Return to Transcripts main page

CNN NewsNight with Abby Phillip

Father Of School Shooter Arrested On Murder Charges; Trump Veers Off Topic In Economic Speech; Trump Threatens To Imprison V.P. Harris And His Other Political Opponents; Putin Makes New Attempt To Troll The Candidates And Interfere In The Election. Aired 10-11p ET

Aired September 05, 2024 - 22:00   ET

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

[22:00:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR (voice over): Tonight, second-degree murder charges against the father of the Georgia school shooter inject new intensity into the national debate on guns.

Plus, the cost of a Donald Trump win, economists say the former president's plans would take money out of American wallets.

Also, cell block tango, Trump makes a threat to imprison Democrats.

And an indictment accuses MAGA influencers of doing the Kremlin's work, as Vladimir Putin trolls the world by revealing who he wants to win in 2024.

Live at the table, Erin Perrine, Ashley Allison, Shermichael Singleton, Jemele Hill, and Brian Stelter. Welcome to a special edition of NewsNight, State of the Race.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP (on camera): Good evening. I'm Abby Philip in New York.

Let's get right to what America is talking about, a potential flashpoint in a national crisis. Breaking news tonight, the father of the suspected school shooter in Georgia, he is now under arrest, and he's been charged with two counts of second degree murder, among other things. Police say that Colin Gray gifted his son an AR-15 style rifle for Christmas, even after concerns from authorities. And he knowingly allowed him to have access to that weapon.

The 14-year-old boy used this gun to kill two of his classmates and two teachers. So, will accountability like this ultimately be a deterrent in mass shootings?

Here at the table with us in New York last night on this very show, sitting right where you are last night, Montel Williams, without knowing any of this, without knowing that this weapon wasn't just in the house, but it was given to this kid, this is what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MONTEL WILLIAMS, TALK SHOW HOST AND ACTIVIST: Let's start holding these parents more accountable. Let's start locking those parents up for 15, 20 years. Then we're going to start seeing at least responsibility in the gun ownership world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: That is the question tonight. Four counts, not, you know, manslaughter, he -- you know, not just manslaughter, because he's facing for involuntary manslaughter, but he's also facing murder charges, straight up murder charges. Will this make a difference?

JEMELE HILL, CONTRIBUTING WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: I mean, to be honest, it does in some ways. And let me just say, I don't have kids, right? Okay. And I'm not saying that you having kids or not having kids means that you can't be a part of this conversation, but the part that I worry about the most is whether or not it's a slippery slope.

I think in this case, the charges are fair. Because even if this was the most responsible child of all time, why would buying a military- style weapon be a good idea to put in the hands of a 14-year-old, any 14-year-old? I don't care if they got straight A's. I don't care if they come home all the time, eat their veggies, say their prayers, it doesn't matter. That is not the type of weapon that belongs in any child's hands.

But I do think that -- I think about how potentially something like this could be weaponized against the most vulnerable parents, and that's where I get a little bit concerned. But I think in cases of obvious neglect with this, what would happen in the case of Michigan with the Crumbleys and the school shooting there, yes, that makes sense, when you're knowingly putting these self-destructive things in the hands of children and you know they have problems, as a parent, you have to answer to that. I'm just not sure if the blanket answer is, all parents need to be responsible for what their children do.

PHILLIP: Well, the knowingly part is the key part here, because the police came to this family and said, we have reports that your son might be plotting an attack on a school, an attack basically like the one that happened. And then months later you go out and you buy a weapon?

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: I put my kids on the bus today, it was the first day of school. And I was thinking to myself, I'm responsible for every aspect of their lives. I'm responsible for how my kindergartner is going to behave in class today, right? I'm hoping that he's nice to the fellow kids.

[22:05:00]

I'm hoping that he behaves. I'm hoping he's not a bully. If I'm responsible for that, then, of course, I'm responsible for something like this.

And, you know, whether that ends at 17 or 18 or 19, there's interesting discussions to have about exactly what the cutoff is. But for a 14-year-old, it seems pretty clear.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, look, I just wonder, to Jemele's point, in terms of culpability, does it stop, begin, end with the parents? What about the FBI who visited the parents? Could they have done more? What about the school's obligation to protect other students? Should they have done more? What about law enforcement? I mean, there are so many questions here, Abby.

And I get Montel's point, but there are a lot of responsible gun owners in this country. I'm from the south. Many people that I know have kids who are very young, who are competitive shooters, pistols, shotguns, ARs, and they're perfectly responsible, but I understand --

STELTER: But don't you want to differentiate between the responsible ones --

PHILLIP: I don't know that you can -- I mean, I'm hearing what you're saying, but a child, I don't know that even a child who is -- maybe you do competitive shooting or hunting or whatever, I don't know that you could say that child is responsible for what they do with that weapon. You as the parent are still always responsible for it.

