Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Special Counsel Files Reworked Jan. 6 Indictment Against Trump; CNN Lands Exclusive First Joint Interview With Harris & Walz; Zuckerberg: WH "Pressured" Meta To Censor 2021 COVID Posts. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired August 27, 2024 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: But that's another 70 families who are hoping to have moments, like this. But they are, as we've seen, so bittersweet, the hard reality of all that pain and suffering.
Anderson.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Yes. Nic Robertson, thank you.
A quick reminder, before we hand things over to "THE SOURCE." Vice President Harris and, her running mate, Tim Walz, sit down tomorrow, with CNN's Dana Bash. The exclusive interview, their first, as the Democratic presidential ticket, airs Thursday night, at 09:00 Eastern Time, right here on CNN.
The news continues right now. "THE SOURCE" starts now. See you, tomorrow.
PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Straight from THE SOURCE tonight.
Two major stories unfolding. Donald Trump unloading, this evening, after he was just indicted again, in the election interference case. Special Counsel, Jack Smith, keeping all four criminal charges, but reworking the indictment, after the Supreme Court's bombshell immunity ruling.
Plus, Vice President Harris schedules her first in-depth interview, since vaulting to the top of the Democratic ticket. A joint interview with her running mate, Governor Tim Walz, right here on CNN. Details on the exclusive sit-down, voters have been waiting for.
I'm Pamela Brown in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Straight from THE SOURCE tonight. The Supreme Court may have granted Donald Trump sweeping immunity protections, last month. But he is not off the hook, for allegedly attempting to overthrow the 2020 election. This 36-page superseding indictment, from Special Counsel, Jack Smith, is clearly evidence of that. The Special Counsel getting a new grand jury, to hand up the indictment, one that had not previously heard evidence, in this case. Smith's team charging the former President, with the exact same charges initially brought against him. Though, this indictment did have to be reworked, to comply with the ruling. Smith specifically makes reference to that.
The Supreme Court ruled Trump can claim immunity from prosecution for some of his official actions while in office. So, prosecutors have now cut language, about Trump's interactions with government officials, and added language, to describe when he was acting as a candidate, and not President.
And as you might imagine, Donald Trump is fuming about all of this, claiming it as an attempt to interfere with the 2024 election, while also falsely and facelessly claiming Vice President Harris is actively behind it. And he goes on to accuse her of weaponizing the system against her political opponent. Which she is not doing.
Joining us now.
CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
And former Nixon White House Counsel, and CNN Contributor, John Dean.
Elie, to start with you. What are the major differences between this indictment and the previous one? What has been removed and added?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So, Pam, a lot of what's in the new indictment is actually the same as what's in the first indictment. However, the new indictment, we call it, a superseding indictment, makes some crucial changes. So first of all, here's what's been removed from the first indictment.
First of all, any allegation relating to Donald Trump's efforts to pressure the Justice Department. A central theme of the first indictment was that Trump leaned on DOJ, tried to get them to substantiate his false claims of voter fraud. That is out now.
Second of all, some other Trump communications, with White House advisers. The Supreme Court had said those are probably immune. Jack Smith has now removed many of them from the case.
And third, I found this really interesting. The first indictment refers to Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States. The new indictment returned today actually does not call him that. All it says is he was a candidate for office. They're not trying to insult him. They're trying to shift the focus from things he did, as President, to things he did as a candidate, in his unofficial capacity.
Now, a couple important things have been added to the case. So first of all, there is now explicit mention, in the indictment, that Donald Trump had no role certifying state elections, and he had no role in overseeing presidential electors, because a key part of the case that remains is this false electors scheme. And finally, the new indictment adds an allegation that congressional staffers took the physical paper electoral certificates out of the chamber on January 6. And that's a response to a separate Supreme Court ruling that said, there has to be some element of document fraud or document tampering, in order to be obstruction. So, I think Jack Smith is trying to now work within that ruling as well.
BROWN: All right. So John, to bring you in. The Supreme Court's immunity ruling. How much do you think this indictment has been weakened, in Jack Smith's case against Trump?
JOHN DEAN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, FORMER NIXON WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL: I don't believe it's been weakened at all. In fact, if anything, given the immunity ruling, that's been strengthened, it can go through.
Obviously, it's going to be litigated, at the district court level, which is the lowest court, before Judge Chutkan. And she's going to decide initially if this works, under the very vague, unclear standards set by the Supreme Court.
And hopefully, the more explicit and detailed she is, the more likely it will survive, and make it back through the Supreme Court, because I'm sure Donald Trump will appeal whatever happens, in the next phase of the process.
BROWN: Right. So, the bottom line is, this is not going to trial anytime soon, certainly not before the election.
[21:05:00]
But Elie, walk us through what the next steps are here. Will we see Donald Trump go back to plea again?
HONIG: Yes, so now they fight it out in court. I'm sure Donald Trump, when he goes into court next week, will say, we still think a lot of the stuff that's in the indictment is immune, and should come out.
Jack Smith obviously will defend his indictment.
