Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Slams Supreme Losses, But Seizes On Win Expanding His Power; Trump Calls Bipartisan Housing Bill "So Unimportant" And A "Yawn"; Trump Calls Socialist Democrats Greatest Threat To The United States. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired June 29, 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]
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Become Wednesday, sources now tell CNN that the luxury Boeing 747-800 jet, the one that was donated by the Qatari government and then subsequently modified by the U.S. military amid national security concerns, will now become Air Force One for the first time. CNN is told that new Qatari jet will make its inaugural presidential trip when the President heads to North Dakota for an America 250 celebration on Wednesday. We'll tell you how that goes. We'll be watching it closely.
Thanks for joining us here tonight on The Source. CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip starts now.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: Tonight, Donald Trump gets more power from the Supremes while his fight against mail-in ballots suffers a blow.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE BANNON, REPUBLICAN POLITICAL STRATEGIST: Coney Barrett, are you happy with what you got?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Plus, it's landmark, it's bipartisan, and it'll help Americans afford homes. But the President refuses to sign it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: It's a yawn. Just about everything is a big yawn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Also, is the rise of socialists across America going to hurt Democrats in the upcoming elections?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So are they going to blow it? I don't know, but they seem to be well on their way.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: And the President defends his state fair, despite the sparse crowds.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've got thousands of people celebrating this birthday with us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Live at the table, Charles Blow, Emily Austin, Ashley Allison and Marc Short. Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here they do.
Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. You win some, you lose some. And tonight, President Trump can add tallies for both to his Supreme Court scorecard after the justices handed down several key decisions today on this penultimate day of opinions. Now, first, the win.
Trump now has officially significantly more power to fire federal officials at independent agencies after the court backed his decision to sack Rebecca Slaughter of the Federal Trade Commission. That ruling overturns nearly a century-old precedent. But in almost the same breath, the justices ruled separately that Trump cannot fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, at least for now.
Trump had wanted to dismiss her over allegations of mortgage fraud, but the -- as the majority said, Cook is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond. And now, for Trump's stinging loss, the Supreme Court snubbed his efforts to curb mail-in voting by upholding Mississippi's COVID-era law, allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day and to be counted.
Now, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court's three liberals in that ruling, with Barrett writing for the majority, Election Day statutes say nothing about ballot receipt, and we cannot add to the words Congress chose.
Joining us now in our fifth seat, our friend and attorney, Donte Mills. Donte, let's actually start with the power that Trump now seems to have. Basically, the court seems to have invalidated the concept of an independent agency, except for the Federal Reserve, only because it would tank the economy?
DONTE MILLS, NATIONAL TRIAL ATTORNEY: Well, the Supreme Court did say that the executive branch, the President has the authority over the executive branch and should have the ability to hire or fire whoever he deems fit for his branch. I agree with that. And I want to make this clear. I think this was a good day for the Supreme Court because it showed they're not political.
They didn't side with President Trump with everything today. They didn't side against him. There's judges who said, I'm more or I'm going to look at the black letter law and focus on that. And as you just said, they said, we can't read things into what Congress wrote. If they didn't say it in there, we can't read it in. And that's what they're supposed to do.
PHILLIP: Well, on that point.
MILLS: But black letter law --
PHILLIP: The one thing, though, is that they basically did say that even if Congress said this agency is independent, the President doesn't have to abide by that. That's essentially what they -- what they've also said.
EMILY AUSTIN, PODCAST HOST, "THE EMILY AUSTIN SHOW": Well, it's the Constitution said so the judges were kind of backing up the Constitution. And I think that today was actually the most perfect example of checks and balances, because you got to win and then you got to slap in the face. And it weirdly enough, was under the same umbrella. So I feel like if that doesn't show that democracy is working the way we want it to, even though I disagree with a lot of the decisions that came out today, I don't know what will.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I think it's hard to say. Sorry.
CHARLES BLOW, THE LANGSTON HUGHES FELLOW, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Go for it.
ALLISON: No, I think it's hard to say. The court is not. We'll probably agree.
BLOW: I think you're reading my mind.
ALLISON: OK. I think it's hard to say that the court is unpolitical. Maybe today they didn't rear their political heads, but they have in previous iterations. And I do think that, like, to this point, there were some wins and some losses for the Trump administration. But in all, one day Donald Trump will not be President. And when this ruling happens and it is a Democratic president and they rule and they or they decide to fire, it's like just be sure that you still consider it a win as you do when it's not a Republican that gets to fire the folks they don't like.
[22:05:22]
AUSTIN: No, I hear you. And I was actually curious. I was like, I want to put myself on the other side of the aisle. And I don't like whataboutism. I swear to God. I know I use it a lot on the show. But I was like, when did Democrats do the same thing as Donald Trump? And then I found multiple instances. And I'm like, you know what?
BLOW: What do you mean the same thing?
AUSTIN: It wasn't exactly the same thing.
BLOW: OK.
AUSTIN: But Obama passed DACA on immigration after Congress failed to pass that. And like, do Republicans like that? No. But Obama has executive power and whether or not they liked it.
BLOW: But then Trump --
AUSTIN: Mandated vaccines.
PHILLIP: But that's really not --
AUSTIN: I thought that was totally unethical.
PHILLIP: -- that's really not the same thing, right? Because it's not that Congress didn't expressly prohibit something.
