Becerra, Hilton Face Off in CNN’s CA Governor Debate

0:00Every day, animals across the country face abuse and neglect. And every day, the ASPCA shows up to rescue animals in crisis. But they can't do it alone. Visit ASPCA.org slash need. Become a donor today to provide the care and shelter these animals urgently need. And for a limited time, the ASPCA will send you a free gift as a special thank you. Visit ASPCA.org slash need. This holiday, all plans, even unlimited, are just$15 a month. A holiday deal this good obviously deserves an enormously expensive holiday song, like All I Want. Right. Okay, we can afford that. You know what? Forget the music budget.

0:43We're going to stick with whatever's in the public domain. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three months,$90 for six months, or$180 for a 12-month plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. New customer offer for initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. See terms. Tonight, live at the table, Scott Jennings, Keith Boykin, Lydia Moynihan, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, and Scott McFarlane.

1:23Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. You've been watching a fiery debate between Democrat Javier Brasera and Republican Steve Hilton. Both men are making their pitch to replace Gavin Newsom as governor of California. And we're going to analyze what we just heard. But first, before we open it up to the table here, we invite you at home to join our debate. Head to CNN.com slash Abby. Weigh in there. We'll get to some of your comments throughout the show. Scott Jennings, what was your read on how that debate went for the two candidates? Well, I wasn't surprised at the way they tackled it. I mean, California is one of the rare sort of political experiments in America where the experiment in the lab has been running for so long.

2:04There's no real mystery in how it's going to turn out. Democrats have been in charge for a very long time. And if Xavier Becerra wins, you know exactly what he's going to do. He's going to do precisely what Democrats have been doing. And if you're happy with homelessness and you're happy with the cost of living and you're happy with the taxes and you're happy with the shadow welfare system that pays illegal aliens hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, that's what you'll And if you want to do something different, Steve Hilton presented that tonight. I don't know if any minds were changed, but I think the contours of this debate and this choice are pretty well established.

2:34Democrats are running the state. The state kind of sucks. There is a different alternative, but can't he overcome the national political environment? That's kind of a pessimistic view, it seems. Is that right? Pessimistic? Well, yes, I'm very pessimistic. You don't think that there's going to be something, you know, a surprise upset here. I mean, look, California is a beautiful place with a lot of promise. And my view as a Republican is it's been run into the ground by Democrats. They're holding it back. And they've had 16 years to do something about it. That was the argument Hilton made, again, because he had the capacity to change his mind.

3:06But the national political environment is maybe too strong. All right, Keith. First of all, I thought it was just honorable and a good and a smart move in some ways for Javier Pizarro just to debate in the first place because he didn't have to do it. Much to Scott's point, he's ahead in the polls. Everybody expects him to win. So to just be on stage, there's nothing for him to gain by being there. The only advantage could come to Steve Hilton. Secondly, I thought that Javier Becerra did a good job of connecting Steve Hilton to Donald Trump, which is the defining issue. Javier Becerra is Donald Trump's candidate.

3:39And he said that several times, made that point on issue after issue. But I think the defining point in the debate was the question of immigration. when Javier Becerra said to Steve Hilton, you want immigrants who look like you, meaning people from England, to come to this country, but you don't want immigrants who look like me, people whose parents came from Mexico, to come to this country. And I think that just exposed the hypocrisy of the Trump immigration policy, the racism of the Trump immigration policy, and the ICE raids that Javier Becerra opposes, that Steve Hilton would continue. I think that issue alone is enough to be damaging and devastating.

4:16You're both wrong. Sorry. Go ahead. Because, look, yes, both of these gentlemen have points that they made. First of all, I thought the debate was a little tepid in the sense that Javier Becerra is not known as a fiery talker. I thought he was pretty mid in this debate. I don't think he really was able to sell perhaps what the accomplishments have been of the Democrats in the way that you hear perhaps a Gavin Newsom do it. But listen, the numbers you can also give for California, if I was going to have to make the argument that it is the largest economy in the United States by any state. It is the incubator for so much of our industry that that our entire sort of national economy relies on AI, et cetera, in Silicon Valley.

5:06And so, you know, what I would say about this is Javier Becerra did not, I think, make the case very strongly. On the other side, Steve Hilton, all he could say was, hey, you might not like this guy. They've been in charge for a long time, but you know what? We need a change. But it wasn't a terribly convincing argument in the sense of what it is that he would bring to the table. And so, you know, both of these men, I think, have run a pretty lackluster campaign. And I think you see that reflected in California. There isn't a lot of enthusiasm about this governor's race. Interesting. I do not share Scott's pessimistic view of California.

5:42I agree with you that it's beautiful. I do not agree with you that it sucks. It's the most diverse state in the nation. It is America in one state. Factories, farms, big cities, small towns, got everything. Also has some particularly expensive prices, which is something these two had to get after. Diesel is out of control. The most expensive fill-up in America took place this week in Long Beach. Truck driver paid$844 a gallon for diesel, cost him$1 ,300 for two tanks over one weekend. That's all coming downstream to the rest of the country. About how they laid out their specifics tonight, they repressed a bit.

6:17I don't think they did lay out specifics of how they're going to get health care to more people, how they're going to lower these prices. And these two nominees are getting tagged left and right by people who vote and people who run local media for not giving specifics. They're both out there speaking in broad brushes. One's used to speaking in broad brushes on Fox News. The other one's used to speaking in broad brushes from his state post. I'm not sure how granular they got. Voters do want that, Abby. I mean, if I was a Californian, I would be very eager for change. Yes, there's still a lot of impressive statistics about California, but it's going in all of the wrong direction.

6:52So, yes, they are a very important economy, but all of the wealth is leaving. You saw about a trillion dollars that left this past year in anticipation of a wealth tax. We're seeing this sort of leftist fever dream where we're all of these insane policies giving people free syringes. I saw a headline in the City Journal today saying 25 percent of San Francisco convicted pedophiles, rapists and sex offenders live in government funded housing. So we're seeing all of these absurd policies. And yes, it is impacting affordability. Rentals are the second highest in the nation. Electricity, the second highest in the nation.

7:26Gas prices, the first highest. So it's interesting that these voters are seemingly, the polls would suggest, rejecting Hilton because you look at the polling and 37 percent of people care about fighting Donald Trump. So two things. One, it is interesting that Becerra reiterated he doesn't support that wealth tax. That's extremely controversial. But to Lulu's point about the lackluster nature of this debate and Becerra's overall performance, which frankly may not matter because the environment is what it is. this moment, actually, where Steve Hilton brings up Democrats' own objections to Becerra, the ones who worked with him in the White House, was frankly wild.

8:14Listen. In every government job you've had, according to your Democrat colleagues, the ones who worked with you, like Susan Rice, who worked with you side by side when you were in the Biden cabinet, she described you as an idiot. She called you bitch ass. Why did Susan Rice, a respected political leader, call you an idiot? Since when do I have to respond to politicians? I'm running for governor of California. I'm looking for the vote of California voters, not some politician in Washington, D.C.

8:49I don't even know what to say. Not on my bingo card to hear that at a debate. However, it almost kind of underscores the fact that were it not for the other candidate in this race basically flaming out because of a scandal, Javier Becerra might not be there. And were it not for an environment in which Republicans are facing potentially a blue wave, this could be a more competitive seat. Well, that was wild. First of all, that moment was unpredictable. But I think he actually handled it well under the circumstances by deflecting to the fact that he doesn't take answers from politicians. Come on.

9:32He was one of those Washington politicians. I mean, come on. I honestly did, because I think most people don't know who Susan Rice is. I think that's true. I do, because I worked with her. I wouldn't describe her as a politician, necessarily. But a respected person. The fact that he did was actually kind of a deft political movement on his part. But having said that, I think the big opportunity that he missed for me was that I think Steve Hilton kept trying to label him as being a part of the establishment. You've been in charge all this time. You've done this. You've done this. And I think the one thing he should have done, if I were he, I would have separated myself because I'm not the governor of California.

10:05I've never been the governor of California. I'm running for that office. I was a secretary of health and human services. I was a congressman. I was an attorney general, but I have never been the governor. So I'm not the person responsible for making those decisions. I think he should have done a little bit better job of emphasizing that. But I think most voters in California already know that. And the ones who don't, it doesn't really matter anyway because California is a Democratic state and he's more than likely going to win. One thing that Hilton did bring up a lot was Becerra giving California's current leadership an A plus in how they've managed things.

10:39Because part of the problem, I know you defended California earlier, Scott, but part of the problem is that Californians aren't happy with how California has been run. They don't like a lot of the things that Scott points out or that Lydia points out. And maybe they're not willing to vote for a Republican, but the idea that you gloss over that seems like a mistake. I think that you may be painting too narrow a painting here. I think there's an anti-incumbent, anti-establishment wave across the country. I don't think anybody's happy with their government right now. I don't think Californians are uniquely positioned as I don't really like my state leaders.

11:14I think this is about to become an election where everybody expresses their displeasure with their leadership. That notwithstanding, if he's going to distance himself from the governor of California by name and the others in the establishment, does he risk turning off their bases and those who do politically subscribe to Gavin Newsom? And I want to add this point because I don't think it's incidental. There are down ballot concerns from this debate. Democrats are keen on flipping about a half dozen Republican-held U.S. House seats in California. How Javier Becerra performs is going to have some impact potentially on the closest of those races.

11:48I don't think it's going to have any impact at all. I think this debate will have zero impact on those down-bellot races. The distancing yourself from Newsom would have an impact. I don't know. Those races are about what's going on in the national environment. The one thing you said is exactly right is this is an anti-incumbent sentiment mood in the country right now. That's the reason why I think he should have done a little bit more in terms of pushing himself away from the incumbents with the movement. At best, Becerra is like Chance the Gardener here. I mean, that's the most charitable read of how he got here.

