'Don't have to talk to me like that!' CNN Republican snaps as host calls remarks 'bizarre'

A Republican strategist got an earful from a CNN anchor Monday night during a heated discussion over Vice President J.D. Vance's eyebrow-raising statement that judges can't "control the executive's legitimate power."

Vance wrote Sunday morning on the platform X: "If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."

The post became the topic of discussion on CNN's "NewsNight," with host Abby Phillip reminding panelists that judges do get a say in determining whether the president is complying with the law.

ALSO READ: Elon Musk's DOGE boys think this is a video game as Trump plots his 2nd coup

"That's been the case for decades — hundreds of years," she said.

But Republican strategist Scott Jennings argued this case was different — because individual federal district court judges are setting "broad federal policy that is specifically reserved for the president."

"I think we do have a Constitutional crisis," he said. "And it's being caused by these judges."

When Phillip shot back, "What are you talking about?" Jennings said it's the president's job to set broad federal policy and tell people how to spend federal money.

"I think Vance is right, I think Trump has a point. These judges want nothing more than to continue to lawfare against Trump," he said.

Phillip noted the dispute fundamentally resolves around whether one branch of government can ignore a coequal government's request on how to spend tax dollars, Jennings insisted it's the executive branch's job to determine how to spend that money.

Later in the discussion, as Jennings tried to assert Trump ought to be able to carry out his agenda unless the Supreme Court steps in, Phillip interjected.

"Pray tell — how do we get to the Supreme Court?" she returned. "Can somebody tell me?"

"You can't tie him up until it gets there!" Jennings tried to rebut.

"We get to the Supreme Court by the judge's ruling. Things going to appeal. And then it goes up —" she began, but Jennings jumped in again.

" And in the meantime what happens? Trump can't act?" a frustrated Jennings inquired.

"In the meantime, you're supposed to comply with the court's rulings," she said.

The two butted heads again when former federal prosecutor Elie Honig asked Jennings directly whether the president should comply with a ruling made by a federal district court judge he disagrees with.

"If a district court judge tries to usurp the authority of the chief executive of this country he should absolutely defy it. There's a difference between broad policy decisions and discreet disputes between parties. That's the difference," he said.

By this point, Phillip appeared to have seen enough.

"What I can't get with is you talking in these bizarre broad generalities," she said.

"It's not bizarre," he replied.

Phillips countered that each case deals with what he called a "discrete issue," such as funding and statutorily appointed roles, and each deals with different judges.

"So it's not broad swaths of policy here," she said, then asking why Trump can't comply with rulings from judges that Trump must unfreeze money appropriated by Congress while the case makes its way through the court system.

As an agitated Jennings questioned why a judge should decide how money is spent instead of the president, Phillip retorted, "Scott, let me explain it a little bit more slowly."

"You don't have to talk to me like that," he shot back before she could continue. "I have a position on this and you have an opinion, we can disagree."

"Yeah, but I'm saying listen to me because you're not listening. And you're making claims that are not connected to the facts," he said.

Jennings scoffed.

"Maybe you are," he retorted.

Phillips repeated her assertion that Congress appropriated money and that the judges had a valid argument to unfreeze that money while the legality of Trump's freeze is litigated.

Jennings was unconvinced.

"While we litigate this, I'm the judge and I'm in charge of the executive branch and you're not? Forget it. I totally disagree," he concluded.

Watch the clip below or at this link.