Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Is It In The Political Interest Of Democrats To Give Trump Credit? WAPO: Medicare, Medicaid To Experiment With Covering Weight Loss Drugs. A Chilling Erosion of Empathy As Some Online Celebrate NYC Tragedy. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired August 02, 2025 - 09:00   ET

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

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: And if you missed a conversation, check out our show's website and you can listen to our show as a podcast.

Thank you so much for joining me today. Smerconish is up next.

[09:00:35]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Not everything that Trump does is bad. I'm Michael Smerconish.

From the PhillyBurbs, last week, I gave free advice to President Trump on his handling of the Epstein saga. He didn't follow it. Now I have counsel for Democrats who are struggling to find an effective voice in opposition to the president's policies. To the extent there's a common thread among Democrats, thus far it has been to strenuously object to any and everything that Trump does. This approach was on full display this week on the floor of the U.S. Senate when New Jersey Senator Cory Booker excoriated Trump over policing policy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): What I am tired of is when the president of the United States of America violates the Constitution, trashes our norms and traditions. And what does the Democratic Party do? Comply, allow him, beg for scraps? No. I demand justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto, who had tried to pass the bills by unanimous consent, didn't appreciate Booker's stance. As she put it, "We can do both. Support our communities, keep them safe, and take on Donald Trump and his bad policies."

She makes a good point. Passing laws is a large part of what Congress was created for and passing popular laws is usually good politics. Nevertheless, I have little doubt that Booker's performance will serve him well, raising his profile and his fundraising. It was yet another I am Spartacus moment, not unlike when he was on his feet for 25 hours earlier this year, lambasting just about everything regarding Trump. That time he even got a book deal out of it with the immodest title of "Speech of the Century." But in terms of political effectiveness, I agree with former Senator Claire McCaskill, who said on "Morning Joe," "Booker knew that if he did what he did on Tuesday, it would be a viral moment and that he would be associated with Democrats who are willing to fight."

Willing to fight. Democrats love the idea, and the approach might work for individual politicians, but it's not working for the Democratic Party writ large. And ultimately, it bolsters President Trump.

Consider that according to a Wall Street Journal poll released last month, the Democratic Party has the lowest approval rating in 35 years. The party is viewed negatively by 63 percent of American voters. Only 33 percent give it a favorable view. And that poll was no one off. A few days prior, a CNN poll found that just 28 percent viewed Democrats favorably, the lowest number this poll has ever shown.

Meanwhile, in the Wall Street Journal survey, President Trump's approval stood at 46 percent. While this is considerably higher than the Democrats rating, it's actually better than usual for Trump, but still underwater. Yet Democrats have been unsuccessful in capitalizing on Trump and his more unpopular policies. It might sound counterintuitive, but maybe what's in the party's best interest is to, dare I say, agree with Trump from time to time. Acknowledge wins on issues like NATO, trade and the border, which have yielded some positive results even while disagreeing with the way in which they came. It's a good thing that migration through our previously porous borders has slowed to a trickle and that our NATO allies have agreed to increase their contribution from 2 percent to 5 percent of gross domestic product. And that the markets, despite having just had a rough week, have done well in the year to date.

Inflation seems to be tamed. Plus, while Trump's tariff policy looked like it was implemented by the seat of his pants, thus far, all the doomsday fears have not panned out. Bill Maher said it this way on his Club Random podcast.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL MAHER, HOST OF REAL TIME WITH BILL MAHER: Just to take an example, tariffs. Now, I remember all along with probably most people, were saying at the beginning, oh, you know, by the 4th of July, somebody had to think how the country was -- the economy was going to be tanked by then. And I was kind of like, well, that seems right to me. But that didn't happen.

Now, it could happen tomorrow? I'm just saying --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

MAHER: -- that's reality. So let's work first from the reality of that, not from, I just hate Donald Trump.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.

