Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Says He Did Not Know About Maxwell's Prison Transfer Until He Read About It; GOP-Lead Panel Subpoenas Clintons And Tops Democrats In Epstein Probe; New Report Shows Titan Submersible Tragedy Was Preventable; GOP Rep. Mike Flood Met With Boos & Jeers At Town Hall; U.S. To Fast-Track Plans For Nuclear Reactor On The Moon. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired August 05, 2025 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, President Trump pressed on Epstein Associate Ghislaine Maxwell, and whether she's credible, as CNN learns, the White House is debating whether or not to release a transcript of Maxwell's recent meetings with the deputy attorney general. Two of the most well sourced Trump reporters are going to join me live in moments.

Plus, a damning new report lays out what went so horrifically wrong when the Titan sub imploded on that expedition to see the Titanic wreckage, why investigators say this was a, quote, preventable disaster, and why they believe toxic workplace culture played a role in the tragedy.

Also, one of the attorneys for Sean Diddy Combs is going to sit down with CNN today for an exclusive interview, her first since Combs was acquitted of the most serious charges in his federal sex trafficking trial, but convicted on prostitution offenses.

[18:00:10]

Moments ago, that lawyer confirms they have approached the Trump administration about trying to get a pardon for Diddy. We're going to have much more from that interview ahead.

And the announcement today from NASA as it fast tracks the plan to make the U.S., the first country to put a nuclear reactor on the moon to enable much more efficient travel throughout the solar system.

The Lead tonight, President Trump moments ago saying that he did not know that Jeffrey Epstein Associate Ghislaine Maxwell had been transferred to a lower security prison until he read about it, this as sources tell CNN that the Trump administration is weighing whether to publicly release the transcript of Maxwell's recent interview with this Justice Department.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins is at the White House. And, Kaitlan, you asked the president about some of these issues.

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, including what we could see in that transcript, Jake. Of course, that's a real question in terms of what the conversation was between the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, and Ghislaine Maxwell. We still don't know that. But as our colleagues are reporting, that is something the administration is considering making public. We'll see if they do.

But, Jake, we just saw the president in the South Court Auditorium. He was signing an executive order related to the summer Olympics in Los Angeles in 2028, but I asked him about Ghislaine Maxwell and whether or not the president personally approved or was aware of her prison transfer that happened. It raised a lot of questions because it came just days after that conversation she had with the deputy attorney general. He said, no, that he found out about it publicly like the rest of us did, and then I asked him whether or not he believed what Ghislaine Maxwell has to say is credible.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: Do you believe that she's credible to be listening to your deputy attorney general, who sat down with her recently?

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Well, he's -- let me tell you, he's a very talented man. His name is Todd Blanche. He's a very legitimate person, very high -- just have very highly thought of person, respected by everybody. I didn't talk to him about it, but I will tell you that whatever he asked would be totally appropriate and it's not an uncommon thing to do that. And I think he probably wants to make sure that, you know, people that should not be involved or aren't involved or not hurt by something, that would be very, very unfortunate, very unfair to a lot of people. But I will say this. Todd Blanche is one of the most highly respected people you'll ever meet. So, I know this.

i didn't discuss it with him, but anything he talked about with her or the fact that he did that, not unusual, number one, and most importantly is something that would be totally above board.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: So, a few notable things there, Jake, as the president is defending Todd Blanche sitting down with Ghislaine Maxwell, one, saying that he doesn't believe it's unusual, saying that whatever line of questioning he asked Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, who was a convicted sex trafficker, just for the record, that it would be above board and appropriate. The question is whether or not we'll ever learn that, Jake.

And then also, of course, whether or not the president personally believes Ghislaine Maxwell herself is credible, he did not answer that question. And then I tried to follow up with a question about whether or not when it comes to pardoning her, what he would believe would justify pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell, he did not answer that question, though, Jake, and moved on to other reporters, but notable comments from the president on Jeffrey Epstein.

TAPPER: All right. Kaitlan Collins at the White House, thanks so much. And be sure not to miss Kaitlan, her show, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. Tonight, Kaitlan's going to talk with Texas Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. That's tonight at 9:00 Eastern on CNN.

