Return to Transcripts main page
CNN This Morning
Trump Accuses Xi, Putin and Kim of Conspiring Against the U.S.; Courtenay Brown is Interviewed about Tariffs; Alyse Adamson is Interviewed about the Cardi B Verdict; Judge Ruling on Military in Los Angeles; Democratic Party Undergoing Transformation. Aired 6:30-7a ET
Aired September 03, 2025 - 06:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[06:31:00]
AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: Good morning, everyone. I'm Audie Cornish. I want to thank you for joining me on CNN THIS MORNING.
It's half past the hour. And here's what's happening right now.
The U.S. conducts a military strike against a boat with ties to a Venezuelan cartel. The Trump administration claims it was loaded with drugs. Eleven people were killed.
Disaster averted at Google. A federal judge says the tech giant won't have to sell off its Chrome web browser or Android operating system. It was accused of operating an illegal online search monopoly. The judge's ruling bars Google from entering into or maintaining exclusive contracts for a list of its services.
And Russian Leader Vladimir Putin and North Korean Dictator Kim Jong- un are formally meeting once again. The meeting comes after they both attended a military parade and banquet in Beijing hosted by Chinese Leader Xi Jinping.
And all of this is giving Kim Jong-un a bit of a moment. He was seen standing shoulder to shoulder with Xi and Putin, the first time all three were seen united on a global stage together. And he just got an invite to Russia. It comes as North Korea has become a central part of Russia's war on Ukraine.
The images of the united front drew this response from President Trump, who told the Chinese leader on social media, quote, "please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un as you conspire against the United States of America."
Joining me now to discuss, CNN correspondent Mike Valerio in South Korea.
Mike, I understand the -- the leader of North Korea took like an armored train there. It's very rare that he makes these kinds of appearances. What is the response even in Seoul, in South Korea, seeing him be so forward? MIKE VALERIO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think, Audie, that really
people here in this part of the Korean peninsula, and certainly in the western world, who we're talking to, are realizing that why this matters, why this is so important for everybody to pay attention to, is this is North Korea's moment being stronger than ever on the international stage. There has never been a time, Audie, when North Korea has been embraced so forcefully by both China and Russia at the same time.
So, why that matters for everybody back home in the United States, certainly for our friends in Washington, D.C., the Trump administration, no less, if you're President Trump and you're trying to reengage Kim Jong-un in North Korea when it comes to his nuclear program, really, if you're thinking about Kim Jong-un and how he moves his chess pieces, what incentive does he have to come to the negotiating table and perhaps agree to concessions when he is seen on the world stage, like the pictures that we're looking at right now, embraced. So, again, so forcefully, so warmly by Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
So, if we expand the aperture a little wider, what this parade and the festivities, the commemorations were aiming to do today, it was trying to communicate to the world on behalf of Chinese Leader Xi Jinping that he's trying to really establish a new world order that is not afraid to challenge the United States and liberal democracies writ large. And by putting Kim Jong-un right next to Xi and then on the other side of Vladimir Putin, that was trying to convey to the world that Kim Jong-un is an integral part of that new order that hopes to challenge the established set of things.
And, you know, it's worth noting before we go that this was not a foregone conclusion. You just got to go back not too far. We're talking about October of 2006, when Russia was voting for sanctions for North Korea's nuclear program. China had chilly relations with North Korea as recently as last year. So, certainly a sizable change as these three leaders walk forward together, Audie.
CORNISH: That's CNN's Mike Valerio.
Thank you so much for that context. Appreciate it, Mike.
VALERIO: Thanks, Audie.
CORNISH: You know, today, President Trump is expected to ask the Supreme Court to uphold the centerpiece of his economic agenda, tariffs. Late last week an appellate court ruled the tariffs are illegal, prompting this warning from one of the president's top economic advisers.
[06:35:04]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER NAVARRO, SENIOR TRUMP ADVISER: If the court does not uphold the Trump tariffs, it will be the end of this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: For months, independent economists warned of severe consequences from the Trump tariffs. But what could revoking them do to the economy? Economics reporter Courtenay Brown of "Axios" writes, "if Trump is forced to roll back tariffs, it might be good news for GDP growth and inflation, but Americans could pay for it in the form of higher long-term interest rates due to wider deficits."
