Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Event/Special
Trump's Lawyer Responds To New Revelations Of Audiotape; House Passes Debt Deal As Lawmakers Race To Avert Default; WH After Attacks In Moscow: We Don't Support Strikes In Russia. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired May 31, 2023 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:03]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Two CNN Town Halls coming up.
Jake Tapper hosts a CNN Republican Presidential Town Hall, with former South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley, in Iowa, Sunday, 8 PM.
And a week from tonight, our Dana Bash moderates a Town Hall with former Vice President, Mike Pence. It's expected to launch his 2024 presidential campaign, that day. That Town Hall starts 9 PM, only here, on CNN.
News continues. "CNN PRIMETIME" with Abby Phillip starts now.
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN HOST: And thank you, Anderson.
Good evening, everyone. I am Abby Phillip.
A busy night, tonight. We are watching Capitol Hill, where the House is set to vote, on the bipartisan deal, to raise the debt ceiling, and cut spending, so that the nation averts a default, next week. President Biden and Speaker McCarthy are defending the agreement, as some in their parties are also railing against it.
So, we'll bring you the results of that vote, as soon as it happens.
But first, to a CNN Exclusive, tonight, reporting, that federal prosecutors have Donald Trump, on tape, in his own words, acknowledging that he took a sensitive national security document with him, when he left the White House. That is what multiple sources tell CNN.
And I'll speak with one of the former President's attorneys in just a moment.
But we are told that Trump's comments, in the 2021 recording suggests that he knew that he kept classified material, and wanted to share it, but understood his limitations, post-presidency.
In other words, he knew that this was likely false, when he said it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: By the way, they become automatically declassified when I took them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And the same goes for this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If you're the President of the United States, you can declassify just by saying it's declassified, even by thinking about it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: The incident is so serious that the Special Counsel, investigating Trump, has now questioned the Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Mark Milley about it.
Sources tell CNN that the tape is of a meeting between Trump, and people without a security clearance. It did not take place at Mar-a- Lago, as well, where the other classified documents were found. But instead, they were at Trump's golf club, in Bedminster, New Jersey.
Let me first bring in one of the journalists, who broke this story, CNN's Kaitlan Collins.
So Kaitlan, a huge scoop here. What does this all tell us, about what Donald Trump knew, about the status, the classification status, of these documents?
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's really a significant reporting, from our team. And it was a team effort on this.
And I think the biggest take-away from it, and likely the biggest concern, for Trump's legal team, and Trump's allies, is the fact that it shows that he understood that he had retained classified information, long after he left office, but also had an acknowledgement that he could not declassify things, in this post- presidency period, as you have noted, that he has claimed many times, as this investigation has gone on, and as he has been asked questions about this.
And that has been the main defenses that we have heard, from the former President, and his legal team, about this, which is why they've said that they don't believe he's facing any legal trouble, in this investigation.
Now, it seems that that has changed potentially here, because we do have sources, telling us that they believe this is an important piece of evidence that Jack Smith's team now has in their hands.
And the way this all got started was at a meeting in the summer of 2021. Trump is at Bedminster, so not Mar-a-Lago, where the raid happened, where the search warrant was executed, for those documents.
But he's angry about the story that had been built published in "The New Yorker," talking about General Milley's concerns that Trump may take military action, in his waning days of his presidency, as he was disputing the results of the election.
Trump's angry about that. And what he's indicating to the people that he's speaking to, in this recorded audio, is that he has information that could undermine what Milley is saying, indicating that it is classified information, and says something on the tape, to the effect of "If I could show you this, it would undermine these arguments," but making clear he doesn't believe he can show it to them. And I think that's a key part of the story.
PHILLIP: Yes, it very much is.
And the other part is that this really gives us one of the first indications of what else might be here. It's not just letters from Kim Jong Un. What do we know based on your reporting, about the military significance of the document that we're talking about?
COLLINS: Well, and right, and that's kind of been the dispute over, was it classified? Was it not classified?
This is a plan that we are told was essentially about potentially striking Iran. Obviously, the U.S. has a lot of plans from the Pentagon, backup plans, things in case of emergency. And that's what we're told that this was that he was referencing, trying to say essentially, that it was something that General Milley had prepared for him.
Obviously, Milley is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We are told actually, this was not a document that was produced by Milley, but it's something that was clearly at the heart of a national security issue.
And the fact that Milley has now spoken to investigators, in this situation, which I am told happened recently, also speaks to the significance of the way that Jack Smith, and his team, are treating this.
[21:05:00]
Because Milley would be one of the highest ranking, if not maybe the highest ranking national security official that we know that has gone and spoken to investigators, here. So, this episode has generated a lot of interest.
And I should note, the other thing we're told is those people, who were in the room, did not have national security clearances, and an ability, to be able to see what this information was.
I want to note one other caveat, Abby here, that's really important, which is, we don't know for sure that it was the actual document that he had in his hand. You could hear we're told on the recording rustling of papers. We haven't confirmed that it's actually the document he was holding. But he was referencing a document that showed that that he made clear he could not show to the people in the room.
PHILLIP: Very significant reporting. Kaitlan, thank you for that. And please stand by.
We now turn to one of the attorneys, representing the former President, in this investigation. Jim Trusty is here with us.
Jim, thank you for joining us.
And you heard all of that reporting, from Kaitlan. But I want to ask you, were you aware of this, the existence of this tape, prior to this report?
JIM TRUSTY, COUNSEL FOR FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP: This is really missing the real story here. I mean, this, you guys teased it by saying what great reporting it is, what great journalism. I'm sure you're happy to have people talking to you. But this is a leak campaign. This is -- well let me just --
PHILLIP: But -- I understand what you're saying. But I'm just wondering --
TRUSTY: Let me give it a quick second here.
PHILLIP: -- I'm just wondering did you know that this tape existed? And are there others?
TRUSTY: I am not going to try a case, based on the government leaks. But we need to just recognize the significance of the moment, which is DOJ and FBI, or some combination of them, are engaging in a leak campaign.
Now, this actually started three days after the raid on Mar-a-Lago, with an unprecedented press conference. You've never seen, in the history of prosecution, an Attorney General doing that.
PHILLIP: I just --
TRUSTY: And we're on that same line --
PHILLIP: Jim, I just have to -- I just -- Jim, I just have to correct you. The Mar-a-Lago raid was publicized by your client.
TRUSTY: Abby? Abby?
PHILLIP: Former President Trump tweeted out that it was happening.
TRUSTY: Abby, it was --
PHILLIP: When it was happening.
TRUSTY: Well, it was a highly publicized moment, when dozens of FBI agents, hit the President Biden's political opposition, with a raid.
But the point, look, what I was pointing to, and the common thread here that we need to recognize is three days later here, for the first time in history of prosecution? I've been in criminal justice, 32 years. A prosecutor, the Attorney General stands up and says, "I want to announce that we did this raid. And I want to be selectively transparent. I want to leak out some parts of the warrant." But nine months later, we haven't seen the affidavit.
