Return to Transcripts main page
CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip
Trump Defends Ramaswamy Amid Growing Backlash to Ad; Trump Hits Lowest Polls of Both Terms Ahead of Midterms; Mike Rogers Tries Tying El-Sayed to Democratic Socialists in Debate. Witkoff Faces Backlash for calling Russia's Putin a Humanitarian; Federal Judge Blocks Federal Agents Looking Out for Noncitizen Voters. Aired 10-11p ET
Aired October 21, 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, the president and his veep defend the candidate behind an ad being called despicable --
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: It's a very unusual situation to have a mother hate a daughter that much.
PHILLIP: -- as Donald Trump's poll numbers sink deeper.
Plus, the gloves come off again in one of the most critical races of the midterms.
Also, as the feds reportedly go door-to-door looking for illegal voters, DHS gets the green light to test heat ray weapons for the border.
And --
STEVE WITKOFF, U.S. SPECIAL ENVOY: You are a humanitarian also, sir.
PHILLIP: -- a debate erupts over the Trump administration's praise for Vladimir Putin.
Live at the table, Keith Boykin, Scott Jennings, Leigh McGowan, Peter Meijer, and Lulu Garcia-Navarro. Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here, they do.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York.
Tonight, with less than two weeks until the midterms, President Trump and his V.P. are defending the candidate behind one of the ugliest attack ads this election cycle has seen. Republican candidate for Ohio governor, Vivek Ramaswamy, took credit for this video, which features the estranged mother of his Democratic opponent, Amy Acton, urging voters not to support her daughter. Acton says that she hasn't seen her mother in decades after her stepfather sexually abused her. A number of leading Ohio Republicans have begun distancing themselves from Ramaswamy, but not Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I hear the mother went very rogue on the daughter, doesn't have a lot of respect for the daughter, and I think the mother is a witness to things also. So, who knows, and you'll have to figure that out. It's a very unusual situation to have a mother hate a daughter that much, but I don't think that has anything to do with Vivek.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And here's what the vice president had to say about it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: Now the media and the Democrats in the state of Ohio are obsessed because guess what? Vivek Ramaswamy had the audacity to run a T.V. commercial which calls it out like it is and calls Amy Acton a liar.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Now, tonight, Trump traveled to South Carolina to encourage his supporters to vote for the Senate candidate, Darline Graham. She's seeking a full term following the death of her brother, Lindsey Graham.
But new CNN polling is painting a grim picture of what Republicans are facing this November. Trump's approval rating is now at a record low of 32 percent. Most Americans disapprove of how he's handling key issues like the economy, inflation, and immigration. And Democrats have now widened their edge in the generic ballot.
Before we open it up to the table, as always, we invite you at home to join our debate. Go to cnn.com/abby and weigh in there. We'll get to some of your comments as we go throughout the show.
I do want to start with this Amy Acton ad, and the decision of the vice president to defend it as, in his words, the truth. The ad it obscures the fact that the woman in the, the ad was, had her children taken away from her because her husband was sexually abusing her daughter. How is that disqualifying for Ramaswamy? And perhaps, I mean, if it's disqualifying for Ramaswamy, is it disqualifying for the vice president?
PETER MEIJER, CO-FOUNDER AND HEAD OF STRATEGY, THE NEW INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION: No, I think it's a gross ad on a moral level and wrong. On a political level, I don't know how you can argue that this was smart. And to have the closing message of your opponent, you know, framed in such a way I just, I don't see a defense of it.
PHILLIP: And the vice president defending it. I mean, he is defending it. MEIJER: I mean --
PHILLIP: I mean, I, that's the part I'm confused by.
MEIJER: I think at least when it comes to the president's comments, it seemed he was doing more of the classic Trump, like observing the situation from afar and describing it. But, you know, I think that the Republicans who are looking at this and saying, you know, this is wrong, you know, we're not going to put ourselves in a position to defend it, you've seen some in Ohio doing that.
[22:05:00]
I mean, to me, that puts you on the right side going into the final two weeks of this election.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: But, you know, according to the V.P. though, you're one of the whiny Republicans then, because he went further than that. He actually not only was sort of tacitly endorsing it, but then he said anyone who's a Republican who complains about it is just whining and not really doing the work of a Republican in order to get another Republican elected.
So, you know, I think actually not only is the ad itself morally repugnant, as you have rightly said, political malpractice also, but beyond that, what you're seeing is the vice president of the United States, who is one of the leaders of his party, then actually attacking other Republicans. That is not a good closing message.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, POLITICSGIRL: I think it's also, like, when did child rape and family abuse become part of the GOP playbook? Like is the Republican Party really supposed to be fine with child rape or using it, like weaponizing a woman's childhood abuse for political gain? That seems so sick. It seems so obvious.
It seems like everyone should answer the way you have answered, and yet there are a number of people who are taking the complete other route. Like this woman allowed this horrible thing to happen to her daughter, and her children were rightly taken away from her. She hasn't seen her mother since that day she was in the courtroom when she was taken away from her mom, and Vivek Ramaswamy's team finds her, digs her up, and re-traumatizes his political candidate for what? Political points? It's gross.
