Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Says His PAC Will Spend $400 Million To Help GOP In Midterms; Trump Campaigns In North Carolina, Where GOP Candidate Trailing In Polls; Trump Escalates Rhetoric Against Democrats, Floats Jail Time; Vivek Ramaswamy Under Fire For An Ad Featuring Estranged Mother Of Democrat Senatorial Bet; "Wall Street Journal" Reports Elon Musk Responsible For Slowing Down Starlink In Ukraine. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired October 20, 2026 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, battle of the billionaires. The president pledges to spend $400 million on the midterms as another mogul jumps into the fray.
Plus, Donald Trump escalates his rhetoric.
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: She'd be tried for what she did.
She could go to jail.
PHILLIP: From threats to anti-Semitic slurs.
TRUMP: They made it like, oh, he was some kind of a Shylock-type guy.
PHILLIP: Also, the race for Ohio governor turns even uglier over an ad featuring the estranged mother of the Democrat.
And the world's richest man reportedly decided to interfere in the Ukraine war. But what did the president know?
Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Leigh McGowan, Jason Rantz, Rodericka Applewhaite, and Ana Navarro.
Welcome to a special edition of NewsNight, Midterm Countdown.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
This is a fortnight edition of NewsNight. Just two weeks remain until the midterm elections, and tonight, the president is digging a little deeper into his pocket to help Republicans over the finish line, well, at least his political group's pockets, as he hits the campaign trail again in North Carolina to help the Republican Senate candidate polling -- who is currently polling behind the Democrat. Donald Trump announces that he'll be spending at least $400 million on the midterms.
The Republican National Committee is also pumping another $50 million into races. And now, on the Democratic side, billionaire Michael Bloomberg is loosening his purse strings. He's vowing to spend $80 million on Democratic candidates across the country.
All of this is happening as the Cook Political Report has moved two traditionally solid red Senate seats in South Carolina and Mississippi toward the Democrats, and the deep blue seat in Minnesota closer to the Republicans.
Now, before we open it up to the table here, we invite you at home to join the debate. Go to cnn.com/abby. Weigh in there. We'll get to some of your comments as we go throughout the show.
It actually does seem like the Bloomberg money, which is new in this cycle, in, in a cycle in which Democrats are really outspent it is the biggest sign here that they think that there's an opening and that some of these races just need a little extra push.
ANA NAVARRO, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes. I mean, listen, there's no doubt that Republicans have a huge financial advantage, and so I think Bloomberg is trying to even out the playing field a little bit. And you have seen that races that people weren't paying attention to like where I live, Congressional District 27 in Florida, Hakeem Jeffries was down there they've been moved.
And people are paying attention. People are donating. Small donors are also coming in to these races when folks realize that it is flippable, that these races can make a difference.
PHILLIP: And meanwhile, Trump is in North Carolina, and honestly, I'm not sure why he's there because that race is not very competitive. Republicans have pulled out money. He said tonight that Roy Cooper's going to be the next senator. He told that to the crowd. Is he just -- are they just trying to keep him occupied at this point in the campaign?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, one thing about North Carolina is that President Trump's done quite well there, A. B, Michael Whatley is a friend of his. He ran the Republican National Committee. He's been a loyal supporter of President Trump. I think he got into the Senate race at the behest of and with the endorsement of President Trump. So I see it as, you know, regardless of how you see the political situation there today, he's remaining loyal to someone who has been very loyal to him.
And I don't know what's going to happen on Election Day down there. I've seen the polls and I hear all the conjecture, but I know that the president and Michael Whatley are very connected, and Whatley's been very loyal to him, and I see the president returning the favor.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: I'm just wondering, aren't we just tired of the rich buying our elections, pumping hundreds of millions of dollars in with three or four people so that they get representatives that work for them and not for the people? I think the American people at this point have to be kind of exhausted by this amount of money that's being thrown around because rich people clearly want more money and less regulation, and Donald Trump is going to put $400 million in the race because he wants a Congress that won't hold him accountable.
[22:05:06]
PHILLIP: So, no money from Bloomberg for you?
MCGOWAN: No, I think -- listen, I think he's got to come in the race too. If there's money there, you have to spend money on the other side. And as you were, guys, were both saying, the Democrats don't have the same big pockets that are coming in that the Republicans do because the Democrats don't offer the same deregulation and tax breaks and all the things that the Republicans have. So, there's going to be less millions of dollars floating around.
I'm just saying, overall, it feels exhausting because it feels like we're just going to put $100 millions into attack ads or talking about communism or talking about evil things, rather than talking about the things that will really affect the American people.
Most of these rallies that Trump's having, we're not talking about the things that are on America's minds. We're not talking about, you know, making the case why we should vote for them. We're making Democrats evil.
JENNINGS: I have a slightly contrarian view on the money, which is --
MCGOWAN: Shocking.
