Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
White House Refuses To Release Iran Agreement Amid Outcry; Vance Says, Strait Of Hormuz Will Be Toll-Free, Iran Says, Planning Fees; Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) Says Trump DOJ Is Investigating Him And His Wife; White House Refuses To Condemn UFC Fighter's Smear With Michelle Obama At The Freedom 250 Event; Robert De Niro Can't Love The United States Under A Tyrant Trump. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 15, 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 HOST (voice over): Tonight, conservatives unleash on Donald Trump's agreement with Iran, calling it a surrender.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm anxious to see what the details of the deal are and what gets negotiated, but I'm concerned.
PHILLIP: Plus, he's a potential 2028 contender and one of the president's foes. Now, Gavin Newsom says the DOJ is investigating his family.
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D-CA): Leave my wife and family out of your personal vendetta.
PHILLIP: Also, the White House refuses to condemn a fighter's smear against Michelle Obama, despite widespread outrage.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That has to be an immediate denounce.
PHILLIP: Also, Robert De Niro goes Raging Bull ahead of America's 250th birthday.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't love the country that's led by Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Charles Blow, Scott Jennings, Sabrina Singh, Jesse Arm, and Ana Navarro.
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.
Tonight, Trump has surrendered to Iran. That is how conservative Erick Erickson is describing the little-known agreement between the United States and Iran that was signed virtually yesterday. Erickson took his criticism even further, claiming, those who kill Americans love this deal.
But the truth is, we don't know what exactly was agreed to, and what we do know changes, depends on who you ask. Questions remain about whether Iran will have access to billions of dollars of frozen funds, and what, if any, concessions Iran has already agreed to. And while the White House claims that the Strait of Hormuz will be open toll free, Iranian officials say it will have fees. Even the question of when we will actually see the text of this agreement isn't clear. J.D. Vance says maybe tomorrow. Trump says Friday.
But Erickson is not the only Republican taking issue with the lack of transparency around this deal. Fox News Host Mark Levin questions why the American people can't see the, quote, damn MOU. If it's a great outcome for peace, then release it. He added, don't brief a few anointed ones to control the narrative and expect everyone else to sit silently. Controlling the narrative can only last so long.
And a new Axios reports finds that there are some skeptics in this administration too. Sources tell them that the CIA director, John Ratcliffe, advised Trump on some intelligence that raises serious doubts about Iran's willingness to make nuclear concessions. The source also told Axios that Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, have both expressed concerns based on that intelligence.
Now, while Vance, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner have all advocated for this deal, we are now sitting here, I guess, more than a day after apparently the United States and Iran have signed onto some kind of agreement. We don't have any text. We just have anonymous officials, they won't even put their names on the statement, fighting over what is in it.
And I do think one of the basic things is if this agreement is a page and a half long, and it doesn't actually have any hard commitments on the nuclear issue, why are we even talking about sanctions relief? Why are we even talking about reconstruction funds or releasing any money at all?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, we're talking to them because we want this conflict to end, and we want to get to an ultimate goal where Iran doesn't have any, or the capacity to make any nuclear weapons. That is the principal goal. That's number one.
Number two, it would be wise for the administration to put this document out for everybody to look at, and they ought to do it as soon as they can, both for their allies who are interested, but also for the American people, because we've gone to war here. The American people deserve to know how this is going to come to an end.
Number three, I talked to the president on Sunday, and he was, you know, telling me he was about to sign something with Iran, and he did, and he was excited to get the Strait of Hormuz open. But he said something very important to me, which is, look, if they don't follow through on their commitments, we will start hitting them again. He's clearly not taken further military action off the table.
[22:05:00] So, we have some miles to travel down this road. The next mile will be on Friday when there's a formal signing. For the people who don't trust Iran, look, I agree with you. I think an Iranian signature is worth very, very little, but it could be worth something if the president keeps this Middle Eastern coalition together.
PHILLIP: What is your understanding of what this deal actually accomplishes?
JENNINGS: The accomplishment here principally would be getting all the nuclear material and destroying --
PHILLIP: In this deal?
JENNINGS: -- and getting it out of the country.
PHILLIP: Because that's not what's in this deal.
JENNINGS: No, that's the goal.
PHILLIP: No, I'm asking you, what do you think this MOU is about?
JENNINGS: Oh, sorry. I understand, the memorandum of understanding.
PHILLIP: Yes.
JENNINGS: So, 60 days ceasefire, open the Strait of Hormuz, and you have a window to finalize the discussions about ending the nuclear program. The president believes he's got them to agree to do that. They have 60 days to finalize that. And, again, I'll just stress, as he said to me on Sunday, if they don't follow through on that, I'll start hitting them again.