MAHER: Because that's boring and doesn't get us anywhere and lead you to dishonesty. Because the truth is, I don't know what his strategy is. But look, the stock market is at record highs. I know not everybody lives by the stock market, but I also drive around, I don't see a country in a depression at all. I see people out there just living their lives.

[09:05:14]

And I would have thought, and I got to own it, that the cut -- that these tariffs were going to (BLEEP) sink this economy by this time. And they didn't. So, you know, what -- how do we deal with that fact? Because that's the fact.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Like Maher, Bret Stephens is not a fan of Donald Trump. He's a conservative critic who writes for the "New York Times." This week he published under the headline "The Trump Presidency Takes a Better Turn."

Stephens called the first 100 days of Trump 2.0 disastrous, but then said that Trump has more recently been successful. Not something the president's quote, "foam at the mouth critics had planned." He notes the strikes against Iran, which took political courage, were effective and did not result in a calamitous war. He lauds the delivery of arms to Ukraine, even if it was belated.

And then, summing things up, Bret Stephens wrote this, he said, "If Trump's opponents want to someday be effective, and let's face it, we haven't been, then we need to come to grips with the realities that have so far eluded us, such as not everything Trump does is bad. Sometimes the president's bad manners and over the top tactics achieve useful diplomatic or political results. His about face on Ukraine is a welcome demonstration that he's capable of changing his mind when the facts don't bear him out. Fulmination and moral hectoring are rarely persuasive, and neither are incessant predictions of doom that never quite materialize. Americans will listen to Democrats when they propose better solutions to common problems, not when they openly root for the administration to fail.

I've lambasted the administration over and over again, both in its current and previous term, and I'm sure I will again. But while it's never fun to be fair to those you dislike, it's also healthy for criticism to be credible, it cannot be blind."

I say that's a worthwhile reminder to a party that competes to outdo one another in condemnation of everything Trump. Mark Halpern made a similar point this week in his newsletter, observing "Democrats in their heartfelt anger and indignity, continue to throw every available stone, stick, wrench, spanner and kitchen sink at the head of the giant."

But that kitchen sink strategy isn't working so well. Actually, that's not fair, it is working. It's working well for Donald J. Trump, two impeachments, four indictments, endless investigations, constant carping about Trump and condescension toward his supporters. At some point it all blends into background noise such that when something truly egregious happens, like the firing of the person whose job it is to track labor statistics, nobody pays attention, the outrage loses its edge, the tree falls and the forest shrugs.

It all brings me today's poll question at smerconish.com, agree or disagree, it is in the political best interests of Democrats to publicly give President Trump credit when he accomplishes something with which they concur.

Joining me now to discuss, CNN Senior Political and Global Affairs Commentator Rahm Emanuel, former ambassador to Japan under President Biden, former chief of staff under President Obama.

OK, Mr. Ambassador, you heard thesis. Go ahead and respond to it.

RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, look, I think part of thesis is correct, but there's a premise, if I could, that I think is off. One is if you look at Virginia governor's race, you look at New Jersey governor's race, in New Jersey, the Democrat is up 20 points. Also in Virginia, Republicans are walking away from their nominee. You look at every special election or primary since November and Democrats are doing exceptionally well because there's a high turnout. So I do think you have to have a little more of what I would describe listening to you, a jujitsu strategy, because if you're shrill all the time, you're just shrill and you'll be turned off.

And it's a kind of an approach that I think the Democrats have to actually attack where there's a vulnerability, as I think there is on this, quote unquote, "Big Beautiful Bill," which is going to raise taxes, plus the tariffs, going to raise taxes on middle class families and it's going to cut health care costs for middle class families while giving the wealthy a tax break. And that's a legitimate hit and act -- and has the benefit of being true. And then the other part of it is not just fighting Trump, but Democrats got to be seen and get caught fighting for America, which is slightly different approach. And that's kind of, I think, where there's a piece of that has to be filled out. Some things like on education, national service, I believe certain things on homeownership is a proper place to go for Democrats.

