Trump Orders DOJ to Block Results if His Candidate Loses

0:00When an intruder approaches a home, they expect a camera. What they don't expect... Stop. This is SimpliSafe. Police are on the way. Using smart AI cameras, live U.S.-based agents help deter intruders in under 30 seconds. Don't just record a break-in. Stop 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. You're listening to a quick ad.

0:31You know what else is quick? Selling your car on Carvana. Just put in your vehicle information and we'll give you an offer. Done. No hassle. No negotiation. No guy from an online listing lowballing you. Which means by the time I'm done explaining this, you could have basically done it.

0:53Still haven't started? Hey, better late than never. Sell your car today on Carvana. Pickup fees may apply. Tonight, it begins. The feds sue to block one state's election certification if the Republican loses. So, who ordered it? I'm the one that said do it. Plus, Donald Trump says tariffs are making America rich. So why is he walking them back to help Republican candidates? Also, day one, we need to be opening investigations into the heads of every single one of these agencies. Democrats are foreshadowing what happens if they get back power, while the president is doing the same. You veto, veto, veto, and then they come and they say, how do we get it done?

1:37And you make a deal. And as the world's richest person is reportedly making decisions about life and death in war, the man letting him do it reveals why. He's a very good person. He's not going to do anything. Live at the table, Katie Porter, Joe Borelli, Keith Boykin, Lauren A. Wright, and Niles Stanage. Americans with different perspectives aren't talking to each other, but here they do.

2:17Good evening. I'm Abby Phillip in New York. We begin with the breaking news. Tonight, just 11 days before the midterms, the president of the United States is putting his thumb on the electoral scale, seeking to block election results in the state of Alaska if his candidate narrowly loses. The Justice Department has filed a preemptive lawsuit in case incumbent Republican Senator Dan Sullivan loses his Senate race by a small enough margin due to what they're calling a spoiler candidate with a similar name. Trump wants a court to potentially delay the certification of the election if Senator Dan Sullivan were to lose, but would not have won without the votes cast for a challenger, Daniel J.

3:00Sullivan. Now, for months, Republicans have tried to get Daniel J. Sullivan off the ballot, going so far as to ask the state's Supreme Court. But that effort was ultimately unsuccessful. Trump took credit for the legal challenge, claiming the Democrats were behind the other Sullivan's candidacy. Listen. I'm the one that said do it. They have two guys around named Dan Sullivan running. So the Democrats put up a guy, never, I don't think he ever voted before. All of a sudden he decides to run for the Senate, and his name is Dan Sullivan. One is Daniel S., one is Daniel J. The Daniel J. is the fake.

3:40Before we open it up to the table here, we invite you at home to join the debate. Go to CNN.com slash Abby and weigh in there. We'll get to some of your comments throughout the show. President Trump very quickly taking credit for a DOJ action is its own story in and of itself, but also as we're coming on the air, Senator Lisa Murkowski, the other Republican senator from the state, says, Alaskans don't need any help voting for their preferred candidates. And the state of Alaska has already handled this by clearly distinguishing the candidates on this year's ballot. The Department of Justice should never have filed this lawsuit.

4:18Katie, what do you make of the Department of Justice doing something that, frankly, defies its own internal regulations. And I can't think of another precedent in which they've actually asked to not certify an election. No, it's unprecedented, but this lawsuit also may come to a very quick end. There is no legal basis for this lawsuit. They're relying on the preamble to the statute, which is not law. It's just garblygook that Congress says when we're doing something, it's not the actual law itself. So they're relying on the National Voter Registration Act. They do not have any statutory basis for this law.

4:56So it's very possible that as soon as it gets to a judge, it goes right, it's dismissed immediately. But the threat, I think, is the point. Now that we now we know, because yesterday on the show, we were talking about Todd Blanche made some comments. He was asked pointedly, Would you try to stop the certification of elections? And let me just play again what he said to that reporter who asked that question. Is there any scenario in which DOJ would weigh in on that certification process or try to block states? I mean, is there any scenario? Yes, of course, there's scenarios that we could all come up with hypothetically.

5:34You know, some doomsday scenario, for example. Right. So I don't think it's proper to to make any kind of conclusory statements about what's going to happen in the future, because I have no idea what's going to happen in the future. It is not DOJ's intention to and it's never our intention to improperly interfere with elections or the state confirmation process or certification process. But, you know, to say that there's no circumstances that we would ever do that, of course, I'm not going to say that. And here we are the very next day. I read that as a no. I really did. I mean, it's a much weaker answer than Trump would have preferred.

6:11That's for sure. I mean, he he he said, is there a scenario? Yes, of course. An imaginary scenario. But the scenario has to imagine some. I mean, the really interesting thing here is obviously it is a problem if candidates are impersonating a sitting senator in order to spoil an election. But there's really not a legal path here, either federally or state-wide. And he also isn't doing that. The man's name. Well, we don't really know that. We know what the man's name is. We don't know what the intention was. We know his name is Daniel J. Sullivan. And we have this kind of thing happen all of the time.