SINGLETON: It's a controlled scenario, right, so I want to provide clarity there. But I'm just simply saying I just don't want to demonize every single person with an AR-15 or with guns, generally speaking. But, again, back to my original point in terms of culpability, where does it begin? Where does it end? And could the other entities involved in this process, should they have done more? And I don't think we have an answer to that.

ERIN PERRINE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, AXIOM STRATEGIES: I think that that's a really fair point. It's where does the culpability lie and where is the structure for it? Because there have been states that have begun to pass some legislation about parents being more responsible for their children's actions.

And I think to your point as well, what you are saying is that those most vulnerable might also get caught up in this. I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there who have been sounding the alarm, begging for help with their children, and just not able to access resources to be able to get their children on the right path.

My concern as well would be is, yes, parents --

STELTER: But then there'll be a paper trail, right? There'll be a record.

PERRINE: Whatever, however this legislation is written, because I'm sure many states will begin looking at this more aggressively now, is that you need to be able to set those standards for parents. Does it start with your child beat up someone at school, so now you're reliable for the violent act, or, you know, for a violent act, like where are these lines, and these are always the toughest things to do.

SINGLETON: Do you start -- STELTER: But I think juries will decide. Juries will decide. That's what worked in the Crumbley case, right? You will put the juries decide --

SINGLETON: But do you start going after black mothers who have young sons who may find themselves in trouble in the street? Do prosecutors, mostly white, start going after them? Because I would have a problem with that.

ASHLEY ALLISON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, well, we've already lived through that when black families were prosecuted under the notion of the dysfunctional family. So, we've seen that happen, and it doesn't work in an effective way.

I don't think we can talk about this in like an isolated solution. I'm a former teacher. If I knew -- and I taught special education, and I had children that were emotionally disturbed. And if I had known that one of my parents bought one of my children, a gun and I called them my children because they were my students, I would be terrified, I would be calling that.

So, to even know that -- nobody knew that, but for a parent to do that, for a child that has already been brought -- saying that -- if you listen to the audio the father says, I'm pissed off to know that my son Was talking about a school shooting. So, if you're pissed off to know that your son is talking about a school shooting, I'm pissed off that you bought him the gun. And the parents now have -- we have parents who will never see their children again.

We have a whole 2,000 students who were traumatized probably for the rest of their life with PTSD. If you listen to the students that many of our anchors and reporters were interviewing, they were trembling with fear just having to relive that.

But I don't think it's just about the parents being responsible. I think that this instance, this is the right case. And I think the Crumbley was the right decision. Why do they have an AR-15? And this goes back to why don't we have more mental health services? We always want to go to a one shot solution versus what -- I'm using the word poorly, but a one stop solution when there, we know that these issues are more complicated.

And I just -- I've been thinking a lot about like what would I do if I was alive 50 years ago? But I also think what would people think about us in 100 years when they see children, year after year after year, getting murdered in schools, and us arguing about whether or not we should have taken the weapons away from them to kill. I just ask -- I wonder what the answer would be.

PHILLIP: I want to play what J.D. Vance, the Republican nominee for vice president, said about this when he was asked earlier tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. J.D. VANCE (R-OH), VICE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: The Kamala Harris answer to this is to take law abiding American citizens guns away from them.

You've got some states with very strict gun laws, and you've got some states that don't have strict gun laws at all, and the states with strict gun laws, they have a lot of school shootings. And the states without strict gun laws, some of them have school shootings too. So, clearly, strict gun laws is not the thing that is going to solve this problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HILL: Well, that's quite an answer. You know, and that's probably the part of the general apathy of this, like we have become the nation of, well, we just can't do anything.

[22:10:03]

You know, we have more guns, twice as many guns as people here. That's the reality of where we are. And to your point, it's like when you think about if you're in a time capsule and you look back now at this time and what we would have done, the answer would have been nothing, that we're just spinning the inertia.

First of all, Vice president Harris didn't say she wanted to take all the guns away. So, he started with a lot right away. And people think the slightest bit of regulation, like can we all agree, not a good idea if you're under 18 to have an assault rifle, not a good idea. Don't care who you are. It is not a good idea to do this.

There are very simple things that I think I'd like to think the rational part of our brains would say, you know, it's probably not good that you can purchase a highly powerful weapon before you can actually vote and buy alcohol. And before you can actually drive a car, what sense does that make? So we're just asking for the smallest things.

PHILLIP: (INAUDIBLE) generally the Republican --

SINGLETON: But I take that point but you can't, the parents would have to buy the weapon for the child, if you're under a certain age.

HILL: They would. But the fact that that is even possible, it just seems like just little things. Nobody's asking that -- we've lost the battle in terms of coming into every home and taking every gun. And I don't think that's just a common sense solution anyway. It's just small things. The fact in Georgia, I believe, in you all can correct me if I'm wrong, the fact that the police already were flagged about his behavior would have been a red flag law.

