Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Supreme Court Rejects Trump's Plan To Limit Mail-In Voting In Midterms; Anthropic CEO: "I'm Still Worried" AI Could Wipe Out Humans; ProPublica: Putin-Connected Oligarch Bankrolled Trump Jr.'s Wedding. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired September 14, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: But tomorrow, there'll be two unlikely allies, calling for AI restrictions at a gathering in Washington. Progressive Independent senator, Bernie Sanders. And conservative podcaster Steve Bannon, a longtime supporter of the President. Both are among a group of people slated to speak at an event seeking a quote, Pro-human, end quote, approach to the technology. Sanders has proposed a bill to permanently ban superintelligence and AI and temporarily pause advanced AI development till there's federal regulation.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Good evening. I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
And we start with major breaking news tonight, as the Supreme Court has just rejected President Trump's controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across this country.
It's a major decision that comes with just 50 days to go until November's midterm elections. And a majority of the justices found tonight that they blocked this plan that would have given the U.S. Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots.
Now, the conservative justices on the court, two of them at least, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas were the only two to side with President Trump in this matter.
And the ruling here tonight is a big win for voting rights advocates who had argued that the White House's move, if it was actually implemented, could lead to chaos across the states before the midterm elections. And it's a pretty big loss for the President himself, who has tried to make the election moves on his own via executive order from his Oval Office -- from the Oval Office and the Resolute Desk, after his push to get that election bill on Capitol Hill failed to go anywhere.
Now the President himself has been railing against mail-in voting for years now -- for years now, often making false allegations of fraud, though he himself has voted by mail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Mail-in voting means mail-in cheating.
The cheating on mail-in voting is legendary. It's horrible what's going on.
Mail-in ballots are inherently corrupt.
Hopefully, there will be no mail-in ballots.
Mail-in ballots have proven to be a disaster.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, President Trump himself has yet to weigh in on this ruling from the Supreme Court, but we are monitoring Truth Social for his reaction tonight.
And as we start this hour, we have some of our best minds on this breaking news, including:
The former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe.
Bloomberg's Jeff Mason.
And the former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.
And Elie, as this came in tonight, just a few moments ago, can you break down what exactly the justices have decided here and why?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, FORMER STATE & FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Well, Kaitlan, the bottom line is that Donald Trump's effort to have the federal executive branch take over key processes around mail-in ballots has been blocked for purposes of the 2026 midterms.
Now this is a seven-to-two opinion with four conservatives, the Chief Justice Roberts, along with Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh, joining forces with the three liberal justices, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, to find that there's really two reasons for their decision tonight.
First of all, they say, this executive order by the President is probably unconstitutional. Now they don't explain exactly why, but I'll tell you, the reason is the Constitution says it's up to the states and Congress to run elections. It's not up to the federal executive branch.
And the second thing that the majority says is essentially the equities, which means the realities on the ground here would result in too much chaos if this order were to go into effect. Justice Kavanaugh actually writes separately and says it's just too late. You can't put in this type of major change to election processes this close to an election.
So, as a result of that, Kaitlan, this executive order will not go into effect. It's been blocked with respect to the 2026 midterms.
COLLINS: But Elie, given that, I mean, had the President signed this executive order sooner, is there a chance that it could have gone into effect?
HONIG: For sure. He signed it back in March. And had he done it a year earlier, things would have progressed much farther by the Postal Service and by DHS, as he ordered. And if they had gotten their ducks in a row and got this thing lined up, then that would have certainly taken away the concerns over chaos. It would not have addressed the constitutionality question, though.
And again, I think it's noteworthy that four of the conservatives on the court said this executive order, even were it fully implemented, even were it not too late, is probably unconstitutional.
COLLINS: Andrew McCabe. As you look at this ruling, and in terms of what this means here, with -- you know, I noted that Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito sided with the White House. But there's other conservative justices on that court that have agreed with the liberals here that have said, This can't go into effect and it wouldn't have been able to do this, this closely to the midterms.
[21:05:00]
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Yes, I think what you're seeing here is a recognition of the fact that the way they've pursued these new regulations, these new rules that were promulgated just a few weeks ago by the Postal Service, is creating such risk that -- you know, the primary risk, of course, being that states' inability to meet all the requirements of these rules would likely disenfranchise thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of voters in many different states.
But to point to one example in terms of more of a security threat, one of the requirements was the Postal Service was supposed to create a new web portal, which states would use to send their voter information into the Postal Service. That portal still does not exist. It has not even been launched yet.
Now, we all know the government does not have the greatest record -- track record with creating new web-based portals under a lot of pressure on a short timeline that actually work when they're launched. So, I can tell you, there are many of our cyber adversaries that were probably watching for the release of that portal very closely because, it would be a prime area to infiltrate, to be able to get your hands on all the voter information from all of our states.
So, there's a lot of really risky, kind of dangerous aspects to these rules that clearly we would not have been able to mitigate that risk before the next election.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, I saw Democrats just in the last hour, Jeff, online, cheering this. Democrats in North Carolina. Because, I mean, they've already started sending out mail ballots there. So, this would have created a whole slew of issues for them.
