A rush transcript of “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” airing on Sunday, September 21, 2025 on ABC News is below. This copy may not be in its final form, may be updated and may contain minor transcription errors. For previous show transcripts, visit the “This Week” transcript archive.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
JONATHAN KARL, ABC “THIS WEEK” CO-ANCHOR: Overnight, a stunning development in Washington. A message from President Trump attacking his own attorney general and pressuring her to more aggressively prosecute his political rivals.
“THIS WEEK” starts right now.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I just want people to act. They have to act. And we want to act fast.
KARL: President Trump nominates one of his former defense lawyers to take over one of the most important U.S. attorney’s offices in the country, and he lashes out at his critics, prompting a national debate over freedom of speech. Trump suggests regulators pull networks off the airwaves over critical coverage.
TRUMP: I would think maybe their license should be taken away.
KARL: ABC suspends “Jimmy Kimmel Live” over comments about Charlie Kirk following threats from the chairman of the FCC.
BRENDAN CARR, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CHAIR: Frankly, when you see stuff like this, I mean, look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way.
KARL: Prompting a widespread backlash.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY, (D) CONNECTICUT: That’s censorship. That’s state speech control.
SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: That’s right out of “Goodfellas.”
KARL: This morning, Senator Chris Murphy responds to the administration’s latest threats. Chris Christie and Stephen A. Smith. And our roundtable on the political fallout.
Vaccine confusion. RFK Jr.’s advisory committee changes its recommendation for multiple vaccines, drawing bipartisan concern.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Vaccines are safe and effective.
SEN. BILL Cassidy (R-LA): I can promise you, there will be some Hepatitis B transmission.
KARL: I’ll speak to former CDC Director Dr. Richard Besser.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: From ABC News it’s “THIS WEEK.” Here now, Jonathan Karl.
KARL: Good morning. Welcome to “THIS WEEK.”
Later today, family, friends, and supporters of Charlie Kirk will gather in Glendale, Arizona, for his memorial. The 31-year-old activist’s murder shocked the nation, and it was condemned by sensible and compassionate people in and out of politics and across the political spectrum.
It has also been senselessly celebrated by some, a small minority, who didn’t like what Kirk stood for and thought it was somehow, therefore, justified. Celebrating or excusing violence is abhorrent. The murder of Charlie Kirk was not a political act. It was a gruesome crime. His alleged killer now faces the death penalty.
Our thoughts this morning are with the Kirk family, especially his two young children, who will now grow up without their father.
Whatever you think of his political views, and there are many who are deeply offended by things he said, Charlie Kirk was an unwavering advocate for free speech. On a personal note, he was always willing to engage with me and answer my questions. He welcomed debate with those he disagreed with. He did not try to silence his critics. He listened to them and tried to change their minds.
As Charlie Kirk’s body is laid to rest, that core principle is under attack in America. The very latest, a new policy at the Pentagon that would require reporters to pledge that they won’t gather or use information, even unclassified information, that hasn’t been expressly authorized for release and will revoke the press passes of reporters who do not obey. That’s a policy you might expect to see in China, Russia, or North Korea, but not in the United States. And the move at the Pentagon follows a series of steps by the federal government to silence voices seen as critical of President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
KARL (voice over): President Trump began the week by suing “The New York Times” for defamation, alleging articles in a book by reporters were, quote, “specifically designed to try and damage his business, personal and political reputation.” That lawsuit was thrown out on Friday by a federal judge who called the complaint, quote, “improper and impermissible,” and said the president’s lawsuit attempted to use the courts “to rage against an adversary.”
While President Trump was suing “The New York Times,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Justice Department would crack down on what she called hate speech.
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech, anything. And that’s across the aisle.
KARL (voice over): That comment drew backlash, including from some of Donald Trump’s most high-profile allies.
TUCKER CARLSON, HOST OF ‘THE TUCKER CARLSON SHOW’: There’s no sentence that Charlie Kirk would have objected to more than that. Any attempt to impose hate speech laws in this country is a denial of the humanity of American citizens and cannot be allowed under any circumstances. That’s got to be the red line.
KARL (voice over): On Tuesday, I asked the president about the attorney general’s comments.
KARL: What do you make of Pam Bondi saying she’s going to go after hate speech? Is that — I mean a lot of people — a lot of your allies say hate speech is free speech.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: She’ll probably go after people like you because you treat me so unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they’ll come after ABC.
KARL: Would that be appropriate?
KARL (voice over): And on Wednesday, it was the chairman of the FCC that threatened to use the power of the government to silence the president’s critics.
BRENDAN CARR, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CHAIR: We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or, you know, there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.
KARL (voice over): Chairman Brendan Carr was referring to Jimmy Kimmel and these comments he made after the murder of Charlie Kirk.
JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST OF ‘JIMMY KIMMEL LIVE’: We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it.
KARL (voice over): Shortly after Carr’s threat, two of the largest owners of local stations across the country, Nexstar and Sinclair, said they would stop airing “Jimmy Kimmel Live.” This as Nexstar is in the middle of a merger deal with another media company. A deal that requires Carr’s FCC approval to move forward.
