Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Democrat Chances to Take Governorships; Musk Says He will Giver SpaceX Shares to Every Kid in America; Rep. Mike Quigley (D-IL) is Interviewed about the Ukraine War; Jeffrey Toobin is Interviewed about Chances that Democrats Can Stop Trump; Four Killed in Canada Military Base Fire. Aired 8:30-9a ET

Aired October 19, 2026 - 08:30   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[08:30:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, and 15 days out from the midterm election.

Katelyn, thank you very much. I appreciate your reporting.

John.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Pope Leo delivers his first prayer since undergoing surgery for lung cancer.

And then cattle on the lam. A truck crash leaves them wandering the streets of Kansas City. How long did they stay?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BERMAN: All right, a new Monday morning pop quiz. When was the last time that Democrats held the majority of governorships in the country? The answer, Harry Enten?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: The answer was 2010.

BERMAN: All right.

How many times have Democrats held the majority of governorships over the last like 40 years?

ENTEN: Yes, if you look since 1995, after the 1994 Republicans tsunami, they've only held it for four years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

BERMAN: That's why we're talking about governors this morning.

[08:35:00]

Chief data analyst Harry Enten is here.

ENTEN: Oh, hello.

BERMAN: There is a race in Ohio. ENTEN: Yes.

BERMAN: A state that's had a Republican governor for some time now. People are watching very closely. What's going on there?

ENTEN: Yes, you know, I mentioned 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010. That was the only four years in which Democrats have held the governorship in Ohio this century, I do believe. And what we're talking about right here is, just take a look at this. OK, the choice for Ohio governor. Well, Vivek Ramaswamy, of course, we all know Vivek Ramaswamy. He ran for president back in 2024. He was a part of the Trump administration right at the very beginning, or at least helping them out. He was ahead in Ohio. Look at this. He was up by four points. One, two, three, four points in 2025.

But look at what's going on right now. Amy Acton, the Democratic nominee for governor, is trying to become the first Democrat to win the governorship since Ted Strickland won back in 2006. I stole Johnny B.'s trivia question here. And look at this. This race has flipped from Ramaswamy over to Amy Acton, who's now up by four points in the polls.

BERMAN: Why?

ENTEN: Why? Why? Why? Independents, independents, independents. They are the name of the game. This is the group that Trump has absolutely seen the floor drop out from underneath him. And the same thing is going on to Vivek Ramaswamy.

Look at this. OK, 2000s, Ohio GOP gov nominees among independents. Vivek Ramaswamy's negative 25-point net popularity rating is the worst, the lowest, no one has ever been this low if you're a GOP gubernatorial nominee in Ohio, no one has been this low except for Vivek Ramaswamy. The worst this century.

BERMAN: All right, we started this segment talking about the idea that maybe Democrats will take the majority of governorships. It is possible. What are the prediction markets saying?

ENTEN: Yes, OK. So, to me, Ohio is part of a larger picture. I think, for this election cycle, as Ohio goes, so goes the nation. I think that's true in the Senate race. I think that's true in the governor's race as well.

And right now, if you take a look at the Kalshi prediction market, the chance that the majority of govs are Democrats after the midterms, look at this, it went from 27 percent back on March 19th. Look at where we are now, a 70 percent chance. The Democratic chances have absolutely skyrocketed to become the majority of governors. And that'll be the first time it would happen since I was out of college.

BERMAN: Harry Enten, thank you very much.

ENTEN: Thank you, my friend.

BERMAN: Sara. ENTEN: Sara.

SARA SIDNER, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you, gentlemen.

New this morning, Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, now a trillionaire, is now promising to give every child in America a share of SpaceX, which begs a couple of questions, why and how?

CNN's David Goldman is joining us now.

What do you know about this? There are a lot of promises of money going around here before this election.

DAVID GOLDMAN, CNN BUSINESS SENIOR REPORTER: Yes, there sure are. And, you know, I think that A.I. is one of those things where they're trying to get a little bit of public favor, you know, for A.I. This is a huge issue in the election. People really hate data centers. And so, the industry is trying to figure out, how do we get people on our side.

Anthropic, yesterday, says we know how we'll do it. We'll take five percent of the company and put it for the public good. They didn't say exactly what they're going to do. But that's about $50 billion that they're going to put into some fund to serve the public good. And then two percent afterward, if they double or they increase the amount of value by 50 percent.

Elon Musk says, I got an even better idea. I'm just going to give it to the people directly. And so, I'm going to give a share of SpaceX to every kid. That's a lot of money too. That's 73 million children. That's $146. That's about $10 billion.