6:46When I ran in California, there was another Katie running in a Democratic district. We were not incumbents. We didn't have the same name recognition. And so the standard for this is very, very high for a reason, because it's trampling on people's rights to get on the ballot. So the Alaska Supreme Court, as you said, Abby, has already come to the conclusion that there's no problem here. They're demarcating the sitting senator with incumbent and Republican. And if you can't figure that out, it only is for the electoral system. Do you believe that this was just a genuine good faith effort by the other Dan Sullivan, who was a park ranger, didn't get involved in politics other than voting for the Democratic candidate that he would like to help?

7:26Do you think it's a genuine, sincere effort to run for Senate? I can't know that, but I can tell you that in California, we get a bajillion candidates on our ballot. In Florida, the same thing happened. And it was a Republican who committed this sort of act, and they found someone with a name. And Democrats were outraged because it was a deliberate attempt to mislead voters for the two people with the same name. But did Democrats try to get that invalidated? Yes, they did, actually. That's what I was about to say. You cut me off. You actually stopped me, and I was about to say that. So they demanded this person resign, and they couldn't do that because the election was already certified.

8:04So the Miami-Dade County opened up an investigation, and they found that this person actually did it in exchange for some value. But there's no evidence scenario. I feel like Joe, you're invalidating your argument. No, no, no. He has a common-sense argument about whether it's a coincidence. This person did not coincidentally wake up. Do I ever get to finish a statement without everyone interrupting me? Excuse me, Joe. Every time I get interrupted. There was metadata on the press release from a Democratic operative. That's pretty consistent with someone trying to manipulate this election by putting someone who has the same name in.

8:42I'm done. Calm down. So here's the deal. You just laid out evidence that there was collusion between maybe the party and this individual. Maybe there was money being paid. I'm not familiar with this case. But just based on what you laid out, does that exist here in Alaska? So the people in Florida didn't know that either, and it was too late to act. You're not answering my question. I am answering it. You're not listening to my answer. The people in Florida didn't know that answer either. They demanded the person resign. Then they opened an investigation. And then after the fact, found out that not only was this person unsincerely running for state senate, that he was actually being paid to do this.

9:21So I guess what my point is. That could be the case. and you don't know it. You're saying it's not the case. You don't know it's not the case. I don't know it is the case, but you don't know it's not the case. I'm just saying you just laid out that they were able to determine that there was something nefarious, maybe even illegal, that happened here. This has gone through the court system in Alaska. They didn't judge on his sincerity. They judged whether he was qualified for the ballot. The Supreme Court of Alaska said he is qualified for the ballot. No one's debating that. No one's debating that.

9:48So what would you have the Supreme Court of Alaska do then? And also, my second question is, where is the evidence in this Florida scenario that the Department of Justice asked Florida to invalidate the reaction? It was the Miami-Dade Election Authority who did it. By the same standards, the Alaska authorities actually did the same thing here. I'm asking you whether the federal Department of Justice weighed in on whatever happened in Florida and said, you can't certify those election results. It didn't happen. Did it happen? They listened to the local elected officials. And that's the point. That's the point.

10:21That is the point. That is the point. The bottom line is that it did not happen. You're just saying that the only law enforcement of elections is the federal DOJ. I'm just saying, I'm actually saying. If another agency opened up an investigation and found some sort of a fraud or a firearm, I forget what the actual charge was, but the person who was convicted went to jail. Do I get to finish a sentence? Yes, you do. I'm sorry. Do I get to finish? The question that I'm raising is whether or not it's within the Department of Justice's jurisdiction to weigh in on these issues. I'm not saying that there are not issues.

10:48But the question is, where is their jurisdiction? Where is the law when it comes to what they are allowed to do? They acknowledge the states are responsible for administering these elections. Unless you can give me an example of the federal government saying to a state, you must invalidate these election results because the party that is in power may not win, then I don't think that there is a federal government. There is not a law. You don't have any law to support your argument. I think you hit the nail on the head, Abby. There is no federal precedent for doing something like this. And that's the problem.

11:25I'm familiar with the case in Florida, too. I know what happened. The guy's name was Alex Rodriguez. And the candidate who was running, his last name was also Rodriguez. And we found out after the fact that the Democrats, because the Democrats are the ones who lost that race, they lost by 32 votes, and the guy got 6 ,000 votes. It would have affected the election. And the cheaters still went off. Right. I understood that. But this was we don't know. The cheater, you're assuming the Republican candidate was a cheater. Yeah. The person who won in that race was not the cheater. It was somebody else.