Let's turn to CNN's Lauren Fox for more on the subpoenas issued earlier today by the House of Oversight Committee. And, Lauren, we're talking broad requests for all of the Justice Department's files related to the Epstein case, but also depositions from very high- profile Democrats and Republicans, the Clintons, James Comey, Bill Barr. Why them?

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes. I mean, I think in some ways what Republicans and Democrats on this subcommittee that approved these subpoenas almost two weeks ago now were trying to do is find some kind of subpoena deal that could garner the votes in order to push this issue forward.

So, you see there that Republicans won out by getting these depositions sent to Bill and Hillary Clinton. You see Republicans also agreed to allow former attorney generals under Republican administrations to also be subpoenaed for these depositions. And then the broader issue, of course, is the fact that subpoenaed as part of this was the full scope of those Epstein files at the Justice Department.

Now, it's not clear whether or not this is going to move along quickly. In part, the Justice Department has not been clear about whether they would cooperate with this subpoena. It also could take months, if not years, if there's a lengthy court battle to file and move forward with this subpoena.

[18:05:00]

So, there's a huge question mark right now as to whether or not any of this information, any of these depositions happen in short order. But what this does guarantee is that this issue is not going away. House Republicans, House Democrats, they're on a month-long recess right now, but as soon as they get back to Washington, this issue is going to be waiting for them once again, front and center. Jake?

TAPPER: All right. Lauren Fox, thanks so much.

Let's get further perspective on this from Maggie Haberman, the excellent Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter from The New York Times. Maggie, thank you so much for being here. I appreciate it. So, President Trump continues to say publicly that he would like everything released, but, obviously, he could do a lot of that and hasn't. What's actually going through his mind here? He wants the story to go away. It's not going away. Where's his head at and what's his goal?

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: I think that there is a realization in the White House now by the president and by a number of people that, as you say, this is not going away. It's going to ebb and flow, right?

And so when the deputy attorney general posts on X, I'm going to go interview Ghislaine Maxwell, that is going to keep this going. And so I assume that we will see some kind of a disclosure related to that interview. I don't know whether you know what form it will take or how expansive it will be or who it will satisfy.

And then the question becomes whether there will be other materials released and we will have to see. I think they have set themselves on a course where, you know, his desire to sort of browbeat his supporters into moving on to something else didn't work, and so now I think they realize that they are just kind of stuck with this and going to ride it out.

TAPPER: And what did you make of his answers to Kaitlan earlier today saying he didn't know that Ghislaine Maxwell had been transferred to a minimum security prison suspiciously right after talking to Todd Blanche? And also he kind of dodged the question on whether or not she was credible.

HABERMAN: I mean, look, it's certainly possible that he didn't know. I don't think it's likely considering how closely the White House and the DOJ are working in this administration. And, again, there's no law barring that, but it has not been the post-Watergate norm. And so it would surprise me if he didn't know. It's certainly possible.

In terms of the credibility question, it was very noticeable that he didn't answer that question because that is the heart of what is an issue with Ghislaine Maxwell, which is why Jeffrey Epstein's victims are so upset about what is happening. She was charged with perjury. And, you know, there are a number of people in the previous Trump administration who do not view her in a positive light.

And so I'm sure the president will try not to answer that question for as long as he can. We'll see how long he can do that.

TAPPER: And just his record when it comes to talking about Ghislaine Maxwell, he wished her well after she was captured. She's a convicted sex trafficker of children. He has had harsher words about Rosie O'Donnell. He's never -- I haven't heard him say one negative thing about her.

Anyway, well, I want to ask you about something that happened on CNBC today. He said three things are, at best, misleading and, at worst, just demonstrably false. One, in trying to justify his firing of the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, he said that she gave out great jobs reports right before the election to help Harris and Biden and then revised it downward after. That's not true. The exact opposite happened. He said his approval rating, his polling was in the 70s. That's not true. It's in the 40s, maybe a pro-Trump poll somewhere. It's in the early 50s or low 50s, but it's not in the 70s. And third, he said, you know, he won more votes in Texas than anyone, therefore, he deserves these five House seats.

And, I mean, percentage wise, he ranks 15th. He got 56 percent of the vote. That's great for him. He did a really good job. But that's not the most ever in the history of the world. Does -- this is my question, and I know that maybe you can't even answer it. Does he believe these lies when he says them? Like as George Costanza, if it's not alive, you believe it, or is he just selling and snowing?