JENNINGS: Which is that yes, a lot of ads are run, absolutely true, but a lot of the money, by both parties frankly, is spent on getting people out to vote, turning out the vote. And I know that's what the Republicans are planning to do with some of this money Trump is putting here late, is absolute get out the vote activities. I'm not sure it's a terrible thing to be investing in getting people to vote in and participate in our democracy.
MCGOWAN: You don't think it's a terrible thing to have this much money corrupting --
JASON RANTZ, SEATTLE RED RADIO HOST: Well, the voters don't.
MCGOWAN: -- our political process?
RANTZ: I mean, the Democratic voters are supporting candidates that have a lot of money behind them. James Talarico is going and getting a lot of money from Hollywood. You've got Troy Jackson, who's going out and taking money from billionaires.
On the one hand, I get your point.
MCGOWAN: It's too much.
RANTZ: But it's a talking point, that people don't --
MCGOWAN: It's not really a talking point, though.
RANTZ: But it is. Are you not going to vote for a Democrat because they've got a lot of money behind them?
MCGOWAN: No, but I'm saying if you've got one person, like Elon Musk, putting $258 million into the races to make sure that Republicans win --
RANTZ: Okay, versus George Soros and Reid Hoffman. Like, I mean, it's the same thing overall.
MCGOWAN: No, but I'm saying for the American people, it's exhausting. And at this point, I'd like to hear what both sides are offering, rather than how much money is spent.
RANTZ: Yes. But the way to to hear from both sides is when they're spending the money so you can actually cut through.
PHILLIP: So, there's a viewer comment from Karen, who says, even $400 million can't buy wins for the Republican Party, Trump has personally, seriously crippled it. And what she's referring to is that, overall, this election is a referendum on how Trump has managed the economy, how Trump has managed his presidency.
70 percent of Americans in this Washington Post poll disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy. And when you look more deeply at it -- that includes up to 46 percent of Republicans who think that the economy is not so good or poor. That's a lot.
RODERICKA APPLEWHAITE, FORMER DIRECTOR OF BLACK MEDIA, BIDEN ADMINISTRATION: Yes, trying to stopgap a very unpopular agenda that has hurt Americans from the gas pump to the grocery checkout line is, it's extremely expensive to do.
And so to Leigh's point, not only is it, you know, exhausting to see this much money being spent, it's also seeming to be very inefficient at this point. I mean, Republicans and their allies have already spent $500 million this cycle trying to -- you know, try to, you know, stopgap an administration that's been very unpopular.
And we're seeing it all over the country while they're trying to move money around. It's not really holding up against a message of Republicans just failing to have any solutions for any -- for how to, you know, push back against this White House.
RANTZ: The money doesn't buy elections, correct? I mean, again, there's kind of a contradictory position that I hear is that we want to get money out, and I get generally that position that it buys elections, but you're also saying it doesn't actually buy elections. And that was I think Scott's point of getting people out --
APPLEWHAITE: I think Republicans are in a place where they --
NAVARRO: It buys T.V. ads and it certainly -- RANTZ: Sure. No, I agree it does.
NAVARRO: It buys a bunch of things.
RANTZ: But it either works or it doesn't. So, on the one hand you're saying that it doesn't work, depending on the -- it's just contradictory position.
NAVARRO: No, but the time -- I think, but the timing I think matters as well, right?
RANTZ: Yes, 100 percent.
NAVARRO: So there's something kind of really painful and disgusting about people spending hundreds of millions of dollars on campaigns trying to influence who wins or who doesn't when there are so many people that can't make ends meet.
So, I think certain things are hitting people, particularly in a bad way right now because of what the American people are going through, the hardships, the economic and financial hardships.
PHILLIP: So, meanwhile, President Trump is trying a lot of different things on the campaign trail. Some of them are substantive, some of them not so much. This is the latest thing that he has seized on, which is the protests in France, and he's trying to link it to what he says would happen in the United States. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If you want to see what is at stake in this election, just look at what's happening in France, a once great nation that is being conquered, looted, and burned to the ground by migrants, jihadists, and communists who hate Christianity, and they hate, frankly, the Western civilization itself.
When you see burning steeples and raging fires in France, just remember that is what the radical Democrats want to do to America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:10:00]
PHILLIP: Again, I have questions about this strategy because it's, it does not seem responsive to what voters say that they actually care about. They certainly don't care about France right now in this election.
JENNINGS: Well, but they're certainly seeing images that are probably quite frightening, and I don't hear the president saying anything that isn't true. France is suffering, and all of Europe is suffering from a migrant crisis.
And there are people running wild in France, burning things down, destroying historical landmarks, looting stores and they're flying the colors of the Palestinians while they do it. It has nothing to do with anything other than this attempt to tear down Western civilization wherever they perceive weakness, and right now there is weakness in Europe. They have allowed this migration crisis.
MCGOWAN: Absolutely false, absolutely false. These things that happened in France are because a bunch of students started it because they didn't like -- they didn't like the way that the country was being run. They weren't getting enough.
It's the same problem that we have all over the world right now. There is not enough for the people that aren't at the top. There is not enough education. There is not enough money. There is -- we are not being paid enough for our jobs. They were French students that started this protest.