11:54It was a third party candidate. So the question is, whose role is it to enforce these laws? In that case, it was the state's role. I would say the federal government has a role in the disenfranchised and the voters. You don't get to own the conversation when other people are speaking. And in this case, in Alaska, the state has the role of deciding this. The state has already done this. They've gone through the judicial process. They've gone up to the Alaska Supreme Court. For Donald Trump to order his Justice Department, to order Todd Blanche, the day after he just said he was not going to get involved, to go in and file a peremptory lawsuit to challenge the results, only if the Republican candidate doesn't win, is a gross miscarriage of justice.

12:33Let's talk about Donald Trump's role in this, because I do think that that is the other part. I mean, that in and of itself would have been the entirety of the story. And it is important that, again, Todd Blanche also this week says, I know who my boss is, not the American people, not the Constitution. It's Donald Trump. And then Donald Trump on Friday says, I ordered this case to be filed. And I think that is the bigger picture point here, right, that we have those statements. We have Todd Blanche saying things like, well, we would only intervene in a doomsday scenario. In another instance, he said we would only intervene if something improper happens.

13:11That means you're giving over the definition of those terms to an attorney general who says he works for Donald Trump, to someone who was previously in private practice a lawyer for Donald Trump, and a Department of Justice that has a banner of Donald Trump hanging from the building. Those are not the ingredients to assume that there's a good faith effort to define these issues. There's also, I mean, there is a world in which the DOJ has a role. But according to their own manual for how they conduct themselves around elections, it would have to take place after the election, where if you wanted to investigate whether there was some kind of collusion between Dan J.

13:50Sullivan and the Democratic Party, you could certainly do that. You could launch an investigation. Doing this kind of thing, filing a case that has been described by one election law expert, Rick Hassan, as essentially something that he would give a failing grade if it were written by one of his students. He calls it an embarrassment to the Justice Department and extremely unlikely to succeed. It makes the DOJ look like they are acting politically as opposed to acting in the interest of justice, which would it seems to me there is an interest in knowing. How did Dan J. Sullivan get on the ballot?

14:29But you do it after the election. You conduct a real investigation, right? You have to have a legal basis. Yes. And I agree with Katie, actually, on the legal basis. There's also a public opinion question here. So I do think people look at this and they think Trump's overstepping and this is really a lot of sketchiness vis-a-vis the DOJ. I also think a lot of voters look at this and they think there is no way in hell there's two random Dan Sullivan's running. That's a common sense issue that Joe is raising. So there's the public perception and then there's the law. And Alaska has decided the interpretation of the law.

15:02And enough is enough. They have a week left and this is over for now. After the election would absolutely be the proper way to look into it. But it's not even clear that he would make a difference. I mean, in the last election. So what? It's a problem if you're impersonating a candidate. It's important, though, because in the last election, Mary Patola got almost 50 percent of the vote. And I think Dan Sullivan got 41 percent. And so if she wins, you know, outright majority, which I don't think is possible, it's possible. But, I mean, if she wins enough votes so that his votes don't make a difference, do you still proceed with this lawsuit?

15:37No, the motion actually mentioned that. I think we do want to find out. if it's a very clever plan by Democrats or not. That's fine, but why not wait until after the election and then file, if there's some sort of, so reason why he might have, the way the law works, you can't just file a lawsuit because you have some sort of problem with somebody. There has to be an actual case or controversy. That's what I just said. What's the case or controversy here? Keith, if they do find out that there was a bad faith effort and the Democrats planted this guy, should she resign if she wins, if it was in the margin?

16:08Did the Republican candidate resign? in Florida when she won? That's the problem. That's the problem. That's a very good point. The problem is that the person who won with only that margin of error is now the state senator of wherever in Florida. And we don't have any evidence of that right now, but I'm saying... They had evidence of that. But this is actually a problem with the law itself, though. This is the reason why Donald Trump can tear down the east wing of the White House, and then the courts can say after the fact, oh, well, we're going to look at it. Well, it's too late now, but east wing of the White House is done.

16:35Although there is, with election law, there is a process by which you can contest somebody getting onto the ballot in the first place. That already happened. So that process happened. I mean, Rick Hassan was taught election law at UC Irvine. He was my colleague. I now teach election law at UCI. This just isn't any legal basis. So the fact that the Justice Department is agreeing to do something with no legal basis, for me, is the big problem. And just briefly, Abby, the ballot says Dan Sullivan, Republican incumbent, and the other It does. All right. Next for us. The president is walking back some of his Canadian tariffs to help Republican candidates, including Susan Collins.

17:15We'll discuss. Plus, as AOC warns that investigations start on day one, if Democrats win back power, Trump is threatening to veto everything.

