Garland in Contempt, Florida Flash Flooding, Congressional Baseball Brouhaha
45:33 Share

Voters 50 and over have the power to decide elections. So candidates who want to win need to talk about the issues they care about. Learn more from our latest polling in Pennsylvania at aarp.org slash PA polling. Overnight, Duncan's pumpkin spice coffee has sent folks into a cozy craze. I'm Lauren LaTulip reporting live from home in my hand-knit turtleneck that my Nana made me. Mmm, cinnamony. The home with Duncan is where you want to be.

It's Thursday, June 13th. Right now on CNN This Morning, House Republicans taking on the DOJ, voting to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress. And South Florida battered again by heavy rain and now facing life-threatening flash flooding. Donald Trump back in Washington to meet with allies, former enemies, and some of the richest CEOs in America.

Plus, chaos at the congressional baseball game after protesters stormed the field. All right, 6 a.m. here in Washington, a live look at the Capitol on this Thursday morning. We're at the height, really, heading into summer, so the sun's already up here. Good morning, everyone. I'm Casey Hunt. It's wonderful to have you with us. The most powerful law enforcement officer in America waking up this morning in contempt of Congress.

All right. Apparently, we don't have the gavel falling, but we should have been seeing the House of Representatives voting to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt for refusing to hand over subpoenaed audio recordings of President Biden's interview with Special Counsel Robert Herr. In that interview, Biden is questioned about his handling of classified documents. Herr, of course, famously, infamously described the president as a well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory.

we should note republicans do already have a full transcript of the interview they just want the audio too garland responded to the contempt vote this way quote it's deeply disappointing that this house of representatives has turned a serious congressional authority into a partisan weapon today's vote disregards the constitutional separation of powers and the justice department's need to protect its investigations here was house speaker mike johnson after the vote

Look, we did our job on the contempt and I think it sends an important message. We're defending Article 1 and our authority for oversight and we have to do that. We'll see what happens next, but I mean the House has to do its work and I'm pleased with the outcome.

All right, our panel's here. Let's bring in Jeff Mason. He's White House correspondent for Reuters in his CNN This Morning debut. Former federal prosecutor Elliott Williams is also here. Kate Bedingfield, former Biden White House communications director, and Mike Dubke, former Trump White House communications director. Welcome to all of you.

Let me start with you on kind of the legal situation here, because, I mean, first of all, reality, Biden Justice Department's not going to prosecute Merrick Erland. This is also not the first time that this has happened. This has become, I don't want to say commonplace, but there are now three attorneys general who have been held in contempt. Eric Holder back in 2012 because he refused to turn over documents in the Fast and Furious gun scandal, which was.

a big republican political focus at that time then there was bill barr who defied a house oversight committee subpoena for documents related to changes to the u.s census that might not sound political but actually the census is one of the most political uh areas that congress often deals with and then now we have uh merrick garland now garland has been very aggressive in saying you know it's this house that is undermining the rule of law in the system but

Yeah. Look, there's a track record here. Sure. Going back to 2012. Now, Congress has the right to put someone in contempt that doesn't comply with the things they do, right? And...

they can request any documents that are related to, and the language of the law is very clear, legitimate legislative purpose. That's sort of the background here. The problem is that they have the thing that they're claiming that they want in the form of a transcript. All those other instances, certainly Eric Holder and William Barr, involved documents that were not turned over.

Here, Congress has the transcript of the Robert Herr interview, and there is no place in the law that they can point to, anyone can point to, that says that a transcript isn't sufficient for Congress to do its job. And so the idea that somehow they need an audio recording of this thing that happened just isn't the case. It's never been something that Congress has requested, and law enforcement ought to fight this to the death because they should not. It gets in the way of law enforcement purposes to have every audio recording possibly turned over to Congress.