Disney ABC then announced it would indefinitely suspend “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” sparking an intense debate over free speech. Carr, however, suggested the FCC would continue to put pressure on television stations.
CARR: We at the FCC are going to enforce the public interest obligation. If there’s broadcasters out there that don’t like it, they can turn their license in to the FCC. But that’s our job.
KARL (voice over): President Trump praised Disney’s decision and targeted NBC late-night host Jimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers as the next that should go, writing on social media, “do it NBC.” And Trump suggested the FCC revoke licenses from broadcasters that are critical of him.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: They give me only bad publicity, or press. I mean, they’re getting a license. I would think maybe their license should be taken away. It will be up to Brendan Carr.
KARL (voice over): The FCC’s actions drew bipartisan criticism.
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, SENATE MINORITY LEADER: That is censorship. It is disgusting. It is a violation of the First Amendment.
SEN. TED CRUZ, (R) TEXAS: I think it is unbelievably dangerous for government to put itself in the position of saying, we’re going to decide what speech we like and what we don’t, and we’re going to threaten to take you off air if we don’t like what you’re saying.
KARL (voice over): Some legal experts doubt Carr has the right to strip licenses based on political content, but not President Trump.
TRUMP: They have to show honesty and integrity. And when they take a — when they take a good —
KARL: Who determines that?
TRUMP: Well, I think the people decide. That’s why I’m president. When they take a —
KARL: So, that means you decide?
TRUMP: When they take a great success, like you often do, and you make it into like it’s a loser, or you put a negative spin on it, ,I don’t think that’s right. So, I think Brendan Carr is a great American patriot. So, I disagree with Ted Cruz on that.
KARL (voice over): And in another effort to go after his critics this week, the president forced out the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Siebert, after his office failed to find incriminating evidence of mortgage fraud against New York Attorney General Letitia James. James has long been in Trump’s crosshairs after she successfully prosecuted the Trump Organization for fraud. After U.S. Attorney Siebert failed to prosecute James, Trump told me he wanted Siebert out. Hours later, he submitted his resignation.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
KARL (on camera): And overnight, an extraordinary statement from President Trump. It appeared to be a direct message to his attorney general, Pam Bondi, but it was posted on Truth Social for the world to see, pressuring her to prosecute his political enemies. The president wrote, in part, “Pam, I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that essentially same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. We can’t delay any longer. It’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice. They indicted me five times over nothing. Justice must be served now.”
And I am joined now by Democratic senator from Connecticut, Chris Murphy.
Senator Murphy, let’s start right there with those words towards Pam Bondi. The president mentioned some of his enemies, including James Comey, the former FBI director, Letitia James. It sounds like he is directly ordering his attorney general to prosecute his enemies.
SEN. CHRIS MURPHY, (D) CONNECTICUT: This is one of the most dangerous moments America has ever faced. We are quickly turning into a banana republic.
The president of the United States is now employing the full power of the federal government, the FCC, the Department of Justice, in order to punish, lock up, take down off the air all of his political enemies.
As you know, this is what happens in Iran. This is what happens in Cuba. This is what happens in China and deeply repressive states in which if you have the courage to stand up and speak truth to power, you are silenced.
I mean, there is no more fundamental right in America than the right to protest your government.
And the question today is, when is enough, enough for Republicans? I was very glad to see Ted Cruz stand up and say what is simply true — it is unconstitutional and deeply immoral for the president to jail or to silence his political enemies. And it will come back and boomerang on conservatives and Republicans at some point if this becomes the norm.
But next week, we need every Republican in the Senate, in the House, not only speaking up, but going to Donald Trump and telling him that they are not going to let him get away with this massive, new contraction of speech. This is a decisive moment for the country. It is a decisive moment for Republicans who have to decide to serve this core, fundamental American value: the freedom of speech.
KARL: OK, we’ll get to the speech aspect of this in a second. But first, what we saw from him overnight with this statement about — to Pam Bondi, and what we saw Friday with the firing — he said it was a firing of the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who investigated Letitia James on this allegation of mortgage fraud, and who found no evidence to move forward with a criminal charge.
The president believes that he — well, he knows — he was targeted for multiple criminal prosecutions, spent most of his time, after he left office, fending those off. And now, he wants to get retribution against those who he believes, he insists, went after him falsely.
MURPHY: Again, it’s really important to underscore what happened here, right? This is a Republican U.S. attorney in Virginia who came to the conclusion that the attorney general of New York did nothing wrong. There was no evidence of a crime.
And so Donald Trump, because he doesn’t care about the facts. All he cares about is the threat of imprisonment for his political enemies, so that it suppresses the speech of other people who might speak up, is now going to put his own political loyalist in charge of that investigation.
And again, I think you have to put it in even broader context because there’s two things happening.
One, you are going to be prosecuted for political speech in this country, but you are also going to be excused, you are going to be let off for real, actual criminality if you are a supporter of the president. Witness what happened to every single, violent January 6th protester let out of jail. See what happened to Tom Homan, his border czar, who literally accepted a bag of cash, $50,000, and the investigation was dropped once Donald Trump became president.