PHILLIP: So, Ben Shapiro says this, Vivek Ramaswamy's ad is apparently unprecedented. It would be just awful to activate all the members of a politician's family to attack them as the Democrats did with every member of RFK's family. And that seems like a straight up false equivalency. These are not the same thing.
KEITH BOYKIN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE: Excuse me. I sound like RFK when I spoke there. RFK Jr. is a public figure. His family members are public figures. They are associated with one another. And he's a member of the president's cabinet.
This is a candidate for United States Senate. Her mother, she hasn't spoken to her since she was 12 years old. She's a private citizen. They have a personal issue because her mother was helping to support her father, the man -- excuse me, her stepfather, who sexually abused her. How can you compare that to a family squabble among the elite Kennedys? It's just not even close to being comparable.
And I think it's sad that Republicans -- I'm so glad that Peter's standing up on this tonight, and I assume that Scott will too. But I just -- I think it's sad that Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are doubling down on this message in the last two weeks of a campaign when people don't care about these divisive issues. They care about jobs and healthcare and gas prices.
PHILLIP: I also think -- I mean, look, we know that Ramaswamy and J.D. Vance are very close and personally and politically, but at the same time, there was another option available to the vice president, which is to not address in -- at that rally, right? He's at a -- it's one thing if a reporter asks you. He decided at a rally to minimize the allegations that are at the center of that ad. He chose to do that.
That's a very surprising choice, and I wonder what that says about him to you.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, he could've just ignored it. You know, I mean, campaigns make decisions. Surrogates come in and campaign for them. I'm sure not all surrogates agree with all the decisions that all the, that are made by all the campaigns they support. So, you could have just ignored it.
This issue of whining, I took some issue with that today because I don't see people whining about this. I think they are warning about this. There's a heck of a lot of Republicans in Ohio, and elsewhere, who would love to see a Republican get elected governor of Ohio, who do not believe that this is a defensible ad, nor do they believe it's a good strategy. So, whether you take it from the moral view or you take it just from the political strategy view, there's a lot of concern. That's not whining. That's warning.
And so I don't think it's necessarily a good idea in a race that is on a knife's edge in a state that's very close, where no one really knows what's going to happen, sort of taking shots at people who, you know, just simply have an opinion about how a campaign should be run or the choices that a campaign should make. I don't think that's a particularly good idea.
And so I know there're some people out there who want to say, you know, politics ain't beanbag, whatever, and there will be people that debate campaign decisions. This is not whining. From what I've heard from my people in Ohio, it's warning that this may have actually been a backfire, is going to blow up in their face.
PHILLIP: There there's some CNN reporting that suggests that Republicans in the state, according to one operative, couldn't be more pissed at Ramaswamy probably for dropping this on their laps two weeks before the midterms. JENNINGS: One thing to remember about these issues, whenever a campaign makes a decision, and you've been out there as a surrogate or you've been helping them or you're knocking on doors or whatever you're doing in that campaign, now you own it.
[22:10:01]
Now you got to answer for it because it's what people want to talk about. And I'll guarantee you there are people that don't want to talk about this when they're out wanting to talk about, you know, other state issues.
PHILLIP: So, meanwhile, this new CNN poll today shows the president in really bad condition with the American people. When you look closely at two groups, black and Latino voters, his approval rate being of his job as president among Latinos is at 20 percent, among black voters at 7 percent. And this is really echoed by all of the issues. If you go line by line on virtually every issue that is polled in this poll, Democrats have major advantages over the president.
PHILLIP: That's not new -- I don't think that's hugely new information, but it seems like nothing that has happened over the last several weeks of campaigning, the president being on the trail nonstop, none of that has changed people's view of what's actually happening in this country.
BOYKIN: I think that it's already baked into the cake right now. We're only two weeks left until Election Day. People are voting. The early voting numbers suggest that people -- the Democrats are coming out in record numbers across the country. And black voters and Latino voters have moved away. First of all, they were never that supportive of Trump in the previous elections. Latino voters, Hispanic voters started moving toward him in the previous election, 2024. They're now coming away from Trump because of the economy, because of gas prices, because of immigration raids and ICE.
And so Trump is not dealing with that message. Instead of trying to talk to the people who have walked away from him, talk to the voters who actually were once on his side, he's basically out there still alienating people. I don't think that he's an effective campaigner with his popularity so low. I think the candidates in the various states would be well advised to stay away from him and just continue debating and focusing on their own issues in their states.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But I will say Democrats are not popular either, and I think one of the big warning signs that we've seen in all the polling is that people are very angry at Trump, people are very angry at the state of the economy and all these things, but you know who's also they're really angry at? The Democratic Party. And you know who are the most people angry at the Democratic Party? Democrats.
BOYKIN: No, that's exactly --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, the Democratic Party has a problem with its own voters. PHILLIP: But I also think that that's important, but I think the Republicans risk overreading that because Democrats who are angry at their own party are eager for their party to do something if they get into power. It doesn't mean that they're going to sit at home. It doesn't mean that they're -- -- I mean, there's no evidence that they're going to --
JENNINGS: Would you apply the same thing to the Republicans who are mad about Paxton? I mean, it's essentially the same question in Texas. If you're mad at your own party for Paxton, do you really want to sit it out and let the other party win?