SINGLETON: I get that point about red flag laws, but also, Jemele, there's some data that suggests red flag laws disproportionately impact black men. And I wouldn't want someone because they're afraid of a black person who lives across the street from them call the police and all of a sudden the judge is saying, there's a black man, you need to go and take his guns away. That likely isn't going to work out very well for that black man or that black woman or that black family. So, I do have some concerns there. I get the point. The vice president isn't saying what you just said, though, from what I have seen. I have seen a blanket removal of all AR-15s. I personally would not be in support of that. I think our history in this country shows me that any weapon that we have access to, we should have a right to those weapons to defend ourselves. So that would be a counterpoint.

PHILLIP: I mean, the counter-argument that people who support an assault weapons ban make is that there's already been one. And in the period of time when there was one, these types of crimes didn't happen.

ALLISON: (INAUDIBLE) have to be effective.

PHILLIP: It was very effective.

SINGLETON: With AR-15s, but violence with pistols continued. And most murders in the country occur with a pistol and not with an AR-15.

PHILLIP: Yes, I understand that.

SINGLETON: That's an important fact.

ALLISON: Like, really, I don't own a gun. I go back and forth about whether or not I'm going to buy a gun. I think people -- I believe in the Second Amendment. Who is using an AR-15 to protect themselves at this point in this country?

PERRINE: It's actually the most popular hunting rifle in the country for hunters. But you're asking who uses it.

ALLISON: No, I'm saying how to protect themselves.

PERRINE: Well, that, I don't know the decision on that, but it is an incredibly popular hunting rifle.

PHILLIP: Yes. I mean, it's certainly an incredibly popular weapon. And some of it -- it almost feels like some of it is the allure of the powerfulness of the weapon.

SINGLETON: But people do have AR-15s in their home for protection. I mean, I don't want to go in this direction. Kids were killed, but people do use them in their homes for protection, just as shotguns. If you have a wife, it's a lot easier for the woman to use an AR-15 to protect herself if she's home alone versus a pistol, which requires a ton of skills, or a shotgun, which is a lot more difficult for a woman to be able to control in a small environment. So, there is a use purpose for the AR-15 in a home setting.

ALLISON: I guess I just wonder why -- and, again, prove me wrong, but the stories of the wife protecting herself from domestic violence is not about an AR-15. The story is that the children are being blown away, and we don't even get to sometimes recognize their bodies because those weapons are so aggressive and violent.

And I guess, I just sometimes -- I like to eat cake, right? But I can't eat cake every day because it's not good for me. So, I don't eat cake. And so like maybe having an AR-15, because it's not a weapon that is going to keep our children safe, maybe we can give some things up for the greater good of our children to keep the whole thing.

SINGLETON: So, should I not have a right to own an AR-15?

STELTER: I don't think you're absolutely right.

SINGLETON: So you don't think I need one, so that means I should just give it up?

ALLISON: I don't think anybody needs one.

SINGLETON: Yes, we just won't agree on that then.

ALLISON: I would rather those kids and teachers be alive than you have an AR-15, quite honestly.

SINGLETON: I would.

ALLISON: I think their lives are more important.

PHILLIP: I'll say it again, I mean, we're talking here as if it is unheard of that these weapons could be banned, but it has happened in this very country before. And, you know what, and the Second Amendment didn't go away when it happened.

HILL: Oh, yes, that's right. I'm sorry. I forget I'm 5,000 years old. I'm sorry. I did, because when Columbine happened, I was like, oh, now that you --

(CROSSTALKS)

SINGLETON: No, but I take the point. I take the point.

[22:15:00]

PHILLIP: But, Ashley, you were saying Columbine.

ALLISON: But I remember the difference because I was in high school when Columbine happened, the first school shooting that really led to the banning of AR-15s. And that we there were people who took leadership across the aisles and realized that like some of our greatest indulgence don't need to be satisfied if they keep children safe.

SINGLETON: So, let me ask this --

PHILLIP: We have to leave it there. Everyone, stay with me.

Coming up next, we've got more breaking news. Donald Trump gives some bizarre answers about the economy, as a Wall Street giant warns about what happens if he wins.

Plus, his allies say that Trump isn't out for revenge, but Trump himself has said otherwise. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP (R), FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT, 2024 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: They always have to remember that two can play the game.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:20:00]

PHILLIP: Tonight, Donald Trump, is he secretly weak on the economy? Today, he gave some rather incoherent answers on everything, from the child care to -- and the child tax credit, to gas prices. So, we're going to get to that part in a moment.

But, first, this is all coming as now Goldman Sachs is predicting that the Republican nominee's plans, you know, the plans that he says will make the economy great again, won't actually do that. It'll actually take money out of your wallet, they say. Other economists agree, especially when it comes to Trump's plans for tariffs. Douglas Holtz- Eakin calls it a terrible economic policy. Mark Zandi says it's a very bad idea. And here is what Trump said today is the big picture of his overall pitch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I am promising low taxes, low regulations, low energy costs, low interest rates, secure borders, low, low, low crime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Brian will be back in a little bit, but we also have another special guest here in our fifth seat, Catherine Rampell here, because this is right up your alley. I mean, from what you heard today from Trump, I mean, that pitch, you know, what, eight seconds, maybe ten seconds, very easy, very simple, everything is low under Trump. But does he really have the details to back it up?

