Return to Transcripts main page

Inside Politics

Ossoff: Vance's Legacy Is To "Throw Millions Off Health Care"; New York Appeals Court Voids Nearly $500M Penalty Against Trump; NYT: Democrats Face Voter Registration Crisis; Hegseth Puts Fitness To Test, Internet Scrutiny. Aired 12:30-1p ET

Aired August 21, 2025 - 12:30   ET

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

[12:30:00]

OLIVIA BEAVERS, CONGRESSIONAL REPORTER, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: -- county Fair just a mile down and I started asking people who might benefit from no tax on tips or some other sort of benefits, and most people did not seem to know or hear about this bill in a battleground district for Congressman Ryan Mackenzie.

So they really do need to be going out and selling it. It's just how do they do that if they are picking and choosing these smaller groups instead of holding wider town halls with people who might not be able to be reached online or by social media?

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: Well, and the people who are talking about this are Democrats, including the man you mentioned, Senator Jon Ossoff, who is going to be in a very tough re-election race in Georgia. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)

SEN. JON OSSOFF (D), GEORGIA: Let me just say this about JD Vance because he was supposed to be this avatar of a new GOP that was for working class people in the United States. His legacy forever now is casting the decisive vote to throw millions of Americans off health care, throw seniors out of their nursing home beds, all to serve the wealthiest and most powerful people in the country.

He has zero credibility as a champion for America's working class. And the damage control he's trying to do in Georgia this week is going to fall flat.

(END VIDEOCLIP)

SABRINA RODRIGUEZ, NATIONAL POLITICS REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: And it's really notable that in this last month what we've seen is Democrats consistently talk about this and not see very much from Republicans. Of course, seeing JD Vance out today could offer maybe a template for Republicans and I'm sure that after seeing him speak in Georgia today, we may be hearing, you know, other Republicans sort of parrot some of those talking points.

But I think notable ahead of this visit to Georgia was at the beginning of the week, Senator Warnock actually went to one of the rural hospitals in Georgia that is going to be impacted by the cuts. And I think that's what we're going to keep hearing from Democrats is say, OK, you can talk about the tax cuts as much as you want, but the reality of what's happening with Medicaid cuts, the reality of what's happening to the changes with the Affordable Care Act is going to actually be hurting these hospitals.

And I think that's going to be key for Democrats because as we head to the midterms, Republicans are going to try and say, well, those things are not because of the bill. Oh, that thing is unrelated. And Democrats are really going to have to drive home what exactly is the fallout from this bill.

BASH: All right, everybody stand by. We have some pretty big news to talk about after the break. A major victory for President Trump, why he won't have to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in fines that he was at least told to pay what about a year ago. We'll explain why after a break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:36:51]

BASH: A New York appeals court this morning threw out a nearly $500 million civil fraud penalty against President Trump. The President was accused of exaggerating his wealth, but this appeals court has now ruled the penalty was excessive and overblown.

CNN's Katelyn Polantz is here. Walk us through exactly what happens. It seemed this is -- this was such a big deal, a huge sum of money when it happened before he became president again.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: It was --

BASH: What's the argument besides it being excessive, or is that really it?

POLANTZ: That's really it. There's five judges here in this particular appellate court in New York. They're all over the place in this set of opinions they issued today, but they all basically agree on one thing, that nearly $500 million that the Trump organization was going to have to pay for inflating their wealth, that corrupt business practices that was found at court previously, that they're going to throw that out.

That's a win for Trump, no matter how you cut it. We know that as a corporate leader, as an individual, he cares about the money penalty here. That said, I just went through the 200 of 300 pages here.

BASH: Of course you did.

POLANTZ: Flew through it in the green room, but 200 of the pages here are the controlling opinions of the judges that came together and said, yes, we're going to -- all four of us are going to throw this out, and we're going to agree together that we shouldn't have a new trial. We don't need to throw everything out. Two of the judges are arguing that actually they would want a new trial, but this is a very unusual situation. But in these opinions, they outline what they believe is corruption. That the reality here is that --

BASH: On the part of Donald Trump.

POLANTZ: That's right. That the business of Trump was something that was ignoring reality, that they were over-inflating the size of space, valuable space they owned in Manhattan, that they were over-inflating as a business, the amount of money that their properties were worth, and all of that was to get favorable loans from banks.

What the court wants to happen is a correction of the business culture. What they don't think should happen is this massive fine that could potentially --

BASH: Yes.