PHILLIP: I think that there's a real push. The dynamics inside the Democratic Party are where you have the establishment folks and then you have the anti-establishment folks. And the anti-establishment people want to get elected as much as the establishment people, but when they get elected, they want to challenge their own party. And so I think that's the difference.
It's -- I don't know that really signifies that Democrats have an enthusiasm problem. I think everything suggests that they don't.
MCGOWAN: Otherwise, yes. No, I would say that I think, look, Donald Trump has a low approval rating because everybody's life is quantifiably worse since he came into office a second time. He lied about lower prices on day one. He lied about no new wars. He lied about his healthcare plan. He lied about lower taxes. He is scrambling to pay off the farmers again with our own tax dollars. He's talking about $5,000 bribes for Republican voters.
Like this isn't a winning message. He's not out here trying to like tell us all the great things he did. He's trying to bribe people at this point. Our lives are worse because of his corruption and because of his self-dealing than they were two years ago, and I think people are going to go to the voting booth thinking about that.
MEIJER: Just if I can follow up on Lulu's point, I think the establishment versus anti-establishment is a little bit played out. I think the more salient is are you an incumbent or are you not? If you are a Democratic incumbent, you're going to get saddled with the status quo. If you're a Republican incumbent, you're going to get saddled with the status quo. And so that could be a really interesting split screen where you have Republican challengers to Democratic incumbents doing well, while Democratic challengers to Republican incumbents do the same.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I agree with this, by the way. I think we might -- I mean, obviously I'm going to make no predictions because the races are so tight in many of these places, but we might just have a very scrambled message, especially in the Senate and in governor's races. You might see Maine going to Susan Collins and, you know -- and Minnesota going to Republicans and Texas flipping. You know, like you might just get a very scrambled picture.
PHILLIP: It could be a very topsy-turvy map, and we'll get into some of that in the next block, but also just worth noting, the president is going to Mississippi, of all places, next week. Just to tell you that the map is pretty broad right now for the Senate.
All right, next for us, in their final debate, Abdul El-Sayed calls Mike Rogers shameful for questioning the Democrats' loyalty to the United States.
[22:15:00]
Plus, a new report says federal agents are going door to door now, looking for non-citizen voters. This as we learn the DHS is going to test heat ray weapons at the U.S. border. We'll discuss.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, in the battleground state of Michigan, where the race between Abdul El-Sayed and Mike Rogers could decide the fate of the United States Senate, another deeply personal debate in their final clash before the midterms.
With just 13 days to go, a new poll finds no clear leader in the Michigan Senate race. But as the Republican, Mike Rogers, seeks to distance himself from Donald Trump, El-Sayed made the president a focus.
[22:20:05]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABDUL EL-SAYED (D), MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE: That is your record. You don't want to own it. You don't want to talk about it because you are embarrassed of it. And you are also embarrassed of the fact that you cannot win this race without Donald Trump coming here and stumping for you. That's why you begged him to come.
This is what you're going to get, Donald Trump policies. If you like the way things have been for the last two years, this is what he wants.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: Rogers attacked El-Sayed for what he called a pattern of deception.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MIKE ROGERS (R), MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE: You know, when you ask somebody, a new investigator, about how you figure out if somebody's honest and willing to tell you the truth, you go through a series of questions. Did you lie on your resume? Yes, did. He lied about being a physician. Did he lie about his relationships with an organization that should give us all pause? Yes, he did. He lied about being an Egyptian dual citizen. He lied about some of his stances on these positions as he's flipped again. This is a pattern that we need to understand.
(END VIDEO CLIP) PHILLIP: This is definitely one of the closest races in the country. And it's probably going to continue to be all the way until Election Day. Do you feel like any of this stuff is really breaking through? Because at this point it kind of just seems like the terrorism stuff, the Muslim Brotherhood stuff is a broken record. El-Sayed has his own problems, but he's sticking on message, but his issues probably have more to do with the Democratic base than anything else.
MEIJER: Yes, which those two issues are not unrelated, to be very clear. You know, I thought both candidates did actually pretty well in this debate. I thought the first was a lot harsher. And the first debate that they had, too, was the one where Abdul several times over, you know, refused to answer whether or not he thought Israel or Iran was a greater threat to the U.S., and that was coming -- that question was posed to him because he had said and suggested in a prior podcast interview that he viewed Israel as a greater threat than Iran.
So, he has had a lot of questions that he -- it has taken him way too long to get clear answers to. And to your point, I think a lot of opinions are starting to get baked in, a lot of the folks who had questions and doubts about Abdul El-Sayed. I don't think they've seen enough to feel confident that there are easy or safe answers to those questions.
PHILLIP: Well, why can't Mike Rogers put this away if it's that easy?