Courtenay is here to talk more about it.
Thank you for being here.
COURTENAY BROWN, ECONOMICS REPORTER, "AXIOS": Thank you for having me.
CORNISH: Welcome to the chat.
BROWN: Yes.
CORNISH: So, for the -- for months economists were like, when these tariffs happen, you, the consumer, is going to pay for it. And now you're saying, if these tariffs are rolled back, you, the consumer, is going to pay for it.
BROWN: Yes.
CORNISH: Help me understand this.
BROWN: The outcome of either -- either direction seems to be higher interest rates, which, of course, affect things like mortgage rates, how much it costs to get an auto loan, how much it costs to get, you know, a credit card. So, I -- it -- it seems like, you know, there's no control z here. If you undo the tariffs -- we saw this playing out in financial markets yesterday -- there is concern that, wait, we -- the bond market was getting used to this pile of revenue that was coming in from tariffs. And once you --
CORNISH: Yes, in the order of billions of dollars have come in.
BROWN: Right. It's not an insignificant amount of money, especially when you pull that out over a decade.
CORNISH: Yes.
BROWN: And the bond market's like, oh, wait, we're not going to have that money anymore? OK. Well, in order for me to help fund the government, you're going to need to pay me any more (ph) for me to own this U.S. debt. So, higher yields, higher interest rates.
CORNISH: I also want to play for you the president's defense of tariffs. Here's what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: If you took away tariffs, we -- we could end up being a third world country. That's how -- that's how big the ruling. So, we're asking for an expedited ruling.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: So, just to remind people, the court that ruled against these tariffs said that the president basically overstepped his powers in declaring an emergency and able to do this and that this is the purview of Congress. So, I just want to set the table there. Bring it to our Congress side.
When he starts saying, look, we have to fight all the way because this will be dire, what is that messaging.
CHARLIE DENT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASPEN INSTITUTE CONGRESSIONAL PROGRAM: Well, I think, look, there was never an emergency to begin with. We all knew that. By the way, tariffs are taxes. A purview of Congress. Article One authority, Congress should be voting on tax increases. So, I think the courts got this right, these tariffs are --
CORNISH: Well, we don't know if the Supreme Court will think they got it right.
DENT: Well, we -- well, so far.
CORNISH: Yes.
DENT: I mean but the -- but the whole point is, I mean, Congress should be setting themselves on fire right now, trying to reclaim their authority over tax policy. I never thought I'd see the day where a Republican president would be celebrating tax increases. And again, without a vote of the Congress. So, I think the -- the Congress -- the president has overstepped here. There was never an economic emergency. No -- nowhere.
CORNISH: Yes.
DENT: And so how did --
CORNISH: And we did hear conflicting ideas of what the emergency was.
DENT: Yes.
CORNISH: Sometimes it was drugs, fentanyl.
BROWN: Trade deficits. Right.
CORNISH: Yes, exactly.
BROWN: Which we've had in the country for decades.
DENT: (INAUDIBLE) financial crisis.
CORNISH: Do you actually think, if the court were to rule against -- if the Supreme Court were to concur, would we have a situation where they would somehow have to roll back this massive tariff scheme --
BROWN: That (ph) -- CORNISH: Which is now worldwide?
BROWN: Right. And potentially give the money back that they've already collected.
CORNISH: That would be part of it?
BROWN: That is the underlying fear, according to my sources in the bond market yesterday. Not just losing that source of revenue in the future, but actually having to return the money, which we don't know will definitely happen --
CORNISH: Yes.
BROWN: But it's certainly an idea and a risk out there.
ANTJUAN SEAWRIGHT, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: But that's what Trumpism is all about, to create dysfunction and fear so that he can ultimately be in control. And he has, obviously, wanted to push all of this to the highest courts because he controls the courts. And so --
CORNISH: But he also -- I know -- I know you have your message about the fear and everything, but also, he has believed in tariffs as an economic tool since he became a public figure.
SEAWRIGHT: Sure he has, until it started to cause economic hardship and -- and affordable -- a broader affordability problem in America. And now we see goods and services going up because of the tariffs.