And Judge Chutkan has to sort that out. She can either hear from the lawyers, in written briefs, or she can hold a hearing, which might look like a mini trial, to decide what's in and what's out
And as John said, from there, Donald Trump will have the right to appeal to the Court of Appeals, the Intermediate Court of Appeals, and then potentially the Supreme Court. So 0.0 percent chance this thing gets tried before the 2024 election.
BROWN: And John. Just yesterday, Jack Smith filed an appeal to bring back the classified documents case. Now he's filing the superseding indictment, to save the election interference case.
Do you think he's sending a signal here that he's going to keep up the fight?
DEAN: I think it's very clear he's going to keep up the fight. The Mar-a-Lago documents case, he filed a very aggressive brief.
He did not ask for the judge to be removed. Although this would, if she has overturned, would be the third strike. And I suspect there's a very strong brief, showing that the judge, Judge Cannon, had very little basis, for tossing the case and dismissing the special prosecutor.
There's a long history, in the Department of Justice, of attorney generals, appointing special prosecutors. She wants to demolish that. Indeed she would, if her ruling upheld, all Assistant U.S. attorneys would be out of work. So, it's a very striking situation down there. And I think Jack Smith is aggressively defending the Department of Justice, his office and the cases he's filed.
BROWN: All right. Elie Honig, John Dean, thank you both.
Well, the political fallout already coming fast and furious. Let's get some reaction from two campaign veterans.
Ashley Allison was the Coalitions Director on the Biden-Harris 2020 campaign.
And David Urban was a Trump campaign adviser.
Great to see you both.
Let's kick it off with you, Ashley.
Trump is already fundraising off of this. No surprise there. He's emailing, please, please give $10 to stand with Trump ASAP. During past indictments, of course, we saw Trump also fundraising. And really, a fundraising surge.
Should the Harris campaign be concerned about that?
ASHLEY ALLISON, FORMER NATIONAL COALITIONS DIRECTOR, BIDEN-HARRIS 2020, FORMER SENIOR POLICY ADVISER, OBAMA WHITE HOUSE, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think so. People who are supporting Donald Trump, unfortunately, even though he already has 34 felony convictions, are going to continue to give to his campaign.
What I think the Harris campaign should do, though, is use this as a reminder that we are literally having a debate, about whether or not a president should be -- a person should be elected president, who tried to overthrow the election.
And this indictment is a reminder, for those voters, who are independent, who are undecided, that if you don't want the ongoing chaos and mischievous behavior, likened to Donald Trump, then let's not go back to him. Let's move forward with me.
So, I would use this as an opportunity to continue to draw the contrast. And the folks, who are going to support Donald Trump, so that he can pay his legal bills will continue to do that.
BROWN: So David. Donald Trump is blaming Harris, saying she is pushing this. Of course, she has no control over Jack Smith. But politically, is this a lifeline for him, something to grab onto an attack, when he's been so flummoxed by Harris?
DAVID URBAN, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST & FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Listen, Pam. I think that, as Elie and John Dean just said that, this had to be done. It was -- it's kind of mechanical, for Jack Smith to continue to move along, in this case.
What I think it does give the -- gives President Trump an opportunity to do is, perhaps maybe talk about the letter that was published yesterday, or sent to Jim Jordan, yesterday, from Mark Zuckerberg, where he says that he received pressure, to censor search terms during COVID, that the Biden-Harris administration kind of censored, maybe even in violation a lot of the First Amendment, and then was pressured to cover up, and not publish the Hunter Biden story.
BROWN: Right.
URBAN: So, I think it maybe gives -- maybe gives him a leg to kind of go there with, and use it as a say as, I'm being persecuted here. But yet, the Biden-Harris administration, is doing awful things, and they're getting away with it, and point to the Zuckerberg letter.
BROWN: Right. And the White House is pushing back on that.
But David, I want you and your audience to listen to Trump's running mate, Senator J.D. Vance reacting to this news.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH), 2024 VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Yes, I haven't read the whole thing. But it looks like Jack Smith doing more what he does, which is filing these absurd lawsuits in an effort to influence the election.
I think it's clearly an effort to try to do more election interference from Jack Smith. He should be ashamed of himself, but it's one of the reasons why we have to win, because he should not be anywhere near power.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: I mean, first of all, this isn't a lawsuit. I mean, these are incredibly serious criminal charges that could hold jail time.
And what does that even mean that Jack Smith shouldn't be anywhere near power, in your view, David?
[21:10:00]
URBAN: Well, I think that. J.D. Vance, I'm not going to try to interpret his, you know, mince his words. I mean, you clearly heard him say it.
What I think he's trying to say is -- you know, Ashley pointed out earlier that Donald Trump is convicted of 34 counts, in a New York courtroom. And, by all accounts, even our own Fareed Zakaria said that if his name wasn't Donald Trump, those counts wouldn't have been brought.
I do think there's a great deal of lawfare being waged against this former President, and this campaign. There were suits initially to keep him off the ballot, in many states, 14th Amendment suits, which all failed. The suit in Georgia, the suits in New York, this suit.
So, a lot of people just hear white noise. They see the legal system as an extension of the political system. And that's unfortunate, because there are some, in some instances, some real justiciable issues that need to be tried, and they get just matted up in this big morass of politics. It's unfortunate.