MEIJER: Michigan has elected a Republican senator --
PHILLIP: Yes, but I'm just -- you know, I'm just wondering. I mean, if he -- if El-Sayed is really such a flawed candidate, it is interesting that Mike Rogers seems to be struggling to break away in this race.
JENNINGS: Well, it's a blue state. I mean, they elect Democrat senators and have for a very long time. And as you've rightly pointed out, the environment is not good for Republicans. I mean, there's a lot of polling evidence to suggest that if you're running as a Republican in Michigan, you're running up a very steep hill because of the state's lean and the political environment.
I think the fact that he is in a tied race and in a position to possibly win shows the strength of what Mike Rogers is doing. And I think they've done it based on coalition building with non-traditional constituencies. Jewish voters in Michigan are very, very uneasy with Abdul El-Sayed. And I think this issue with African American voters around Detroit having real questions about El-Sayed, and Mike Rogers paying a lot of attention to them, featuring African American voters in his advertising.
I mean, he's the expert on Michigan. But I think it has made a difference, and I think it's got the Democrats back on their heels a little bit. So, it's a close race. I don't know who's going to win. But when you consider the environment and the fact that it's a blue state and that Rogers might be in a position to win, I think it shows they've run a pretty good race. BOYKIN: I think black voters in Detroit, the people I've spoken to, have indicated that they had some concerns about El-Sayed at first. And it's largely there's a lot of issues between Arab and Muslim communities and African Americans in general, and it's reflected in Michigan as well.
However, having said that, I think when people look at the choices between Mike Rogers and Abdul El-Sayed, I don't think that's going to be a choice for black voters. I think that majority -- not even the majority. We know that's going to happen. But black voters will come home to the Democratic Party in this case because Abdul El-Sayed is actually campaigning for them in a serious way.
MCGOWAN: Are they going to show up though?
BOYKIN: Mike Rogers -- yes, I think they will. Mike Rogers is just putting up signs and putting up people. But they're not necessarily representative of the people in Detroit. But now you've got Barack Obama coming there, you've got Kamala Harris coming there. You've got black surrogates coming there. You've got black people who are in the city who are actually trying to make an investment in making -- in not just the city of Detroit, but also the state of Michigan, trying to make an investment and make this place work.
PHILLIP: So, El-Sayed is -- I mean, one of the more heated moments in the debate again had to do with these Muslim Brotherhood accusations. And El-Sayed didn't even really directly address it, but here's how that exchange went.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EL-SAYED: Let's talk about this. He keeps raising this question about this association with an organization I've never been a part of because my mom, who's a nurse in Missouri. It doesn't make any sense, and it's actually really quite beneath you, Mike.
[22:25:00]
It's really quite beneath you. To call into question my loyalty to the Constitution -- I'm talking. I'm talking.
ROGERS: All right, own up to it.
EL-SAYED: I'm talking.
ROGERS: Well, own up to it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Excuse me. Yes, go ahead.
EL-SAYED: Can I have a few more seconds?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes go ahead.
EL-SAYED: Thank you. To bring into question my commitment to the Constitution is really beneath you. I am proud of America. I'm proud to be an American. I'm proud of our Constitution that guarantees all of us the right to pray as we choose to pray. And the question that you would ask that I think is actually really quite shameful as somebody who's actually served under that Constitution. It is shameful.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: I also saw, you know, Ted Cruz for the last couple of days has been explicitly saying Abdul El-Sayed is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, of which there's no evidence. But this is --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: The Muslim Brotherhood practically doesn't exist anymore in Egypt because, you know, it was banned with el-Sisi coming into power, and they've been chased out of the country. And so this is like going back to 2011 and having some sort of debate about things that happened decades ago. And not only that, there is no evidence, they're trying to do guilt by association, which I think is problematic.
JENNINGS: He did write that letter, did he not? The New York Times confirmed it tonight that he in fact wrote a letter to the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt encouraging a purge of the police and the army.
PHILLIP: Hold on. Hold on. It was a letter that was written to the democratically-elected government of Egypt with which the United States had diplomatic relations with at the time.
JENNINGS: You can try to dress it up if you want, but to say there's no evidence that he supported that government is not true.
BOYKIN: It was in Arab Spring, and the United States government was supporting the people who were protesting.
PHILLIP: I just think facts matter, right?
JENNINGS: Yes, and the fact that he signed the letter matters.
PHILLIP: But facts matter. So, the government at the time was the representative of the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, but they were democratically elected, and then they were thrown out in basically a coup. But the point is that at that --
JENNINGS: It's a banned fact, honestly.
PHILLIP: At that time, the political dynamic was that was the government of Egypt, and the letter was urging them to get rid of the remnants of the dictatorship that had come before it.
JENNINGS: The police and the media.
PHILLIP: So -- but I don't understand why that is suddenly evidence that he's a terrorist.
MEIJER: No, I think -- and I think it's a little bit -- I think there's a little wrong to accuse him of being a member. PHILLIP: I mean, Barack Obama put out a statement when Morsi was taken out of power and condemning it. So, is Barack Obama a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?
MEIJER: No. And so I think the idea that he's a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, you know, he has maybe written things that are supportive broadly, but that weren't out of character.