CORNISH: Well, let me add something else to this, because you guys have already touched on this idea, because this is yet another emergency, right?
So, the Trump administration has actually -- they've been talking about their midterm strategy, focusing on housing. And now they want an emergency declaration to make that happen.
You had Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent who said, quote, "we may declare a national housing emergency in the fall. We're trying to figure out what we can do. I think everything is on the table."
And so far the administration has used declarations to, like, militarize the southern border, as we mentioned, the tariffs against Canada, Brazil. And then one I didn't even know about, overriding environmental reviews on mining. And it lets them brush past a lot of regulations, because it's an emergency, and justify a lot of actions.
[06:40:09]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (April 2,2025): In short, chronic trade deficits are no longer merely an economic problem. They're a national emergency.
TRUMP (March 4, 2025): I declared a national emergency. I declared a national emergency on our southern border.
TRUMP (August 13, 2025): I don't want to call a national emergency. If I have to, I will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RACHAEL BADE, SENIOR WASHINGTON COLUMNIST, "POLITICO": Look, he's had success in this in his first term. I mean the reason he keeps grabbing for this, you know, national emergency for crime or for tariffs or for what have you to try to claim, you know, he has this power is because, if you go back to the big border wall fight, do you guys remember that, it was like 2017, 2018? He was trying to take congressional money and move it to --
DENT: Military construction --
BADE: From -- from various --
CORNISH: Yes.
BADE: To build a border wall.
DENT: I wrote the bill.
BADE: OK, to build the border wall.
DENT: Yes.
BADE: Congress said, no, you can't do that. Republicans said, no, you can't -- everybody said --
CORNISH: OK, yes, Charlie, say more.
DENT: No.
BADE: Well, everybody said you can't do it. And a lot of the lower courts said you can't do it, until it got to, what, the Supreme Court. He ends up winning that fight. And so, he's using the same playbook over and over again. I mean, how many times? A dozen this time.
DENT: He took a third of the military construction budget, $3.5 million, for the border wall. Now, set aside the arguments whether you want a border wall. You can't move money that's been appropriated into law for another purpose without a vote of the Congress, at least to that extent. I mean -- but -- but --
CORNISH: I think that point of tension is what you guys are all pointing to, which is then -- and then you go to the court.
BADE: Yes.
CORNISH: And then you say, well, can I, actually? And that becomes another part of the toolkit of presidential power.
DENT: Well, but look at this emergency business. They're talking about declaring a housing emergency to undo the economic emergency so they can get rid of these tariffs on Canadian lumber, which is driving up the cost of housing. So, the --
CORNISH: No, Charlie, there's also a question about interest rates, et cetera. So, right now, Redfin estimated in June there are 500,000 more home sellers than buyers. So, the buyer's market could mean that prices come down. There is some room.
Help me, Courtenay, are we actually in an emergency? Because there's a lot of home buyers and sellers out here who are going to watch this and wonder.
BROWN: It's not an emergency.
CORNISH: OK.
BROWN: And any time you start to talk about housing, I think we all flash back to 2008. We are not in that area at all. But where we are is just kind of stuck. Buyers are on the sidelines. Sellers are on the sidelines because they can't get their homes sold because there are no buyers because housing prices are up, mortgage rates are up, which the administration can't control.
CORNISH: Is this thinly veiled pressure on the Fed about interest rates?
BROWN: It all comes back to interest rates, isn't it? This is why I love my beat. You're right. They cannot control the mortgage rate.
CORNISH: I even brought a graph for you, girl. Look at this.
BROWN: Oh, you know I love charts.
CORNISH: This is a graph of the the 30-year fixed mortgage rates.
BROWN: Yes.
CORNISH: This -- I'm bringing you content. Rates have come down a bit since the start of the year. I mean, that line is not great.
BROWN: But look at how high they are relative to the before -- you know.
CORNISH: Exactly. The before times. That is what we call them. Yes.
BROWN: The pandemic. Before the pandemic and at the onset of the pandemic.