17:52We'll be right back. Get your Wayfair head start. For holiday decor you can count on year after year, Wayfair delivers. We just moved into our new house and I didn't realize just how close we were to the neighbors. That's when my friend told me about Blinds.com. Blinds.com isn't a medication, but it can improve how you feel about your home. Customers who shop at Blinds.com experience excellent customer service, from consultation to installation. Side effects include increased privacy and better sleep. Talk to your partner today and see if Blinds.com is right for you. Shop Black Friday all month long at Blinds.com.

18:29Don't miss huge deals dropping every week.

18:35President Trump is giving Senator Susan Collins a midterm assist by exempting tariffs on key Canadian products that are hurting Maine's agriculture industry. The exemption covers goods used by Maine's blueberry, potato and apple producers, as well as packaging and refrigeration equipment. The latest CNN poll shows Collins is facing a difficult re-election fight against Democrat Troy Jackson with no clear leader in that race. And once again, tariffs prove to be exactly what they are, not great for the economy. Every time the Trump administration acknowledges this, I don't know, they don't seem to really internalize their own message.

19:16No, not at all. Not at all. I mean, this is a scenario where, They are doing this, obviously, because they have an election to win. But that involves backing away from a policy that the president has adamantly insisted is of critical importance. He has talked endlessly about Canada ripping us off, ripping off farmers and businesses. But it turns out if Susan Collins is in a tight election, you can pull back from that and let them rip us off for a few more weeks, because otherwise you're going to lose the election. So it's the combination of the economic effects and the electoral effects that are being detrimental.

19:52Susan Collins has been remarkably consistent on tariffs, though. In 2025 alone, she voted against Trump's tariffs four times. She co-sponsored legislation to restore congressional oversight over tariffs. Her opponent, by the way, has not. He's kind of a Bernie Sanders flip-floppy protectionist. in 98, he was literally leading a blockade of Canadian loggers on the border to prevent them from taking jobs away from Mainers. Not to mention the rest of his positions, I think, are totally psychotic, abolishing ICE, abolishing aid to Israel, abolishing private health insurance. I can't stand this guy.

20:33I think she's going to be just fine. I think she's going to be fine. And one One of the reasons is she's very consistent on economic policy. So this is not a Susan Collins issue. Apparently Donald Trump doesn't think she's going to be fine because Donald Trump is abandoning one of his key policy positions. Good. I hate the policy. Well, so do I. But he's abandoning his key policy position because he wants to help Susan Collins. And he's showing that it was never really about policy in the first place. It's about politics. And Donald Trump is such a transactional figure that he's even willing to work with Susan Collins on this issue because he knows that he has to get Susan Collins on board to win the midterms.

21:10I think this is a reflection not only badly on Donald Trump, but also on Susan Collins. I don't know where she is. You say she's consistent on things, but she's not consistent on Donald Trump. She voted with him 95 % of the time on almost every major issue. Actually, the denominator is wrong. 95 % of the time on major issues, she voted with Donald Trump. So she's trying to separate herself now from Trump because she knows she's in a tight election and Trump isn't popular, but where was Susan Collins on the issues when it really mattered? So Troy Jackson, here's how he's talking about this. He says, Susan Collins enabled this chaos, voted to confirm the people behind it, and now wants credit for bringing a cup of water to put out the fire.

21:52I think part of the argument against Susan Collins, not just on this, is about a lot of her votes to confirm Trump cabinet members. And on this issue, where in Maine, 70 % of Mainers say it's a bad thing that Trump has put tariffs on Canadian goods, it was a huge problem for her politically, and not to mention the actual practical economic effects. The reason why he had to go after her votes on confirming the people who put tariffs in place, presumably before they put the tariffs in place, is because they couldn't find votes of hers or statements and comments of hers in support of these tariffs.

22:30Like Lauren said, she's been pretty remarkably clear on where she stands on that issue. But it also highlights why Mainers have sent her back to represent them several times. She has been the moderate. She has been the person who will linger in between parties and make the decision that she feels is best for people in her state. That's why people like her. And I think, you know, maybe you could argue the problem with the tariffs. That's fine. You could try to link Trump to her and the tariffs. That's obviously what they're going to do. But fundamentally, this shows that she is someone who's willing to push back on her own party when she thinks her state is at risk.

23:04I don't think this is a net. How is she pushing back on her party when she's accepting Donald Trump's endorsement? Her job is at risk. Well, let me ask you this, Joe. I mean, is it time for Trump to abandon this disastrous policy? I think this presents a good example. The statement they said around why they've removed some of these tariffs is that American companies couldn't either produce some of these products or produce them in a timely and cheaply manner. If the goal of the tariff is to get behavioral change inside the U.S. and manufacturing, if that's not going to happen, then there's no point to the tariff in the first place.