So, Jeff Mason, let's dig into why it is that they might want the audio recording. I mean, if you read the Her report, basically, they seem to think, well, this is going to really make President Biden look like an old man, which is one of their most potent arguments in the presidential election. For sure. And it's the primary reason the White House doesn't want it out there or the Biden campaign, for that matter. Not that they have a voice in this, but

the the republican side has said that they want the audio recordings in order to compare them to the transcript because they accuse the white house of doctoring transcripts of the president but i think you can mutually and objectively say that this is about politics this is about getting out a interview that did not uh...

in generally go well for the president in terms of the political ramifications of it they would like to have his voice they would like to have him looking old they would like to have him looking like an elderly man with a poor memory and being able to play that in a commercial or play on TV or play it for their supporters Mike Dupkey do you wanna make an argument this isn't just your politics sure I

For the same reason that most of the news organizations have requested this audio recording. I believe CNN has requested this audio recording. Reuters? No. No? You sure? Would you like it? Well, they don't have a...

I mean, this is not aware of it. Here's the point of this. You can make the political argument. However, to Elliott's point earlier, this is Congress exercising its right to make a request of the executive branch. This is kind of U.S., you know, U.S. political 101. So there's nothing wrong with making the request. And there's nothing, frankly, wrong with holding the attorney general in contempt for not making

acquiescing to that request, but for the same reason that the news media wants the transcript. There are things that get lost.

I'm sorry, the audio recording. There are things that get lost in transcripts that you do pull out of audio recordings. You can write one line of script and an actor can make that sound 10 different ways. I work in television and I understand the power of the visual medium and the sound of the voice for sure. So, I mean, you can make the argument that it's political, but I think you can also make the argument for

all the same reasons that these organizations are requesting the audio recording that there is some import well there's one big caveat news organizations aren't congress and they have a very different function and a very different job if Congress is investigating something with the goal toward either congressional oversight or passing legislation they do not need a video that has been the practice a both parties in Congress both presidential administrations going back to time in the morning or miss being broken

Oh, wow. We should be glad that the news media is different than Congress. The news media would hold the Attorney General in contempt almost every day for things that they don't do. Well, sure. No, no, no. But that's part of what makes this so blatantly political.

right it outside that the traditional scope of the way congress uses these that these authorities and so i think for the as we're talking about the politics of this i think for the average voter is watching this this is an extension of yet the republican congress being incredibly focused on uh... you know these in these incredibly political issues

that using their time to kinda try to hammer Biden and then by the administration rather than you know trying to actually get things done impact the American people for the Democrats that's an argument that they can make about all of this as well well let me ask you this as we are right before we had to break punch bowl put it this way this morning House Republicans have impeached the Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas they voted to hold Garland in contempt they've threatened to hold secretary of state and the blink in account in contempt

GOP committee chairs have handed out subpoenas like Halloween candy, but just about the only person the House GOP's oversight hasn't really touched is President Joe Biden, much to the chagrin of former President Donald Trump. Yes, but they've tried, by the way. I mean, they've spent months and months and months, Jim Comer has spent months and months and months trying to make a case. It's like they wound up and

and we're like ready to hit the pitch and then you know there's nothing because they haven't been able to make this key connection that they want to be able to make and so this is in some ways I think them doing this is also a little bit of face saving right it's like well we couldn't get like the big fish so we're you know we're over here trying to grab all the medium fish I mean it just it seems like they didn't quite get

They didn't quite get what they were going for. You want a very quick last one? No, I mean, look, you just pointed out all of the ways they've gone after the Democrats. They've also gone after themselves. We're on the second speaker. So there's a lot of internal lines. I didn't realize you were going to pull along, but yes, all right. Fair point. And then, of course, there's this. Donald Trump is going to be back in Washington today. We're going to tell you the officials he'll be meeting with and...

The ones who simply are too busy to make it. Plus, President Biden vowing not to pardon his own son. Might he be considering an alternative? Yikes, a fight in Italy's parliament. It's one of five things you have to see this morning. This is bullshit.

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. What are some of the social service agencies that have supported you and your family growing up? That's Dr. Robert Waldinger. He's a psychiatrist, a professor, and a Zen master. What kind of relationships actually help us maintain happiness? And what should we do in those moments where we have setbacks and things that don't work out? Listen to Chasing Life, streaming now, wherever you get your podcasts.

I have not spoken to the president about this. And what I'm saying is he was asked about a pardon. He was asked about the trial specifically. He answered it very clearly, very forthright. The White House, they're not ruling out the possibility that the president could commute the sentence of his son Hunter, who was found guilty on three federal gun charges earlier this week. Prior to Hunter's conviction, the president vowed he would not pardon his son.