So, there are just two standards of justice now in this country. If you are a friend of the president, a loyalist of the president, you can get away with nearly anything, including beating the hell out of police officers. But if you are an opponent of the president, you may find yourself in jail.
Again, that is Cuba. That’s Iran. That’s Russia. That is not the United States.
And this just has to be a moment where leaders come together, whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, and say enough is enough.
KARL: Let me ask you, you introduced a bill called the No Political Enemies Act. And you say it creates a specific, legal defense for those targeted for political reason — political reasons. Doesn’t the — doesn’t the First Amendment cover that? Is that — is it necessary to have another piece of legislation?
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: I mean, we have a First Amendment. It is the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
MURPHY: Yes, listen, I think what Brendan Carr has done at the FCC is illegal and unconstitutional and if it’s contested in court, I think he will lose.
The problem, though, is that increasingly you have Trump sycophants, not just in charge of the DOJ, but sitting in courthouses all over the country. And so, you have a legal system that is increasingly getting rigged against those who are daring to speak up against the president.
Our legislation just simply makes it easier for you to raise First Amendment defenses in court. It doesn’t create any new rights, new constitutional rights, it just makes it simpler for people to say when they show up to court, “Listen, I did nothing wrong here. All I did was speak my mind.” It creates an easier avenue for you to contest a prosecution that’s brought against you for just speaking politically about the president.
I wish this legislation weren’t necessary, but I think we’re going to need some exceptional new tools at an exceptional moment.
KARL: You’ve probably seen that a lot of people on X, and social media, are recirculating something that you said back in 2018, arguing that what you said now shows you to be hypocritical in what you’re saying now. Let me — let me just read from this tweet from yours (ph), and it was still a tweet back then. “Private companies deciding not to let their companies be used to spread hate and lies is not the same as government censorship. If it feels the same, then we need to ask why a small handful of companies have so much control over the content Americans see.”
So, you know, a lot of the president’s allies will point to a decision like the one made by ABC Disney regarding Jimmy Kimmel in saying, look, this is a private company making a decision that a private company has a right to do.
MURPHY: Well, I think there’s a real difference because these companies made that decision in the context of a threat from the FCC, right? This is a federal regulator who is using the power of government to coheres both Nexstar and ABC to take Jimmy Kimmel down off the air.
Listen, every single president, every single politician has drawn issue with something that a media figure has said and may use the power of persuasion to try to get them to change what they say. That’s very different than using the power of government in a coercive way. That’s actually illegal. The Supreme Court has said, no, you cannot use the regulatory power of the government to say to a broadcaster, if you don’t say what I want you to say, as the president of the United States, there will be an official, legal consequence. That’s illegal. And that’s the fundamental difference here.
KARL: So, I want to turn to another subject in the brief time we have left. There was a poll out, I think about (ph) the Democratic Party, there was a poll out earlier this month from Gallup that asked views of socialism and capitalism. And I want to take a look at this part of that poll. It showed that 66 percent of Democrats have a favorable view of socialism. Independents, 38 percent. Just 38 percent. Republicans, 14 percent.
Is that — is that the future of the — of the — of the Democratic Party is a more favorable view of socialism?
MURPHY: No, it is not. But I have seen, I think, even more interesting polling that shows you across party identities people in this country are sick and tried of corporations having so much control over our lives and are sick and tired of work not paying.
So, I think the Democratic Party has an opportunity to reach into Donald Trump’s base, to really build upon a potential realignment in this country if we are aggressively talking about deconstructing concentrated corporate power, including in the media, and we are talking about fundamentally increasing the amount of money that people make and the protections that they have when they go to work. That’s not socialism, that’s just right-sizing the economy so that people have power instead of corporations having power.
And, frankly, I think that’s, you know, why a candidate like the — like Mamdani in New York is doing so well, because he’s talking about transitioning power from people that don’t have it to people that have it. So, I think that’s the message that ultimately has the potential to unite a lot of right and left.
KARL: We’re out of time, but very quickly, is Chuck Schumer making a mistake by not endorsing Mamdani? He’s like the only major political figure in New York, it seems, that has not endorsed him.
MURPHY: Yes, I guess, I don’t sort of give advice to my colleagues about who they endorse and who they don’t endorse. I think the success of his candidacy is a really important signal to Democrats and Republicans about the power of taking on concentrated corporate power. And I hope that at least my party learns from that.
KARL: All right, Senator Chris Murphy, thank you for being with us this morning.
MURPHY: Appreciate it.
KARL: Up next, we go to Glendale, Arizona, where supporters are lining up to pay their respects to Charlie Kirk. We’re back in just two minutes.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: That’s a look at the long lines outside of State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, this morning where Vice President Vance, President Trump, and many others will be attending the memorial service for Charlie Kirk.
Let’s go to ABC’s Matt Rivers in Arizona on the heightened security at the event and what to expect later today. Matt?
MATT RIVERS, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, good morning, Jon.
We’re just outside the venue here in Glendale, Arizona, where this memorial is set to take place at 11:00 a.m. Pacific Time. You can see it’s very early in the morning, and yet there’s already hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people lining up to get into the venue. Organizers saying it’s going to take a long time to get in because of the added security elements that have been put in place.