So, here you have two companies --

SIDNER: Yes

GOLDMAN: SpaceX and you have Anthropic, both in A.I., saying, we're going to try to, you know, give some money out and maybe make us a little bit more popular.

SIDNER: It's interesting because when you look at the backlash to data centers, which is becoming a big issue in this particular election, and then you hear from some of those working inside of these companies saying, this could be the end of humanity as we know it --

GOLDMAN: Yes. Right.

SIDNER: I mean it will be a question as to whether people say, hey, I'll take this money, but I still don't -- I still don't like what I'm hearing coming from you. There's a lot of issues here.

GOLDMAN: That's the big question is, is it going to be enough to sway people onto the side of A.I.? Well, I'll take the money, but maybe I don't like what you're doing on the inside of those data centers. That's right.

SIDNER: Especially if it takes a mass of jobs.

GOLDMAN: Yes.

SIDNER: Because that is the other huge worry here.

David Goldman, you did the math in your head. I'm impressed. I'm impressed. Thank you so much. Appreciate you.

GOLDMAN: Thanks.

SIDNER: Kate.

BOLDUAN: Breaking news overnight, Russia launched a new wave of ballistic missiles at Ukraine's capital. And Ukrainian President Zelenskyy says a metro station in Kyiv, energy facilities, a clinic and a school were hit. And he posted online that, quote, "once again, there was no early warning from our partners."

[08:40:04]

That would make multiple times in a week that that has happened. Reports have indicated last week that U.S. intelligence sharing with Ukraine had been paused, but Zelenskyy said just this weekend that the intelligence was flowing again.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT: It was blocked for some period of time. And then it was blocked by American side. We are very thankful for this. Now it works.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: And the feud between Zelensky and President Trump is not getting better. President Trump posting just yesterday that Zelenskyy, quote, "doesn't want to end this war and probably never did."

Also this morning, Secretary of State Marco Rubio is confirming that there have been talks of a possible meeting between Donald Trump, President Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping to talk about ending Russia's war in Ukraine. Yes, without Ukraine's involvement in that meeting.

Joining me now is Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois. He sits on the House Intelligence Committee. He's the co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus.

It's good to see you.

REP. MIKE QUIGLEY (D-IL): Thank you.

BOLDUAN: On this question of intelligence sharing, Congressman, Zelenskyy is basically saying that this now makes multiple times in a week that the intelligence -- that there have been no warnings. That the intelligence has been paused or disrupted. Marco Rubio denied that U.S. -- that the U.S. has paused intel sharing in the first place at all. Have they?

QUIGLEY: The ranking member of the Intel Committee, Jim Himes, has asked the Department of Defense if there's been any change in our assistance on intelligence, as they're required to tell us. At this point in time, we've been -- there has been no response. So, I have to take the Ukrainians word for it. And, of course, since it's their lives that are on the line, I have every reason to believe them. I mean the fact is, just last week, after 30 Ukrainians were killed in an attack, the president announced he was going to lift sanctions on Russian diesel fuel and that the U.S. was going to buy it. So, it's pretty clear, President Trump has now officially taken sides with the tyrant Putin and the war with Ukraine.

BOLDUAN: An aspect to where things are and where things are going is this other piece that I'm -- that we're learning more about, Putin proposing a meeting between Russia, China and the U.S. to decide how to end Russia's war on Ukraine.

Rubio confirmed that there have been some possible talks about a meeting, though it seems it's not like Trump has signed on to anything yet. "The Wall Street Journal first reported that Putin has suggested that this meeting happened next month on the sidelines of the next global summit that's to take place in China. If President Trump would go along with a meeting like this, what is that going to mean?

QUIGLEY: It means he wants Russia to win. There's just no other way to look at this. He's never picked sides in this conflict. He has never acknowledged that Russia invaded Ukraine. He has never asked for an additional military supplemental to help Ukraine. So, at this point, you know, he's -- he's clearly funding the Russian war machine. And the fact that this bitter irony, he's calling upon two countries that I would argue are helping Russia in this conflict , to move forward, just tells us that he's, again, he's picked sides here. It's an affront to what we are as a country. The new world order, created after the second world war, that liberal democratic world order, it's over.

We're seeing a change in alliances that's once in a lifetime. I'm not sure how this damage can be repaired. Even after President Trump leaves office. I'm not sure how the U.S. rebuilds that order, how it maintains a Democratic world order that we built.

