he called it earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: You said this was just a concept of that agreement. So, is this just essentially setting the stage for deeper talks on nuclear?
TRUMP: Well, it's a very strong memorandum of understanding. That is a little conceptual.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: A little conceptual, one that Iran continues to say is not quite there yet.
And, Max, I don't know. I mean, my sort of read of the tea leaves of all of that everybody is saying is that maybe they have agreed on a lot of things, but it's always the last bit, maybe the last 5 or 10 percent, that's the hardest stuff to get through, and maybe that's not done yet.
So, do you get the sense that we really are on the verge of being able to sign on a piece of paper and would that piece of paper be worth much?
MAX BOOT, SENIOR FELLOW, COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS: You know, as you pointed out in the intro, Abby, I think we've seen this movie before quite a few times, going back to early April. Remember when Trump said an entire civilization will die tonight, and then he said, oh, never mind. We have an agreement on a two-week ceasefire, and Iran will open the Strait of Hormuz. Well, we do have a ceasefire, sort of, which gets violated every day, but we certainly don't have the Strait of Hormuz open.
And like every other day, Trump was saying, oh, we have an agreement, we have an agreement, a lot of which just seems like he's trying to manipulate the markets and basically talk oil prices down, get stock prices up. But, you know, you have to have two people to make an agreement. If the Iranians are saying, we don't have an agreement, we may not have an agreement.
Now, we eventually may have some kind of deal, but the deal that they're talking about is this memorandum of understanding. It's basically to restore the Strait of Hormuz to where it was before we started the war.
[22:05:00]
It's not --
PHILLIP: And keep talking.
BOOT: And keep talking about what happens with the nuclear program.
So, Trump still has -- remember, in 2018, Trump pulled out of President Obama's nuclear accord, saying he was going to go negotiate something much better. He still hasn't done it. He still has not gotten the Iranians to agree to greater limits on their nuclear program than what President Obama had. And in the meantime, the Iranians have closed the Strait of Hormuz, and this war has triggered the greatest energy crisis on record.
So, this is not any kind of victory. Trump is just trying to figure out how to escape this quagmire in which he has ensnared the entire world.
PHILLIP: Carla?
CARLA SANDS, FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVE CHAIR, AMERICA'S FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE: Yes. Well, I think that Trump actually has done a lot more than President Obama did regarding the nuclear program because he bombed the nuclear program.
They do not have the ability to bomb the United States with a nuclear weapon today because of what he did last summer. And now he's working --
BOOT: They still have 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium.
SANDS: That JCPOA -- yes, but that JCPOA was a slow --
BOOT: They have a lot more highly enriched uranium now than they had under President Obama.
SANDS: It was a -- because, listen, the JCPOA allowed them to slow roll into having nuclear weapons. He is saying you have to give up the centrifuges --
BOTT: No, it didn't. It actually created limits with international inspections.
SANDS: You have to give up the -- and they resisted that even though the inspections --
BOOT: And they're still resisting it. He hasn't -- he doesn't have a deal.
SANDS: So, I think President Trump, I think, will get to a good place. He's going to start to charge them the money that is frozen. He's going to charge -- if they charge a fee to get through the Strait of Hormuz, he's going to make -- he's going to take money from the frozen funds. If they damage the Middle Eastern country --
BOOT: He's going to give them money. He's going to relax sanctions as part of this deal.
SANDS: He's going to take the frozen funds and give it for repairs to that Middle Eastern country. So, he's do -- he's making -- and Scott Bessent said this today. He's doing actual things to make a difference.
PHILLIP: Well, look, I mean, you're -- yes, you're referring to what Scott Bessent said. That seems highly speculative, in part because we're not even at a point where we're in a place where we can talk about the frozen funds. Iran doesn't have access to those funds now, and it's not getting them to the table. So, siphoning money out of the frozen funds, I'm not sure how that changes their behavior right now.
We still don't have a deal. They still have the nuclear material in their possession. The Strait of Hormuz is still closed, and the bombing hasn't worked. The cajoling hasn't worked. Withholding money hasn't worked. None of it has worked.
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think we need to try to fool the American public. Iran was further away from a nuclear weapon under Barack Obama than they are today.
SANDS: That's not true.
SELLERS: It's a fact. I mean, you can --
PHILLIP: It's actually -- it is actually true.
SELLERS: It actually -- it literally is a fact.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: You're saying Iran's holding a nuclear weapon at this very moment?
PHILLIP: Yes, absolutely.
SELLERS: And actually the bombing that you're referring to does not damage their nuclear program or their uranium, because, as we all know, their uranium is so entrenched that you cannot actually get to it from the air.
SANDS: I don't think they can get to it.