The reason why we're talking about it, though, is because he was asked point-blank by MSNBC, you know, if any of his family members had associations with the Muslim Brotherhood. He said no. It's like, oh, here's your sister talking about how many of your family members are members, including your mom.
And so that evasion component, I don't think he's a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. It'd be very hard to own property in the UAE, which has declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, you know, which he does.
BOYKIN: First of all, why are we even talking about this? This is not an issue that the American people care about, the people of Michigan care about. You know that.
Secondly, his mom who, from the 1970s allegedly had he -- that she had something to do with the Muslim Brotherhood.
MEIJER: So, just --
BOYKIN: And he wasn't even -- he didn't know anything about it. He didn't -- he was raised mostly by his father. He was born in 1980, I think. He wasn't even born when his mom was allegedly a part of this organization. So, how would he possibly know something like that?
Secondly, if we're going to talk about people's parents, what about Donald Trump's father, who was arrested at a KKK rally here in New York City? We're going to bring up old stuff that has nothing to do with the person who's still in office, who's running for office?
I think it's just a real stretch for the Republican Party to dig down deep on an argument about somebody's mother from 50, 40 years ago, and try to use that as an attack on somebody who's running for Senate right now.
MCGOWAN: I think the point is what is the closing argument to voters in Michigan, right? What's the closing argument? If you are Mike Rogers, it's more of the same. It's data centers, it's high gas prices, it's supporting the war, it's getting private jets and zooming around. If you are Abdul El-Sayed, it is Medicare for all, tax the billionaires, abolish ICE, renewable energy sources. It's a new way of looking at it. And I think the people of Michigan have to decide, do they want more of the same, or do they want to try something different?
JENNINGS: I did find his talk about the Constitution kind of interesting, because just a couple of days ago he put out a video saying that the Second Amendment of the Constitution only applies to muskets. So, he clearly has no real respect for the U.S. Constitution. To watch him --
MCGOWAN: That's not how he --
(CROSSTALKS)
JENNINGS: To watch him cover himself in a knife is a little strange to me.
BOYKIN: Look at the way Donald Trump talks about the Constitution or destroys the Constitution.
PHILLIP: All right. Disagreements about interpretations of the Constitution are not the same thing as --
JENNINGS: Watch the video. That's what he said.
PHILLIP: -- believing in the Constitution. You should ask Donald Trump about that. He wants to rewrite the Constitution when it comes to birthright citizenship. So, that's --
MEIJER: But not by tweet like Joe Biden tried to do.
PHILLIP: Okay. All right, next for us, a humanitarian. That may not be the first word that comes to mind when describing Vladimir Putin, but it's exactly what Special Envoy Steve Witkoff called him.
And he's not the only member of the Trump administration praising the Russian president. We'll discuss that.
[22:30:10]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff is facing backlash for saying this about Vladimir Putin.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEVE WITKOFF, UNITED STATES SPECIAL ENVOY TO THE MIDDLE EAST: You talk so much about my President, President Trump, being a humanitarian. You are a humanitarian also, Sir, and I salute that, I commend you.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:35:10]
PHILLIP: Witkoff met with the Russian leader today in an effort to advance proposals to end the war in Ukraine. During that visit, Russia freed American Steve Hubbard, who'd been imprisoned there for more than four years on charges of fighting as a mercenary in Ukraine.
Republicans are now pushing back on Witkoff's comments. Senator Thom Tillis says, "What the F, Steve?" and posted this screenshot of the definition of the word 'humanitarian.' Senator John Cornyn wrote, "No, Putin is a stone-cold killer," and Congressman Max Miller called the comments ridiculous and wrote, "Maybe we should ask the hundreds of dead civilians in Bukha what they think of Putin's humanitarian instincts."
But President Trump and his V.P. are dismissing the outrage.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, I guess you could say for that particular purpose, for the purpose of allowing a man who was thinking he was going to be in prison for life out, but you know, I wouldn't say anything one way or the other.
J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I agree with Steve Witkoff saying something nice to a person who just released an American hostage. Whether you agree with the underlying sentiment or not, Steve Witkoff is a diplomat. His job is to go over there and get a job done.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: To quote Thom Tillis, what's the deal with this?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, HOST OF "THE SCOTT JENNINGS SHOW" ON SALEM RADIO, AUTHOR, "REVOLUTION OF COMMON SENSE", AND FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think three things can be true at the same time.
Number one, in a diplomatic setting, you often exchange pleasantries when someone's just done what you've asked them to do, which is to release Hubbard, who was wrongfully imprisoned, and it's a good thing that he's coming home, and it's a good thing that the President's administration has recovered him for his family. It's number one.
Number two, you got to give the diplomats a little attitude in these moments, and number three, they're having conversations, obviously, behind the scenes about something much larger, which is ending the war with Ukraine. All these things can be true.
PHILLIP: There are a lot of ways that you can say that.
JENNINGS: You never let me get the punch.
PHILLIP: You said a lot of things, and I mean, the real question is, a skilled diplomat ought to be able to say something nice about Putin without saying something that is patently untrue.
