Return to Transcripts main page
Inside Politics
Texas Democrats Say Their Voices Silenced By Partisan Redistricting; Trump's NYT Lawsuit Dismissed For Now For Being Too Long; New Book Goes Inside Presidential Investigations; Former Deputy AG Rosenstein Criticized FBI Director Comey Over His Handling Of Hillary Clinton Email Investigation. Aired 12:30-1p ET
Aired September 19, 2025 - 12:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:30:00]
DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: The 2026 midterm elections should be good for Democrats if history is a guide. Since the Civil War, the party that lost the presidency has then gone on to gain House seats in every midterm with only three exceptions. Now, the Trump Republican Party wants to make it four, meaning they want to hold on to their House majority and they aren't leaving it to chance.
CNN's John King went to the center of the redistricting fight in a district Democrats hold for now.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
MANNY RIZO, TEXAS VOTER: There's got to be some sort of a change.
JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: (voice-over): Manny Rizo is a Democrat in Texas, on the losing side, again.
RIZO: Intentional gerrymandering in order to control the vote. And are we really represented by the proper representative? I think it's just a way so they can keep control and power and continue on with the next two years as to what they're doing now.
KING (voice-over): Rizo maintains private jets. His office, a hangar at this private airport in Pflugerville, about 15 miles south of Austin. Business is good.
RIZO: This airplane came in for some big inspections. We found a lot of issues, but that's what we do. That's what they pay us to do is to find issues on the ground rather than they find them in the air.
KING (voice-over): Most clients are long-time customers. Of late, a few tough conversations about the bill when critical parts come from Mexico or Canada.
RIZO: Tariffs. It costs more money to stay in business. It costs more money to buy parts.
KING: To buy parts. RIZO: To buy parts.
KING (voice-over): The local congressman for this airport is a Democrat, like Rizo. He listens if Rizo has concerns about how Washington impacts his business. He listens, too, on the issue that is now Rizo's passion, gun violence.
His nine-year-old niece, Jackie, was among the students killed in Uvalde.
RIZO: That's where it's really important, you know, to us and our family. You know, we -- our values, our morals. And --
KING (voice-over): Sadness every time he thinks of his niece. Anger every time he thinks about a new Texas map that moves Pflugerville and other Austin suburbs.
RIZO: Especially during a change in the midterms. You know, I don't agree with that.
KING: This is Kyle, Texas, about 20 miles down Interstate 35 south of Austin. As of today, this is the 35th congressional district, one of two solidly blue seats in the Austin area. But when Texans vote in next year's midterm elections, the map will be dramatically different.
The 35th moved south, east of San Antonio, to Republican country. The 37th made more compact right there in Austin. The result? Two Democratic districts become one. And tens of thousands of Texans, now represented by Democrats in Congress, dispersed into more rural and Republican districts.
[12:35:08]
KING (voice-over): Gretchen Pruett is one of those Democrats. And this winery just outside of Kyle is one of her favorite places. Pruett moved to Texas 30 years ago. Likes her wine red and her politics blue.
GRETCHEN PRUETT, TEXAS VOTER: I wanted to live near Austin. And I was looking for a place that would be a community that I would feel at home in.
KING (voice-over): The new map puts Pruett in a district represented by a Republican. That isn't her only objection.
PRUETT: It's also a district that is heavily farming and industrial. And that is not the same kind of industry and ecosystem that we're in here in Austin suburbs.
KING (voice-over): Pruett was a library director who first became politically active fighting Texas Republicans trying to ban books. Now she's embracing a new cause. Trying to elect a Democrat in a district drawn to heavily favor a Republican.
PRUETT: It has activated me and my family. So we will be helping to register voters. We will be helping to get out the vote. When I was in public service in the government, I could not speak out. But I'm now retired and unmuzzled. And so I have a voice and I'm going to use it.
KING (voice-over): Pruett has studied the new lines and she knows the math. But she promises to fight on if a Republican wins next year.
PRUETT: I just believe that conversation and compromise and seeing all sides of the issue and then making a decision is the best possible form of government. And we're silencing those voices. We're marginalizing them and my voice is marginalized as well.
KING: And that's what you think they're doing? They're just dispersing Democrats in a way that silences them?
PRUETT: I do believe that, yes. The maps bear it out.
KING (voice-over): Trump's lead role in the remapping makes it sting Democrats like Pruett even more. It is a bold power play. And Texas, by far, the biggest player. But it might still not be enough to keep the House in Republican hands.