SELLERS: And so what you were saying is just not quite accurate.
And the other point is that the American public has gone through a great deal of pain. We've gone through the rise in gas prices, the rise in fertilizer costs, the closing -- the closing of -- can we have a discussion tonight for one hour without you mentioning Joe Biden? And the reason I say that is because Joe Biden is not the president of the United States, and the quagmire that you so clearly articulated, it's because of Donald Trump. Let's not forget that. And the blame lays or lies on the plate of the president of the United States, and the fact we're not able to get out of this quagmire is all his fault.
And so what I'm simply saying is that Iran has run circles around the president of the United States. We've been here before. Just three weeks ago, my friend, Scott Jennings, was talking about the fact that we were on the brink of an agreement, and we were going to get everything we wanted. And you know what? That wasn't true.
SANDS: We will get everything we want, because President Trump is a strong president. I blame every president that came before him that didn't stop this program.
SELLERS: My kids are so excited every Christmas, and they get everything they want because Santa brings it.
PHILLIP: Let me play what President Trump said about the issue of the enriched uranium, as we've been discussing. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Have you actually secured an agreement on the discussions about the nuclear material and the nuclear negotiation?
TRUMP: Yes, conceptually on that, and nobody's getting close to it because it's buried under a mountain.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, I think this begs the question, are you comfortable, Scott, with a concept of a plan for the enriched uranium that Iran has in its possession?
JENNINGS: I mean, the truth is I don't know because there's so much going on behind the scenes here that is opaque to everybody sitting out here. It's hard for me to be definitive in a debating posture. I've been very optimistic, as Bakari pointed out, because they've been optimistic. They've been optimistic for, you know, a number of weeks.
Today's announcement seemed a little different to me. It felt like a little more immediate than the previous, you know, pronouncements that something might be on the brink. But, again, I don't know if that's true or not. This can only end, in my opinion, with him telling the American people definitively, I went in to stop them from ever being able to get a nuclear weapon, and that's how it ends.
[22:10:05]
That's the only way it can end.
SELLERS: Right. I agree with that.
JENNINGS: But I also think that we have to internalize that even if they do sign a piece of paper, you know, what's a piece of paper with an Iranian signature worth? Nothing. I mean, so I think an agreement with him is useless absent this, constant monitoring, being subdued militarily, being subdued economically, and being under constant surveillance from the partners in the region.
SELLERS: That sounds like the JCPOA.
JENNINGS: And so that is -- well, no. Wait. I think the president is --
SELLERS: That's literally what it is.
PHILLIP: Well, aspects of it are --
JENNINGS: The Gulf allies come into the table to keep Iran in check. That's new, and that is a good thing.
PHILLIP: I do think aspects of it are, to Bakari's point, what the JCPOA was trying to accomplish. I think you do have to give the other part of it, which is there is a sort of military option that Trump has put on the table that was not there before. So, that's real.
But on the rest of the allies in the region, I mean, the biggest question is often, is Israel on board? We're close part -- we went into this war with them. Here's what we know about that according to CNN. Israel was not aware of any impending agreement with Iran, a source told CNN, or any approval to an agreement, which appears to contradict Trump's claim on Truth Social.
Trump had claimed that a whole list of countries, Israel, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Turkey, Pakistan, you name it, they're all on board here, haven't really heard from any of them including Israel.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: And that's right. And they are -- they made clear that they're also not a party to this MOU, which, signaling that they're -- this is not their thing, showing some distance between them and Trump. And I thought that was interesting, because the president did try to make it seem like they were on board somehow, but then yet they're still showing some distance.
On the president, really, you know, on whether we will hear something definitive from the president about, you know, any sort of agreement, what's in it, et cetera, he was definitive back in the day when he did talk about obliterating the nuclear program, and that's a -- I mean, that's a pretty definitive statement. That was not true at the end of the day.
And so I do think that all of these announcements one by one, they -- when you look at the totality of them, the American people just don't trust him anymore.
I also do think that the Republican Party generally thought that this would be over within a few weeks. That's what Donald Trump said. That's what he promised them. When I mention this could go on until September, I don't know how many Republicans were, that's insane, you know? And now here we are. We are in June. This is not going to be over any time soon, and you're heading into the midterm elections where there's no relief for the American people, and this will only hurt the Republican Party.
JENNINGS: I think the Israel piece is interesting because their interest in this is -- I mean, they have to live in the neighborhood, and they have to live with Hezbollah firing rockets into Northern Israel. So, they have different equities in this.
And so, yes, I mean, they've been a good partner here to militarily subdue Iran, but they can't really sign onto an agreement that shackles themselves from being able to defend themselves from these terror proxies.