SABRINA SINGH, CNN POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Can I just say on the 60 days, though --
CHARLES BLOW, SUBSTACK AUTHOR, BLOW THE STACK: First of all, you believe this will be open?
SINGH: Well, can I just say that on what Scott was saying on the MOU, 60 days to negotiate anything with Iran when it comes to its nuclear program, we're not even talking about its ballistic missile program or support to its proxies, 60 days is aspirational at best.
I think what we understand this agreement to be is trying to restore the strait to pre-war conditions, where there was freedom of navigation that flew and international law was upheld. But right now we don't even know the details of this agreement because Iran is saying that they're going to charge some type of fee for ships going in and out of the strait, which would be highly illegal under international law.
But not only that, we don't know when the strait is open. We don't know when the blockade is ending, and we don't know -- I mean, the only ones that can determine if the strait is open, it's not Iran, it's not the United States, it's the shipping companies. If the shipping companies feel confident that they can sail through the strait unimpeded and safely, then they will do it, but we don't know that.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, whether you --
PHILLIP: Okay, let me let Charles say -- he wanted to get in. Go ahead.
BLOW: Well, the point you make about whether or not the strait will be open is, I think, the crucial one. The people who study this, it'll take months to clear it of mines, let alone try to figure out new navigation lanes that the Iranians want to put into effect in order to collect some fees. And then you have to worry about whether or not the shipping companies will be able to pay the insurance.
They have -- they're not paying war insurance, which is like a 900 percent increase in their insurance costs from before this war started. And the insurance companies have to be reassured and that they can bring those costs down and that the shipping companies are, have to be reassured that they will be able to pay the new costs to get through it.
No one believes that this happens in a couple of months. So, the idea that we can -- this deal may start the reopening, but it will not reopen the strait.
PHILLIP: I mean, I don't even know that we should even be calling it a deal of any kind, because, just to be clear, if it's a deal, you should be able to say before you even sign it, here's what we both agreed to.
Ana, did you know that John Thune, Senate majority leader, has not even been briefed? He told Manu Raju today. He has not been briefed on this.
NAVARRO: Actually, I did know that because I listen to Manu say that, and nobody in Congress has been briefed.
PHILLIP: The Israelis are asking, what's in this deal?
Under what circumstances would the United States sign a document with Iran and not tell anybody what was in it?
NAVARRO: And it's -- you know, I mean, if -- so J.D. Vance told Jake Tapper that it is a page and a half. My --
BLOW: I have tweets longer than that.
NAVARRO: -- grocery shopping list for Thanksgiving is longer than that. So, it's not like they -- that briefing them on what's in this MOU should be that difficult, because there doesn't seem to be that much in that MOU. I think it feels like it's kicking the can down the road and giving them 60 days to come up with something else.
But, you know, Donald Trump has done a terrible job selling this entire thing from the beginning. He never went in front of the American people. He never went in front of Congress to explain it thoroughly.
I think he gets another shot at doing it now, and he should do it, and he should do it expeditiously, because a lot of these attacks are coming from inside the House. So, if he doesn't even have his allies on board for selling this, he needs to be clear and transparent with the American people, and certainly with Congress. Because if he's going to be disbursing any money, they've got to authorize it.
JENNINGS: Well, first, on that point, there's no dispersal of funds. I know and this is what I wanted to address. I think the administration today has been pretty upset about what they say is misinformation flying around out there, even from some of their own --
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: Well, if I may finish.
PHILLIP: It's that simple.
JENNINGS: If I may. The quickest way to dispel any misinformation would, of course, be to put the document out and say, here's what our intentions are when we get to Friday, and here's what our intentions are over the 60-day period.
So, hopefully, they do that in the next 24 hours and that'll bring some clarity.
PHILLIP: Here's one other thing.
[22:10:00]
It doesn't count to claim, we are not going to be disbursing funds, if there's a $300 billion fund that we are authorizing to be disbursed to the Iranians, which I'll play what J.D. Vance said about that. That is not actually being disputed by the administration. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Iranians are saying that they're going to have access to a $300 billion reconstruction fund. True or false?
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Well, Ed, that's the sort of thing they could have access to funded by the Gulf Coast Coalition, so long as they honor their end of the obligation.
We absolutely are open to the Gulf Coast countries investing in the reconstruction of Iran, but only if Iran ends their nuclear program, ends their enriched stockpile of material, and is really open to an inspections and enforcement regime that gives the American people confidence they're never going to have a nuclear weapon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, there it is. What are they mad about?
JESSE ARM, VICE PRESIDENT AND POLLSTER, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Well, look, I mean, I don't think that --
PHILLIP: They said it in a call. Vance said it on T.V.
NAVARRO: $299 billion more than Obama negotiated with the Iranians.
PHILLIP: I don't think it matters whether -- when the JCPOA was signed, the money was not taxpayer dollars.