On the commutation question, the White House response yesterday was a little bit different from what we had heard last September. Watch. When will the president pardon or commute his son if he's convicted? So I've answered this question before. It was asked of me not too long ago, a couple of weeks ago, and I was very clear and I said no.

So again, that was the old answer. But Kate Bedingfield, we actually were talking about this yesterday on the show, that for the president, a commutation, it's a little bit hard to see him, the president, the father, not trying to do something to help his son. But obviously the political ramifications are intense. What do you make of how

Karine Jean-Pierre answered this question yesterday. Yeah, well, she definitely left space. I mean, they're clearly leaving themselves space. I think there's no question about that. They obviously know how they answered the question in September. She gave a vaguer answer yesterday.

certainly intentionally I would imagine to give them to give themselves space I think you know politically look he was very clear about the issue the pardon he understands the signal that it sends he obviously is trying to draw a really stark contrast with Donald Trump in terms of you know presidential behavior and keeping your thumb off the scale and not inappropriately interfering with the justice system I think you know he certainly wants to maintain that contrast

In terms of whether he ultimately commutes the sentence of his son, I think there would be an understanding from most people who have children that you're looking to protect your child from the very worst of the ramifications of potential prison sentence.

commutation wouldn't be a pardon, wouldn't erase the conviction, would not clean the slate. But would potentially- So you think that they could defend it? Based on what I see from their answer there, I think they're considering it. And yes, I do think they could defend it on the grounds that he's looking out for his son. The problem is the public doesn't know the difference between pardon and commute. If I were to ask, what happened to Scooter Libby? People would say, wait, was he pardoned? Was he commuted? And

Bush commuted him, but this was confusing. Now, you're exactly right. A pardon would wipe the slate clean. Commutation means he's still a felon, but doesn't have a sentence on his record. So if the state doesn't allow him to vote or run for office or get an insurance license or whatever, that would still apply. Look, there's a question. It would be cleaner for them to just say no.

yeah but I think the reality a family here is what it is Kate knows better than I do about how preparation goes into briefings and gaggles but I have a slightly different take on that answer I would not have taken that answer to mean they're not ruling it out I take that answer to mean crane didn't have another talking point prepared and and I don't mean that pejoratively I think that she was

her job was to stick to what the president said. The president said, I'm not going to pardon him. She wasn't really prepared to talk about the difference between a pardon and commutation. She was prepared in September. In September, she said, I heard the question. It was my colleague, Amr, from the AP. He included both of those words in that question. I don't know. Kate, you know better than I do. It certainly happens. The press secretary has to deal with incoming on every topic, and sometimes they aren't prepared on a particular topic. I

I sort of have a hard time believing given that this is so front and center that they hadn't prepped for this. I mean, typically the biggest piece of the briefing each day or the prep for the briefing each day is going through, you know, what are the five things that are top of mind for every reporter and what are the questions that I'm going to get?

I don't know. I obviously was not part of this prep. And you're absolutely right. Sometimes that is the case. I have a hard time believing they didn't prep for this question. For commutation. Fair enough. I just, like, I didn't walk away from that. I listened to that gaggle yesterday. And I didn't walk away writing a story that they're not ruling this out. She didn't answer. She just said...

He's already said no to a pardon. Very interesting. And for those of our viewers who are just meeting Jeff on this show, you have done this for so many years, sat on the plane, asked questions of people like Kate. Probably the two of you have been on it. Jeff and I have been on the other side. We go way back. It actually was really awkward when we sat down. Jeff and I always had a very professional relationship.

It's why I love having both of you. Thank you both. All right, coming up next here, we've got more flooding on the way for South Florida, creating life-threatening conditions. Plus, protesters stormed the field at a congressional baseball game, at the congressional baseball game. There's only one. It's one of five things you have to see this morning.

All right, millions of people in South Florida remain under flood threats this morning after heavy rains triggered flash floods, submerging cars and roads on Wednesday. Some parts saw up to a foot and a half of rain. That is a month's worth in just 48 hours. At least five counties remain under a state of emergency. This person kayaking down the street in a seaside community near Fort Lauderdale, while others were left to make their way wading through thigh-high waters.