SEAWRIGHT: But can we also suggest that Trump is trying to deal with legislative priorities without having a policy agenda and calling everything an emergency? Because if he was serious about crime, if he was serious about immigration, if he was serious about housing, then why not go through traditional channels of having a majority in the House and the Senate and dealing with these things because most of these issues are a plus 50 percent top of mind issue for the American people. BADE: Yes, I was just going to add, I mean, there's a lot of Democrats
who are concerned about housing right now too. A lot of people in Congress --
SEAWRIGHT: Yes. So, why not do it --
CORNISH: So, let's ask our former congressman. I wouldn't put anything through Congress if I actually wanted it to pass. I mean, like -- well, no, I mean, all we've seen is like a kind of logjam -- a logjam there.
SEAWRIGHT: Republican majority, by the way.
CORNISH: In -- it's been -- it's been -- having been a former congressional reporter, I still have trauma from waiting for things to pass that don't really pass.
DENT: Well, by the way, this housing crisis is -- is not that complicated. I mean you have a lot of people who are locked into lower interest rates, and they're not selling because -- and you -- and right now people wanting to buy homes for the first time have to pay higher interest rates. So, there's not enough inventory out there it seems for a lot of buyers.
CORNISH: There's 500,000 more home sellers than buyers. That's a lot of people.
SEAWRIGHT: You have an affordability issue in America.
CORNISH: OK. Say more.
(CROSS TALK)
DENT: Yes, it's -- interest rates are high.
SEAWRIGHT: It's a true affordability issue in American, and that's why you see what you see across the bord in many things. And part of this is because Donald Trump and Republicans made a promise during the campaign season, they were going to deal with America being too expensive. And that has not happened. And we're going to see the affordability issue grow.
CORNISH: And this is something we also know they want to campaign on, potentially for a midterm strategy.
Courtenay, thank you so much for being with us.
Next on CNN THIS MORNING, time for generational change. New York Democrat Jerry Nadler says he won't seek re-election next year.
Plus --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARDI B, RAPPER: The next person to try to do a frivolous lawsuit against me, I'm going to countersue, and I'm going to make you pay. (END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: Cardi B sends a warning after being cleared in a $24 million civil assault case.
And a judge says Trump sending troops to Los Angeles was illegal, but will it stop the threat of their deployment to Chicago?
[06:45:03]
We want to know what's in your group chat. Send it to us now on X. We're going to be talking about ours after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARDI B: Even if I'm in my deathbed, I swear to God, I will say it in my deathbed, I did not touch that woman. I did not touch that girl. I didn't lay my hands on that girl.
I think people have like this misinterpretation of celebrities. Like, is that, oh, well, we could ask for this and they're going to settle.
I work hard for my money for my kids and for people I take care of. So, don't you ever think that you're going to sue me, and I'm just going to settle and just give me my money.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: OK, bear with us because she has been through some things. This is rapper Cardi B celebrating after being cleared of assault in a case brought by a security guard who accused the singer of attacking her in 2018.
(VIDEO CLIP)
[06:50:07]
CORNISH: So, you know, she's celebrating. The close of the case comes along with the upcoming launch of her latest album. That, along with the pregnancy rumors, her courthouse fashion, viral time on the stand have played out like free promo for the Grammy winner.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you call her fat?
CARDI B, RAPPER: No, I was calling her a (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are we having a verbal altercation?
CARDI B: We're having -- we'll say, a debate.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which one is your real hair? Or are they both real?
CARDI B: They're wigs.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: Joining me now in the group chat, Alyse Adamson, former federal prosecutor and host of the "At-lyse You Heard It Here" podcast.
I wanted to talk about this case because, as much as it is about Cardi, it's also about the attorney in the case who I think tried to. I don't know, embarrass her or am I misreading that? Like that wig question, I was like, how is this helpful?
ALYSE ADAMSON, HOST, "AT-LYSE YOU HEARD IT HERE" PODCAST: It was weird. Yes.
CORNISH: And I feel like that backfired.
ADAMSON: Yes, it certainly did. I -- you know, I've been talking to some folks about this. We can't really understand what the angle was there. Maybe it was to make Cardi look like someone you can't trust because she keeps switching it up. But whatever the attorney did was highly ineffective. I mean I watched this on Court TV, as most people did. Cardi took those questions and was able to dodge all of them very credibly. She showed up as her authentic self and she was consistent throughout her testimony, even when those really irrelevant questions were thrown at her. The way her demeanor was, it showed that she was telling the truth and also didn't bother her.