PHILLIP: I --
TRUSTY: This is consistent. This is leaking evidence in a campaign to justify the unjustifiable.
PHILLIP: All right, point taken about how you feel about the information being in the public.
But the substance of it, these tapes would indicate that former President Trump knew that the documents that he had were classified. Does that not make his statements, about blanket declassification, and some statements, by his representatives, wouldn't that make those lies?
TRUSTY: Yes, I'm not going to dignify the DOJ leak. What I will tell you is this. When you are -- but this is -- this is addressing your --
PHILLIP: I mean it does sound like you just don't want to address the substance of the --
(CROSSTALK)
TRUSTY: Well it'd also be nice if you let me answer.
PHILLIP: Sure.
TRUSTY: So, let me just try to answer, because I am trying to be responsive. But I'm not going to bite, on a leak campaign, and try the case, in the media.
What I will tell you is there is no doubt that as Commander-in-Chief, and when the President left Washington, D.C., for Mar-a-Lago, he was actually still President. When he left for Mar-a-Lago, with boxes of documents that other people packed for him that he brought, he was the Commander-in-Chief.
There is no doubt that he has the constitutional authority, as Commander-in-Chief, to declassify. It does not have to go through some sort of bureaucratic process, to be declassified, so.
PHILLIP: But wouldn't it be very easy, to simply prove that he just declassified them, because even though he doesn't have to go through a process, he does have to decide that it's been done.
TRUSTY: Sure.
PHILLIP: Did he tell anyone?
TRUSTY: Yes. Yes.
PHILLIP: And can you prove it?
TRUSTY: Sure. But we're not going to --
PHILLIP: So, did he declassify -- TRUSTY: -- we're not going to try the --
PHILLIP: Did he declassify this document that we're referring to?
TRUSTY: We're not going to try the case leaked by a leak. What I can tell you is the leaks that come out some of them are objectively false. Some of them lack context.
PHILLIP: But this is very significant. If you are saying that he --
TRUSTY: Sure is.
PHILLIP: -- declassified the documents, you should be able to say whether this document had been declassified.
TRUSTY: I'm not trying my case for CNN, so.
PHILLIP: So you won't say?
TRUSTY: Of course not. Right.
PHILLIP: You won't? And will you say in the court of law that he declassified this document?
TRUSTY: Well, if I'm in a court of law, I'll defend my client, as I need to.
But let me make this point very clear. If you have the authority, to declassify, you're not wedded to any bureaucratic process. It's exactly like pardons.
PHILLIP: And who did he tell, by the way?
TRUSTY: It's exactly like the pardon process.
PHILLIP: Who did he tell?
TRUSTY: Well, let me just finish the thought, so your viewers understand where I'm going.
If you have a pardon, it might be something where you go through the pardon attorney.
PHILLIP: Yes.
TRUSTY: Where the Attorney General makes a recommendation, a bureaucratic process.
PHILLIP: Yes.
TRUSTY: That's not the constitutional part of it. You have the authority, as the President, to do it. So, if somebody walks in and says, "Pardon Jack Johnson, he was treated horribly, by racists," you can pardon him without the application process. Same thing goes with declassification.
PHILLIP: Yes. I wouldn't --
TRUSTY: You don't have to go through that process.
PHILLIP: I'm not disputing that.
TRUSTY: Sure.
PHILLIP: But like with the pardon process, you would need to tell someone in the bureaucracy that you've done it.
TRUSTY: Right.
PHILLIP: So, who did he tell that he declassified those documents?
TRUSTY: We are not trying our case leaked by a leak, in the media.
[21:10:00]
PHILLIP: So, let me ask you this. You signed a letter to Congress, saying that this was all just the result of a rushed pack job. Essentially, you said, "When President Trump left office, there was little time to prepare." The White House staffers, GSA administration employees, they "quickly packed everything" up, in "boxes, and shipped them to Florida."
But it seems that this tape indicates that at least Trump knew specifically that he had this specific document.
TRUSTY: What the letter is designed to do, as much as you want me to try the leak, in the press, the letter was designed to tell Congress that we have a very politicized National Archivist that is going after one president only, that they broke their own internal rules, in doing this.
And that ultimately, what needs to be fixed is the general system of declassification. What we need is more attention to the process of transition. There was no --
PHILLIP: That -- but you got to --
TRUSTY: -- there was no science to the transition, when President Trump left.
PHILLIP: But that being said --
TRUSTY: It was just people hurrying around.
PHILLIP: I think it's contradictory to say that we didn't know what was in the boxes, when Trump knew what was in the box.
The other part of this is that we're talking about a conversation that happened at the Bedminster club. So, is it your understanding that documents went, from Mar-a-Lago, to Bedminster, after he left the presidency?
TRUSTY: The President, under the Presidential Records Act, has unfettered authority, to do what he wants, with documents that he's taken, from the White House, while President. And so, if he wants to declassify them, if he wants to personalize them, under the Presidential Record Act? That is his right.
PHILLIP: Well?
TRUSTY: And that doesn't lead to criminal investigations.
PHILLIP: That -- be that as it --
TRUSTY: It never has before.
PHILLIP: Be that as it may. But I think the --
TRUSTY: And it probably never will again.
PHILLIP: -- the record needs to show that you won't even say whether this document was declassified.
TRUSTY: No.
PHILLIP: And in fact, there is a tape that your client has said that the document is still classified. So, you can make that argument, but only if you are also trying to establish that this document is declassified.
TRUSTY: No, I am not going to sit here, and dignify leaks that are incomplete, that are unfair, and that are dishonest.
This is a leak campaign. And you guys have the access to somebody, from DOJ or FBI. You're touting the official line that they want you to pursue, because they want to legitimize something that was never criminal.
And for no other president has there ever been a document retention issue that's been treated as a criminal investigation.
PHILLIP: Why would former President Trump have a document that seems to pertain to military plans, regarding a very significant U.S. adversary, have them in his possession, and be discussing them, with people, who don't have an appropriate clearance, whether he declassified them or not. Why would he do that?
TRUSTY: You know, what's really fascinating about the leak is, DOJ is trying to justify this persecution, of the current administration's leading opposition, by saying "Oh my god, he had these sensitive materials that he shouldn't have had." And then, they leaked to you guys, vivid details of a document that they say is classified. I mean, they can't have their cake and eat it too.
PHILLIP: I mean, to be fair, these are not vivid -- these are not vivid detail. To be fair, this is -- these are not vivid details of the document. Trump is on the video, describing the contents of this document, to people, biographers, of his former Chief of Staff.
TRUSTY: Right. PHILLIP: So, he's the one doing the describing.
TRUSTY: You just did a piece with Kaitlan that basically vouched for saying, these are the details we're hearing, whether it's his description, or actually seeing the document.
What I'm telling you is I'm not trying the case, in the media. I'm not going to sit here, and address the document, as if it's right, or if that audio tape exists, or is if it's not something that's really wrong.