It's crazy. I've seen people walking the water all the way up to their waist. Small cars, they're not making it. We've seen over 50 cars. Our meteorologist Elisa Rafa tracking all of it for us this morning. Elisa, good morning.

Good morning. I mean, we're talking about streets that look like rivers. You pointed out this kayaker. I mean, just kayaking down the streets because there's so much rain. Cars submerge roads, dangerous and impassable. When you see water like this, you should never try to drive through it. Really caused some problems yesterday. I mean, look at the amount of rain that has fallen in the last 48 hours. We're talking multiple locations with over 10

inches of rain. Look at how wide that area is. And then you look at Fort Lauderdale in Miami. They really got the brunt of it yesterday. A foot of rain in Fort Lauderdale over the last two days, nine inches in Miami, more than seven inches in Sarasota. The one day total in Fort Lauderdale of about nine and a half inches is more than a month's worth of rain. And it is the wettest eighth wettest day on record. The threat continues as we go through the day today. A moderate risk

for flooding from Naples to Fort Lauderdale as we continue with some of that heavy rain. Another four to eight inches is possible. Casey. All right, Elisa Rafa for us this morning. Elisa, thank you very much.

All right, 25 minutes past the hour. Five things you have to see this morning: Violence in Buenos Aires. Police clashing with anti-government protesters outside of Argentina's Congress. Senators were scheduled to debate a bill on government and economic reforms that had been proposed by the Argentinian president. A massive fire breaking out at an oil refinery in northern Iraq. At least one person was injured. The cause of the fire still under investigation.

A brief brawl. How's that for a descriptor? Breaking out in the Italian parliament yesterday. The scuffle started when a lawmaker from the Five Star Movement Party tried to hand an Italian flag to a lawmaker from the far-right League Party. Yikes.

Capitol Police arresting eight climate change protesters during a congressional baseball game, the congressional baseball game, at Nationals Park here in D.C. Video posted on the platform formerly known as Twitter by the group Climate Defiance shows several protesters going over the railing and running onto the field before being tackled by officers.

And this is Misty. She's a hunting dog that fell 30 feet down a lava crack in the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. She was rescued by an avid hiker and rappeller who heard about her plight on social media and drove two hours to save her. Oh, I love that.

All right, coming up next here, the Senate set to vote today on nationwide IVF protections. Does it have a chance to pass? Plus, Donald Trump returns to Capitol Hill.

All right, President Biden back in Europe this morning. He is meeting with world leaders in Italy for the G7 summit. At the top of the agenda, securing sustained military aid for Ukraine. They're expected to announce a $50 billion loan for Ukraine using foreign Russian assets. Our senior White House correspondent, MJ Lee, is traveling with the president in Italy. MJ, good morning. Very grateful to have you on the show. What are the details here? What do you expect from the president today?

Yeah, you know, that announcement that you just mentioned is expected to be one of the major deliverables to come out of this G7 summit. It is a $50 billion loan that would be made to Ukraine coming from the interest that comes from hundreds of billions of dollars in frozen Russian assets.

officials from the G7 countries have been really negotiating over these details for a while now, trying to answer some really thorny financial questions like who actually would be making the loan? What would be the form of disbursement? Who would be carrying the risk of this loan? And sources are now telling CNN in recent days that this would be a loan mostly made by the U.S., but supplemented with funds for

from Europe and also that all of the countries would carry some risk and the $50 billion in loan to Ukraine would likely be made before the end of 2024. The sense that I've gotten is that the details, trying to figure out really all of the details that would go into this very complicated loan

really comes down to the wire. We know that the leaders and officials from these countries have been negotiating for the past few days as well, but U.S. officials are making clear that there really is a shared sense of urgency here with all of the countries wanting to make sure that this agreement does get announced because they do believe that this could make a big difference in Ukraine's ongoing wartime efforts. All right. MJ Lee, live for us from Italy. MJ, thank you very much.

All right, let's turn out of this. Senate Democrats today forcing a vote on legislation to guarantee nationwide access to IVF treatments. It's an effort not only to enshrine federal protections for this reproductive care, but also to try to highlight Republican resistance to those measures ahead of the November election. Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth, who used IVF to conceive her two children, has championed the bill. And she had this message for her Republican colleagues yesterday ahead of the vote.