12:16At worst, he is the most incompetent member of the most incompetent administration who somehow finds himself about to be elected to one of the most important offices in the country, which, as you point out, the biggest economy is California. What do you mean by Chance the Gardener? From the movie, being there. I mean, just, you know, accidentally sort of wound up in this position. And do you if you're in California, do you want to accidentally have a governor who has never really been all that successful at the things he's done? Not by Republican standards, but by the Democrats who have worked with him, as Hilton pointed out.

12:50Talk to the Biden people. We've had them on this show. The Biden people who have said he was incompetent. He was the laziest, whatever it is they said about the guy. And now he's going to be the governor of a very important state. I agree it's an important state. It's also interesting that we always talk about Trump is losing people because of the affordability issue. And it's all about the economy and the prices. And California is an economy that's imploding. Again, they've had a net outflow of people recently. This is why federalism is great, because you can see the impact of the various policies when you enact them.

13:19And we're seeing all of these left-wing policies enacted. And affordability is a disaster. I think it's about for certain. It's interesting that that isn't moving people in the same way. I think you're also quoting things from, like, 2021 and 2022. But what I will say, what's interesting to me about all of this, is that this is the argument that is going to be made against Gavin Newsom should he run for president. So insofar as it is interesting nationally, it is interesting because this is the case that will be made precisely by people defter than Mr. Hilton against Gavin Newsom. Newsom was like the invisible character who was not in the room.

13:58He was the third person on the debate stage. Let me just read this viewer remark that just came in. I voted Democrat my whole life and hope the Democrats win California. But Hilton did have a point about education. Why is the reading level so low? What, if anything, have the Democrats done to correct this? I didn't get much from Javier Becerra's response to the question about how to improve education, especially among young people. I think he was being supportive of teachers, but it seemed equivocating to me and a little bit mushier. But they both had statements about AI that landed. And Steve Hilton's was about AI in schools.

14:33Let's get rid of it in schools. There's no need for that front-facing AI tool for children, which could account for children being less able to, you know, read. And Javier Becerra saying, of course we need tighter restrictions on AI development. That jumped out at me, Abby, because they do seem to be meeting voters where they are. There is widespread apprehension, if not fear, of these AI tools. And I think there were some mixed messages coming from the White House this week when the AI giants were side by side with Trump. And he said, this is good laissez-faire style. Let's just let him roll.

15:04It feels like actually that question speaks to a missed opportunity that Republicans had in the last, you know, 15 months of this second Trump term, where there are things that have made Americans in parts of the country dissatisfied with Democrats. One of them was crime. Another one was immigration. One under the radar. One is education and the failure to improve education by just throwing money at the problem. So, you know, in this moment, it may not matter that Javier Becerra did not have the strongest answer on that. Maybe neither of them did. But it speaks to something that's a little bit underneath the surface that perhaps Democrats need to get a handle on in the years to come.

15:48Well, I think education is an issue that typically has been a strong point for Democrats, regardless of the state, because the only offer that Republicans have is privatizing, or what they call now school choice. But they have no solutions for public schools in America at the secondary and primary level. And when it comes to the college level, they're making it harder for people to go to college. They're taking away student loans and grants for people to do so. And when it comes to graduate level, Trump is making it even more difficult because he's restricting people who have access to that, Not to mention the way that Trump is taking away student loan deferment, student loan repayment options.

16:28Can I just rebut that on education for a moment? The most improving state in America when it comes to test scores is Mississippi run by a Republican. And they have better test scores in Mississippi for minority children than they do in California right now. So to say that Republicans have no answers is false. What they did in Mississippi is they went back to basics. They put phonics back in the classroom. I mean, they do have answers. The states that have adopted those solutions have seen test scores go up. I'll let you respond to that a little bit. Well, some states like Mississippi have farther to go, so they were starting from the bottom.

17:00A lot of these other states have not had to go so far because they have actually been historically doing better. But there are a lot of states like Mississippi and southern states that have large black populations that have been underfunded. The schools have been underfunded in those states largely because of the way we fund our school system through the local. But don't you think there's something to be learned from what they were able to accomplish? Because the gains have been for minority students. Absolutely. There is something to be learned. And I think the problem is that, especially with the issue of education, I'm a former teacher myself, but the problem is that both sides are kind of stuck in their positions and nobody really wants to move.

17:36I think we need to be focused on what's in the best interest of the students and the schools and not what's in the best interest of one party or another. Another viewer question. when confront or excuse me, I'm sorry, let me just play this sound about election integrity. This is an exchange about basically the integrity of our elections, which President Trump has cast doubt on elections, specifically in California. Here's Steve Hilton. We just had Karen Bass, the mayor of LA saying, we don't need an election for governor because the Democrat is going to win. And that is the attitude we get from these people who've been in charge of our state for 16 years.

18:19And they think that they can just do whatever they want, get whatever bad results, the highest taxes in the country for the worst results, taking everybody for granted, taking their votes for granted. That's why he's not trying to earn anybody's vote. That's why he hasn't been campaigning in this election. They take you for granted. And I just want to ask every Californian, aren't you tired of that? It's time to try something different.

18:49And just before that, in the face of all of President Trump's comments and all of that, he said he does have faith in California's elections. I mean, he's on that stage because he got second place in a runoff. But is he right that Californians, the Democrats take for granted that there's really not a competitive race in that state. Any state with a supermajority has that problem. I mean, California, in that sense, is not unique. You've seen that in Republican-led states. I personally think it's enormously problematic in this country that we have so many states with supermajorities. I believe democracy requires contested visions, debates, new ideas infusing it.

19:33So, you know, you're not going to count me as a super fan of the way that California has gone. That said, this isn't going to be the election where that changes because we have a federal government that is so deeply, deeply unpopular in Donald Trump. If this were an election where Democrats were there and prices were this high, you might have the argument that Steve Hilton's making resonate more, but I don't think this is the election because everything has become so nationalized, right? I mean, if you heard the debate here, yes, they were talking about local issues, but the lack of specificity, which you rightly pointed out, is because everything is sort of mumbo-jumbo nationalized, right?

20:14Everything is about ICE and Trump and et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, exactly. Every other word is whatever the buzzword is for each party. All right, next for us, a Republican candidate is caught on tape criticizing the president's convention as Trump gives a new diagnosis for his political problems. Plus, a Republican senator from West Virginia is now speaking out against the president's deportations, including illegal immigrants. This is CNN's special live coverage.

20:55Right. Okay, we can afford that. You know what? Forget the music budget. We're going to stick with whatever's in the public domain. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three months,$90 for six months, or$180 for a 12-month plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. New customer offer for initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. See terms. Traditional home security only alerts you after a break-in. And that's too late. SimpliSafe is changing that. Stop. This is SimpliSafe. Police are on the way. We don't just alert.

21:25We help stop crime before it starts. Plan starting around a dollar a day. Right now, get 70 % off your new system with professional monitoring at SimpliSafe.com slash Spotify. SimpliSafe, ahead of crime in real time. Outdoor deterrence plans start at$49.99 a month. Visit SimpliSafe.com slash licenses for alarm license information.

21:48Tonight, who is to blame for the Republican Party's political headwinds going into November's elections? Well, it depends on who you ask. Ken Paxton, the GOP nominee for Texas Senate, was caught on tape telling donors behind closed doors how he really feels about Donald Trump's recent midterm convention. Do you feel like he's a little bit of a draft? So, to be honest with you, the numbers, when we did that in the convention, we chopped our numbers, everybody's going to be dropped. By now, yeah, not good. Trump told reporters that he hadn't heard Paxton's comments and was instead quick to repeatedly point the finger elsewhere.

22:34I'm going out because nobody's selling it. I'm doing, we're doing an extremely poor job of promotion and an extremely great job of running the country. There's no economy like this economy. And the only thing we don't have is good public relations. We don't seem to be able to get the word across that we have more people working than ever before. We have the best job numbers than ever before. And we don't get the word across. And that's because the press doesn't want us to get the word across. Or it could be all the many other things that the president spends his time talking about on a regular basis.

23:14One of the concerns about this convention, which, by the way, was held in Texas, was that it was going to be coming at the worst possible time. It was going to be focused on things that people did not want to hear about, namely the president, Donald Trump. And that's why a lot of Republicans skipped it. But Ken Paxton couldn't really skip it. So, I mean, does he have a point? I mean, it's not surprising to me to see in politics the blame game already starting. So obviously Paxton isn't super thrilled with some of the polling. We see that race is a lot tighter than Republicans would like it to be.

23:47So again, not surprising that we see politicians trying to point blame ahead of that. Look, I think it's a mixed bag. You know, obviously Trump has extremely loyal voters who don't turn out sometimes. So I think Trump can really help candidates in that regard. And that's been an issue for some Republicans. At the same time, does that alienate people who are a bit more centrist? possibly, which is why we're seeing a lot of candidates try and become more moderate in their messaging as they head into the midterm. I think the other thing that we keep hearing from Republican strategists as well is they don't want the bad polls to impact turnout.

24:21And I think they're pointing to even, I believe it was, medium strategies that predicted falsely Francesca Hong was up by 20 points. And it turns out that was a social experiment. So I think they are really telling people, get out there and vote. Don't just accept the bad polls. And it's not over until it's over, you know? I still have a lifetime in politics. I mean, I think part of the problem of that convention was that President Trump went up there and kind of trashed Ken Paxton on stage. I mean, I think that was maybe why his poll numbers might have slipped. I mean, he was sort of like... I think that was endearing towel snapping.