And so I wouldn't -- I'm not surprised to see them keeping a little distance from this. They simply cannot enter into a deal that would ever prevent them from defending their own homeland.
PHILLIP: But Iran has said that is going to be -- that is one of their red lines, is that the conflict has to end, not just with, as it relates to Iran, but also as it relates to Hezbollah.
BOOT: Remember what's striking to me here is what we're not talking about, which are the objectives that President Trump actually laid out when he launched this war at the end of February. We're talking about one of the objectives, which is to end the nuclear program, which is still very much in play and on the table, but he talked about regime change, about replacing the Iranian regime. He talked about cutting off Iranian support for terrorist proxies, like Hezbollah. That's off the table. He talked about ending the Iranian missile program. That's off the table. They still have most of their missiles. They were just firing them in the last few days.
So, what we're seeing is these incredibly shrinking war objectives where most of the things that Trump said he was going to accomplish, they're not even in play anymore, and the question is, can he even achieve more on the nuclear side than President Obama achieved through negotiations? And it's not clear yet whether that will happen.
SELLERS: And nothing happens in a vacuum. And I think that while we're talking about the conflict, and I actually agree with Scott when it comes to the role that Israel plays and Israel having a right to defend itself, we still have Americans who are here who are paying higher gas prices. We still have Americans who are here. I mean, we're talking to farmers in Iowa, which is why Democrats are giddy about races in Iowa right now because of the cost just to have soybeans because fertilizer is so high.
I mean, the American public is paying a price for what we're doing in Iran right now, and the American public's not dumb. I mean, they recognize this, and they see the correlation. They may not understand how we get out of it, but they don't understand why we're there, but they understand the pain that they're paying.
[22:15:03]
SANDS: I disagree. I think Americans know the reason that we're there. The fact that President Trump is the first U.S. president to say, no nuclear weapon, and we're going to take away your ability to attack the United States, he's protecting us. They say, death to America every day.
So, what I think is this is -- but this is a big deal. What President Trump has done is he's protecting the U.S. people. And the number one responsibility for a U.S president is to protect the people of the United States.
SELLERS: Was there a concern? Was there a immediate concern, or --
SANDS: It's a little temporary pain for the people.
HINOJOSA: They don't understand. Have you seen Donald Trump's approval rating? You're probably the only one who thinks Donald Trump is doing an amazing job.
SANDS: I actually think -- no, I actually think he's going to get the job done by September. It will not last until September because the Iranians can't hold out. At some point, they're going to have to cap off their wells.
SELLERS: They've held out for decades.
HINOJOSA: I would not --
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Last word to you, Scott.
JENNINGS: I mean, look, I think it was an immediate issue, not just on the nuclear piece. I mean, look, they've been at war with us for 47 years. But since October the 7th, it's been clear that Iran wants to destabilize the region and execute on their two main goals, death to Israel and death to America. And they were willing to fund terror proxies, and they're willing to, you know, do these things until somebody stands up and punches the bully in the nose, and that's what Donald Trump has done.
When it will end, I don't know. I'm optimistic and I'm hopeful, and hope springs eternal, but you cannot let these people run amok the way they have been run amok for the last half century.
BOOT: Well, remember that last June, Trump bombed the Iranian nuclear program and claimed it had been obliterated. So, why do we need another war if he'd already obliterated it a year ago?
HINOJOSA: Well, public opinions are different than private opinions.
PHILLIP: All right. Max, thank you very much for being with us.
Next for us, the president appears to be giving in to pressure, naming a new pick to lead the intelligence agencies after backlash to his first one, but this pick also raises questions about elections.
Plus, just in, Trump and his allies are reportedly working on a plan to void his impeachments. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, Donald Trump's interim pick for national intelligence director may soon be out of a job. After facing bipartisan backlash for selecting Bill Pulte, who has no national security experience, today, Trump announced that he'll be nominating U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton for the role. Clayton is currently serving as the top prosecutor for the Southern District of New York and has served as the SEC chairman in the Trump first term.
But Trump's elevation of Pulte continues to have consequences for his administration. In protest to Pulte's appointment today, House Democrats voted to block the temporary renewal of a powerful surveillance law. They were joined by 19 Republicans. Ahead of the nation's 250th birthday and just as the World Cup is kicking off here in the U.S., failure of that bill could limit what the intelligence agencies can do to collect information abroad.
Now, Trump says that he intends to install an acting director until Clayton is confirmed. And Bill Pulte, I think, is itching really to get into the job as quickly as possible because the clock is ticking. But I have questions about whether this is actually even going to resolve the problem for Trump because, you know, Clayton's going to get a look. He's going to get a look from Republicans and from Democrats. But if he puts Pulte in there to start messing around at DNI, that could still be a problem.