BLOW: It wasn't taxpayer money.
PHILLIP: That was Iranian money that was being held in frozen accounts. So, it doesn't matter if it's our money or not, right?
ARM: It's a good point. Even if it is the Gulf States' money, I don't think the median GOP base voter is going to be particularly thrilled with the notion of releasing $300 billion in funds to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. That's not why we got into this.
But here's what I will say. Me, personally, I'm a bomb the terrorist guy. If that didn't work and I was president, I would probably just bomb the terrorists some more. But I'm not the president, Donald Trump is. He was elected on a kind of dual message. One, the Iranians can never have a nuclear weapon, and, two, we're also not going to get into endless quagmire wars in the Middle East.
To me, this looks like the execution of that process.
SINGH: Can I just tell you that the bombing of terrorists, we can both agree on, but bombing Iran into submission did not work. And Iran -- in March, the president tweeted that Iran will unconditionally surrender, and that just has not happened.
ARM: Look, kinetically and militarily, this administration has set the Iranian nuclear program back years. It has set the ballistic missile program --
PHILLIP: Yes, it's set the nuclear program back to where it was when the JCPOA was in place.
ARM: But we've also done significant damage to the ballistic --
PHILLIP: But here's the other -- this is actually amazing to me, and, Sabrina, maybe you have some insights into this, and Charles too, because I know you talk about this a lot. Trump told The New York Times that Iran could enrich uranium forever for non-military purposes.
He said they could enrich to a low level that could -- it could never be used by the military. They could never go beyond a certain point. When asked whether that limit was the same as in the Obama-era agreement, which limited enrichment to 3.67 percent, a level that's usable in power reactors but not weaponry, he said that only the new -- only that the new accord would ensure that they could only enrich for non-military purposes forever.
The president is probably not aware that that very thing that he just said they could do is one of the main reasons why Republicans opposed the JCPOA. They did not believe --
NAVARRO: How could he not be aware?
PHILLIP: -- that they did not believe there should be any enrichment at all, okay?
BLOW: Right.
PHILLIP: So, he is already conceding that.
SINGH: And the first line of the JCPOA was that Iran commits to never having a nuclear weapon. And so, you know, this is what's concerning about this administration. And Scott and I have talked about this too. It's like the messaging from the beginning has been off. He didn't make the case to the American public.
And now, you know, unfortunately, the United States, I think, had the upper hand last year after Midnight Hammer was executed, and the, you know, enriched uranium was sitting under a pile of rubble. And, by the way, it still is because we haven't struck those sites. But now we have a completely different aspect at play here, which is the Strait of Hormuz.
And we're talking about negotiating on opening the strait, something that wasn't even a condition where this war began. It wasn't even a factor in the war.
ARM: But now we are -- so now we are --
PHILLIP: But just, Scott, does the president understand even what the differences are between what he is negotiating today and what he called a bad deal ten years ago?
JENNINGS: Well, I think he might say that one of the differences is that he's brought together all of the Arab states in the Gulf against Iran. We've never had that condition before where the Middle Eastern countries are saying, we've had enough of these guys and we're going to hold them to it. That's one difference.
PHILLIP: Okay.
BLOW: The JCPOA had the U.N.'s backing, it had the E.U.'s backing, and several other states outside the --
(CROSSTALKS)
BLOW: So, you trade the Gulf States for the rest of the western world?
JENNINGS: Their neighbors --
BLOW: For the rest of the western world?
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: China and Russia, the people who are actually most in a position to help Iran, were a part of the last deal to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. Today, we don't even -- we're not even talking about China. Yes. We're not talking about Russia.
ARM: Abby, you made a good point --
PHILLIP: Where are they?
ARM: Abby, you made a good point on the front end of this when you said we still don't know what's in this MOU, and then Ana actually made a good point, which is that there's 60 days going on longer where we don't know what's going to happen.
[22:15:04]
I happen to believe this president, if he likes one thing, it's optionality, okay? So, he's going to see where this leads. He's going to pursue this process. Look, there were a lot of people in this administration who were not supportive of where the president was at with his instincts with regard to Iran at the front end of this conflict.
Now, tables have shifted a little bit.
BLOW: You call it optionality, I call it aimlessness. I call it aimlessness.
NAVARRO: He may not understand what the difference is between the two deals, the Obama deal and the potential Trump deal, if we ever see one, but I will tell you, there --
ARM: I think the difference is it's backed up by credible force.
NAVARRO: There are going to -- let me finish. Let me finish. There's going to be a ton of experts who will explain it clearly to the American public once we see what this final deal is, and who are going to make a comparison and a contrast. And it's going to be very hard for Donald Trump to pretend he got a better deal, after he panned the other deal for ten years, if he didn't. I mean, he can say it over and over again, but it means that people, like Scott, who've been arguing what the deal needs to be for the last four months, is going to have to bend yourself into a pretzel shape to have some integrity.
