Trump's primetime speech: 'exaggerated claims' and 'conspiracy theories'

[0:00] President Trump made exaggerated claims about election vulnerabilities in his primetime address. [0:05] The roughly 25-minute speech, coming just under four months until the midterm elections, [0:10] focused on conspiracy theories that Trump's own intelligence agencies have repeatedly examined [0:14] and rejected, as well as bipartisan commissions in their direct aftermath. [0:19] The president declassified intelligence documents that he suggested would prove his claims. [0:23] Instead, he overstated the details and made claims that didn't match the actual conclusions [0:28] by the intelligence community. One of his false claims was that China carried out the largest [0:33] compromise of election data in history, he said, resulting in China's illicit acquisition [0:38] of 220 million U.S. voter files. The underlying intelligence said something considerably smaller, [0:44] that China had previously purchased 2020 voter data from seven states, which you can do, [0:50] fully legal. In fact, voter data is often available for the public to freely download. [0:54] The president also highlighted a report from the CIA that Venezuela could tamper with voting [1:00] machines. But the material released by his administration shows Venezuela had some capability [1:05] in manipulating electronic voting systems, but that applies to Venezuelan elections, [1:10] not elections here in the United States. The clearest rebuttal of these false claims came from [1:15] one of Trump's own appointees, actually, John Solomon. He's a former journalist, prominent election [1:20] denier and member of Trump's election task force, one of the guys looking into all this. [1:24] He told MSNOW after attending the speech, quote, the intelligence community has zero evidence that [1:29] someone, a foreign power, flipped a vote in 2020, 22 or 24. So no one changed any votes. That wasn't [1:37] happening. And the president also made this claim last night. According to the DHS review, state voter [1:45] rolls and public records, they identified approximately 278,000 non-citizens who are registered to vote in [1:54] federal elections. Since Democrat states refuse to share their voter files, the real number is [2:01] actually much higher than that. As The New York Times points out, Trump's statement appears to be based [2:07] on a document released by the White House yesterday from the Department of Homeland Security, claims to [2:12] have found more than 250,000 non-citizens registered in California, New Jersey, Nevada, and Pennsylvania. [2:19] The paper notes that the document offered no other details of how it arrived at such a big number, [2:23] and added that those four states don't use the SAVE system, a resource administered by the [2:28] Department of Homeland Security, to verify citizenship status. Also, registering doesn't [2:33] mean they're voting. And that's a huge distinction, too. A lot of distinctions to be made with White [2:38] House correspondent for The Hill, Julia Manchester, who was up late watching the speech and joins us now, [2:43] a little bit sleep deprived, but we're happy to have you. Can you talk a little bit about what the [2:49] president said last night that actually doesn't match with the underlying evidence, whether it's from [2:54] bipartisan assessments of what happened in 2020, whether it's assessments of people who he says [3:01] were voting who aren't voting? I mean, just talk about the things that stood out the most to you. [3:05] Well, I think overall there was no smoking gun. A lot of these documents that were made available [3:10] last night were already available. There wasn't really anything terribly new. In fact, Trump's CIA [3:17] director, John Ratcliffe, was in Congress when we saw that 2020, that report on the 2020 presidential [3:24] election that showed there was no foreign interference in the election. So, you know, [3:30] nothing terribly new here. And I think critics are saying, look, this is President Trump preparing [3:36] a narrative for November in the midterm elections in the case that Republicans perform poorly, [3:42] whether it's for him to find a fall person, blame Republicans who maybe didn't act on the Save [3:48] America Act or did not act on, you know, in his words, securing U.S. elections, blaming Democrats for [3:56] that as well, or potentially preparing a narrative to say, look, this was this election was rigged. [4:02] There was fraud. This is why we got this outcome. Obviously, there is no evidence for that [4:07] as of now. So it'll be interesting to see how this press briefing by Mark Wayne Mullen, [4:14] the DHS secretary, goes later today to see what more findings there are there. But seriously, [4:20] it doesn't seem like there's anything clearly new in these findings. [4:23] I think you're right to point out that a lot of this was already known, that some key Trump allies [4:28] who are currently serving him now, Ratcliffe among them, were in the intelligence community, [4:32] helping to make and shape some of these assessments in the immediate aftermath of Trump's first term [4:37] ending and the Biden term beginning. It also really portends the idea, and this is something [4:43] that we were talking about yesterday leading up to the speech, of foreign influence or attempts to [4:48] influence are not new, but interference and the actual flipping of votes, tangible changing, [4:54] there is no proof of that. There never has been. The Trump administration, or rather Trump [4:59] allies, have tried to push that narrative for years. It failed in courts after he lost in 2020. [5:04] Certainly, there is nothing new here now. And it sort of begs the question of why do this speech at [5:09] all? No, absolutely. And look, I think it comes down to the politics. My colleague Niall Stanage put [5:14] it perfectly in his column last night's takeaways. You know, Democrats hate the message, love the [5:19] politics of this going into the midterms in terms of, you know, saying it's not good to, [5:25] you know, bolster these election claims. But look, once again, Democrats can say, look, [5:31] Republicans led by President Trump are talking about anything but affordability and those cost [5:37] of living issues. So, and I think there's probably, you know, it'll be interesting to hear from [5:42] Republicans today. I think a lot of Republicans were very quiet last night. And this gives Democrats [5:48] an attack line they can use on the campaign trail. [5:50] Is this also, you were talking about what this might be a precursor towards, right? Because the [5:56] politics of it reviving this 2020 big lie, not presenting any new evidence, you're right. It's [6:01] bad politics, especially given the issue landscape right now. But what is this meant to build a [6:06] foundation for? Is it just more pressure on the SAVE Act? Or is it something that is more concerning, [6:10] which is because of all of these things that we've presented, which are baseless, but still the [6:16] White House is going to say they've presented them. Is this why they want to put ICE at polling [6:20] places, which remains illegal? And yet that is one of the things that we're forced to grapple with. [6:25] Is that what they're building a foundation for? [6:26] I think it could be both. I think there is a pressure campaign to get Senate Republicans to [6:31] somehow pass the SAVE Act, you know, by any means necessary, including eliminating the filibuster. [6:38] And I think, you know, there's also this, you know, potential idea from President Trump that if [6:43] Republicans don't pass the SAVE Act, he can blame Senate Republicans for this saying, look, I laid [6:49] out all of this ahead of the election. You still didn't pass the SAVE Act. And this is where we are [6:53] now. Then there's also the thinking that this could be laying the groundwork for, you know, other [6:59] moves, whether it's ICE at polling places or whether it's claiming election widespread election [7:03] fraud. And you're right that Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen is going to be doing some kind of press [7:08] something at some point today. And this is one of the questions that he's going to be asked, which is, [7:13] will you assure that ICE will not be at polling places? And we've heard him waffle on this question [7:18] before, just as a lot of other administration officials have. And frankly, Todd Blanch with a [7:23] completely wrong reading of the law around who is allowed in terms of federal agents at polling [7:28] places. You're starting to see that there is there's foundational reason why Democrats are concerned [7:33] about this and other related questions, especially after a primetime speech like this. I know that you're [7:38] going to stay on it. White House correspondent for the Hill, Julia Manchester. Thank you for coming on [7:42] with us this morning.