Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Pressure Mounts For Platner To End Maine Senate Bid; Second Woman Who Dated Platner Describes His Violent Behavior; U.S. Launches Strikes On Iran As Trump Meets NATO Leaders; Questions Swirl Mitch McConnell's Hospitalization; Treasury Department Drops Plan To Have Harriet Tubman On the $20 Bill. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired July 07, 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: Tonight, the mess in Maine. Graham Platner's campaign unravels.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think Graham's going to do the right thing and drop out.
PHILLIP: Will he quit in time to give the next candidate a chance?
Plus, angry at our allies, Trump blasts NATO on day one.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: We weren't treated well. We don't need anybody's help.
PHILLIP: And tensions rise in the Strait of Hormuz.
Also, what is happening with Senator Mitch McConnell? Three weeks in the hospital and no official information, but close allies say he's fine.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: We talked for about 17 minutes.
PHILLIP: So, why all the secrecy?
And the Treasury doesn't have any plans to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill.
SCOTT BESSENT, TREASURY SECRETARY: We are not at present.
PHILLIP: But what are they working on now? Approval for a $250 bill featuring Donald Trump.
Live at the table, Ana Navarro, Jason Rantz, Brianna Lyman, Mike Nellis, and Kmele Foster.
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, the question appears to be when, not if, Maine's embattled Senate candidate will step down. In the wake of new rape allegations that he categorically denies, Graham Platner still hasn't made an official decision, but he has lost support from virtually every prominent Democrat who initially backed him. Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Ruben Gallego, Congressman Ro Khanna, they are all now calling for Platner to withdraw from this election after sticking with him through previous sexual misconduct allegations and reports that he had a Nazi tattoo on his chest.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Was he a saint? I guess not. I don't know too many saints here.
SEN. RUBEN GALLEGO (D-AZ): Because at the young age of 20-something, he got a stupid tattoo with all his Marine Corps buddies.
This guy is an authentic man.
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): We reject unequivocally misogyny. We reject it. But you know who else rejects it? Graham Platner.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): I met with Graham Platner today. We're going to beat Susan Collins and take back the Senate.
SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Graham Platner, when asked, when did you first realize that the system is rigged, without hesitation said, when none of the bankers went to jail.
And I said to myself, that's my kind of man, because that is a man who not only has the values, but a man who believes in accountability.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: A source tells CNN that Platner knows it's over, but he wants to use the movement that he created to have a voice in who's going to replace him. The New York Times reports that in a private call with campaign staff, Platner said that he believes he still has leverage to influence the decision on his replacement.
The Democratic Party of Maine responded to that tonight assuring voters that Platner will have no say in the matter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DEVON MURPHY-ANDERSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAINE DEMOCRATIC PARTY: The integrity of this process is just as important as the outcome, and we are committed to ensuring that Democrats across our state can have confidence in both.
Unfortunately, Graham Platner's team has repeatedly reached out to us in an attempt to put their thumb on the scale of what this process looks like. We have repeatedly reiterated to Graham Platner's team that they have no role in determining our next Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate, nor in determining what this process looks like.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Before we open it up to the table, I want to invite you at home to join our debate. Head to cnn.com/abby and weigh in. We'll get to some of your comments throughout the show.
In the meantime, the gall of the Platner campaign to believe that they should be the ones to decide who comes next, that is amazing.
[22:05:08]
And it's so amazing that the fact that the Maine Democratic Party had to put out that video I think tells you everything that you need to know.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm not sure that it's that amazing if you're used to campaigns. Because, listen, all of these consultants want to stay employed, and so they want to make sure that the next person, the person who replaces him, commits to keeping them employed. That -- to me, that's -- you know, I mean --
PHILLIP: I mean, if you're a consultant who had a hand in this --
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: You should not be employed.
PHILLIP: -- I would hope that the next job is really what should be at the top of the list.
NAVARRO: But -- yes, but go ahead, go try to tell them that.
Listen, here's the bottom line. This man is getting out, needs to get out. He needs to stop extending it and taking everybody, the Democratic Party, through this torturous road of getting out.
You know, part of me does think, though, that I think Trump changed the way we see these things now, right? Because he confronted so many scandals that would have taken out any normal, mortal candidate, and he just rode them out. So, I think he has affected the way people think about riding scandals out.
I grew -- we all grew up at a time when there was a scandal, there was a mistress, there was, you know, a rape allegation, anything like this, and the person would be having a press conference the next day and getting out. I think Trump changed the dynamics of that. But you know what? It doesn't work in the Democratic Party. This guy is not going to get support. He's not going to get donations. He's not going to win. He's going to drag the entire thing down, and so he better get out, and get out now.