Has it gotten out of hand? Absolutely. Are terrible things happening there? Absolutely. But to suggest that what Donald Trump is saying that what's happening in France, big spooky thing happening in France, is going to come over here because this is what you're going to get from your radical Democrats.
JENNINGS: It already has.
RANTZ: It has happened here.
MCGOWAN: How many words did he say this? How many times did he call them radical six?
JENNINGS: We had it in 2020.
MCGOWAN: We had it in January 6th. This is exactly what happened on January 6th.
JENNINGS: We had free Palestine rallies. We had violence and riots all over America.
MCGOWAN: We have the right to protest.
PHILLIP: On a more basic level, it's just --
RANTZ: You don't have the right to commit acts of violence.
PHILLIP: -- on a more basic level, part of the issue is that there's an assumption that this is being carried out by foreigners when a lot of the people who are carrying out the violence are also white French people.
NAVARRO: Yes, but every -- again, it goes --
PHILLIP: So, I mean, I guess just because if you can find a few viral videos, you can just pin it on the brown people, but there are also plenty of white people in the streets carrying out horrific violence that should be condemned too.
NAVARRO: And I mean, I just have a hard time thinking that there's people in Paris, Texas, right now who are voting because of what's happening in Paris, France when diesel is $6 a gallon, when meat, ground beef is $6.30 a pound, when gas is $5 a gallon.
So, you know, anger, fear, they are great motivators to get people to the polls, and they've certainly been very effective for Donald Trump in the past, those caravans and all those things that he conjured up back in 2020.
RANTZ: They weren't conjured. They were real.
NAVARRO: Well, they may be exaggerated. Let me make my point and then you can --
RANTZ: There were videos --
NAVARRO: Yes, sure.
RANTZ: But it's not conjured. I mean, you --
NAVARRO: What he's conjured -- what he's saying about France is totally false.
PHILLIP: I mean, well, they're conjured in the sense that it gets talked about two weeks before an election and then as soon as the election happens --
JENNINGS: It's being talked about because it's happening right now.
(CROSSTALKS)
PHILLIP: As soon as the election happens, miraculously we just stop talking about the caravans.
RANTZ: Well, actually, when the election happened, the president closed the border.
PHILLIP: Because, you know, Jason people do actually report on this stuff, and the caravans are happening all the time. They're not just happening around the elections. They just don't always make it to the United States, but that's not what the Trump administration wants you to believe. They want you to believe that it only happens around elections, and that it should be used to scare people and discourage --
JENNINGS: I disagree. They want you to believe what is true, which is it depends on who is in power whether they make it or not.
PHILLIP: Well, that's how --
JENNINGS: And if the president's in power, the border will close. And if the Democrats are in power, it won't be.
PHILLIP: Like I said --
NAVARRO: My point is people in Paris, Texas, don't give a damn about what's happening in Paris, France, because they can't pay for beef
PHILLIP: It's a mystery that they stop talking about it after every election. That is just so -- such a strange coincidence.
JENNINGS: Is it a mystery to you that millions upon millions of people streamed into this country over four years?
PHILLIP: Listen, it is a strange coincidence that all of a sudden, when elections are over, the administration stops talking about the border.
JENNINGS: He has never stopped talking about immigration.
PHILLIP: Okay?
All right, next for us, the president is floating the idea of jail time for Democrats, and uses an anti-Semitic slur in the process. So, how are Republicans responding to this?
Plus, it's being called shameful, despicable, and sick. Is an ad going after Vivek Ramaswamy's Democratic opponent a new low in politics? We'll debate that.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:15:00]
PHILLIP: Tonight, with the midterms just two weeks away, Donald Trump is escalating his rhetoric about Democrats, once again floating the possibility of jail time for some of his fiercest critics. Today, Trump warned that Michigan Senator Elissa Slotkin could face prosecution months after she and other Democratic lawmakers posted a video urging service members to disobey illegal orders. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: She's a lightweight, by the way, total lightweight, that stupid person. She's a person that should be tried for what she did, where she said no, we control government. You don't have to listen to the president. And we'll see what happens. That's still -- you know, that's still up in the air.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Slotkin is facing criticism from the right over suggesting that she wants to deter young people from seeking jobs in the Trump administration.
She wasn't the only Democrat on the president's mind today. When he was asked about the unprecedented investigation into Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, Trump had this to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They keep talking about deportation. Now, she could go to jail. This is just my opinion. I think she's a sick, a very dishonest person, but -- who hates our country. And she comes from a country that is essentially not even a country, Somalia.
[22:20:00]
It's a real shit house, okay?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
The president keeps, Leigh, ramping up the rhetoric against Democrats the threats of prosecution against people that he thinks have committed crimes. I mean, he talked about Tim Walz. He talked about all, all sorts of people who --
NAVARRO: Letitia James.
PHILLIP: Letitia James, people that he has concluded have committed crimes. And it seems like his confidence that action will be taken in response to his wants and wills is getting higher and higher.