BROWN: What do you think about that Harris -- I mean, about that, Ashley, because there are -- there's a large swath of Trump supporters, who believe exactly what David just laid out there, right? And this could further galvanize them.
Is there any concern about that, that each development like this, like what we're seeing today, with the superseding indictment, will just further drive voters to the polls for Donald Trump?
ALLISON: I think it's important for all of us to remember, and talk about the facts and what really happened. We all witnessed January 6. We all know how the people decided to come on January 6 is because of tweet that Donald Trump put out, and that he encouraged folks to go to the Capitol.
We know that he did try and find votes in Georgia that did not exist, and was colluding with folks around fake electors.
We do know those things. And we also know that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election.
And I think that there was an opportunity that, unfortunately, probably the boat has probably sailed at this point. But there was an opportunity at some point for all of us to just acknowledge that Donald Trump lost, and that he should tell his supporters that he lost.
But instead, he continues to do, and now his running mate, continues to sow doubt in systems that are not perfect, but in this instance, are actually working, because he did do things that were very troubling that were very undermining to our democracy.
And I think most people can look at that. But when you aren't operating in facts, it can lead people to feel doubtful in systems that they don't feel like have always worked for them.
BROWN: It is worth noting that what you just laid out there.
URBAN: Yes.
BROWN: President Biden has called out Trump repeatedly, saying he's threat to democracy, pointing that out. You're seeing the Harris campaign not focus as much on that, shifting away from that, talking about other issues in this campaign. It is interesting.
Ashley Allison. David Urban.
URBAN: Yes.
BROWN: Thank you both so much.
URBAN: Thanks. Thanks, Pam.
BROWN: And in just moments from now, I'm going to talk to Trump's former National Security Adviser, about this new indictment. He has just written a scathing new book, on Trump's foreign policy.
And up next. One of the biggest interviews of this election cycle about to happen, right here on CNN. Details on the very first joint interview with the new Democratic presidential ticket.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: The tough questions are coming, for Vice President Kamala Harris, from my own colleague, Dana Bash, this Thursday, right here on CNN, at this very hour.
You're going to see Harris and, her running mate, Minnesota governor, Tim Walz, in their first joint interview with Dana. It will be the first time that Harris will answer extended questions, from a journalist, since taking over the Democratic ticket.
Let's discuss with two spot-on political sources.
Former New York City Mayor, Bill de Blasio.
And Shermichael Singleton, a Republican strategist, who has worked on three presidential campaigns.
Shermichael, let's start with you.
The same Republicans, who criticized Harris, for not doing a sit-down interview, are now criticizing her because it will be with Walz and because it's taped. But the bottom line is she's now making good on that promise she made. What do you think?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, now, look, I think this is the right step for the campaign. This gives the American people, the opportunity, those who may be skeptical, to see if whether or not the Vice President is ready to do the job, on day one.
People know her, yet they don't really know what her stances are, on a whole host of positions. She has attempted to moderate somewhat. I understand why.
But I think the question remains, why is she moderating? Is it because she's seen new data that suggests you need to change your position? Or is it because, after three and a half years of being Vice President, she realizes that being a United States Senator, and being Vice President, a heartbeat away from the presidency, drastically changes one's outlook on policy and governance, generally speaking?
This is the opportunity to ameliorate, if you will, her standing with, I think, some crucial swing voters in the country that she's going to need, if she tries to win this thing.
BROWN: Mayor, to bring you into this conversation. Today, Trump's VP candidate, J.D. Vance, claimed that Harris doesn't know what she believes in. And she has shifted her policy positions, in several instances, since she first ran for president. How should she handle that in this interview?
BILL DE BLASIO, (D) FORMER NEW YORK CITY MAYOR: Pam, look, I, first of all, I don't know someone in public life who hasn't evolved on some issues.
And some of that, to pick up on Shermichael's point, some of that can be actually because of growth, can actually be because of new experience, new information. Some of it sometimes is obviously political. But it is part of being a leader, to take in a bunch of information and, sometimes, realize you got to do something different.
[21:20:00]
But if you take Kamala Harris, in lifelong perspective, she's been extraordinarily consistent. I think she combines, in a really fascinating way, core progressive values, part of that very strong Northern California progressive tradition. But also, she's a tough prosecutor. And so much of her life has been focused on enforcing the law. That's a powerful combination.
The very few things that I think people point to, as changes in her approach, are minimal, compared to a lifetime of actually very consistently believing in a set of values.
And I thought the convention, she did an amazing job, with the biographical part of her presentation, in particular, of showing how her views are grounded in family, in her personal experience, in what she experienced, as a child of her mother. I think it's really hard, to pull her away, from that very clear tradition.
BROWN: Shermichael, to bring you in. Donald Trump, for his part, has done rambling news conferences, with little substance, and interviews with Fox News or Elon Musk. But do you think that this will then put pressure on him, to sit down, for an interview, with someone who is maybe not his friend.
SINGLETON: I mean, look, I think, so far, the strategy for the campaign is to try to reach low-propensity voters, specifically men, as there is a gender divide in this race, and we've seen it based on every data, already available data, I should say. And so, I understand the thought process there.