CORNISH: Here's how she explained it, to your point. She -- she talked about the response to the testimony.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CARDI B, RAPPER: It's really funny that people are just like, oh, she's amazing up there. And I'm like, I'm just saying the truth. I'm just telling everything as much as detailed as I can. Remember, I'm just telling the truth. To be honest with you, like, I don't -- I ain't do nothing special.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: Now, one thing that struck me is, you know, she was a reality star too. Her ability to perform herself is athletic, professional athlete level. And you were mentioning this, saying that, like, for lawyers, you're not supposed to ask a question you don't know the answer to already, right? You're trying to pull this story out for the jury. So, what happened here?
ADAMSON: That's right, Audie. I mean, you don't ask a question you don't know the answer to because then you cannot control whatever the witness says. And once again, I think, and I understand we're Monday morning quarterbacking here. I respect other lawyers. But I think what we saw was just not a well thought out plan. And from the beginning, this was a questionable case. We're seeing --
CORNISH: I was going to ask, how common are these? Because I -- I assume -- I see paparazzi fighting with celebrities all the time. This can't be the first time someone has tried to sue a celebrity for being in some kind of altercation.
ADAMSON: It's not. It happens all the time. And Cardi B said that herself during the press conference, this was a money grab. They think they can just sue celebrities. I mean to sue for $24 million based on a scratch, I mean, that sounds absurd to us, but it is effective because a lot of times celebrities who have a lot of money will just pay to make things go away. But Cardi B called the plaintiff's bluff, held them to their burden. And, by the way, the standard of proof in civil cases, very low. It's preponderance of the evidence. All the plaintiff, that's the security guard and their lawyer, had to prove was that it was more likely than not that this happened. And the jury completely rejected it. They did not find the plaintiff credible. They found Cardi B credible. And now the plaintiff is walking out without a cent. And now Cardi B has signaled, she's probably going to sue her.
And I think the -- the whole point is that celebrities can't just be pushed around for a money grab, and they're going to hold people accountable who make these accusations. So, the tide is turning.
CORNISH: OK. Stick around because you contain multitudes. And we have another legal decision to talk about, all right.
So, a federal judge has ruled that Donald Trump's military deployment to L.A. over the summer was illegal. That he cannot, quote, "create a national police force."
And this comes as the president is considering what U.S. city he's going to send National Guard troops next. We've been talking a lot about Chicago. So, tensions have escalated between Trump and leaders in Illinois, where Chicago's mayor is saying that his city is preparing for any federal action that could come as early as Friday.
And here's the governor on Tuesday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. J.B. PRITZKER (D-IL): First, I want to address the president's unhinged remarks a few minutes ago begging me to call him. No, I will not call the president asking him to send troops to Chicago. I've made that clear.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CORNISH: OK, group chat is back.
The judge's injunction talked about what are the duties when you have federal forces on the streets? And he actually, the case, or I guess the challengers, brought receipts. There was actually training slides with a list of things that you're not supposed to do. And these are the things that the administration had highlighted as, what, wiggle room, maybe you could?
[06:55:05] ADAMSON: Gray area, perhaps. I mean this whole administration, their -- their game plan in court is let's test the bounds of presidential authority. Let's see what the executive authority. Let's do the thing, and then run it in court and see if it's permissible.
So, they asked them to walk the line and ultimately they failed because what Judge Breyer said was, no, these actions that you took amounted to local law enforcement functions. You can't do that.
CORNISH: Right.
ADAMSON: You can do functions within the federal interest. You can protect federal personnel, federal business.
CORNISH: And there were some that they did not do, right? Arrests. Pursuing people. That's -- even in just kind of investigatory things. But it was riot control and these other ideas that the administration thought surely this is something we should be allowed to do.
ADAMSON: That's right, of skirting the line, Audie. It's skirting the line. They -- they went right up to the line and -- and Judge Breyer said, no, that still constitute local law enforcement functions. You're doing riot control. That's something that the local police can do. You need to stick with your federal functions.