MCGOWAN: Yes. Well, I mean, he doesn't have any indication that what he wants, he doesn't get. I mean, that's, he's had a year and a half being president where we've pretty much done everything he's asked for. We've ruled pretty much by executive order. He is acting kind of textbook fascist behavior-like, when you start going after your political enemies like this.
I mean, like or hate Ilhan Omar, you don't have to like her at all. Once we're going into someone's house and talking about taking their citizenship away for something her father filled out when she was a young girl, that kind of thing, it's not an investigation looking for the truth. It's a conclusion looking for a case, right? They're trying to build a case by seizing her stuff instead of having a case to seize her stuff.
And if the administration can just go after anyone that happens to be a naturalized citizen who criticizes the president, then every naturalized American in this country that speaks out is on notice. Like I'm someone that criticizes the president. I'm a naturalized citizen. Does that mean you can just come to my house and look around for something that makes me a criminal? I think this whole thing should alarm --
NAVARRO: As a second naturalized citizen at the table, please don't give him any ideas.
MCGOWAN: I'm just saying I think it's something that should alarm people. This is something that should not be happening in this nation.
RANTZ: It didn't alarm the judge that looked at the documents as part of an investigation that started under the Biden administration, and the judge looked at this and said, there's probable cause to move forward.
Now, that's a lower bar than saying someone should be charged, right?
MCGOWAN: But it should be a very high bar to go after a sitting congressperson, which they're not even supposed to have open investigations.
RANTZ: So, George Santos should not have been investigated or --
MCGOWAN: They're not even supposed to have open -- don't do it -- don't do it this or that. We're talking about Ilhan Omar.
RANTZ: So, it's only Republicans that should go punished?
MCGOWAN: And I'm saying there is a statute where we are up to an election. They are not supposed to do it 60 days at least up to an election.
PHILLIP: Well, there's an internal DOJ policy on that.
MCGOWAN: And we're 18 days out from an election, and they're doing this.
PHILLIP: And I also just want to note that the judge didn't just say, oh, go run wild. The judge put restrictions on what they could do because of the sensitivity of doing this when it comes to a sitting congressperson. But, again --
RANTZ: So, they didn't violate anything that the judge had indicated.
PHILLIP: I didn't say that it did.
RANTZ: No, I know, but, I mean --
PHILLIP: But should the -- but the point is the judge was sensitive to that.
NAVARRO: Should the president of the United States be using this as a constant talking point on the campaign trail, thereby jeopardizing any sort of legal action against Ilhan Omar? Because any time he opens up his mouth to attack her, it looks like he's weaponized his DOJ against her, and it weakens their case.
RANTZ: The Democratic Party has said for years that they want to throw Donald Trump in jail. They say he's a criminal. They say that he's violated all sorts of laws, and it's coming from the very side that now is saying, well, actually, some people are above the law.
NAVARRO: Yes, until he got convicted, obviously.
RANTZ: So long as you're a Democrat who happens to be a --
MCGOWAN: Our Supreme Court said he was above the law.
NAVARRO: He got convicted for crimes.
MCGOWAN: Our Supreme Court said he was above the law.
RANTZ: No, that's not actually what the Supreme Court said.
MCGOWAN: He has committed a lot of crimes. So, let's not pretend that hasn't happened. He just happened to be the sitting president. The Supreme Court said you can't go after him.
RANTZ: So, if Ilhan Omar is going to get a pass because some people should be above the law --
MCGOWAN: That makes no sense, Jason.
RANTZ: -- that if you have a D next to your name or you happen to be a, you know, an adversary of the president, you should be able to get away with crimes, is what you're suggesting?
MCGOWAN: She hasn't committed a crime.
RANTZ: George Santos was targeted intentionally because he violated law. He should have been gone at. They should have targeted him.
MCGOWAN: Yes. So, why did they --
RANTZ: They should have targeted Senator Menendez. They should target criminals, period. If you're --
NAVARRO: If this targeting of Ilhan Omar had happened after the election or before 60 days within the election and Donald Trump weren't making it a talking point at all his rallies, throwing red meat to the base, I think the questions would be very different, and the discussion would be very different.
RANTZ: Do you believe that the conversation would be dramatically different if he never even mentioned Ilhan Omar's name?
APPLEWHAITE: Yes. I think the conversation would be dramatically different if gas wasn't $6 a gallon.
NAVARRO: If he wasn't trying to use it to gin up his base, it would be a very different discussion.
PHILLIP: Okay, using it to gin up his base.
NAVARRO: Of course he is. Why do you think he says it at every rally?