JENNINGS: I agree with that. And we'll have to see how the members of Congress react to that possibility. I think the Senate will have a hearing for Clayton on either June the 16th or 17th and Pulte is scheduled to start on the 19th. So, it's a tight timeframe. Senator Thune said today it would be hard to get him confirmed that quickly, but they were going to do everything they could.
Interestingly, I think if the president had made this announcement last night, it might have saved him some grief on the House floor today because it would've shown that he was being responsive to some of the concerns. But the real disaster here is going dark on FISA. I mean, not being able to pay attention to what these foreign terrorists would like to do to the United States is a national security emergency. HINOJOSA: So, it doesn't -- so, actually, FISA doesn't go dark. It doesn't actually go dark until March of 2027. There are authorities that are in place, and they can still collect information for the next year.
JENNINGS: Why does every article say it goes dark tomorrow?
HINOJOSA: That is the way that it currently works. I've talked to national security officials. It doesn't actually go dark right away. You still -- there is an apparatus in place for them to collect information.
When it -- the reason why 702 and FISA, the reason why this is so important right now when it comes to Pulte is Pulte does not have any national security experience, and the role of DNI is 702, is FISA. And the fact that we would be entrusting him with a critical national security tool raises a lot of questions And it should raise a lot of questions with Congress immediately.
He should not be in that position in the first place at all, any days serving. I understand there's someone else that's new that's going to come in and that will be able to be confirmed and has some sort of national security experience. But the reality is that there is a big fear that a political hack like Pulte will be -- he's absolutely -- it doesn't matter that president --
PHILLIP: Let me let her finish her sentence.
HINOJOSA: It doesn't matter. President Trump trusts him. That's actually the problem. The problem is that he does President Trump's bidding and he has been the person who has gone after President Trump's enemies.
[22:25:04]
It does not -- the statute says that the person to be nominated and to be at DNI has -- needs to be someone with a national security background, and Pulte has zero national security experience, zero national security experience.
SANDS: Yes. Jay Clayton is a great guy. He's going to do a great job as DNI. Jay Clayton and I debated at the Harvard Club --
PHILLIP: I think she was talking about Pulte, is what she was saying.
HINOJOSA: Pulte has no national security experience. He should not be in the building ever.
SANDS: And I will say this, Jay Clayton's going to do a great job. Jay Clayton and I debated Democrats in 2024 at the Harvard Club, and we won against the Democrats. He's a terrific guy, and he does have security experience.
PHILLIP: Okay. Well, let me --
JENNINGS: So, is it 100 percent, like they can keep -- because, to me, that, that actually changes the conversation here. If it's true that these authorities still exist for several months on data collection, that actually makes me feel a little better because I've been under the impression that this was sort of a deadline emergency.
HINOJOSA: The four -- yes. They are allowed to collect some information. It doesn't just go dark overnight.
PHILLIP: Let me play just on the question of Clayton and why Trump might have thought, okay, maybe I can work with this guy, here's an interaction that he had earlier this week on CNBC. And, strangely, it's about California's election practices. He's in the Southern District of New York, but he's talking here about California. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can you give me an idea of what's happening in California right now?
JAY CLAYTON, DIRECTOR OF NAITONAL INTELLIGENCE NOMINEE: No, I actually can't, which I think is the problem. On the integrity side, we're doing an absolutely terrible job, and the American people are right to question it. How come we can have an audit trail in every other aspect of our lives that's important?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Here's the issue. California's election law allows ballots postmarked by Election Day.
I mean, that doesn't sound like fraud. You can argue whether the law makes sense, but that doesn't sound like a fraudulent situation.
CLAYTON: No. There's a great phrase, opportunity for fraud.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: One of the things we know about what Trump wanted Bill Pulte to do was to investigate what he calls election fraud, which is based on, frankly, no evidence and lies. So, to hear Jay Clayton say that kind of out of the blue, frankly, it seems to be music to Trump's ears in this moment.
SELLERS: I mean, I think that Jay Clayton is light years better in terms of qualification than Bill Pulte, and I think that's where we are. I mean, I think the bar was really low with Bill Pulte. I think that you clearly articulated why he should not be in that position. Having no national security experience and being DNI, I mean, it sounds like Tulsi Gabbard, right? So, we didn't want to go down that path.
JENNINGS: She was a military officer, for goodness sake.
SELLERS: Yes. Well, she was -- I mean -- and, you know, it was crazy.
HINOJOSA: The bar is low, like --
SELLERS: The bar is low, and, I mean, member of Congress doesn't get you too far. But I will say that she was more qualified than Bill Pulte. So, thank you for helping me make my point.
