Elizabeth,

a couple of things.

One, the president's a master at changing the headlines.

And, you know, for three days we've been talking about what a debacle Tuesday was for Republicans and for this administration.

And now all the coverage is about Stephen Miller being named chief of staff.

And so I think that's part of the intent.

I think to Mick's point, part of it is that they don't think they need Congress.

Do you know him?

What do you make of him becoming the next chief of staff? What's he going to, to, what's that going to look like?

Well, Caitlin, I remember when Mike Pence was chosen to be on the ticket in 2016, and we had our first trip to Trump Tower to kind of visit the campaign apparatus.

And even though I knew it was pretty smart and I expected to see a pretty busy, bustling place, and we walk in and there were two people.

It was Stephen Miller and Hope Hicks.

And Stephen has been with the president since 2015.

As you know, he was press secretary for Jeff Sessions, who was the only senator who supported Donald Trump in the primary.

And so Stephen's been there.

What do you make of that?

Talk about big tent, right? There are some really different people in that group.

Yeah.

Well, thanks for having me here.

And, you know, early in my career, I was chief of staff for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson from Texas, and she won a special election in 1993.

It was the last time a Democrat held a seat in the Senate from Texas.

So it's been 30 some years.

I think the tone and tenor of James Tallarico was was very appropriate and it should be the right message for today.

What does it say to you that they're both running against each other?

Talk about big tent, right? There are some really different people in that group.

Yeah.

Well, thanks for having me here.

And, you know, early in my career, I was chief of staff for Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson from Texas, and she won a special election in 1993.

It was the last time a Democrat held a seat in the Senate from Texas.

So it's been 30 some years.

I think the tone and tenor of James Tallarico was was very appropriate and it should be the right message for today.

What does it say to you that they're both running against each other?

But Mark, does this have an impact, this sort of Funny business, I dare say, does go on behind the scenes from both parties.

Yeah, look, I think it does have an impact.

I think the reality is most voters don't want to elect somebody who's lied to them.

And I think the reality is that Mary Patola basically said she had nothing to do with this.

Her campaign said they had nothing to do with it.

The Democrat Senatorial Committee said they had nothing to do with it.

And now the evidence suggests that they did.

Overnight, the president's posting on his social media site about the golf course here in D.C. As a Republican who worked in a Trump White House in the past, you don't have hair to pull out right now, but I'm figuring you'd be pulling out your hair that he isn't on message on the issues that really do matter to Americans, wouldn't you?

Do voters want to hear about the record oil profits that companies are making right now?

Caitlin, I think that as we head into this midterm, the Democrats have nominated truly some radical socialists in many cases that have harbored resentment toward America.

But a challenge for a Republican in this cycle is you're trying to make it about them when you have control of the House, the Senate, and the White House.

So it's a really difficult challenge if that's what you're running the midterm on.

And this White House isn't helping Republicans who are on the ballot.

Number one issue is remain affordability, and those concerns are generally dismissed.

And what I think exacerbates the challenge for Republicans is every day there's a new story of grift coming out of the White House, of whether or not it's the president's son who's having a wedding paid for by a Russian oligarch, or you have Middle Eastern nations that have harbored terrorists investing in their investment funds, or getting access to things that American taxpayers don't.

Why do you think you changed that line?

Also here tonight is CNN political commentator and the former Trump White House communications director, alissa farrah griffin and you know as we just look at what the president's argument is tonight mark i do think there is a question of where diesel prices are hitting this high price this high benchmark in ohio are voters going to buy that ukraine is to blame for that

no okay well and i think the reality though is that it's it's far worse than that in my mind it's like you're giving a win to vladimir putin who has been obviously a murderous dictator who started this in this fight with ukraine who's killed innocents tens of thousands who's stolen children across the border um vladimir putin is losing this war he's lost tens of thousands of soldiers there's a lot of pressure at home why we're trying to give him a lifeline I don't understand.

And the reality is that so you may potentially lower diesel price by a couple pennies, although I think there's much skepticism because the infrastructure in Russia has been so debilitated that they really couldn't even give us that.

But for what, Caitlin? I think a lot of the president's policies have elevated costs across the heartland of America for farmers on fertilizer, on diesel, on gasoline prices.

It's the heartland of America in many cases that has provided men and women who are serving our country.

And Russia is providing the intelligence to Iran to kill and fight American men and women.

And so what you're basically saying to our farmers is, I'm going to lower your diesel costs maybe by a couple pennies in exchange for blood money to kill more Ukrainians and to give blood money to Russians who are using intel to go after American troops.

thinks they're helping Republicans.

Is it true that the vice president, you're not thinking about that? You're not planning about that? Or is there something that it's only smart to be planning about things, but what happens next?

Well, the circumstance is a little bit different because keep in mind that in 2020, Trump was on top of the ticket.

At 28, he won't be.

And so it is a different scenario for the current vice president.

I think that's exactly the right answer to give.

And there's a lot that has to play out between now and then.