PHILLIP: So, one of the other things that Trump is doing, it's not just what he's doing in the Oval Office. Here's Trump on the campaign trail. He was in Kansas campaigning for a Republican, Roger Marshall, and he uses an anti-Semitic slur in the process. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: And nobody believes it, but I have to say it because think it's appropriate. Roger was given a real -- I know the guy. He's one of the -- he's a tough guy and all, but he's also high quality and he's a fine person. And he was given a bum rap because he was mandated by law to request, strongly, money owed from patients. You're not allowed not to do it. You have to, by law, go after those people. And they made it like, oh, he was some kind of a Shylock-type guy. And if he didn't make these requests, he would be breaking the law.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:25:00] PHILLIP: So, not the first time maybe not even the second time, but he has used this term before, Scott. And he's been told. He claimed the first time that he didn't know what it meant. He was told that it was a slur. Why is he using an anti-Semitic slur, and why is no one saying anything about it? Why are no Republicans saying anything about it?
JENNINGS: So, I consulted with a close friend of mine who's from Israel and is currently seeking American citizenship, and I said, what do you think of this, and how does this strike you? I'm just going to read you what she told me. Look at what he does, not what he says. The same people fussing about it are making excuses for El-Sayed, who compares Israel to Iran. I know which I'd prefer. His daughter is Orthodox Jew, for God's sake. Who cares about a non-P.C. term?
PHILLIP: Who cares about a slur?
JENNINGS: That's her view.
NAVARRO: The ADL does.
PHILLIP: I mean, is that your position? Who cares about using an anti-Semitic slur?
JENNINGS: It's not a word that I would use, but I can tell the difference in this country between who defends the Jewish people and who runs them down every single day.
PHILLIP: But if a Democrat used that term, you would be fine with it? They use worse terms. They call them genocide artists. They call them murderers. They call them worse things every single day that aren't true.
PHILLIP: But hold on. There's a difference between making arguments about things that Democrats believe are happening on the ground in a conflict, and using a stereotype that positions Jews as you know, people who are trying to take advantage of you or charge you too much, or whatever the stereotype is. There's obviously a difference between those two things.
And, again, it's not as if the president does not know that it's a slur. He's been -- he's said it before, and he's been told. It's been said many times. He keeps doing it. Why?
RANTZ: Yes. So, as the Jew at the table, you should not use that term, period. He was not using it directly to call the senator that, to be clear. He was defending him, saying that he was being called that. I still don't think you should use that term. It's offensive.
I also agree that the folks who are claiming that this is an offensive anti-Semitic slur, and I can't believe that they would say that, are the same ones who have defended anti-Semitism and just called it simply anti-Israel rhetoric.
So, I just want, across the board, Republicans and Democrats should be on the exact same page to cool it using language, even if he wasn't directly calling him that, not necessary to use that word. It just isn't necessary. In the same way, it's not necessary to constantly attack Jews as genociders, use AIPAC instead of just saying Jew, which is what a lot of Democrats want to do. I think both sides need to be consistent. Dial it down, period.
NAVARRO: All right. Well, let me quote what the Anti-Defamation League wrote. And they said, the term Shylock is rooted in a longstanding anti-Semitic stereotype. Regardless of intent, its use can reinforce harmful tropes about Jews and normalized language that has long been used to target the Jewish community. And I will say that the Anti-Defamation League comes after people, whether they are Democrats or Republicans or anything in between, when they see something that is anti-Semitic.
So, with this, I am going to go with the ADL. I'm going to go with the Jew at the table who's saying it is offensive. And I think it is wrong for the president of the United States, who I hold to a higher standard than I do anybody else because he's got the largest pulpit of anybody else, is using those terms and normalizing those terms.
PHILLIP: All right.
APPLEWHAITE: This is also --
PHILLIP: Okay.
APPLEWHAITE: I was going to say, this is, I mean, Trump -- this is not Trump's first slur, and usually, we see more of them the closer we get to Election Day, because to our point in the earlier segment, this is red meat that Trump continuously throws to distract from everything but the fact that his agenda has made gas prices extremely expensive and has made generally a cost of living very high for Americans.
He was out there trying to defend Roger Marshall, who is in his own hot water, you know, suing his own patients which is a complete contrast with Adam Hamilton, the Democrat, who has really put forward a coalition that has brought in independents, Republicans, and given them the permission structure necessary to win in November.
PHILLIP: All right. Next for us, outrage in Ohio over a Ramaswamy campaign attack ad that features his opponent's estranged mother, even as conservatives say it crosses the line. We'll debate that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:34:10]
PHILLIP: The ugly race for Ohio governor just got uglier after an ad popped up on social media today showing the estranged mother of Democratic candidate Amy Acton urging people not to vote for her daughter.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONNA ARTHUR, AMY ACTON'S MOTHER: My name is Donna Arthur and I'm Amy Acton's mother. It's not easy for a mother to say this, but Amy has a serious problem.
She is a liar, she lies about her past. She says she grew up living in a tent, none of that is true. She's lied her entire life.
My daughter needs help and she can't help you if she needs help herself.
Don't vote for people who lie. Don't let her become your governor.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Acton has said she has not seen her mother since she was 12 years old after a man her mother married abused her and faced criminal charges for it.