This is prosecutorial justice. I've been around DOJ, for 27 years. I've never seen a leak campaign, like this ever.
PHILLIP: Were any documents that former President Trump took with him, to any of his properties, did they contain, any of them contain, sensitive military plans?
TRUSTY: Yes, well I'm not trying my case in the press. So, he would have the right to possess them, if they did. But I'm not going to address that.
PHILLIP: He would have the -- would he have the right to possess them, if they were classified documents?
TRUSTY: Yes.
PHILLIP: Because the Presidential Records Act actually says that those documents belong to the federal government.
TRUSTY: No. The Presidential Records Act says, once there's a determination of whether something is a Presidential Record, then, it goes to the Archivist. All the discretion in the world is with the President himself, when he makes that first call.
PHILLIP: So, let me read --
TRUSTY: If they disagree, they can sue civilly.
PHILLIP: Let me just read it.
TRUSTY: That's what the litigation says.
PHILLIP: Let me just read the relevant statute, for the audience.
"The United States shall reserve and retain complete ownership, possession, and control of Presidential records."
TRUSTY: Presidential records. See, here's the thing. What we've built into the system is there are years of conversation, typically years of conversation, about whether or not certain documents are personal or presidential, OK?
Obama, 2018, wrote a letter, his foundation wrote a letter, to NARA, saying "We have thousands of classified documents. We'll get them to you eventually." PHILLIP: But that's not --
TRUSTY: The key is --
PHILLIP: That is not what happened.
TRUSTY: Sure it is.
PHILLIP: NARA --
TRUSTY: I'll show you the letter.
PHILLIP: NARA retained control over of all those documents that you --
TRUSTY: No. NARA announced -- NARA announced --
PHILLIP: NARA retained control over of all those documents that you're describing, including the facilities that they were kept in.
TRUSTY: No.
PHILLIP: That's been -- that's been fact-checked.
TRUSTY: No. NARA has given an official --
PHILLIP: But why do you keep repeating that?
TRUSTY: NARA has given an official politicized statement, saying "We had legal custody."
PHILLIP: They --
[21:15:00]
TRUSTY: They didn't have physical custody.
PHILLIP: They controlled the facility --
TRUSTY: Let me just -- Abby, why -- why would the --
PHILLIP: -- that the documents were in.
TRUSTY: Why would the Obama Foundation write a letter --
PHILLIP: I don't want to --
TRUSTY: Well let me finish and should tell me --
PHILLIP: Look, I don't -- I don't want to -- I don't want to get bogged down in other --
TRUSTY: The details, and facts.
PHILLIP: -- in other presidents. I'm talking about your --
TRUSTY: But you just misstated something I want to fix. Can I just fix it real quick?
PHILLIP: I'm talking about your client here.
TRUSTY: I'm talking about --
PHILLIP: I'm talking about your client here. You're making --
TRUSTY: And I'm talking about dual systems of justice.
PHILLIP: You're --
TRUSTY: When you have a president, who has thousands of documents, and NARA says, "Don't worry, we have legal custody," nobody would write a letter saying "We'll return it eventually" --
PHILLIP: What you are describing --
TRUSTY: -- if they didn't have custody of it.
PHILLIP: What you are describing is, according to NARA, a mischaracterization of what is going on. But what I'm --
TRUSTY: Right, and look at NARA's credibility.
PHILLIP: What I'm asking you is when it comes to your client, you will not say what he has said, which is that he blanket-declassified all of those documents. Did he do that?
TRUSTY: Yes.
PHILLIP: Well then --
TRUSTY: And he personalized them.
PHILLIP: Well then, can you then say, if he blanket --
TRUSTY: I'm not going to try the case.
PHILLIP: -- if he blanket-declassified those documents, you should be able to very easily say, this document that he's referring to, on this tape, was declassified. Can you say that?
TRUSTY: I am not trying my case, based on leaks that you want to celebrate.
PHILLIP: But -- OK.
TRUSTY: All you're trying to do --
PHILLIP: So, you see the logic --
TRUSTY: All you're trying to do --
PHILLIP: You see the logic of what I'm trying to get at, right?
TRUSTY: I see the -- I see the reality of what you're doing. PHILLIP: If you're saying they're all declassified, but you don't want to say --
TRUSTY: Well aside from not letting me finish.
PHILLIP: -- but you don't want to say whether this document is declassified.
TRUSTY: Can I finish my thought, instead of you celebrating your moment?
PHILLIP: I'm just --
TRUSTY: Here's the issue.
PHILLIP: -- I'm just -- I'm just trying to get to the bottom of it.
TRUSTY: No. But what I -- I know.
But what I'm telling you is when DOJ and FBI are on a leak campaign, where they're selectively taking half-truths, and mistruths, complete falsehoods, and putting them out there, to Kaitlan Collins, and you guys, to dangle out here, on TV? I'm not going to respond to that. I'm not going to justify their behavior by acting as if it's actual fact.
PHILLIP: Let me -- let me --
TRUSTY: It's just not.
PHILLIP: Let me ask you to pause for just a second.
TRUSTY: Sure.
PHILLIP: Kaitlan Collins is here, and wants to ask a couple questions.
COLLINS: First, I just want to say, this is not the result of a leak. This is a result of good reporting, from our team, on this, Jim.
But I want to ask about something you just said to Abby, which was, you referenced the fact that Trump was still President, when he left office. He left Washington, I think, about an hour left in his presidency. Are you saying that it was in that hour that he declassified the documents that were taken with him?
TRUSTY: No, your timing is a little bit off that he landed in Mar-a- Lago, and was at his residence, while still President. It was a little bit after that, that Biden was sworn in. So, he had the absolute authority, to take every one of those documents, any document he wants with him, when he left the White House.
What happens, throughout history, through modern history, is that if you take documents, and Archives thinks they're entitled to it, they start negotiating. And that's what he did. He was telling them things like, "Hey, just ask if you want anything more." He gave them 15 boxes, in January of 2022.
COLLINS: Well, after some back-and-forth.
But just to be clear, you're making the argument, right now that by the time he was on the ground, in Florida, after he left Washington, that that is when he declassified all of these documents that he took with him?
TRUSTY: No, no, no. I'm saying the documents he brought with him are effectively declassified, and personalized, under the Presidential Record Act.
We're talking about constitutional authority, under the Constitution, to declassify. If he wants to take stuff with him, and say, "Anything I take with me is declassified," if he wants to take stuff and say, "Anything I read at night is declassified," that was absolutely his right as president.
And the personal -- the Presidential Records Act makes it clear that we don't even care about classified information. It is a statutory scheme that deals with --
COLLINS: But if this was declassified?
TRUSTY: -- presidential or personal only.
COLLINS: Jim, if this was declassified, then why are we told that he's on this tape, basically telling the people in the room that he can't share it with them?
TRUSTY: You are told by DOJ, or FBI, or whoever filtered that to you, anything they can think of to justify a persecution.