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: Right.
COLLINS: For President Trump, I mean, we've been watching Truth Social; he hasn't responded yet, but this is obviously a pretty big loss for him, for the President, who's pushing for the SAVE America Act, didn't get that. Then decided to take matters into his own hands, and now that's been rejected by the Supreme Court as well.
MASON: And rejected by three of the justices that he appointed during his first term. That's another political blow that harkens back to the tariff decision when he started going after a couple of those justices very personally because they didn't side with him.
And that is kind of -- part of his view is that -- I mean, he says he respects the Supreme Court, but I think he also has an expectation that the justices that he got appointed or got on -- onto the court will be loyal to him. And in this case, they haven't been. Now, that's not to say that the court has not given him a lot of positive rulings during this second term, but this one is not one of them.
COLLINS: Well, and the person who might have to answer questions about this first is the Attorney General, Todd Blanche, who is holding a briefing in the Rose Garden tomorrow. Not the Briefing Room. Tomorrow afternoon at 02:00 p.m. at the White House.
MASON: Very unusual. A, they have not come up with -- they have not appointed -- the President has not chosen a new press secretary. So, they've been using other top level officials to do briefings, including the Vice President.
To have the Attorney General giving that briefing tomorrow is fascinating, in part because of this ruling tonight. No doubt he'll be asked about that. There are a bunch of other DOJ-related questions that I'm sure he'll get as well.
MCCABE: I should point out, it's another indicator of the complete lack of independence--
MASON: Yes.
MCCABE: --on the part of the Department of Justice. This is something you would never have seen in prior administrations.
COLLINS: The A.G. holding a press briefing--
MCCABE: The A.G. holding--
COLLINS: --at the White House.
MASON: At the White House.
MCCABE: No question. That would have been verboten, and today it's--
COLLINS: Can you think of an A.G. who's done that lately?
MCCABE: Not an A.G. There was, in the first Trump administration, there was a -- the PADAG -- or the acting PADAG Ed O'Callaghan took the -- took the podium, in the Briefing Room, to talk about cases with the media. And that alone, much less kind of politically charged than this topic, really caught the eye of people in law enforcement circles. People in the Department of Justice thought that was a serious mistake.
COLLINS: Yes, Elie, what do you make of that? As we're looking at this. There are real questions, to your point, about whether or not the President tries to take this mail-in voting effort, push it to 2028 when he does have more time in that respect of the U.S. Postal Service, of DHS.
But all of this coming, as we are going to see the Attorney General in an unusual position tomorrow. I mean, he holds briefings all the time at the Department of Justice, not really in the Rose Garden at the White House.
HONIG: Well, first of all, amen to what Andy McCabe just said. It is crazy for the attorney general to be giving a White House briefing. One question he should be asked tomorrow is, Will you comply with the Supreme Court's order that came down last night -- tonight. You've been blocked. The Supreme Court has said you are not allowed to implement this. Will you, in fact, respect that?
And Kaitlan, important point though, this does not mean it's over with respect to the 2028 election. This order is blocked for 2026. But absolutely, Donald Trump, Todd Blanche, whoever else at DHS, can try to get this thing implemented for the 2028 presidential and congressional elections.
However, they got a really bad indicator today, which is that those seven justices in the majority, including the Chief, including the three justices that Jeff Mason just noted, who were appointed by Donald Trump, they all said that this mail-in order is probably, they didn't rule conclusively, but probably unconstitutional. So, that's some unfavorable writing on the wall for this moving forward.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll see what the President has to say about that.
Great to have all three of you here on that breaking news.
[21:10:00]
My next source tonight is the Ranking Member on the House Armed Services Committee. Democratic Congressman Adam Smith of Washington.
Congressman, I got a lot I want to talk to you about. But given this breaking news from the Supreme Court, telling the President no, on his push to try to limit and change mail-in voting in time for the midterm elections, what's your reaction to what you're hearing from the court tonight?
REP. ADAM SMITH (D-WA): Well, I mean, your previous guest's legal analysis is spot on. This is clearly unconstitutional for the reasons laid out, and would clearly cause complete chaos in the elections.
The only point I would add to what they said is, given Trump's pledges to interfere with the election in a whole bunch of different ways, I want people to understand, if he actually had this level of control, if he controls the post office, and then they can decide who gets a ballot and who doesn't get a ballot, and who's going to monitor that process outside of President Trump. I mean, that's the thing to really be scared about.
I mean, it would give him, if he was so inclined, and he has certainly spoken like he is so inclined, to manipulate an election, to basically use fraud to win an election, this would just open the door wide open for him to walk through and do that. He would literally control millions, tens of millions of ballots in terms of who gets them and who doesn't, and I think that alarm needs to be -- being raised at a much higher volume.