[22:35:06]
Acton's Republican opponent, Vivek Ramaswamy, is taking credit for the video and says it's part of a larger $4 million ad campaign that he's launching during this final midterm stretch. Now earlier today, Acton responded with an ad of her own, this time featuring her brother.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PHIL STEARNS, AMY ACTON'S BROTHER: I received a lot of abuse, but Amy always got the worst of it. She continued to receive that abuse because she knew she had to protect me from that. And to think that that's somehow a talking point.
Shame on Vivek. It's the contempt he has for Amy, it's the contempt he has for Ohio. He's not fit to lead.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: This is one of the strangest things that I've seen at the end of a campaign. I cannot figure out the strategy here because it seems extremely risky for Ramaswamy to put out an ad like this on the eve of a campaign midterm. Is it a sign that they really think they are that down bad?
JENNINGS: It is extremely risky, I agree with you. This kind of thing, I think the way it first got out was they were testing it in some sort of focus group and it sort of escaped the lab and they might think that it tested well.
Of course what you can't test in those settings is the rebuttal and when people actually find out the story. Nobody really knows or could know what happened back in 1978 here. I do know this, the person who was accused of abusing her fled the state and ran away and never faced a trial, which tells us something as well.
So I agree it is an extremely risky strategy. I talked to a lot of people in Ohio tonight before I came out here. I got a lot of people who were unsure that this was the right thing to do.
I also talked to a lot of political people who believe for the last two weeks in Ohio things have actually been tracking in the right direction for Republicans. They're actually okay with what they're seeing in the early voting data. They believe Husted is in an improved position, but to throw out a piece like this at the end of a race is not a confidence inspiring item and we'll have to see where it lands.
NAVARRO: Risky to me, that word, is like a political assessment of the ad. From the human level, I find it appalling, disgusting, painful to watch, more than one in five women have experienced rape in this country of every creed, every color, every ethnicity, and every political affiliation and I think this stirs a lot of feelings particularly amongst women.
It is painful to watch from all the angles, right? You've got this elderly lady who they unearthed from God knows where talking against her daughter and then you learn the story of the daughter.
I did not know Amy Acton had been sexually abused by the man who married her mother since she was nine years old, from the age of nine to 12. This man was indicted and as you said, fled the state so as not to face trial. The mother continued married to the man who was indicted for raping his daughter.
JENNINGS: Until he died in 2004.
NAVARRO: Until he died.
This is desperate and it's pathetic and it speaks to the low character, the low moral compass of Vivek Ramaswamy. To me this is -- I cannot imagine people voting for this guy after thinking that this was a good idea to put out this ad. It's such a low blow.
PHILLIP: He takes credit for it tonight and then he says this about wanting to be on the issues in this campaign. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VIVEK RAMASWAMY (R), OHIO GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: And the thing that I want to say is that I would love for this race and this election to be about the substantive issues that impact Ohioans and unfortunately Amy Acton has been hiding from those issues. She won't debate me.
I've never met Amy Acton, which is a regret. I wish I'd met at least my opponent. I've also never met her mother.
She was not compensated. I asked my team that question because we've got the question. She was not compensated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RANTZ: Then put that in an ad, right?
PHILLIP: Yes. This is an indictment now on Vivek Ramaswamy.
RANTZ: I agree and look, prior to this, I would have voted for him if I lived in Ohio. After this, knowing the backstory, I wouldn't. Is this a political risk that potentially can play for him only if no one finds out the backstory?
It is so unbelievably disgusting to put this kind of ad out and we're seeing smears like this. This is not necessarily new, but I've never seen it this low and I don't think Vivek should want to be known for that. It's a shame because I do think he could lead, but this shows that he can't.
[22:40:04]
APPLEWHAITE: It's very interesting that the same party that is jumping down drag queen's throats saying that they're endangering children because they want to read to them some free books at a library, but then siding with a pedophile, siding with somebody who has abetted sexual abuse of a child. It's not even Vivek's first time doing this.
He has another ad in which he's got sex offenders that are -- Anybody who's willing to throw a stone at Amy Acton, it's been a free-for-all. It's a problem.
I appreciate that the Republican voices tonight are both calling it what it is, which is completely problematic, but also this was a coordinated strategy by the Ramaswamy campaign to get this out there.
NAVARRO: And I bet a lot of people are going to do what I did after seeing that ad and go to Amy for Ohio and donate to Amy Acton because this is just too disgusting to let it go. Too disgusting.
MCGOWAN: I think the problem is he's doubling down. If this had escaped from a lab and then they'd found out online that people were responding to it poorly, Vivek is saying, I see that people are responding to it poorly. I'm going to put more money into it and put it in T.V. ads across the nation, across the state of Ohio.
And I think that's the problem. It speaks to Vivek Ramaswamy's moral compass. It speaks to the dirtiness of the campaign, the entire concept of bringing out someone's mother you haven't seen in 48 years, who chose her abusing husband over her own children, and then having her say she's a liar.
She's not her mother, she wasn't her mother for 48 years. So she had to take her own stepfather to court as a 12-year-old. And Vivek Ramaswamy thinks that's a person to bring out and re-traumatize this person again?