23:32So is it backtracking, perhaps? But is it at the same time admitting that there's a fluidity to some of these tariffs when they're not going to have the desired impact to pull them away? I think there's some. Why do you have to stick your hand in the oven to know that it's hot? Well, and Joe, you wouldn't claim that this is the only, that it's only blueberry and apple products. And seaweed. Where we're having these problems. I mean, surely we have the same factual scenario where the tariffs are not having whatever desired effect Trump had. And yet the only place, the only people who are getting any relief on this are people who produce blueberries, apples and seaweed.

24:09And there are millions of Americans who are being pounded on with cost of living because of these tariffs. Why aren't they getting help? The answer has to be that this is about the upcoming election in Maine. It is not about a thoughtful rethinking of trade policy. Even in Michigan, where there's another competitive Senate race, Mike Rogers, who initially was supportive of the tariffs, now says this on the campaign trail. I have stepped back and said maybe these Canadian tariffs were not well thought through, mainly because of the interaction between our automobile companies in Canada when it comes just in time manufacturing.

24:50It has the benefit, by the way, of being the classic conservative policy. I think that's why some Republicans are not having trouble distancing themselves with Trump on this because we have completely done an about face on economic approaches to pricing and trade. A lot of Democrats, I believe, would be okay with some of these, by the way, if there was a Democrat in the White House implementing them. Well, there are some tariffs that Democrats are supportive of. Steel tariffs are a good example of that. But I mean, does anybody actually believe that when this election is over, Donald Trump is going to, you know, renounce his love of tariffs.

25:28That's part of the issue is that I don't think voters believe that, right? One of the very few consistent beliefs he has actually had through his political life is the belief in tariffs. But of course, Trump being Trump, he applies them in this enormously arbitrary way. My favorite Trump tariff story is how he bumped them up on Switzerland after the president of Switzerland had annoyed him. Then some Swiss business executives arrived giving him a Rolex and an engraved gold bar. And tariffs on Switzerland came down by about 20 points the next week. It's like magic. It is. Tariffs are like magic, according to Donald Trump.

26:04All right, next for us, AOC warns the Trump administration the Democrats are going to start investigating on day one if they win back power. And the president delivers a warning of his own. We'll discuss.

26:26T 'was many nights before Christmas, and one woman knew she needed a Christmas tree, so to Wayfair she flew. Finding just the right one, and for years it will last. Wayfair shipping was free, and remarkably fast. What's this? Garland? A wreath? Essentials to host? Good thing she celebrates way longer than most. As her cart filled with magic and decor from the heart, Merry Christmas to all. Get your Wayfair head start. For holiday decor you can count on year after year, Wayfair delivers.

27:00Tonight, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reveals her playbook for what happens if Democrats gain control of Congress. At a campaign event with Maine Senate candidate Troy Jackson, she highlighted what she called the weaponization of the Justice Department, particularly the investigation into Trump's foes, like New York Attorney General Letitia James and former Fed Chair Jerome Powell. And she made clear how she wants Democrats to wield their power. We've known that Kash Patel has purged the FBI of many serious investigators. We've known that a Department of Justice has also been weaponized in its absolute groundless indictments.

27:43Day one, we need to be opening investigations into the heads of every single one of these agencies, and we need to hold them accountable. I'm talking subpoenas. I'm talking investigations. I'm talking if necessary and if the evidence leads us there to court. because I don't care if you are a criminal on Main Street or a criminal on Pennsylvania Avenue. Everyone must be held to the same standard and rule of law. So that worked really well in that room in Portland, Maine. But I wonder, though, for the rest of the country, how high of a priority is it for Democrats to do these kinds of investigations versus dealing with the big issue, which is cost of living?

28:33Well, I think they have to do both. Because if you look at the polls lately, one of the surprises is that corruption has now taken over affordability as a top issue in some of the polls. And I think that means that the voters want some sort of accountability. It doesn't mean you have to go and create a quote unquote witch hunt, but you have to at least hold the people accountable who've been profiting off of the presidency. Donald Trump is making billions of dollars off of the presidency. Alina Hamba, his lawyer, just got a$50 million job after this Venezuelan billionaire got a pardon from Donald Trump.

29:07You got all this stuff going on. Tom Holman, the Borders, I got a$50 ,000 in a cash bag and a bag and a paper bag. I mean, it's like, how much corruption can the American people take? And I think if between Elon Musk and Donald Trump and all the other people. If Donald Trump is not held accountable, there will be some consequences for the Democrats for not just for not focusing on the issue. Yes, you can do affordability and you can do corruption at the same time. So I think there's some truth to what you're saying, but there's also some cautions, right? So the poll from CNBC this week that found 36 % of registered voters say that government corruption is the most important issue to them, right?