COLLINS: No. But you didn't --
TRUSTY: So, no, Kaitlan --
COLLINS: But Jim, that's --
TRUSTY: -- I'm telling you, this is -- they had rumors out yesterday, there's going to be one every day. They had rumors out yesterday, characterizing the theoretical testimony, of Evan Corcoran. It was completely false. This is a campaign to justify --
COLLINS: That's not relevant to this reporting.
TRUSTY: Sure it is. It calls into question whether any of the leak- based reporting is legitimate. And this is a whether or not you got it through some third-hand person. This is leak-based reporting. I'm not second-guessing you for running the story. But what I'm telling you is it's factually inaccurate. I'm not going to treat it like it's gospel.
COLLINS: You're saying this story is wrong?
TRUSTY: I'm saying I'm not trying the case --
COLLINS: You just said it's factually inaccurate.
TRUSTY: Right.
COLLINS: But earlier, it sounded like you were confirming it.
TRUSTY: Oh, I'm not confirming.
COLLINS: So, I just want to be clear.
TRUSTY: I'm not confirming it. I'm telling you, we're not going to respond to leaks.
They want to try this case, in the media. They want to justify the singular treatment of President Trump, compared to any other president, in history. Or not -- I guess we're not allowed to go back to 2018, when thousands of classified documents were kept in a former furniture store.
But this is a president, who specifically told DOJ, "Hey, if you want more just come and ask for it." They said, "Put a lock on the door." He did within two days. And then, they dropped off all communications. They dropped off because the prosecutor, on the case, at that time, even before the subpoena, according to "The Washington Post" --
COLLINS: Well --
TRUSTY: -- was obsessed with doing a raid.
[21:20:00]
COLLINS: They -- they have been trying --
TRUSTY: On Mar-a-Lago.
COLLINS: They have been trying to get the documents back for quite some time. That was when there was --
TRUSTY: And they got 15 -- they got 15 boxes --
COLLINS: It was when --
TRUSTY: -- in January of 2022. And it is a process.
COLLINS: Well, right. But that raises the question of why there were still so many left there, when they did show up, to execute that search warrant.
But Jim, when it comes to this document, specifically, at the heart of this reporting, how did this document wind up at Bedminster?
TRUSTY: Yes, I know, I'm getting boring, for your ratings. But I am not going to try the case. It's being set up by leaks that I don't believe are accurate.
COLLINS: How did -- has the document been returned to the National Archives?
TRUSTY: Same answer. COLLINS: OK. So, you're not prepared to say tonight whether the documents been returned to the National Archives, or declassified.
Abby.
PHILLIP: All right. And Jim, one other development that's happened, in the last couple of days, "The Washington Post" reporting that some workers at Mar-a-Lago had moved boxes of documents, the day before the FBI arrived at Mar-a-Lago.
Why were those documents moved?
TRUSTY: Right. Well, again, the leak campaign continues.
What I will tell you is that the boxes -- and I've seen boxes that were at Mar-a-Lago, at different junctures, and looked through them, including all the ones that are over at the National Archives.
These boxes have a random assortment of materials in them. I mean, we're talking golf shoes, scorecards, pictures of Celine Dion, newspapers. So, the President had every right, to even if, you know, he specifically said, "I want to look at something," he'd be allowed to do that.
And so, again, I'm not going to try the case based on leaks. But I will tell you that the leaks that they're selecting, are not giving context, to the reality, the legal reality of this case.
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, we invited you here, to provide some clarity. And I honestly, in this conversation, I've heard a lot about the leaks. I've heard a lot about the prosecutors. But I really haven't heard any explanations, for your client's alleged behavior. And I think that's the disconnect here.
TRUSTY: Sure.
PHILLIP: You also -- you won't even say whether the document we're talking about is classified or not. I mean --
TRUSTY: Right. I mean, look --
PHILLIP: If you're listening to this, most people would come away from it, saying you can't have it both ways. You can't say they were all just declassified, and not say that this document that we're talking about is declassified.
TRUSTY: I actually think your viewers are smart enough to realize that I'm taking a stance on principle, that no matter how feverishly you want to pursue the story that was leaked to you, I'm not going to dignify it by treating it as it's fact. We're not going to try the case on CNN.
PHILLIP: You also asked recently, for Attorney General Merrick Garland to give you all a meeting. Have you heard back from him?
TRUSTY: We're in the process. There's communications going back and forth. And I'll tell you that, this is -- we're at a historic precipice, right now. If we can have a sitting president, unleash DOJ, to criminalize a civil or administrative dispute, with his competition, we sure as hell better have a conversation --
PHILLIP: Yes --
TRUSTY: -- with the Attorney General. Let me just finish.
PHILLIP: Yes.
TRUSTY: The reason why it should be the Attorney General is because we have seen firsthand, outrageous misconduct. And it's all about ends justifying the means. But prosecutorial misconduct has infected this case. And we need to get it to the Attorney General directly. I don't trust the people beneath, to filter it up to him, in an honest way.
PHILLIP: So, when you say --
TRUSTY: And so, we need to have that audience. It's still percolating. But we need to --
PHILLIP: Meaning you're hearing from people below them?
TRUSTY: We're dealing with it. But we need to be -- before he makes any important decisions, he needs to recognize just how far afield this case has gotten. And again, there's specific instances that we're happy to talk to him about.
We didn't want to air all the dirty laundry, publicly, right away. But he needs to step up. Somebody at DOJ needs to have a conscience and recognize that this is -- including the leak campaign.
By the way?
PHILLIP: Well --
TRUSTY: Are you seeing any leaks on Rob Hur's investigation in Delaware? I mean, what a study in contrast, that we're sitting here, having to fight off these leaks, and there ain't a word out of Delaware.
PHILLIP: Well, look, you can take up the leaks, with DOJ. We're going to report what we know.
TRUSTY: Sure.
PHILLIP: We're going to ask you about what we know. We appreciate you coming on.
TRUSTY: I may or may not answer it. But that's just the reality of it, so.
PHILLIP: I think the audience heard that loud and clear, tonight.
TRUSTY: Sure.
PHILLIP: Jim Trusty, thank you very much.
TRUSTY: Thank you.
PHILLIP: And you are looking, live now, at the House floor, where members are holding a crucial vote, to raise America's debt ceiling, to avert the first ever potential U.S. default.
CNN's Melanie Zanona is live, on Capitol Hill, with the very latest.
So, Melanie, the House has now vote -- has the votes now, to pass this.
MELANIE ZANONA, CNN CAPITOL HILL REPORTER: Yes, they have the votes to pass it. They haven't called it just yet. But it is very clear that they are going to have the votes to get this over the finish line, which is a big victory, for President Biden, for Speaker McCarthy, and also a huge sigh of relief, Abby.
Because, it was not guaranteed that this was going to happen. It was not a foregone conclusion. And it was a very rocky road to get here. It took weeks of intense negotiations. There were multiple breakdowns along the way.