RANTZ: I do seem to remember Bill Clinton surviving a pretty damning scandal. That was --
NAVARRO: After he was elected.
RANTZ: -- pretty significant.
NAVARRO: After he was elected.
RANTZ: Oh, but it -- so that's the only reason? Because he was elected, he's going to get a pass? I mean, he's still being featured by the Democratic Party. He still speaks at DNC conventions.
I think you're right in a more general sense, right, that we now have come to a point where I guess we're accepting of certain kinds of scandals, both the right and the left. I think this goes way further than the traditional scandal that we're dealing with. To me, we should be asking a lot of these Democrat voices, why did you stick with him initially?
Why did you stick with him after the second scandal, and the third scandal, and the fourth scandal? Why was the Nazi tattoo not enough? Why was making fun of rape victims or making jokes about rape, why was that okay? Why did you guys dismiss The New York Times story simply because the victim in that case was a Republican?
Like those are legitimate questions that the Democrats decided did not need to be adequately answered because they wanted to win in Maine and they thought this was their guy.
PHILLIP: Yes. And I just want to take a moment to just give voice to the first woman who made these allegations, Lyndsey Fifield, and she spoke to Jake Tapper today, and she talked about what it meant to her to hear the other woman, Jenny Racicot, come forward also this week. Listen to just how she describes that relationship, and also her relationship with Graham Platner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LYNDSEY FIFIELD, PLATNER ACCUSER: This is a man who is so hostile to the feelings of women, and he think, he is disgusted by any show of emotion.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: When Jenny told her story, what, if anything, aligned with your experiences?
FIFIELD: The eyes. It was almost like looking at like a pit bull, where they just -- there's -- it's nothing, like but not just nothing, but like a capacity for violence, and you see it. And you know it's there, and it's terrifying. And I -- but also, yes, a deafness to anything that, you know --
TAPPER: Consents?
FIFIELD: Yes, like I'm going -- like this is going to happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I think that what strikes me about that is that, you know, she's alleging that they had a very volatile relationship. She's talking about the general nature of the relationship. And, you know, Graham Platner denies being physical with her categorically, but his campaign has also attacked her for being a political operative. They called her allegations categorically false and say they come from a person with a well-documented political agenda.
I guess it seems to me that the real problem for Democrats is that they've allowed partisanship to compromise their own values. So, they -- to me, it's like you either have values or you don't. And if they can't -- if they're not at play here, then why should they be at play for Christine Blasey Ford? Why should they be at play for any other woman who might be exactly like Lyndsey Fifield and exactly like Jenny Racicot?
KMELE FOSTER, PODCAST HOST, THE FIFTH COLUMN: Yes. I mean, the word audacity comes to mind thinking about a candidate who has gone through so many scandals previously just in a matter of a couple of weeks really, not even months, not years.
[22:10:03]
He had no reputation before any of this. He's just kind of elevated to this position. And the question he was asked routinely over, and over and over again is, is there more? Are we going to hear more about this? And he had this practiced line, which now seems just a little too well-calibrated.
I've never had any sort of proximity to money or power. Well, that's not what's being asked about here. The question here is whether or not you have the integrity to be the sort of person who we would want to situate next to money and power, and it's a question that he should have known that that was the real question, so should anyone else who was endorsing him, who was finding reasons to excuse away his behavior.
And at this point, it is always appropriate to weigh the evidence, to ask serious questions about serious allegations. But at this point, it is the abundance of different things that are coming into play here that all speak to his character, or lack thereof, and it is high time for him to move out of the race.
I'm very happy to see that announcement from the Democratic Party of Maine. It's just all taking a little bit too long.
PHILLIP: But what happens, Mike, when the Democrats now have to -- they have to anoint someone. There's not going to be another election for the nominee in Maine.
MIKE NELLIS, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, KAMALA HARRIS CAMPAIGN: Yes.
PHILLIP: And that's a complicated thing for Democrats to do after what happened to your former boss, Kamala Harris. It was controversial that she wasn't put up to the voters when she was selected to replace Joe Biden.
NELLIS: I think they can't anoint a candidate here right now anyway. Hubris was mentioned earlier at the table. Like think about the hubris of him running knowing that he had done these things, and then continuing to lie about that, but the hubris to also say, I get to pick my replacement, I get to influence the process. Like that's ridiculous. He has a little bit of leverage here because he's the one who needs to make the decision to step down, but he does not get to determine the future of that. Maine Democrats should.
And so what they should do is put together a transparent process, maybe a caucus, maybe a convention. I don't know what the right way to put that together is, but the mistake that was made for the Harris campaign in 2024 was the anointing of her as the candidate, which was probably the only thing we could do at the circumstance where Joe Biden had decided to drop out, made it look very undemocratic, made it very hard for her to seem like a legitimate candidate, which hurt her, and that wasn't her fault. It was just the circumstance.