29:46There's another poll, though, an AP poll that asks, what should the highest priorities be for Congress? And investigating Trump is not at the top of the list. Lowering costs of living is. Investigating Trump is over at 36%. So yes, there's some kind of balance that needs to be struck, but there's a divide among Democrats, particularly among the sort of progressive DSA adjacent Democrats who overwhelmingly want these investigations to happen, are they going to be at odds with leadership like Hakeem Jeffries and others who want to deal with other legislative priorities? So I think two things. One, I'm less optimistic than you are about Democrats being able to juggle two different things.

30:33When we, when I saw him, when we were in Congress, when we were impeaching Trump, that was about all we did, right, for a lot of time. And so I think there's an interesting sort of difference between this poll that you didn't focus on, which is the first poll says that you want to fight corruption. It doesn't say you want to fight Trump's corruption. That's exactly right. It says you want to fight corruption. And when I talked to voters, when I was on the campaign trail, there are lots of people who think that the system is corrupt. And they don't mean the Republican system. I personally think Donald Trump has given us some doozy examples of corruption.

31:06But I think Democrats should be careful about doing things about Trump without pairing them with doing things that generally address systemic corruption or perceptions of that. Things like banning on congressional stock trading. Things like thinking about the Code of Ethics for the Supreme Court. We talked about that stuff when I was in Congress, and we didn't do any of it. The 2018 midterm was somewhat of a high watermark for Democrats. It was a banner year. And then just like you pointed out, they focused on impeachment. And that was part of the criticism that led to the Republicans taking back the House.

31:42I think Democrats have, you know, a polling advantage that there has been a consistent issue that they could cite to sort of drum up the base. The problem is they have yet to come out with a plan of how we're going to address inflation other than opposing Trump. How are we going to address cost of living other than opposing Trump? So now when you start reentering this whole we're going to investigate, it's not just AOC, by the way. It's Hakeem Jeffries himself. It's Reps Garcia. It's Reps Raskin. A number of leaders in the Senate names escape me off the top of my head. But you have all these members of Congress now shifting their talking points to these investigations.

32:16And I think they're actually not helping their own election chances by doing it. I at least halfways agree with what Joe just said there. I think that if Democrats are perceived to only be seeking what some people would consider vengeance and other people would consider justice against the Trump people, that at the expense of dealing with cost of living, there'll be an electoral price for that. But the flip side of it is there is actually a moral element to politics as well, even though that's unfashionable to talk about. Keith was mentioning the vast degree to which the president has enriched himself.

32:51But there are other issues as well. Look at things like the boat strikes in the Caribbean that everyone's more or less forgotten about. 270-odd people are dead. Is that not worthy of investigation? That's done, and we know almost nothing about it. So it's not only about trying to sort of pin Trump for corruption. It's the fact that there has been, that power has been used in such a way as to invite or require investigation. Let me play what the president says his strategy is going to be if Congress changes hands. Listen. I think the Republicans are going to win. But if there was, as you call it, gridlock, what happens is I veto everything and then the Democrats come and they want to make a deal.

33:35You veto, veto, veto, and then they come and they say, how do we get it done? And you make a deal. So after this election, Donald Trump is a lame duck. But the Republican Party has to run a presidential right after this. And it seems to me that that attitude might be one of the biggest problems if you want to have a successful post-Trump Republican victory in a presidential. A president who does not care whether or not things get done is not a president that's going to be trying to get anything done on behalf of the American people. I agree with that. But veto threats are a tool presidents have used for generations.

34:14And the fact that he's saying, I'll threaten it and then we'll come around, we'll make a deal, that actually is how policy gets done in Washington across partisan lines. I do think he's not going to have that option, though, because affordability is so high on the priority list for voters of both parties. I think Democrats are totally at risk of having nothing, but they don't have a choice not to come forward with legislation. My question is, does he care? Why would he care? He's not on the ballot. He hasn't cared over the last two years when his midterm fate was literally in his hands. He carried out a policy of tariffs.

34:52He started a war. He did all the things that would lead to higher prices. I'm genuinely wondering if there is a version of Donald Trump after this election that does care about what Republicans would actually need in order to make the case to the American people that they're making their lives better. He actually is very susceptible to swings in public opinion. I think we've seen that time after time. Even on his own policies, he reverses course sometimes. I don't think so. I mean, look at what's happening right now. He's the most unpopular president in modern history, modern American history.

35:27And I don't think that he seems to care. He's going around talking about his golf courses and his flying palace and his ballroom. He doesn't seem to figure out that the American people want him to deal with the affordability issue. He's still calling it a hoax. He vetoed a housing bill that in part he proposed. Exactly. That was actually bipartisan. He didn't veto, he just didn't sign it. Oh, he didn't sign it. Excuse me. But he's had a bipartisan bill. Major reversals lately. He has never sought to bring the other party in to do anything in the last 18 months. What real legislative tool does a president have when you have the House against you and the divided government?