And so you already are familiar with a lot of his advisors having left in the conversations.

I think my question actually, Mark, Cruz aside, any number of people, if somebody came to you right now as somebody who's considering running in 28, what would you tell them about what they should be doing?

Don't they have a mission to keep other top cabinet officials safe as well, especially someone as high up as Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State? Mark Short?

Well, Katy, thanks for having me.

Look, I, I, I think that their first and foremost responsibility is to protect the president of the United States, and I think, you know, we don't have every bit of information that they had at that time.

Uh, and I think also that the Secret Service is predominantly supposed to protect the president, the vice president.

A lot of other cabinet officials have their own protective services by the federal government that is not part of the Secret Service.

And so, um, I, I, I think that there's part of this that, that we don't have the full information at this point to, to decide what they knew and why they made decisions to pro- to-

... else that could have happened to not make them unwitting decoys to hide him?

I, I, yeah, again, I don't have all the information really, Katy, to be able to make that, uh, determination.

The president obviously has

enormous confidence in Ratcliffe, but put him in charge of the CIA.

If China was interfering in 2020 elections, did they not in 2024? when Donald Trump was elected.

And so there's enormous questions there.

I think there are questions about, you know, if you're going to allege that this was China-influenced, then Dasha, why is the Trump 2.0 so soft on China? The first administration had a strong posture against China.

This is a very serious accusation that we should all take seriously if there's foreign interference.

But then why has there been such appeasement on TikTok, on lifting export controls of chips, on not standing with Taiwan? One step after another, this administration has been totally different than the first administration on China.

Mark, from a communications perspective, what is the strategy here? Why is Vance doing these interviews and talking about this?

also, Benjamin Netanyahu understands American politics better, Mark, than just about anybody, and right now realizes that Forcing Trump to be on the side of Israel may not be the best thing for him.

Well, look, it's hard to think of a president who's been more aligned with Israel than Donald Trump.

100%.

The course of his presidency.

I think the president tried the appeasement path, and that didn't really work.

And so for Benjamin Netanyahu right now, as Paul said, Donald Trump is doing what he would want done.

So why interfere?

What does that mean for the future internally in the White House of foreign policy?

in your mind, essentially?

I, I think that the challenge for Republicans is, is, is always gonna be a difficult cycle when your party is in power in the White House.

It's even more difficult if your party's in control of the White House, House, and the Senate.

Americans want divided government.

It's what they prefer.

And so it, it doesn't mean it's impossible, it just means that the b- the, the hurdle is really high.

I think you add to that the president's trade agenda and, and the, the fact that we've not basically really lowered prices significantly.

the kind of interventionist hawk.

This is why we need the ballroom.

I think we gotta build that ballroom as soon as possible.

I mean, is it fair to take this incident, say that it's the Democrats' fault, and if you're a Republican, uh, never question or criticize President Trump for his rhetoric?

Abby, I think that, uh, political rhetoric has gotten too coarse across the board.

I think that, um, that, uh, today in, in America, I think there's, there's just simply too much vitriol that's exchanged.

Um, but I do think it's reality that there's been three assassination attempts on this president's life in the last two years.

And, uh, and I think that it, that there has been a heightened amount of rhetoric that's been coming out of the left in recent days.

And so I think it is appropriate for us to pl- ask everybody to begin to bring the coarseness down.

But what do you make of, I mean, the press secretary came out and defended it initially today.

Right.

They changed the story a couple of times.

I would imagine that the same staffer is the one who posted kerfuffle a couple of years ago in the middle of the night.

But I think the process actually, despite the mayor's assertions, I actually think the president's explanation probably is the way it happened.

I think that the president, he has been phenomenal at using social media, but there's always this desire and need to put content out in ways that can be really harmful.

And I think this is obviously a big mistake, but they get all sorts of content that's fed into them that they look at and put out at all hours of the night.

Are they right to think that we get that?

Well, look, I think that we still have the highest effective rate we have in 100 years since Smoot-Hawley.

I think there's a lot of people when Liberation Day came assume that this is just part of the president negotiating style and these aren't going to be really implemented.

And here we are many months later.

And even as John recounts numbers that are less than expectation, it's still hundreds of millions in one case, a billion dollar hit to companies.

So it's still pretty substantial.

I do think that for China, as we head into next week, China is looking for relief from the tariffs.

Mark, taking it to this shutdown, which is ongoing, what are the polls telling you about which party likely voters blame for it? And what do you think are the risks to the economy? What kind of pressures we're likely to see come to bear as we head toward the end of the year?

What do you think happens here?

Look, I think we're headed to a shutdown.

I think it's frankly to the points that Speaker Johnson just made.

I do think Republicans have been there before.

I think typically most of the shutdowns in the last few years have been Republicans looking to contain spending.

And in some cases, there wasn't really an out, but you're feeling pressure from the base of your party to do something in opposition.

And I think that's where Democrats find themselves today.