COLLINS: Well, Elie just said that Todd Blanche, the Attorney General, should be asked if they're going to comply with this. Do you expect that the Trump administration will comply with what the Supreme Court, seven-to-two, has decided here?
SMITH: Yes, I don't have any expectations where the Trump administration is concerned at this point. I think we have to keep the pressure on him to do that. It's impossible to implement. I think that helps in this instance in terms of blocking his ability to do it because of how late he's done it. But yes, it's worth worrying about that he rolls over the Supreme Court and does this.
And again, and we sounded this theme on a half dozen -- half dozen, sorry -- on endless issues. President Trump's in unprecedented territory here. He's shredding our Constitution on a daily, almost hourly basis, and really undermining the basis of our representative democracy. And this is just another example.
And yes, I know his approval ratings are drooping down towards 30 percent. But what are those 30 percent seeing at this point? Do they just not believe in maintaining our representative democracy? What is the Republican Party in Congress seeing, that that refuses to stand up to the President when he is trying to shred our Constitution and basically eliminate our representative democracy as we know it?
COLLINS: One thing Republicans, speaking of, your colleagues and Democrats on the Hill, have been getting asked about all day, and that President Trump himself has been weighing in on. I think he's posted about seven times in just less than the last 24 hours alone, which is this fierce fight that is playing out over AI right now.
The President is railing against warnings that we're hearing from multiple executives who say they think their own technology needs guardrails. They're looking to Washington to do so. I mean, there's a real question of what that's going to look like. Trump says that these concerns about it, these dire warnings, he repeatedly today called it a hoax. He compared it to his first impeachment. He compared it to climate change alarms.
What's your response to what you're hearing from the President on that?
SMITH: Well, in this case, this is -- sorry. This isn't so much about Donald Trump wanting to undermine democracy as it is about Donald Trump being remarkably clueless about the details of public policy. I mean, he's very focused on his own ego. He's very focused on his own power. He's very focused on making as so much money as possible off of being president, punishing his enemies, and all of that.
But when it comes to any sort of sophisticated analysis of policy, you know, I could walk out my front door and go talk to one of my neighbors, and I'd get a much more thoughtful answer than I would get from Donald Trump. Because there are multiple concerns about AI. Nobody -- I don't think anybody would say, Yes, not a problem. We'd just go -- move forward.
One of the biggest concerns is, and you've read about it. I mean, what happened with Anthropic. They had an AI model that went completely rogue, hacked into a different system, and actively hid its own tracks. It knew what it was doing was wrong, and it was trying to protect it. And no human in any way said, Do that. OK?
COLLINS: Yes.
SMITH: I think that's a reason to slow this down.
COLLINS: Do you think Congress though--
SMITH: And also, there's the issue of--
(CROSSTALK)
COLLINS: I mean, is your own body that you work in -- I mean, no offense to lawmakers, but some of them, have trouble working a smartphone. Do you think that they are equipped to rein in technology that is developing by the day?
[21:15:00]
SMITH: Well, I think we can certainly regulate it. It's difficult. I'm less concerned about whether or not they know how to use a smartphone than if they are smart enough policymakers who listen to the people who do know how to use a smartphone and do know how to use AI, which is what we're hearing from Anthropic and a bunch of others.
Look, I don't understand this technology. I mean, I don't think you understand this technology. But that doesn't mean we can't have informed opinions about it and listen to the people who do understand it and rein it in.
So, yes, I mean, Trump, I mean, whatever he says, it's not coming from a place of knowledge. Let's put it that way.
COLLINS: Congressman Adam Smith, thank you for joining us on this and the breaking news tonight.
SMITH: Thank you, Kaitlan. COLLINS: And we have much more on all of this ahead. Because, as I mentioned, the President has been brushing aside those concerns. He says that he's the hoax buster, and actually, the only regulation that is needed is a smart president, and the U.S. has one. Those are the words of the President today.
Kara Swisher will join us with her thoughts, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:20:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, we're covering a warning, so startling, it's bringing unlikely partners together while also prompting skepticism from critics who say it smells like a calculated plan by a couple of powerful CEOs to try to keep control and the profits to themselves.
Anthropic CEO, Dario Amodei, says that he does fear that at the pace that it is moving, artificial intelligence could escape human control and potentially take over the internet in as little as six months to a year, essentially threatening humanity itself.
In an interview with my colleague, Anderson Cooper, the CEO of Anthropic said that he's calling on an industry that is redefining life as we know it, to pump the brakes.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COOPER: You do believe that it's possible that AI, if it goes wrong, could wipe out humans.
DARIO AMODEI, CEO, ANTHROPIC: Yes. Look, I'm -- I'm still worried about all of these things, right? I -- I stand by these concerns about labor displacement if the progress of the field is too fast, and if society doesn't respond in the right way.
No one could look at our report from two days ago of people trying to use the AI models, potentially to build biological weapons, and say we shouldn't be worried about the misuse of the models.