And then, there's even a last minute revolt, among the rank-and-file members, particularly among conservatives, because not everyone gotten what they wanted, in this deal, which is usually what happens, in these big sort of bipartisan deals.
[21:25:00]
Democrats were particularly concerned about the stricter work requirements, for food stamp recipients. Republicans were worried about this debt ceiling hike lasting for two years, and not doing enough to cut spending. So, in the end, it took a coalition of members, in the middle.
But it is really important, for McCarthy, in terms of the margins, here, because he needed at least a majority, of his own members, to not only get this bill, over the finish line, but also to protect his Speakership. And it looks like he was able to get that number.
They were hoping privately to get around 150 Republican votes, on their side of the aisle. And the reason why that's so important, Abby --
PHILLIP: And Melanie, I'm going to interrupt you, really quickly, because as you're speaking, they just got the votes, to pass --
ZANONA: There you go.
PHILLIP: -- the debt ceiling, just moments ago. As you were just saying, a major victory for Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
ZANONA: Yes.
PHILLIP: Became Speaker by a squeaker, but now has shown that he has the ability, to get at least the majority of his caucus on board.
ZANONA: Yes. And that was --
PHILLIP: With something like this.
ZANONA: That was a big question. A lot of people really frankly underestimated Kevin McCarthy's ability to rally his Conference.
And as I was saying, the reason why that number of how many Republicans supported the bill was so important was because during that Speaker's race that you mentioned, he made a promise to his members that he would not put bills on the floor that did not have the majority of the majority's support.
And some conservatives had threatened to try to remove him as Speaker, if he violated that pledge, tonight. He did not. We'll see if that's enough, to sort of cool the outrage, from conservatives. They said they're going to take a look at the vote, tonight, and then have potential discussions.
But, as of right now, all eyes are turning on the Senate, where Mitch McConnell, and Chuck Schumer want to take up this bill, as soon as tomorrow. But they do need cooperation, from their members, in order to move quickly. It does look like they're going to get that cooperation, as long as they offer some amendment votes, which are likely to fail, in exchange for their cooperation.
So, the bottom line, here, Abby, is Congress is on the verge of averting a crisis, but they only had a few days to spare.
PHILLIP: Yes. A few hurdles left. But a really significant moment, tonight, especially for people, who have 401(k)s, waiting for Social Security checks. This is going to be a critically important few days.
Melanie Zanona, thank you very much.
And coming up next for us, we will discuss this, and the interview that we just had, right here, on CNN, about the Trump investigation. A very busy night. Stay with us.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: You just heard Donald Trump's Attorney, Jim Trusty, on that reporting that the Special Counsel has a recording of Donald Trump discussing that he had in his possession a classified report from the Pentagon.
I'm joined now, by CNN's Senior Political Analyst, Gloria Borger; Host of "The Assignment," CNN's Audie Cornish; former Trump campaign adviser, Jason Osborne; and former federal prosecutor, Shan Wu.
So, Shan, start with you. What did you make of Trusty's explanation for all of this? SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, as I think you pointed out, in the interview, there was no explanation. He was trying to make a distinction that he didn't want to give an explanation, because he didn't want to try his case, in the press.
But, from a prosecutor's standpoint, in the criminal justice system, he really wasn't giving any examples. I mean, there's a lot of noise he made, about prosecutorial misconduct, seems to be related to what he's claiming are leaks. But he doesn't give any examples of it.
And I found particularly silly, actually, was his point about the press conference, saying that, he's never seen a press conference like that. Prosecutors give press conferences, every day. And of course, it's selective information. It's not a gender reveal party. I mean?
PHILLIP: And, of course, and as I told him, I mean, his client publicized the existence of the search.
WU: Right.
PHILLIP: And DOJ simply said, "It happened, and we're going to talk about it in court."
WU: Right.
PHILLIP: That's what -- that's what was said.
WU: Yes.
PHILLIP: But, I mean, if you are Donald Trump, are you --
JASON OSBORNE, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: I mean, look, look --
PHILLIP: -- are you going to hang your hat on that kind of defense?
OSBORNE: Maybe because I'm not, right?
But I think first and foremost is, as we were sitting there, watching that interview, I was sitting there, wanting to beat my fists against the TV, and just say, like, all he had to say was, "We don't know what document you're talking about, because we have not heard this recording," and leave it at that, as opposed to sitting here and arguing with you back and forth, about trying the case on CNN.
I mean, I do feel like it was a little bit unfair from -- not you, but on his side, for them to sit here, and argue about something they haven't seen, and they don't know about, right?
PHILLIP: Well, I mean, that's assuming that they don't know about it, right?
OSBORNE: But they don't know what document is referred to in this audio recording --
PHILLIP: They may --
(CROSSTALK)
OSBORNE: -- because --
PHILLIP: They may not know. But he wouldn't --
OSBORNE: Right.
PHILLIP: -- he wouldn't say even that.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: Well, I think the thing that was missing is this sort of notion about how you declassify not with a wand, but the process?
And the question is, if indeed the former President did declassify these documents, as they say, where is it memorialized? Where -- when and where were the agencies notified that these documents were going to be declassified?
We, at CNN, have done an awful lot of reporting, about the fact that you cannot just wave that wand, and declassify documents en masse, even if you are President of the United States.
We've interviewed dozens and dozens of people, who are familiar with the process that even a President of the United States has to go through. He has to let someone know, and memorialize it, that he intends to do that.
OSBORNE: Well --
PHILLIP: Because of course, the documents exist, not just in his possession, but they exist in the federal bureaucracy.
BORGER: Exactly.
PHILLIP: So, if they'd been declassified, you would think that it would be actually really easy to prove that.
AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR AND CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, "THE ASSIGNMENT WITH AUDIE CORNISH" PODCAST: But there's two layers of conversation going on here, right?
OSBORNE: Yes.
CORNISH: There's him trying to draw you into a battle, so that the discussion becomes about the network, the leak campaign, the prosecution, all kinds of things that are not "What have we actually argued in court? What have we actually said, in court filings, to the Special Master, et cetera, about our evidence, for the President's declassification, of this document, or that document?"
There is actually a legal kind of trail, of what their arguments have been. And it hasn't been what he told you.
PHILLIP: Exactly. Yes.
CORNISH: And so, I think, part of it is what we're going to see, over the next year, right? It's this kind of spin up over the people doing the investigation, and not ever actually answering the allegations themselves.
BORGER: In fact, the lawyers had been very reluctant, to specifically state in court, how documents were declassified. And they haven't done that. So, there is probably a reason that they have not done that.
PHILLIP: So, Shan --
OSBORNE: The reason probably is they don't know, right?
PHILLIP: Well --
[21:35:00]
OSBORNE: And, in his defense, they never -- he'd never said they were going to wave a wand. He just said he was thinking about it.
CORNISH: We don't know what his defense is, right?
PHILLIP: Yes. Shan? Shan?
CORNISH: Like that's the point here.