I really hope Republicans prove me wrong this week by passing this bill. I hope that when we get to the floor tomorrow, they will surprise us, that they will show they actually give a damn about women in this country, that they will at long last turn their empty words into action and actually help us protect access to IVF.

Panelist back. Mike Dubke, I want to go to you on this just because, look, this is something. There are, look, Republicans in the Senate actually do kind of recognize that this issue is a massive problem for them politically. What we saw in Alabama, Ted Cruz and Katie Britt, two Republicans, have teamed up for a Republican version of this bill. The

problem, of course, is that it still leaves space for states to write laws that ultimately would cause the kinds of problems that we saw in Alabama where fertility clinics feel like they couldn't operate for fear of criminal liability based on how embryos are defined as people or not in these state laws. So, uh,

This is not going to look great for them. I mean, I think we can acknowledge this is a political, Schumer was on the floor saying, well, this isn't a show vote, but that's what's going on here. But how tough is this for Republicans? Well, first, let's start with the vote that was, and it wasn't a vote, it was unanimous consent on the Brit Cruz. They tried to bring it up. They tried to bring it up. And Patty Murray, she's a Republican.

objected because it was unanimous consent. So in terms of the Republicans, they were trying to use a carrot and stick method. Basically, if states outlawed this, they'd lose their access to Medicaid. And the Democrats did not want to do that because we're in the summer of show votes. And the summer of show votes includes the vote last week on reproductive rights.

includes the vote today, I guess it'll be on IVF. But these are nothing but political show votes. And Schumer basically, I mean, he's not even trying at this point. He used the same talking point last week that he used this week in describing this. This is a show me Republican thing or something along those lines. So I

I get it. We're in political season, but this is kind of the silly political season with these votes right now. Let's just explain what show vote means, though. And it's not uncommon for Congress, like you said, in the silly season of an election year, to put

bills on the floor that aren't likely to become law, right? Just for the purpose of having the other side have to take a really hard vote on it. And people will go on the campaign trail and say, look, you know, Congressman Mike Dubke voted against supporting in vitro fertilization. What a horrible guy.

So here we are. I don't understand why the Republicans don't just vote for it. I didn't understand why they didn't vote for the contraception bill. I understand your argument. Well, there were several reasons. One, it was a gift to trial lawyers. Secondly, it would have removed the restriction in the military and the restriction on government dollars going to pay for abortions. There were several things hidden in that bill and this bill. But most voters aren't going to hear it, though.

- Most voters aren't gonna hear it that way, right? They're not gonna hear that nuance. - That's why it's the summer of show votes. - Where this issue is so hard for Republicans. It's wild to me. - Right, well, so big picture, again, I mean, Mike, I take all your points that there were things in this bill that Republicans felt were not acceptable, but there's a headline on the front page of the New York Times today, "Southern Baptists reject IVF despite evangelicals

wide use and what they're referring to is the Southern Baptist Convention which is the largest Protestant denomination in which the New York Times describes you know as sort of a way to be a barometer evangelical sentiment on culturally cultural and political issues I'm they voted

to say that they don't think that people should use IVF because they're worried about the ethics around the embryos. And I think when we, we're down in technicalities here and what's happening on the Senate floor. I mean, big picture, Kate, this is something where, I mean, I certainly, you know,

I have actually embryos of my own. And when Roe fell, my first thought was, are these embryos stored in a blue state or a red state? Yeah. And because I actually care very deeply about them. Everyone has very complicated and personal ethical considerations and feelings around these things. But to your point, I mean, voting against this really sends a signal that I think

I think it penetrates past politics. I agree. I agree. I agree. And I think this is, I can't imagine, I almost can't imagine an issue where the base of the Republican Party and now, frankly, the majority of the Republican Party, elected Republican Party, is more out of step with people across the country. I mean, this has historically not been a political issue. Yes, obviously the stem cell problem

debate, I remember particularly in 2006, I was at the DCCC, the issue around stem cells was significant. So that's not to say these issues have never been political, but broadly speaking, the idea that a politician would be coming for your right to use IVF to conceive a child, I think feels abhorrent to most people who aren't even particularly dialed into politics. And that's where Republicans really, really have a problem. I want to point, if