POLANTZ: -- very severely hurt the Trump organization.

BASH: Let me read what the President said on his social media platform. "TOTAL VICTORY," all caps, "in the -- all caps, "FAKE New York State Attorney General Letitia James case." Went on to say, "It was a political witch hunt in a business sense, the likes of which no one has ever seen. This was a case of election interference by the city and state trying to show illegally that I did things that were wrong when, in fact, everything I did was absolutely correct and even perfect."

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying is that the panel, the judicial panel, isn't saying that he is innocent. What they're saying is that the penalty, the amount of money was excessive.

POLANTZ: That's right.

BASH: Is that accurate?

POLANTZ: That's right.

BASH: OK. And so what now?

POLANTZ: That's --

BASH: It's not over.

[12:40:00]

POLANTZ: No, it's not. There will be more appeals for sure. We did get also a statement from the New York Attorney General Letitia James who brought this case. They're also claiming a victory. And so now what we will wait for is another round of appeals to see what the court above this court does in New York State.

This is the intermediary court. But, you know, Dana, in reading the first, you know, 126 pages of this opinion, only a small amount of it is devoted to discussing the actual throwing out of the judgment money, the disgorgement. What is most about is underlining what was found in this trial, that the testimony of Trump and his sons was not credible, that Michael Cohen, remember that name, his testimony was credible, and that this was not something that they should do and that other corporations should also want to not have this sort of outcome.

BASH: Yes.

POLANTZ: They shouldn't want monitorships. They shouldn't want to have to go to trial for this one thing.

BASH: I don't want other thing -- other businesses and individuals to look at this and say, oh, I can do it, too.

POLANTZ: That's right.

BASH: I think I said innocent. I should have said found liable because it's a civil case. See, this is why I have you. I just kind of have you here and I know the correct terminology to use.

Thank you so much for breaking it down. Appreciate it, Katelyn.

Coming up, the New York Times analysis sparking panic among Democrats. How the party is, quote, "haemorrhaging" voters long before they even go to the polls. David Chalian is here to explain.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:45:53]

BASH: We talk a lot about the national political divide, but there's one thing that the reddest of red states and the bluest of blue and even the purple battleground states have in common. They're hemorrhaging Democratic voters.

A new analysis by the New York Times is a five-alarm fire for a party eager to retake power in Washington and elsewhere, it's simply getting trounced by Republicans in new voter registration. Of the 30 states that track voter signups by party, Democrats are down in all of them.

According to the Times, the shift could mean up to 4.5 million more Republican voters, and it's an advantage that could play out in the elections for years. Who better to talk about this than CNN Political Director and Washington Bureau Chief David Chalian.

Let's just show a couple of graphics to kind of set the table for this conversation. This is, again, this is an analysis that the Times did. In those 30 states in D.C., Democrats, 2.1 million, Republicans, 2.4 million, and that is --

DAVID CHALIAN, CNN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF: Democrats down 2.1.

BASH: -- down 2 -- thank you. Down 2.1 million and up 2.4 million for Republicans. And then if you kind of look at the map, it gives you a broader sense of where this is. If you look at the blue arrows compared to the red arrows. CHALIAN: I mean, what is astonishing about this, right, you think you normally look at election statistics and you see like, oh, one party is having trouble over here and then the other party is having trouble, like, there is nowhere in these 30 states that track registration by party that Democrats increased their voter registration.

I mean, that's what's so astonishing about pulling this way together. The Times did it. And so, the 4.5 million voter swing, that 2.1 down for the Dems and up 2.4 for Republicans, you know, as you noted, that's a long-term problem. That's a -- that is a deep hole that the party -- the Democratic Party is going to need to dig out of.

But what is so astonishing, I think, when you look at this is just -- it's universal across the board. There's not a bright spot somewhere here for the Democrats.

BASH: And let's just dig into where this matters. It matters everywhere, OK, but on a national level, looking ahead to the midterms and ultimately to the 2028 presidential, a couple of the key battleground states. North Carolina, you see the Democrats had a 400,000 person advantage, and now they're only down to 17,000. And Democrats, you see 517k and now 53,303.

CHALIAN: In a pretty short time here, right?

BASH: Yes.

CHALIAN: I mean, this is between the 2020 election and the 2024 election until now.

BASH: Sure.