This is the kind of security levels that we see for Super Bowls. I’m talking thousands of law enforcement officers that are going to be here today to make sure that this goes smoothly. And, of course, tensions ratcheted up a little bit over the weekend after authorities arrested a man pretending to be law enforcement outside of the venue. He was armed, according to police. So that gives people the sense of the sort of threats that we’re facing here at this point.
It’s just adding to what’s been a very tense time in the country, obviously, since Kirk’s killing. The threat of violence very much on people’s minds including on the minds of Secret Service because we know President Donald trump and J.D. Vance, the vice president, will be here today among a long list of speakers including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump, Jr. Big names within the conservative politics world. No question about that there.
Kirk, of course, a controversial figure in the country, but people who will be showing up here today, many of them really view him as almost a political martyr of sorts in their continued political movement and their fight in this country, Jon. A very, very big event here in Glendale and a massive security presence to boot.
KARL: Our thanks to Matt. You can see full coverage of today’s memorial service streaming at 2:00 p.m. Eastern on ABC News Live. “The Roundtable” is next. We are back in a moment.(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: All right, and now the roundtable is here.
Former DNC chair Donna Brazile, Bernie Sanders campaign manager, Faiz Shakir, and the editor of “The SCOTUSBlog”, Sarah Isgur. And in a debut here on “This Week”, executive editor of “The Daily Signal”, Rob Bluey.
All right. Sarah, as a former spokesperson for the Department of Justice, I have to ask you, what is the impact when the president of the United States puts out a message like he did last night, basically slamming his attorney general for not prosecuting his enemies?
SARAH ISGUR, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: This is bad for the Department of Justice. It’s bad for the country. But I do think we should take a bigger view here.
KARL: Yeah.
ISGUR: When you look at during the Obama administration using the power of the presidency to target Tea Party groups through the IRS, during the Biden administration using the power of the presidency to target social media companies. Mark Zuckerberg saying they were threatened if they didn’t take down information on COVID origins. And now, using the power of the presidency, whether through the FCC or the Department of Justice, to limit criticism.
We should be talking about the power of the presidency because, frankly, there is no legislation that is going to prevent abuses of power by the president. We have to take away that power. The FCC shouldn’t have this power. The IRS have this power.
And until we’re willing to talk about that, this is just going to turn into a tit-for-tat, and it’s going nowhere good.
KARL: So, I want to play something that Pam Bondi said at her confirmation hearing. This is when she was asked specifically about whether or not she would refrain from acting politically in that job. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: That will not be the case if I am attorney general. I will not politicize that office. I will not target people simply because of their political affiliation. Justice will be administered evenhandedly throughout this country.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Right, Donna, she’s now going to have to test that proposition.
DONNA BRAZILE, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Absolutely. Look, she’s the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America. That should — she should hold that position in higher regards.
What we’re seeing now is a pressure campaign like we see a pressure campaign across the board in the Trump administration. Do as I say or else.
And what I saw last night, I was shocked. He — it looked private, but it became a public attack on the attorney general. I want you to, you know, go ahead and prosecute my enemies. Go ahead and find dirt on my enemies or else. That’s what Donald Trump — that’s the signal he was sending to Pam Bondi last night.
FAIZ SHAKIR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: When you pull back out and you look at the politics, that the wheels are coming off the Trump train a bit, and he knows it.
You see the standing on the economy. People are getting angrier and angrier that he isn’t looking out for them. Healthcare premiums higher, electricity bills higher, grocery prices higher. He’s seeing that in the polls.
So, now, a couple things are happening — distraction. So hey, I got to get on my front foot. I’m going to go attack my opponents. And he’s looking for somebody to blame.
So, if I’m going down, instead of being a person, a president with honesty and credibility, says “I want to look out for people,” I’m going to find somebody else. I’m going to say it’s Jon Karl’s fault that things are going terribly.
KARL: So — so, Rob, we understand — our reporting is that the leadership of the Department of Justice, Pam Bondi, Todd Blanche, opposed what Trump did on Friday, which was fire the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, because he would not — he didn’t find evidence to prosecute the president’s enemies, Letitia James specifically, and James Comey.
ROBERT BLUEY, THE DAILY SIGNAL PRESIDENT & EXECUTIVE EDITOR: Jon, one of the most important roles of a president is obviously picking personnel, and President Trump has been known over the course of his first term and now the second term that he wants people in those positions who are going to move swiftly and get things done. And so, if the president is displeased with somebody, it’s his prerogative to remove them from a position.
That’s all — “personnel is policy” in Washington, D.C., we all know that. And so, ultimately, if a cabinet secretary may disagree with the president on that, that’s a battle that will obviously play out.
But in this particular case, I think what you’re seeing is a frustration by President Trump that things are not moving swiftly enough. Secondly —
KARL: Swiftly enough on what?
BLUEY: Swiftly enough across the board. I think that he —
KARL: But about — about he wants — he wants —
BLUEY: He wants these — these investigations to come to a conclusion. The president said, if they’re guilty, let’s make sure that we pursue that. If they’re not guilty, that’s fine too. I mean, that was what the — those were the president’s words.