I don't think the former President is necessarily afraid to sit down with adversarial journalists, for a contentious interview. We have seen him do that many times. I actually think -- I think he enjoys it, to be quite honest with you.
But I will say. The Mayor said something I thought was interesting about the consistency of Vice President Harris' beliefs, in terms of her policy positions. Maybe on some fronts. But I do think voters are worried or maybe concerned about her positions on fracking, being against it, now being for it, some of her immigration stances, stances on law enforcement, stances on the economy.
And so, there are some, I would argue, very legitimate and viable questions, for Republicans, to raise against the Vice President, to say, Well, hey, you believed this before. Why have you changed your mind?
Going back to my original thought process, this first Interview with Dana, gives her an opportunity to provide some clarity. Now, whether or not voters will believe it, that's up to her to convey that message persuasively.
BROWN: A high-stakes interview like this could make or break someone's candidacy. We've seen it in the past. Many of us remember Harris' 2021 interview with Lester Holt, in which she seemed defensive, when Lester pushed back on her about visiting the border.
Let's take a look again, at that moment.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAMALA HARRIS, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE U.S., (D) PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We are going to the border. We've been to the border. So this whole--
LESTER HOLT, ANCHOR, NBC: You--
HARRIS: --this whole -- this whole thing about the border, we've been to the border. We've been to the border.
HOLT: You haven't been to the border.
HARRIS: And I haven't been to Europe. And I mean, I don't -- I don't understand the point that you're making.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: She was heavily criticized for that. How does she avoid another moment like that, Mayor?
DE BLASIO: Pam, it's a powerful clip to show, to remind us. And I know she is an extremely methodical, and professional person. I hope she looks at that clip too, and her team, and is reminded that that defensive approach doesn't get us anywhere.
Look, I made that mistake more times than I can count, when I was Mayor of New York City, because you do feel embattled at times. You do feel in a box. And I think it can bring out bluntly the worst instincts. What I think we need to recognize here is she has been extraordinary, over this last month or two, and is getting incredible support from the American people. And I think she needs to use that as fuel.
If she changed a position on something, I think the best thing in the world, Pam, is to say, I changed my mind, here's why.
If she made a mistake on something at some point? And I didn't do this well enough myself. So I'm saying it confessionally. I think there were times I should have said, You know what? I made a mistake on that one. I think the public actually embraces that humanity, and that self-awareness and a sense of accountability.
So, my hope is that her preparation is very minimalist. Don't get fancy. She's got a lot of great positions, to talk about. Her plans for lowering health care costs, her vision of fighting price gouging, a great history as a prosecutor, to talk about. Stay there.
And if she changed her mind on something, you say, You know what? I changed my mind on that. Here's why.
BROWN: Shermichael, I want to talk a little bit about another high- stakes moment coming up, and that's going to be the debate with ABC in September.
Our reporting has one source confirming that the ABC debate rules are decided. The mics will be muted, just like they were on the CNN debate.
But a source close to the Harris campaign says, Actually, not so fast, the mic rule is still being talked about.
What does this ongoing debate over the debate rules signal to you? What's going on here, Shermichael?
SINGLETON: I mean, look, I, Pamela, I think it's actually in the former President's interest to have the mics muted. It benefited him in the first debate with President Biden. And we see how that worked out for Biden.
[21:25:00]
I also think that Vice President Harris and her team, they're probably looking for a similar moment that she had before, against, what, Mike Pence.
And so, I understand the strategy and the thought process there. But I think people want the opportunity, to have clarity, between both candidates. Each side will get an opportunity to rebut the claims of their opponent, if they so choose. And so, I think that's important.
But I will say this, 28-, 30-plus days, rather, of incredible news coverage for the Vice President, has not yielded her a significant leap over the former President. And so, I do think that there are some consistent and persistent issues that the Vice President, and her candidacy, is going to have, or her campaign, rather, is going to have to figure out a way, to address, from immigration and the economy.
And so, this one interview with Dana is a first step. But she's going to have to do a whole lot more.
And I can promise you this. Donald Trump's going to hit her hard on those issues, come this debate.
BROWN: I see you sort of nodding over there, Mayor.
DE BLASIO: Yes, look, I think she's going to be challenged. But I think it's a chance for her to give a knockout punch. I really do. It's really Trump's last guaranteed chance.
Less is more, is my message to Kamala Harris. She was fantastic at the convention. Keep it simple. Hit him on being a convicted felon, hitting -- hit him on taking away the rights of women, and be proud of her incredible career, particularly as a prosecutor. Stay simple, and she wins that debate.
BROWN: Bill de Blasio. Shermichael Singleton. Thank you both.
SINGLETON: Thanks for having me.
BROWN: And you won't want to miss that highly-anticipated interview. Harris and Walz with Dana Bash, Thursday night, at 09:00. You'll only see it right here on CNN.
Up next. A former top Trump aide who says he won't ever work for Trump again, opening up about his time in the White House, while blasting Trump's ego and insecurities.