And then he says, you know what? I'm loving this. Let's put more money into it and run it as a campaign.
Is that someone you want as your governor? That is such poor judgment.
APPLEWHAITE: He's violating rule number one, which is do no harm and never be the subject of your story. His point was to give Amy Acton a bad day, and the blowback has been unbelievable.
PHILLIP: All right, but they are still doubling down, which is the perplexing part about it. Next for us, a new report finds that Elon Musk slowed down his
Starlink service and blindsided Ukraine. But was it just him? We'll debate.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Trillionaire Elon Musk was reportedly behind the slowdown of his Starlink satellite network, which Ukraine uses to defend itself from Russian attacks. "The Wall Street Journal" reports that Musk capped the speeds at which Ukraine could connect to the network, hampering its ability to use drones, intercept missiles, or launch its own attacks.
According to the Journal, one source claims that Musk and President Trump "discussed the matter prior to the decision to throttle Starlink." The paper also reports that "some U.S. officials believe that Musk acted alone, but one person familiar with the situation said Musk spoke to multiple senior administration officials, including Trump, before imposing the new speed cap."
This has become a bit of a he-said-she-said situation between Musk and the administration, but it seems like everybody agrees there was something that happened with Starlink over the last week or two. And I guess even if it was Musk and then he informed the White House or in consultation with the White House, it seems like a really dangerous and morally questionable decision to do that in the middle of a war in which people are dying every day.
RANTZ: I mean, minus context that might explain some of this, I agree with you. I think it was a foolish decision. I don't know the reason behind the decision.
So it's a little bit difficult to have an informed conversation when you don't know the why. Is it possible, and this is obviously pure speculation, but obviously the tone between the President and Putin and Zelenskyy has changed.
And is it possible that the reasoning here was potentially because they thought they could come to some sort of an agreement to end this war and he thought he was helping? Maybe.
But that's the only thing I can think of, given the context of what we have in this "Wall Street Journal" report. I don't like the whole, we're dealing with three independent sources who have not come forward, they're saying contradictory things, that's what the President knew. So I do think this, we would probably be wise to wait a little bit more for the information to just give us a little bit of context.
NAVARRO: But it's also coming at a time when Trump is lifting sanctions on Russia, which has even earned him the rebuke of Republicans in Congress, violating the Graham Act that was just passed. And this has led to very real human consequences.
I think we've all seen in the last day the images of Angelina, the 14- month-old Ukrainian baby who was in a park with her mother and got killed by a Russian drone. And now you learn that because of actions like throttling Starlink, the ability of Ukraine to respond or intercept something like that has been severely hampered. It's hard not to feel some sort of disgust with it.
And if Donald Trump is involved and knew about it, and they've been denying it, because I saw a very, you know, a very offended and indignant Marco Rubio responding to it. Shame on them.
[22:50:03]
Shame on them for abandoning Zelenskyy, coddling up to Putin, and the deaths and things that are going on in Ukraine. I just -- I find it really appalling.
PHILLIP: We've got a viewer question that says, how can a private citizen, Elon Musk in this case, have control whatsoever over a military satellite system?
So before you respond to that, I just want to note there are two systems that are at play here. There's Starlink, which is a commercial system, and then Starshield, which is a military system that is licensed to the United States government. The U.S. government controls that.
But Elon Musk, it is true, controls Starlink. He has the technology. He controls it, but it gives him so much power in these geopolitical situations.
This is not really something that we've seen before. And it's a product of the consolidation of power among a select few wealthy people who now can decide who lives and dies in various places on this planet.
APPLEWHAITE: Yes, it's yet another quagmire in a foreign country for the Trump administration. Either one of two things is happening here.
JENNINGS: It's not our war.
APPLEWHAITE: Okay. Either one of two things are happening here. One, you've got Trump back-channeling Elon, you know, military strategy, or you have Elon acting unilaterally as a trillionaire to just pick winners and losers, and actively working with what we have labeled, at least in this country, a dictator.
And this is happening because Trump also struck a deal with Putin to get Diesel to try to save him from the war he's having in Iran. You know, on October 9th, that deal was struck. On the 10th, he's asked Ukraine to stop striking Russian assets.
And now you have Elon Musk on the 14th cutting Starlink. It's a huge issue. And this is not even going to have an impact on gas prices.
So it's a problem. And the fact that Elon Musk thinks that he can just act like this is exactly a point.
PHILLIP: You know, to your point about the chain of events here, the administration, Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, they keep insisting nothing has changed, everything is fine.
But the President is striking a very different tone. All these changes are happening on the battlefield while the president is saying things like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: We want Zelenskyy to make a deal. He can make a deal. He could have made a deal two years ago when we had our little chat in the Oval Office.
We had a now quite well-remembered chat with J.D., myself, some others, Zelenskyy, could have made a good deal then. Could have made a much better deal then, probably, possibly, than he can make now.