24:52Was that what it was? Was that what it was? I'm not sure it's what it was. I mean, basically it was like, yeah, he's corrupt. Yeah, he's not good looking. yeah, he's not a great campaigner, but you know what? What else would you call that? That's tail snapping. So, you know, I mean, I think that might have been the problem. The president also seemed kind of defensive about this convention in general. Here's what he said. This is right after he was asked about Paxton. There was a report that Ken Paxton was complaining about your midterm convention, and he felt like it hurt him. What's your reaction to that?

25:25Well, I haven't heard that, but I can tell you that the convention was amazing. This was a national convention, midterm convention, never been done before. And we went directly against the NFL. It was just the timing worked out that way. And we had 107 million versus 25 million views. So I think the convention, I would imagine they do it again often. So definitely not true what he said. Not even close. Not even close. Not even close. The NFL had 25 million viewers for that game. His speech reached about three million viewers. This is the kind of thing he cares about. But again, that convention and what it was for, why he insisted on it, was at such odds with what Republicans who are actually running these races said that they wanted and needed in these final weeks leading up to the midterms.

26:23I say with confidence, we know we're in the midterm elections when the president's blaming the PR team and the PR efforts for troubles, because that's an age-old tradition that predates Trump. Ratings have always been a preoccupation of the president. Let me just try to figure out what he was trying to say there. I think he's conflating views on a social media video with primetime live television audiences. Those are not comparable. TV far outrated the convention. There were a number of battleground Republicans with whom I spoke who said they didn't want to be there because not just because they didn't want to be juxtaposed next to Trump at this moment in time, but because they want to be looking like they're tending to parochial issues.

27:00They want to be in their hometowns getting after the crises of the moment. They don't want to be in some theatrical presentation in Dallas. I don't think that event was what the president hoped it would be, in part because I think it was lightly attended by his own party's front line candidates, the ones who needed the help. Well, I was there. I saw a lot of our candidates there. A lot of frontline candidates got up and made speeches. And it brought a lot of donors and a lot of attention to Texas, which Ken Paxton needs. I hate to report to Ken Paxton, but you need all the help you can get, including Donald Trump.

27:34And Donald Trump's larger organization right now and his Republican Party is spending a metric, you know what, ton of money to try to drag him across the line. Yeah, just really quick to that point. I mean, so far in 2026, 400 million has been spent in this Texas race by both sides. But the vast majority of that is on the Republican side. That's compared to 55 million in the last race that people thought was competitive, Beto O 'Rourke versus Ted Cruz. But it's interesting. I mean, again, you can blame this on sour grapes from Ken Paxton. But here's an analysis by Aaron Blake today. Major polling aggregators, including Nate Silver, 50 plus one, all show that, if anything, Democrats have gotten the bump since the midterm convention.

28:28They both show the Democrats expanded their margin on the generic ballot by at least two points since September 9th. Three other polls, CNN, NBC News, Fox News, all showed no change from previous polling, which also suggests that the convention was a waste. And then so then Trump turns around and doubles down with a bunch of political ads paid for by American taxpayers that. Praise him, essentially, that center him more than anything else. You can't stop reminding people that he is the candidate who is on the ballot, even though he's not on the ballot, which is a huge mistake that nobody would make.

29:07It's a JV mistake. I don't agree with Scott that this was a good thing for Ken Paxton or for the Republican Party for exactly the reason that we saw in the polls from Nate Silver and others. It actually hurt the Republican Party. The numbers went down after the convention. Ken Paxton's numbers went down after the convention. That's the reason why he's complaining right now. There's this blame game going on. The rats are fleeing the ship right now because they know that Donald Trump is toxic. That's the reason why Donald Trump is going to Oklahoma and Alabama and Texas and places like that. Why should a Republican candidate be doing that, a Republican president be doing that?

29:38And I disagree with Scott, too, when he says that the fact that they're spending whatever ton of money is a good thing. That's a horrible thing. For the Republican Party to be spending tons of money in Texas in a midterm election, that's a sign of failure. $300 million in Texas? Well, look. And they're probably going to have to start spending in Florida, too. Florida should be safe from Democratic hands, and it's not. We are where we are at the end of September, and you have two choices. You can either spend the money necessary to win, a state that you ought to win, or you can let it flounder, and letting it flounder is simply not an option here.

30:13Look, the polling is in low single digits, very low single digits. Ken Paxton has an excellent chance to win. and he needs Donald Trump's help and he needs Donald Trump's voters to do that. And mostly they need Donald Trump and the Republican Party's resources because he obviously isn't the fundraiser that Tallarico is in this race. So for a lot of reasons, I was not happy with this comment today from Ken Paxton. Even if he thinks he was being honest, sometimes keep it to yourself and say we're grateful for everyone's support. But I am curious. I mean, honestly, was the convention worth it? For Republicans.

30:50Well, the Republican Party thinks so. They think they got a lot of online. I was there. Look, a lot of the candidates that are running an individual House races and people you've never heard of got a chance to get up on a big stage. And many of them rose to the occasion and gave great speeches. There were tons of donors down there. Donors were gathered and told, here's what we need your help for. Here's where your money needs to go. You don't think this word which is donor, donor, donor? And I know that means a lot to the political class, but the point is that to the voter, what you are seeing in the wake of this is Democratic candidates saying, like, I'm here campaigning for you while that guy is down in Dallas with the donors swanning around.

31:32I'm just telling you the reason why we've seen the poll numbers drop. Let me give you a rudimentary education on how this works. Tell me. In a midterm election, you have to raise and spend a ton of money to communicate with the voters that you speak of. And so these candidates have to get the money and then they make the ads and then they communicate. That's how it works. Let me give you a rudimentary thing on voters and how they think. They want their candidates to be in their communities talking to them. OK, so you so what I'm hearing you say is I think that when you don't. Yeah, I mean, you know as well as anyone that when candidates have to leave the campaign trail to go fundraise, that's not a good thing.

32:15That is a problem. So you think it's a problem when, say, Tallarico is in New York or California or any other Democratic candidate has to go bend the knee to George Soros or whoever else because they do it every week. They do it all the time. Not visibly on a state. And by the way, Paxton didn't even have to leave Texas. That's his own state. But I didn't see whoever the grand poobah of the Democratic Party is right now, there really isn't one, having a giant festival, putting it on TV and giving speeches about it. You're complaining about candidates leaving states and districts. They leave it all every week.

32:48I'm not complaining. They spent all their time in New York and Martha's Vineyard and California. Is that Democrats have been able to capitalize on that. I'm trying to explain why Democrats got a bump and Republicans did. Well, look, it might also be as simple as two nights of speeches from one of the most historically unpopular presidents in American history is not a great idea for the party that is facing an anti-incumbent environment, anti -establishment environment. That is also basic politics. Why center the person who has the approval rating in the low 30s and who has high disapprovals on virtually every issue that is important to voters?

33:28That's basic politics, too. It's basic political malpractice. You are exactly right, and Scott knows you're exactly right, but Scott can't say that. Because if Scott were giving this advice to anybody except for Donald Trump, for whom he'd be—Scott is a very smart political strategist. He knows exactly what you're saying is right, but he can't say that Donald Trump because nobody can tell Donald Trump the truth. I agree with one thing Keith said. One of the things he said is true. What's that? I'm a smart political strategist. Okay. All right. Next for us. We are hearing tonight that President Trump is angry with his DHS chief over talk of softening ICE arrests.

34:05And it comes as a Republican senator from West Virginia criticizes deportations.

34:38We'll be right back.

34:49He's a staunch Trump ally from a state nowhere near the border. But tonight, West Virginia Senator Jim Justice is calling out the president's immigration agenda. In an interview Tuesday with Politico, Senator Justice joined a growing number of Republicans criticizing ICE's mass deportations that are impacting rural communities. As ranchers across the nation raise concerns that the arrests are devastating their industry, Justice, who serves on the Senate Agriculture Committee, urged the administration to reconsider. Quote, you're dragging people away that have lived on your street corner for 15 years.

35:23And I don't know what that we need to be doing that stuff, Justice said. Now, with all that's going on, we probably got to step back from it and say maybe we're doing something wrong here or there, he continued to say. Now, today, Justice backtracked his comments, clarifying in a social media post that he supports Trump's immigration agenda, full stop. Now, Justice argued that his words were being twisted to score political points, but you heard them there for yourself, so you be the judge. And he is not the only one. Lydia, this is one of those issues that seems to be not just backfiring among the American public, but also a lot of Republicans in red states who are feeling the meatpacking industry effects, who are feeling the agriculture effects, the housing effects.

36:18It's becoming a problem. So we want illegal immigrants to just have cheap labor. Is that what you're suggesting? I don't know. Ask Jim Justice. Well, he clearly backtracked from his comments for a reason. So he's in his midst. Look, he made he made comments and then he says, I support the president. He said you tell me he said you tell me which one of those. Look, people can take it for what it is. But yeah, people voted for for mass deportations. And look, obviously, the midterms of the referendum on where people want to see the country headed. But what is clear is the border is completely secure.

36:56That's an issue that people care deeply about. It's the securest it's been in 50 years. And on the immigration issue, this is what Trump was elected to do. So, look, I mean, you're always going to find one person in a vast party to be critical and then try and backtrack. Here's another person. Here's Senator Roger Marshall. This was when ICE was raiding in Kansas, of all places. He says when he issues a social media post the night that this is happening, saying that ICE needs to coordinate with local law enforcement. He says he's closely following what was happening in southwest Kansas at the time because it was roiling those communities.

37:40He is not the only one. Down in Florida, you had a Republican congresswoman put out a whole ad telling Trump he's gone too far. The president is hearing this, and he's hearing it from inside his party. He's hearing it from outside of his party. Well, first of all, I think the vast majority of Republicans support the president's immigration agenda, whether it's on deportations or on how he secured the border. That's number one. Number two, I think it's always been true, and we've talked about it here before. There is some tension on policy inside the Republican coalition. You have people who are very hardline.