AUSTIN: I found the list. No, it's not the same thing. I'm talking about instance. Well, obviously, the same thing in history didn't happen twice. I'm saying that they use their powers. And in my mind, that's abusive because if Congress failed to pass something and you say, nope, I want to do it anyway. To me, that's a bit abusive.
PHILLIP: OK. Go ahead Charles.
AUSTIN: Exactly. It goes both ways.
BLOW: To Donte's analysis, because I think he hit it spot on. The reality is that the founders didn't say there's multiple executives. There's one.
AUSTIN: Right.
BLOW: There's a unitary executive. And so he should be allowed to fire people in the executive branch. Over the years, Congress has created all these agencies they claim are independent because they're trying to usurp power from the executive branch.
AUSTIN: And they act like they're immune from the executive branch.
BLOW: And I don't think it's inconsistent on -- when it comes to the Fed. Because the reality is Alexander Hamilton wanted a national bank to the United States to pay off our debts. And so that dates to the Constitution.
PHILLIP: OK. But I don't understand -- but OK, so let me just read this because I think this is important, right? Justice Kavanaugh says about the Fed, even temporary uncertainty about the status of the Federal Reserve could spark political upheaval. I would not go down that road. I would not risk destabilizing the U.S. economy. They're not really hinging the carve-out for the Fed on anything other than that it would be a bad look.
Now, you could make that argument about all of these different agencies that were created to be independent for a reason, according to Congress. I'm just saying, I'm not saying -- listen, I'm just saying that if you want to do it -- if you want to do it the way that they did it for the FTC, it seems to me to be intellectually consistent, you would need to apply that to all of the independent agencies. MARC SHORT, CHIEF OF STAFF TO VICE PRESIDENT MIKE PENCE: The FTC didn't exist when we founded the country. I mean, all these agencies have been created.
PHILLIP: Well, the Federal Reserve didn't exist in its current state.
SHORT: It's the National Bank of the United States was created.
PHILLIP: Yes, but the Federal Reserve did not exist in its current state at the founding of the country. That is also true.
MILLS: I want to hear from Charles that they're overstating the carve- out here. It's not that big of a carve-out. They're saying that the FTC, I'm sorry, the Federal Trade Commission, the impact that it could have if it's unstable is an issue. So they didn't say you can't fire. They just said there has to be notice and procedures in process.
PHILLIP: Sorry, the Federal Reserve.
MILLS: I'm sorry, the Federal Reserve.
PHILLIP: Yes.
MILLS: They're saying there has to be some notice in process when you do fire. So they're saying you still have the authority to fire, but there has to be some notice in process because of how instability could impact that area.
PHILLIP: But I guess, why would they make that, even if it's that narrow of a carve-out, why would they not have that carve-out for the other independent agencies? Why does due process cease to exist for those other agencies, but it only exists for this one?
MILLS: Well, it's a special exception. Those other agencies operate under the legislative branch, so there's this. But they're saying because of the impact that this could have if the markets are destabilized by you just firing people.
PHILLIP: Well, we're saying the same thing.
MILLS: We're creating an exception.
PHILLIP: We're saying the same thing, Donte. You're basically saying it's because of the impact. But to me, that's not the letter of the law. That's actually, oh, well, it would be bad if this happened.
MILLS: But that's the second part of the judicial system.
PHILLIP: Unless the law says don't, you know, you can't fire them without process because of the consequences, that would make sense. But it doesn't say that. It just lays out a process by which they can be fired, just like all the other agencies. And the Supreme Court added another thing to it and said, OK, well, that applies. But now we also need to add another layer of due process, but only for this one agency, not for any of the other ones. MILLS: But that's how the Supreme Court works. You have conservative judges who follow the black letter law, liberal judges who follow the impact. You have a few in the middle. So on this issue, there are some who said the impact is so good. I'm usually a black letter law judge, but the impact is so big here. I'm going to carve out an exception.
PHILLIP: Listen, I agree with you. I'm just saying.
ALLISON: But then it's not a black letter law.
PHILLIP: Well, that's exactly what I'm saying.
MILLS: Well, some judges are in the middle.
PHILLIP: I'm just saying that if you're a conservative and your view is, all right, we need to follow the letter of the law. It's what Congress intended. Then it is a little bit of a bait and switch to then say, well, I'm going to do what the liberals normally do and look at the impact, look at the consequences of it. I think that's actually a different -- that's a different judicial interpretation of the law.
AUSTIN: I mean, I think that's the whole point of it.
[22:09:58]
BLOW: There are two issues here for me. The one is that you essentially are killing a kind of career leaders in these agencies. Every president now will come in and replace the tops of each one of these regulatory cruise because they won't -- every of a different party because they won't like the leadership before that continuity is now disrupted forever. That is no longer a thing.
So the idea that we would have independent regular regulatory agencies, dead, right? So the Supreme Court has done that. The second thing is you talked before about what the -- what the founders were thinking. The founders talk a lot about trying -- making sure that we would not have kind of an authoritarian to take the office. But they put up no guardrails to prevent it from happening. So what didn't happen?
So they can just entire ruling on Article II, Section III, you know, the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. What happens when you have a president who is actually trying to break the laws? They didn't anticipate that. And that is exactly what we have in the Supreme Court. It basically punted the ball into that end of the field and said, this may be the case, but we'll have to see what happens.