JENNINGS: The result of the day was that we got an American hostage, an American prisoner sent home. That's a good thing, and you don't know what conversations are going on with Putin behind the scenes, although I'm sure they're happening right now to try to end this war, but look, I'm not a diplomat. I'm a pundit, and the idea that anybody would think Vladimir Putin was a humanitarian of any kind, he's not a humanitarian.
He's a spy, he's an enemy of the United States, he's a terrorist, he's a killer, he's a murderer, he's not our friend. Humanitarian is the last thing I would call this guy, but what do diplomats have to say in moments?
They have to say things, and I give them a little attitude on that.
LEIGH MCGOWAN, PODCAST HOST, "POLITICSGIRL", AND AUTHOR, "A RETURN TO COMMON SENSE": Yes, but Steve Witkoff isn't a diplomat, right? He's a real estate guy.
JENNINGS: He's a special envoy.
MCGOWAN: Yes, but he's been put into this job with no diplomatic experience, and he's sitting in front of Vladimir Putin, and, like, sycophantic behavior is not diplomacy. Capitulation to a literal dictator is not diplomacy.
A humanitarian, which I think it's smart that they put it up there, is a person that works to promote human welfare and reduce suffering and improve the lives of others. As you're saying, Scott, that is not Vladimir Putin on any level. This is a guy that kills his own enemies and has invaded multiple sovereign nations and is currently at war with what used to be our ally.
He's mass murdering people, as we have this conversation. So, on what planet is he a humanitarian? And it is very hard to stand up to someone as a diplomat when their boot is in your mouth.
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, "NEW YORK TIMES" JOURNALIST, AND HOST OF "THE INTERVIEW": Can I just bring up something, though, that's interesting that you said, and just, like, generally speaking, is Witkoff an actual diplomat?
And I bring this up, why? Because if you look at what has happened under the Trump presidency, what things has Steve Witkoff resolved? I mean, really, like, when we think about it, what negotiations have gone super well so that we are not in several conflicts?
PETER MEIJER (R), FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, MICHIGAN, AND CO-FOUNDER AND HEAD OF STRATEGY, THE NEW INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION: Gaza ceasefire and the standing up of the Board of Peace. I mean, there's still a ceasefire in Gaza.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Is there a ceasefire in Gaza? I mean, you have Palestinians in about one-third of their territory, there's still attacks happening there, and they're still living in rubble.
MEIJER: I mean, the lines of demarcation that are set right now were agreed to by Hamas.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is, you know, is Hamas disarmed?
MEIJER: It's a pretty big political issue.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I mean, like, my point about this is what I'm saying here is that at a certain point, you have, and you know this, you have had this administration rely on two people to swan around the world, and we have seen very little tangible proof that they are able to actually take things across the finish line. And so I would just say to you, I am not clear that giving him latitude to bring it back around, but using the word humanitarian is actually fair when I have seen no evidence that he is really a diplomat.
[22:40:03]
JENNINGS: They have brought home a number of people.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I can't imagine Rubio saying that.
JENNINGS: I don't disagree with you. And he has more experience. It's absolutely true.
But one area where they've had a lot of success is bringing Americans home. They've secured the release of dozens and dozens of people.
PHILLIP: Well, that's due to the actual diplomats in the office at the State Department that is in charge of bringing Americans home. Those people have been working across administrations for years and years. They've done it under Biden, they've done it under Trump, they do a great job.
But I don't necessarily think you should pin that on Steve Witkoff when these are folks who are working behind the scenes to free Americans every single day.
JENNINGS: But those are also special envoys that are appointed.
PHILLIP: No, I'm talking about the people in the hostage affairs office who have been working across administration students kind of work. I just want to play, though, this is an exchange between Kaitlan Collins and the President about what Trump gave to Putin in exchange for that hostage. Listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: You said you didn't give Russia anything in exchange for his release.
TRUMP: If I would have done that, you would not have Mr. Hubbard coming back right now.
COLLINS: So you did give him something in exchange for the release?
TRUMP: Right now. And you don't know anything. I mean, you fake news CNN.
Look, right now you have a man that's beautifully flying from Russia to wherever he's landing in the United States that I got out because I had a very good and very fast negotiation with President Putin. If you were to put those sanctions on or whatever you want to call them, you could forget about him.
You'd never see him again. He'd be back in jail for 25 years.
(END VIDEO CLIP) KEITH BOYKIN, FORMER CLINTON WHITE HOUSE AIDE, AND AUTHOR, "WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE ABOUT RACE?": He just admitted quid pro quo. Basically, he said that the reason why Hubbard got out is because he didn't sign this, he didn't enforce the sanctions bill that was just passed by Congress. But it's not just that.
It's also the diesel deal he just negotiated with Putin, which is a bonus to Putin while he's fighting a war against Ukraine. It's also the fact that Starlink, which apparently Elon Musk decided to slow down Starlink's access for Ukraine while Donald Trump apparently knew about it, according to the "Wall Street Journal" reported. And all this is designed to help no one else other than Vladimir Putin.
And he seemed to be abandoning Zelenskyy at the same time.