38:13They want all deportations all the time, no questions asked, no criteria. And then you do have agriculture interests and some other business interests that have a difference of opinion. It seems maybe that Senator Justice was responding to some of those folks because, as you referenced, he is on the Senate Agriculture Committee. I think as it relates to Republican enthusiasm for the election, going soft on immigration and criticizing the president over it in a red state, not a great idea, in my opinion. If you want Republicans to show up and turn out seemingly giving oxygen to Democratic arguments against Donald Trump on immigration, I don't personally believe is a way to do it.

38:50Immigration right now, Trump has a 61 percent disapproval rating on immigration. That's pretty darn high. And he's seen a 56 percent, 56 point drop among working class Hispanics on that issue, which is a tremendous loss for him because that was a group that he was doing very well with in 2024. Now we're seeing a big turnaround. So it's not just the Hispanic community, and it's not just this one person, you know, Jim Justice in West Virginia. But, you know, you mentioned Roger Marshall in Kansas. I don't know if you mentioned Salazar in Florida, Monica de la Cruz in Texas, Paul LePage in Maine.

39:29You've got people all across the country, Republicans, who are concerned. And the reason why, it's not just because they're betraying Donald Trump. It's because they're hearing it from ranchers who are MAGA supporters. They're hearing it from farmers who are MAGA supporters. They're hearing it from business people. They're hearing it from their own people in the Republican Party. You're saying, we're fed up with this because you're taking away our workers. You're causing labor shortages. You're causing price increases. You're causing all kinds of problems on top of all the gas hike prices and the tariff issues.

40:00You, Mr. President, have betrayed us. So I don't think that the people who are upset about immigration are betraying the president. I think the president has betrayed his own people. So, Scott, Mark Wayne Mullen, who used to be in Congress, is now running DHS. And the reason I bring that up is because I think his time in Congress is informing how he sees this immigration issue. CNN reported today that sources told CNN that Mullen privately supports shifting away from what officials call collateral arrests, meaning people who may be in the vicinity of an operation or with a person on law enforcement's radar.

40:36Now, while sources suggest there's no indication Mullen is at risk of losing his job, the episode, which is when they briefly over this weekend seemed to send out a message that they were going to stop these collateral arrests, that episode ignited concerns among DHS officials that Mullen is not in line with the president. The president personally pulled back that guidance. Mullen, though, understands what happened earlier this year in December and in January in Minnesota and how damaging that was to Republicans. He's been trying to quiet this down and the president wants to ramp it up. It seems to me that's not just out of step with the two of them personally, but with what Republicans need from an electoral perspective in these last few weeks.

41:22No doubt Mullen sees these numbers, that the president is 61 percent on the disapproval ledger for how he's handling immigration, which means it is bleeding into red states, not just blue states. This is getting more pervasive, and it's patasticizing around the country for the president. And it's not just Roger Marshall. It's both Kansas Republican senators had something to say about ICE enforcement in Kansas. And it's not just Jim Justice. It is spreading among the Republican conference. There's one political back story I think is important, though, when we talk about Jim Justice. Jim Justice, according to my reporting in West Virginia, is very keen on running for governor again.

41:55And there's a Republican governor in West Virginia, Patrick Morrissey, who sees this coming. And I think the cleanup that Jim Justice did today may speak to his future ambitions of returning as governor of West Virginia for a third term. He had to leave because of term limits the first time. That's fascinating. At the end of the day, though, this immigration issue is going to continue to dog the president. and he actually had some comments today. He described this, actually, interestingly, as one of the hardest things that he's had to do as President Lussin. 25 million people walked across the border into our country, and many of those people were not people that you would want in this country.

42:40And frankly, it's the hardest job that I've had, the hardest job, because they'll say you're too tough or you're too soft. get tougher, get softer, no matter what you do, it's always tough. And I just want a couple of caveats there. That number that he gave is not accurate. Wildly inaccurate. Wildly inaccurate. But secondly, I don't think he's just talking about the border, because actually of all the things that he's done, the border was probably the easiest thing. The thing that has been hard is the interior enforcement and the tug of war internally and externally about how they go about it.

43:18Immigration is the most divisive issue in America simply because it is about what we want when we think about what America is. And it is something that has not been able to be, there hasn't been immigration reform, there hasn't been legislation on immigration for an enormous amount of time. And I think part of the problem here, and I think the president is right, there are people in his government, in his caucus, Stephen Miller and others who want, you know, absolutely everyone to be expelled. And there are other Republicans. If you look, if you think about the Reagan Republicans, I mean, what did Ronald Reagan do?

43:54He actually provided amnesty for a whole bunch of people who would come into the country legally. There is an enormous variety of views on the issue of immigration, but there is no serious attempt to actually deal with our immigration system. How are we going to actually have people in this country who are here legitimately, who are working, who contribute to the communities that are here. How are we going to, if you want to kick them out, fine, but America needs workers. How are you going to bring them back in in a way that's okay? None of these issues are actually debated in a way that is serious.

44:29And instead, what we have is an enormous amount of money being given to ICE, people who get put out on the streets with very little training, and they have led to clashes, deaths, and all sorts of things that have riled the community. And so what you have seen, not just among Latinos, but among many people, is that they do not feel that this is okay, that this has not been handled in the right way. And there are no serious attempts, and I will add the Democrats here, by anyone to really address the root causes because it is such a toxic issue. Yeah. And also it's a potent issue. It's useful politically.

45:04It is maybe for both parties, but particularly for Republicans in elections to have the issue be alive. And that's why we're sitting here, because there have been opportunities in the past. They weren't taken because it was too toxic to make a deal, which is sad for the American public. Next for us, the White House's new AI-powered website just got a tune-up on day one. You will no longer get answers to some of the more sensitive questions. We'll debate that next.

45:51Stop it from ever happening. Plan starting around a dollar a day. Right now, get 70 % off your new system with professional monitoring at simplisafe.com slash Spotify. 30 seconds response time requires monitoring plan with outdoor protection starting at$49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com slash licenses for alarm license information. This holiday, all plans, even unlimited, are just$15 a month. A holiday deal this good obviously deserves an enormously expensive holiday song like All I Want. Right. Okay, we can't afford that. You know what? Forget the music budget. We're going to stick with whatever's in the public domain.

46:23Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three months,$90 for six months, or$180 for a 12-month plan required. $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. New customer offer for initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. See terms.

46:41The White House's new AI-powered website launched yesterday apparently needed a tune-up for telling the truth. Initially, America.gov answered one of the president's least favorite questions correctly. When asked if there was widespread election fraud in 2020 yesterday, the answer was no and that Joe Biden won. But earlier today, it said that it couldn't answer those types of questions. Now we just looked and it seems to be back to Joe Biden winning. This is actually an interesting exercise in what AI is and what it isn't. And I think part of it is that AI can be whatever you want it to be. It can tell you the truth.

47:22It can say, we can't answer political questions. Sorry. And the White House is learning that the hard way, depending on how you program it. Yeah, it's choose your own adventure. And it's pretty funny, considering that this has been obviously one of Donald Trump's main talking points. And he was touting this as this wonderful advancement. And it is, in this case, actually saying a true thing, which is that obviously Joe Biden didn't win the election. It's embarrassing for him. But in this case, AI is not wrong. I think it's embarrassing. Look, I think this is a huge win for the president. It's one of the most impressive things that we've seen from government in quite some time.

47:56You have the smartest people in Silicon Valley making AI accessible to people. The goal is to be able to get a passport online. That's a huge advancement for a government where the IRS can only be reached by trying to send them a letter. I mean, this is an incredible advancement and something that should be celebrated. And I think if anything, the bottom line is we should be glad that these resources are accessible for people and that the chatbot isn't being overly political. Can we just give him a win? Can we just celebrate one accomplishment that we have for America? I think people just want the chatbot to consistently tell them factual information.

48:32Why would you be going to the chatbot to ask that? You're supposed to go to ask about the parks and filing taxes and all kinds of things. You've got dozens of Trump judicial nominees not answering the question, who won the 2020 election? They give this humiliating, tired statement of Joseph Biden was certified as the 2020 election winner. No, it's not. At least AI has the ability to say what actually happened versus judicial nominees and Trump appointees in front of the Senate who deny reality and deny what we all saw with our own eyes. This is America.gov. This is the official website of the United States of America.

49:07And you should be able to get honest, reliable answers. Now, I saw the report from Daniel Dale from CNN earlier today that he got different answers. I checked yesterday and I checked today. I got the exact same answer. So I did not see the inconsistency. But having said that, I still feel that there is reason for concern with people like Donald Trump and the Trump administration making these decisions. because I don't have a great deal. Well, I don't have a great deal. Giving people information about how to apply for a job. No, it's not. Again, you keep minimizing what this site is about. It's about everything that's in.

49:41All the information about the United States government is accessible. Census information, data about presidential elections, it's all there. And I think it does a disservice when we have a president who has a history of manipulating the truth. And so it causes people to have lack of trust and faith in the system. And I think that's the biggest danger here. It's not just about the system. It's not just about this website. It's about Donald Trump consistently undermining the credibility of the United States government. It actually is about the website that's making resources accessible to people.

50:10I think it's good. Look, I think it's good that the website tells the truth about whatever the question is, and particularly something as simple as who won the last election. That's good. It probably will make the president mad, but it is telling the truth. Well, if you ask it, it links to what's in the National Archives. So it's accessing what's already available in the government. I just typed in how to get a passport and how to file my taxes, and it laid out in very user-friendly terms exactly how to do both things. I suspect that's how most people interact with the federal government, so it sounds like a win to me.