Create a process here that allows three, four, five candidates to get in, make their pitch to Maine Democrats. Let at least party activists make that choice in an open, accountable convention. That would be a better place to go, and then let's get to work to beat Susan Collins.
BRIANNA LYMAN, REPORTER, THE FEDERALIST: You know, to Mike's point about the circumstances having been different for Joe Biden, I think they were, because the circumstances right now for Platner is that there were a lot of these controversies out before the primary happened. And none of those caused Democrats, like Bernie Sanders, like Ro Khanna, to take away their endorsement. So, they went into this primary knowing full well that there was a lot of problems to all of Jason's points earlier, and they still endorsed him.
And so now, Abby, to your question about Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and now, I think that for a party that constantly talks about democracy, they don't necessarily do it well all the time because Maine voters did hear all of this and still went out and chose Graham Platner. So, I think it's a tough sell now for the Democratic Party to say, we're going to anoint someone.
I would also suspect that probably the Maine Democratic Party has some kind of internal polling, because it clearly wasn't enough polling or concern during the primary season for them to put this amount of pressure, but they probably have some internal polling showing this will be a blowout for Susan Collins with him in.
RANTZ: Well, that New York Times/Siena poll came out just a few days ago that kind of indicated that, particularly amongst that demographic that he was supposed to do really well with, the working class folks who were -- I think it was like a 20-point lead for Collins. I think that obviously helped push them along a little bit.
PHILLIP: But are you suggesting that they leave Platner because he was elected given -- and voters knew at least some of this. I don't think they knew all of this, but they knew some of this.
LYMAN: Well, I personally think that Graham Platner, one, should step down. I also think he should have never made it to the primary stage because he should have never received those endorsements. But I do think that for a party that does talk about democracy, voters, nonetheless, the Nazi tattoo controversy was pretty well out there.
We heard The New York Times report from Lyndsey. I do think there was enough information that voters had, and they still went out and chose him. So, I do think there is a question, do those voters' votes actually matter to Democrats?
NELLIS: Well -- and can I add something here too, which is that there were a lot of people in the Democratic Party who stuck true to their values, folks like Shannon Watts, who got raked over the coals on the internet for saying that this was not okay. I mean, I spoke out even, probably not as far as Shannon Watts did, but I said it was wrong to attack this woman too, and got raked over the coals, lost thousands of --
NAVARRO: Or Cory Booker was very vocal from the get-go.
NELLIS: Cory Booker said it, more than a few others. It's just we need to look in the mirror, I think everybody, from the people who recruited Graham Platner, the people that vetted him, the people that endorsed him, look in the mirror and go, how did we get here, and fix this, because this is not the party that any of us want right now.
PHILLIP: So, there's clearly a lack of leadership on the part of -not just Democratic leaders but a lot of thought leaders in the party who kind of led the masses into believing that this was okay.
FOSTER: It feels different this time, though, and I'm very curious about your perspective on this, that there's been a pretty intense move away from him very quickly after all of these scandals.
[22:15:02]
It seems like everyone just knows time is up. But I'm curious if anyone suspects that this is going to lead to some sort of sea change among Democrats, if they are genuinely not going to keep --
RANTZ: Well, the polling tells them to do that. I do believe that the polling was a piece -- a larger piece of this than I think is being reported at this point to that issue, right? I mean, you had all of these scandals, and they were okay, because in the polls, he appeared to be doing well.
PHILLIP: Yes.
RANTZ: And then all of a sudden that started to shift, and they're like, okay, we only have a week left here. We got to jump ship.
NAVARRO: Well, can I say, I mean, listen, to me that's a -- it might be true, it might be not. We don't know. It's a very cynical point of view. To me, I think the interview that Jake did was earth-shaking and shattering for Graham Platner. And it's one of these things where is it -- what else is going to come out on this guy? It seems like there's a different scandal coming out every other week, every other day now.
But anybody that listened to that interview and heard the sincerity and the trauma with which that woman described being raped by Platner, I don't think in good conscience can look the other way and pretend that this is not disqualifying and, you know, that he just does not have the moral character to be anywhere near the U.S. Senate.
NELLIS: I totally agree with all of that. But if I could just add here, too, I do think the polling plays a role here, and it's the same reason that Republicans are standing behind Ken Paxton, because they think that he can win. And, again, that's a black mark on the Democratic Party, and to me is embarrassing, and we've got to do better.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, breaking news, the U.S. strikes Iran and reinstates oil sanctions after Iran attacked commercial ships near the Strait of Hormuz.