HABERMAN: I think these are three different issues. On the BLS issue, I think he has convinced himself that that is what happened. As you said, and as Joe Kiernan said, in real time, that was not true, what he was saying about those numbers back in 2024. In terms of Texas, you know, that's not how Congressional seats are apportioned is based on whether someone thinks they deserve them.

So, look, they are, they're making a very aggressive play to try to -- because they can, because they've made very clear they're going to use all the tools at their disposal. But that's very different than whether one has owed them.

In terms of his approval rating one, it's very possible that he was conflating something. I'm, you know, giving the maximum benefit of the doubt here that he saw some poll about a specific subset of numbers that said 70 percent and he turned it into that's my approval rating, but it's just not true, as you say.

And, you know, the Gallup number that was cited was quite low, but most polls have him somewhere in the mid, maybe even lower 40 percent range. And that is, you know, in some polls he's better than he was at this point in his first term, but he has had a slow descent since he took office the second time.

TAPPER: Which is, by the way, normal. That's what happens to presidents. I mean, Joe Biden didn't have astronomical approval ratings, neither did Obama.

HABERMAN: No president in this era. It is such a polarized era, that it is going to be very, very hard to find a president who is going to win with the numbers that say President Obama did in 2008.

[18:10:06]

It was a very specific moment in time.

TAPPER: But what I wonder about is --

HABERMAN: Is does he believe it, yes.

TAPPER: Yes, does he believe it? And also in the first term, there was -- you know, John Kelly was there and there were people there who could say things to him. The speaker of the House, it seems like ancient history, you know, it was Paul Ryan. There were people that would push back. I don't know if there is anyone in the modern world that meets with him at the White House or in the Republican Congress who ever pushes back.

HABERMAN: I think, look, it depends on the issue, but, yes, you are correct that this is a very different White House. Among the reasons why it is a group of people that was with him during the campaign and during the interacting period, many of whom got investigated themselves, they've been very radicalized about, you know, his same opponents. But there is a clear desire to help him get to a yes on all things and to not really object to him. And he can vent quite angrily when he is upset with staff. And I think that's one thing that people try to avoid.

TAPPER: Well, you talk about how radicalized they were by, let's say, the investigations. And, again, let's just, for the benefit of the doubt, say, okay, I get it. But now, instead of saying, that was so horrible, you know, no one should ever go through it, they're saying, that was a horrible, now we're going to do it to them.

HABERMAN: Correct. And after he insisted I will end the weaponization, you know, it's really hard to see what is the difference --

TAPPER: Well, he turbocharged it.

HABERMAN: Right. And he is systematically going after people who either criticize him or oppose him, or have disagreed with him, or investigated him. And you know, we will see how many more follow. In some cases these are institutions that other Republicans are happy to see gone after, like higher education, even some of the law firms. But in other cases, he's going after individuals and that's a different issue.

TAPPER: Maggie Haberman, always a treat to have you in studio. Thank you so much. I really appreciate it.

Coming up, the jaw-dropping new report into the Titan submersible that imploded and killed five people, who's at fault for this tragedy? We're going to talk to the lead investigator himself. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

TAPPER: In our World Lead, the implosion of the Titan submersible and the death of all five passengers on board was, quote, preventable if it weren't for a, quote, failure to follow established engineering protocols. That is according to a new U.S. Coast Guard investigation.

CNN's Jason Carroll has more on this stunning report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice over): A preventable tragedy. That's how a scathing new report from the Coast Guard describes the 2023 implosion of the Titan submersible that instantaneously killed all five people on board. The report also stating the Coast Guard believed former OceanGate CEO Stockton Rush was criminally negligent.

JASON NEUBAUER, DEPUTY CHIEF, OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSIS, U.S. COAST GUARD: Mr. Rush had somehow survived, we would've made a recommendation that the Department of Justice do a separate inquiry criminal investigation into the matter. CARROLL: What led to the implosion, the Coast Guard Marine Board of Investigation finding the primary contributing factors were OceanGate's inadequate design, certification, maintenance, and inspection process for the Titan. In one example, the board found OceanGate ignored warning signs and did not bother to investigate safety issues with Titans hull after an incident in 2022. During that previous incident, a loud banging noise was heard during Titan's ascent, a possible sign the hull was not structurally sound. The report's findings echoing accounts from OceanGate's former employees, several of whom testified last year about cutting costs and safety issues, issues they say Rush ignored.