CATHERINE RAMPELL, CNN ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No. If you look at the actual policy plans that he has put out, to the extent that he's put out any, they are primarily things that would raise prices and hurt economic growth. It's not just Goldman Sachs and Mark Zandi and Doug Holtz-Eakin and other people who have said that. There are many forecasts, because these are things that have been tried before.

So, for example, having a global tariff of 10 percent, 20 percent, he goes back and forth plus --

PHILLIP: 60 percent on Chinese goods.

RAMPELL: China, right, that would raise costs for consumers because that means tariffing everything that comes into the United States.

His previous round of tariffs, we have lots of studies on those, those additional costs were passed on to consumers in the form of higher taxes. And, in fact, there's a bunch of estimates from the Peterson Institute of International Economics that shows that the typical family would pay $2,600 more per year as a result of those tariffs, more than they would get in income tax cuts.

So, basically, all of the benefit that he's been bragging about, you know, we're going to cut your tax rates, et cetera, that wouldn't be entirely wiped out by tariffs.

PHILLIP: So, here's JPMorgan's David Kelly. It is one of those magical economic proposals that can actually cause inflation and put you in a recession at the same time. It's a two-year-old's mentality. You punch someone in the nose and expect them not to punch you back.

RAMPELL: Yes.

PHILLIP: I mean, look, first of all, let's give credit where it's due. He sat up there, he showed up, he took questions.

HILL: Are we giving credit for that?

ALLISON: I didn't even read the teleprompter.

SINGLETON: He did.

PHILLIP: I'm going to give him credit for it because now we know what he is going to do, now we know what he says. But here is also what it sounded like when he was asked a pretty straightforward question about what he would do to lower child care costs in this country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable? And if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?

TRUMP: Well, I would do that, and we're sitting down -- you know, I was somebody -- we had Senator Monaco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so impactful on that issue. It's a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I'm talking about, that -- because the child care is child care. It's couldn't -- you know, there's something -- you have to have it in this country. You have to have it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SINGLETON: We do have to have it.

HILL: We can agree on that.

SINGLETON: We have to have it.

PHILLIP: We have to have it. We have to have it. But what is going on?

SINGLETON: I mean, look, the former president's team, as much as they possibly can, they need to have some kind of a messaging point where he can memorize. I think J.D. has actually --

PHILLIP: Memorize?

SINGLETON: No, seriously, I think J.D. has been pretty effective in talking about increasing the child tax credit, the benefits to American families, writ large. You've actually seen that in interviews. He's more steeped in policy. The former president is not steeped in policy. I think he's more steep in policy, Catherine, than the former president, if you compare it. Exactly.

RAMPELL: He got asked this exact same question, I believe, it was today or yesterday, about what would you do to make child care more affordable.

PHILLIP: J.D. Vance, you're talking about?

RAMPELL: J.D. Vance. And his response was basically, why don't you just ask the grandparents to do it? It's like, oh, people never thought of that.

SINGLETON: That was a part of the response, and maybe culturally. Some people might say, look, my grand, my grandparents or my parents are retired.

[22:25:00]

They can help take care of my kids. I can understand that cultural argument. But he did pivot and he said, well, some people will not have that luxury. And then he went on to explain what some alternatives could be. So, I do want to get some credit there.

RAMPELL: But did you see what the alternatives were?

SINGLETON: No. I didn't say we were going to agree on the alternatives, Catherine.

RAMPELL: The alternatives were deregulating -- having fewer requirements for child care professionals. And, actually, I do think, to be fair --

PHILLIP: There's something to be said here.

RAMPELL: I do think that in some states, you know, requiring a bachelor's degree, things like that --

PHILLIP: Yes, or even a master's degree.

RAMPELL: But that's not going to be sufficient for increasing the supply of child care. Because, fundamentally, there is a wedge between how much you can afford to pay child care professionals versus how much families can afford to pay, right? Child care is already extremely expensive, and yet the people who work in childcare are often making minimum wage, because it's just a really labor intensive industry. And so you have to have some sort of subsidy program, at least for people who are very low income, step in order to bridge that gap. SINGLETON: And that goes to about the $5,000 tax credit, I think he said a couple of weeks ago, I think either with us or CBS, he wants to expand it. So, that is an effective strategy.

RAMPELL: There was a vote on the child tax credit and he didn't show up for it.

PHILLIP: J.D. Vance said that. The Trump campaign said, we'll take that under advisement. That is what I saw. They did not confirm that that is actually their policy. So, to me, this is the type of thing where the question is, does Trump really believe in any of this, or does he really think that the entire solution to all the problems is just more tariffs?