36:03I'm talking about right now when he is in charge of Congress. The veto tool is a real option for him to have any say in what the legislature does. I'm reminded of Clinton and Newt Gingrich back in the day. There was a lot of balanced budgets. Sometimes having a divided government doesn't necessarily add up to negative. Clinton's first term. And the markets actually like a divided government. And just to be more things get done than we actually think statistically. And look, Joe, what you're talking about, I totally agree. That was an example of bipartisan cooperation. What Donald Trump just said he's going to do is the exact opposite of that.

36:37He doesn't care. But you can threaten the veto in order to negotiate. It's the exact opposite of that. I think that's what every governor in the country does. I actually think this is the bigger challenge for Democrats, too, because I agree with you that they should do something about affordability. But what are they going to do if Donald Trump won't let them? he's going to veto anything that happens. So I don't know what they're going to get out of here. So you need common sense legislation, which they don't have. They should start developing and socializing their ideas. Because when you put up something that the American people like, and Donald Trump, it falls in the bucket of, say, everything, which is what he's going to veto, you're laying the groundwork to bring that back when you do have the presidency and push it through.

37:10Very few things in Washington get done on the first pass. It takes a lot of time. You're too sensible for California. Yes, what a concept. Work hard on things. Next for us, as Elon Musk reportedly intervenes in the war in Ukraine, Donald Trump shrugs off Musk's power, saying the billionaire would never do anything wrong. We'll discuss.

37:38Afternoon glare totally ruined my watch party for the big game. That's when my buddy recommended Blinds.com. With custom window treatments made to fit your style, space, and budget. Customers who shop at Blinds.com experience overwhelming satisfaction. Side effects may include a fuller, deeper night's sleep and the sudden urge to host the watch party again. Blinds.com isn't a medication, but it can improve how you feel about your home. Shop Black Friday all month long at Blinds.com. Don't miss huge deals dropping every week. The real cost of a break-in isn't your valuables. It's the feeling that your home stopped being safe.

38:13SimpliSafe keeps danger away from your family with three layers of protection. One, smart AI cameras and live U.S.-based agents help stop intruders before they break in. Two, we sound the alarm at points of entry. Three, our agents request emergency response. Plans starting around$1 a day. Right 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.

38:42Who ordered the slowdown of Elon Musk's military-grade version of Starlink over Ukraine? Well, it depends on who you ask. Ukrainian officials say that the restrictions are still in place despite Trump's claim that Musk has restored access to the satellite network. According to the Wall Street Journal, Musk made the call to throttle the service, and that's complicating Kiev's war effort against Russia. But when asked about Musk's reported role in making life and death decisions during this conflict, Trump backed him. Elon's a brilliant guy. And I have an expression. We have to protect our brilliant people because we don't have too many of them.

39:22There aren't too many of them in the world. And Elon's done nothing wrong. Elon is a very good guy. He's a very different kind of a guy. But I think people have an obligation to protect our geniuses, you know? Well, we also know the other reason Trump might be saying that. It's a$445 million reason. That's the amount of money that Elon Musk has donated to Republican groups in this cycle. But if he had not done that and he was just a billionaire controlling whether or not a nation state can fight a war or not, shouldn't it be a concern that he has that kind of power? Well, look, both Hegseth and Rubio have made very strong clarifying statements saying that the U.S.

40:10policy on this capability has not changed. I don't have any independent verification of whether the machines are operating as normal. But I think it's important to remember that the only reason that Ukraine even has this technology in the first place is because of billionaires with vision like Elon Musk, because of American ingenuity. Europe, who's more at risk from Russian incursion, hasn't had the time, effort or wherewithal to develop products like this that actually have been helping Ukraine. So, you know, and on the other thing, with Ukraine's billions, I mean, you know, we can play, you can't play one side.

40:44You know, the Democrats have billionaires, too, who donate and expect influence and expect the country to be shaped by the vision of whatever they are advocating for. They have most of the billionaires, actually. They have the majority of them. We said, Alexa, who's the biggest donor of 2022? And people's thing at home heard it. It would come up as George Soros, not Elon Musk. I think that's disingenuous. I mean, Elon Musk is an unprecedented figure. He's a trillionaire, not just a billionaire. South African, foreign-born, who currently, not only is he helping to shape American foreign policy, but he was actually sitting in the White House for the first year of Trump's second term, running this agency, this amorphous organization called DOGE, where he had unusual control, expansive control over an access to American records.

41:33I just think that we've never seen anything like this. And then we have the Starlink issue where he has the capacity to turn on and off or slow down satellites that are needed by our allies. I don't think that's a good thing. It's too much power for one man to have. How much money should he be allowed to have, Keith? How much money should he be allowed to have? It's not about how much money he should have. You just said he's a trillionaire. I said it's too much power for one man to have. But your evidence was the money. No, the evidence was, did you not hear what I said about Starling, the fact that he has access to Doge, the fact that he was sitting in the White House making policy for the president.