50:44Yeah, I mean, look, I think what they're trying to do to consolidate services in one place and make it easier for people to access them, that is a good thing. One caveat, this website is not fully up and running. I think some of this is aspirational. They haven't actually put it. It's better than healthcare.gov. Well, I mean, you can say that. But I mean, one of the things is that they link back to resources in previous government websites. I like the aspiration, though. And I think that, yes, in the 21st century, the government should work a little bit better on the technology side. To work because they have, in the administration, gutted the staffing of the IRS, the Social Security Administration.

51:25There's nobody there to answer the phones. There's nobody to answer these questions. Whether AI replacing live bodies is a good thing, that's an open question, I think. All right, everyone, stick around. We are doing a special two hours. Let's roll the open. Tonight, is Pete Hegseth draining the military of experience? I call it accountability and long overdue. You can't change a culture with the same people who enabled it. During a war? Why a fifth of military leadership is getting cut. Plus, as the economy grew at a faster pace than expected, Republicans sound the alarm on high prices. Why are we voting on protecting college sports?

52:04What does that have to do with affordability? Also, the attorney general defends speaking at political rallies. I'm not in any way violating any rule or law. And, turns out, Jerome Powell did not break the law with renovations at the Fed, as Donald Trump brags about his. I'm thrilled to welcome you to the great White House where I spend a lot of time fixing it. Live at the table, Scott Jennings, Keith Boykin, Lauren Wright, Lulu Garcia Navarro, and Scott McFarlane. Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here they do.

52:53Our number two. Thank you very much for joining us tonight. Seven months into a war with no clear end in sight, Pete Hegseth is announcing that the U.S. military will cut 20 percent of its top generals and admirals. Speaking to junior and non-commissioned officers at the Marine Corps base in Quantico, Hegseth reiterated his vision for the military in a state-of-the-force address. 20 % reduction across the board. Now, the media calls that a purge. I call it accountability and long overdue. We are no longer the woke department or the weak department. Simple translation of that? No fatties, no trannies, no beardos, no weirdos, no wimps, no radicals.

53:42Just warriors. The ideological clowns are out. The patriotic cowboys are in with testosterone testing on top. A bipartisan group of lawmakers is raising concerns about those cuts that he talked about. Listen. I think we need to take a hard look at it and whatever is done there. And I'm not sure exactly where we're going to go with this. We need to look at it and we need to be careful and it needs to be done right. I've done reductions in force. I've done management reviews before. There's a right way and a wrong way to do it. And quite honestly, Hexeth hasn't impressed me with his ability to go about it.

54:25His announcement will make America less safe and will make us less prepared. Before we open it up to the table here, once again, we invite you at home to join the debate. Go to CNN.com slash Abby. Weigh in there. We'll get to some of your comments as we go throughout the show. Those lines from Hegseth at the top there almost sound like an SNL skit, except that they are real. From the head of the Pentagon. And I do think it is actually what concerns some of the lawmakers and some of the retired military folks who talk about this. It's not just the number. It's the targeting of certain groups of people based on whatever his ideology is.

55:13Well, the number is entirely different from the groups of people. Now, look, I'm someone who happens to think if you're willing to die for the United States of America, I don't really care what you look like or what you do. I'm not a military readiness expert, but that's just what I believe. These numbers, the 20 percent cuts are below exactly what the Obama administration proposed in 2017, which was 22 percent cuts in military leadership. Democrats at the time called it fiscally responsible. Biden cut 9.8 percent of military leadership in a very similar fashion. Democrats were not up in arms about that.

55:49So I would just ask, where are the cuts supposed to come from that Democrats are calling for for the last 50 years, if not from perhaps a top heavy role in general? You're saying it's in a similar fashion, but I think that is the issue. Let me play. No, it's similar. No. What do you mean by similar? Because you're saying that it's being done the same way. There's no evidence of that. No, there is evidence of that. It's a goal of a percentage cut. Yeah, but how are they determining who is going to be cut? They did a top level cut, admirals and generals, 10 percent to start in 2017. Yeah, but who determines who are the individuals?

56:28I'm not talking about just the percentage. I'm talking about the individuals. Who is in the 10 percent? How do they determine that? That's why I'm saying it. I don't know that you can say that it's being done the same way. It's usually one to four star rank generals that are being paid usually on average two to three hundred thousand dollars. And how are they chosen? Huge savings. How are they chosen? I don't know. Well, that's what I'm saying. You don't know. But you're saying that it's being done the same way. I'm suggesting not know. I'm suggesting that you don't actually know. administration.

57:01You don't actually know that it's being done the same way. And the reason I'm bringing this up, former Major General Randy Manor talked about this. He also agreed that the cut in and of itself is not the problem here. Listen. The concept of reducing the number of admirals and generals is a good one. The problem is that the Secretary of Defense has already proven that he's trying to purge the military, already fired 80 people, 80 generals and admirals. And because of their gender, because of their, they're not white like him, or because they were associated with General Milley or others, incredibly competent generals, and he's getting rid of them.

57:45Do you have any concerns about now being the right time to cut senior military positions, given the fact that the U.S. is engaged in an active war with Iran? This is just unbelievable and it's sophomoric. This incompetent Secretary of Defense is actually dealing with not the profitability of a corporation but is instead playing Russian roulette with the security of the United States. This is extremely dangerous. He has a track record of purging people not based on their performance, not based on what they know, not based on what skills they bring. He has purged people who were in the middle of reforming the military in some really key important ways when it came to drones, etc.

58:33That's part of the reason there is bipartisan concern about this and not to mention has purged black officers, women officers in disproportionate numbers. But we don't know that's what he's doing this time, to be fair. I hope he's not. I share the concern. Okay, well, we know that that is what he has done. We have no evidence that's what he's doing. I'm one who has long believed that the military is bloated. I think that there's a need to make cuts. And so I don't necessarily have a problem with a 20 % reduction, as long as it's done the right way. And I don't trust Pete Hicks to do it the right way.

59:08One of the reasons I don't trust him to do it the right way is because of the history of what we just saw before, The fact that black officers and women officers have been the first, we're often said we're the last hired, first fired. We're the ones who are being disproportionately affected by the cuts. Secondly, those comments that he made at the top of the hour, those were outrageously offensive comments. The idea that you're going to make all these statements about you don't want these weirdos and people who are fat and people who don't fit in your political perspectives. He talks about we don't want any more ideological clowns.

59:39Pete Hegseth is the ideological clown. He's waging a culture war at the Pentagon instead of doing the job of what the defense secretary is supposed to do is to protect the country. He's not concerned about that. He's more concerned about doing Donald Trump's bidding. And I think that's disgusting that he's even able to get away with that. That's the reason we can't trust him to make those cuts. So there seems to be some agreement that there is bureaucratic bloat at the Pentagon, bipartisan agreement. And I interviewed him last year and he was talking about the fact that we needed fewer top heavy commands and more beefing up of the middle level warfighter positions.

1:00:17It seems like he's moving on that. So that's a good thing. We've had massive force reduction since the end of the Cold War, but we haven't seen corresponding reductions at the top layer. So I think the policy is actually correct. What I'm hearing from the retired major general that we played and from Keith and others is they just hate Pete Hegseth. So whether he decided to reduce the force at the top levels of the Pentagon or whether he decided to change the lunch menu in the mess, you would be upset about it because you hate and don't trust Pete Hegseth. That's a political question which we sort out in elections.

1:00:49And the commander in chief and the civilian led army appointed Pete Hegseth to run it. And that's the policy they are pursuing. You could run against it in 2028. That's a legitimate political debate. But right now, the duly elected commander in chief and his duly appointed secretary of war are making policy decisions because of an election that the American people held two years ago. Pete Hegseth hates people like me. That's the problem. It's not that I hate him. Pete Hegseth has a record, a history of saying inflammatory things directed at people like me. My family is from the military. My great-grandfather served in the Harlem Hellfighters in World War I in the 1900s, early 1900s.

1:01:28And I know that Pete Hegseth doesn't even understand the history of the military that he's supposed to be running. The fact that Harry Truman in 1948 signed an executive order to desegregate the armed forces. And that history is about making sure the military was the place where the best people could rise to the top. Not what who cared about what they look like. We didn't care about that. We cared about could they or they competent to do the job. Pete Hexth doesn't understand it because he's busy waging this stupid culture war that has nothing to do with the readiness of the military. Well, just to be clear, Pete Hexth did serve in the military and he's highly decorated.

1:02:00He served overseas in defense of our country. So to say he doesn't understand how the military works, he served on the front lines of our wars. I don't care that he served or not served. The question is, what did he learn in his service? And clearly he didn't understand the values of the American military and the American government. And in our system, in our military, the military is supposed to be representative of the American people. It's not supposed to be some sort of political experience for the right-wing government to decide that we're going to get rid of black people and women because we don't like them.

1:02:27One of the other big things that he announced today was this Office of Religious Affairs. And again, as with a lot of things that Pete Hegseth does, it's not just the what, it's the how. Listen to this. Today at my direction, I'm establishing the Office of Religious Affairs. Starting today and for secretaries of war after me, the Office of Religious Affairs will report straight to the top. As Psalm 3312 extols us. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. We're placing spiritual health at the same level as physical health. Our department is, you might say, putting on the full armor of God. Because while we wage physical war, we all know the real battle is spiritual.

1:03:16God is good. Evil is not. And America's military must understand the difference. So we're doing religious wars now, I guess. Yeah, for a lot of my career I covered conflicts and I'm very familiar with the U.S. military. Chaplains are very commonly used in the military and it is a core part of what the military does. Also because they are there to sort of give last rites, to give spiritual support. However, they're not just Christians, right, or from any particular denomination. There are also those who are there from other faiths to provide that service. It is a spiritual service as opposed to a denominational or Christian service.

