CNN’s Abby Phillip found herself at odds with Dr. Phil McGraw during a heated discussion on Thursday night’s broadcast, concerning former President Trump’s hush money trial. The debate unfolded just a week after Trump received a guilty verdict, with McGraw having recently interviewed the former president.
The conversation quickly turned tense when Phillip questioned McGraw’s apparent sympathy towards Trump. “You’re clearly sympathetic to Trump, but you believe that he should drop this talk of revenge. Did he commit to not pursuing that if he was elected President?” Phillip probed.
McGraw defended his stance, asserting his impartiality by stating, “Well, first of all, I’m sympathetic to what Trump has gone through in this particular trial because I think it was not proper due process for him. I would say the same thing if it was Biden or anyone else in that process. So, I want to be clear.”
Phillip, not satisfied, pressed further, challenging McGraw on his views about the trial’s fairness. “I mean, the proceedings, we have reporters in there, I was in there for a lot of it. There was a judge and he adjudicated a lot of these questions,” she countered. “Why do you think he wasn’t given a fair process?”
McGraw responded by criticizing the jury’s exposure to potentially prejudicial information, particularly highlighting the role of Michael Cohen, Trump’s former fixer, as a problematic witness. Cohen had previously pleaded guilty to federal campaign finance charges for payments made to adult film star Stormy Daniels, aimed at silencing her about an alleged affair with Trump before the 2016 election.
“That prejudices a jury about the person that’s currently on trial for the same crime,” McGraw explained, pointing out the influence of Cohen’s testimony.
Phillip retorted that using accomplices as witnesses in trials is a common practice, especially in organized crime prosecutions. “That’s kind of how a lot of these prosecutions work,” she remarked.
The exchange escalated when McGraw asked for examples of when such testimonies were deemed appropriate, leading to Phillip’s insistence on the legitimacy of using testimony from those involved in the alleged crimes.
Phillip attempted to steer the conversation back toward McGraw’s interview with Trump, but the disagreement over the trial’s fairness lingered, showcasing a stark difference in perspective between the host and her guest.