SARAH ISGUR, EDITOR AT SCOTUSBLOG & ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: The timing is that the statute of limitations is about to run in a week. And so they either have to bring charges or they don’t —
KARL: Against who?
ISGUR: And if they don’t have evidence to bring to a grand jury, this is going to be incredibly embarrassing for them.
KARL: OK. But our understanding is they spent five months, that office. This is one of the most important U.S. attorney’s offices in the country, spent five months looking into this allegation of mortgage fraud and found there wasn’t evidence to bring a case.
ISGUR: In fact, if anything, they found evidence on the —
KARL: Exonerated her (ph).
ISGUR: — opposite. Yes. Correct.
KARL: OK. I want to move to the other part of this, which is the free speech component. An editorial in The Free Press, Bari Weiss Free Press about what happened with Disney, A BC suspending Jimmy Kimmel show. Take a look at this. They write, the circumstances under which he has been suspended should alarm anyone who cares about free speech. It is now Trump — is it now Trump administration policy to punish broadcasters for comedy that doesn’t conform to its politics? That is censorship. For the MAGA crowd who might like what they’re seeing from Carr, remember that Democrats will wield this power again and when they do, they will play by new rules that Carr and the Trump administration just established.
Rob, let me ask you, we saw very strong words from Ted Cruz and from Tucker Carlson, highly critical of what the FCC is doing. What — where does MAGA world break down on all of this?
BLUEY: Well, John, I do have sympathy for those who have concerns about free speech. I came to Washington, D.C. My first job was to defend reporters who were facing free speech challenges. And we ourselves have suffered under the Biden administration when the Biden White House revoked the credentials of The Daily Signal and 440 other reporters two years ago, in 2023. And so I know what it’s like to be on the receiving end.
At the same time, I think we need to take a step back, hopefully, and judge that Brendan Carr was asked his opinion on a podcast. He gave his opinion. He did not institute any sort of regulatory action against ABC. It was Nexstar and Sinclair that decided to preempt the show, which is what prompted ABC to do this (ph).
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: Well, that’s what this editorial is about, jawboning. When an official that has the power goes out and says that kind of stuff, the Supreme Court has said that can be a form of censorship. Donna?
DONNA BRAZILE, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR & FORMER DNC CHAIR: Yeah. He sent a message. No question that Brendan, who in the past has spoken out in terms of free speech, he’s been an advocate of speaking truth to power. And when you lose that right, when you lose that ability to hold elected leaders and others accountable, when a comic cannot make a mistake and then come back and correct his mistake, when we’ve reached this destination in our country where people cannot criticize official leaders, then we’ve — we’re losing a key guardrail of our democracy.
FAIZ SHAKIR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST & BERNIE SANDERS 2020 CAMPAIGN MANAGER: Yeah. I would just, to my friends on the right, with all due respect, I do think we’re in a different moment. This isn’t tit for tat. This isn’t like something in the past. I believe, and you may disagree with me, that this is something very different. This isn’t a person looking out for trying to object — solve for COVID or some issue that is relevant to the American public.
This is a person who’s looking out purely for their own self-interest, self-preservation. Me, Trump, my cronyism, go and defend my personal interest. Dear Department of Justice, dear IRS, dear Fed Reserve, whatever it is I want, you are supposed to do pure nonstop. That’s what’s being governed here. This is the interest of Trump.
ISGUR: I actually don’t disagree on that, but the mechanisms by which to do it, saying if we will take away your Section 230 protection and the Federal Communications Decency Act, if you don’t take down this speech that we don’t like on your platform, is what the Biden administration did. Add in more curse words according to Mark Zuckerberg.
Look, I think it’s great that we saw so many voices from across the spectrum on the right, absolutely going after Pam Bondi for her statements about hate speech. But you know what sort of struck me? Ted Cruz isn’t a podcaster. I mean, he said that on a podcast. He’s a U.S. Senator. The actual solve for this is to do something, to actually have political accountability, which is the job of a Senator. Actually do something to rein in a president (ph).
(CROSSTALK)
KARL: We’ll see where he goes. Hey, but before we go, I see that my friend Donna has got a book over there, the new Kamala Harris book.
BRAZILE: It is not autographed, Jon, so it may not be worth a lot right now.
KARL: So, this book has created quite a stir. It is not even out. It comes out on Tuesday, but obviously excerpt is out. I want to read from one of the excerpts where she describes a phone call that she got from Joe Biden the day of her debate with Donald Trump. Joe then rattled on about his own former debate performances. I beat him the other time. I wasn’t feeling well the last one. He continued to insist that his debate performance had not hurt him much with the electorate. I was barely listening.
Now, she also says that she was wondering why he was distracting her on — when she had to be concentrating and getting ready for debate. She seems quite upset with her —
BRAZILE: And you know what — you know what Doug said to her at that moment —
BRAZILE: Day 56, let it go. Let it go. Focus on what you’re about to do.
Look, if you’ve never been on a presidential campaign, if you’ve never run for president, this is a great book. It’s a promise, a starter for young people who want to figure out what it’s like to be on a campaign trail.