BOLDUAN: You say that, in your view, that the -- President Trump is now clearly funding the Russian war machine. Donald -- President Trump, on Friday, I think what you're getting at, is that -- what President Trump signed on Friday, which was this exemption to sanctions. That Congress agreed to, became law.

QUIGLEY: Right.

BOLDUAN: But written into law was an ability for the president to have an exemption. The president explained his reasoning for signing the exemption. And he explained it this way. "My decision on Russia is a very simple one. I am in the process of negotiating peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don't want to do anything that will drive foolishly Russia away from the bargaining table." [08:45:01]

And he goes on in the Social post to say, "Zelenskyy doesn't care" about diesel prices, "and frankly, with all the money that Europe is famously giving him and that crooked Joe Biden gave him in the past, he doesn't want to end this war and probably never did."

What do you make of that reasoning?

QUIGLEY: Yes, let's putting aside the recent law we passed to sanction Russia, in 2022 we passed a law that said that they can't -- we cannot buy energy from Russia. So, he's violating that law.

Look, I voted for the recent sanctions package knowing the president would probably do this because I wanted to be consistent. And I think the majority of Congress wanted to be consistent and help Ukraine. Majority of Congress stands with Ukraine. This is a president that's gone rogue in an anti-Democratic way. So, he's violating the law. If he was serious about this, he would give Ukraine the tools it needs to succeed. To imagine that somehow Ukraine is profiting from this is ludicrous.

BOLDUAN: But, Congressman, when it comes down to it, I've heard from so many members of Congress --

QUIGLEY: Sorry, what?

BOLDUAN: I've heard from so many members of Congress the -- I've heard from so many members of Congress. The anger and frustration and outrage that you have, Republican and Democrat alike. And I have heard, again and again, the president is in violation of the law. But what can Congress do about it? There's this like step that seems to be logically, rationally missing. He's in violation of the law, but it's still going to happen. That doesn't make sense to a lot of people. What can Congress do?

QUIGLEY: Look, he's been in violation of the law for over six years now in his first and his second term. He's basically found an opening in the Constitution. And that is, what are you going to do about it? You know, even if the Supreme Court were to rule against him, I still believe he'll do whatever he thinks he wants.

There is only one remedy in the Constitution when the president violates the law. And that's for Congress to impeach the president. I voted twice for that. I suspect there will be another effort after the House and Senate changes hands. And I think the Republicans won't stand with us. They're more worried about their party, they're more worried about keeping their own office than defending the Constitution and who we are as a country.

I know it's desperate. And I know that it's frustrating. But the fact of the matter is, this president realizes that he can get away with it and is basically thumbing his nose at the process.

BOLDUAN: Congressman Mike Quigley, thank you very much for coming in. Let us see what happens for another night in Ukraine in the midst of all of this.

John.

BERMAN: All right, this morning, the aftermath of the violent protests in France and new questions about where they may spread next.

And then a deadly fire at a military base in the middle of training leaves four dead and dozens injured.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:51:51]

BERMAN: All right, 15 days before we will know who will control both houses of Congress. If Democrats retake the House and Senate, how much can they actually do?

With us now, Jeffrey Toobin, opinion writer for "The New York Times."

Professor Toobin, good to see you this morning.

You actually just wrote an op-ed in "The New York Times" where you examined this question of what can Democrats do if they retake control of Congress? And it seems to me the conclusion you reached was, not really that much. Talk about the legislation first. What can they do in terms of legislation?

JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, the big issue is the budget. And the question is, how much could they direct money or control money that would dictate what Trump could or could not do. And the first point about that is, anything they do is subject to a presidential veto, which needs two-thirds of the House and Senate to overrule it. So, there is no plausible result of the midterms that gives the Democrats two-thirds of the House and Senate. So, that means anything involving the budget is going to be a negotiation with the president. And frankly, those are likely to go nowhere. And we're looking like a future of government shutdowns over the next two years.

The -- it is true that the government can cut off, say, money for the war in Iran. That's obviously going to be a big priority for the Democrats. But the odds of the president accepting a cut-off and that becoming law are remote. So, I think, you know, Democrats need to temper their hopes about how much the Democrats can use the budget when it faces a presidential veto for anything he doesn't like.

BERMAN: There's also been a big debate out there about how much should Democrats investigate if they retake control of both chambers. And you, again, you make the case that for those who want these robust investigations, history shows it may not be so. What do you mean?