Plus, this is the third week of Senator Mitch McConnell's hospitalization. Close allies say that they've spoken to him, but why isn't there more information that is public about this? We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:20:00]
PHILLIP: Breaking news tonight, U.S. Central Command says it has finished its latest round of strikes against Iran, hitting more than 80 targets. The attacks were in response to a series of Iranian strikes on commercial ships near the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian state media reports several blasts were heard on Kharg Island, a vital hub for Iranian oil exports.
Now, the backdrop of all of this is the high-stakes NATO summit happening right now in Turkey. President Trump received a very warm welcome as he arrived there earlier today, and he later met with Turkey's strongman leader and used his time to air his many grievances.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: But we weren't treated well because we did something in Iran. We don't need anybody's help. I didn't even want their help. But before I asked, they said they wouldn't be there. And we've invested trillions of dollars in NATO. Why? To protect European countries.
Why are we spending hundreds of billions of dollars and they're not there for us? We've always been there for them
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Trump once again falsely claims that NATO has never been there for us. I also think it seems that given how this war has gone on, given how they've gotten into a settlement with Iran, a memorandum of understanding that, as of right now, had to be paused for more strikes because Iran is not abiding by the MOU, it seems like Europe got it right. They understood what this was, and they didn't want to get involved in it. RANTZ: Well, they are involved with it now. The Strait of Hormuz is a global issue. It's not just something that the United States is going to deal with. And, you know, the United States is doing everything the right way, as far as we know. They're sitting down with Iran. They're trying to come to an understanding. Iran is the one that's breaking the ceasefire, and we have to show a message that you don't get to continuously do that.
They're making some strategic mistakes beyond just messing with this MOU. I mean, I think one of the ships that was targeted was a Qatari ship. They're going after folks in their own orbit, and they're going after their own allies. They're just creating more problems for them long-term.
Now, I think, ultimately, this is all political. They know that there's an election coming up. I think they're using this as leverage to go after the Trump administration. I don't think we're going to have a deal in however many days are left in the 60 days. I think that's going to be extended. So, it becomes political. And we're going to have to deal with this for another several months, unfortunately. But I do think that it would come to a conclusion faster if Europe stepped up in a bigger way and started playing a bigger role here.
PHILLIP: What do you want Europe to do at this point?
RANTZ: I want Europe to say that they're standing with the United States and that the Strait of Hormuz has to be completely open.
PHILLIP: They can't bomb them any more than we bomb them.
NELLIS: Wait, hold on. Why would Europe get involved in helping us when we didn't even ask for their help? Trump says that he doesn't want it. And, by the way, he continues to alienate them by launching ridiculous tariffs that make everything more expensive, by, I mean, trying to pass this over to them. And today, earlier today, he threatened to withdraw all troops from Europe if he -- if Denmark doesn't give him Greenland.
PHILLIP: Yes. Let me play --
NELLIS: That's not the way you engage with your allies.
PHILLIP: Let me play that sound. I mean, he actually encapsulated all of his problems with NATO down to the Greenland issue. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Well, that's what hurt my relationship with NATO, because Greenland doesn't help Denmark. Denmark doesn't spend money to really help Greenland.
It was Greenland that in my -- and it continues to be, that should be controlled by the United States, not by Denmark.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:25:00]
PHILLIP: What?
NELLIS: What are we doing? What are we doing?
FOSTER: For the briefest of moments, I just had like a hint of sympathy for his staff who is probably like just scratching their heads, wondering why he is doing this again.
NELLIS: They knew what they signed up for.
FOSTER: It's just this kind of famous -- he's famously petty. Like we weren't treated very well, like you weren't looking out for us, I wasn't even sure I was going to come. Like none of that makes any sense at this point. You ought to be trying to restore your relationships and strengthen your relationships with NATO allies at a moment when you do, in fact, hope that Europe gets involved in this situation with the straits to help straighten out the mess that you helped create.
NELLIS: Yes.
NAVARRO: And as if the Greenland stuff wasn't enough, as if the tariff stuff wasn't enough, as if, you know, poo-pooing on NATO entirely wasn't enough, he shows up, what, a couple of days after he got his puppet at FIFA, Infantino, to remove the red card against the host country of NATO, which happens to be Belgium, where, basically, every Belgian this morning -- you know, every Belgian today woke up making fun of Donald Trump and imitating his silly YMCA milk the cows.
PHILLIP: I thought you were going to talk about the F-35 fighter jets. I didn't realize you were going to -- we were going to divert to the red card.
But in addition to all of that, they are considering giving F-35 fighter jets to Turkey, which, in the first Trump administration, had been basically banned by Congress because they use Russian radar systems. And it's also controversial because his U.S. ally, Israel, doesn't want it.