SMERCONISH: How about you personally, as you look toward 2028 potentially, I did a rudimentary search of your social media speeches and interviews that you've given recently, I couldn't find an area where Ambassador Rahm Emanuel said, look, I don't like the guy, I don't like the politics, but I have to say in this instance he achieved a result that was worthwhile.

[09:10:20]

EMANUEL: Well, I mean, if you wanted to, and I think it's indicative of what you said, Michael, just earlier when you look at Bret Stephens piece, he pointed to two places in foreign policy, not domestic. I don't agree with cutting taxes for the wealthy and raising taxes on middle class families. I don't agree having played an instrument role in providing health care for those who are uninsured cut --s raising their premiums, which is exactly what's going to happen with this One Big Beautiful Bill and I disagree with it and I have no bones about pointing it out.

Now I do also, as a guy that was responsible for President Clinton for designing Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, Operation Safeguard in Dallas, that you have a tough border enforcement and properly to prevent illegal border crossings in the country but I don't agree by way of example with going into churches, hospitals, schools or workplaces to take people who are legitimately going about their lives and approach that. We -- and by approach immigrants -- immigration, what you're supposed to do, and in fact the Republicans have criticized us, you're supposed to deal with criminal elements, not people that are going about their lives contributing to the betterment of America. I think it's wrong to do that. And it's OK to say good on the border, wrong in the workplace, wrong in the place of worship, wrong in hospitals, wrong actually on the steps of a court where people are trying to follow the law and you nab them. It's like some sting operation.

SMERCONISH: I appreciated a George Will profile of you recently and he used words like practical and centrist to describe Rahm Emanuel. Those are attributes in my book and I think in the book of most Americans. I don't know -- but I don't know that practicality and centrism sells in your own party. I mean, in line with thesis that I've offered today about how to reach people with credibility.

EMANUEL: Let me say one thing which I think Washington specifically in the political class have wrong. And I used the New Jersey Democratic primary as a classic example to illustrate this point. There were five candidates that were running, the mayor of Newark, the biggest city in New Jersey, the mayor of Jersey City, the president of a teacher's union, a very powerful interest group within the Democratic Party, two members of Congress who came out of the moderate wing of the party, high turnout, 50 percent of the vote went into the combination of the two moderate members of Congress, not the mayor of Newark or Jersey City. And I think you have this template, and I used to say this to President Obama, President Clinton, I used to say it to myself when I was mayor, which is, you know, sound is not always fury.

And you have this view because there are people with social media that there's loud or screaming doesn't mean they represent a lot of people, just means a lot. And so you have this template that this is what the Democrats are. But Democrats just in New Jersey, a kind of a model state, just rewarded the two moderate candidates or centrist candidates, whatever ideological category you want or label you want to apply to them. So I actually think the view of who makes up the Democratic primary voter may not be totally accurate.

And then second --

SMERCONISH: Final question --

EMANUEL: -- we have an obligation.

SMERCONISH: Yes.

EMANUEL: Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. SMERCONISH: A final question. I want to -- I want to test your pop culture chops and my own. Are you offended by the way in which American Eagle and Sydney Sweeney are selling jeans?

EMANUEL: No. Look, I think with all the things that we have to worry about, and I understand the history of eugenics in America and what it led to, historically. Historically, given World War II, in fact, a lot of Adolf Hitler's theories come out of American eugenics. I'm not offended. And it's not something that occupies my mental space.

I have other things to worry about. I think people got to get themselves and really focus on what is the priority. Now, you want to go do that, that's on your time, your dime. That's not where I focus my time.

SMERCONISH: All right, give me the 30 second explanation of this. I think it's --

EMANUEL: Michael, Michael --

SMERCONISH: -- I think it's self-evident -- I think it's self-evident but I love this. I love this. The worse the cell phone coverage, the nicer than -- the nicer the people are.