DAVID LOCHRIDGE, FORMER DIRECTOR OF MARINE OPERATIONS, OCEANGATE: There was a big push to get this done and lot of steps along the way were missed.

STOCKTON RUSH, FORMER CEO, OCEANGATE: I've broken some rules to make this.

CARROLL: Rush was a highly controversial figure among deep sea explorers well before the catastrophic implosion.

RUSH: I have no desire to die.

CARROLL: A recently released Netflix documentary explored his vision for Titan and its eventual demise. Submersible experts were critical of Rush's approach to building Titan, saying its construction was not founded in tested science. The Coast Guard accused Rush of gross negligence in its report, saying his company did all it could to avoid oversight by the scientific and maritime community, saying he exhibited negligence that contributed to the deaths of four individuals.

NEUBAUER: I think it was very serious. The fact that the vessel was operated, in our opinion, illegally, you know, with paying passengers with no certification, no even registration for the vessel itself, really, I haven't seen that before.

CARROLL: In addition to Rush, the four others who were killed in included fame deep sea explorer Paul-Henri Nargeolet, British adventurer Hamish Harding, businessman Shahzada Dawood, and his 19- year-old son, Suleman.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

CARROLL (on camera): And Jake, the Coast Guard report also found that in 2018, an experienced Titan pilot had reported critical safety issues with the Titan. And as a result of that, that pilot was fired. Jake?

TAPPER: Jason Carroll, thanks so much. We're going to have more on that story later in the show.

My next guest is running for Governor of California. He's out with a brand new T.V. ad, a seven-figure buy, attacking President Trump over his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. What is his strategy? How is this going to attract Democratic voters? And how will he beat the numerous other candidates running for the governor jobs? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

TAPPER: Well, we're sticking with our World Lead, the discussion over what went so horribly wrong with the Titans submersible that killed all five passengers on board as they explored the wreckage of the Titanic.

Let's discuss with Jason Neubauer. He led the Coast Guard's investigation into the incidents. And, Jason, you've been a part of hundreds of investigations. What stands out to you about this one?

NEUBAUER: I think the international nature of the incident and the unique operations, that really stands out among others that I've been involved with.

TAPPER: The report says that there were known issues with the submersibles hull about a year before the deadly incident. Had those issues been addressed, could these deaths have been prevented or were there other known issues?

NEBAUER: That's absolutely correct. During the 2022 operating season, the Titan ran into several issues with the hull, and it made those should have been, that's absolutely correct.

[18:25:01]

During the 2022 operating season the Titan ran into several issues with the hull and it made -- those should have been warnings, you know, to OceanGate at the time. They had designed a real-time monitoring system that gave them data that monitored sounds and strain that was being experienced by the carbon fiber.

And during that season, they had data that showed, you know, carbon fiber continued to break. And the hull significantly was degraded and that was just ignored. And they had an entire off season, you know, between the 2022 and 2023 operating season to do maintenance and explore, review that data further. Instead, the Titan was just left out in the winter conditions in Canada throughout that time period.

TAPPER: Your report also says the company behind the submersible, OceanGate, used intimidation tactics to avoid scrutiny. We just heard Jason Carroll's report about somebody reporting something and they were fired. Tell us what kind of intimidation tactics they used.

NEUBAUER: Well, I think a good example of that is there was a Coast Guard reservist who happened to be an OceanGate employee. He had enough basic knowledge of the standards for a passenger vessel that he actually had lunch with Mr. Rush and brought up those issues.

Ultimately that Mr. Rush told the Coast Guard member that he could, you know, buy a congressman and get around the standards. And that was -- you know, that was considered very intimidating by that member who eventually just quit and resigned from OceanGate. TAPPER: And tellingly, you say that if OceanGate's CEO, Stockton Rush, had not been on that fatal last dive, you would've recommended a criminal investigation against him. What crimes do you think he could have committed?