You know, the nightmare scenario for six to 12 months would be that you have, you know, a swarm of these agents that for -- that, you know, that form some kind of botnet collective, and you know could take down large segments of the internet, and then as the capability increases, it gets worse from there, and then you know perhaps you get into some of the more extreme scenarios.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now that warning and that call are also being backed by other AI titans, ranging from Sam Altman to Elon Musk. And tomorrow, it's actually bringing together Bernie Sanders and Steve Bannon on the same side.
But they won't have the support of one person who has obviously a major say in all of this. That is President Trump. He's instead flat- out rejecting all of these warnings that we're hearing. He actually posted seven times today about AI alone, and he's essentially arguing this, quote, "AI taking over the World, destroying Humanity, and all other things bad, is a," in all-caps, "HOAX."
The President says the people that say AI is going to destroy the world are the same people that said the world would be extinguished by climate change. He says, quote, "That HOAX never worked out for them, and now they're on to the next one."
And today, there was this moment where the CEO of NVIDIA, which makes the computer chips that power AI, was on stage at an event in L.A., when his phone rang. The voice on the other end of the line was an irritated President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They're just playing right into the hands of a lot of people that don't want to see it happen. And that could be political people. It could also be China--
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Told you.
TRUMP: --and we're not going to let that happen. It's a, it's a hoax.
I also have common sense about AI. Uh, the robots will not be taking over. The AI will not be taking over the rest of the world. The whole thing is a hoax.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That sentiment pretty much echoes what the President said in an interview earlier this month.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BEV TURNER, GB NEWS ANCHOR: Some people say the worst-case scenario with AI is that the robots, the machinery learns to -- obviously it thinks for itself. That's what it does. And they -- that could turn against humanity. I just -- do we have the guardrails?
TRUMP: Well, you know -- it's going to be fine. We'll always have something to stop them, right? We'll have a little gear.
TURNER: I really hope so.
TRUMP: Well I don't like that -- I really don't like that robot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, sources say, inside the Trump administration tonight, there are some officials who are actually privately worried about the President's lack of concern here, which is a position that's at odds with growing public skepticism, and has vulnerable Republicans in a pretty tough spot just about 50 days before the midterm elections.
It's a thin line, and it's one that the Vice President, JD Vance, tried to walk earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: So, there are obviously risks to AI. There are some benefits to AI. I have to say, just personally, I feel a little bit weird about the fact that you have so many frontier AI tech companies kind of coming to the government and begging the government to regulate them. It feels a little bit to me like a bit of a Trojan horse. So I think we just have to be careful about this.
REPORTER: You don't think Americans should be scared about the way AI is trending right now?
VANCE: Well, look, any technology has risks. Any new technology is going to bring both risks and benefits. I think what the President has said is we want to be smart about making sure we stay on top of the risks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: His boss says AI already has the only regulation it needs: quote, A STRONG AND SMART (High IQ) PRESIDENT, and the U.S.A. has that, in spades.
Sources say that despite the President's public skepticism, Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI have all talked about creating their own industry standards for AI. We're told the conversations are ongoing; they will continue with or without the President's support.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Have you heard directly from any of these AI tech leaders? And you seem to downplay some of the concerns that we've heard--
TRUMP: No, I'm not downplaying but it's, you know, it's going to be more good than bad but -- by a lot. And I've said it -- I've said it from the beginning. Whoever wins AI, and we're leading by a lot, whoever wins AI, wins.
REPORTER: Have you ever used it yourself, or maybe you've been--
TRUMP: Use AI, yes, I do.
REPORTER: How do you use AI?
TRUMP: But I would say, you know, for the most part, you can use AI for a lot of things.
REPORTER: What do you use it for?
TRUMP: Well I don't want to tell you that.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: Joining me tonight is one of the top tech journalists in the world, and also the host of the "Pivot" podcast, our CNN contributor, Kara Swisher.
And Kara, just first on what we're hearing from the White House itself--
KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, INTERNET AND TECHNOLOGY EXPERT, PODCAST HOST, "ON" & "PIVOT": Yes.
COLLINS: --and how that kind of lines up with the concerns from even Dario Amodei, the Anthropic CEO, all these other leaders. What do you make of that?
SWISHER: Yes. Yes, it's a really complex situation, and there's a lot going on here. So it's not just one thing; it's a whole bunch of stuff, including political stuff.
But I certainly don't want to get my cues from well-known technologist Donald Trump. Like, this is ridiculous; he doesn't know what he's talking about. And in fact, he's been -- you know, he's bet his administration on AI growing upward and to the right. And there's some really problematic financial issues here with a lot of this spending and this race between all these companies, which are at some point something's got to give.
Secondly, you wonder when they do want -- I would agree with JD Vance on that. Why do they want to be regulated? Well, they want to control the regulation, so it's not too onerous on the large companies and quashes innovators and small companies, which will have a hard time staying compliant. At the same time, there's some very real worries.