the conversation is about IVF and the access thereto, and you're talking about, well, states would be incentivized to have Medicaid funding, you've lost the debate. And I think that's, to your point, it's just sort of something that people feel very strongly about on a moral and personal level. And I would just circle back to the use of Showboat, which is very possibly true, but it is absolutely something that people around the country are interested in and care about. And it's affected families of all different

shapes and sizes and stripes from single women to gay men to heterosexual couples. It is an issue that a lot of people care about. But let's go back to you've got the potential nominee or the assumed nominee of the Republican Party saying we're not going to touch IVF. You've got the leaders on the Republican side saying we're not touching IVF. You have one incident of a

court ruling in Alabama in which the elected Republican officials overruled that and changed the rules to make IVF legal in Alabama after the outrage after the outrage of a court case the court ruled literally right there at the Southern Baptist Convention saying they don't support as a Republican or Presbyterian I can't speak to the Southern Baptist but the

But it's a voice in the country. It is a voice in the country. It's a significant voice for evangelical voters. And I think that for, you know, why did we get to the point where Roe was overturned? Because it was groups like this who worked very hard at state and local level. Right. And also the party leadership and elected Republicans have been working to put conservative judges and justices on the Supreme Court who make this legally possible. IVF is...

- Sure, sure, but even taking it out of the context of IVF and flip the parties on the border, you will see the same thing where someone will introduce this, a bill related to border safety that probably Democrats will say, well, you could tweak here or tweak there. But at the end of the day, people around the country feel very strongly and morally about immigration issues.

And it's sort of a loser politically if you're on the wrong side of it. - I'm gonna keep saying some are showboats. - I got you. - No, I think at that last point, I think it's the same kind of thing, yeah. - I mean, I just, I think this cuts very, very close to home for a lot of people. All right, coming up next, Donald Trump in Washington for closed door meetings with vice presidential hopefuls, allies, and some former foes. Plus, how old is too old to serve in Congress? One state just changed their rules.

All right, 46 minutes past the hour. Here's your morning roundup. The ACLU suing the Biden administration over the executive action that largely turns off asylum for migrants crossing the southern border. They argue it violates U.S. immigration law.

Voters in North Dakota approving a measure that puts an age limit on congressional candidates. It restricts anyone from running who turns 81 in the year before their term expires. The rule is expected to face legal challenges. Interesting to see what happens there. And then there's this story. Uh, Wiggy, my chili's getting cold.

Some like it hot, but apparently not in Denmark. Three varieties of fire chicken instant ramen noodles recalled by the Danes for being too spicy. It is so spicy that the food police there fear

that it could actually poison people. So, if you live in Denmark and you like spicy ramen noodles, there is no soup for you. Elliot. Well, you know, it's interesting. Anyone who wants to say that America is a sort of deep state, nanny, socialist state, I just want you to know that Denmark literally banned cup of noodles. So, come on.

I was just in Denmark about two weeks ago and all I can say is they've got great food there so if people want ramen they can go somewhere else. Have fish when you're open. Stall work defender of the day. I don't know something about like lutefisk doesn't... Salmon. Does this apply to all of the EU now? No.

- Oh, okay. - Unclear. - Wow, you went all Federalist on that. - Yeah, exactly. You wanna have the United States of Europe, I guess you go to Germany for your spice? Is that the, wait, wait, wait, sorry. I'm hearing a black helicopter flying by. Sorry, it was just in my earpiece. - I will say the last time I was in Denmark, the first time I was in Denmark, I had reindeer brain. So, they don't outlaw. It was as you might expect. - Tastes like chicken? - Was it spicy?

It was not. No chili flakes there. That's the problem. All right. Let's turn out of this story. Donald Trump returns to Washington today for the first time since he became a convicted felon. He is holding closed-door meetings with key congressional allies, vice presidential hopefuls, and a few former very aggressive critics. The House Speaker, Mike Johnson, will be there. This was his response when he was asked whether the former president would respect the outcome of the upcoming November election.

Of course he respects that and we all do and we've all talked about it ad nauseam. Our panel is back. Mike Dubke, one of the people that is going to be in this room is going to be Mitch McConnell. Let's just play what Donald Trump has said about Mitch McConnell over the years. Take a look. President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events

of the day. If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, would you support him? Look, let me just say again, there is simply no room in the Republican Party for anti-Semitism or white supremacy. Shortly after the attack on the Capitol, I was asked a similar question and I said I would support the nominee for president even if it were the former president.