Bibi Netanyahu talked to Dana Bash today, and here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: It's a regime that's infected with the Muslim Brotherhood, which hates the United States. He harbors Hamas, the Hamas terrorists. He supports them. He finances them. He's thrown his opponents in jail, all of them.
And so he's not exactly a model ally of the United States.
DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: So, he is considering giving the country these planes, F-35s.
NETANYAHU: Well, as I said, it would destroy the power balance in the Middle East because Turkey, I think, has aggressive aspirations. (END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And, you know, on top of the whole F-35 thing, which, again, they're considering, hasn't -- it doesn't appear that they've made a decision yet, Trump also made it very clear the only reason he went to the NATO summit is because it was hosted by Turkey. He repeatedly described Erdogan as a closer ally, as somebody more aligned with him than the rest of Europe.
And, yes, Turkey is in NATO, but the point is, I think, that is a controversial view for Trump to throw the rest of Europe under the bus in favor of Erdogan at this moment.
LYMAN: Well, I don't know if it's necessarily throwing the rest of Europe under the bus. I do think Netanyahu is correct to point out that Turkey is not necessarily a model ally for the United States. I also think the reason that we stopped sending them F-35s were legitimate then, and I think those concerns remain today, and whether or not the circumstances have changed remains unclear. We also don't have the same access that President Trump has.
I also think it's important to note two things. The F-35s that we give to Israel, that we would give to Turkey, are not the same capabilities that we have. They are not the -- they're less advanced than ours. So, we do have the ability, for example, if need be, to take them down if they were ever used against the United States.
The other thing is that the Department of Defense typically works with other countries if we're building something or selling them a product to ensure that there are security protocols in place and procedures so that there can't be things like espionage by Russia or China or one of our adversaries. So, if those things were in place, and if Turkey met the requirements Congress set, I do think there could be an argument for selling them.
PHILLIP: Yes, I agree. I mean, I think the reporting is that they would mitigate some of those concerns. But I think the broader geopolitical concern is that Trump has his allegiances in the wrong place.
NELLIS: Well, you asked an important question earlier, is, why is he throwing NATO under the bus? Why is he engaging with autocrats? Same thing with Viktor Orban, right? Like they love Viktor Orban. J.D. Vance went to go campaign for the guy even though he was not a good human being and clearly a Russian puppet.
And you see this consistently with Donald Trump's administration. If you kiss up to him enough, like the head of FIFA did, if you give him a fake peace prize, if you put money in his back pocket, he will sell out the American people, and he will sell out even some of our closest allies, like Bibi Netanyahu.
And Trump has been making deals all throughout the Middle East through Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff and the rest of them. Those are, in my opinion, immoral. They're bad for the American people. They make us less safe. But they put a lot of money in his back pocket. So, my guess is on some level he's either getting the feeling that he wants from somebody who's going to talk him up and say the right thing, or he's making money on the back end of this, like everything else.
[22:29:56]
NAVARRO: But you know, I mean, Bibi Netanyahu really gave a master class on how to suck up to Trump, right?
He visited him in Mar-a-Lago all the time, was with him the entire time, even when he was out of office. But it also feels like he's lost a lot of footing and leverage with Trump.
Trump keeps telling him lately, shut up and know your place and do as you're told and leave me alone.
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST, AND AUTHOR, "WHAT'S KILLING AMERICA": Because I thought Democrats said the Jews control everything.
PHILLIP: Both publicly, yes.
RANTZ: There's a lot of Republicans who say that too.
PHILLIP: We'll leave it there for that conversation.
For three weeks, Senator Mitch McConnell has been hospitalized. And for three weeks, there's been very little information about how he's doing, that has some of the MAGA faithful demanding answers. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, growing concern about the health of Senator Mitch McConnell.
The Kentucky Republican and former majority leader is 84 years old, and he's been hospitalized for three weeks now. It's still unclear why he was admitted or when he'll be released. The lack of information from the senator's own office has led to speculation that McConnell's health has significantly deteriorated, with some in MAGA demanding proof of life.
This morning, CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings, who is a former McConnell adviser, got a call from the senator.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, AND FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO MITCH MCCONNELL: We talked for about 17 minutes. He talked a lot about the situation with Iran, talked a little bit about Ukraine and what's going on in Europe. I'd gotten a few text messages from him, but I hadn't spoken to him.
So it was good to hear his voice. His voice sounded strong and sounded like he was keeping up with the news to me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
NAVARRO: His voice didn't sound strong when he wasn't in the hospital. His voice hasn't sounded strong for years.
PHILLIP: I think that testimony is in addition to two other Senate leaders, Leader Thune and Senator Barrasso. Both said they spoke to McConnell by phone.
Thune said they talked about national security. Barrasso said they talked for about 20 minutes, similar to Scott Jennings. They talked about the Supreme Court, Graham Platner, they talked about all these different things.