CHALIAN: And you're talking about a huge percentage loss for Democrats. Now, yes, I -- see, you know, I guess some Democrats would say, hey, we still have a registration advantage in Pennsylvania, but it is shrinking and shrinking fast. You know, as you know, historic trends for midterms are on the Democrats' side, right?

Like, overwhelmingly, midterms tend to be a referendum on the President. This President is more unpopular than popular. The narrowest margins announced, you would think Democrats are poised for a good year in 2026. But then you look at something like this, Dana, and this is countervailing evidence of why I don't think any Democrat that I talked to thinks 2026 is a sure bet in victory.

BASH: Yes, separate and apart from redistricting. And just real quick, I want to look at some of the breakdowns of some of the demographics that you look at, we all look at on election nights. Latino voters, you look at Florida, 52 percent in 2020 -- this is for Democrats. And then down to 33 percent in 2024.

North Carolina, 72 percent to 58 percent. I mean, those are dramatic losses among voters who are really key, had been historically key to Democrats. And then talk about historically key to Democrats, young people. 2018, 66 percent of young people registered as Democrats. 2024, 48 percent.

[12:50:04]

CHALIAN: And this lines up with exactly rewind to election night last year when we're looking at the exit polls. I mean, part of why Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump was erosion with young voters, erosion with Latino voters, and with men. We see that here too with new registrants.

Unbelievably, male new registrants for Republicans significantly outpace female new registrants for Democrats if you go to their natural base on the gender scale. I just think what you see here, this is part of the Democratic brand problem that we're seeing in all the polling right now with their favorability at a record low.

This is what a brand problem looks like in reality. If new voters are signing up and they're choosing between two parties and they're choosing the Republicans over the Democrat, that is the brand problem.

BASH: They have a lot of work to do.

David, thank you.

CHALIAN: Sure.

BASH: Appreciate it. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Pete Hegseth got physical. The Defense Secretary is on a public mission to convince everyone watching that he's the most pumped-up Cabinet Secretary in the history of Cabinet secretaries. By the way, we did not put this music in. It was put in by them.

They did CrossFit Light physical fitness. Any challenges you see there? RFK Jr. Probably --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Is he wearing jeans?

BASH: Yes, we're going to get to that. Who probably himself wants to be called the most fit Cabinet member. And he is, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., wearing his signature jeans as his workout pants.

[12:55:04]

But Hegseth's pull-up caught the attention of a Democrat, Congressman Jason Crow, who posted his own video of himself doing pull-ups, saying, "Effectively, this is how it's done."

And my panel is back. Olivia?

BEAVERS: Well, I feel like this feeds exactly into what Hegseth and some of the MAGA world was talking about, bringing back masculinity. I don't think this video plays poorly for them of him working out with troops. I think that's Hegseth's shtick. But I do think that he's just had a series of different issues that have piled up since he became Defense Secretary that are far bigger than this. We all remember the texting scandal when Jeffrey Goldberg was on it, which raised questions about he's -- how he's handling security and sensitive information.

BASH: Yes.

BEAVERS: But I think that this is just --

BASH: I want to see Tulsi Gabbard in this because she's very strong.

NIA-MALIKA HENDERSON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Yes, she is. All of these people are stronger and more fit than I am. You know, this is great for recruiting. This is great --

BASH: Yes.

HENDERSON: -- in terms of enticing young men, young women into wanting to join the ranks. It's very sort of TikTokable as well. And so this is why Donald Trump wanted him to be the Secretary of Defense, because he was telegenic, he was masculine. He was all the things that Donald Trump thinks he is as well.

ELI STOKOLS, WHITE HOUSE & FOREIGN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, POLITICO: Yes, central casting, as Donald Trump likes to say. And it does make sense. It does line up with the sort of appeals they made during the campaign to young men. But, you know, posting thirst traps, if you're the defense secretary, is one thing, or if you're Jason Crow, like, I guess everyone's doing this now. This is what social media has wrought.

But the Defense Secretary is not running point right now on what's happening with the conversations around security guarantees for Ukraine. He's not playing a main role in that conversation. Secretary Rubio is far more involved in a lot of that. So I think, you know, it's for an audience of one, but it's also telling what he's doing and what he's not doing.

BASH: Do you know how many pull-ups I can do?

HENDERSON: Zero.

BEAVERS: Five.

BASH: Loose egg. I'll admit it.

Thanks, everyone. Thank you for joining Inside Politics. CNN News Central starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)