PERRINE: That was a very popular word he used certainly during his economic remarks. There are two things I will say here. I think he was trying to say, which is always a perilous thing, having worked for the former president, trying to explain or elaborate is a dangerous lane to be playing in, but what he was trying to talk about was the paid family leave that was done under Ivanka Trump's help at the White House to help federal employees with more time off when they have families, which is what -- but Ivanka was there and it was done under President Trump. But that was what he was talking about. I'm not arguing about the merits of it. I'm talking about how that happened. But here, this --

RAMPELL: But how it happened was Democrats demanded it in exchange for a trade from Republicans.

PERRINE: But it got done under a Republican president. So, back to the point here. This is why Kamala Harris isn't doing these kind of speeches and isn't taking free-wielding questions like this because this is the peril of it. The deeper you go into the policy discussion, the more you talk about the nuance. And while he didn't do --

(CROSSTALKS)

PERRINE: This is a land mine that exists.

HILL: He always does.

PERRINE: I don't disagree with that at all.

HILL: But the unfortunate part is that --

PERRINE: But talking about tariffs is what's getting him in trouble right now.

HILL: But sometimes you don't notice how truly moronic he sounds until you see him in certain environments. And I hate to say it, but like at a rally, it's different. Like it's not different for me because I consider it all to be dangerous and woefully incompetent in his part, but the reason why this will land differently than it does when he's at a rally is because he's in a room -- this is going to sound disrespectful, but I don't mean it disrespectfully is of serious people like that have very pointed questions to ask him.

And I've seen the vice president asked that same question about what she plans to do about childcare. And you could not -- it could not be more different in how these two answered. You could tell he has not thought about this. He hasn't thought about anything. He's been -- his entire game plan before she became at the top of the ticket was to just ridicule Joe Biden, let him, you know, flail on his own and he didn't have to actually put in any effort. And that's showing up now in the campaign because he has to actually have coherent efforts and campaign and he doesn't have anything. He has the same tricks he always has.

SINGLETON: And that's why I said the --

PHILLIP: Do you want to make an argument that Harris --

SINGLETON: They should have some type of message to answer those questions.

PHILLIP: And if you want to make an argument that Harris isn't answering questions doesn't have policies, then Trump also has to have policies on the other side.

ALLISON: Yes.

HILL: Right. It can't just be one person.

ALLISON: So, like, I mean, I don't want to go back in time, but like if Joe Biden would have given that answer, it would have been all over, that he was dementia and Parkinson's and all the talking points that the right has been throwing about him not being a capable president. We should worry that that man is that -- you should worry that is your candidate at the top of your ticket. He could not put a coherent sentence together and something that I would assume he planned very hard for. And it was somewhat of a friendly audience. These are supposed to be people who are business folks and that like he's a businessman.

And I don't know if he had the questions before, but I'm sure he had some framing of like who would be asking the questions and what they would be about, like give us two sentences, man. Like --

SINGLETON: I take that point and I think, the former president needs to get a better grasp in understanding of economics, generally speaking, Catherine's written a lot about this, but I would also like to see the vice president talk about her price control policies, great article, by the way. I would like to see her talk about how she's going to tax unrealized gains and the impact that's going to have potentially on startups.

[22:30:04]

So, she should go before the same group of individuals and answer those tough questions.

PHILLIP: Listen, if there's one thing I'll say, it's that Catherine has equal opportunity.

CATHERINE RAMPBELL, CNN ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Everybody's mad at me all the time now.

PHILLIP: So, you can go read her column. She can give it to you on both sides.

SINGLETON: That is true.

PHILLIP: Catherine, thank you very much for being here. Everyone else, stick around for us. Coming up next, Donald Trump. He's suggesting yet again that he would prosecute all of his political opponents if he is re-elected. Even his allies say that that's not what he means. But is it? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:35:00]

PHILLIP: He did it again. Donald Trump threatening to imprison vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris or Vice President Kamala Harris and his other political opponents. Just listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND CURRENT PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE (R): She and her party are censoring speech, weaponizing the justices and trying to throw their political opponents, me, in jail.

This hasn't happened. I didn't do that to crooked Hillary. I said, that would be a terrible thing, wouldn't it? Putting the wife of the president of the United States in jail. But they view it differently, I guess, nowadays. But that's okay. And they always have to remember that two can play the game.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Brian Stelter is back with us. It's so interesting to watch him say that, because he's mulling it. It's something that keeps coming up over and over again. And it's not the first time. I mean, this was the clip that kind of got him in trouble. And in this clip, you'll see Sean Hannity is trying to steer him away from this. But here's what Trump said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN HANNITY, "HANNITY" HOST: Under no circumstances, you are promising America tonight. You would never abuse power. as retribution against anybody.

TRUMP: Except for day one. I want to close the border and I want to drill, drill, drill.

HANNITY: That's not retribution.

TRUMP: No, no.

HANNITY: I got it.

TRUMP: I'm going to be -- I'm going to be, you know, he keeps --

HANNITY: We love this guy.