I think there is more of a political salient point as well that I just think that as we go through this primary cycle and Donald Trump continues to check off these primary victories, right, and choosing individuals, we're seeing that at large he's losing his grip of power in Washington, D.C., because there are individuals who are now willing to buck the president of the United States.
I think you saw that today. I think you wouldn't have necessarily seen that four, five, six months ago. I mean, during the break we were talking about senators that are uncontrollable. That number of senators is growing exponentially. I mean, and now you have one of the more powerful senators in Washington, D.C., who is simply not going along with it, who is Cornyn --
PHILLIP: Just to your point, here's what Cornyn said in a new interview. He said, I think it's going to be a pretty bumpy ride for the next seven months, he says. It does some -- give some of us a little freedom, and certainly leverage. He says, we've got some cards to play.
SELLERS: I mean, McConnell, Cornyn, Tillis, that's three votes.
JENNINGS: Cassidy?
SELLERS: Cassidy, oh, yes, that's four votes. That's four votes that the president simply cannot just wave his magic wand and say simply, come to the White House and vote this way, or tweet about them, because they could give a care less.
And so I think that the way that the governance is going to happen over the next year -- and this is actually the most important issue we're probably going to talk about, which is FISA, the role of FISA, you know, what happens to it with the World Cup happening, all of these things about safety and security. This is probably the most important issue facing the American public, and right now we have some independence within the Republican Party, which is something I couldn't say even four months ago.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, breaking news, the president is trying to get Congress to void his impeachments as he continues to focus on his legacy. We'll debate, next.
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight, Donald Trump wants to erase his impeachments through a process that will almost certainly open up a debate about his past behavior in office.
According to "The Wall Street Journal," Trump and his allies have discussed pushing lawmakers to pass a resolution symbolically expunging his first two impeachments. No constitutional procedure exists for undoing an impeachment, but Trump says that it should be done because, quote, "I did nothing wrong." The measure would not be considered until after the midterms. And even
then, House Republicans say it could prove difficult to pass, particularly if, obviously, Republicans don't hold on to the House.
[22:35:02]
But this is exactly the kind of thing that people like John Cornyn are warning about. He says -- this is what Cornyn said to "The New York Times."
He said that Trump - "Senate Republicans believe that Trump was hurting his own party with self-serving decisions and his insistence on slavish loyalty, ultimately setting himself up for a midterm disaster that would pave the way for the most miserable two years of his life. And in the interim, Cornyn says, he reserves the right to choose where I'm going to or not going to defer to Mr. Trump."
I cannot think of anything that is a worse distraction than relitigating Trump's two impeachments. Before, after the midterms, I can't, it doesn't really matter.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: It doesn't erase the fact that he was the only president impeached twice. It doesn't erase the fact that now the American people will remember that he was impeached twice. And it doesn't do anything for his party. It doesn't do anything to bring down costs. It is only for one purpose, and that is eat his ego. So, if I were a Republican, I'd just be pissed.
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This is the best idea Donald Trump's had in a very long time. And I think that everyone around the table needs to make sure that Donald Trump, I know you're watching us right now, but please let's, let's go down this path.
I mean, you deserve to have this argument in front of the American people about your impeachments. In fact, I want us to have this discussion in North Carolina. I wanted to have it in Ohio, maybe Maine, Texas.
If we're getting a little freaky, we want to make sure that we have this discussion in front of the American public because as we go down, self -- the lack of self-awareness, this is right up there with something Donald Trump should smile about tonight.
CARLA SANDS, FOREIGN POLICY INITIATIVE CHAIR, AMERICA FIRST POLICY INSTITUTE: Political assassination by the Democrats on President Trump. They have Trump derangement syndrome. They had fake impeachments on President Trump.
PHILLIP: What are we even talking about?
SANDS: He would like his impeachments to be expunged from the record. I don't blame him. It's his legacy. And he's been a target of the Democrats over and over. In fact, they said if they take back the House, they're going to immediately impeach him again. Like enough is enough. This is so distracting to the American people.
PHILLIP: I just want to be clear. Expunging impeachments is not a thing.
SANDS: He can make it a thing.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: I got to ask the question. I don't even know if it's possible. I didn't want to go down that path. I'm like --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: There's a thing that's in the Constitution and it is that you can impeach a president. The thing that's not in the Constitution or anywhere else for that matter is expunging an impeachment. So this, I mean to say, to call it symbolic, I think is almost even overstating the thing. It seems like frankly, a waste of time or just a transparent play to make Trump feel good on a particular day. What's the point?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, it's, I mean, I don't know if you want to use the word symbolic or not, but it's a political statement to say that this wasn't fair when it happened. And you have different political actors who are making a different statement.