NEUBAUER: The primary crime in this case would be seen as manslaughter. And that's -- most of the time, that's directed against a master of a vessel that's carrying, you know, passengers and when somebody dies as a result. That would've certainly been one of the recommendations in the report to the commandant to consider in this case.

And we, probably would've had Mr. Rush survived, seized the investigation earlier and made that referral to the Department of Justice.

TAPPER: All right, interesting stuff. Jason Neubauer, thank you so much, I really appreciate your time today.

NEUBAUER: Thank you, sir. And our politics lead. Now that former Vice President Kamala Harris has announced that she's not going to run for California governor in 2026, at least eight Democrats in the field are trying to break away from the rest of the pack, and one of those eight joins us now.

Businessman Stephen Cloobeck is the founder, former chairman and CEO of the timeshare company, Diamond Resorts. And you're launching, Stephen, a series of ads highlighting Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein and that controversy. Here's a quick sample from this buy, this ad buy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Even the conservative media is shocked.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We also found this photo of Donald Trump with two of his children talking to Jeffrey Epstein.

REPORTER: Were some of the workers that were taken from you young women?

TRUMP: The answer is yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Trump is for they/them. Stephen Cloobeck is for you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Tell us about your strategy in taking on this issue as you joined the campaign.

STEPHEN CLOOBECK (R), CALIFORNIA GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE: Well, Jake, you know, it's juxtaposed everything I do. I'm built to serve. I'm built to fight. I don't like being served. I roll up my sleeves. And I've been a Democrat over 40 years and we've lost our fight and we need, you know, a large set of brass balls. And that's just the way I've been trained.

And I wanted to let Donald know, because I know him as Donald and I respect him as the president, I'm happy to unify him, but California is not for the taking, Mr. President. We're the fourth largest GDP in the United States, and we're going to fight for all Californians because we're customers of America and we add a lot of value to America.

And, you know, he's trained by Roy Cohn. Mr. Lie, deny. He changes numbers, words, topics to suit as fancy of the moment, and I haven't seen Democrats truly, truly fight. They've been weak and I want to show them how to fight.

TAPPER: All right. Well let me play devil's advocate here because I spent a lot of time in California and I know that there are a lot of issues out there that people wonder about and they wonder about their schools, they wonder about taxes, they wonder about the taxes chasing the industry, the entertainment industry out of the state. They wonder about homelessness, they wonder about drugs. What would you say to a Democrat who says, you know what? Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein have nothing to do with my quality of life here in California?

CLOOBECK: Well, actually, it goes to the issue in bringing to the point of who's going to fight for California to make it affordable, livable, and workable.

[18:30:06]

Who's got simple solutions for better life? I grew up here, Jake, kindergarten through school, first year of college in Brandeis University and came back here and aspired in this great California, and it's not the same California that I grew up in. It's not affordable, livable, and workable. We don't have fighters like we used to have, you know, to protect this great state. And I don't want to lose my children to another state where they can't afford to live here.

And I see what's going on and there are simple solutions. There's a simple solution for Hollywood. There's a simple solution for the insurance crisis in the state, okay? There's a simple solution for the affordability crisis in this state. We need an affordability emergency stated --

TAPPER: So, tell me what the -- I mean, people in San Francisco can't afford --

CLOOBECK: It's real simple.

TAPPER: Yes.

CLOOBECK: It's real simple. We've got laws on laws on laws on laws. We are overregulated. And, believe me, I was a regulator myself and I passed laws in many states. We have too many laws, too many regulations. We have 45,000 new state employees over the last ten years because of all the laws. It's band aids on band aids on band aids, and we're bleeding in California because we don't have leaders that have signed the front of a check, that have fixed broken, and I have fixed broken. We're going to need somebody to come in California who is a proven problem solver that has fixed broken, fixed broken, and has shown results.

And you know what? I interviewed every single candidate, Jake. I did not intend to do this. I could not back one candidate because I didn't trust them with my tax dollars.

TAPPER: Let me ask you, Texas Republicans are trying to move ahead with their plan to redraw the state's Congressional districts to give Republicans five more seats and Democrats five fewer. It's obviously a move being pushed by the Trump White House. Democratic sources tell CNN's Manur Raju that they feel they, they could knock out five Republican house incumbents in California if they redraw the Congressional district lines there, although they would first have to change the law to allow them to that power. Would you be in favor of doing that?