ARM: If the deal is what the administration says it is, then it's a good deal. If the deal is what the Iranians say it is, then it's a bad deal.
NAVARRO: $300 billion?
(CROSSTALKS)
ARM: You haven't seen that page and a half, Charles.
BLOW: It doesn't matter what the page is -- it's a page and a half. The other deal was 159 pages. You know why? It took years to hammer it out. You know why? You have -- because the devil is in the details. You have to make sure the -- the Iranians are like rich people and tax loopholes. They're going to look for every one of them. They're going to look for every one of them. And the Iranians are going to look for every way to bend the deal so that they can get out of it and also still be adhering to it.
And so the reason you have to wait -- the reason -- can you just wait for one second? The reason that you have to negotiate for a very long time and hammer through every one of the minor issues, every date, every inspector access, is because you want to make sure that they can't weasel out of it. A page and a half is not going to do that.
And here's the problem. Here's the political, here's the political problem. So, let's say the Iranians know that they have the upper hand here. They say they don't come to an agreement in 60 days. Do you think that the president is going to go back and start bombing on the verge of the midterms, and send prices of gas through the roof?
ARM: Maybe.
BLOW: Then he'd be an idiot.
PHILLIP: And just one --
BLOW: He would be an idiot. He is an idiot. He's an idiot to get into it. AND he's going to be an idiot when he starts bombing again after the Iranians do this.
ARM: All right.
BLOW: He cannot get out of it without losing.
ARM: And then I'm an idiot.
BLOW: Look, you might be. I don't know. I never met you. I just met you tonight. You might be an idiot.
PHILLIP: All right. We're going to leave it there, guys.
Next for us, more breaking news tonight, Gavin Newsom says that the DOJ is investigating his wife, and has a blunt warning for Donald Trump.
Plus, a UFC fighter smears Michelle Obama at the White House, but the administration refuses to condemn it. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, California's Governor Gavin Newsom says that the Department of Justice is investigating his family. In a video posted to social media, Newsom said that the move is politically motivated.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
NEWSOM: Donald Trump isn't just coming after me because of my mean tweets. He's coming after me because I'm considering running for president, because he hates that I've consistently called him out over and over again for his lies and deceit. Donald Trump is simply the most corrupt president in American history. One by one, anyone who has challenged Donald Trump has ended up on his hit list, and today, I proudly join that list. If they can't intimidate me, they'll go after the mother of our children. Donald Trump picked the wrong target. We have nothing to hide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NAVARRO: Well, this is the most unorthodox presidential candidate announcement I've ever heard.
PHILLIP: A source tells CNN that there's no investigation directly into the governor, but DOJ is leading probes into people connected to him, including his wife, over possible tax-related crimes. The source says the DOJ's political leadership was not involved in the investigation's origin, but had instead been prompted by whistleblower reports last year.
CNN reached out to the FBI for comment, and the Justice Department declined to comment.
Ana, you were saying unconventional presidential announcement here.
NAVARRO: Unconventional presidential announcement. As in, Newsom's going to be out of office in six months. There's actually an issue that came up in the gubernatorial primaries and it involves a former Newsom chief of staff who, follow me here, committed fraud and stole campaign funds from Xavier Becerra, who is now the gubernatorial candidate frontrunner to be the next governor of California.
I have this weird suspicion and inkling that if Donald Trump and his DOJ, which I believe is weaponized against his enemies, can do anything to somehow revive that and tie it to Becerra to try to cause him harm, they will try to do that.
But the prosecutors have said, the DOJ have said already that Becerra was the victim in that case. It was his campaign funds that were stolen, but they were stolen by a former chief of staff of --
PHILLIP: Dana Williamson.
NAVARRO: Dana Williamson, of Newsom.
PHILLIP: The alleged activity was before she worked for Newsom. So, it really doesn't touch Newsom at all. However, his wife is a different story.
[22:25:01]
And I guess the real allegation here is that the feds are basically searching for a crime. They're pulling documents at random, going through them, talking to people, just trying to find something. This is CNN's reporting says that Newsom's office said the federal agents have contacted people at organizations connected to both the governor and his wife, and conducted interviews related to years of personal and professional activity. The office said it believes subpoenas have been sent based on what was asked in the interviews, but it has seen no proof. There was a recent flurry of activity related to the probe in recent weeks.
What do you make of it, Charles?
BLOW: You might want to go to the next person, because I don't know what to make of this story. Because, you know, there was a line in The New York Times story where one of the California prosecutors said that it was initiated by their offices, not by the feds. So, it's not clear to me where -- what's true here, if you clear out all the smoke, where the fire is.