All of that is all good and well, but why is Mitch McConnell still in the hospital? And what's the situation with him? I think it does not negate those questions, it seems to me.
KMELE FOSTER, EDITOR-AT-LARGE, "TANGLE", AND PODCAST HOST, "THE FIFTH COLUMN": And the obligation for transparency on the part of the candidate and his staff. It's not the candidate, but the senator and his staff. It is a very strange thing to be in this position where it's been years of this with Mitch McConnell.
These moments where he's just not saying anything in response to questions where Mitt Romney, I think it was, he said something along the lines of, you know, we may lose him for 20 seconds, but he's there for the rest of the time. Why are we doing this?
PHILLIP: Well, we literally saw it on camera. I mean, he froze a few times. And look, the, you know, old man time is coming for all of us, right?
Let's not pretend that 84 years old is not an advanced age. Why are we pretending as if at some point, he has to make a decision about whether he is capable of doing his job and that his constituents deserve to know that?
RANTZ: I totally agree.
I think the longer you wait to put out the quote, "proof of life," the worse it is. It creates a whole lot of conspiracies. My guess is he's calculating or his office is calculating.
He's not running for reelection. He's only got a few more months in office. There are implications that come with anyone deciding it's time for him to step aside at this point and I just think they don't want to deal with that.
The other issue is we don't know actually what's wrong with him. We should. But I imagine at least based on that 911 call that it was some sort of heart issue. He might have been on a ventilator, which is going to cause some
issues and probably not sounding the strongest. And he doesn't want to go on camera and put that out there. I'm sensitive to that.
NAVARRO: In the same way that I told you that I said the Platner campaign staff wants to stay employed, the McConnell staff wants to stay employed for the next six months. He's scheduled to retire, I guess, what, January of 2027.
But I do think the key issue here is transparency. And let's remember that this is coming just a few days, weeks after the whole Tom Keene Jr. disappeared for three months episode that we knew nothing about. His constituents knew nothing about.
I think that if you are in public service, I think that if you are an elected office, you owe your constituents and your voters transparency and an explanation if you are going to be missing and absent from your job, which requires taking votes for this kind of extensive period.
PHILLIP: Yes, let me just but just to dovetail off this, a viewer question came in just to this point, who asks, Aren't there congressional rules about your health and your viability to do your job?
And I guess what all of this has shown us is no, actually, unfortunately, you can do whatever you want.
NAVARRO: But there ought to be.
MIKE NELLIS, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER, KAMALA HARRIS CAMPAIGN, AND HOST, "ENDLESS URGENCY": But there are there ought to be. But we've had three Republican members of Congress in the last couple of years who've just disappeared and nobody seems to care.
Kay Granger was put in an assistance facility for people dealing with dementia in 2024. Nobody noticed that she was gone. Keene was gone for months, came back and blamed it on depression, I'm not entirely sure I believe that story.
And the same thing. I don't believe the story with Mitch McConnell right now.
RANTZ: Why don't you believe the depressions?
So just with respect on that, because there's so much stigma attached specifically.
[22:40:03]
NELLIS: And look, especially men. I have personally dealt with depression, suicidal ideation. But I'll tell you what, if I didn't show up to work for four months, I would have been fired.
RANTZ: And so it shows you like that.
NELLIS: Yes, but it should be. It should be, though. And he'll hopefully get what's coming to him in
November for not being transparent with folks. But on the McConnell thing, I also don't buy this either.
If Scott Jennings and Thune and everybody else could have a 20 minute phone call with Mitch McConnell, he should be able to shoot a 60 second proof of life video to show us that he's okay. I think they know the deadline for a special election is August 3rd. If he's dead or if he's on a ventilator, if he's not able to do his job, he should resign right now.
They should have a special election.
PHILLIP: Okay, but why can't they just say, you know, this he had this condition, he's on the mend, he's improving, whatever it is, whatever it is, if it is, in fact, that shouldn't they just be able to just say, here's what happened to him. He's improving.
We're hoping he gets out of the house. I'm just saying that is an option that is available to them and they are not taking it. They have issued a statement that is almost a month old.
Basically saying that. Thank you for your support is what it's.
BRIANNA LYMAN, REPORTER, "THE FEDERALIST": Yes. And I think it's wholly unacceptable. I think that the tweets we've seen today about these 20 minute phone calls that everyone has a 20 minute slot.
I guess if I was calling someone who was, you know, out of commission for a few weeks, I would not ask them about the war. SCOTUS, I probably say, how are you doing? But it seemed like a weird talking point that kind of came out for a lot of people on social media.
And actually, I do agree with Mike's point. The representative who was out for a few months with depression, that is a serious condition that a lot of people struggle with. But when you take on a role like being a member of Congress, you do kind of have to sacrifice a level of privacy.