JENNINGS: Can I ask a question about the exchange? Which exchange? This bringing Hubbard home and the sanctions.
BOYKIN: Because that's what he just said.
JENNINGS: You call it a quid pro quo when the Biden administration negotiated the release of a foreigner.
BOYKIN: Isn't that about Biden?
JENNINGS: No. What did we have to give away?
BOYKIN: You know what? This is the thing.
JENNINGS: You remember?
BOYKIN: Well, first of all, let me just.
MEIJER: Do you remember the Cage movie?
(CROSSTALK)
JENNINGS: He gave away the most political arms dealer.
PHILLIP: But hold on.
BOYKIN: Which was a great move.
PHILLIP: But just to be clear, Trump claimed he gave nothing.
BOYKIN: Thank you. That's the point.
PHILLIP: For Hubbard. It is not true that he gave nothing. He acknowledged there that he actually did give something, and then he got angry when he was questioned about the basic logic of, you said that you gave Russia this and got that.
So it's not a question of, do exchanges happen? The question is, does the President acknowledge that, yes, he did give Putin something? And he did give them not just a prisoner who's of political value, but cold hard cash. $4 billion in diesel sales. JENNINGS: The debating point seemed to be that a quid pro quo was
illegitimate. We do this all the time.
BOYKIN: I said it was contradictory, because Trump just got up there and just said that he just did that.
MCGOWAN: I think calling Trump a Russian asset at this point isn't political. It's just a description of his conduct. That's what he's doing.
PHILLIP: All right, we'll leave it there. Next for us, a new CBS report finds that armed federal agents are now knocking on doors in several states, they're asking people for their immigration status and whether they voted illegally. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, a federal judge hands the Trump administration a major setback in its efforts to try to substantiate its voter fraud claims. A new CBS investigation found that armed federal agents have been knocking on doors in several states, asking people about their immigration status and whether they've registered to vote or cast ballots in the past.
And now, a judge has barred Homeland Security from doing that in nine states. The order starts on Friday at noon. And she says it will stay in place until polls close on Election Day. Last month, the X account for Kansas City's Homeland Security Investigations posted this picture with the caption, "American elections are for Americans."
Now, we must know that CNN has not independently confirmed some of the details in the report. But in a statement to CNN prior to the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security pointed to their authority under President Trump's executive order in May. And they added that while the department is not able to comment on active investigations, HSI will continue to investigate election fraud and is committed to restoring integrity to our election systems and ensuring that American citizens, and only American citizens, are electing American leaders.
A couple of things about this ruling that strike me as perplexing. I don't know who they expect to admit at their front door to a federal crime. That's the first thing.
[22:50:01]
And then secondly, this door-to-door strategy seems to suggest that they don't have a better way of verifying their claims of these massive numbers of election fraud.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: It seems like the worst possible way of finding election fraud is going door-to-door, knocking, and saying, hey, are you a person trying to vote in the elections illegally? Obviously, the suspicion is that this is voter intimidation, that it's
targeting certain communities, and it's trying to suppress the vote. So that is clearly what the judge was concerned about.
The fact that this is happening right before an election like this obviously lends itself to that suspicion. And I think we know that this administration has floated these claims that are unsubstantiated for quite some time. And this is the concern, I think, that Democrats have, that it's part of just a general strategy to make certain communities not vote.
MEIJER: What's the unsubstantiated claim you alluded to?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: What do you mean?
MEIJER: You said they've been making these unsubstantiated claims for some time.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, that there's vast numbers of non-citizens voting in American elections. There's huge numbers.
MEIJER: There are --
GARCIA-NAVARRO: No, but they use, yes. Would you concede on the magnitude?
MEIJER: But part of it's also on false (inaudible).
GARCIA-NAVARRO Isn't the point the magnitude?
PHILLIP: The point is the magnitude.
MEIJER: And so how you understand is to actually go and investigate potentially.
MCGOWAN: Yes, but we're talking about going door-to-door. Come on, sir. We're talking about going door-to-door.
MEIJER: We don't know that this is actually door-to-door.
PHILLIP: The dispute is not whether election fraud happens. The dispute is, what is the magnitude of said fraud? That is the ballgame.
MCGOWAN: Indeed.
PHILLIP: So when the Department of Homeland Security hands a state a list of almost 200,000 voters, and it turns out none of them voted illegally, that's a problem, because it's not accurate.
JENNINGS: So this is a good conversation about magnitude, because it's hard to know when in states like California, where there is a substantial amount of evidence that there are a lot of non-citizens on the voting rolls, the state doesn't participate in the federal SAVE system, which allows you to verify whether people.
PHILLIP: There is a substantial amount of evidence. JENNINGS: But the federal government just provided to courts in
California last week a lot of evidence that they believe non-citizens have been registered to vote.
And anyway, my point is this. I agree with you. Going door-to-door is rather inefficient.
Signing up for the computer system to verify it would be very efficient. Why wouldn't California sign up for that, would be my question. That would be far more efficient.