My view is the impeachments were, I don't know if expunged is the right word, but they were obliterated or done away with when he beat the rap in the Senate. I mean, he was never convicted on any of the charges.
SELLERS: The same thing Bill Clinton said.
JENNINGS: Well, I mean, ever, I mean, so it, look, we adjudicated this already and I, you know, the political analysis I think is correct, would be hard to pass. I did interview a member of Congress the other day, Darrell Issa of California. I think has filed legislation to do this. I think it has a number of co-sponsors.
Look, I think it would attract a lot of Republican votes, but would it attract all the Republican votes or enough Republican votes? I don't know the answer to that.
I agree with Carla. I think if the Democrats take back the House, these old impeachments will be the least of anybody's concerns because they'll move on another one immediately.
HINOJOSA: But do you think it's a helpful message going into the midterms that you're talking about impeachment as like --
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: I don't -- you tell me, the people running for Congress and your party are talking about it every day.
HINOJOSA: No, actually, our -- actually they are talking every day about lowering costs. That's what they're talking about. They --
JENNINGS: You well know that when asked directly, most Democrats say Donald Trump should be impeached again.
PHILLIP: Democrats who are running for Congress have said that Trump should be impeached again?
JENNINGS: You would be hard-pressed I think to find a Democrat who would go on the record saying you know what? No. What they do say is everything he does is illegal. Everything he does is unconstitutional. Everything he does is worthy of some sort of a punishment. So, if you tell your base that --
HINOJOSA: Well, that's because -- well, that's because the courts have said it's unconstitutional.
JENNINGS: -- if you tell your base that --
HINOJOSA: It's at the courts. The courts have said a lot about what he is unconstitutional.
JENNINGS: If you tell your base that, they'll expect you to act on it.
HINOJOSA: No, that's what they're talking about.
JENNINGS: Can you guarantee right now they won't impeach him? You can't.
SELLERS: I think, I think that --
HINOJOSA: No, but we also don't know what Donald Trump's going to do between the last two years.
SELLERS: I think that the American public also see the grift that is Donald Trump and Donald Trump, Inc. and the Trump family and Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. I think that they see -- (CROSSTALK)
SANDS: (inaudible) -- changing the subject.
HINOJOSA: No.
SELLERS: No, no.
JENNINGS: He wants to --
SELLERS: No, what I'm saying is that -- what I'm saying is the American public, right now, we're talking about Trump's impeachment for his legacy.
SANDS: You want to about President Biden and --
(CROSSTALK)
SANDS: He was on the take from every major adversary.
SELLERS: First of all, what?
[22:40:00]
Let's all back up. Let's just be extremely clear. The wealth of Donald Trump has grown exponentially. We haven't seen anybody make this many trades.
SANDS: He's a real businessman.
SELLERS: No, he's a grifter. The difference is --
SANDS: Listen to you.
SELLERS: Do you understand that someone --
SANDS: He's the President of the United States.
SELLERS: Yes, and he's monetizing it. He's monetizing --
HINOJOSA: Yes, and the President of the United States is benefitting on the presidency. Do you not see that?
SELLERS: He's made more stock trades than any president in the history of this country. He's literally --
(CROSSTALK)
SANDS: Unbelievable president working every day so half of the American people can make their lives better.
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: No, no. Can I ask you a question? Can I ask you a question? Can I ask you a very, just plain question?
SANDS: Ask me --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: Has the President of the United States benefitted or enriched himself by making stock trades then mentioning --
(CROSSTALK)
SANDS: I have no idea --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: No, no -- then mentioning those same companies from his pedestal as President of the United States.
SANDS: I know the senators do it but I don't know if the President --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: You don't know if Donald Trump's done this.
SANDS: I haven't followed that but I do know that the senators -- (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: He has, on several occasions, including when it comes to companies like Dell, he said at the White House, go buy Dell. Then hundreds of trades of that stock. The stock goes up, he benefits from it. And that's just one aspect of this.
There's also his family doing business and drones in cryptocurrency and other areas where they are either getting contracts from the federal government or the President has the ability to regulate those industries to their benefit.
So, those are the types of questions that are on the table right now that are very real. And that I think, you know, Bakari is hinting at, Democrats are going to look into whether that looks like impeachment or not.
SELLERS: It's called accountability and oversight.
PHILLIP: It might just be oversight and that might be it, you know?
SANDS: He's not trading himself.
JENNINGS: But they do want to impeach him. You know they do.
HINOJOSA: No, they do oversight. They will do oversight.