42:10He gets $8 million a day in government contracts. We're supporting him as federal citizens and taxpayers, and this guy has all this power over us, And I think that no one is holding him accountable. They don't think Starling should have government. And I think that's one of the things that's going to be investigated. We've got one more minute here. Sure. Do you think that there is a risk to the United States and to other countries that there is one man who can decide whether or not they have the ability to carry out a war? Yes, that would be a problem. And Elon Musk might be on Donald Trump's side today.

42:44But what about another day, if or when he is not? That would be a problem, except we do have a chain of command and a contract in place with Starlink. That's my understanding. Joe might know the policy better than I do. But someone's obviously lying here. I think the government must be making these decisions. I mean, that's what happened in World War I when we had private telegraph providers. Well, if that's the case, then the liars are Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio and Donald Trump. Are you sure it's not he or he? I mean, I'm so upset. Well, Joe, you just said that they denied that they had anything to do with it.

43:15I don't think this blanket being up on Elon Musk is helpful. Lauren says she thinks that it couldn't have happened without the U.S. government. So somebody's lying. Agree. Why did Trump say that we should protect Elon Musk? Like, what has he done? Has he done something here that he needs protection from? When you listen to him, he's just saying he's a good guy. We should protect him or protect our geniuses. Regardless of what one thinks of Elon Musk, we should only protect people who are following the law. We should only protect people who are using their legal authority and acting lawfully. And what Trump didn't say is whether he's done that or not.

43:47This would be a great investigation for Democrats, Keith, by the way. It's a great example of our proper investigation. And the MS is definitely afraid of an investigation. I think somebody with that kind of power needs to be held accountable and investigated. All right. Well, next for us, we're going to react to your feedback from CNN.com slash Abby. Stay with us. We'll be right back.

44:16And now some viewer feedback from CNN.com slash Abby. One says, is Donald J. Trump assuming that voters aren't smart enough to know which Daniel Sullivan they're voting for and click on the correct choice? He's pretending to be anyway, because it allows him to lose smoke over the whole thing. But like we were saying, the ballot, you know, makes clear which Dan Sullivan is the correct Dan Sullivan. It's not that difficult. I actually don't think people know these things a lot of times. One of the advantages Trump had in 2016 was he was a recognizable name on the ballot of faceless, nameless Republicans.

44:52A lot of people don't think about things right up until election day. There are a lot of low information. I went online tonight and they have a voter information guide in Alaska. It shows the two pictures, shows that they're very different and shows that one is listed as the incumbent and the other is not. And I believe it's what one Democrat suggested that. Yes, it is. It's ranked choice voting. People should just vote for both so they don't get it wrong. But that's them saying that in order to get your vote right, you have to do an extra action. I mean, you probably should be informed. Okay, does anyone know this Eddie Murphy movie, The Distinguished Gentleman from 1992?

45:25One viewer points out that this storyline was covered there. All right, we've got one more. Can we pivot to something positive for one moment? Abby, when is your baby due? Well, funny you should ask. He is due literally any minute now. So I'm going to sign off tonight and go do my most important job and bring this baby into the world. So I will see you all in a couple of months, everyone. Thank you very much for being here. Before we go, have I got news for you. Their crew is back with another new show tomorrow night. We've got a preview for you. You watch. Bonus points. What else did the president give Ohio voters this past week?

46:09A little pinch on the butt. But you're close. No, Roy! It involved that ass. No! It's Houston's ass. Oh, yeah. And his muscular hands. Points to you, new guy. Hell yeah. Trump gave out more compliments for Senator John Houston's big, beautiful butt. I'm studying his body. I've never studied the body of a man before. But it's never been my thing, to be honest with you. but I looked at his ass

46:45and then I looked at his legs and I said his ass is like it's like a pile of muscle then I looked at his shoulders and I tapped him on the shoulder and it actually hurt my hand it was like a piece of steel and he said this guy's a monster dear oh dear

47:08Now I know why the president was sweating so much.

47:15You can catch the all new episode on Saturday at 9 p.m. on CNN and streaming the next day with an all access subscription. Thank you very much for watching Newsnight. Tomorrow morning, be sure to catch Table for 5 at 10 a.m. Eastern right here on CNN. Laura Coates Live starts right now. Twas many nights before Christmas, and one woman knew she needed a Christmas tree, so to Wayfair she flew. Finding just the right one, and for years it will last. Wayfair shipping was free, and remarkably fast. What's this? Garland? A wreath? Essentials to host? Good thing she celebrates way longer than most. As her cart filled with magic and decor from the heart, Merry Christmas to all.

47:56Get your Wayfair head start. For holiday decor you can count on year after year, Wayfair delivers. 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. We 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.

48:34Thank you.