You know, it is unfortunate that the president has gone after his political enemies, because you always -- that is always a suspicion. But right now it's just a suspicion, and what Newsom says, and we have to figure out what the facts are beyond those two things.
NAVARRO: You know what? It's hard to imagine that a guy who's been fantasizing about running for president as long as Newsom has would be reckless enough to not have crossed every T, dotted every I, particularly knowing that Donald Trump weaponizes his government against his enemies, and would not have, you know, been very judicious about things, like tax filings of him and his family.
PHILLIP: Well, to your earlier point --
JENNINGS: Wait, you're saying that you find it hard to believe that Gavin Newsom hasn't been or wouldn't have been reckless?
NAVARRO: Their taxes are publicly available.
JENNINGS: I mean, I think his years of personal judgment would indicate otherwise.
ARM: Anybody in our politics hasn't been reckless. I mean, there are plenty of instances of people not crossing their T's and dotting their I's.
BLOW: Wait, what is the personal references you talk about?
JENNINGS: Look, he's had all sorts of issues --
NAVARRO: He married Donald Trump Jr.'s ex.
BLOW: I want to hear this.
JENNINGS: Look, I think Gavin Newsom is not under investigation, according to our reporting. There was a local whistleblower. It's the local office that's looking into it. Some people have also said this investigation may actually date back to the Biden years. And I kind of agree with you. Beyond that, I don't really know anything else.
BLOW: You're dodging the question that we asked you, which was, what are you talking about with his personal issues?
ARM: How about the HESTD payments --
BLOW: Oh, so you have a --
ARM: -- which is something that The Washington Free Beacon has done reporting?
(CROSSTALKS)
ARM: Charles, I want to answer your question.
BLOW: Yes, I didn't ask you a question. So --
JENNINGS: Look, I think Gavin Newsom's had, you know, a career that has exhibited questionable judgment in office and in his personal life.
BLOW: Are you able to articulate what these are?
SINGH: I think you can criticize a record and someone's management of a state. I think that's different than going after and weaponizing the DOJ against their family. And they have publicly released their tax filings. I mean, they're available online.
ARM: What if his record in governing the state has been the subject of the DOJ's inquiry?
SINGH: Hold on. What I would say about, what I would say about this is to Charles's point is we don't have a lot of information about that.
PHILLIP: Well, they've said that they're not investigating him.
SINGH: Yes.
ARM: Yes.
PHILLIP: So, it's not. I mean --
ARM: So, it might be into his activities, right?
PHILLIP: No.
SINGH: They're not investigating him.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, as far as we know, I mean, from what we know, it is apparently not related to him personally or, you know, him in terms of his own individual activity. So, I mean, look, if it were related to his actions as governor, I mean, that would be a fairly easy thing to confirm or deny. So --
ARM: Well, we should explain what the HESTD payments are and what they do in California. They're essentially a legalized form of pay-to-play, where the governor can come forward and point to specific nonprofits, to elite donors --
PHILLIP: You just said that they were legal. Did you just say --
ARM: A legalized form of pay-to-play. It's legalized corruption.
PHILLIP: Okay. So, then why are we even talking about it? Because you just acknowledged that it's legal.
ARM: According to California's system.
(CROSSTALKS)
ARM: What is the point of having a pay-to-play relationship with your donors?
(CROSSTALKS)
NAVARRO: Number one, those activities are legal, and number two, he's not under investigation.
ARM: Excuse me. If you are then in turn -- the payments may be legal, but if you are handing out favorable political treatment then following --
SINGH: This argument doesn't make sense.
BLOW: Not at all.
(CROSSTALKS)
NAVARRO: He's not under investigation and the payments are legal. What are we talking about?
BLOW: What are you talking about?
PHILLIP: I'm going to leave that one there.
NAVARRO: Yes, I think we've done a lot of spinning.
PHILLIP: A UFC fighter hurls an insult at the former first lady, Michelle Obama. Meanwhile, Dana White calls it out. But from Trump's White House, we hear nothing, crickets, no condemnation. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, the Sunday Night Spectacle at the White House overshadowed by a smear. The Trump administration has refused to condemn a UFC fighter after he used his post-fight interview to disparage Michelle Obama.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOSH HOKIT, MIXED MARTIAL ARTIST: And lastly, Michelle Obama is a man, am I right America?
JOE ROGAN, UFC COLOR COMMENTATOR AND PODCAST HOST: Ladies and gentlemen, Josh Hokit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Before making that comment, he won his fight and gifted Donald Trump a necklace, complimenting the President for, quote, "having the balls to host a fight at the White House."
And while the UFC's CEO, Dana White, called the comments nasty and false, dismissing them as nonsense, the White House has remained silent on the incident. Dismissing them as nonsense, the White House has remained silent on the incident.