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: Guaranteeing no one --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: I will guarantee you they will do oversight and they're going to look into --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: And of course members of Congress -- no, no. Let's back up. Let's be honest. Members of Congress always file impeachments. I mean, Shri filed an impeachment resolution. I believe Al Green filed an impeachment resolution. That's going to happen. But also, you're going to have Democrats who are talking like Sherrod Brown, who's talking about things like inflation.
JENNINGS: Let me ask you a question. If you went to a Democratic political dinner tonight and somebody asked you in front of the crowd, should we impeach Donald Trump? And you said, no. What would happen to you? Would you be thrown out in three seconds or one second?
HINOJOSA: Democrats are not running on impeachment and that is not what they're talking to the American people. No, they aren't. It's a fact, Scott. They are not running on impeachment.
SELLERS: Wait, don't ask me. I mean, I think the President of the United States should be impeached, but I am not running for nothing. PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, we're getting our first look at the
UFC cage at the White House that's been set up for Trump's birthday fight night, and also the price tag associated with it. Plus, who's behind the mysterious 8647 marking that has been etched into the lawn of the National Mall? We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:47:32]
PHILLIP: We are three days away from the UFC fight on the White House South Lawn, but the true scale and scope of the event is now just coming into focus.
In a new court filing responding to a lawsuit that argues the event is unlawful, the Trump administration says that the event costs well over $60 million, and that tens of thousands of hours of labor have been expended. They also say that more than seven federal agencies have allocated significant resources and manpower in preparation for this event.
Four thousand people will be in attendance at the White House while 120,000 will watch at the ellipse. That's much more than the 20 to 25,000 that Trump initially said.
And the UFC says that they're going to be footing the bill, which includes the new octagon cage, which is very visible, at the back of the White House, and a substantial amount of perishable food and as many as 494 porta potties. But that still doesn't mean that there has been no taxpayer money spent on this and other logistics.
This continues to be one of the more perplexing things happening at the White House. I do wonder, Scott, why? Why are we doing this to the tune --
JENNINGS: Four hundred ninety-four porta potties.
PHILLIP: That's a lot of porta potties.
JENNINGS: Somewhere Graham Platner is booking an airline ticket.
PHILLIP: To the tune of $60 million.
HINOJOSA: Nine hundred contractors.
JENNINGS: I mean, look, here's what I think. This is a cool thing. I saw it today, by the way. I was out on the street. They were testing the sound. I mean, it looks pretty cool. It's part of the America 250 celebration. It's not uncommon for presidents to have interactions with the entertainment world. It happens all the time. Doing it on the South Lawn of the White House is a little unusual.
PHILLIP: And you can see it glowing there.
JENNINGS: But that's okay.
PHILLIP: It's actually even more obvious when the lights are fully on.
JENNINGS: Oh, when you see it from the back, it's crazy.
PHILLIP: Yes.
JENNINGS: And the video boards are cool. But I think we need unusual things for America 250. This is a huge deal.
PHILLIP: This is not a circus. We don't need unusual things.
JENNINGS: America 250 is a big deal. We ought to be coming up with spectacles to celebrate the birthday of the country. And this is one of them. I think it's awesome.
SELLERS: I don't really care. And I think most Americans don't really care. I think that most Americans, when they see it, probably think it's a little tacky. But at the end of the day, I mean, I went to a lot of parties in Barack Obama's administration in the East wing.
I mean, we had, you know, jazz parties, and we had hip hop parties and we had, you know, poetry night.
[22:50:00]
And we had all of these things at the White House. I've been to the Naval Observatory and had parties with Joe Biden. I mean, it happens.
Donald Trump is an extremely tacky man. So, this is something that goes with that. I mean, he likes gaudy. He likes like lights and bolts.
HINOJOSA: And for his adios, he wants that.
SELLERS: And so that's fine. It's his prerogative, but I don't want us to chase every shiny object that Donald Trump puts out there.
PHILLIP: I just have to play this. This is Marco Rubio talking about the UFC and comparing it to, I don't know, I guess the space launch or something. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: When President Kennedy announced that we were going to put a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth, no one thought that was possible and we did it. We are a nation founded on doing what no one else dared to do and no one else aspired to do. And at some level, that's what this whole company, what UFC has been.
Today, you have one of the most recognizable American sports brands on the planet. And in and of itself, I think reflects so much the American spirit is reflected in this American company.
Here's the second point. It truly is the United Nations are fighting. If you think about the number of countries that are represented, and I think that roster will continue to grow. (END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Hats off to his speechwriter for making those tie-ins. What do you think? What do make of it?
SANDS: I think men are having their moment. I mean, we the basketball finals, have the FIFA, and then now we have the UFC. It's an amazing moment in America. And I think men have really gotten the short shrift for quite a while in the United States.
PHILLIP: Have they?