The issue I have with a lot of these technology people is when they were splitting the atom, didn't they know there was going to go boom? They certainly did, years ago. And the reason they started OpenAI, both Sam Altman and Elon Musk did that together because of just so -- those worries. I interviewed them at 12 years ago, talking about this exact same thing. So, they suddenly are worried now? Why? Why is that? And so I would -- those are the questions I would ask.
COLLINS: Why do you think that is? Because it does feel like it's exploded over the last -- I mean, we've had Bernie Sanders on the show for months saying this is a problem.
SWISHER: Yes, we had, yes.
COLLINS: But why do you think this is -- now the leaders are coming forward and saying this?
SWISHER: Well, there's a lot of public pressure right now. People really can't stand tech people. The pushback against data centers is a problem. The pushback against all their different schemes and their NDAs is a problem.
Politically, it's become a problem. They know that there's going to be a political change, and so they have to start talking like they're talking to Democrats, hoping that they'll be -- sort of the Democrats will be nicer.
And there is a group of Democrats that are doing the middle-way thing. There's a -- there's a -- there's a thing going on in Silicon Valley, for reasonable regulation, which means none at all. And so, there -- I think they feel like things are going to change soon, and therefore they're going to be more amenable to saying Yes, we really, really want regulation, please.
And then there are some very real worries. These escapes, like the Hugging Face one, didn't get nearly enough attention for what happened there. These things do have an ability to do things, and that's not just science fiction. People do not know what will happen, and that should -- but this should have been dealt with a long time ago. But we have an incompetent administration in doing that, and they want everything to grow, grow, grow like the Wild West, so.
COLLINS: I mean, do you think that there is -- can this industry regulate itself without Congress, in your view?
SWISHER: No. No. No. That's ridiculous. It's like, can you imagine when we had nuclear proliferation that Oppenheimer sold his bomb to regular companies? This is on that level, and it's you know we -- somehow we managed, in 80 years, not to blow ourselves up because we had a global agreement around nuclear non-proliferation.
Now we have more than enough bombs to blow this entire planet up, and yet we've managed to handle it because we work together, including with China, including with all the different powers in the world, that we should be doing things around robots, around AI, around things we should ban.
And it's absolutely responsible in this groundbreaking technology, which could do so much good for the world, to be able to -- to be able to control it in ways that help people.
[21:30:00]
And I'll make one more observation. They always say AI -- there's a 10 percent chance that AI will kill us. Let me just tell you, AI isn't the problem. It's the people who make AI. There's a 10 percent chance that the people who make AI will kill us. And if you've noticed, none of them have said anything about liability, including criminal liability, the way pharmaceutical companies, if they have an explosion, or car companies, or anybody else. They should have the same liability that other manufacturers have, and that's what they are.
And so, you don't hear them. It's always, AI doing it, as if, you know, Electricity killed this, or the phone killed this, or guns. You know, the same thing. It's the same nonsense. And so, we should think about who should be liable if there are problems, and make it liable.
COLLINS: Well, and Kara--
SWISHER: And that seems fair to me. Go ahead.
COLLINS: You know, some people have said, OK, maybe the 10 percent warning is worst-case scenario, the most dire, most drastic.
SWISHER: Sure.
COLLINS: But then also have pointed out, a lot of these Big Tech CEOs are also people who are, you know, they have bunkers or like endless resources--
SWISHER: Sure do.
COLLINS: --and that they are not really the ones who would have to deal with the consequences necessarily of what this technology may be able to do.
SWISHER: That is correct. One of these people told me their plans many years ago, a very well-known person that we have discussed here, and explained all the plans for the bunker, everything else, and I have this motorcycle and it's going here. And they said, What is your apocalypse plan? And I said, I'm going to come kill you and take your motorcycle. I don't know what to say, like, why did you just tell me?
COLLINS: They asked you what your apocalypse plan was?
SWISHER: Yes. And I was like--
COLLINS: Like that's a thing normal people have?
SWISHER: --now that you've told me yours, and I have all the information, I feel like I just need to come and I feel like I can take you. Me and my family can take -- it was so ridiculous at the time, but they were talking about it then, and over dinner parties.
There was one dinner party, and I'm writing about it right now in a new book I'm working on, where they literally said, If AI was going to solve world hunger, what could it do? And the answer was, Kill half of humanity. And I was like, Maybe we should design it so it doesn't do that. Well because, that's a logical answer for -- AI isn't real; it's not people, but it is trained on people. Just keep remembering that.
And so, we need to hold companies and people responsible for this, which is something President Trump will not do because he gets his money and he gets his power from the tech industry, and he's bet -- he's bet his whole administration on AI. And so, we'll see how it ends up for him.
COLLINS: If you get a bunker, call me, Kara.
SWISHER: Bunker.
COLLINS: Thank you for joining us.
SWISHER: You're coming with me. I'm going to bring you in on my plot to take over this billionaire's bunker.
COLLINS: We'll podcast from the bunker.
Kara Swisher-- SWISHER: You and I on the motorcycle, flying.
COLLINS: Her podcasts are "On" and "Pivot."
SWISHER: You won't have to wear a helmet. You don't have to wear a helmet. Forget it.