ALLISON: Well, what they did when they grant them immunity.
SHORT: -- and anticipate that. I mean, I think that there's been a process.
ALLISON: So he can't really break the law.
BLOW: Well, if you have -- SHORT: So I think there is a process. There is a process. There is a process. And if the president is breaking the law there's impeachment process.
BLOW: The idea that the founders are perfect, I guess some people believe that and that they anticipated everything --
SHORT: That's not what everybody said.
BLOW: Well, I'm talking to you.
SHORT: Yes, yes.
BLOW: They're not perfect. They did not anticipate everything.
SHORT: Right.
BLOW: They did not anticipate this person being in the --
SHORT: Which is why you need to interpret the Constitution basically have said.
BLOW: It did not anticipate this person being in the presidency. And therefore, we have a lot of customs and norms, but he doesn't have to follow that. He's realized that. And now we have to now go back and figure out what do we do with a president who won't follow.
(CROSSTALK)
AUSTIN: We have the guardrails.
ALLISON: -- even just realize that the Supreme Court has told him that.
BLOW: Exactly.
ALLISON: Because now --
MILLS: I have to speak up for the Supreme Court here. We have a president who I don't believe is operating in the best interest of the country. But the Supreme Court can't go beyond their purview, even if they believe that they still have to operate within their scope. And their scope is follow the law.
BLOW: You just thought that their scope was both things.
MILLS: I did not.
BLOW: You said they're both thing. It was black letter.
MILLS: Well, there's some judges.
(CROSSTALK)
AUSTIN: That's not black and white. It's up for debate.
BLOW: They can do both things.
ALLISON: Yes.
BLOW: You just said that. There's true or it's not true.
MILLS: What I'm saying is what they can't -- what they should not do is the Supreme Court to say, I'm going to make a ruling based on this current president, because their ruling is going to let --
(CROSSTALK)
MILLS: They're basing it on their beliefs. Chief Justice Roberts has been trying to get this executive branch more power.
ALLISON: They're basing on the least but they're not basing it on the law. Because if they were basing it on the current law, then Roe would not have been overturned. Because when they all got confirmed, they said they weren't going to overturn because of the precedent. But we know what the world that we live in right now, if they -- if you think the founder did --
SHORT: -- Ginsburg said Roe was a terrible decision. It was create a thing --
ALLISON: But she didn't overturn it.
MILLS: She'd be reset.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: So when it when it comes to Lisa.
BLOW: No, I'm not distorting what he said.
PHILLIP: When it comes to Lisa Cook, who --
BLOW: That has to get pulled up.
PHILLIP: -- is the Federal Reserve Board member who's at issue here. Bill Pulte, who used to run the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which kind of started up this whole thing. He now is over at the White House as the director of national intelligence temporarily. He says, as I've repeatedly said, I believe Lisa Cook will be indicted for mortgage fraud.
Now, the thing to remember about this is that Lisa Cook and her attorneys say that this is basically just a politically motivated attempt to get her out of the job. Here's what her lawyer said just moments ago tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABBY LOWELL, ATTORNEY FOR FEDERAL RESERVE GOVERNOR LISA COOK: Bill Pulte doesn't decide that. And what we've learned in the last year and a half is that this administration is somehow able to basically mislead or misdirect or do things to get indictments where they don't belong. Let me put it this way. Do I think that there's grounds to indict her? No. Do I think that any real prosecutor in America would present it? No. Do I think in a different era this could even be something that you and I would talk about? No. Do I think somebody that takes whatever Trump doesn't does it, whether it used to be Alina Habba in New Jersey or Lindsey Halligan in Virginia will try to do something that he says it's quite possible. But you know what? As in those other cases, they won't succeed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AUSTIN: Do you know why this is so great? This case is so simple because either you did mortgage fraud or you didn't. So either the claim is baseless or it's not. The argument that like this is a political attack, this wasn't a slander on her character, this wasn't anything other than we believe you committed a mortgage --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Where is the indictment Emily? Emily, where is the indictment? I think you're right. If this were an open and shut case, they had the evidence. They could charge her, charge her.
[22:15:00]
AUSTIN: I agree with you.
PHILLIP: Don't drag her name through the mud.
ALLISON: That's right.
PHILLIP: Try to push her out of the job for political reasons and then not charge her.
AUSTIN: By the way, it goes both --
(CROSSTALK)
AUSTIN: -- because you look really stupid if she didn't commit mortgage fraud.
MILLS: But that's slander. That's not even slander. That's slander. If you say you committed mortgage fraud, we're not going to charge you. But we're going to try and fire you because we believe you can be charged. That is slander. They tried to slander. And the Supreme Court said today, at least for the Federal Reserve, that you can't do that.
AUSTIN: I think they drew a fair line.
PHILLIP: This is one of those interesting cases where it's -- if the Supreme Court had applied the same principle to the Federal Reserve as they applied to all the other federal agencies, they would basically be blessing this.
ALLISON: Yes.
PHILLIP: They would be blessing a situation in which a political appointee just decides that he thinks that she should be that he doesn't work at the Justice Department. He decides that she should be indicted for mortgage fraud. And that is enough to push a Federal Reserve board member out of the job because the president wants a particular policy that is not in line with the economics of the country.