Former National Security Adviser, H.R. McMaster, is here live with us.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: And back to the breaking news tonight. A new indictment against former President Donald Trump, in his federal election interference case. The Special Counsel reworking the original indictment, after the Supreme Court ruling, granting Trump broad immunity.
As the former President seethes on social media, one of his top aides at the White House is here with us tonight. That would be retired Army Lieutenant General, H.R. McMaster. He served as Trump's National Security Adviser, from 2017 into 2018. His new book, "At War with Ourselves: My Tour of Duty in the Trump White House," is out now.
Thank you so much for coming on.
I do want to discuss your book at length. And before we get to that, I want to get your reaction to this new indictment against Donald Trump. He thinks an indictment, alleging he tried to abuse his power, to overturn the 2020 election results is election interference. What do you think? LT. GEN. H.R. MCMASTER (RET.), FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, AUTHOR, "AT WAR WITH OURSELVES": Well, Pamela, I'm not an expert at this, by any means. And this is why we have a judicial process.
And I think, at this period of time, in our history, when we seem to be just at each other's throats, from partisan political perspectives, we have to really try our best to restore faith, in our democratic processes, in our institutions.
And I think our institutions have held up against the stress test of the past several years. And we need to maintain our confidence in them. And this is why we have checks and balances, right? And so, I hope that your viewers, I hope all Americans, can come together, and have confidence in our democratic institutions.
BROWN: So, you're talking about the democratic institutions, and the importance of restoring faith in the democratic process.
Given what is laid out in this indictment about Trump allegedly trying to abuse his power, to overturn the will of millions of voters, to stay in power. On top of what you discuss in your book, about Trump's affinity for dictators, like Putin and Xi. Do you believe he would actually uphold the democratic processes, in a second potential term? Do you think he wants to be an authoritarian leader?
MCMASTER: No, I don't think he wants to be an authoritarian leader.
I think what happens with Donald Trump is, Donald Trump will say outlandish things, will do outlandish things. In the case of the election denial and encouraging the assaults on the Capitol, of January 6, he abdicated his responsibilities under the -- under the Constitution.
But I think what the situation we're in today, Pamela, is like whatever Donald Trump says and does, oftentimes, the reaction to him is even worse, you know? And we create these centripetal forces that are just pulling us apart from each other.
So, I think what we have to do is knock down the hyperbole, and recognize that there have been efforts, I think, across the political spectrum, for -- by politicians, who are trying to score partisan political points, and they do it in a way that jeopardizes our confidence in our democratic principles.
And, of course, these cases aren't equivalent with each other. But they've happened on both sides of the political spectrum.
I discuss this in "At War with Ourselves." I mean, "At War with Ourselves" is a theme that carries through it is how this kind of vitriol, this division, it's not just bad for our psyche, which it really is, but it's bad for governance, you know?
And remember, when President Trump came in, he had all of the threats of collusion, with the Russians. He had the Mueller investigation, right, the Mueller investigation, $32 million. It created, and I write about this kind of a sense of besiegement on the part of the President. That wasn't healthy for him, wasn't healthy for the country.
And so, I just think, hey, it's just time to get over it, Pamela. And I hope that we have leaders, who will help us do that.
Oftentimes, President Trump's not the best leader to do that, right? Because in doubling down, on the fealty of his narrow political base at times, or extensive political base, but his political base, it prevents him from getting to the politics of addition. I think you can see the same thing, on the far left, at times.
[21:35:00]
So hey, I just think what we need are American leaders, who can bring us together, can start conversations with hey, what can we agree on? And I think we could get a heck of a lot done, Pamela.
And really, the book is in large measure, it's critical of President Trump, in a lot of areas. But it's also about how this disruptive President disrupted a lot of what needed to be disrupted, in Washington, in terms of administering, in many cases, long overdue correctives, to previous unwise policies, in the area of foreign policy, and in the area of national security.
BROWN: And I know, you do lay that on the book. It's a complex portrayal, right?
MCMASTER: Yes.
BROWN: I mean, in a sense--
MCMASTER: It's not a typical Trump book, right?
BROWN: You're--
MCMASTER: It's not like, it's not a hagiography, and it's not an anti- Trump screed, right? It--
BROWN: Right.
MCMASTER: Yes.
BROWN: But it's clear, even in your talking, you want to be very careful, and you want to walk that fine line.
MCMASTER: No, I want to be precise. I want to be precise.
BROWN: You want to be precise.
MCMASTER: Yes.
BROWN: Right. I understand.
MCMASTER: Absolutely.
BROWN: You want to be precise, and I respect that.
But there are concerning anecdotes as well in this book.
MCMASTER: Sure.
BROWN: As you try to point out what you thought was good, there are also moments, where you talk about how Putin seized on Trump's susceptibility to flattery.
You mentioned this anecdote of walking into the Oval Office, and Trump is writing a note on an article that where Putin was nice about him, at a time when two people were poisoned by Russia, on an ally soil.
And you have to ask, in light of what you lay out in this book, and even you wondering, why does Trump -- Putin have such way over Trump? If Trump wins, he will be assuming office, as the Russia-Ukraine war nears its three-year mark. Does Putin sway over Trump keep you up at night at all, given what is happening on the world stage?