From that vantage point of view, I enjoyed reading the book. But from the vantage point of myself as somebody who knows what happened in 2024, it doesn’t answer a lot of questions that we still need to learn from what happened. When you go from having 20 — 81 million people in 2020 to a little over 75 million, there are a lot of unanswered questions in this book, but it’s a read in terms of what the future might look like for Kamala Harris, not the Democratic Party.
KARL: What do — what do you think of all the score settling there? And does — does she have a future? Is she —
SHAKIR: I doubt it. No. I — I mean, you’ve got to be somebody with — people are looking for people with conviction and integrity in time of corruption, economic corruption, political corruption. Who’s going to have the honesty and integrity to stand up to power? And, you know, some of the decisions she’s making, she said, I wasn’t in control. It wasn’t my fault. It was somebody else. I’m like, who? Then who was in control? You know, you got to — you don’t listen to consultants and the donor class. If you want to step into the political arena, you stand on your own two feet, you make tough decisions, and you own them, and you have a vision and a strategy, and I don’t think it came through in the book.
ISGUR: It’s a testament to the failure of the left on their increasing purity test. You have Neera Tanden out there now saying they are going to have to start looking at candidates who might not agree with them on everything. Maybe a pro-life Democrat could do more for the party than anything else right now.
KARL: All right, we’ve got to take a quick break.
Coming up, our next guests are never afraid to speak their mind. We have Stephen A. Smith and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN A. SMITH, HOST OF SIRIUSXM’S ‘STRAIGHT SHOOTER WITH STEPHEN A,’ & HOST OF ESPN’S ‘FIRST TAKE’: There’s an excerpt in there where she says, quote, “it’s Joe and Jill’s decision. We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized. Was it grace or was it recklessness?” My question would be, why didn’t you say that before?
GOV. JOSH SHAPIRO, (D) PENNSYLVANIA: I mean, look, I haven’t read the former vice president’s book. And — and she’s going to have to —
SMITH: (INAUDIBLE).
SHAPIRO: She’s going to have to answer to how she was in the room and yet never said anything publicly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: That was Stephen A. Smith, the host of ESPN’s “First Take,” who launched a new show this week “Straight Shooter with Stephen A.” on Sirus XM’s POTUS Channel 124.
Stephen A. joins me now, alongside with former — alongside former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie right here in the studio.
Stephen A, let me start with you on the Kamala Harris book. Josh Shapiro told you, hey, she has to explain why she didn’t speak up on Biden’s ability to run earlier. You also said that her career, her political career is over. What —
STEPHEN A. SMITH, HOST, ESPN’S “FIRST TAKE”: Yes.
KARL: Elaborate.
SMITH: Well, there’s nothing to elaborate about. Who cares what she has to say at this particular moment in time? I hope the book is successful.
When you had an opportunity as the Democratic nominee for the presidency of the United States of America to address so many different issues and instead what you did was go into protective mode, you wanted to show your loyalty or what have you, and then you lose the election, and what you want to do is point out all the reasons that you didn’t win and point the finger of blame it seems in everybody else’s direction instead of yourself, I don’t think that she’s going to have any support from the Democratic Party. I can tell you that much.
And then you have to take into consideration the level of support that she had coming in. This is an individual that was — you know, that was used to bypass what some would say the democratic process is. There was no primary.
Yes, the — he — Biden was awful during that debate, that June 27th. Yes, he ultimately stepped away in July.
But if you talk to many people within the Democratic Party, they were talking about how this was all part of the plan because had he departed significantly earlier, when we all saw slippage in him as far as — I was on the record a year earlier seeing the slippage. Had he departed, there would have been a Democratic primary. She would have had to compete to be the Democratic nominee.
And there were people who did not want her to do that because clearly, they didn’t believe —
KARL: You know —
SMITH: — whether it was Gavin Newsom, whether it was Barack Obama or somebody else.
And it seems like she knew it. And that was the kind of feedback she received. And to talk about all of that now, post-election loss, nobody wants —
KARL: You know —
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: — into the win.
KARL: You know, I got to say just quickly on this, she didn’t speak up, but neither did Josh Shapiro. Neither did Gavin Newsom.
SMITH: Yeah.
KARL: Neither did all — I mean, you know, everybody just kind of stood by —
(CROSSTALK)
SMITH: Oh, I did (ph).
KARL: — and you know?
SMITH: No, no, no, no, no. Jon, don’t do that. Don’t do that.
Josh Shapiro is the governor of the state of Pennsylvania. He has a job. He’s in office. Okay?
The reality is that you were the vice president. You were swearing up and down that you were in the room for all the major decisions, and then come to find out you’re acknowledging that that was not the case.
So, if you’re an American voter, which I am because I am no politician. I am an American voter. I am a conscientious observer, and I’m hearing this stuff from you now, which was — which was opposite of what you were verbalizing to America in pursuit of their vote.
KARL: All right.
SMITH: Now that you’re trying to sell a book and we’re hearing a totally different tune. All I’m trying to say to you is that folks are going to remember that and you weren’t that strong of a candidate before. Respectfully, remember she didn’t make it to Iowa —
KARL: All right.