TOOBIN: And it's recent history. Remember, the last two years of the first Trump administration Democrats controlled the House and they did attempt a lot of investigations of the White House. And what happened was a complete stonewall of these investigations. The White House refused to cooperate, and they went to court to fight the subpoenas that the House sent. And listen to this, Berman. I was shocked when I started doing these

-- this research. When -- they tried to get information about the census. The court fight over getting access to that went on for 33 months and only ended during Joe Biden's presidency. When they tried to get Trump's tax returns, that fight went on for 40 some months. And that only ended when Biden was president. The fact is, Trump can tie up these investigations of the White House.

[08:55:01]

And there is unlikely to be any sort of access to that information.

Now, there is the possibility that they can investigate the companies that have been involved with Trump's and the Trump family. They might have more success with that. But again, the legal obstacles are greater than ever, especially now that the Supreme Court has decided the case of Trump v United States, which puts even more information off limits to congressional investigations.

BERMAN: In 20 seconds or less, on the Supreme Court, you do say that may be one area where the Democrats, if they take the Senate, can exert control.

TOOBIN: This is why the Senate is more important than the House, because it is true that the Democrats presumably can and will stop Supreme Court appointments if Trump gets -- if they -- if they take the Senate. That is an enormous power. And that is something that the Democrats will have, but only if they win the Senate.

BERMAN: Jeffrey Toobin, out in California this morning, great to see you. Thank you so much for getting up early,

Sara.

SIDNER: All right, on our radar for you this morning, to Kansas City now, where drivers had to avoid a little stampede. Cattles were on the loose across downtown Kansas City Sunday after an overturned semi. It spilled a herd of 120 cows onto the highway. Poor things. Probably terrified. Neighbors and local wranglers ended up stepping in to help the police out. They rounded up the stray livestock and, after hours of searching, authorities reported that all the surviving cattle had been accounted for.

All right, to West Virginia where hundreds of daredevils spent their Saturday -- oh my God -- taking the fastest way down from the New River Gorge Bridge in Fayetteville there. Base jumpers plunged 876 feet into the gorge as thousands gathered for the state's annual Bridge Day Festival. Oh. Clearly, that was slow mo. Unlike skydiving, they jumped from a fixed structure with much less time to get those parachutes open. And one jumper called the sport a special kind of crazy, which pretty much sums up us on this show.

Kate.

BOLDUAN: Absolutely. That's us every day on live TV.

SIDNER: Would you do it?

BOLDUAN: Just jumping off a fixed structure and seeing if we land?

SIDNER: No thanks.

BOLDUAN: All right, let's turn to this right now.

There -- four Canadian service members were killed and at least 19 critically injured after a major fire just ripped through an air base in Canada. Troops at CFB Wainwright in Alberta were conducting combat training with live munitions when officials now say a grass fire ignited. This is one of Canada's largest and busiest military bases. Canada's prime minister said that it is one of the worst tragedies for the forces on Canadian soil in peacetime. And you can get a sense of just how horrific this was from one witness who watched the wounded arriving at a nearby hospital.

Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRANDON SIMMONS, RESIDENT: I seeing a guy run by me that had his pants blown off. All he was, was in his blue underwear. You know, I seen burns. I seen people that were getting unloaded out of the back of that military vehicle. They were wrapped in pretty much tin foil. I heard people screaming inside of those vehicles, you know, that will never end up being out of my mind. Like I said, it was just a scene from a war movie.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BOLDUAN: CNN's Daniel Dale is joining us now for more on this.

Daniel, what are you picking up about this?

DANIEL DALE, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: This was a major disaster for Canada. In addition to the four troops killed, there were 39 being treated in hospital as of yesterday afternoon, according to the premier of Alberta, 19 of them, as you said, in critical condition.

According to the military, the fire was a grass fire that began in a training area of this Alberta base known as CFB Wainwright. It happened while members of a well-known light infantry battalion were doing what Major General Wade Rutland called high intensity combat training with live munitions, including, he said, throwing hand grenades.

Now, Rutland said the cause of the fire is still being investigated. He said he wouldn't speculate. He said it was possible it was one of many kinds of ordnance that was in the training area on Saturday, including those grenades and grenade launchers. The military does say there's no indication of terrorism, no indication of outside interference.

Now, what was very interesting yesterday was that the military laid out a rough timeline of what happened here that immediately raised difficult questions about whether this was all preventable. Now, what Rutland said was that the existence of a fire was actually known to people on the base for several hours before this tragedy struck, but they felt the fire was contained and so the training would continue.

[09:00:00]

And then, according to Rutland, uncommonly strong winds whipped up and took this fire that had been about a kilometer away, six-tenths of a mile.