EMANUEL: Yes. So when I leave the mayor's office, when I was congressman, let me back up I introduced the Great Lake Restoration Act to restore the Great Lakes environmental ecological wealth. It was always a piece of what I wanted to do. But from Congress to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee to Obama's chief staff, never had an opportunity to do it, and mayor. So the day after I leave, I decide a buddy of mine that we're going to bike the whole area of Lake Michigan 984 miles, 13 days average 65 miles a day.

[09:15:08]

And I realized as we're climbing up and we started on Montrose beach in Chicago as we're going up Michigan, the worst and spottier the cell phone service were kinder and gentler and more compassionate people were. And I actually think a lot of -- I -- and the other thing -- and I'm guilty of this, like you, we have a cynical view of people, we have a predisposition about how Americans are. And I'll give you one anecdote, I'm up in a not the up part of Michigan, but the upper part of the Met, and some guy wearing a NRA hat keeps looking over at me and I'm having a burger after a long day of riding and he starts to make his way over my stomach just tightens up like this, pulls up a chair and we start -- and he knows my background of passing the assault weapon ban in the Brady Bill for President Clinton. And we go at it, talking, et cetera. I don't convince him, he hasn't convinced me but we had a real discussion about the difference between what gun control could do for a city of Chicago versus what gun control can do or would do for effect in upstate Michigan. We heard each other, we didn't convince each other, but we listened.

And probably the biggest problem with cell phone coverage or cell phone or technology, we're not doing a good job of listening, we're doing a good job of talking. And so that -- and I'm probably as good --

SMERCONISH: Yes.

EMANUEL: -- probably a biggest violator of that myself. And I thought that was an observation --

SMERCONISH: OK.

EMANUEL: -- as it said is it's true.

SMERCONISH: I would -- I would sum it up by saying mingling is a good thing. Mayor, nice to have you.

EMANUEL: Yes.

SMERCONISH: And you'll come back, I hope.

For everybody at home, what are your thoughts? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program.

From the world of X, In theory, yes, says Dodie, but since Trump has not done anything positive in his latest administration, it's a moot point.

OK, come on. This is -- this is to the poll question in the premise, which is to say Democrats and opponents of Donald Trump would have more credibility with people that they need to reach, not with one another, you already have them. If every once in a while they acknowledge that there's been an achievement with which they actually agree. Now, Dodie just said, well, there haven't been any.

I offered you two in my opening commentary. Is it not a good thing that the poorest border crossings have slowed to a trickle? Is it not a good thing that our NATO allies have agreed to move from 2 percent to 5 percent of GDP? I think they're both good things. Why not say it? You'll enhance your credibility, not diminish it.

Go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question, it's agree or disagree, it is in the best political interests of the Democrats to publicly give President Trump credit when he accomplishes something with which they concur.

Up ahead, the Washington Post with exclusive reporting that the Trump administration wants to cover expensive weight loss drugs under Medicare and Medicaid. Some question if we can afford to do that, I ask can we afford not to do it. Please make sure that you're signing up for the newsletter smercondish.com for which Steve Breen just drew this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:22:23]

SMERCONISH: In America, it's estimated that over 40 percent of adults are struggling with obesity. According to an exclusive report in the Washington Post, the government wants to start treating it like a medical problem, not simply a personal fail by giving access to those on Medicare and Medicaid. Thus, the Trump administration is considering a five-year experiment that would give some overweight Americans access to expensive weight loss drugs such as Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro and Zepbound. According to the Post, this trial would start for Medicaid in April of 2026, Medicare in January of 2027. Many health experts believe that expanded coverage is the wave of the future.

Here to discuss her exclusive report from the Washington Post is the national health reporter, Paige Winfield Cunningham.

Paige, thank you so much for being here. What is currently covered and how is that about to change in the experiment?

PAIGE WINFIELD CUNNINGHAM, WASHINGTON POST NATIONAL HEALTH REPORTER: Yes. Well, right now, Medicare and about 12 state Medicaid programs do cover -- well, sorry, let me back up. Medicare right now pays for these GLP1 drugs, these weight loss drugs, but only for people, generally speaking, with type 2 diabetes, some people with coronary disease, because that's what the FDA has approved these medications for.