1:04:10And I think that is the worrying trend here. There is, again, supposed to be an idea that the military occupies a space in which it does not matter what you look like. It does not matter what God you do or do not pray for to. you are there to serve your country. And that has been actually incredibly sacred. I have seen it on the front lines. I have seen soldiers die in front of me. And I have seen what chaplains do. And the idea that you are now trying to have this become a holy war goes against everything that I have seen the U.S. military do on the front lines. I guess that's the thing. You know, there are so many service members of faith, of all kinds of different faiths, right?

1:04:57And it would be one thing if he said, we are going to do exactly that. We're going to have this office report up to me. And he left it there. But he included his personal faith as the guiding principle for it, which is what gives away, you know, the game here. I think Hexa thinks that he is being slick with some of this stuff, but it's out there in the open. He wants his view of it. He brought his far right pastor to the Pentagon to do a service. That's the problem. It's not the idea of faith in the military, which, as Lulu very eloquently pointed out, is a part of the fabric of the United States military.

1:05:46And also just a shout out to the law enforcement chaplains as well, doing incredible work for no pay in their free time. Scott's right. There's going to be a referendum on this in 2028. We can litigate this then. But first, it could be sooner because it's going to be this year. They might actually look, there was an attempt to impeach. That's why the U.S. House is gone ago, because they don't want to stand for a vote. It could be a lot sooner. He barely got through the Senate. So, yeah. And there's also, being on the campaign trail, I was in Pennsylvania, New York, Virginia, and en route to Ohio, not seeing those frontline Republicans getting behind Pete Hegseth or using Pete Hegseth in his positions as a surrogate.

1:06:28And Democrats are making a lot of hay criticizing Pete Hegseth. They think the public's on their side, that the public is turning against whatever Pete Hegseth is offering. That's what either their research is showing them, their door knocking is showing them, but they believe America is splitting with what they just saw today. I also don't like Pete Hegseth. Let me just go on the record. He would not have been my first choice. But neither one of these ideas, either streamlining the relationship between military members, chaplains, and him, nor the across-the-board cuts are controversial or unprecedented.

1:06:58Well, but that's why I... Utterly unprecedented. What he just got... But hold on. That's exactly why I... That's what he said is. I'm saying the policies are not. Right. I made that exact point. The policy in and of itself, if he leaves it at that, it's probably fine. But he doesn't leave it at that, Warren. I mean, he goes much further. And that's what makes him controversial. And the biggest concern is Christian nationalism. Can we just say the word here? I mean, what this is all feeding into is this idea that what we will have is a sort of theocratic government in which there is no separation between church and state and that the church is the church defined by whatever Pete Hegseth's personal religious beliefs are.

1:07:46And that, I don't think, should be the defining characteristic of what the U.S. military is. Certainly not at a time when we are at war with a theocratic regime in Iran. I mean, the whole idea that we are going to put up one theocratic vision for a war up against another is not actually what America is about on the world stage. We don't go to war because of religion. We go to war for American values. And Pete Hexeth is, he is saying the opposite of that. Well, I disagree with that characterization. I just wanted to second throw something that Lulu said. What characterization? He's not proposing Christian nationalism.

1:08:25He's not proposing that a church run the U.S. military. That's not what he's proposing at all. That's not what I said. From the beginning of the country, from George Washington on down, You've had commanders-in-chief and military leaders pray to God for success in battle and protection for the troops. But we did not go to war on the premise that we were a part of a holy crusade. That is not how we have gone to war. Scott, you know that. I agree, and I'm saying we're not at war right now because of that, although we are at war with radical Islamic terrorism. But Pete Hexeth has described it that way.

1:09:00I disagree with that characterization. He has. I mean, he actually has. He's appealing to his faith, which is what military and civilian government leaders have done since the beginning of the country. I did just want to second something Lulu said, though, about the fabric of our faith being tied in with the U.S. military. I went to France this summer and visited the military battlefields at Normandy and at the Meuse-Argonne, which is actually the biggest military site. And I watched volunteers change out crosses for Stars of David because they had painstakingly gone back through the records to make sure that every soldier in those cemeteries was buried under the correct marker of their faith.

1:09:41And so when Lulu talks about the chaplains and the work that goes into making sure that soldiers and their families are respected in their faith wishes, to me, that speaks to exactly the role that faith plays in our soldiers that go off to fight these battles. And I was incredibly moved by that. And I think it's part of who we are as Americans for 250 years. That's a nice speech. No, I appreciate that. But that's not what Pete Hexeth is doing. Pete Hexth is using a particular religion and weaponizing that religion against those who disbelieve. He's using that against, if you're a Muslim, if you're an atheist, if you're Hindu or maybe even Jewish, Pete Hexth isn't talking to you.

1:10:22He's talking to Christians, to Christian Americans who he thinks deserve to be in the United States Armed Forces. That's inappropriate for the Secretary of Defense to do that. That's what's so alarming about this. Yes, you can talk about your faith. People have done that in our country. Defense secretaries, presidents, others have done that. Nobody has a problem with that. But to use your faith as a cudgel, as a weapon to attack people and to try to separate yourself from others is offensive to what America is all about. All right, we'll leave it there. Next for us. Despite the economy growing faster than expected, Republican senators are sounding the alarm on the affordability issue.

1:10:58Plus, the attorney general defends speaking at political rallies. We'll debate what he said next.

1:11:34We'll be right back. Alarm license information.

1:11:41Tonight, two new headlines about the state of the economy. The GDP growth is 2.2 % in the second quarter. That's higher than what was expected, and it was largely driven by AI spending. Also, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge rose less than experts thought it would, but it still remained high, and that could possibly delay another interest rate hike until after the midterms. But personal spending is outpacing income growth. That suggests Americans are dipping into their savings to make ends meet in this moment. And despite President Trump repeatedly saying that America is in this golden age, 72 percent of Americans say that the condition of the economy is poor.

1:12:21More and more Republicans on the campaign trail are breaking with the president over high prices that are caused largely by the Iran war. Now, some Senate Republicans are frustrated lawmakers. They haven't addressed the affordability issue. Listen. Right now, working people in my state, they need some help. And I think you look back to the State of the Union. The president put out all of these proposals. I just named a couple of them. What of those has Congress enacted? None. But you guys control Congress. Exactly. There was a bit of confusion about this whole, why are we voting on protecting college sports?

1:13:00What does that have to do with affordability of anything in Alaska? We're continuing to see escalating costs when it comes to oil, fuel, diesel, fertilizer, because the war in Iran. We haven't seen much action from the administration in terms of addressing that. And as a quick reminder, Congress is leaving D.C. for the next five weeks and won't be back until after the midterms. And they're leaving because they've got a campaign. And they've got a campaign in an environment in which the macroeconomic numbers might look one way, but their personal economy looks another way. When the White House seemingly ignores that, that doesn't seem to help Republicans.

1:13:53So how should they be adjusting their message in this moment? Well, it's not incorrect for the White House and the administration to point out that the economy is actually what Trump said it was going to be, and Bessent 2. They said it was going to boom in 2026. That's exactly what's happening. We have growth. We have businesses investing in expansion. We have people finding jobs. I mean, we have all sorts of indicators showing us that this economy is, in fact, red hot. So they should be talking about that. But that doesn't cover up what the day-to-day affordability questions are of the American people.

1:14:28And you have to address those issues as well. And, you know, you can have a debate about which party would make it better. I mean, most of the price increases that people are mad about happen under Democratic rule. And Democrats all voted against tax cuts just last summer. And most Democrats have said they would repeal those tax cuts if they were handed power. So there's a debate to be had here on a couple of fronts. But you cannot deny the economic indicators. Trump and Besson said, follow us and this economy will boom. Private payrolls are expanding. Government payrolls are shrinking. The economy is on fire.

1:14:59And the way you get out of some of these things is growth. And that's what we have right now. He promised he would eliminate the national debt some time ago. We have$40 trillion in debt. He promised that he was going to keep us out of all these wars. is we have now$38 billion we spent on this war. He promised he's going to help make homes more affordable. We're paying 7 % mortgages right now. He said he's going to keep gas prices lower,$6.50 a gallon for diesel,$4.50 for regular unleaded. This is a guy who continued to make promises to the American people about the economy that he hasn't fulfilled.

1:15:33So, yeah, if the Republicans want to go to the midterms and say everything is great and rosy, good luck with that message in November. But what solutions to those problems do Democrats have? One thing, you don't start a war with a country that didn't attack us. Okay, so it's all things. Undo what Trump did. Trump is the president of the United States. He started a war with Iran that has caused the gas prices to go up to$6.50 a gallon for diesel,$4.50 for regular oil. You can't blame Biden and Obama for the gas prices under Donald Trump. I could blame Democrats for environmental regulations that drive up gas prices.

1:16:07Donald Trump is responsible for the$6.50 a gallon diesel and$4.50 a gallon regular oil gas prices. I'll tell you exactly how bad it is. If oil stays at$120 a barrel, we're going to lose like a point and a half GDP growth. That's the worst case scenario. I think because of the tariffs, we've lost a point of GDP growth. I agree with you on Trump policies making things worse. I'm asking what Democrats would do to lower prices. Well, I think one of the things that Democrats talked about, first of all, is you have to make sure that you make things more affordable. How? How do you make things more affordable?

1:16:38Well, one of the things you do is you make sure the housing is more affordable. and you had a housing plan. Donald Trump would not sign the housing bill just a few months ago. It's law. It's law. He wouldn't sign it, though. Donald Trump wouldn't sign the housing bill. That doesn't help your argument. First of all, you make sure that people have a higher take-home income. That helps for people. But you don't get that when the president's party is against the ideas of actually raising incomes. They've been opposed to that for a long time. You have to take steps. Incomes are rising, Keith. Take-home pay is rising.