Number one, so people know where you are at all times, what you're doing. And two, if you are unable to execute the duties of your office for three months, you might want to consider taking a step back for your own mental health and also for your constituents. People put a lot of trust in people that they vote for. And so for McConnell, for this representative, for Kay, who just gets dropped off in a dementia home, none of that was acceptable for any of their constituents.
NAVARRO: We should point out that there have been a lot of people in Congress that have been dealing with health issues that have been transparent about it. Fetterman, McCain, when he was out with, you know, with --
PHILLIP: Fetterman eventually, because --
NAVARRO: Senator Lujan from New Mexico, who had a stroke, I mean.
PHILLIP: Look, there's been, I suppose, at least one Democrat who died in office.
RANTZ: There's been multiple Democrats.
PHILLIP: Multiple. So, I mean, look, some people, I guess, decide that they just want to hold on to their -- until they die. But the constituents deserve, frankly, better than that. We'll have to leave it there.
The Treasury Department has now scrapped plans to release a new $20 bill featuring Harriet Tubman. But there is still an effort to put Trump's face on a $250 bill. We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Ten years ago, a plan was introduced to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill. So, what's the status of that now? Here's the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Is Treasury still planning to put Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill?
SCOT BESSENT, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: We are not at present.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Bessent didn't elaborate on that. But when he was asked about plans to put President Trump's image on a potential $250 bill, he left the door open.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BESSENT: Well, the $250 requires an act of Congress because you can't have a living person and it was to commit for the 250th anniversary. For us to change on an existing bill, whether it's a one through a hundred, takes many years in advance.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Over the last several months, a lot of people have asked me, what's up with the Harriet Tubman thing? Now we know it's not going anywhere because they're really focused on getting Trump's name, his signature, his face on our currency.
For what reason, I'm really not sure.
LYMAN: Well, and to be clear, the $250 bill is commemorative. So, it's not necessarily legal tender that's going to be out in circulation. I also think it's important to note that under Joe Biden, they also delayed the Harriet Tubman bill. So, it's not just necessarily a Trump problem. That being said -- PHILLIP: Well, they revived it and it takes time.
LYMAN: Sure, that being said --
PHILLIP: So, I don't think it's fair to say that they delayed it.
LYMAN: You put faces on money to commemorate American icons and I think that there are only a limited number of bills, one, two, five, 10, 20, 150. So, there has to be a very selective process.
And Harriet Tubman absolutely deserves recognition, which she has recognition already. But I do think that the burden is put on Democrats to explain why Harriet Tubman, first of all, out of every option.
Hold on, let me finish, please. Out of every option, especially someone like Andrew Jackson.
Andrew Jackson is a man who nonetheless, he saved the union during the nullification crisis. He was a war hero in 1815. He actually vetoed the second charter of the bank, which was seen at the time as a way to take power away from the rich and elites.
This is a man who --
PHILLIP: What's the argument against Harriet Tubman?
LYMAN: What's the argument for Harriet Tubman?
PHILLIP: What's the argument for Harriet Tubman? Do we have to do a history lesson?
LYMAN: But why over anyone else? Why over Andrew Jackson?
[22:49:54]
PHILLIP: Because I think she represents the importance of regular people in this country taking justice and history in their own hands and doing the right thing at a time when women like her --
If you're a conservative, you should love Harriet Tubman. She was a gun-toting abolitionist.
RANTZ: It's not that she's not an abolitionist. I don't know, but in fairness --
PHILLIP: She was an everyday American hero.
RANTZ: I don't know, but my point is, I think in fairness, I don't hear conservatives saying she does not deserve any kind of recognition.
LYMAN: I didn't say any kind of recognition.
RANTZ: No, the conversation has always been
PHILLIP: She just said we have to make a case for why Harriet Tubman deserves --
RANTZ: But this administration is --
LYMAN: Hold on, why should she displace Andrew Jackson?
RANTZ: The argument is about the replacement of Andrew Jackson. That was the initial argument, and that was why there was pushback initially. Put her on a new bill, I don't care.
PHILLIP: Put her on the 250.
RANTZ: Put her on the 250.
RANTZ: So I would be okay with that as well.
PHILLIP: Why is Donald Trump on the 250?
RANTZ: I don't think he should be on it, but it's not going to happen. I don't think it should.
I think it was stupid for them to even have this conversation. I get that Harriet Tubman is deserving of something 100 percent. Put it on a new bill.
This idea that we're going to suddenly just remove people from tender for political reasons, for historical --
Whatever the reason is, you just open up a slippery slope. Why specific to Jackson? Why not Washington? You can make these arguments forever, so why don't we just be respectful and say, a new bill?