So that, of course, was actually Mitch McConnell on Donald Trump over the years, finally saying at the end there back in March that he is going to support Trump, citing previous comments. But here is what Trump has said about McConnell over the years. Watch this. Mitch McConnell is a loser. We do have to do something about Mitch McConnell. He's a disaster. These Washington Republicans like Mitch McConnell, who's the absolute worst. I had to fight Mitch McConnell, another beauty. Mitch McConnell...

And his wife, Coco Chow. Coco, we gotta get the McConnells of the world to do their job. - Mike? - Washington is a city of strange bedfellows.

I'm just going to let that one sit there for a second. Okay. Well, President Trump's coming back to Washington. He's talking to both houses of the Senate Republicans and the House Republicans. I think it's normal for the presumptive nominee to come and speak in front of Congress. We can play these clips. There's probably multiple clips you've got lined up ready to go as well on this. But

The one thing that I think everyone's realizing is we're living in a

in a time, in a zeitgeist, where Donald Trump has somehow touched a nerve. He is like a populist candidate from years past. And whether or not the party regulars who have been there for a number of years like it or not, he's going to be the nominee of the party. And if you, Mitch McConnell, at the end of the day wants a Senate majority. And he understands that goes through a very positive outcome for Donald Trump in the presidential election.

in state after state, 'cause most of the competitive Senate states are also competitive presidential states. - And I think, look, McConnell is leaving his post as well, which I think says everything about kind of where the Republican Party is going. I will say there were some Republicans who are sticking by the principles that they had outlined when it came to Donald Trump, including Mitt Romney. Here's how he explains why he will not be attending today.

I leave on a flight at 2 o'clock. I can't make it. Just can't make it, Jeff. There you go. There you go. Conveniently unavailable. And yet, you know, reception. But in fairness, Romney has also been very clear about his position on the former president. And Romney is also leaving Congress. And so he's got a little bit of freedom to...

Well, in no small part because I think they thought he couldn't win a primary in Utah. Well, indeed. Right. Indeed. Kate, the thing that's so interesting to me about this is that Donald Trump won the election in 2016, but since then...

has been defeated and has also suffered in mid his party suffered in midterm elections since then they were expected to over perform they didn't in part because some of these Trump candidates underperformed so badly so it is so I'm demoralizing to me that the Republican Party is choosing to line up behind this person who is you know says things that are incredibly dangerous that are hateful that stoke division I the bring out the worst in us as a country I'm

but all but it also is it is like defies political I'm sense to me because they are they've lined up behind this guy who is has consistently walk them into electoral losses so I it's it's like a I don't know it I mean maybe makes ready just his touched on the the a populist nerve but it's almost like he's brainwashed them in a way into believing that he's stronger than he is and the fact that they continue to line up behind him even after he calls them losers and idiots

It just says a lot about the weakness of the Republican Party right now. I mean, I think the November election is going to answer that question, since, of course, he did, at the end of the day, win a primary. But with Trump going to—he's not going to be at the Capitol itself. He's going to be meeting slightly off campus. It's a political event. Those are the rules. But, of course, this is the first time he and McConnell are going to be in the same room since January 6th.

and they have not spoken since then. And as Democrats are trying to frame the election as a struggle for democracy, the Biden campaign is trying to seize on this moment, this return, with this new ad, which is set to air in battleground states starting today. Watch.

On January 6th, Donald Trump lit a fire in this country, stoking the flames of division and hate. Now he's pouring gasoline. They were unbelievable patriots. Pledging to pardon the extremists who tried to overthrow our government. There is nothing more sacred than our democracy. But Donald Trump's ready to burn it all down.

So that's their new ad. And I just want to remind everyone what we hear from former President Trump about the people who were shown, some of the people who were shown in that ad who have been held accountable for what they did that day. Here's the president at a rally. And it starts with a version of the national anthem that, I guess, honors these January 6th attackers of the Capitol. Watch.

Ladies and gentlemen, please rise for the horribly and unfairly treated January 6th hostages. You see the spirit from the hostages and that's what they are as hostages. They've been treated terribly. Unbelievable patriots and they were unbelievable patriots and are.