And I do wonder if that's kind of a strategic play here for getting the high road on on this health care issue as the Democrats try to make the shutdown about it.

What did you make of the court ruling?

Well, I think the court ruling Friday night was a good win for taxpayers.

I think that everyone knows that in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, that our founders clearly designed that the ability to tax the American people belongs to Congress and all of their representatives.

And as your viewers know, a tariff is a tax, and it's a tax on American companies and American consumers.

I think that big picture, you know, this president and the people in his administration, they're not really fans of wealth of nations.

They don't view it as if a free and fair trade, both sides win.

They view as if we're buying goods from any foreign country, that is a net loss.

I'm wondering how you see that and whether you agree that it's a permanent change, that we're not going to view the Chinese as the place to just get cheap stuff and get it quickly and easily anymore.

They're practically celebrating.

Yeah, I mean, I mean, look, it is.

I think that I don't see that Elon is going to switch parties.

I think, as you know, much of what drove Elon was kind of a more libertarian concern about where the previous administration gone and also on social issues like the trans issues.

And so I think that I don't think that's going to change.

But certainly if his money is withheld from Republicans, that's that's a big change in 2000 and 26.

But again, ultimately, I think that Republicans know That a $4.5 trillion tax increase on the American people is not what they want to see happen, and they'll come together to actually get this done.

And there are a lot of issues here that could affect Musk's business and plans.

So why are we hearing all these conflicting reports about what they're going to be, what the president's thinking is and how it's going to be rolled out?

Well, Frank, I think that in the aftermath of the election, markets rallied before Inauguration Day because they expected much of the same economic policy of the first administration, of low taxes, deregulatory agenda, and believed that in many cases the tariffs were simply for negotiation.

I think that the advisors he has around him in the second administration are far more committed acolytes and disciples of believing in strong tariffs and believing that the protectionist trade policies will bring jobs back to America.

I think the reality is that much of what the incentive for the tax relief of 2017 was, was to bring jobs back, that you lower the corporate tax rate and jobs will come back.

And I think, you know, your next guest will be able to explain that better, that that agenda actually worked in bringing the jobs back.

But these tariffs...

I think you're seeing in consumer sentiment, you're seeing a new forecast for GDP, you're seeing potential threats of a recession, that the expectation is that this is actually not going to be a productive pathway and I think actually could undermine other parts of the president's agenda.

Is that something that you believe? And what happens if he doesn't quite get the response he's expecting from these tariffs?

So I take that back and I apologize for all of you who

were offended.

So I give them a high mark on the border, but I think on the economy, I think there's a big contrast to the first administration.

I think that the first administration was marked by a deregulatory agenda and significant tax relief for Americans.

And I think that that's what a lot of markets expected.

And I think much of that is still anticipated to be continued.

But I think it's being offset by a trade agenda that is far more protectionist.

But when it comes to Ukraine, they have been there.

Where is this fall?

Well, Frank, I did say that.

But at the same time, I think that one of the biggest, I think, conundrums, I think the market believes that sort of like the first administration, Trump is throwing this out largely for negotiation, like he did a few weeks ago on Canada and Mexico to get more concessions on border security.

But I fundamentally disagree with that.

I believe the president is committed to a very protectionist trade policy throughout the course of this administration.

He has surrounded himself with economic advisors who advance very strong tariff policy, as well as national security advisors who no longer have, I think, a dissent like they did in the first administration that believed trade was good for our national security relationships.

And so I think the president is committed to this.

I just want to see, how do you see the state of play when it comes to both of those?

Is your argument getting traction?

Well, I think that right now, I think most Americans understand that he's not qualified to be nominated for Health and Human Services.

I think the concern for a lot of Republican senators is worry that Donald Trump will form a primary against them if they vote against him.

But Casey, I mean, here's a guy, you look at Donald Trump's own words just a few months ago.

He's a person who is, even when he ran last year, advocated abortion on demand through all nine months of a pregnancy.

He's somebody who said, I'm not going to take sides on 9-11.

He's somebody who said the NRA is a terrorist organization.

Is that appropriate? And does that presage a potential purge of our law enforcement officers who held people accountable for their actions that day?

He's saying things to get leverage and maybe even just trolling.

Well, Frank, I think the reality is he enjoys the trolling and he enjoys bringing attention back to him.

And I don't think it's an accident that the focus on Panama was at the same week of the passing of Jimmy Carter and his state funeral, because obviously that was a big part of the Carter administration was giving away the Panama Canal.

I do think as well, though, that there is heightened concern about China.

And I remember in 2019, the president sent Vice President Pence up to Iceland for an Arctic summit to talk to some of our allies up there about the concerns we had about China's growing investment.

And I think that Meghan's analysis was great about the fact that there has been a continued concern that China is not only investing in rare earth minerals, but also the shipping routes that Russia had been engaged in before, too.

And so I think there is some national security component, particularly as it comes to Greenland.

And also, how much meaning should we put into the idea that some of the president elects first ambassador picks were for Panama, Greenland and Canada?