MILLS: I don't think --
PHILLIP: They would be blessing that.
MILLS: I think they said the executive branch has the authority over themselves and the person at the top is the one with that control. And he can say, I don't want you to work for my agency no matter what the cause.
PHILLIP: But the thing is, we can't forget Congress's role in this. When Congress creates an agency, they create a pathway to hire and fire and confirm these people and all that stuff. That's the other piece of this puzzle, right, Donte?
AUSTIN: But it can't be that they're immune.
MILLS: Well, no, I mean, because what they're saying is --
PHILLIP: -- the puzzle is that another branch of government has established a process.
MILLS: But they operates underneath the executive branch.
PHILLIP: And process is designed to protect the American people not to fulfill the will of one person of the executive branch.
SHORT: -- can't usurp the power of the executive branch. They can create agencies, but they can't tell the executive you can't hire and fire people.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: OK, you're saying that, yes, except in one case.
SHORT: Right.
PHILLIP: I'm just saying the consistency is the -- lack of consistency --
(CROSSTALK)
SHORT: The Federal Reserve Bank was created in 1790.
PHILLIP: Hold on. The Federal Reserve Bank, yes, was created, you know, several hundred years ago. But the way that it operates now, the way in which the federal governors are appointed, the way that they are confirmed, that is not going back to the founding. And it doesn't matter. It was it was established by Congress. I'm just saying from a consistency perspective, if you believe that the executive has the control, then you would have to apply that. (CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: -- because you know that the consequences would be really bad.
(CROSSTALK)
MILLS: -- where he said that this ruling would allow future presidents to come in and just clear House. You would hope that they're smart enough to not do that because you need people who know what they're doing. But you don't want that to happen in the Federal Reserve. That can't happen because of instability.
PHILLIP: I don't see why not.
MILLS: This is why that --
PHILLIP: I don't see why that can't happen. Because, I mean, I think Trump is kind of right about this in the sense that it can -- from a consistency perspective, there's no difference between the Federal Reserve and the FTC. The FTC is an important agency too. Their, you know, stability there is important for trade, for people operating businesses.
MILLS: Banking system collapses. You have to acknowledge that --
ALLISON: I think it's the same argument people make for cabinet secretaries. It's like they still go through the same processes. They still have the same security clearance. Would you say that the secretary of war, the secretary of state is more important than the housing secretary? Perhaps unless there was a mortgage crisis, right? And then people were -- so there's all these carve outs until the rubber hits the road. And then you're like, oh, boy, maybe we shouldn't.
AUSTIN: I feel like this whole debate shows that it's an overall win, because if there was a blanket policy to your point, then it would be inconsistent. But I feel like the whole point of the Supreme Court is because we don't have consistency. It's kind of like --
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: Listen, it's a -- it's one of the reasons why the court is extremely fascinating. Donte, thank you very much for being here.
We want to invite you at home to join the debate. Head to CNN.com/Abby. And you can weigh in on this conversation and all the others on the show. We'll get to some of your comments at the end of the show today.
But next for us, Donald Trump just cut another campaign ad for Democrats calling the landmark housing bill unimportant and a big yawn.
[22:19:26] Plus, Bill Maher says the Democrats are blowing their chances at the midterms and by 2028 by embracing a socialist candidates all across the country. Is he right about that? We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, President Trump is still refusing to sign a bipartisan housing bill that aims to make homes more affordable. Mike Johnson officially sent the bill to the White House today, giving Trump 10 days to change his mind, or it will automatically become law without him. According to Trump, passing the SAVE America Act, his bill to overhaul federal elections, is far more important than this housing bill.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you sign that housing bill?
TRUMP: I have not. It hasn't been sent to me yet. It's coming, I understand. And then I'll make a decision. Here's what I would like to sign. Much more than a bill that's a big deal. It's a yawn. Some people say it's wonderful. To me, compared to the SAVE America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: So, Marc, I'm actually not sure where you stand on this bill, the actual bill, but even if you put that aside, to have the President saying, housing, who cares about housing, in an election year, I mean, that seems like bad messaging for his party.
[22:25:12]
SHORT: Well, I agree with the President on this, Abby. I think that it is a terrible bill. This was Elizabeth Warren's bill before it was Tim Scott's bill.
PHILLIP: Before it was Donald Trump's bill.
SHORT: It doesn't -- it's not going to actually lower housing prices. You basically create a bunch of more additional subsidies, and you're telling, you're having the government decide who's allowed to buy homes or not buy homes because you're trying to exclude private equity from doing so. And so I think the President's right on the merits of it. Having said that --
ALLISON: You didn't even know what's in the bill.
SHORT: -- having said that what the President did do is his whole team walked Congress to this point and got Mike Johnson and John Thune to be pushing for it and now they're cutting their legs out for underneath them. So on the merits of the bill I totally agree. On the process it's flawed --
ALLISON: I mean, but Marc, you read the bill.
BLOW: But there are parts of the bill that do help people to afford housing and that is just as a fact.
SHORT: It's a Democrat bill.
BLOW: It doesn't matter if it's Democrat or Republican, it is a bill that does help.
SHORT: It takes taxpayer dollars and subsidize housing.
BLOW: So does it or does it not help some people to afford housing?
SHORT: It will not. It will not have a big impact on the economy at all. Trump was exactly right.