NELLIS: Look, Harriet Tubman represents everything that Donald Trump is not. There's somebody who put her body on the line who was a regular person.
LYMAN: Donald Trump was shot and nearly killed for trying to be President.
NELLIS: Oh, stop.
LYMAN: No, it did happen. I hate to remind you.
NELLIS: My God. Okay, well, you should talk to the MAGA folks who don't believe that Butler was real, but that's a different conversation.
LYMAN: That is not something that's an actual conversation.
NELLIS: There's a lot of people out there that have said, including Candace Owens.
FOSTER: Do you believe that it's not real?
NELLIS: No, I believe it.
FOSTER: Okay, well, then just accept it. NELLIS: But regardless--
NAVARRO: Wait, can we talk about the bill and Harriet Tubman, please?
NELLIS: Let's talk about the bill instead of making it about something else. I mean, Harriet Tubman put her life and her body on the line. She deserves recognition.
Donald Trump is desperate for some type of cultural relevancy. He's putting his name on everything.
He put his name on our passports this year. He's putting his face on the dollar bill. It's disgusting.
PHILLIP: He's putting his -- Yes, he put his face in the passport, which, as far as I know, has never been done before.
NELLIS: He's a free abuser.
NAVARRO: He put his name on the Kennedy Center, which has now been removed. He put his name on the passport.
PHILLIP: Here's what a viewer says. We have slave owners on bills. We can have Harriet on a bill.
NELLIS: Agreed.
NAVARRO: And it would be the first African-American on legal tender. I mean, in 250 years of American history, there has never been an African-American on a bill.
LYMAN: I'd argue MLK is probably a better option than Harriet Tubman if we're trying to find someone who fits a certain demographic.
FOSTER: There's no -- The universe of honorable people who could deserve such an honor is massive.
The question that keeps coming back to me is why is President Trump so obsessed with all of this self-aggrandizement, putting his name and face on the passport, on dollar bills, on buildings all over Washington, D.C., marring buildings and changing the names illegally to put his name on it. It is in such poor taste and out of step with exactly where the country happens to be at the moment. It's bad for him and his legacy, I suspect, and bad for the party that he is supposed to represent.
And it doesn't really seem to serve the country in any sort of way.
NAVARRO: Well, he's a narcissist. That's why he wants to put his name on everything, because he's a narcissist with a frail ego who wants affirmation and approval and wants to build legacy and things. That's the way he does it, not understanding that the first and next Democrat who comes is going to remove all of that.
He's literally is like a human version of a dog that wants to pee on every hydrant in his way and mark his territory. NELLIS: I mean, but he's doing it because he doesn't have a legacy. So
he's trying to force --
LYMAN: That is so false.
PHILLIP: With that imagery, we'll move on.
Next for us, time for some more of you to join the table, some panel reaction to your feedback when we come back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: And now for some viewer feedback from CNN.com/Abby. This has to do with the Platner debate.
This viewer says, the next candidate had better be squeaky clean. The Democratic Party needs stability, not surprises, which just reminds me that, you know, even if you put morals aside, there's also like a self-preservation aspect to not choosing crappy candidates.
NELLIS: But they've also still got to be like exciting enough to get the base going, because if they swap them out with a boring moderate candidate, it's not going to work. Will the candidate get the Graham Platner endorsement? Nobody wants that.
PHILLIP: A lot of people also sounding off on term limits.
One says term limits should retire by 75 and that's enough. But there's another viewer who says, I'm conflicted here. Do we need a basic cognitive test for all candidates rather than focusing on age?
RANTZ: Congresswoman Marie Glusenkamp Perez introduced that bill at some point last year. I think that's a valid one. If you have someone who's 75 representing you and they're really good and they're on top of it, I don't want to get rid of that person.
NAVARRO: Well, not to mention that term limits would have to be approved and passed by the Congress. A bunch of them are over 75 or hope to be there till they are over 75. So good luck with that.
RANTZ: Full transparency of medical records would probably be something that would help a lot.
PHILLIP: I mean, look, you can't fly a plane after a certain age. I mean, I don't know why you should be like running the country.
[23:00:03]
NAVARRO: Or in the Supreme Court.
LYMAN: I think cognitive tests are good. You also risk, though, losing people who are experts in certain areas, which is very needed for newcomers.
PHILLIP: True, but I mean, there's always --
RANTZ: 75, not 75 anymore.
NELLIS: They can move to think tanks or somewhere.
PHILLIP: There are plenty of things they don't know about, like technology.
LYMAN: Sure, and that's why there's so many different committees.
FOSTER: The specialization is in the staff. Like, the staff stick around, they move around. I think we'll be fine.
All right. We got to run here.
Thank you for watching "NewsNight." "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