1:17:14It's never been a better time to be a non-college-educated worker in America. I mean, income is rising. Tell that to the American workers who are paying more for their prices. Beef prices are at record highs now. You said Republicans were against rising income. I'm just saying the data shows that income is rising. I didn't say they were against rising income. I said they were helping to raise incomes because they were opposed to the minimum wage increase. The minimum wage has been flat at$7.25. She asked you a simple question. What bill would the Democrats have? I want to know the mechanics of the lower prices and the cheaper housing.

1:17:45And the answer, I think, is there's not much there. One of the bills, well, several things I said. One of the bills they passed was the housing bill, which was passed over the objection of the president of the United States. One of the issues that we've been talking about for a long time is how do you make the gas prices lower? You do that by getting out of this war, which people have been talking about. That's one of the big issues that people are talking about. You don't put on these tariffs that are making workers and consumers pay more for their goods. Those are three substantive things that would help.

1:18:14Would you build an oil refinery? Would you build an oil refinery? Oil refineries aren't going to reduce the cost of gasoline right now. That's how we make more supplies. It sounds like it's tax and spend. It's tax and spend. It's been the Democrats' answer for the last 50 years. And they need some new proposals. One of the interesting things about this moment is that even if you're right, maybe you are right, voters now increasingly trust Democrats on the economy over Trump. One of the biggest issues, Lulu, is this disconnect between this AI-fueled economy and what people are experiencing. the consumption and AI CapEx, according to Heather Long at Navy Federal Credit Union, their chief economist, is what's driving this economy.

1:19:02The AI boom has pushed the economy in 2025 and 2026 from okay to strong. All right. You saw the president this week flanked by all these guys who are driving that AI economy. Politics is about the numbers, but it's also about whether people think you're on their side. And I wonder if people look at that and they say, is he really on our side or is he on their side? I mean, the problem that President Trump has with the AI economy, and I do think that that is actually an accurate description, is that first of all, the reason that he is all in on AI is because it is helping to fuel the economy. But the flip side of that message is, oh, and it's going to take all your jobs.

1:19:42And so if you look at college grads, if you look at young people, they are really struggling to find employment. If you look at older Americans, specifically women, specifically people of color, they are struggling to hold on to their jobs if they lose them. And so there are big pockets of American society that are left out of this economy. Now, that has always been true. The American economy has always been unequal. But we are in a decidedly very unequal phase. And of course, the Democrats, their proposal have been about taxing the very wealthy. And you can debate that. And Republicans have a different sort of idea that basically the economy will lift all boats if it just gets heated up enough.

1:20:26Frankly, neither of those have really helped regular people get ahead. And I think if you look at anyone's credit card bills, people are living off of credit now. These are the indicators that actually are very worrying because people are getting into debt just to be able to afford the basics. And that eventually is going to come and bite, you know, the economy writ large. And it's going to stop people spending. 14 year low in consumer confidence. I don't think consumers really trust this AI top heavy economic growth we're seeing. Doesn't mean it's a bad thing that there's economic growth coming from the AI sector, but I don't think people feel it.

1:21:06There's another crisis that's forming. It speaks to your point about taxing and spending. I understand that criticism. There's a crisis at the nation's food banks, fueled by three things. Food prices are soaring, obviously, that makes life harder. More people need the food donations, and the food donations are harder to procure. The diesel prices makes it harder to transport the food, so they're taking it on the chin that way. Third thing is the cuts that are coming, effective in the coming days, to nutritional assistance programs and to Medicaid. Now, I think Democrats would make the argument we may not be able to make the food more affordable, but perhaps we can use some of our resources towards nutritional assistance for families to make this less painful for them rather than perhaps...

1:21:45I'm with you on the diesel, by the way, from my left of center friends at the table. Does anybody here support building a single oil refinery so we can actually increase diesel supply? Because it doesn't just come out of the ground and go right into the trucks. It has to be refined. We've seen a reduction in refining capacity here because that's what Democrats have wanted. We've also seen it impacted by Russia, Ukraine. Would you anybody here support building a single oil refinery to make more diesel? Is some of the consideration as to where you do it domestically or whether you do it domestically at all?

1:22:16I'm talking about in the United States, what a policymaker would do if you were, say, governor of California or if you were governor of anything. Would you say, you know what, we could help out the world if we got on top of building an oil refinery? Does anybody say yes? Right in this moment, even if we built a diesel refinery tomorrow, that's not really what has caused diesel prices to skyrocket. Oh, it's a big part of it, Eddie. Well, no, not in the last. I mean, OK, the refineries we have today are probably the refineries that we had a few months ago. Well, it's also Russia, Ukraine. Exactly.

1:22:55That's my point. My point is that domestic refining capacity would be good, right? Scott, is our refining capacity the same today as it was a few months ago when diesel was cheaper? Our refining capacity has been reduced over the last 20 years. Okay. Did you hear my question? I think we're shutting down our refinery right now, if I'm not mistaken. Is our refining capacity today what it was a few months ago? Yes. The answer is yes. I mean, probably roughly, but I'm looking at it over 20 years. We've reduced refining capacity. That's not really what's causing the prediction. So your answer is no, no more refining?

1:23:24I didn't say anything about that. I'm just saying that's not what's causing the problem that we're in. Refining capacity is causing diesel prices to be high. No, it is not. It's not. The diesel prices doubling in the last few months is not being caused by refining capacity. We don't have refining capacity. It's been massively reduced. That is just not true. Every major economist will tell you this is true. Let me ask you a fourth time. Is our refining capacity today what it was a few months ago? I don't really know. I assume it's roughly the same. So then how can you claim that our lack of refining capacity has caused diesel to go up?

1:23:55Oh, global refining has been reduced mostly because of Russia, Ukraine. You can just let go of the bad argument. It's not a good argument. You could let go of the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about. We have had massive reductions in refining in this world. Russia, Ukraine alone has taken refineries offline. You just acknowledge that there are global forces driving the rise of diesel prices. It's not something that was impacted by a lack of refineries in the last three months. It's just a false argument. I'm asking if in the United States we refined more, would we be less impacted by international events?

1:24:31Even if we built a refinery tomorrow, these are global markets. Oil and gas are global markets. We are going to be impacted, maybe to a slightly lesser degree, but they are global markets. And that's why how we conduct ourselves on the world stage, the war in Iran, the war in Ukraine, these things actually matter. And that's actually why people are pissed off, because they don't believe that President Trump's leadership on those issues. So only one taker on refineries? Well, you've got to take her on refineries. I will say, I think what I was saying is the starting price. Honestly, it's a silly argument, and it's not even true.

1:25:07It's a silly argument, and it's not even true that the rise in diesel prices was driven by a lack of refineries. It is not, that is not the reason. Are you arguing that the Russia-Ukraine war hasn't knocked offline a bunch of refineries? That's where a lot of it comes from. Scott. It's absolutely true. Scott, the last six months? During the course of this war. And by the way, as Ukraine has pressed further into Russia, they have absolutely hit refineries. Scott, I'm talking about domestic refineries. You are arguing that a lack of domestic refineries led to a rise in the oil and gas. I'm saying we absolutely don't have enough refining capacity.

1:25:43We should build more refineries. What you're saying is not true. Yes, exactly. What you're saying is not true. Long term and short term. Yeah. Yeah, you're arguing about six months. I'm arguing that Democrats have argued against domestic energy forever. And now you want me to trust them on gas prices. I'm arguing about what people are experiencing right now. Eight months ago, diesel prices were not at this level. And Americans are mad because today they are dramatically higher. That's why they're upset. And I think it's bigger than just the diesel prices, which are at a record high, by the way.

1:26:12But it's a whole combination of issues. I think you were mentioning something about the global market, and you were mentioning something about AI and the data centers. What people see when they look at the president is they see somebody who's obsessed with building a ballroom, who's obsessed with the reflecting pool. They don't see somebody who's focused on their issues. And then when you have him come and bring a bunch of billionaires and one trillionaire into the White House and to tell people, just suck it up if you lose your job. When people are clearly against data centers, and he's encouraging more and more of them.

1:26:43I don't care if it is economically wise to do either of these things. It's clearly not politically wise for them to do that. And I don't think it's economically wise either. I think it's best to have a president who actually cares about what the American people are concerned about. All right. Next for us. Should the attorney general and his cabinet members be speaking at campaign rallies? Todd Blanche defends himself on that point. We'll debate that next.

1:27:11This holiday, all plans, even unlimited, are just$15 a month. A holiday deal this good obviously deserves an enormously expensive holiday song, like All I Want. Right. Okay, we can afford that. You know what? Forget the music budget. We're going to stick with whatever's in the public domain. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three months,$90 for six months, or$180 for a 12-month plan required,$15 per month equivalent, taxes and fees extra. New customer offer for initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. See terms.

1:27:44Attorney General Todd Blanche is defending his appearances at recent political events. Earlier this month, Blanche delivered remarks at the Republican Midterm Convention. He also spoke at campaign rallies for GOP candidates in North Carolina and New York. But as Blanche blurs this line between politics and policy, he says he's not doing anything wrong. I'm not in any way violating any rule or law. I go and I talk about how great it is that we're bringing crime down, that how great it is, the great things this president's doing. If Democrats want me to come and speak at their rally, they can just give me a call.

1:28:20I am allowed to go and support administrative priorities in my personal capacity. Scott McFarlane, you've covered D.O.J. for a long time. What do you make of this? I covered Attorney General Todd Blanche. He is not breaking a rule or a statute. I don't think anybody's accusing him of breaking a rule or a statute. I think that's a straw man argument he's making. He's breaking generations of political independence that's been built slowly and steadily by the Department of Justice, where you don't have attorneys general giving campaign speeches because it can make you look like a political actor, at least give you that optic.