BLOW: Does it help some people?
SHORT: It'll hurt some people.
BLOW: Does it help some people?
SHORT: It helps some, it hurts some.
BLOW: OK. Well, I'm going to talk about the fact that it helps, right?
SHORT: Great.
(CROSSTALK)
BLOW: Can you stop talking? That would help me a lot. Thank you so much. Even on the low end of the spectrum, mobile homes are big for people who are very poor, just getting into the housing market. There's a rule now that requires them to have kind of just, you know, the ability to keep moving, right, underneath the mobile home.
The bill takes that off. You don't have to have that. Most people get a mobile home, they put it in one place, they never move it again. You don't need that. And that's going to save like $5,000 for someone who's struggling, who wants to afford a mobile home, and that will be their home. $5,000 off that mobile home is really significant.
I think we just kind of get kind of get blase about like, oh, this doesn't help anyone. It actually does help people, particularly people who are struggling for homes, not trying to buy a million dollar house, trying to buy a $40,000 house.
PHILLIP: So what Charles is talking about, I mean, just some of the other things in this bill, it limits the number of homes that investors can buy. This is the Elizabeth Warren part, but also this is also the Donald Trump part, because earlier this year he said he wanted that. It eases regulations on those manufactured homes, as Charles was saying. It encourages housing-friendly zoning, promotes converting vacant buildings into housing, and offers grants and forgivable loans for repairs. And it passed by a pretty massive bipartisan margin.
BLOW: Yes, that's why I'm not even commenting on it. Like, it passed the pass, clearly the majority wanted it. That's democracy. My opinion doesn't even matter right now. What I'm really upset about is when I read the articles talking about what Trump reacted to the housing bill, it was so misconstrued and framed to act like Trump was being so disgusting and rude about it, when just listening to the clip right now, I was like, wait, all he said is that in the bigger perspective, looking at it, like the SAVE Act is more important than all of this, and I will argue election integrity is 100 percent more important than anything, but the way that the headlines were framing it, you'd think Trump was being completely out of line, and now I just feel like I was deceived once again by the media.
BLOW: We have had the safest elections in our history.
AUSTIN: Until mail-in ballots exist, and I know we're about to disagree on that, I'm sorry. It is --
ALLISON: I'm going to actually go back to this.
AUSTIN: It is absurd. In most countries that I visit and interview their political leaders, they laugh at mail-in ballots.
(CROSSTALK)
AUSTIN: Post-COVID, it should not have been a thing. Excuse me, excuse me, not mail-in ballots. The fact that we do not show I.D. is disgraceful.
ALLISON: OK. Wait.
BLOW: That's a whole other thing.
AUSTIN: But that's part of the SAVE Act. We're saying that the SAVE Act needs to pass, and he was using that as leverage to pass it.
ALLISON: Here's the thing. The bill has passed. Republicans have the House and the Senate. This is a Republican bill.
AUSTIN: Agreed.
ALLISON: Maybe Elizabeth Warren helped drafted it, but it passed in a Republican House and Senate.
AUSTIN: Correct.
ALLISON: The President also says he has not read the bill, so he doesn't know what's in it and what's not in it. He did say some policies that seem to be aligned with the bill. You could do two things at once. Well, I would hope if you're the president of the United States, you could sign this bill.
AUSTIN: But it's called leverage.
ALLISON: And you can also. But he's lost leverage because this bill is already passed. And so if he really wanted to use leverage, he might not want him to push it so much and really focus on the SAVE Act. The reality is like some folks don't want to touch the SAVE Act. They're not going to be able to get the SAVE Act with the margins they did. There is an ability to do two things at once.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: We didn't get to this in the last segment.
SHORT: He's going to sign the bill. He wouldn't have --
PHILLIP: Well, actually, here's the thing. He may not sign it. And some of the reporting suggests that he may not sign it and just let it become law which -- yes, yes, that's what I'm -- that's all I was going to say.
SHORT: Fair enough.
[22:29:47]
PHILLIP: But we didn't get to this in the last segment but the Supreme Court dealing a blow to him on mail-in ballots today is a piece of this picture because Trump is on this anti mail-in ballot hobby horse. He votes by mail. Republicans have utilized vote by mail all across the country to their benefit in places like Florida and Utah and elsewhere. And then the Supreme Court says here, including Justice Coney Barrett and Justice Roberts, look, the Mississippi's law if they want to count these ballots after election day, they can.
And so Trump is on this, I don't want to say he's on an island, but he is just so obsessed with this one issue as if it is going to solve all of his electoral problems. And he's getting hit after hit on it.
AUSTIN: It is secure.
SHORT: I agree with the way the court ruled on this, Abby. I think the reality is that I want to have voter I.D. I want to limit mail-in ballots. I think that would be healthier for a democracy.
But at the same time, a constitution allows the states to determine their own rules for elections. And as Coney Barrett said, it says what the date is of election. It doesn't specify what it should be received by. And so Mississippi has every recourse to change the law if they want.
PHILLIP: And it's a Republican-controlled state. They can do it any time they want to.
SHORT: Exactly. They can go back and change it.
BLOW: We have to stop pretending that the elections are not secure.
SHORT: Can you let me talk while I'm talking here?
BLOW: Yes, go ahead.