[22:35:04]
In response to an inquiry from CNN's Jake Tapper, the White House communications director, Stephen Cheung, said that Hokit had a great win last night. Officials declined to respond when pressed by Tapper. How shameful is it that Dana White has to be the one to say it's false and it's terrible and the White House can't say the same?
JESSE ARM, VICE PRESIDENT FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND POLLSTER, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE: Yes, I don't know. It seems like the easiest layup in the world, right? Just condemn it. It's absurd, it's nonsensical, it's not true. It's also like you had this good event. You managed to do it logistically, right? The weather somehow parted. You were able to put this thing together.
It wasn't the raining mosquito swamp that everybody anticipated it would be. You got some great pictures, some great shots, celebration of America. It was over the top. It was Trumpy. It was conservative, but it was patriotic. And that's kind of what they intended for, for America 250. So you've got this gross guy, who by the way shows up to the weigh-in, Josh Hokit, okay?
And he's vomiting on himself and talking about how he was drinking the night before. It's the easiest thing in the world. Just don't have this guy participate in the fight to begin with. They knew they had to do it with Sean Strickland, who's another crazy UFC guy.
PHILLIP: That's an argument. One of the reasons why a lot of people thought that having a UFC fight at the White House was in poor taste. And so you know that that's already the narrative going into this thing.
You have someone then say something that's horrible at the White House, right? About a former first lady. And these people in the White House, Stephen Cheung, the President, nobody has the guts or the decency to say that's inappropriate. It shouldn't have been said. It's wrong. Why?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR AND FORMER AIDE TO GEORGE W. BUSH: Yes. I would do that. I would say we don't endorse these comments. PHILLIP: But why won't they?
JENNINGS: I don't know. I haven't really talked to them about it.
PHILLIP: You talked to the President on Sunday.
JENNINGS: My assumption is, yes, Sunday morning. My assumption is that they get asked to condemn things all the time. Everybody, everywhere that says something, they're constantly being asked to condemn things. And my guess is they just sort of have a policy not to do it.
PHILLIP: Aren't there some things that they should condemn?
SABRINA SINGH, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR AND FORMER PENTAGON DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: This is a pretty easy one. This is the former first lady.
PHILLIP: I don't get it. The idea that they always have to condemn things is not an excuse for not condemning things that should be condemned.
CHARLES BLOW, SUBSTACK AUTHOR, "BLOW THE STACK" AND THE LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: He can't condemn it because he too has engaged in conspiracy theories against Michelle Obama. In December, he retweeted, reposted a meme about her having snuck into the Oval Office and used Joe Biden's auto pen to pardon people. He -- Donald Trump, reposted that.
In February, he reposted another smear of her that said she was an anti-white racist. And Don Jr., himself, two years ago on Trans Visibility Day, posted this very same meme that this guy expressed the other night, that Michelle Obama was trans, and he did not condemn it then, so he cannot condemn it now. So he is involved in it.
PHILLIP: They believe that this is something that's near and dear to the hearts of their base, and so they coddle it.
ARM: I think not apologizing. What Democrat apologized for when Tim Walz and all these elected Democrats on the campaign trail were pumping out the notion that J.D. Vance was having sex with a couch, which is an equally absurd and ridiculous story to tell. Our politics are getting really ugly.
PHILLIP: I agree.
ARM: We should all condemn this stuff.
PHILLIP: I actually agree with you on that. I always thought that the couch memes were just beneath the dignity of people seeking the high office. I will say one thing. Michelle Obama is a former first lady, okay? She's a former first lady, period. So to me, it's not that hard to
say, we don't go there.
But again, to Charles' point, this is the same President who reposted an image of the Obamas as apes, not a long time ago, and he didn't apologize for it.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR AND PODCAST HOST, "BLEEP WITH ANA NAVARRO": Well, listen, this line of attack against Michelle Obama has been going on in right-wing extremist circles for years and years. So he doesn't want to confront it, because it would mean confronting part of his base. He doesn't want to condemn it or apologize for that, because he thinks that shows weakness.
But all I'll say is this. Whenever there is a Democrat back in the White House, and they invite Robert De Niro, and Robert De Niro stands in the White House and says, fuck Trump, or starts talking about what Melania Trump did, I don't want anybody who has remained silent right now raising their hand or saying a thing.
Because there's things that are just condemnable. These are the same people who want a comedian fired because of a lame joke about Melania Trump. And yet, they don't have the, you know, the guy said he had the balls to host the UFC, but he doesn't have the balls to condemn what is clearly condemnable.
PHILLIP: Let me play what Dave Portnoy said about all of this. He's the Barstool Sports founder.