(END VIDEO TAPE)
BASH: And John joins us now. Just watching that, it's remarkable to think about the through line of everything we've talked about in the show and this week. The President's belief in absolute power and doing what it takes to keep that power even when it comes to pushing fellow Republicans across the country and things like redistricting.
KING (on-camera): Right. It starts in Texas where the Republicans already control two-thirds of the seats. Trump got 56 percent last year. They have 66 percent of the House seats right now. If the Republicans are right about this map, Dana, they would have 79 percent of the seats.
That's why the Democrats say we understand you have the power, but, wow, this is disproportionate. That's the Democrats in Texas. Governor Abbott and Trump essentially say too bad. We're going to do it.
But you're right. Missouri has already enacted a plan that would give one more Republican seat. Indiana is the next state to watch. Governor Braun initially said, I don't think we want to do this. Let's not do this in the middle of the midterms. But he in an interview the other day, my words not his, essentially said the President has told them do it or else. Do it or else.
Meaning, you know, withhold federal aid. Maybe primary Republican lawmakers who don't do it. So Indiana is your next possibility to watch. That could be two seats for the Republicans. Ohio is a possibility. South Carolina, Florida, Utah. Although that one might not break the Republicans way.
Here's the bottom line. Trump is trying to do the best he can to get the reddest map possible. It still might not be enough. Let's say in a perfect world, the Republicans pick up 10 to 12 seats. In a normal midterm election, the party in power loses 25. In 2018, Trump lost 40.
So he's trying to maximize his opportunities. Even if he twists some arms to do that, might not be enough.
BASH: She likes her wine red and her politics blue.
KING (on-camera): Yes.
BASH: Pretty, pretty great.
KING (on-camera): Yes, she does.
BASH: All right. Thanks. That was a great piece.
Thanks, John. Appreciate it.
Don't go anywhere because we have some breaking news on President Trump's lawsuit against The New York Times. More on the other side of the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[12:43:39]
BASH: Breaking news, a federal judge is tossing out President Trump's $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times just days after it was filed. The reason? The judge said it was too long.
CNN's Brian Stelter is following these developments. Brian, tell us more.
BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, this statement from the federal judge is dripping with derision. He refers to the federal rules of civil procedure and basically says, hey, you've submitted a PR memo. You've submitted an op-ed, not our actual lawsuit. So go back to the drawing board and try again.
This was an 85-page lawsuit, although it only has two actual claims, two counts of defamation by The New York Times and by the book publisher Penguin Random House. An 85-page ruling with all sorts of pro-Trump commentary and many of the boasts that we're used to hearing from the President.
And when I first read the lawsuit earlier this week, I kind of thought this feels like it was written for an audience. It was of one. It was written to appeal to the President, but not to the court.
And essentially, that's what Judge Steven Merryday is saying in his statement today. He is saying to Trump's legal team, you can go ahead and refile this. You have 28 days to refile, but you've got to cut it down by more than half. He wants this turned back in with 40 pages or fewer. And he is saying that these lawyers have to follow the civil procedures for how a complaint is supposed to work.
[12:45:02]
He says, make it short, make it plain, make it direct. Don't make it sound like a PR stunt.
BASH: Well, not the PR stunt part, but cut it in half sounds like one of our editors.
Thank you so much, Brian. And we just got a statement from the President's legal team. Do you want to read it or do you want me to go for it? You go for it.
STELTER: It says, "President Trump will continue to hold the fake news accountable through this powerhouse lawsuit against The Times, its reporters, and Penguin in accordance with the judge's direction on logistics." So it does sound like they will go back and rewrite this and refile it in the next four weeks.
You know, we spoke with about half a dozen media lawyers and First Amendment experts earlier in the week. They all said that this original complaint was meritless and that it did read more like a PR stunt than a serious case. It is, of course, a very high bar for any public figure to claim defamation and win in court. But Trump did win a lot of headlines from MAGA Media this week just for taking on The New York Times.
BASH: Yes.
STELTER: So he's at least achieved a PR victory. Today, however, a little bit of a humiliating response from this federal judge.
BASH: All right, Brian, thank you so much for that quick reporting.
I want to go to CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. Elie, what strikes me is obviously the President's legal team. They're telling us that they're not giving up. They'll refile. And unless judges keep throwing this out, one of the goals of the President has been successful with ABC, with CBS, is to push and then find a settlement because the media outlets don't want to go through it and also don't want to get into discovery.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Exactly. And the judge here actually fires a shot across the bow here of the Trump administration. Not only does he say, look, I want a lawsuit, not a sermon. He also says, you haven't even alleged what defamation is. All you're doing is complaining about the way you're covered here.