BOYKIN: I was in Los Angeles last weekend when that list came in with 20,000 people that they wanted the Los Angeles County to look into. And they found, when they just did a cursory examination, that 7000 of those people didn't even live in Los Angeles County. They didn't even have L.A. County addresses.
That's how horribly inaccurate these lists are.
JENNINGS: Were they on the L.A. County voter roll?
BOYKIN: They did not have L.A. County addresses. And then we have Nevada, where they had 20,000 people that were on their list and they reduced it to 185 and they found that there were no people there.
I saw a man, a 72-year-old man, I saw it on T.V. in L.A., 72-year-old man who was arrested in the dark of night by apparently federal agents who came in, took him out in his pajamas, 72-year-old man. And then they accused him of voting illegally.
I saw another interview he did, I think it was KTLA, the local television station there. He said, not only is he a legal permanent resident, but he's never even registered to vote.
They picked up a wrong guy. And they put this, I mean, it's a big spectacle about this. This is why you don't trust these people to go into these communities.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: But what is the point of that?
BOYKIN: The point is to intimidate people. The point is to intimidate them.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: The point is that that sends a message. If you see someone being dragged out and being accused of something that they're not, it makes people afraid.
JENNINGS: Well, what's the point of not being part of the SAVE system? What is the point of that?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Because they don't want to give over all their voter registration to the federal government.
JENNINGS: What are they worried about? Because if everybody is legal, everybody is legal.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: What are they worried about? I think they're worried about this particular government.
PHILLIP: Well, look, there's a lot of litigation happening right now. And at the crux of the litigation is the inaccuracy of that system that the federal government claims to want to use to verify voters. It matters whether or not their system is accurate.
Because when you arrest people and you charge them with crimes, you probably should charge them with crimes based on actual evidence that they did the thing you claim that they did. And there are a lot of plaintiffs in these cases who are saying, these systems are very clearly not accurate. That should matter.
JENNINGS: California officials admitted that they have no way to independently verify the citizenship status outside of this system. To me, participating here would be better than the alternative, the door- to-door stuff that you guys do.
MCGOWAN: Well, I had to probably bring a vote of myself. I had to show my passport to register, so there you go.
PHILLIP: All right, next for us, we'll react to your feedback from cnn.com/abby. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: And now some viewer feedback from cnn.com/abby.
One viewer says, it seems to me that Vance has just done a ton of damage to his 2028 prospects. Will this come back to haunt him?
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I hope so.
PHILLIP: Lulu's nodding yes.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: I'm nodding yes. I think all Vice Presidents suffer from having to deal with the President they serve under. Kamala Harris, subtweet there.
But yes, I think this will come back to haunt him. This is an ugly campaign, I don't know why he involved himself in it. We're talking about Ohio.
[23:00:03]
PHILLIP: Yes, I mean, he's made some questionable decisions, Vance has lately.
MEIJER: I just think political memories are incredibly short. There's going to be 1000 things that happen between now and the election, let alone between now and when the 2028 contest kicks off in earnest.
MCGOWAN: That changes personality. GARCIA-NAVARRO: I guess even the cats and dogs, it's true.
PHILLIP: Right, I mean, the cats and dogs things, I guess nobody cared about that. But the defending of the Amy Acton ad, that's one segment of the Republican coalition that he's offended. Defending of Tucker Carlson defends a whole other segment of the Republican coalition.
There's a lot that he's doing that is kind of pissing a lot of different people off right now.
JENNINGS: I think that the Tucker thing is a bigger deal than the Acton thing, truthfully. I also think generally, trying to get a third term for a presidency is hard. To jump from the vice presidency to the Oval Office directly happens very rarely.
HW, anybody remember the one before that? Mark Van Buren. And then you've got Adams and Jefferson. And there's not a lot of Adams and Jeffersons out there right now.
So it's hard to do.
PHILLIP: All right, so we've got a comment here about -- from Mark, that says, where is Marco Rubio? Shouldn't he be the one negotiating since he's supposedly our top diplomat?
And then I'll just add to this. A second viewer says, Steve Witkoff calling Putin a humanitarian is like saying that Trump is a Nobel Prize winner.
BOYKIN: Both accurate. Where's Marco Rubio is a great question. Because Donald Trump is his own secretary of state.
He's his own press secretary. He's his own everything. Trump makes all the decisions, and Marco Rubio is doing something somewhere else.
I don't know. But If I were he, I think he's actually not helping himself out, because he's not showing himself to be a great leader. But maybe he wants to distance himself from all the chaos coming out of the administration right now.
PHILLIP: I think he picks his battles wisely.
MEIJER: I think he was just in Central Asia. I saw him on a tour there. And he just gave him our accessory next to Steve Witkoff. Like I said, Marco Rubio is doing the secretary of state.
PHILLIP: He finds himself where he needs to be.
Okay Scott, real quick for you. Why does Scott Jennings take a sip of his mug at the beginning of every single show the second the cameras turn to the panel?
JENNINGS: Well, I mean, what you really should ask is, what's in here? And I'll never tell.
PHILLIP: All right. That's a good question. 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.
Thank you very much for watching "NewsNight," "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.