[22:40:09]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVE POTNOY, FOUNDER, BARSTOOL SPORTS: I do think Trump has to denounce and anybody associated with it has to denounce. When you have that on the White House lawn, on an event you put down, I don't care what you think about the Obamas or anything.
That has to be an immediate denounce, like, wrong, doesn't speak for me. Trump should denounce it. He should say that was totally wrong. The event itself, listen, the troops seem to love it. All the people there seem to love it.
I have no problem with it. I think you're crying over spilled milk if you are upset about the actual event. But that comment, if you're going to do it, own it and be like, we don't have that. That was wrong and should never happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SINGH: Well, not only can I just say that not only has this comment now overshadowed this event, to your point about the time and effort that this took, I mean, there was a pretty incredible flyover that took place for the event. This is now completely overshadowed it.
And it's so simple to just condemn this comment. And Dave Portnoy speaks to Trump's base. If he can do it, I mean, it seems like this would be so simple. And I think we're all in agreement that this should be condemned by the time.
ARM: The portion of our discourse is bad, and Portnoy is not.
SINGH: No, not at all. That's what I mean. I don't think we're expecting.
JENNINGS: Actually, it's not true. Remember at the end of the campaign, when that comedian made the comment at Madison Square Garden--
NAVARRO: About Puerto Rico being an isle of unloading islands of trash?
JENNINGS: The campaign actually did condemn it. They did put out a statement.
ARM: Look, Portnoy's a smart guy, he's a Michigan man. So there's no surprise there. I honestly think if both parties took a little bit of their communication.
BLOW: Oh, we're not going to equalize here. No, we're not going to equalize.
ARM: I'm not saying that. I'm just saying both parties.
BLOW: Don't both parties thing right now.
ARM: Charles, the point is, if both parties move their policy orientation a bit closer to Dave Portnoy's on political issues.
SINGH: I think we're good.
BLOW: No. All right, man.
ARM: I'm just trying to make a simple point here. That this guy is a conventional fiscal conservative, social liberal, apolitical on a lot of culture war questions. My simple point to you, Charles, is this. Portnoy is correct. And he takes the same position you do, but this is bad and it should be condemned.
BLOW: My simple point to you is this, is that there's a historical reason that this is a problem. And this is why Donald Trump is in the position he's in.
From the very beginning, the Obama's very existence was an affront. And from the very beginning, part of it, you could say, was regular politics. You try to, opposition research, try to figure out things about people that you can say.
But it got very personal and it got down to identity and character and whether or not these two black people were who they said they were and were they legitimate at all.
And we went through all sorts of, are they terrorists? Are they actually Christians? Were they born here? All sorts of things.
And then when he got into office, we got past that. So now it's not campaigning anymore. Everything he did was disrespecting the office of the President because he was black.
ARM: You're totally entitled to that view. BLOW: I know I'm entitled to everything I say. It was because he was
black. Because he came in and he worked in the Oval Office without a jacket on and people said that's a disrespectful office.
ARM: Okay, but the point is that--
BLOW: Ronald Reagan did that all the time, even in polo shirts.
ARM: This negative comment was made about Michelle Obama last night and I watched the President slowly remove that chain that Josh Hokit gave him a few minutes earlier because he knew this was not something he wanted to be a part of.
NAVARRO: To Charles' point, Candace Owens has for months and months, if not years, been spreading this conspiracy theory about the first lady of France.
ARM: And Trump's condemning that explicitly.
BLOW: That's the point.
ARM: She's white.
NAVARRO: Exactly, that's the point.
ARM: She's white. I've been saying he should condemn it the whole time.
NAVARRO: He condemns it when the white lady gets called a man, he condemns it when the black lady gets called a man.
ARM: She's white.
NAVARRO: He stays silent.
ARM: I don't think Trump is happy this happened.
PHILLIP: Speaking of Robert De Niro, who was brought up here tonight, he tells a crowd that he can't love the U.S. with Trump in charge. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, Robert De Niro is fed up and he says he wants his country back.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT DE NIRO, ACTOR AND FILMMAKER: Because our country isn't so lovable right now. I hate to say it, but loving our country is starting to sound like an abused spouse saying they love their abuser. I can't love a country that takes health care away from millions of people and uses that money to enrich their pals in the Trump-Epstein class.
I can't love a country that's led by a racist, misogynist, xenophobic tyrant. And let me just say it, I can't love the country that's led by Donald Trump. For most of my life, of course, I did love this country.
The United States of America welcomed my immigrant ancestors. It gave me, my family, and my fellow citizens such rich opportunities and extraordinary freedoms. I want to love my country again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:49:59]
So Ana, since you brought him up, I'll have you respond to this. Here's my question. It's not like for the first time the country has done things to not take care of its own citizens, to not uphold its responsibilities to its own citizens.
That's not a Trump thing. That goes back 250 years. So I'm not really sure what he's talking about.