But guess what? That's not defamation. And so you need these media entities, The New York Times or others to stand up. Otherwise, they're going to settle and Trump's going to take it as a win.
BASH: All right. Don't go anywhere, Elie, because we want to talk about your new fantastic book, which is very much related to what we're talking about, but takes a historical look at that. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
(WHISTLING)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, you, listen here, babe (ph). You come at the king, you best not miss.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
[12:51:56]
BASH: In his iconic performance as Omar on "The Wire," Michael K. Williams tapped into a key truth that applies equally to the streets of Baltimore and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
"When You Come at the King" is also the name of a new book by our friend Elie Honig about the scandals presidents have had to weather from Watergate to Russiagate and the prosecutors who investigate.
(BEGIN VIDEOCLIP)
RICHARD NIXON, 37TH U.S. PRESIDENT: People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook.
RONALD REAGAN, 40TH U.S. PRESIDENT: We did not repeat, did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages.
BILL CLINTON, 42ND U.S. PRESIDENT: I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
DONALD TRUMP (R), PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven't made a phone call to Russia in years.
(END VIDEOCLIP)
BASH: Elie joins me now. He's back with us. Elie, such a good book. I want to start with Watergate. It's the gate that spawned all gates. The Saturday night massacre happened. Nixon fired top leadership at the Justice Department. But the investigation continued anyway. And I know you talked to some of the investigators about how that went down.
HONIG: I did, Dan. I think here we are, 51 years later, and the lessons of Watergate resonate so powerfully today, this week, because it shows us that independent, fair-minded, courageous prosecutors can really make a difference in imposing accountability.
And there's a moment in the book. I talked with Carl Bernstein, I talked with John Dean, who were very generous with me. But I talked to two of the Watergate prosecutors, and they told me what happened the morning after the Saturday night massacre. They're trying to figure out what to do.
Do we resign? Do we stay here? And Jim Quarles, who was one of those prosecutors, told me that they had this moment where they got together, and they basically said, "Let's make him," meaning Nixon, "Let's make him fire us all if he wants to get rid of this." Let's make the president fire us all. And they showed real fortitude.
And because of that, Dana, the investigation carried on despite the Saturday night massacre, afterwards, and it ultimately led to accountability. It led to Nixon's resignation. And so I think one of the big questions we've all faced this week is, what do we do with a president who's running away with executive power? What checks could there be? And I think history gives us at least some inspiration there.
BASH: Yes. And it seems like whether it's deliberate or not, what the Trump administration has learned from what happened Saturday night or Sunday morning 51 years ago is you can't just fire people at the top. You have to go deep into the investigation.
Let's fast forward to a more recent investigation, the investigation of Hillary Clinton in 2016. What did you learn when digging into how James Comey handled that investigation? Very controversial.
HONIG: Yes. So one thing I argue in this book is we do need to have rules around how these outside counsel cases are operated. And I propose in the book a new way we can do it to better insulate them against the type of abuses we're seeing now from the Trump administration.
But if we want the best possible argument for why we need some set of rules, look what happens when there are no rules. In that Hillary Clinton email investigation back in 2016, the attorney general decided not to appoint a special counsel. Instead, Loretta Lynch, the AG, said, I'm going to just defer to the FBI and Jim Comey.
[12:55:09]
And Jim Comey proceeded to run wild. He has been since criticized by former AGs of both parties, Democrats and Republicans alike, who criticized him for breaking the rules. And I think a really important point here is we need those rules. We need those rules for the hard cases.
We can't just make this up as we go along. Otherwise, we risk repeating what happened in 2016 with Jim Comey and Hillary Clinton.
BASH: Yes. I like your idea of having a special counsel that is permanent. Unclear if that's going to happen in the current climate.
This is the book, "When You Come at the King." I got an inscribed copy. Thank you for that, Elie. Please go out and get it. Nice to talk to you.
HONIG: Thanks, Dana. Appreciate it.
BASH: Thank you so much for joining Inside Politics today.
Join me on State of the Union this Sunday. Senator Markwayne Mullin is on the show, along with Senator John Fetterman and Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. I hope to see you this Sunday, 9:00 a.m. Eastern, right here on CNN.
CNN News Central starts after a quick break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