SMITH: — in 2020. Okay?
And then in 2024, you lost every swing state. You lost a popular vote for the first time since 2004. Nobody wants to hear now. I believe her political career is over.
KARL: Okay. So, Chris Christie, I don’t think you probably disagree with much of that. So, I want to get on to something else —
CHRIS CHRISTIE, ABC NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Yes.
KARL: — which is the extraordinary statement we saw from Donald Trump calling on his attorney general, really slamming her for not prosecuting more aggressively his political enemies and the firing of this U.S. attorney in the Easten District of Virginia. What do you — what’s going on?
CHRISTIE: Well, what’s going on is everything that I predicted during the 2024 campaign, Jon. Donald Trump’s not contentious being president. He wants to be a prosecutor in every district where he has an enemy, so that he can make the decisions.
Now look, the way our justice system has been set up since the beginning of this country is that the president designates someone with the experience and the education in every district across the country to make decisions on how federal prosecutorial powers should be used. Not the president making those decisions, who has neither the education nor the experience to judge whether there are facts sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under a statute in this country.
So, when that doesn’t happen, people believe those decisions are now being made for personal reasons, not legal ones. And that creates a slippery slope in our — in our justice system. Now, we will have a very difficult time coming back from.
And so, he doesn’t have to agree with every decision a U.S. attorney makes. And by the way, he doesn’t have the background, the experience, or the education to make an educated judgment on that.
KARL: So, is Pam Bondi going to follow the orders? I mean, are we going to see prosecutions where prosecutors say there aren’t evidence?
CHRISTIE: I — you know, we’re all going to have to wait and see.
But I will say this, I think it’s disconcerting to have a situation where the attorney general of the United States, the deputy attorney general of the United States, sit by and without a word, without a peep publicly of any concern about the fact that the president of the United States said specifically he’s firing this guy because initially in the initial post he put up was because Letitia James hasn’t been prosecuted.
Then, someone got to him, Jon, because when he came out with the tuxedo on, he said, well, let’s just make a decision whether it’s innocent or guilty —
KARL: All right. I see Stephen A., you want to jump in. What have you got? What do you make of this?
STEPHEN A. SMITH, HOST OF SIRIUSXM’S “STRAIGHT SHOOTER WITH STEPHEN A,” & HOST OF ESPN’S “FIRST TAKE”: Well, first of all, I completely agree with my buddy, Governor Chris Christie right there. He’s absolutely right on the money. And I — but I also think that we need to highlight those who are educated, those who are experienced, that are supposed to have a spine if they’re going to be in this positions and say, where are they?
Donald Trump is Donald Trump. We knew what he was going to be from the standpoint of his behavior. He is on a vengeance tour. He is on a tour for retribution. He remembers every naysayer out there that has come after him, and he’s going after them. And he’s unapologetic about that. Well, duh, we all knew that.
The question is, what are our elected officials going to do about it? What are members of his administration who have their own careers, went to school, got their education, worked their way through the terrain, elevated themselves in this system that we’re talking about here that we live under, what are you going to do if you’re Pam Bondi? What are you going to do if you’re Kash Patel?
What are you going to do if you’re a host of Representatives in the House or the Senate, who call yourself members of the GOP, who call yourself conservatives who live off the Constitution? So you say, and you see his willingness to bypass rules and regulations, if he can get away with it to get what he wants, what are you going to do about that?
So we can set up the lament (ph) that there’s more that a Ted Cruz can do, but I applaud him for speaking up about Donald Trump in the position that he took, and Brendan Carr at the FCC Commission, and the position that he took. We need folks like that because if you’re conducting yourselves based off of those principles, then we are not as concerned about accusations of authoritarianism and things of that nature, because we know you’re not going to be able to get away with it when we got 435 Representatives and a hundred Senators.
But if you’re not going to do anything, you’re not going to show that you have a spine, then he’s going to be able to do whatever he wants to do. And if his number one goal is retribution, there’s a whole bunch of people that’s going to be in a world of trouble.
KARL: Campaign was about retribution. It’s what he promised.
And they — look, they — as — and Stephen’s right, they all swore an oath to the Constitution, not to Donald Trump. And so, what Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche are going to have to show now is, did they mean the oath when they took it? Because their oath was to protect the Constitution of the United States and to protect the rule of order in this country and the rule of law. And we want to see what they do there.
And this not only applies to them, but in the other topic you’re talking about with Brendan Carr, look, I did a number of organized crime cases when I was U.S. attorney in New Jersey. When someone says we can do this the easy way or the hard way —
KARL: You’ve heard that line before.
CHRISTIE: Yeah. That’s not subtle. That’s something you usually hear on a wiretap with some guys in Hoboken. OK? Not from the chairman of the FCC. And let’s hear from somebody who’s actually on Mount Rushmore, Jon. Teddy Roosevelt talked about this and he said, to announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that were to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, it is morally treasonable to the American people. Maybe we should be listening to one of the voices that’s really on Mount Rushmore.
KARL: All right, with your invocation of Mount Rushmore and the Rough Rider Teddy Roosevelt, we are out of time. Stephen A. Smith, Chris Christie, thank you very much.