TRUMP: He says, you're not going to be a dictator, are you? I said, no, no, other than day one. We're closing the border and we're drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I'm not a dictator.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: You know, Brian, as someone who covered Trump, sometimes, the one thing that you really have to do is just listen to him. Just listen to what he's saying.

STELTER: Then take the word seriously. He says two can play that game. Nothing about this is a game, of course. But it's good that Trump is saying this stuff out loud.

Voters do need to hear it. If people haven't read "The New York Times" publisher's essay today for "The Washington Post", A.G. Salzberger wrote an essay describing how Trump is cribbing from the autocratic playbook that we've seen around the world.

And not just strong men also from Democratic leaders who use the levers of government to punish their enemies. That's exactly what Trump is talking about. He's doing it in plain sight. But we in America need to learn from what others experience in other countries because it may well happen here.

HILL: And we also need to understand that unlike previously when he was president, there were, I think there were some guardrails there. There was some -- there was some mechanisms in place so where his worst instincts wouldn't totally be played out. And I just don't think that'll be the case now.

So, that is the danger and the threat beyond. These are not just words. These are things he will actually try to do. And I don't think that there's going to be that same sense of safety that like, oh, we can talk him out of this. Like, I don't think there's going to be any talking out of it. I think it's going to actually happen.

STELTER: Well, he's convinced it already happened to him.

HILL: Yes, correct. That's a part of it. That's the big part of it.

PERRINE: Republicans writ large. There are plenty of Republicans and conservatives who feel that the government has been used against them.

They'd point to Lois Lerner in the IRS targeting conservatives and their status. They would point to Merrick Garland in the DOJ putting out letters calling parents terrorists at school board meetings. This is Donald Trump speaking to that core group that sits within Madge Republicans saying, I'm the one fighting for you. STELTER: Right.

PERRINE: And in all honesty, when you say he's been saying this for a long time, if you take the tape way back, he said this exact thing to Hillary Clinton during the debate in 2016 where he said, you'd be in jail. So far, he hasn't jailed or prosecuted or persecuted any of his political adversaries.

PHILLIP: It's not because he hasn't tried.

UNKNOWN: Exactly.

PHILLIP: It's not because he hasn't tried.

ALLISON: One correction I want to say is that he said two can play that game. Nobody is playing a game with him, though.

PERRINE: But he's talking about those Republican maggot conservatives.

ALLISON: No, I know who he's speaking to. I know who he's speaking to. But like there -- he doesn't have an opponent in this. Alvin Bragg is not acting on the behalf of some deep state agent or Joe Biden. Donald Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers, his equals.

And so, you have to believe in somewhat of the system. And it's not, is he playing the game against the jurors on the case? Grand juries have indicted him. Is he playing a game with them? He's telling people this false notion to gin them up to say that the system hasn't worked. Is the system perfect? No. But we all -- myself as a progressive often gets demonized when I say he is a threat to democracy.

But when you say things like that and you say you'll be a dictator on day one and to Jemele's point he the guardrails are off. We talked about it earlier. We have to look at the totality of circumstances and we're all intelligent enough to know to say that he has talked about retribution. He has talked about being vindictive. He hasn't taken accountability for January 6th or the or that he's even has lost the election. And so --

PERRINE: Well, he did say this week on camera that he lost. He did.

STELTER: That was interesting.

PHILLIP: He did. It was interesting.

PERRINE: I just want to point out a little fact check where I can get it in there.

ALLISON: Well good for him.

SINGLETON: What mechanisms would the former president if elected utilize to accomplish this?

[22:40:00]

Would it be the DOJ? Is the expectation that every single judge, that he's appointed every conservative judge would all of a sudden say, if these cases were theoretically to come before me, I'm going to rule in favor of the president, even though we know many of them have ruled against him, even with the voter fraud issue. So, what's the mechanism?

ALLISON: Well, we they have talked about, and I know people say it's not his agenda, but Project 2025 has laid out how he would actually do it. He wants to extract the career appointees that are the safeguards of a lot of our institutions to then put in people that would do the things that he wanted to do.

We already saw how he kind of broke through the firewall of the DOJ with Bill Barr and telling him certain things to do. We saw it in Georgia when he said, find me 11,780 votes. We've seen him play this game. And so, the more knowledge you have, and as you're as a sitting -- I worked in the White House for three years.

If I go back, I know a lot more now than I did on day one. And so, what we're saying is that he's been president for four years. He's surrounding himself with people who are taking autocratic playbooks. And we're just saying, maybe he does, maybe our system works well enough not to be able to do it. But do you want your leader to want to do it?

SINGLETON: No, well, I understand the premise of the argument, but again, to go back to my point, what mechanism would he utilize to accomplish it? Not theoretical notions written in 900 plus pages of the project 2025, not firing careers and replacing them with political parties. What mechanism would get him across that finish line? I just haven't seen that yet.

PHILLIP: Well, I mean, well, here's another -- Shermichael, here's another scenario. In the months between - in the months between the November election and January 6th, Trump attempted to use the Department of Justice to pursue a, now he admits, completely fraudulent and made-up effort to overturn the results of a free and fair election. That actually happened.