SHORT: I think the Supreme Court is acknowledging and saying that, look, the state can fix this if they want. I don't think we're in the right.
BLOW: That sounds like a period. All right. So can we also now stop pretending that the elections are not secure?
AUSTIN: We can stop when they become secure. That's when we can stop doing it.
BLOW: Where's your evidence that they are not secure?
AUSTIN: First of all, the fact that we do not have to show I.D. is a disgrace.
Number two, I will find you videos, including 2024 in Connecticut, when you have on a security camera, one person dumping in mail-in ballots.
BLOW: I'm not going to watch it. I'm not going to watch a YouTube video.
AUSTIN: Of course you don't want to watch it because it goes against your agenda. But if you opened your eyes and saw something that goes against what you believe, you'll see that it's not secure.
PHILLIP: But Emily. Hold on, Emily.
BLOW: Don't tell me to open my eyes.
PHILLIP: What about--
AUSTIN: Can we have a better argument then?
BLOW: Oh, don't do that.
PHILLIP: Hold on, Emily. Hold on, Charles. Let me just-- let Emily finish her, what she was claiming.
Because she said, you said that there was a video in Connecticut. What's the point of the video?
AUSTIN: My point is that mail-in ballots are not secure because they are missing.
PHILLIP: No. Hold on. What's the point of the video in Connecticut that you're talking about? What happened in Connecticut?
AUSTIN: One person dumped multiple mail-in ballots.
PHILLIP: And then what happened? You said it was on video. So was that person charged?
AUSTIN: I don't know. I have to follow up on that.
PHILLIP: You don't know? You're telling me that there's massive fraud and it's caught on video and You can't tell me whether it was real or not, whether the person was charged or not.
AUSTIN: I really hope he was charged.
PHILLIP: Because here's the thing. AUSTIN: But how many instances were not caught on camera? I didn't
have cameras.
PHILLIP: Hold on, Emily.
AUSTIN: Did I have cameras during my mail-in ballot? No.
PHILLIP: I'm just saying that you're basically--
BLOW: It is absolutely a conspiracy.
PHILLIP: Listen, I'm just saying, if you have video evidence.
BLOW: The answer is a joke.
AUSTIN: How about you defend the fact that we don't have to show voter I.D.?
PHILLIP: Hold on a second.
AUSTIN: You defend that too?
BLOW: First of all, that is a ridiculous thing. So do you believe that, actually?
AUSTIN: Yes.
BLOW: In 50 states, did nobody have to show any ID?
AUSTIN: I didn't say nobody. Everyone should be required to show voter I.D.
BLOW: Well, I don't know what you're saying. In which states can you vote and no one knows who you are? You have to show no, where you live, nothing. So, which states are those?
AUSTIN: How many New Yorkers said that they didn't have to show?
BLOW: I didn't even answer because you didn't know it.
AUSTIN: How many New Yorkers should I give you a list of names? Let me get this on Instagram. Everyone who didn't show I.D. in the New York election come forward. People will come forward.
ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Here's the thing.
AUSTIN: It's a joke.
ALLISON: Here's the thing.
BLOW: You're a joke if you didn't answer that question and started to go around the--
PHILLIP: Okay, hold on.
AUSTIN: I'm sorry. Even more so if everyone's already doing it. PHILLIP: Hold on, Emily. Hold on, Emily and Charles. Go ahead, Ashley.
ALLISON: The same reason why the Supreme Court ruled in the Watson case today that the state's laws supersede is that that's also what happens in the states. So sometimes in states, people actually want your driver's license. In some states, they decide mail is sufficient enough.
Two pieces of mail with your name and the address that also matches what is on the voter roll. Sometimes it is that a signature match. There are multiple ways to confirm identity.
So, the fact that there are no ways to ensure that people are coming in droves and voting illegally is just not the case. And if it is, you would be able to prove it.
BLOW: But she has videos.
ALLISON: Because people want to prove it so that they can change the election laws.
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, look.
ALLISON: That would be the best argument for Donald Trump.
PHILLIP: This has been going on for a long time.
ALLISON: The only time the election has been corrupted, most recently was on January 6th, when the sitting President would not accept the results of the election.
PHILLIP: This has been going on for a long time. And every time we talk about this, I say the same thing. You have evidence of massive fraud.
ALLISON: Prove it.
PHILLIP: You're Emily or you're President Trump. Please bring it forward. We would like to see it.
ALLISON: Shall we?
PHILLIP: We would like to analyze.
BLOW: We would like to see it.
PHILLIP: We would. We would love to analyze the fraud that is so rampant in this country that it necessitates changing all the laws in order to address it. Because I think if that were the case, it would be right there in front of us and there would be no question. Everybody would be on the same page about it.
So far, so far, the Heritage Foundation has tried. They haven't found it. The President has been President two times.
[22:35:06] The first term and the second term. Still hasn't found it. So we're still waiting. We're still waiting.
All right, next for us. Bill Maher says that if the Democrats continue on the same path with socialists rising, they're going to blow up the next elections. We'll discuss that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, will the rise of socialism of the Democratic Party hurt the Democrats' chances in November? Bill Maher says absolutely.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL MAHER, HOST, "REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER": If this is where the Democratic Party is going, where this Democratic Socialist, this obsession with Israel, with the Jew-hating, with they don't believe in capitalism, no prisons, if this is where they're going, my vote is in play.