1:28:56And what does that do? It damages the trustworthiness of the agency, including its prosecutors, with things like, you know, grand jurors, trial jurors, judges. is you look like a political actor. You'll want to avoid those optics. I totally agree with you. Would you say the same about Eric Holder? So the accusation Todd Blanche has made is that the Biden administration Department of Justice was weaponized. He made that argument in recent days, too. I didn't see Merrick Garland on a campaign trail. I did see Todd Blanche celebrating the pardons of cop beaters from January 6th, saying he was part of supporting those pardons.

1:29:28And I see Todd Blanche stand as a matador watching January 6th defendants line up for taxpayer-funded payouts. So I think the tool of being a weaponized Department of Justice is one he's wielding while he's accusing others of doing the same. This bothers me when Todd Blanche does it. I think it's dumb and people don't like him, and I don't think it politically. Like, he's not useful at any rally to any candidate. But it also bothered me when Eric Holder gave very partisan speeches at the National Action Network at Al Sharpton's organization. As Attorney General? Yes, every single year. But that's not a campaign event.

1:30:07That's not going to a political campaign. Yes, but the content of the speeches was highly partisan. But that's not what he said that was partisan. But hold on, but it's actually a complete apples and oranges situation. It's not a political campaign event. Yeah, it's not a political campaign. Yes, but I think that that was the precedent that is relevant, and I thought it was bad. I mean, I don't think that, I actually don't think that's the precedent. The president is not attorneys general speaking at like ideologically aligned groups, which I think does. I mean, no, I think it does happen. I mean, it just depends on what you describe as an ideologically aligned group.

1:30:47It was. It might depend on your definition of that. But the National Action Network is a civil rights organization. So they literally paid an FEC fine for donating to Al Sharpton's 2004 presidential campaign. Like they are a highly partisan organization. Pam Bindy gave the concept of$25 ,000 donation to Donald Trump. Hold on. Let's just be consistent. Okay, let's just be honest. I mean, 2004, they paid the fine. It is Al Sharpton's organization. So, yes, that was wrong. They paid the fine for doing it. But you can see the argument if you're an attorney general speaking in front of a civil rights organization.

1:31:25That's different from a campaign rally. It's different from a political event. It's different from campaigning for particular candidates. That's the difference. It completely is. And he spoke at the midterm convention, I think, right? Yeah. That's extraordinary. Now he's going out offering himself to go speak at different campaign events for candidates who are running for office currently. Meanwhile, his Justice Department is responsible for potentially investigating these people if they should come up for charges or something like that. I was in Washington, D.C. a few weeks ago. I just saw this for the first time.

1:31:54I drove by the Justice Department. I saw that huge banner of Donald Trump, the convicted criminal, on the Justice Department. With a spotlight emanating up to it from the ground. Shocking that the man who was convicted of a crime tried to overthrow our government and now is the President of the United States overseeing investigations, telling the prosecutors who they should prosecute and who they should not prosecute, has this picture up there. I've never seen anything like this. And the problem is, you're right. No president and attorney general should ever have this relationship. And whether it's Eric Holder or anybody, I don't think Eric Holder ever did that.

1:32:27But the problem with Donald Trump is that he consistently blurs the lines. And he has people around him who are willing to consistently blur the line. The reason why we don't have trust in the government on anything is because Donald Trump creates the seeds of distrust in everything he does. If he would just depoliticize the government for once, then maybe we could actually restore faith in our country. Then how did he get elected in 2024 after two impeachments, disgraced after he tried to stay in office after losing the 2020 election? People were so mad at the ineptness of Biden and the Democrats that they put that guy back in.

1:33:05And that should be very telling. I'm not going to comment on how he got elected, but I can tell you this. Right now, he is the most unpopular president in modern American history. Yes, I agree. Because they see what a mistake he was. So one of the other, I mean, the reason that Todd Blanchard was speaking today is because he was going after some judges that he claimed, Minnesota, that he claimed were essentially engaging in misconduct. So these judges had spoken out about judicial independence. They had spoken out about DOJ violating their court orders. I want to play what he said about that idea that DOJ hasn't been following the orders of the court.

1:33:46Listen. I'm allowed to get really fired up when, for example, judges in Minnesota complain about us violating court orders. But the reason why that we are, quote, violating court orders is because these judges are violating Supreme Court law. OK, in allowing these cases to be filed. So he's acknowledging that they are violating the court orders. I mean, why does he get to decide which courts he listens to and which courts he doesn't? Well, he would say we're listening to the Supreme Court and that these individual federal district judges aren't following Supreme Court. I mean, that would be their argument, and that's why I assume he's out making speeches.

1:34:29I think this question of him campaigning is interesting. You know, back during the Bush years when I worked there, we actually didn't have the AG or any of the work cabinet go out and do anything political. So DOD, Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of State, we segregated them from any political activity. You know, the thing about this Trump administration, though, is one of their best arguments, and I think one of their best accomplishments, is the historic 100-year drop in crime. And who better to tell the American people about that than the Attorney General? We have crime at all times, 100-year lows, violent crime.

1:35:02We have convicted criminals that President of the United States. We have violent crime at 100-year lows. And so we have some success stories out there, say, the city of Memphis, Tennessee, where the feds, the state and the locals, Republicans and Democrats have worked together to effectively clean up downtown Memphis and make it so you can walk around again. So part of what he would be doing out there, whether it's at a campaign event or anything else, is telling the American people, here are the policies that led to these drops in violent crime. And we wouldn't want to reduce those. Why is he doing it at campaign events?

1:35:31I mean, he has the podium. He could speak to the American people at any time. You could sit down with journalists like me at any time. There's an offer. But, you know, there are many ways to impart that information, and I agree. It is totally within the remit to be able to do that. I think, again, the question is, where is he doing it, how is he doing it, and for whom is he doing it? And that is why. I have a question for you, Scott. I mean, you acknowledge that under Bush, this wasn't permitted by an internal policy. And historically, secretaries of state, secretaries of defense, attorneys general, stay off the campaign trail.

1:36:12Why was that for Bush? And why should it go away now? Well, in our case, I mean, I think we were at war. And we were fighting the global war on terror. And I think the decision was made that you didn't want the optics necessarily of those people going out and doing any political events when you wanted them spending all their time on the war. That's why I've seen Hexeth actually out doing a couple of campaign events. We're at war now, too. And I would not have deployed him. I know he went to a couple things in his personal capacity, and I think maybe he had a personal relationship with one of them.

1:36:42But we are at war. We have troops in theater. That one, to me, I wouldn't have done. Blanche, I'm more 50-50 on, but I love the idea of the law enforcement chief of the United States here, Todd Blanche, telling the American people how we achieved all these crime reductions. Why does he have to tell them that in a political context? To Lulu's point, you could easily just, yeah, I mean, actually, every AG does that. They have their priorities. They have things they want to talk to reporters about it. Let's stipulate it's even a politically neutral speech he's giving at a campaign event. There's a problem going on.

1:37:18They are getting rejected in their cases by grand juries over and over again. That is unheard of. There's a potential he's being viewed as a political actor, and the department has lost some trust with grand juries, not just in the District of Columbia. It's been happening in other communities across the country. This is why when I raised that issue about defying court orders and this conflict with the judiciary that Scott glossed over, that's that's a big deal. That is also not something that AGs typically do. They don't they don't go to war against the courts because their people have to go into those courtrooms every day and argue cases before judges who hold the fate of their cases in their hands.

1:37:58And it actually seems to put the men and women of DOJ in a bad spot, to be honest. I mean, we've seen that, as you mentioned, over and over again. And I think, you know, more broadly, there is this question of just the independence of the Department of Justice, which has always been not written down in any rulebook, but certainly something that has been pretty sacrosanct for precisely the reasons that I think we all understand, that because they are the chief law enforcement officer, they might have to prosecute all sorts of different people, people from your own party, people from another party, people who are criminals.

1:38:33You know, it doesn't matter. They are really part of the fabric of law and justice. And so they need to hold a position that is not part of the partisan scrum. But they are appointed by an elected political actor and they are confirmed by elected political actors. But that's the same. But that's the same. They do exist in the president's cabinet. Yeah, but that's the same. This is you know that this is part of the huge debate that's happening now, but that's the same issue at the Fed. Right. You can appoint people. It's the same thing at the Supreme Court. Oh, no, the D.R.J. and the Fed are two very different.

1:39:04No, it's the principle is the same, that, yes, you can appoint them. But once they get into that position, they are supposed to be outside of the pressure of politics. They didn't build this independence because they're Boy Scouts. They built this independence because it helps them have leverage with juries and judges and to be viewed as fair arbiters in courtrooms. That's what erodes when they become political actors, whether they intend to be or not. And there are 115 ,000 people at DOJ who mostly are sincerely committed to law enforcement. All right. Thank you very much for watching Newsnight tonight.

1:39:37You can stream my show live or watch on demand anytime with an all access subscription. Scan that QR code at the bottom of your screen or go to cnn.com slash watch to learn more. The news continues after this break.

1:40:12Right now, get 70 % off your new system with professional monitoring at simplisafe.com slash Spotify. Outdoor deterrence plans start at$49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com slash licenses for alarm license information. This holiday, all plans, even unlimited, are just$15 a month. A holiday deal this good obviously deserves an enormously expensive holiday song, like all I want. Right. Okay, we can afford that. You know what? Forget the music budget. We're going to stick with whatever's in the public domain. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Upfront payment of$45 for three months,$90 for six months, or$180 for a 12-month plan required.

1:40:45$15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. New customer offer for initial plan term only. Greater than 50 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. See terms.