CORNISH: So, I wanted to talk about this because this is one of the things that's happened between, like, since we last heard from Pritzker and others, they have been saying, we don't want this. We're prepared to push back. Does the legal case give them kind of some wind at their back to say, look, and it's legally wrong? How do you think this could play out?
BADE: I mean, they could certainly try to cite, you know, the court ruling, but my understanding is this is very much limited to California. And, of course, the Trump administration, they're going to appeal. So, who knows where it will end up in, you know, a few months from now.
Look, for Donald Trump this isn't about, you know, winning a legal fight per se. This is about the fight itself. I mean, he believes that this is, and he's right, this is one of his best issues. I mean across the board, when you look at polling --
CORNISH: Just fighting crime in general.
BADE: Fighting crime.
CORNISH: Yes.
BADE: I mean and -- and polls show over and over again that typically voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on this issue.
Now, of course, there is risk here. Could he overstep? Absolutely. You look at the polling and a lot of voters do not love what he's doing with the National Guard specifically, you know, here in D.C. If he goes to Chicago, that would absolutely sort of, you know, stir that up even more. But Republicans and Donald Trump, he is leaning in on this. He thinks he can win on this matter.
SEAWRIGHT: But Democrats want to deal with crime as well. And crime is not limited to red or blue or any other color, city, states or towns or even elected officials. If the president was serious about crime, why not do it in the traditional way, through legislative proposal nationwide, make investments in those area the same way President Biden did and do it so we deal with it holistically and not try to pick these individual fights to distract.
CORNISH: I think we're going to be talking about this more this week, especially as this sense of maybe it could happen in Chicago looms.
I want to come back to this conversation and come to Democrats themselves, because this is, as you said, if they have ideas for things, you got to be out there to push those ideas and make them happen. And so, people have been talking about whether or not the torch is actually being passed in the party. You've got a lot of the old guard. Congressman Jerry Nadler of New York announcing that he's going to retire next year. He was telling "The New York Times," look, "watching the Biden thing really said something about the necessity for generational change in the party. And I think I want to respect that."
No doubt the Democratic Party is undergoing a transformation. And we have to point this out. In 2025, three Democratic members of Congress have died while in office. A half dozen others have actually announced their retirements from both the House and the Senate.
Group chat is back.
And, Charlie, I hate to put you on the spot -- hate to put you on the spot. There is this conversation that is with seniority and experience comes power. And you should not give up power.
DENT: Well, the challenge I think the Democrats have is, they've always, much more than the Republicans, rewarded the seniority system. They -- they basically incentivize members to stick around longer. The Republicans, I think, have this right. They would term limit -- they'd term limit their committee chairs in the House. Committee chairs are not selected based on seniority. But there's a process. And younger members can become chairs.
In the Democratic side, it's the senior guys who tend to get the top spot. So, they're incentivized to stick around. Remember, John Conyers was Judiciary chairman probably long after he should have been.
CORNISH: Yes.
DENT: And they -- so, they've incentivized this and now they've got a - - they're to a point now, and they have so many older members, that it's, obviously -- it's -- there's pressure from the younger members.
CORNISH: They also have a youth activist movement in open revolt. David Hogg, most famously, everybody talking about the former Parkland student who's now threatening to pour in money into primaries.
Antjuan, I want to bring this to you because I feel like you straddle these communities.
SEAWRIGHT: Yes. Look, I believe you can have the New Testament and the Old Testament. Look, here --
CORNISH: I knew you would have something in your pocket.
SEAWRIGHT: You can have a little hip hop and R&B. Look, no one -- no one likes change except babies. However, there's change that organically happen, and we're starting to see that within our caucus and within our party. And I think it's good. But we need experience and we need the generational shift to merge together to be successful.
CORNISH: OK, we are going to have this conversation more, if only to hear Antjuan's quips on the way, because it's not going away.
[07:00:06]
We've got a primary season coming up. There's a lot of people who are planning to run in those primaries. And sometimes the age gap is as much as 40 years between the incumbent. And I think this will be the real measure of how the party is listening to young Democrats in the coming months.
Thank you, guys, for waking up with us. Thanks for being in the chat.
"CNN NEWS CENTRAL" starts now.