But he's going to have to want to make a deal. We've given a lot to Ukraine. We've gotten absolutely nothing back except grief, death, tremendous monetary loss.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MCGOWAN: If I may, that meeting that he's speaking about in the Oval Office where he berated Zelenskyy for his outfit, where he said, have you even thanked us when that whole thing went down?
America made a deal back in 1994 called the Budapest Memorandum where they said if Ukraine gives up their nuclear weapons, there are assurances that if they were ever in danger, we would protect them. So we are betraying them right now.
We are betraying our word, we are betraying our international alliances. And we are helping our literal enemy.
The fact that we are giving aid to Russia at a time where they are attacking Ukraine at the same time that Russia is telling the Iranians where our bases are and where to hit is the most absurd betrayal of who our allies are supposed to be and who our enemies are supposed to be. The Canadian Prime Minister recently said that U.S. promises are written in pencil.
And I think it is so shameful that this is how we're behaving. This is how our President behaves. This is how this trillionaire that has hundreds of millions of billions of dollars of government contracts from the U.S. who is literally a trillionaire because of U.S. government contracts, they are single-handedly choosing that Ukraine loses this war when Ukraine is our ally.
I am ashamed of our country, I am ashamed of what we are doing, and I really feel like the American people should be too because we promised them otherwise.
PHILLIP: As I keep asking, why is the President not putting pressure on Russia to make a deal, to stop attacking Ukraine, to stop invading a neighboring country? Why is that not coming up?
JENNINGS: I think he's putting pressure on both of them publicly and, I'm sure, privately.
PHILLIP: I haven't heard any pressure on Russia at all publicly.
MCGOWAN: He's just giving Russia, he's allowing Russia to take its sanctions off Russia.
PHILLIP: I mean, give me an example if you've heard it.
JENNINGS: No, I think privately right now they're engaged in a lot of conversation with Russia about ending this. Also, I think there's some prisoner recovery that's going on as well. I just, what I see is the President is wanting to end this, he's wanted to end it since he took over.
It has been, I think, one of the greatest frustrations of this administration.
[22:55:03]
MCGOWAN Scott, genuinely.
JENNINGS: That he can't get them to the table to make a meaningful deal. Putin has frustrated and, I think, spit in the face of the President, frankly, on occasion when he even invited him to Alaska to try to resolve this thing.
Regarding the Starlink issue, I don't know what the truth is, there were contradictory sources in the Journal. I do think if we are going to be throttling something like that, that has to be made in conjunction with the U.S. government because I don't know that I would, I don't think a private company should unilaterally make that decision.
MCGOWAN: I don't know who would buy Starlink knowing you could be throttled in the middle of a war.
PHILLIP: Alright, next for us, we're going to react to your feedback from cnn.com/abby. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:00:00]
PHILLIP: And now we've got some viewer feedback from cnn.com/abby.
This first one says, I think that for every dollar spent on political advertising by both parties, half should go to the deficit. We could solve some serious problems with some of this money.
MCGOWAN: Would love it. I'd love to see public funding, personally. I agree with that person.
I would love to go to like a British model where, you know, our election season was six weeks long. We had public funding. Everyone got the same amount.
Three days before, you can't do advertisements on T.V., you can't be on the internet, you follow, like that would be great. I wouldn't agree.
It would be way less money than politics.
JENNINGS: So we would just be fully dependent upon the corporate media to tell us what to do?
MCGOWAN: No, I'm saying everyone has the same amount. I would love to see less billionaires putting their foot.
RANTZ: I see a lot of public dollars going to Vivek Ramaswamy.
MCGOWAN: Well, hopefully he wouldn't choose to spend his money on that.
PHILLIP: Okay, I've got a question here from a 10th grader. It says, stymies me that Trump suggests that the French riots will plague America when he himself launched the riot on January 6th and seems to have no issue inciting violence himself. Crazy age to grow up in, for sure.
NAVARRO: That 10th grader has a hell of a domain of language.
APPLEWHAITE: He also used the word stymies.
PHILLIP: He watches the show, so he must be learning something.
But it is an important point. I mean, when it comes to riots, there was one. And he didn't do much to stop it.
JENNINGS: There's been a lot of riots in America. And I think this current movement in Europe is an extension of the things that we have seen in this country on college campuses and big urban areas.
And it wears lots of costumes, but it's always the route is the exact same. People who want to tear down the West. Period.
PHILLIP: To be clear, it's a little bit of an ahistorical view of France. Where there are violent riots actually all the time.
JENNINGS: If you want to endorse it, go ahead. I don't want to endorse it.
PHILLIP: I'm just saying the idea that this is like some modern phenomenon.
NAVARRO: It's happening in several places around Europe. Last week it was Spain.
JENNINGS: 56 million migrants.
NAVARRO: The cost of living for these people who live in Europe has become unattainable. PHILLIP: All right, before we go, you can stream the show live or watch on demand anytime with an all-access subscription, scan the Q.R. code on your screen or go to cnn.com/watch to learn more.
And thank you very much for watching "NewsNight," "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