Up next, CDC Acting Director Dr. Richard Besser on what families need to know after RFK Jr.’s handpicked Advisory Committee offered new guidance on several vaccines. We’re back in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SUSAN MONAREZ, FORMER CDC DIRECTOR: He asked me to pre-commit to signing off on each and one of the forthcoming ACIP recommendations regardless of whether or not there was scientific evidence. He just wanted blanket approval. And if I could not commit to approval of each and every one of the recommendations that would be forthcoming, I needed to resign.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: That was former CDC director Susan Monarez testifying on Capitol Hill this week giving her account of the events that led HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to fire her last month. That testimony came just days before Kennedy’s vaccine panel voted to change several vaccine recommendations.
I am joined now by the CEO of The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the former acting director of the CDC, Dr. Richard Besser, to talk about those changes.
Before we get to the vaccines, Dr. Besser, what did you take away from Monarez’s testimony and account directly contradicting what Bobby Kennedy has said about why she was fired just shortly after she was confirmed, nominated by the president of the United States and confirmed?
DR. RICHARD BESSER, FORMER ACTING CDC DIRECTOR, ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON CEO AND PRESIDENT: Yes, you know, Jon, she had — she had told me the same information before she was actually fired. What we saw on display was integrity. That’s what integrity looks like. That’s what you need to see as the director of CDC. You want someone who has a line that they won’t cross, and that line has to be science and truth, because they’re so entrusted in maintaining and protecting the health of people here and around the world.
KARL: So this CDC panel on vaccines came out two days of rather confusing discussion and some recommendations. Can you explain to us what they changed and what it means for Americans?
BESSER: Yes. This — to someone who is not steeped in public health, this whole conversation and process is really confusing. This advisory committee makes the recommendations that affect what takes place when you see your doctor. I practiced pediatrics for over 30 years and I looked to the CDC to give me the recommendations that I could then talk to a mom about as to why we were recommending a vaccine, what the disease was we were trying to prevent, what the risks and benefits were of being exposed to the disease as well as from the vaccine.
What we saw on display Thursday and Friday was chaos. This is a group of people — there are a few people on there who understand vaccines, understand the process, but largely it’s a group of people who are steeped in anti-vaccine ideology, who don’t understand how to evaluate the key concepts. And we saw them not being exactly sure what they were voting on, and in the end, what they did was they failed to recommend the COVID vaccine to very young children and the elderly, two groups who are at the highest risk of having a bad outcome from COVID.
My biggest takeaway as a doctor is that I can’t look to the CDC anymore for the trusted information. I’m going to need to look to medical societies and other groups to provide that information. But the tragic thing is that this committee determines whether insurance isgoing to pay for this for everyone — every child in America. And that is going to cost lives.
KARL: I mean, it’s so confusing to Americans of all types, but especially with young children, wondering what to do with their children. Do you listen to the government? Do you listen to expert groups, doctors? What do you listen to?
But let me just ask you big picture. Bobby Kennedy came into office, obviously with a long track record of raising doubts about vaccines, an anti-vaccine crusade he was on. What kind of a lasting impact is he having on the way Americans perceive vaccines and on the health of the country?
BESSER: Yeah, I mean, Secretary Kennedy was one of the nation’s leading anti-vaccine crusaders, and he came in on a mission and he is moving forward with that mission. He has stocked this committee with so many people who are part of the anti-vaccine movement, who have an agenda. He is instilling mistrust in vaccines.
What you want to do is ensure that people have the information when they’re seeing their doctor to make an informed choice. And what this process over these two days did was it instilled doubt in a lot of people who didn’t have doubt. And it’s going to lead people who were trying to do the right thing for their families, for their children, to make wrong decisions.
It’s what he was about from the beginning. It’s not what he told Senator Cassidy, he was going to do when he was up for confirmation. But he came in, immediately removed the expert committee, one that we all relied on and brought in people who would move forward his agenda. And he’s not done yet. I’m very worried that he’s going to bring more people on, because some of the votes didn’t go the way that he would’ve liked this week, and that is very, very concerning.
KARL: And let’s not forget Operation Warp Speed, which created the COVID vaccine, is something Donald Trump has, I think, rightfully appointed to as one of the real major accomplishments from his first term.
Dr. Richard Besser, thank you for helping us understand what went down this week. Really appreciate your time.
When we come back, some powerful words about politics and journalism from the late Robert Redford. We’re back in a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KARL: Before we go, some powerful words from Hollywood legend Robert Redford, who passed away this week. He spoke about journalism in a 2017 interview for the HBO documentary, “The Newspapermen.” Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT REDFORD, ACTOR, DIRECTOR & PRODUCER: I don’t have a lot of regard for politics per se, but the relationship between politics and journalism, I do have, because journalism is what keeps politics straight. It is — is politics telling the truth or not? You know? And very often politics doesn’t tell the truth. It just tells a story that’s being told by one side or the other. But it’s journalism that gets to the bottom line and says, wait a minute, that we’re hearing this, we’re hearing that. But what’s the truth?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KARL: Wise words. Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us. Have a great day.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