SINGLETON: That's a fact I'm not indicating. I'm not negating that thing, Abby.

PHILLIP: He utilized actual people in those departments to do that.

PERRINE: But the mechanisms within those departments withstood.

PHILLIP: I think that is the point.

HILL: That's the whole point.

PERRINE: Right, but the other point that you were making about the career bureaucrats and those who work within the infrastructure. This is another thing that conservative Republicans definitely have an issue with because when they do get into the White House, which is what, four of the last 16 years, the ability to effectuate the change and put through the executive actions or the legislative priorities gets gummed up by those who are the career bureaucrats that sit within those institutions who are not effectuating the will of the government, whether it be the legislative or the executive branch, because of their own partisan reasons.

That's what they want to root out. They're not trying to upend the government so that they can overthrow and all of a sudden make this a totalitarian dictatorship. What they want to do is root out the people who are not allowing the effectuated change that either the legislative or the executive branch have within these bureaucratic institutions so that they can get things done.

PHILLIP: We do have to leave it there. I see a lot of disagreement on this side of the table. There's a lot of disagreement.

ALLISON: Thank you -- I can't fix my face. Thank you.

PHILLIP: Just for the record. But everyone, hang tight for us because Vladimir Putin is trolling Kamala Harris as the U.S. accuses Russia of funding MAGA commentators. We'll tell you about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:47:26]

PHILLIP: Vladimir Putin is sticking to his playbook. His new attempt to troll the candidates and interfere in the election includes an endorsement. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): As I said, our favorite, if you can call it that, was the current president, Mr. Biden. But he was removed from the race, and he recommended all his supporters to endorse Ms. Harris. Well, that is what we will do, too. We will support her. And also, she laughs so expressively and infectiously that it means that she is doing well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: Those comments come on the heels of sweeping sanctions from the Justice Department against a Russian government-backed disinformation effort to push pro-Russia, and by the way, anti-Ukraine narratives, and also to boost Trump's candidacy.

Back at the table here, Putin, if nothing else, he's a great troll. He really understands the facial expression part of this, but this is actually quite serious and amazingly effective how this all worked out.

Especially when you look at the way that, according to these indictments, using media, funding media, and then boosting trolls, people -- I shouldn't call them troll -- boosting these individuals who are on the right-right and who tend to have huge followings. Some of it is trolling, actually. And a lot of it sounds like this when it comes to the war in Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNKNOWN: Ukraine is also a giant. There's a huge money laundering operation there and it's not as, you know, we keep this idea that we're selling freedom through Ukraine or something is extremely, I would say, tenuous at best.

UNKNOWN: Oh, you think? Ukraine's become a tool for Americans who effectively just money launder to themselves?

UNKNOWN: It's precisely what's happening.

UNKNOWN: Ukraine is the enemy of this country. Ukraine is our enemy. Being funded by the Democrats, I will stress again, one of the greatest enemies of our nation right now is Ukraine.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

PHILLIP: And to be clear, according to this, they did not necessarily know what was behind this, but they're feeding into a narrative that's incredibly useful to people.

STELTER: Yeah, my first media literacy tip is if someone's yelling at you like that through their web camera in their basement, don't trust that person, okay? You know, that's my number one tip. Russia's meddling and trolling, it should be a 90-10 issue in this country. This is something that should piss off every American, but instead it's a 50-50 issue because of what we went through during the Trump years, right?

[22:50:01]

Because Donald Trump told his fans that all the Russian interference during the election was made up. And these Russian propagandists, they have wormed their way into the minds of some right-wing media stars. Of course, as you said, some of these guys say they were victims. That may well be true, but the broader dynamic here is pretty clear. Buying people is cheaper than buying ads.

PHILLIP: And Putin is pushing Trump. He's pushing narratives that Trump is endorsing, like, you know, these anti-Ukraine narratives. And Trump is trying to make the argument that Putin is afraid of him, but just the evidence that is out there just really suggests otherwise.

SINGLETON: You know, I look at this through the lens of national security. I don't think this is really a Republican or a Democratic issue. We have an adversary attempting to interfere in a major election. Republican, Democrat, whatever the hell you believe, the line should be drawn there.

The United States, clearly the sanctions we've put against Russia, they are not working. Maybe we need to increase sanctions potentially against China, one of Russia's closest adversaries. Well, we have to figure this out. Abby, this goes beyond just Trump for me.

PERRINE: It does. And when you look at it -- and when we look writ large at our geopolitical foes and their attempts to meddle everywhere in the United States, it's all over the news this week. Look at Governor Kathy Hochul of New York, where there was a CCP spy working as a federal taxpayer employee in the state of New York under both the Cuomo and the Hochul administrations.

This doesn't know a party issue. This knows a country issue. This is our foreign adversaries trying to meddle in the direction of our nation, whether it be Democrat or Republican, and I completely agree with you. The line stands right there for every American.