COLLINS: Kara Swisher. We shouldn't be laughing. It's really not that funny anyway.
SWISHER: No, it's not funny--
COLLINS: We'll continue to report on this. Kara Swisher, thank you so much.
SWISHER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Also, stay tuned because speaking of reporting, there is a new report that is out today that details how apparently a Russian oligarch helped bankroll Donald Trump Jr.'s Bahamas wedding. One of the reporters who actually broke that story is my source tonight, and how the Trump Jr. family is responding. That's right after this.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Something old, something new, something borrowed, and apparently several things that were quietly funded by a Russian oligarch.
The outlet ProPublica has new reporting tonight on who they say helped finance Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding celebration. It happened on a -- in a tiny exclusive corner of the Bahamas. It featured dancers, a five- tier funfetti cake, a fireworks show, and apparently a massive bill to go along with it.
According to records that were reviewed by ProPublica and three of their sources familiar with the event, Umar Kremlev, a Russian oligarch whose close ties and has close ties to President Vladimir Putin, actually ended up bankrolling hundreds of thousands of dollars for the weekend.
He rented one of the private islands where the reception was held, and his team helped even plan the event. He was also one of the only 50 or so people who was there for the intimate but apparently extravagant affair.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP JR., AMERICAN BUSINESSMAN, DONALD TRUMP'S SON: It was really small, like just really close friends, just tried to keep it really tight, and it was just awesome. So, it was just -- it was a blast.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: His wife, Bettina Anderson, responded to ProPublica's reporting today with this on Instagram: Don and I got married privately on Friday, surrounded ONLY by our family... The weekend that followed had actually been planned well in advance as a fun weekend with friends. It was never intended to be our wedding weekend... Our dear friend Umar very generously hosted two incredible nights of celebrations for us AFTER our wedding... It was an extraordinarily generous wedding gift from a friend, and something for which we were and remain incredibly grateful And sometimes a wedding gift is simply a wedding gift.
Now, of course, that was the weekend where the President did not travel to the Bahamas for the celebration. His other children were there, including his other son, Eric Trump, whose spokesperson actually told ProPublica that he, quote, "Has absolutely no clue who this person is," referring to the Russian oligarch that Bettina Anderson said is a close friend of theirs.
Now, the President's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, was also there. He did not respond to the outlet when they asked him for comment. Of course, his presence is notable because he's leading and helping lead the U.S. negotiations with Russia when it comes to the war in Ukraine.
My source tonight is one of the ProPublica reporters behind this story, Justin Elliott.
And thank you, Justin, for being here.
Can you just kind of walk us through who exactly this Russian businessman is and why he was paying for aspects of Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding?
[21:40:00]
JUSTIN ELLIOTT, REPORTER, PROPUBLICA: Yes, I mean, when we found out about this, one of the reasons we're so interested in it is that this is not just a random businessman. This is somebody that is very close to Vladimir Putin, the Russian security services.
Actually, a few days before this wedding in the Bahamas, in May, he was -- Kremlev, the oligarch, was reportedly in China, actually, as part of Vladimir Putin's official delegation to the country when Putin was visiting China.
He's received a number of awards from the Russian state, from Putin. He actually owes a lot of his wealth to Putin. He was given a couple of large companies in Russia. So, he's somebody that -- yes, he's close to the Russian government.
But in terms of his relationship with Donald Trump Jr., what we were told by the spokespeople is that they actually only met two years ago.
Our reporting from people that have worked with Kremlev over the years is that he actually doesn't really speak English. Very limited English. But Donald Trump Jr.'s spokesperson and Bettina Anderson, now Bettina Trump, say that he's a dear friend. So, the whole thing, frankly, the why of it, your question, we really haven't been able to answer, and it's not something that any of us or anyone we've spoken to has ever heard of. Somebody that you met two years ago, not only attending your tiny intimate wedding, but actually paying hundreds of thousands of dollars for most of the expenses.
COLLINS: Well, and Trump Jr. is actually pretty private in terms of his personal life, when you talk to people who know him. That's one thing they emphasize that he didn't want some giant wedding, which is why they had such a small wedding with a small guest list.
But when I was reading your reporting, in addition to Kremlev going to China or being in China when Putin was there, you also note that the 43-year-old businessman is involved with an organization that is run by his 23-year-old wife's twin sister, an organization that is actually sanctioned by Ukraine.
What do we know about that organization?
ELLIOTT: That's right. I mean, actually, I mean, Kremlev himself has been sanctioned by the government of Ukraine because he's so close to Putin.
The organization you're referring to, it's called -- the English translation is Healthy Fatherland, and it's sort of a civic, patriotic organization promoting sort of healthy eating and youth sports and that sort of thing.
But they're also involved in, and they -- and they themselves acknowledge this, taking children out of the regions that Russia has taken in the Ukraine war for, quote-unquote, rehabilitation. The Ukrainian government has sanctioned that organization and charged that they're part of this sort of large-scale abduction of Ukrainian children, and that's something that Kremlev is very, very involved with.