MCMASTER: Well, I think all of us should hope. If the President does get reelected, I think we should all help hope that he can learn, from these experiences. Remember, Vladimir Putin--
BROWN: What makes you think he would learn at the age of 78, though, and after having four years. Where I heard that all the time covering the Trump White House, Oh, he's just learning. He's just learning.
MCMASTER: Well but--
BROWN: It never changed.
MCMASTER: Well, I don't know, I don't know about that. Hopefully, anybody can still -- can still learn.
And I'll tell you. Remember George W. Bush and President Obama, early in their presidencies, they both thought they could charm Vladimir Putin, right? They could get a big deal with him, and they could have a better relationship.
Remember, George W. Bush looking into his soul. Remember President Obama with the research -- I mean, with the reset policy, and leaning over to Medvedev, who was keeping the seat warm, for Putin, and saying, Hey, off -- more flexibility after the election, and he traded off missile defenses, in Poland, in this belief that Putin just needs his security concerns allayed.
President Trump, he fell into that kind of same trap, you know? And I just thought, as my duty, to tell the President what he did want to hear. Hey, Mr. President. Vladimir Putin is the best liar, the best deceiver in the world. And so, hopefully, he's learned that, and hopefully he's learned from, sadly, the plight of the Ukrainian people. I think--
BROWN: Do you -- do you think--
MCMASTER: --what President Trump was persuaded by--
BROWN: Do you think he has actually learned that, listening to what he's been saying on the campaign trail, about Putin, and saying that--
MCMASTER: Yes.
BROWN: --he could prevent World War III, if he's in office again?
MCMASTER: Well, I hope, I hope what either President Trump, or President Harris, understands is that Vladimir Putin is actually is provoked by the perception of weakness.
And it was the perception of weakness associated with the disastrous, I don't know how to call it, self-defeat, and the deadly retreat from Kabul, Afghanistan. I think you can draw a direct line from that Pamela, to the massive reinvasion of Ukraine, in February of 2022.
And so whoever, whatever president comes in, I think there has to be a recognition that we had a very dangerous time, in the world. Because this axis of aggressors that we're facing, who are really coalescing, at this moment. And I'm talking about really, obviously, Russia, China, Iran and to a degree, North Korea. They're working together in a way that's kind of unprecedented, and they're becoming much more aggressive.
So, I think all Americans should be concerned with both candidates, what their positions are. This is why I think this interview is really important that CNN is doing on Thursday.
Hey, we've got to ask the candidates, what is your approach to national security? What is your approach to foreign policy? Maybe foreign policy doesn't typically determine the outcome of an election.
But Pamela, we are in a dangerous time. And what I'm hoping is with this book, "At War with Ourselves," Hey, let's stop being at war with ourselves. Let's recognize the threats, and the opportunities we face, internationally, and work together, to build a better future.
BROWN: OK.
MCMASTER: The dedication page on the book is for our grandchildren. And I mean, like all of our grandchildren.
BROWN: All right. Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, I did see it was dedicated to your grandchildren. Thank you so much. It was -- it's an interesting read. Appreciate you coming on to talk about it.
MCMASTER: Thanks, Pamela.
BROWN: Thank you.
MCMASTER: Thanks for having me.
BROWN: Up next. Trump's running mate, J.D. Vance, on offense, tonight, stumping in a critical battleground, and accusing Vice President Harris of copying Trump.
A top Harris ally, Colorado's governor, is here.
[21:40:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Republican vice presidential nominee, J.D. Vance, out in battleground Michigan today, and calling Kamala Harris a copycat.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: I'm not sure that this is a woman who knows what she actually believes.
I read a story, this morning, that her advisers are considering just copying all of Donald Trump's policies.
They're more popular. In fact, I've heard that for her debate, in just a couple of weeks, she's going to put on a navy suit, a long red tie, and adopt the slogan, Make America Great Again.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: And my source, tonight, is the Democratic governor of Colorado, Jared Polis.
Thank you, Governor, for coming on.
Now, look, I cannot speak to the wardrobe thing, you just heard there.
But I should note, Harris did adopt the no tax on tips, into her campaign platform, after Trump announced his support for it. Does Senator Vance have a point here?
[21:45:00]
GOV. JARED POLIS (D-CO): Look, I think this is what's great about Kamala Harris. She is willing to accept good ideas, whether they come from the left, the right, and incorporate them into what she wants to do.
The truth is, she's leading with her initiatives around building an economy from the middle-class up. She's proposed middle-class tax cuts. You couldn't have a starker contrast than Donald Trump and J.D. Vance's middle-class (ph) tax increases with their 10 to 20 percent tariff. So, stark contrast. And of course, Kamala Harris is able to take a good idea from anywhere, and make it work.
BROWN: I want to follow up on another criticism that we heard from J.D. Vance, today. And he said that Kamala Harris doesn't even know what she believes in.
And it is true that we have not heard a lot of specifics from her, in this new role that she is in now. She did roll out her economic proposal.
She is going to be sitting down with my colleague, Dana Bash here, on CNN, this Thursday, for an exclusive interview with her VP running mate, Tim Walz. But do you have a good sense of what her belief system is, where she stands on the issues?