PHILLIP: I do wonder -- I do wonder this reporting seems quite significant, for a number of reasons. One, because we're talking about a very specific document that is of national security concern, but the other is that it pertains to what Trump himself has said, on tape.
How significant from a legal perspective is this, if you are Special Counsel, Jack Smith?
WU: I think it's really significant, for a prosecutor, because their threshold question really isn't about, could Trump rebut this? Could he claim he was misunderstanding something?
Their threshold question is, do they feel comfortable, to go forward with charging? And for them, this has really been about how comfortable are they, with his state of mind? This kind of evidence gets them a long way towards that comfort level, which for his team will be bad, if they become comfortable with it.
PHILLIP: Well --
WU: But, as a prosecutor, that's what you're looking for. I want to feel comfortable with the idea that he knew what he was doing.
PHILLIP: And when you're talking about a defendant, here, who doesn't often text, he doesn't write things down? His words on video, really count for quite a lot.
Everyone standby for me.
And speaking of Donald Trump, his former Vice President's about to take him on, and so is another one of his former closest allies. How will Pence and Chris Christie shake up the 2024 race, for the Republican nomination?
And we are waiting, the first remarks, from Speaker Kevin McCarthy, after the house easily passed the debt ceiling bill, with a big bipartisan majority, a major win for him. We'll have that next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY (R-CA): -- voting for it. This is going to be law. $2.1 trillion.
You've all covered this entire battle. You were there on February 1st, when I walked out after talking to the President. And I was kind of hopeful, because he told me in that meeting we would meet again. He sat next to me at the Prayer Breakfast, the next morning. He told the entire crowd that we would meet again.
But for 97 days, he said no.
[21:40:00]
People look at me and say, why are you always an optimist? Because I know, as an American, tomorrow will be better than today.
I had to be an optimist that every day I woke up and said, "Maybe today the President would change his mind. Maybe today he would want to put the country first. Maybe today he would want to meet."
But he never did. Not until our entire Conference passed the bill.
The Senate never did. It took no action.
The Democrats' plan was to do a discharge petition, to only raise the debt ceiling, and we'd have no savings. It would take us further off the cliff.
But when I finally got to meet with the President, we couldn't talk about the entire budget. We couldn't talk about, and look at places that we could have savings. We could only focus on 11 percent of the budget.
But in that 11 percent, not only did we give you the greatest savings in American history, there is going to be people, who are on welfare today that will no longer be on welfare that they will find a job --
PHILLIP: You've been listening to House Speaker, Kevin McCarthy, speaking, just moments after the House successfully passed by a wide bipartisan margin, a vote -- a bill, to avert a debt crisis, here in the United States.
Gloria, you noted, as we were discussing, just moments ago, more Democrats than Republicans voted for this bill --
BORGER: Right.
PHILLIP: -- in a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. BORGER: Right. And I think that's going to be a sore point, for a bunch of Democrats. The Progressive Caucus, which didn't like this bill, didn't ever take an official position, on it, against it. But in the House, you had the Republican Freedom Caucus take a position against it.
And so, the Democrats held back a little because they vote for debt ceilings, they want to pay the bills. And there were Republicans, who voted for it, 149. And it sort of shows you how the conservative Freedom Caucus is an island, in the Republican Party, in the House, right now.
And I think that most Republicans said, "We have to do this, because we are now a party that has to show that it can govern in the House."
CORNISH: And that didn't use to be the big concern, when it came to debt ceiling fights --
BORGER: No.
CORNISH: -- which we've had almost every two to three years, for the last decade.
BORGER: Don't remind me.
PHILLIP: Except it's during the Trump years, right?
CORNISH: Exactly.
BORGER: Right, yes.
CORNISH: When they voted for a two-year suspension of the conversation altogether.
I think what's interesting is hearing McCarthy there say he's talking about the negotiation, and who came to the table, and who didn't come to the table. He's not saying "We held strong until we got this, this and that," because he's trying to show that they are engaging, they are governing.
And I think the lesson of the last couple years has been if you take it to the limit, on one of these fights, you don't win with the public. They don't look at you and say, "Oh, thanks for crashing the economy for a week."
There is a kind of political penalty to doing it. And I think they're acknowledging it in a way.
BORGER: And they've learned it.
CORNISH: And they've learned that lesson.
BORGER: Yes.
PHILLIP: One of the -- I mean, it's so interesting, because some of the polling, recently, had seemed to indicate that perhaps the public maybe wanted the spending cuts, in exchange for a debt ceiling.
But it seems like the deal that was cut indicates that the Democrats kind of got slightly more of what they wanted out of this deal. Republicans were a little bit more upset.
What do you make of Kevin McCarthy actually making this move and saying, "We got to cut a deal no matter what?"
OSBORNE: Well, I think, first off, you can sit here and say -- I mean, a month ago, we were talking about the Biden White House, and the Democrats had this position, a clean debt limit increase.
PHILLIP: Yes.
OSBORNE: Right?
PHILLIP: Yes.
OSBORNE: So, it is a huge win, for Kevin McCarthy, today, to accomplish what he did today.
And the end vote total, I know everybody is going to try, and spin it, on each side on it. But the fact of the matter is 50 percent plus one is a win. It doesn't matter who voted for it, who voted against it. If you won the vote, you won at the end of the day.
And keep in mind, the two people that were two of the people in this conversation, Kevin McCarthy and Garret Graves, they have worked, in Congress, since like the 90s.
They worked for -- Kevin McCarthy worked for Bill Thomas, the first Republican Ways and Means Chair. Garret Graves worked for Billy Tauzin, from Louisiana, the first Energy and Commerce Republican Chair. They know how the system works.
PHILLIP: Yes. These are serious legislators.
OSBORNE: And so, well they sat down, and they governed.
BORGER: I think you have to give McCarthy credit.
OSBORNE: That's exactly right.
BORGER: I mean he did get 149 Republicans. He said if we get 150, or somebody --
CORNISH: Yes.
PHILLIP: Yes.
BORGER: -- suggested he won't (ph).
CORNISH: But also like Biden knows a thing or two.
BORGER: And he worked with Joe Biden.
CORNISH: Like, he's done this a bunch.
PHILLIP: Yes. Of course that's true.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: And Shalanda Young --
OSBORNE: There's no question.
CORNISH: And he did it under President Obama, like --
PHILLIP: -- Shalanda Young, his Office of Management and Budget --
CORNISH: Yes.
PHILLIP: -- Director, who worked in House Appropriations, for a very long time.
CORNISH: Yes.
PHILLIP: LZ Granderson is also here with us.
When Kevin McCarthy was going through the crucible, to become Speaker of the House, right, he went through 15 rounds. And he said, this will teach us how to govern. Was he right?
LZ GRANDERSON, LOS ANGELES TIMES OP-ED COLUMNIST, HOST, "LIFE OUT LOUD WITH LZ GRANDERSON" PODCAST: No. But he has to say it, right, and he has to present the image that this is their attempt to try to learn the lessons of the past, and show that it isn't just about saying no, but that we can say maybe, which is language for compromise.