So the question now on the table is whether they would pay for these medications for people with obesity. And last spring, the Trump administration said, no, they're not going to. There was big concern, as you said, of course, about cost. But what's significant is I obtained documents from HHS which show that they're thinking about experimenting, basically by allowing Medicare plans and state Medicaid programs to opt in to start covering these drugs for people with obesity.

It's kind of a backdoor way to try to do this. And I think it reflects some divisions in the Trump administration over whether these drugs should be for people with obesity and whether it's worth paying for them over the long term.

SMERCONISH: So your reporting acknowledges, and I remember reading in the past, that there's apparently a division between Dr. Oz and Bobby Kennedy, Secretary Kennedy, in terms of how they look at this. Does this mean that Dr. Oz, in the short term, won that debate?

CUNNINGHAM: So the way they're doing it is kind of through this experiment lab that exists within HHS and it exists for the purpose of trying out new ways of paying for health care. And so it does have limited scope. They can't mandate that plans or states opt into this. And of course, that's a big question. These drugs are expensive. So I don't know how many insurers or states are going to actually want to do this. But yes, this is sort of a way for us to start experimenting with it, potentially, see what happens, see how many opt ins, see what kind of health outcomes we see for obese patients that go on these medications.

[09:25:15]

But you're right, there are some tensions here. RFK Jr. has expressed some concerns about this, you know, replacing diet and exercise and those traditional means of losing weight. And of course, there are many voices in the MAHA universe that have also expressed skepticism. I actually spoke this week with Dr. Mark Hyman, who's been out there very skeptical, and he worries that these drugs could perhaps change the metabolism for patients long term. So if they ever go off these drugs, it could be hard to -- and gain the weight back, it could be hard to lose weight again.

So I think it'll be really interesting to see how this plays out and what ultimately comes of this experiment.

SMERCONISH: Final thought, to me, it's, you can pay me now or you can pay me later. We're talking, I guess, about 100 million Americans who are obese at annualized cost of five to $7,000. You say that's staggering. How in the world could we afford to provide that coverage? But if you don't provide the coverage and people continue to carry that body mass and get into trouble later in life, we end up paying for them then. So maybe we're better paying now. Your final thought?

CUNNINGHAM: Yes. So I asked a doctor about this this week and he loves these drugs. He prescribes them to patients all the time. And he sees on an individual basis what they do for somebody. They lose this weight, their life -- their life improves, they can do things they didn't used to be able to do.

But even he acknowledges that just the scale of Americans that could benefit from these drugs, around 100 million people, that is enormous cost for the government, about $35 billion for Medicare over the next 10 years. And even the Congressional budget office has said that you wouldn't achieve enough health care savings to counteract that enormous cost. So it's a real pernicious problem.

SMERCONISH: Interesting.

CUNNINGHAM: And I think one the government has to grapple with.

SMERCONISH: Congratulations on your report. Paige Winfield Cunningham, appreciate it.

Here's some social media reaction relative to this major announcement pertaining to Medicare and Medicaid and weight loss drugs. Obesity is a disease. It is not a failure of willpower. I never stop thinking about my next meal, what it will be. These drugs actually take away the cravings and you still have to manage what you eat.

Nancy, I agree with you. I agree with you and I'm sympathetic to you and I'm of a mindset that says I hope this is not the case for you, but later in life, society is going to bear the collective burden through insurance pools of some form or another in taking care of you. We'd all better served taking care of you now so that it never comes to that point and you'd have a more hopefully enjoyable life and existence along the way.

I want to remind everybody, go to smerconish.com, my website, answer today's poll question. I have no idea, sometimes I have an inkling. I have no idea how this pans out. I could -- I could hazard a guess, but I'm not going to peek. Agree or disagree, it's in the political best interests of Democrats to publicly give President Trump credit when he accomplishes something with which they concur, which you don't often hear, meaning that agreement.