PHILLIP: Some people are just playing right into their hands in many ways.

STELTER: Unanimous here.

PERRINE: Yeah.

PHILLIP: Everyone, hold on for us. Coming up next, the panel will give us their nightcaps, including a very special reminder that life is unpredictable.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[22:56:24]

PHILLIP: We're back and it's time for the "NewsNightcap". You each have 30 seconds to say your piece. Shermichael, you're up.

SINGLETON: All right, so we were just talking about Russia and China and Pew Research has an analysis that came out last year that talked about how dim of a view most Americans have on the future of the country.

Seventy-one percent say the U.S. will be less important in the world -- that's a problem. Seventy-seven percent say we'll be more politically divided and eighty-one percent says the gap between the rich and the poor will continue to grow.

So, I know we're talking a lot about Trump and the vice president, but what that should suggest to me is that the future of this country is really in peril if we don't address some of these issues.

PHILLIP: Hopefully, they're not right, but they're right. It's possible that they could be right. Okay, Ashley.

ALLISON: Very different note. RIP Rich Homie Quan. If you don't know who he is, he's a rapper from Atlanta, died today, 33, 34 years old. He gave me, yeah, your age, right? I just feel like I turn a goal to social media every week and somebody in my age group is dying. Life is short. We can disagree at the table. Tell the people that you love, that you love.

Call your mom, call your dad if they're still in your life. Call your friends. Politics is not the end of all be all, like we can sometimes get caught up in, but he was a great artist, and it was just a reminder that life is short.

PHILLIP: That's very sad. STELTER: It's hard to top this now.

PHILLIP: Yeah, okay.

STELTER: That was important.

PHILLIP: Jemele, you get to do it.

HILL: On a much different note, as sort of the sports person here. So, as everyone knows, there's been a big carriage dispute between ABC, Disney, with DirecTV, a lot of very angry football fans, because Disney decided to, at slash ESPN, decided to, you know, pull their entire stations right before that LSU game kickoff, which angered everybody.

But this is what I got to say to football fans. Listen, I know football is a national obsession, but you guys are way too thirsty.

SINGLETON: Why are you looking at me?

HILL: And by this -- no, no -- and I love football. And this is what I mean by that, is that, It's like, they -- these networks, they know they have you, right? Okay. And that's part of the problem. You know, this as a media, as a media expert, we're headed toward a very likely scenario where one day we will be playing for a Superbowl in terms of pay-per-view.

The reason why they know they can do that is like, listen, NFL season started tonight. It's on Peacock. A lot of people are upset. Hey, I'm already paying for this, that, that, and the third, and I got to pay an extra $5 if I want to watch this game on Peacock, cause they know you will pay it. They know you will. They like to. See, you guys, like, at some point, you got to draw a line in the sand and say, no, not today.

PHILLIP: They're not going to do it. Erin?

PERRINE: You just got to grow up as an out-of-market fan like me. I was a fan. We were blacked out for years, couldn't watch a game. You get very creative when you can't watch a game.

HILL: You are so right about this.

PERRINE: And as I'm going to my bachelorette this weekend, which is a Buffalo Bills game, so, you know, keep it subtle. Mine is a little weird here, but it's a conspiracy theory of sorts that Sandy actually dies at the beginning of "Grease" and the entire thing is a coma and she's imagining what life would be like had she made it to the U.S. to be with Danny and at the end when she's in the car flying away, that's when she passes away and goes to heaven.

ALLISON: Girl, you just rocked my world. You rocked my world.

PHILLIP: Some people have never heard of that but -- and they heard it tonight.

PERRINE: Yes, yes, Travolta apparently mentioned it in 2018, as well.

STELTER: That's really good.

PHILLIP: All right, Brian.

STELTER: I'm last? All right.

PHILLIP: Yeah.

STELTER: Whoever said you can't come home again is wrong. I'm here to prove them wrong, right? People might remember I was canceled a couple years ago. I had the best two years of my life taking a little break from the news, but I missed the team here, Abby. It's been amazing to be back this week as chief media analyst.

PHILLIP: Yeah, we missed you. Welcome back.

[23:00:00]

STELTER: The truth is I just, I found myself appreciating CNN even more from the outside, you know, as a viewer. I get it, every network is flawed, CNN's flawed, viewers should push to make us better every day. But this place is amazing. The news muscles of this place are like nothing else, they're like nowhere else. So, I just wanted to say it's good to be home.

PHILLIP: All right.

SINGLETON: That was good.

PHILLIP: Who says you can't come home?

STELTER: I hope I hit the time right.

PHILLIP: You know what, Brian? I neglected to say this at the beginning of the show, but we are happy to call you a colleague, again.

STELTER: Thank you.

PHILLIP: Welcome back to CNN.

STELTER: Thank you.

PHILLIP: We look forward to everything you've got coming, all the scoops. Everyone, thank you very much for joining us. Thank you for watching "NewsNight State of the Race". "Laura Coates Live" starts now.