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Okay, I'd like to hear that.
MAHER: It actually always has been. I just, every year, I don't make my decision by who has an R or a D. I actually always came to the conclusion that the Democrat was probably better.
VANCE: Sure.
MAHER: And voted for them.
VANCE: Okay.
MAHER: And Trump can't run again, and he'd be a little too exciting for me anyway. So, it's either going to be you or Rubio.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Charles, what do you make of that?
BLOW: Listen, Maher does not like Mamdani. These are Mamdani's candidates. He doesn't like the positions that these people have taken. We understand that. Everybody who's followed Maher knows that.
I do think the idea that Democratic Socialism is some sort of boogeyman that people are running away from in the country, I think people are overplaying that. I don't think that's true.
I don't think people, particularly after this particular President, I don't think people are shocked by much. I don't think they're turned off, necessarily, by much of what somebody has said or done, because we have a model in the presidency that has done horrible, crazy, sad, awful things, and is still the President of the United States. So, I just don't think it is as big a deal as people are making out to be.
AUSTIN: I don't think that was the point. I think the point was, yeah, maybe the Socialism's not taking over the country. I don't think we're near there, and anyone who says otherwise is being hysterical, but I think the loudest voices and faces of the Democratic Party are the Socialists.
It's the AOCs. Mamdani's probably the most spoken about person in the country right now, and if that's the face of the party, it's doing a good favor to the Republicans in the upcoming election.
ALLISON: Do you know how happy New York is right now? Do you know how cool it is to see your mayor --
No, do you know how cool it is to see your mayor jump in a pool with a kid?
AUSTIN: Oh, I don't give a damn about the mayor jumping in the pool. I care about the future of New York, I care about my safety, I care about my children's lives.
ALLISON: Homicides are down in New York City.
AUSTIN: Yes.
ALLISON: Wind freezes are happening. Campaign proverbs are being delivered.
AUSTIN: They're punishing capitalism.
ALLISON: You're saying?
AUSTIN: New York is a city of capitalism with a Socialist mayor. He's going to drive everyone to Panama.
ALLISON: No, he's not.
AUSTIN: He's going to drive everyone to Puerto Rico. How many billionaires are already leaving?
ALLISON: I just think that y'all are missing the plot, too, here, because this happened in your party as well, and actually, if you compared from when, no, another form of extremism, actually.
AUSTIN: Yes, it's on both sides.
ALLISON: Mac, actually happened in your party.
So, what happened in your party was, Barack Obama was elected, the Tea Party started. Everybody was like, there's no way. The Tea Party is in power right now because people were actually sick of the status quo.
Doesn't matter what the other side labels it. When people feel like they're actually being listened to, which a lot of people actually felt like they were being listened to with Donald Trump, which is why he won a second term. I'm willing to concede that. They don't really feel that right now, and some people actually feel like the traditional and establishment Democrats are not listening to them.
AUSTIN: I care about facts, not feelings, and the fact is that Mamdani makes everyone feel good, but what he's doing is wrong.
ALLISON: He's delivering on his campaign promises.
AUSTIN: I know, and his campaign was horrendous. I agree with you.
ALLISON: But he's not delivering on socialism.
PHILLIP: Ashley's point is that there's an anti-establishment wave, and Mamdani, AOC, others are riding it.
ALLISON: And Donald Trump blew it.
PHILLIP: Is that not what's happening?
SHORT: I don't think it's that harmless. I think the reality is that candidates in New York actually were part of those organizing rallies at Columbia chanting death to America. This is not just about rent control. This is something that is far more harmful to our country. But to your question about the midterms.
ALLISON: Wait, Mark, have you actually seen those people chant death to America?
SHORT: Yes, at Columbia University, yes. I did. And she was an organizer of it. It's pretty awful.
AUSTIN: The mayor's wife is a jihadist. Let's be honest with ourselves.
SHORT: But to your question about the midterms.
PHILLIP: Hold on, guys, let me let her finish.
SHORT: She's not here. To your question about the midterms.
AUSTIN: When you lynch people raping and murdering, that is terrorism. I think this is going to be.
ALLISON: And when you elect a person that essentially assaults women, oh, then it's unable.
PHILLIP: Emily and Ashley, please stop for a second.
SHORT: I think this is going to be a bigger albatross for Democrats after the midterms, because I think these people will likely get elected, and they're going to be boom as fundraiser for Republicans. They're going to be a terrible problem for Jeffries. But midterms are usually about the party in power.
AUSTIN: But New Yorkers feel good. That's all that matters. SHORT: I don't think it's going to have as much an impact about the
politics.
PHILLIP: All right, we're going to take a quick break, and we'll be right back on the other side.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JONATHAN KARL, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Does it already feel good as well? It certainly does. And the idea of a Jewish state, Israel is a Jewish state that's in the charter. That's the way it is now.
Do you support that?
ZOHRAN MAMDANI (D), NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: I've said time and again that I support the state of Israel as a state with equal rights. I believe that any state that preferences--
KARL: What about the Jewish state is the question?
MAMDANI: I think any state that privileges one religion over the other is one that I can't tell you I support, whether it be Israel or Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. And a lot of that comes back to a fundamental belief that we should all be considered equal no matter what our faith is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:50:05]
PHILLIP: So Mark was asking in the break, is it just the economics, or is it also stuff like that, Ashley? That has caused the rise of these Mamdani-esque candidates?