Still to come, your social media reaction to my commentary and then the horrific murder of an innocent victim. Actually four victims, but one in particular has caused some people across the country to cheer. It's a sickening story.

Be sure to sign up for the smerconish.com daily newsletter. You'll get the work of editorial cartoonists like Rob Rogers.

[COMMERCIAL BREAK]

[09:33:13]

SMERCONISH: You can find me on all the usual social media platforms. Follow me on X. I read some responses throughout the course of the program.

Michael, the problem is that Democrats didn't win primaries by agreeing with Trump in any way.

OK, well, you can win primaries, but you're not going to win a general election, and you're not going to be able to draw consensus in the nation at large. I'll give you an example of what I'm talking about. And if you missed the opening commentary, my thesis is that it would serve Democrats well from time to time to agree with President Trump when he achieves an outcome with which they agree.

You're not going to lose your credibility. You're going to enhance it. So, here's page one of today's "New York Times," above the fold. You know, this story.

President moves to oust official over job report. It's a terrible story. It's a terrible outcome because it means that there will be no faith that the rest of us will have in any of the future job numbers or unemployment numbers. It's -- it's Orwellian. It's 84-ish. It reminds me of the story yesterday or the day before about the Smithsonian now saying, well, we're only going to have in our exhibition about impeachment those who seriously faced a threat of removal from office. Equally Orwellian.

But as my parents at least told me growing up, you got to pick and choose your battles. Because when you're fighting him on every front, you're not fighting him effectively on any front. That's my advice.

Look, last week I gave advice to the president. He discounted it on Epstein. This week, I'm giving advice to the Democrats. Next week, I'll give advice to the forward party. I don't know.

Here's more social media reaction. What do we have? From the world of X.

Dems need to start using common sense. What's good for America is good for them too.

I think I agree with that, but everything is so visceral and vitriolic directed toward him and too antagonistic, and it becomes white noise

[09:35:04]

More social media reaction. Here's a third one.

It may be good investment to mitigate the diabetes epidemic. However, it also should be supported with nutritionist sessions. Data shows that when the drug stops --

OK, so this is about -- this is really a huge story. This is about the fact that Medicare and Medicaid patients might soon now be able to use their coverage for the GL1s -- the weight loss drugs which heretofore have been off limits to them. A part of the story that I didn't get into with my guest is that it's not just access to the meds, it's also counseling about health habits and weight loss generally, because I think it's a combination of all of these things.

But I'm largely of the opinion that everybody ought to have access to what have been for some miracle drugs. Do we all not have somebody in our orbit who you've seen recently and you're like, damn? And then, of course, you don't know whether you're supposed to say, did you lose all that weight? But it's a good thing.

One more. I've got time, I think. What do we have? From the world of X as well.

It makes perfect sense to cover weight loss medication. Obesity is a contributing factor to a litany of health issues, including cancer and heart disease, all leading to early death. These medications are essentially preventative care at this point.

I think that's true. I also think it's interesting to note that this is something that the Biden administration was intent on doing. The Trump administration said, no. There are divisions within the administration as between apparently Dr. Oz and Secretary Kennedy, and now they're going in the more Oz direction. It's a good thing, in my view.

Still to come, a wife and mother murdered in cold blood. And some twisted folks, I'll say, are celebrating on social media. And sadly, it looks like it's becoming a trend.

Make sure that you're voting on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Agree or disagree, it's in the political best interest of Democrats to publicly give President Trump credit when he accomplishes something with which they concur?

While you're there, sign up for the free daily newsletter. You'll get the work of editorial cartoonists like Scott Stantis, who sketched this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:41:27]

SMERCONISH: This week, a Nevada man drove to a Midtown Manhattan prestigious Park Avenue office tower and, wearing body armor and carrying an assault style rifle, opened fire, shooting 47 rounds. Four innocent people were killed before he took his own life.