[21:45:00]
Listen, as you mentioned earlier, we've had this conversation a lot over the past decade. And I'd tell you what disturbs me most about this conversation. It isn't whether or not it's a clean bill, or a negative bill. It's whether or not you're going after poor people, while trying to pass this bill. And that's a reoccurring theme, in these discussions.
And I think as we continue to have this discussion, 2025, after the election, we're going to be trying to figure out what we're going to do with the debt ceiling. And I'm afraid that once again, poor people, people on welfare, people who need help, are going to be the targets. And it'd be good if we could actually have a discussion that looks at the entire budget beyond just hurting poor people, going forward.
OSBORNE: Well I think another thing to keep in mind here, and Congressman Massie had a great point in this, is that this was a good exercise, to get us to the point, where we're actually going to look at every program, in the form of the 13 appropriations bills.
So, once the 302(b) allocations come out for the subcommittees that's a cap, on each subcommittee, in the Appropriations Committee. What I would like to look at is -- CORNISH: But we forwarded on this, and for a long time. And I have to say, people always say that.
(CROSSTALK)
PHILLIP: They always touch the past.
CORNISH: -- process has not changed a lick in a decade.
PHILLIP: I do --
OSBORNE: But it's --
BORGER: No.
OSBORNE: Now McCarthy has to deliver on that, right?
PHILLIP: I appreciate your optimism that Congress will start to govern. But we will see if that happens.
Everybody, stand by for us.
Is yet another former Trump aide planning to challenge him, for the nominations, in 2024? We will put that -- we'll put that to former National Security Adviser, John Bolton, himself, in just a moment.
Plus, Bolton's take on the tape, where sources say that Trump acknowledges that he held on to classified Pentagon documents, after leaving the White House. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
PHILLIP: Tonight, Russia's war is increasingly spilling into its own territory. Shelling and drone strikes are ramping up. And in Russian areas, bordering Ukraine, even the Kremlin calling the situation in Belgorod, alarming, after numerous buildings, including homes and a school came under attack, several people were injured, and some 300 children were evacuated, to areas, farther inland.
A drone also attacked an oil refinery, further south, setting it ablaze. And this comes just a day after Moscow faced several drone attacks. Though, Ukraine has denied direct involvement in that. And the White House today reinforced this stance.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN KIRBY, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL SPOKESMAN: We have been very clear with the Ukrainians privately, we certainly have been clear publicly, that we do not support attacks inside Russia.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: And joining me now is John Bolton, former Trump National Security Adviser, and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
Ambassador Bolton, thank you for joining us tonight. JOHN BOLTON, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER UNDER TRUMP, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS: Glad to be with you.
PHILLIP: But first -- first of all, do you agree with the White House's stance there that Ukraine should stay away from striking inside of Russia?
[21:50:00]
BOLTON: No, I think it's a mistake. That's not to say that Ukraine should attack without restraint, anywhere, it can, in the country. But it was invaded. It was an act of naked aggression, by the Russians. And the idea that you can only defend yourself, against that kind of outrage, by attacking positions, in your own country, I think, is backwards.
I know the Ukrainians are disavowing some of these strikes. Maybe they were done by non-governmental organizations, or something. But I say more power to them. This is how you take the fight to Russia itself. You harm supply lines, for the Russian forces, inside Ukraine. You go after the morale of the Russian people. I think they're entirely justified in doing it.
PHILLIP: What do you think these kinds of attacks are doing to Vladimir Putin's psyche, now that this war is, in fact hitting closer to home?
BOLTON: Well, I'm not sure it affects Putin that much. I think he just takes it in stride. But I think the real target is the Russian people.
We know in World War II, that when Berlin came under attack, after the Battle of Britain and bombs were falling, inside Berlin, or near Berlin, that it did have an impact on the morale, of the German people, during that war.
So, I think that's part of it. And to show that they can break through Russian defenses, I think that's an important lesson to the Russians as well.
PHILLIP: And these are the types of attacks that the Ukrainian people obviously have been dealing with for months and months and months now.
But I want to turn, Ambassador Bolton, to another story, on CNN's reporting, tonight, which is that federal prosecutors have now an audio tape, of former President Trump, acknowledging keeping classified documents, including one on a potential attack on Iran.
Are you aware of what that document could be?
BOLTON: Well, I don't know what specific document he had. I wouldn't want to get into specifics of any number of documents.
But simply to point out that one of the principal directorates of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the J5 is to produce strategies and plans and policies for war. That's what the Pentagon does, like fights wars. And good planning is a prerequisite to be ready, in case the need arises. So, they produce a lot of plans, and strategies, and it's the right thing to do.
PHILLIP: Well --
BOLTON: That doesn't mean that they're going to go into operation, tomorrow.
PHILLIP: And what do you -- I mean, but what do you make of the fact that a document like that was allegedly in his possession, at his Bedminster resort, after he left the presidency? Should it be in that place, and shown to people, without a proper clearance?
BOLTON: Well, if in fact, it was some kind of plan, highly classified, for an attack, on Iran? Absolutely not. But I have very little faith, in Donald Trump's credibility. He could have had a rolled up, carry- out menu, in his hand, waving it around, saying it was Iran draft war plan.
PHILLIP: Do you think that these actions -- this, if what Donald Trump was saying in this videotape is true, do you think that that constitutes a violation of the Espionage Act?
BOLTON: Well, I think we'd have to learn more about it. I think this is very serious, though, for the underlying problem, of him having classified documents.
His attorneys have tried to make it look like he was just a little bit careless. And actually, his best defense was, "I left the White House, in such chaos, on January the 20th of 2021, I have no idea what we packed up." So, it wasn't an intent problem at all.
But this is more of an indication that this is a document he wanted to keep. He had it interestingly, in Bedminster, not at Mar-a-Lago, which means that document has traveled around a fair amount. And being in his own voice, this is going to be a hard one to explain.
PHILLIP: Just turning to 2024, the 2024 race, which is now well underway, former Vice President, Mike Pence, and Chris Christie, former New Jersey governor, they'll both launch their campaigns, next week.
But you, have you ruled out running for president?
BOLTON: No, I haven't. It's certainly the field is getting filled up. But I have a different view of how this is going to play out, over the next several months, I think, then some.
I think we're right now in a very interesting two-man race, Trump versus DeSantis. And, I think, Trump, over the next 90 days, let's say, is going to unload on DeSantis. And DeSantis is going to have to answer him back.
I think that's what a lot of the other candidates are waiting to see. Who survives that encounter? Maybe one does, maybe the other, maybe both are wounded.
I think Chris Christie's entry into the race is going to be interesting, because he will be going directly after Trump. And every time he makes a criticism of Trump, the news media are going to ask Ron DeSantis what he thinks of it.
So, I think, for DeSantis, to avoid simply commenting, for the next six months, on what Chris Christie is doing, he has to have his own unique plan of action, here, to deal with Trump, and to try and take him out politically, as soon as he can.