POLIS: Absolutely. Look, this is somebody, who as a prosecutor, put criminals behind bars, protected people, as Attorney General of California, fought for consumers, took on the big banks. She's ready day one.
What do you want in a president? You want somebody with a judgment, the intelligence, the passion for service. That's what she has. She's going to work, on behalf of the people. As she said in her speech, Kamala Harris, for the people. What a contrast for Donald Trump, who's only out for himself.
BROWN: I want to ask you about a new ad the Harris campaign released today, using her own personal story, to talk about her plan on the housing crisis. And here's a portion of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HARRIS: Most of my childhood, we were renters. My mother saved, for well over a decade, to buy a home. I was a teenager, when that day finally came. And I can remember so well, how excited she was. I know what home ownership means.
(APPLAUSE)
HARRIS: And sadly, right now, it is out of reach for far too many American families.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BROWN: In the ad, Harris outlines her housing plan, promising to build 3 million new homes, offering $25,000 to first-time buyers, and crackdown on exploitative landlord practices.
Your State of Colorado is one of many facing an affordable housing crisis, right now. How realistic is that plan?
POLIS: This is what's great. When Kamala Harris talks about the opportunity economy, she's talking about how, look, rather than having every month, struggling to make rent, let's see if we can translate that into mortgage for more Americans, so they build equity, build wealth.
This is how people enter the middle-class. This is how they save for retirement, or for the kids' college education. And that's what 3 million new homes and downpayment assistance is all about. Very consistent with our work in Colorado, removing bureaucratic barriers to housing, deregulating the ability to build housing, making it easier to build housing.
Those are the kinds of policies she supports, nationally, that will lead to more home ownership, a real opportunity economy, an ownership economy, and a wealth-building economy, for every American family. And she's seen that enact itself in her own life, and the life of her mother.
BROWN: Do you have any concern, though, about the potential billions and billions of dollars it could add to the deficit, according to economists?
POLIS: Well, it will add a lot less than Donald Trump's expensive plans. There was a new analysis out, just in the last few days, that shows Donald Trump's deficit-busting big spending plans. He has a track record of record deficits. This is a guy that, even when he was in the business sector, ran huge deficits, losses every year. It's how he operates.
We know that his tariff plan is going to raise costs for American consumers and, frankly, drive out American manufacturing jobs, because, of course, retaliatory tariffs from other countries will hurt our ability to sell Made in America and Grow in America products.
So, I think for anybody who's looking for fiscal responsibility, Kamala Harris is the right choice. And, of course, we want to continue to push to balance the budget, and start moving forward with reducing our debt.
BROWN: Yes. We should note the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, this is a nonpartisan watchdog group, estimates that her policies would cost at least $200 billion, over 10 years.
Of course, economists also say that Donald Trump's policies, as you point out, would also add a lot to the deficit as well as inflation.
But I think it's worth pointing out and looking at both policies, and what it could do, to the economy, looking forward.
And it's not just housing, right? You take food prices, for example. There's a CBS/YouGov poll, and it asked independent voters about how both candidates would affect prices at the grocery store. 50 percent of them thought that a Harris presidency would raise prices, while 41 percent of Americans thought a Trump presidency would make their grocery bill cheaper.
Those numbers have to be concerning for the Harris campaign, no? What more does she need to do, to get her messaging, across on that front?
POLIS: Well, sometimes, I wish these pollsters asked different questions. I mean, I wonder how many people believe that the President is the one who affects grocery prices.
[21:50:00]
I'll give you an example. In Colorado, and across much of the West, egg prices have gone up. It's not because of me being a governor. It's not because of a Republican governor, in a neighboring state. It's because of avian flu, taking out a lot of the egg-laying hens that reduced supply.
So, there's a lot of factors. People are smart. I'm glad that Kamala Harris is on it, really looking at ways we can make sure that we don't have monopolistic or antitrust behavior that's worthy of investigation.
Certainly, when you look at especially the amount of food that's imported, most of our vegetable and fruit products, in winter, as an example, tariffs would be devastating the American consumer, increasing costs by 10 to 20 percent.
I'm excited by Kamala Harris' plans for agriculture, for saving people money on food. And again, I think there's larger factors than Kamala Harris or Donald Trump can impact. But I know that Kamala Harris will do her best, every day, to work for the people, to save money on groceries.
BROWN: Let me just follow up with you on that, because what I hear you saying is that, look, a president can only do so much, when it comes to prices. And when it comes to the cost of eggs, there's a lot out of their control.
But then, you have Kamala Harris, talking about grocery prices, saying that, as President, day one, she's going to bring prices down. Do you think she's over-promising then, given the point you just made?
POLIS: Well, I think what she wants to look at are problems in the supply chain, where you have monopolistic practices that we can do antitrust investigations into.
I don't know, for a fact, whether there is or isn't price-fixing in groceries. But wherever it occurs in our economy, somebody who's been an attorney general, and been able to investigate these, has the tools, they need, to make sure that it's on the up and up, and that people don't monopolize the market for their own gain. Rather than have an efficient market that passes savings along to consumers.