ALLISON: Well, I think putting it all under the banner of socialism actually is a misnomer. I think the socialism policies actually are the economic policies. I also think that there are people that have great issues with our alliance to Israel.
Am I one of those people? I do think Israel is our ally. Do I like the current government of Israel? No. Do I like the current government of the United States? No.
I'm still allowed to do that because we live in a democracy, and we're able to have freedom of speech. Does that mean I should be persecuted for that? No. Could I be persecuted for that? Potentially. Is that how some people are seeing what is happening to Palestinians?
So I think Mamdani's answer, in my opinion, is where I'm aligned. I think that people should be able to express their religion, express their sexuality, express their race, and express their ideologies, free and free, whether it's a --
AUSTIN: But they can do it in Israel.
PHILLIP: Not other countries in the Middle East, I'm sure.
ALLISON: Not Palestinians.
AUSTIN: Palestinians are Supreme Court judges in Israel. Palestinians have rights to vote in the election.
AUSTIN: Not at the West Bank. Not in the occupation.
AUSTIN: They don't want to be part of Israel, neither does Gaza. So if they're a part of Israel, then they can have the same rights.
ALLISON: So not Palestinians that live in Israel, they can't--
PHILLIP: Here's what I want to ask you, Charles. I mean, are Republicans making a mistake to assume that that sentiment that we just heard from Mamdani is something that is only reserved for far- left liberals? Because when I look at the polling, and I see young conservatives, their views on Israel have shifted sharply negative over the last couple of years.
BLOW: And I think I'm looking at the same polls that you're looking at, which is why I'm always confused when people pick out people on the left who are running for office and say that they have said something that was offensive, and they say that they, as you have said before, that they are horrible people and you condemn them, right?
So, but when Randy Fine in Florida was running for office, who Donald Trump actually endorsed, and he said that Palestinian is just another word for demon, which is still up on his Twitter page right now, I looked to see if either of you had ever condemned him for that. I might've missed it, my fault.
I will give you the opportunity right now to condemn that the same way that you are condemning the other people.
AUSTIN: There you go. Condemned.
BLOW: Thank you so much. I appreciate that. I really appreciate that.
AUSTIN: I mean, I think it's the bare minimum to be like, hey, Palestinians are human too. But I don't appreciate when my mayor is like, oh, I don't dislike Jews. I only dislike Zionists.
Okay, well, what if I told you majority of Jews were Zionists? Like, you were speaking during the break how you don't want to be subject to racism, and that's totally valid. And I don't think you'd like living under a mayor that's like, well, I don't dislike all black people, I only dislike some.
BLOW: That's not the same thing.
AUSTIN: I'm sure you know that, but I don't think that it is. BLOW: That is not the same thing.
AUSTIN: Because most Jews are.
BLOW: That is not the same thing.
ALLISON: I actually don't think that's what, I don't know if that's what.
BLOW: That is not the same thing. I don't want to. Don't drag us into that, by the way. I don't know don't drag us into don't drag us into your discussion about -- the same thing as the black people don't drag us into that --
PHILLIP: Ashley, this is the last word here.
BLOW: Don't drag us into that.
AUSTIN: I think that people I think what I hear when I actually hear Mandani speak is that he says that he does not like the Ideology of having a religious state. Whether it is he said Saudi Arabia, which is a predominant Muslim state or Israel which is predominantly Jewish.
ALLISON: -- but he never talks about the other states, and I think we he literally he literally --
AUSTIN: Outside of this interview --
ALLISON: But I think that's the problem, right, is that so dug in on this and I understand it as someone who is not a part of either one of those communities because I was sitting at a table on October 7th with a Palestinian and with somebody who has lived in Israel.
And I saw the tension and I thought it was not my place to get in. So I understand the personal pain that both of those folks are feeling. But I think words actually do matter, and what he said in that interview is what you're saying he didn't say.
AUSTIN: But his wife's liking videos of women-- I care about Mamdani's words to be honest with you.
ALLISON: Words when he says follow his actions exactly.
AUSTIN: Mamdani's actions to be as generous.
ALLISON: Emily I am actually following Trump's words and actions he tweeted apes. He had somebody on his backyard that called the first black lady the first black first lady a man. He discriminated in the 70s against black people in housing.
He actually called the execution of the execution of the exonerated five. I am not only watching his words, I am watching the most powerful man's actions, and I'm also being told to ignore that, not acceptable to me.
PHILLIP: All right. We're going to leave it there. Next for us, a new addition to the table, you at home. We're going to
read some of your feedback next.
[22:55:06]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Now of your feedback from cnn.com/abby.
First up, why do you think the Democratic Party actually cares about Bill Maher's opinion? He's more of a Republican than a Democrat.
Another comment says and this is a two-parter, Trump may be a blessing in disguise. He's shown us every weakness in our laws that must be fixed after he's gone. Also, I would love to get Ashley's digits.
ALLISON: Here he is.
[23:00:06]
PHILLIP: And finally, Charles is that one guy that brings full Thanksgiving dinner energy to a debate about the weather. Which I have to agree with. So Ashley if you were shooting a shot for you tonight.
ALLISON: My D.M.s are open.
PHILLIP: All right everybody. Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now