SANDS: Well, women dominate in employment. Women dominate in college and universities, even in graduate programs. Men are having their moment.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: (inaudible) make more money than women to do the same job here in these United States of America in 2026. You're in the business world. You know that. So, men are doing just fine in terms of dominating Fortune 500 company leadership in terms of running pretty much every institution that we have in this country. I think they're okay.
SANDS: I think it's time for men to have a turn.
JENNINGS: I totally agree with the ambassador. She's the ambassador to men now.
HINOJOSA: I just want to, you know, point out that, like, the Republican Party believes that men have been wronged in this country and therefore it's time to celebrate them, which is something else. What I find interesting about this is --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: -- and I will say that Democrats are doing better with women and then Republicans are right.
JENNINGS: How you all doing with men? The two (inaudible) of men are Platner and Talarico. How you all doing with it?
HINOJOSA: You know what I'll say is that we're going to be doing just fine whenever we win in midterm elections in November. But at the end of the day, this is a birthday party for Donald Trump. This hoopla --
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: -- everything, well, it's the reason why we're really doing it is because it's his birthday, and the American people can't even watch this free. They have to in order to it's going to be streamed on paramount they have to have a paramount subscription in order to watch the entire UFC fight and all of the celebration. And if we were really trying to just celebrate the 200 --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: When is this happening?
PHILLIP: Sunday.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: -- why would it - why wouldn't we just do it for --make it for free? Why wouldn't we just have a free event?
SELLERS: Is John Jones going to be there?
PHILLIP: The tickets are -- the tickets for the people watching in person will be free but for the rest of the --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: Is John Jones participating? Do you know --
PHILLIP: I don't know.
SELLERS: He's the best UFC fighter in the world.
PHILLIP: All right, next for us, the panel's going to give us their nightcaps, "Comeback" edition. But first, a quick programming note for you. Award-winning actors Sally Field and Noah Wiley sit down to talk about their decades in the industry in a new episode of "Variety's Actors on Actors." Stream their episode and many more on the CNN app.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:58:25]
PHILLIP: New York is still celebrating after the Knicks completed the largest comeback in NBA Finals history. And so for tonight's News Nightcap, what is your favorite historic comeback? Carla, you're up first.
SANDS: Oh my gosh. Well, it's Donald J. Trump coming back from the abyss. I mean, he was in the winter for four years getting ready for this term. And that's why he's been so effective and has such a great team around him.
PHILLIP: Somehow I knew you were going to say that. Xochi.
HINOJOSA: The Backstreet Boys. They're back. They're at The Sphere.
UNKNOWN: These are equally as bad, I want you to know.
HINOJOSA: I just want to let you know that the Backstreet Boys are at the Sphere in Las Vegas --
PHILLIP: We love the Backstreet Boys.
HINOJOSA: -- until July or August or sometime. And everyone should go. I would like to go. PHILLIP: It's a very popular concert.
HINOJOSA: It's a very popular concert.
PHILLIP: All right.
SELLERS: I'm going to do Usher and Jeezy. I think this is incomparable. I think, I actually turned it off when they were down 26 points.
PHILLIP: Oh --
(CROSSTALK)
SELLERS: I woke up morning. I was at Studio Fire and Hot Yoga, and my phone was going crazy talking about the game last night.
PHILLIP: You went to sleep, too?
SELLERS: Oh, I went night-night. I said my "Now I Lay Me" and went to bed.
(CROSSTALK)
UNKNOWN: And then went to yoga.
SELLERS: This was -- being down 29 points. Shout out to Carl Anthony Towns. Oh, gee, Josh Hart, Mike Brown and all the Knicks fans. They deserve it. I hope they have a party in the city on Saturday night.
PHILLIP: Now you learned your lesson. You'll never do that again.
SELLERS: No, I'm not going to sleep on the Knicks. "Knicks in Five."
PHILLIP: Don't ever sleep on the Knicks.
SELLERS: "Knicks in Five."
PHILLIP: Scott?
JENNINGS: A lot of people have done a lot of great things. Nobody has ever rose from the dead since our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
SELLERS: Except the Knicks.
(CROSSTALK)
[23:00:00]
JENNINGS: Come on. On the third day, rising from the dead, undefeated, in my opinion.
PHILLIP: That is true. All right. That is true. And let the table say amen.
SELLERS: Amen. PHILLIP: All right, everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for
watching "NewsNight." Before we go, though, a special programming note for you.
"Summer Fridays" are back here on "NewsNight" as we take the show on a little field trip. We're going to be broadcasting our roundtable from the Food Network Test Kitchen. We'll have food, drinks, some lively conversations all starting tomorrow night. Don't miss it. In the meantime, "Laura Coates Live" picks it up right now.