NAVARRO: Well, I don't speak for Robert De Niro. So I'll tell you, I think there have been incredibly dark moments in this country, incredibly dark moments, of course, where, you know, slavery, the Japanese internment, and so many other times that we can study in history.
For me, as an immigrant, as somebody who fled communism, as somebody who lives 90 miles away from Cuba, who lives amongst Venezuelans, who had 25 years of Chavez and Maduro dictatorship, who comes from Nicaragua where there is still a dictator, I do love this country. And I separate how much I detest this current President and his government and his misadministration, how much I detest and abhor the racism and the attacks against the LGBTQ and the racial profiling and all the things, the killing of U.S. citizens in the streets of Minneapolis, all of those things.
I can hate them, and I can still love this country and be proud of this country. Because I'll tell you something, whenever anything happens in the world, whenever there is a natural disaster anywhere in the world, the first people that show up are the American people.
So I do. For me, it's hard. But for me, there is a complete separation, and I will never stop loving this country, because for four years, we have somebody who I think is a terrible person in the White House.
PHILLIP: Scott?
JENNINGS: You know, I actually agree with Anna. I think you have to love your country, whether or not you lost the last election. I love America.
And you know, according to some polling that came out this week, most Republicans love America, 90 percent are very proud to be Americans. They're proud of living in this country. Unfortunately, I think Mr. De Niro's comments are pretty indicative of a majority of Democrats who can't seem to find that attitude, which I applaud, inside them, to love your country, even though you lost the last election.
And you know, loving America, being a patriot for America, feeling good about America shouldn't be dictated. But whether you won or lost, when I hear De Niro, I hear him saying, I can only love America if we win every election from here on out. That's a rather fascist statement.
PHILLIP: I think he was really saying that I don't love an America that doesn't do the things that I think it should be doing. And look, I understand.
JENNINGS: So would he think any Republican would do that?
PHILLIP: Well, look, I mean, this is why I think there's a world in which you want the country to be better. But to say that all of a sudden that's a new thing that America is not doing all the things it should be doing is, to me, that is just fundamentally untrue, just given the history of this country.
BLOW: Well, I'm always interested in this question because I find it kind of a strange question, because it implies that the only way to be patriotic is to be in love. And I think that that's not true, I think that there have been people who have been willing to fight for a better country who were not in love with the country in the shape that it was in.
I'm a black person in America. There were many years and many periods of years when America was treating black people horribly, and black people still signed up to fight in wars for the country because they believed that it could be better and they wanted it to be better, but they didn't love it the way that it was.
PHILLIP: That is a form of love of the country.
BLOW: I don't think that, I think that dictating that you have to say that it is love rather than having to say that it is patriotism. I think that you can be patriotic to the idea of the country and not be in love with the way it is operating. And I think that is a real separation that we have to keep.
ARM: I too really appreciate Anna's comments at the top here just about, and they're not uncommon by the way, among Hispanic Americans and among moderate voters.
PHILLIP: I would say among immigrants in general, by the way.
ARM: But just to add a little bit of numbers and data to Scott's numbers, Gallup polling data from 25 years ago says Republicans were 90 percent proud or extremely proud to be Americans. Democrats were 87 percent.
Today, 25 years later, those numbers remain at 92 percent, actually up a little bit for Republicans. For Democrats, they're down to 36 percent. Robert De Niro's views are not out of step with the median Democrat.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, the panel is going to give us their nightcaps, hidden talent edition. We'll see who's got some hidden talents around the table, we'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: World Cup fever is officially upon us and one artist is marking the moment with tiny sculptures depicting iconic moments with gum wrappers. So for tonight's news nightcap, what is your unique talent, Jesse?
ARM: Abby, I have an encyclopedic knowledge of everything that, or a photographic memory of everything that aired on Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, our Cartoon Network between the late 1990s and the early 2000s.
PHILLIP: Hey, Sabrina.
SINGH: I used to love watching "Jaws" and "Deep Blue Sea," like shark movies when I was a kid. So I have all these random shark facts.
PHILLIP: Ana.
[23:00:04]
NAVARRO: I have no idea. I need to look it up because I forgot what I told your team. Can somebody read my -- oh, yes. I can pick up practically anything on the floor with my toes.
PHILLIP: That is weird. Okay, Charles.
BLOW: I have a green thumb, I love gardening. I can grow anything. Yes.
PHILLIP: Scott?
JENNINGS: Very simple. I'm a good chicken tenderer. I have all my chicken in the apocalypse.
NAVARRO: I thought he was turning them into chicken tenders.
PHILLIP: Everyone, thank you very much. Thank you for watching "NewsNight." You can stream the show anytime with an all-access subscription at cnn.com/watch or in the CNN app. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