It's a horrifying story that made international news. The four victims include Didarul Islam, an off-duty police officer, Aland Etienne, a security guard, Julia Hyman, a Cornell grad who worked for the company that owns the skyscraper. The fourth victim was Wesley LePatner, senior managing director of Blackstone Real Estate Investment Trust. All four deaths were heartbreaking, but the reaction to LePatner's murder adds an extra ugly twist to the tragic events.

According to "The New York Times'" obituary, LePatner was quite a woman, graduating with highest honors from Yale. The 43-year-old had risen to the top of her company as a woman in a male dominated industry. She was a role model and mentor to many.

But she was more than just a business success story. She was a loving wife and mother, noted for her wisdom, noted for her compassion. She was also a leader in her community, helping to found a synagogue, sitting on the board of the Metropolitan Museum, doing much charitable work, among other things.

And yet there are people, people who didn't know her celebrating her death on mainstream sites, from YouTube to Reddit to Instagram, reminding me of when, I hate to say the guy's name, but he was charged with the murder of the health insurance executive Brian Thompson, the victim, also in Midtown Manhattan this past winter, and then embraced and supported by many. A GoFundMe account for his legal fees, reached over $1 million in donations before it was pulled.

Joining me now is journalist Maya Sulkin to discuss her piece in the "Free Press," "She Was Murdered in Midtown Manhattan. The Internet Celebrated It." Maya, thank you so much for being here. It was a provocative and sad piece that you wrote. And the most surprising thing to me, I think, was the willingness of people to identify themselves, engage in conversation and stand behind what they had posted. Please explain.

MAYA SULKIN, REPORTER, THE FREE PRESS: Yes. So, as soon as this tragic news broke, I kind of had an inkling that this would be the online reaction like you referenced because of the murder of Brian Thompson. And as soon as I got on sites like Reddit, Instagram and Twitter and reached out to people, they were actually very willing to speak with me and get on the phone. And they spoke in a rather unvarnished language about their reactions to this news.

SMERCONISH: What's the common thread? I mean, with regard to that other case, earlier this year, it was grievances against the health insurance industry. How about this time?

SULKIN: So, their main charge against LePatner is that because she was a real estate executive, she's to blame for the housing crisis. Now, the common thread between the reaction to her and the murder of Brian Thompson is that these people have made them into a symbol of whatever their gripes are. And so, that doesn't necessarily matter if it's the health care system or the housing crisis. And as soon as they've made them into a symbol but not a human, not a wife, a mother, a boss, they have stripped them of their humanity. And it's made it a lot easier to justify and even celebrate violence against them.

SMERCONISH: OK, but, Maya, if you say to these folks, wait a minute. She's a mom. You know, she's -- she's a wife.

[09:45:00]

She was charitable. She's involved in her community. She lived her life, it seems, from all accounts, in a very admirable fashion. What do they say?

SULKIN: You know, I asked this very question. I said, you know, she leaves behind a teenage daughter and a son in the seventh grade. And again, they kind of just say -- say back to me, you know, I didn't know -- a direct quote from my piece in the "Free Press" is, I didn't know this woman, so I have to treat her as a symbol.

And I would like to add that this is not just people on, you know, the dark corners of Reddit. A high-ranking executive editor at Penguin Random House reposted one of these tweets on his Instagram story. Basically saying, you know, she gets paid, you know, $9,000 a minute. And, you know, quote, "rest in piss." So, this is not just strange people on the internet. This is -- these are highly influential people.

SMERCONISH: I'm worried about the spread, the contagion of this kind of thinking. And I'm torn as to, on one hand saying, well, I'm sure these sorts of viewpoints already existed and now they're just coming into the fore and we see them. On the other hand, I think that it's -- it's growing in incidence. And you tell a story anecdotally about a colleague of yours being on an airplane recently. Share that.

SULKIN: Yes. So first, I'd say I agree with you. I think that people have always -- there have always been people that celebrated the deaths of innocent people. What has changed is that we used to call those people evil, and they were at least ashamed into pretending, at least, to abide by some set of social mores. And that is what has changed.