Jeff Mason? It makes me think of that quote from Mike Johnson who says that, of course, President Trump will respect the outcome of the election. Well, that is objectively false. He can't say that. He doesn't know that. We saw how President Trump reacted to the results of the election in 2020. He has certainly not come out and said, I will respect whatever the outcome is in 2024. You can't, as an individual, as a journalist, as a politician, just accept that from the speaker. You can't.

Yeah, Mike. I really have a problem with this question being asked over and over and over again of basically every Republican. Because it is a hypothetical.

I mean, no, no, no, no. We go back to 2020 and that is a different election. But in terms of this question being asked, I think it's a setup. Frank, I'm just saying it's a setup, it seems. It wasn't a question before there was a violent rally at the Capitol to try to overturn the results of a free and fair election. Correct. And Trump himself has subsequently said that he will not...

except the results of the election. So I don't know how that's a hypothetical or a setup when that's a fundamentally dangerous thing to say. For asking Donald Trump that question, fair enough.

it's a fair question, for asking every Republican that comes, not every Republican, but a vast majority of Republicans that come on the air, not just this network, but other networks, and ask that question whether or not they should come, A, come up with a better answer, but secondly, for the vote, for the vote, yeah, I agree with you,

But for the voters out there that are attracted to Donald Trump, that are attracted to the populist message, that want to throw the bums out, that believe that there is corruption, that there are elitists for all of that, from the media it sounds like...

just an elitist question to politicians. I'm just calling that out. That's all I'm trying to say. - Let me pull in something that we got from the Trump campaign yesterday, Elliot, because the fundraising email says, "Haul out the guillotine." - Oh dear.

Well, and I think the unfortunate thing about the guillotine reference is that, you know, given January 6th and gallows and nooses that were images there now. Hang Mike Pence. They were chanting Hang Mike Pence. And again, even if we're going to quibble about the legitimacy of were they really chanting or was it sarcastic or whatever? It was literally gallows on January 6th and an image like that sticks in people's minds. But Mike, to your point, this is Donald Trump's whole

on the party we were talking about this in the last segment before the break which is that against rationality and political sound judgment folks still seem to fall in line behind him. Yes, but so when Republicans who are supporting him are interviewed about him I don't understand how it's a setup or an unfair question to say do you support the fact that he has said he will not accept the results of the election? No, no. The question is asked will you accept the results? So I mean I know we're quibbling over language here and we can

Obviously, we can move on. But this is a... Can we? Well, I do. Because I do think at least part of what I'm trying to express here is that there is a segment of the population that hears those questions and then they feel like, well, this whole thing is a setup to try to... It's a gotcha question. That's all I'm trying to say. And there is a segment of the population that you've got to take into account when you're looking at this. And I think the Republican Party...

I'll stop. I just want to say, as someone who was at the Capitol on January 6th, I do not find these questions to be at all hypothetical.

All right, I do want to leave time to leave you with this because I lost a dear friend this week and the nation lost a great journalist. Howard Fineman passed on Tuesday. He was a pioneer in Washington reporting circles for nearly four decades. He moved from daily news coverage to Newsweek magazine, later to cable news commentary, and then the new frontiers of online journalism.

Those who knew him will know he was incredibly witty. The New York Times notes in his obituary that he had a mind like an encyclopedia. But most of all, he was kind and quick to share his wisdom with journalists following in his footsteps.

Like me, he was one of the first people who believed in and really encouraged me to find a career in television after we first met on the campaign trail back when I was a cub reporter at the Associated Press. I will never forget that he did that for me. I will never forget him. And I do want to send our prayers to his family, his wife Amy, his daughter Meredith, his son Nick.

May his memory be a blessing. Thanks to our panel for being here today. Thanks to all of you for joining us. I'm Casey Hunt. Don't go anywhere. CNN News Central starts right now.

I'm Oprah Winfrey, and I am delighted to introduce you to my podcast, Super Soul Conversations. You can listen to some of the most universal, powerful life lessons. I hope these conversations will help illuminate your path to all that you've been meaning to be and all that you were meant to be.

You want to feel better about your life, where you're headed? Subscribe to my Super Soul Conversations on Apple Podcasts and begin the journey to your best self.