COLLINS: Justin Elliott, it's remarkable reporting. Thank you for joining us to talk about it tonight.
ELLIOTT: Thanks so much.
COLLINS: Up next. Here in Washington, Senator Mitch McConnell is back in the nation's capital for the first time since he was hospitalized three months ago. What he just told reporters on his way to vote.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: For the first time in three months, that is Senator Mitch McConnell back in Washington, after he was hospitalized and out of the public eyes since June. He was being taken from his home this evening in a wheelchair, as you can see there, making his way to the Senate floor to cast his vote.
The 84-year-old Kentucky senator did speak briefly with reporters on his way into the Capitol, though he did not answer questions.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): I must admit, after two years -- two decades, actually -- dodging your questions, I wasn't sure how many of you would be here today, but I'm glad to see you. Time to get back to work, finish the job for this Congress.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: In a new statement tonight, the Senator said this of his health: Quote, My recovery has been a long and often frustrating process, and the lingering effects of childhood polio haven't made it any easier. I'm still not quite back to 100 percent, but I've assured Leader Thune that, as I continue with physical therapy on the advice of my doctors, I will do my best to be present for tough votes when our Conference needs me.
My political sources are here tonight, including:
Ameshia Cross, a former Obama campaign adviser.
And David Urban, a former Trump campaign adviser.
And David, you're the Republican here. So, what do you make of that, in terms of there have been legitimate concerns--
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST & FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Yes.
COLLINS: --and questions about his ability to do his job.
URBAN: I'm glad to see he's back. Listen, I worked in the Senate when Strom Thurmond -- you guys are probably too young to remember Strom Thurmond, both of you. But Strom Thurmond was a 100, a 100-years-old. He got pushed around in a wheelchair. He did his job.
And so, look, as long as Leader McConnell can show up and answer questions -- I saw him on the floor hobnobbing with some of his colleagues in the well of the Senate -- and I think the voters of Kentucky, well-represented. And they'll get a chance to vote in another election, determine whether or not he's going to be able to hang around. But I think -- I think he's there. He's showing up. People get sick. People get better. And happy to see him back.
COLLINS: What do you make of that?
AMESHIA CROSS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST, FORMER OBAMA CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Well, I think the bigger question is how long he's going to be able to be OK.
Because one of the things that we have to remember is that this was somebody who not only was kind of sick before he left, but was also, in some ways, short-circuiting life to where his own staff had to kind of figure out how to pull him back, hold him up, to make him understand where he was. He was kind of in freeze mode. That tells me a few things.
The majority of us have had elder relatives or relatives who we've watched who can sometimes do normal things, but outside of that, have moments in time and sometimes longer than moments, where they're absolutely not as functional. Whereas the majority of us, we deal with that with our families. This is somebody who is tasked with the diligence of the American public, with the State of Kentucky.
[21:50:00]
And I think that it's frustrating that we can acknowledge that something is going on that is beyond this man's control, and people can pray for him, they can hope for the best for his health. But at the end of the day, there's a job that still needs to be done, and his wherewithal to be able to do that is highly still in question.
URBAN: Yes, I thought Ameshia was describing President Biden there for like half the -- half her whole -- whole speech there. I mean, just like it went on for four years in the Biden administration, nobody seemed to express as much concern as they did about McConnell.
COLLINS: Well I don't think Biden was, I mean -- But Biden wasn't -- I mean, I'm not--
URBAN: He was the president. He was way worse. People hid it.
COLLINS: I'm saying he wasn't hospitalized and unable to--
URBAN: No, he was at -- he was at work non compos mentis. He wasn't hospitalized. He just wasn't there.
COLLINS: Yes, but I mean the argument has been that McConnell hasn't even been showing up to Washington.
But for someone -- he referenced Leader Thune there. Every vote really counts for Republicans these days, and they have a lot of votes coming up. They're here for the next three weeks. We'll see what they vote on.
The Vice President, JD Vance, was in Kansas today, campaigning for Roger Marshall, a senator there who's been on THE SOURCE many times, who's up for re-election. And it's notable because obviously a Democrat has not represented Kansas in the Senate since, I think, the year that I was -- since 19 -- I was going to say the year I was born.
URBAN: No -- no, no, no.
COLLINS: Not the year--
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: You weren't born in 19--
COLLINS: --1932.
URBAN: Yes, I was going to say, You weren't born in 1932. Not her. (LAUGHTER)
CROSS: You look great.
URBAN: Herbert --Herbert Hoover was President. And it's Senator McGill.
COLLINS: OK. Anyway. The New -- this comes as a -- it's actually really serious. The New York Times is reporting about an issue that he's been facing that has come up because he's obviously a doctor. We've talked about his medical experience before, and in terms of talking about health care. They say that he has sued more than 700 patients over their medical debt, and it's actually something that came up as Vance was defending Marshall's record today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: He sues. He sues his patients.