So, the story that I write about in the "Free Press" is that a colleague of mine was seated on a plane, and the person next to her had a shirt with Luigi on it, with hearts around his face. Like any, you know, concert boy band t-shirt you've ever seen. And she was stunned because as people were walking past to their seat, they did not bat an eye. And in fact, they fist bumped this guy.

So again, this all goes to say the concern that this is becoming mainstream is a very valid one. People were not appalled by this at all. And in fact, they felt a clear sense of camaraderie with this person.

SMERCONISH: I wonder about the chilling impact this might have for high profile people, be they in government, be they in private industry, who now are going to think that they run the risk. I mean, I remember being in Midtown Manhattan in the immediate aftermath of the health care executive's execution and seeing those posters that had been placed on some poles that not only celebrated that killing, but talked about other individuals who should watch their back.

SULKIN: Yes. I mean, one of the -- one of the women I spoke to for my story basically said to me that she's not surprised more things like this have not happened. And so, I think there will be a massive chilling effect.

People are not -- like I said, people are not hiding the way that they feel about this. They are very open about the fact that they're happy this happened because she's a powerful CEO and, you know, people are calling it, you know, she's been Luigi. And so, I do think there will be a massive chilling effect. And it's a problem that these people have not been, you know, effectively shamed into understanding the implications of what they're saying online.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Maya Sulkin. Your piece is provocative and necessary, and I appreciate your being here to discuss it.

Let's take a look at some social media reaction to this whole issue, including this from the world of X.

Social media amplifies the extremist dregs -- does it just amplify them or does it also create them -- in society where their minority voice never had a platform in the past.

So, Mike, in line with that, yesterday, I had a conversation with Elie Honig. Elie, often a guest here, CNN senior legal analyst and a brilliant guy. And Elie said to me, there's another aspect of this that needs to be contemplated from a prosecutorial standpoint. Like, OK, Elie, what's that? And he said, it only takes one of these people. It only takes one of these people on a jury to create a hung jury.

So, there's a real challenge now for prosecutors to have to take a very close look at social media for anyone who would be a part of the panel and go through the voir dire process. And then you always have to worry that maybe somebody didn't post in social media how they feel about a case like this, and you have to somehow try and ferret out this attitude.

And what I thought was most significant about Maya's reporting is that she would see these individuals in social media, and you heard her say part of this, and she would then try and track them down. She'd find them and she would interview them. And instead of, well, you can't use my name -- you can look at her piece. A lot of them are identified, you know, by where they live and there -- and there -- there's no shame.

[09:50:02]

There's no shame. It's disgusting. You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Check this out. Agree or disagree? It's in the best political interest of Democrats to publicly give President Trump credit when he accomplishes something with which they concur. While you're there, please sign up for the newsletter. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons drawn from the likes of Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: OK. Catherine, my producer, just asked me to predict the results, so I don't want to look at the screen. And I say, I think people who vote will vehemently disagree with the poll question today. Let's see. Go ahead. Show me the result.

Whoa. OK. Well, you know, there's no cheating. You know there's no cheating.

[09:55:00]

Seventy-six -- all right, well, that means you found me compelling. Seventy-six percent agree with the premise. See, it's in the best poll -- all right, I'm impressed. Three quarters say, yes. You know what? It's in the Democrats' best interest If every once in a while, they give Trump credit on something that he's done with which they agree.

Social media reaction. What do we have? From the world of X.

This is your question? Shame on you. Do better. How about asking people how they feel about the authoritarian --

OK, Sonj, you're part of the problem again among Democrats in that you're -- you're ineffective. If you want to complain about everything, then it becomes white noise and none of the, you know, the tree falls in the forest and nobody even hears a thud. I mentioned Smithsonian, I think Smithsonian is a really telling -- I called it Orwellian or the page one story today about the labor statistics person getting their walking papers.

But as our parents, at least mine did, said you got to pick and choose your battles. That's it. My free advice for Democrats. Reject it if you wish. If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. We'll see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)