[21:55:00]
PHILLIP: All right, well, Ambassador John Bolton, thank you. We'll be looking to see what decision you make on that front coming up.
BOLTON: Thank you very much.
PHILLIP: And as Bolton mentioned, Chris Christie, and former Vice President, Mike Pence, are both joining the race, next week.
In 2016, Christie famously tangled with Senator Marco Rubio. And in fact, Christie may have single-handedly ended Rubio's shot, at the nomination, during a single debate, in New Hampshire.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHRIS CHRISTIE, (R) FORMER NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR: You have not been involved in a consequential decision, where you had to be held accountable. You just simply haven't.
I want the people at home to think about this. That's what Washington, D.C. does. The drive-by shot at the beginning with incorrect and incomplete information and then the memorized 25-second speech that is exactly what his advisers gave him.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUSE & CHEERS)
CHRISTIE: See, Marco -- Marco, the thing is this. When you're President of the United States, when you're a Governor of a state, the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how great America is at the end of it doesn't solve one problem for one person.
SEN. MARCO RUBIO (R-FL): This notion that Barack Obama doesn't know what he's doing is just not true.
CHRISTIE: There it is.
RUBIO: He knows exactly what he's doing.
CHRISTIE: There it is. The memorized 25-second speech.
(AUDIENCE APPLAUSE & CHEERS)
RUBIO: Well, that's the --
CHRISTIE: There it is, everybody.
RUBIO: -- that's the reason why this campaign is so important. CHRISTIE: You know what the shame is?
JEB BUSH, FORMER GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA: Why don't you mention my name so I can get into this?
CHRISTIE: You know what the shame is, Marco? The shame is that you would actually criticize somebody for showing up to work, plowing the streets, getting the trains running back on time when you've never been responsible for that in your entire life.
RUBIO: Chris, you didn't want to go back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
PHILLIP: All right, there he is, Kamikaze Christie.
BORGER: Yes.
PHILLIP: Is this a gift to maybe a Ron DeSantis?
GRANDERSON: It's certainly the gift for all of us. I mean, just that clip alone was entertaining. I remember being there that night, like going, "Well this is fun. Not quite sure if you're going to make it through, but it's entertaining."
Listen, Ron DeSantis is going to have his own issues, because of his fight with Disney. And I don't see that going away anytime soon. I certainly don't think the queer community is going to let that go away anytime soon. So, I don't think it's solely going to be about how he plays defense, against Donald Trump.
Chris -- or Ron DeSantis has his very own problems that he has to deal with, that are going to be in addition to Donald Trump, not in instead of with Donald Trump.
BORGER: Chris Christie is someone, who's kind of be important in this race, for as long as he laughs.
And who knows? I was talking to a senior adviser of his. And I said, "Well, what's Christie's lane, in this race?" We use that terminology all the time. And he said, "Chris' lane is going right through Trump. It is the only way that someone can win."
So, just watch out for Chris Christie. They don't think he'll destroy himself in the process. But it didn't work so well, for him last time.
PHILLIP: I mean, he would --
OSBORNE: I agree.
PHILLIP: I mean, he -- I feel like he would have to -- there has to be a decision made at some point, right, that other people are going to have to get out of the race, in order for one person, to really be the person, to take on Trump. And, I mean, maybe Christie thinks that person is him.
CORNISH: But what's significant --
(CROSSTALK)
OSBORNE: I think -- I think you have to look at --
PHILLIP: But the numbers prove otherwise. He's at what 2 percent?
OSBORNE: Yes. But if you go back, if you go back to 2008, which I think a lot of these campaigns are looking at, like in 2008, 2012, where the lead changed several different times, right? And can we get back to that model?
If a Chris Christie getting in this race, is trying to suck the oxygen out of the room, and stop people, talking about Trump, all the time, and letting the candidate -- the other candidates get in and get their message?
The key to winning this, I think, is clearly organizational. And I think Ron DeSantis has an edge, in Iowa, because he's got the team that won Iowa, back in 2016. I think somebody in New Hampshire, like a Chris Christie, or a Nikki Haley, or even Mike Pence, to a certain extent, could kind of squeak in there, a little bit.
I don't think that Trump's hold on the primary voters, in those states, in the early states, is that strong that a Chris Christie knocking Trump down a little bit, wouldn't allow somebody else to come in.
CORNISH: That's a lot of if-thens.
PHILLIP: I want to say --
CORNISH: A lot of if-thens. No, I got to be honest.
(CROSSTALK)
CORNISH: That's a lot of if-thens.
PHILLIP: Yes.
CORNISH: What's interesting about both these two particular people getting in the race is they both bear-hugged Donald Trump, for the last X amount of years, right up until it was to his own detriment, right? Mike Pence, at least potentially bodily.
So, are they going to get in the race, and actually say something about him, to him? Are they going to at all try that out?
BORGER: Well Christie will.
GRANDERSON: But what --
BORGER: Christie will.
CORNISH: He --
GRANDERSON: But and what can they say --
BORGER: And they both split --
CORNISH: But who is that voter who --
BORGER: They both split after January 6, right?
CORNISH: -- who's like "I criticized him, but now I'm really into the fact that you liked him."
GRANDERSON: Yes, I mean?
CORNISH: "And now I'm really into the fact" --
BORGER: Well --
CORNISH: -- "that you decided not to be with him anymore."
GRANDERSON: But I don't --
CORNISH: Like what --
GRANDERSON: Especially --
OSBORNE: It's not like we characterize Pence is hugging --
CORNISH: -- who is that?
OSBORNE: -- Trump there.
BORGER: Yes.
CORNISH: Not anymore. But what I'm saying --
OSBORNE: No. No. But I don't think he's in the same context --
CORNISH: No, what I'm saying is nobody is stepping up to go after Trump directly.
GRANDERSON: I would -- I would --
CORNISH: And these are the two people uniquely positioned to do it.
GRANDERSON: Yes. I live in Texas, surrounded by a lot of conservatives, as you would imagine. And in my conversations with Texans, specifically, about their perception of Mike Pence, it's a masculinity thing too. They feel as if Donald Trump emasculated Mike Pence.
BORGER: And they blame Mike Pence?
PHILLIP: All right.
GRANDERSON: And they blame -- and they blame Mike Pence for that.
PHILLIP: All right, everyone. GRANDERSON: And that goes on, and that means something.
[22:00:00]
PHILLIP: Great conversation, here tonight, Gloria, Audie, Jason, and LZ. Thank you all very much.
And a quick programming reminder for you.
This Sunday, Nikki Haley will join CNN, for a Presidential Town Hall, at 8 p.m. Eastern Time.
The former Vice President, Mike Pence, will be here next, Wednesday, for a Town Hall, of his own. And you can catch that at 9 PM Eastern Time, only, right here, on CNN.
Thank you very much for joining us.
"CNN TONIGHT" with Alisyn Camerota, starts right now.