VANCE: Roger--
AUDIENCE MEMBER: He sues--
VANCE: Oh, I see.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (inaudible).
VANCE: I see.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (inaudible).
VANCE: I see we have -- I see we have a guy who is protesting.
Now this guy -- this guy, I'm telling you, ladies and gentlemen, here's what happened: is he decided to come in and lie about my very dear friend Doc Marshall because, the reality is that Doc Marshall has stood up for everyday Americans every single day he's been in the United States Senate.
(CHEERING)
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: No -- I don't think Roger Marshall has denied this. He said that they are common business practices.
URBAN: Yes, look, I don't -- I don't -- he was a doctor for over 25 years. If you look at that, he's sued 700 patients. His law firm has sued 700 patients to collect their debt. That's about 28 patients a year. I'm not sure how many patients he's seen over those 25 years, but I'm sure it's tens of thousands of patients.
And so 700, maybe 28 -- 28 patients a year out of thousands of patients that he saw who didn't pay their bills, who didn't show up to court, who didn't do what they were supposed to do, I mean -- and again, it's not Roger Marshall. It's his lawyers and his accountants and the people who run his office. He's a doctor. He's not there doing it.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, what do you make of that? Given obviously, The Times was saying a lot of these patients live in poverty-stricken rural areas in terms of being able to pay their medical bills.
CROSS: Yes, the optics are horrible, and I think that for individuals who are trying to make ends meet, who are at risk of losing their homes? Who already are underwater in a lot of ways? Who are in rural areas? Who are -- who have no real means of making this money? At this point, it's just very sad because those people deserve health care too. And unfortunately, there is a lot of lack of concern when it comes to that.
We know that medical debt in this country is the highest amount of debt. Period. It topples housing, it topples student loans, you name it. And many people are deciding whether or not they can put food on the table, keep their utilities on, or actually go to the hospital for life-saving treatment. That is something that I don't think in the richest nation on earth we should ever be considering.
And it's just really sad that those folks are experiencing not only lawsuits but also the grievance that comes along with that. And I think that in an election -- in an election year, in an election cycle, where health care is definitely on the ballot, this is a very sad moment.
COLLINS: Yes, and as I noted, no Democrat has represented Kansas in the Senate since 1932, 60 years before I was born.
But I want you to listen to what the Democrat who is running against him had to say about all of this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REV. ADAM HAMILTON, (D) U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE IN KANSAS: How many of you have been arrested or sued for being late getting your medical payments? Maybe some folks over here, a handful? Most people are not arrested for not getting their payments made. There's a payment plan that's worked out. I'm not going to really address this anymore. That's his issue to deal with.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
URBAN: Yes, well, that's just -- that's a red herring and complete BS. I mean, it's not that -- he was a -- Dr. Marshall has nothing to do with being arrested. The court orders you to be arrested because you don't show up repeatedly.
I'm sure the people who were arrested, there's a tiny handful, according to The New York Times report, they were arrested because they flouted the law. The judge said, Show up. They said, No.
Show up, show up -- several times you don't show up, the court's going to arrest you. That's what happens. Whether it's a speeding ticket, whether it's medical debt, when the court orders you to do something, you better show up.
COLLINS: But he did charge an 18 percent interest, I believe?
URBAN: Yes, I don't think Doc Marshall charged anything.
COLLINS: Do you think it's--
(CROSSTALK)
[21:55:00]
URBAN: I think -- I'm sure that whoever's running his office did these things. I don't even know, he probably knew about it, if you asked the guy, if you took him under oath. Just -- just the facts, the reality of running a business.
CROSS: How does locking people up for this help them to get their money as well?
URBAN: Yes, but Ameshia -- but Ameshia, it's not--
CROSS: No, no, I agree with you.
URBAN: Listen, you know the court--
CROSS: They're doing the same thing--
(CROSSTALK)
URBAN: Doc Marshall -- Doc -- Doc Marshall--
CROSS: --and it still is taxpayers paying for this.
URBAN: Listen, yes, I--
CROSS: Meanwhile, those individuals will never see -- you know, the entities will never see that money because they can't afford to pay.
URBAN: I don't disagree that there's payment plans and things in place that make things a lot more sense. But this is the court making these people go to jail, not Doc Marshall.
COLLINS: We'll see what the voters think of all of this.
Ameshia Cross. David Urban. Great to have both of you here tonight. So, thank you both for joining.
Up next, it is time for Source Code. We give you a number at the center of a story in the news. You know this. Can you guess what that story is? Tonight's Source Code is 10.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00] COLLINS: Tonight's Source Code is 10, for the 10 different ways that the President's name could once again be inscribed onto the Kennedy Center. That's because today, officials there were arguing, in a new court filing, that the performing arts venue is facing, quote, certain fiscal collapse within weeks unless the President's name is added back onto the building.
Now, the President's handpicked board, at the Kennedy Center, is expected to meet tomorrow, to consider the 10 different ways for potentially showcasing his name.
Thanks so much for joining us here tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