So, whatever low-hanging fruit is there, Kamala Harris will find it. I wish her success. And I hope that we're able to deliver, on real savings, to the American people.
BROWN: All right. Governor Jared Polis, thank you so much.
POLIS: Thank you.
BROWN: Up next. Social media titan, Mark Zuckerberg, blasting the White House, for what he's calling repeated pressure on Facebook to censor content.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
BROWN: Tonight, the White House is pushing back against Meta CEO, Mark Zuckerberg. He says the Biden administration repeatedly pressured his company to censor COVID-related content in 2021.
Zuckerberg now says he regrets that Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, took down posts, including humor and satire. He writes, quote, "I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it... we're ready to push back if something like this happens again."
The White House with the response, tonight. Quote, "This Administration encouraged responsible actions to protect public health and safety."
Tech journalist, and Co-host of the "Pivot" podcast, Kara Swisher, joins us now.
Great to see you, Kara.
KARA SWISHER, TECH JOURNALIST, HOST, "ON WITH KARA SWISHER" & "PIVOT" PODCASTS, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Good to see you.
BROWN: So interesting timing of this letter.
SWISHER: Yes.
BROWN: How much of this is about currying favor with conservatives, and Trump attacking him?
SWISHER: All of it? I don't know what else to say. I mean, one of the things is talking about pressure and censorship, when he was -- he had the full -- I don't think anyone feels like Mark Zuckerberg can't act.
I think what he's trying to do is sort of hedge his bets. He's the most equivocating CEO in tech. And so, what he's doing is he's saying, this happened. And he knows that if Harris wins, she's not going to take revenge on him, in that way. But the Republicans very well might, because Donald Trump has even threatened Mark Zuckerberg, earlier in the year. So, he's just equivocating, as always.
And he doesn't want to go all the way down the line, like Elon Musk. So, he wants to be Trump-adjacent, if he needs to.
And so, that that -- I'm going with the Supreme Court, which ruled that this didn't happen. And there are lots of testimonies, by other Facebook and Meta executives, that said it didn't happen this way, so. And Mark's not on the record. So, whatever.
BROWN: Yes. It's interesting, though, because he's a very powerful figure.
SWISHER: Yes.
BROWN: And yet, in your view, you think he has to kowtow to Trump, essentially, really.
SWISHER: Certainly.
BROWN: To not be--
SWISHER: Certainly. He's--
BROWN: --the target.
SWISHER: This is exactly right. This is what he's doing. But he's not comfortable going full-Elon, right. Not backing him. And he's not a public figure in that regard.
The thing that really was -- first of all, the Supreme Court has ruled on this, which said it didn't happen this way, and that government should be able to talk to social media platforms, about dangerous things.
He also had, certainly had, enough power to push back and say something publicly at the time. I think, he can have regrets. But they're his regrets, his business decision regrets. And to use the term, pressure, is just, it's just -- it's just currying favor with Jim Jordan, which is fine, if he wants to do that.
The other part that was really irritating is he gave money to help election turnout, essentially, through his philanthropy. And here he's saying, Well, it didn't -- it didn't. I have other information, saying it wasn't -- it wasn't partisan. But just in case people think it's partisan, I'm not going to give money for election turnout.
And it's just, I don't know what to say. I honestly don't know what to say.
BROWN: It's actually--
SWISHER: Since he knows it's not true, but he's doing it anyway.
BROWN: Yes, no, I did that -- that struck out to me too that he said, I just want to be so neutral, so I'm not going to, you know, I'm not going to even donate to this election cause.
SWISHER: Whatever.
BROWN: He says he wants to be neutral when it comes to public -- to politics. But Republicans are touting this as a win because they've long-accused--
SWISHER: Sure.
BROWN: --social platforms, like Meta, of being biased against conservatives. The Committee posted on X, today, "Big win for free speech."
But is there any evidence Meta and Facebook is actually biased against conservatives? And I know you mentioned the Supreme Court ruling.
SWISHER: No.
BROWN: But beyond that.
SWISHER: Well, the Supreme Court has said it's not, and that this didn't happen. And so, they also have a lot of interviews with executives that I don't see going out, or becoming public, where it didn't happen. Again, Mark was not under oath here. So, I'm going to believe the people that were under oath.
And if they had the -- if they had a lot of interviews, with executives, saying this happened, and proof of it, they would tout it, of course. It is a victory for them. And they've been trying to put out this nonsensical thing that the election was stolen, and that there was so much pressure.
[22:00:00]
I don't think anyone feels like Mark Zuckerberg is a victim at all. He's one of the most powerful people on the planet. And so, the idea that he's somehow being bullied by the Biden administration, I'm sorry, it's just, it's nonsense.
BROWN: You're not -- you're not buying it.
All right. Kara.
SWISHER: Well, especially the last part. The last part was so ridiculous. I can't give money, in case people think I'm biased. And even if it's nonsense, again, same thing--
BROWN: Yes.
SWISHER: --nonsense.
BROWN: All right. Kara Swisher, thank you so much. Great to see you.
SWISHER: Thanks.
BROWN: Thanks to you for--
SWISHER: Thanks.
BROWN: Thanks to all of our viewers, for joining us, tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