CLOOBECK: Look, Jake, I feel for the Democrats in Texas right now and stand behind them walking out because this should not be happening. This is not transparent, fair and honest redistricting. This is a knee-jerk because Mr. Trump doesn't want to lose the House. And he's going to force everyone to get in line and Democrats are going to have to fight. This is a knee-jerk. This shouldn't happen.

But you know what? We have to protect all customers of California. If this is the best thing for all customers of California, I support it because I care about every single customer in California. And it's going to be a knee-jerk, and we're going to hit the president hard, okay, and we're going to take back the House.

TAPPER: Stephen Cloobeck, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate it.

CLOOBECK: Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: Moments ago, a lawyer for Sean Diddy Combs confirmed they have reached out to the Trump administration to discuss a possible pardon for Diddy, that plus more headlines from CNN's exclusive interview, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: We have an exclusive interview for you in our law and justice lead. CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister just sat down with Nicole Westmoreland. She is one of the top attorneys for Sean Diddy Combs for Westmoreland's very first interview since Diddy was acquitted of the most serious charges in his federal sex trafficking trial, but convicted on prostitution offenses.

Elizabeth Wagmeister joins us now, Elizabeth, let's start with the major headline that Westmoreland just told you about conversations that they are attempting with the Trump administration about a possible pardon? ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER: Yes. So, there have been many reports recently that the Trump administration has been seriously considering a pardon. Now, I had heard from my sources, Jake, that those were reports were premature and the president actually commented on this just days ago. Take a look at what Nicole told me.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WAGMEISTER: Have people in Sean Combs as orbit, have they had conversations with the Trump administration?

NICOLE WESTMORELAND, ATTORNEY FOR SEAN DIDDY COMBS: Yes. My understanding is that we have reached out.

WAGMEISTER: Reached out is one thing, having a conversation is another. Do you know if there have been active conversations about a pardon?

WESTMORELAND: Yes. We've -- it's my understanding that we've reached out and had conversations in reference to a pardon.

WAGMEISTER: President Trump when he was asked about this pardon, he said, quote, I was very friendly with him. I got along with him great, and he seemed like a nice guy. I didn't know him well, but when I ran for office, he was very hostile, and the president indicated that a pardon is likely not on the table because of that break in his relationship with Mr. Combs years ago. How is he feeling now about the chances of a pardon given the president's commentary?

WESTMORELAND: I think that Mr. Combs is a very hopeful person and I believe that he remains hopeful.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WAGMEISTER: Now, Jake, the White House responded to us when we reached out to comment and they said that they will not comment on the existence or non-existence of any clemency request.

TAPPER: And, Elizabeth, you also asked Westmoreland about the defense team's strategy during the trial. Tell us about.

WAGMEISTER: Yes. We talked in great length about the strategy during the trial because, of course, as you said, Sean Combs, he was acquitted on the most serious charges. So, take a look at what she said about the strategy from day one, Jake.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WAGMEISTER: This verdict was, in no uncertain terms, a victory for the defense. Talk about that strategy from day one to come out of the gate and say, he is a domestic abuser, but that is not what he is on trial for here.

[18:40:07]

WESTMORELAND: So, you know, the strategy was to just tell the truth. That's really what we decided, to just tell the truth. We didn't need a creative story. We didn't need to overreach. We knew that telling the truth meant not guilty. We knew that he had not sex trafficked anyone, and we knew that RICO was absurd.

So, we figured, hey, we will tell the truth and that will pay off. And I believe that, for the most part, that strategy worked.

WAGMEISTER: He is still facing around 70 civil allegations from men, from women, from people who allege that they were minors at the time across decades with horrific accusations of being drugged, of being sexually assaulted. Each of those cases does have to play through the courts individually. So, I understand that he denies them, but those are still active cases.

WESTMORELAND: True, but let me say this to you. We are talking about the United States government. This is the federal government, all right? It doesn't really get any stronger than that. And so they obviously fully investigated Mr. Combs and obviously threw the book at him, right? And so if you think for a second, if the government really thought that there were minors out there hanging in the balance, if the government really thought that there was drugs and the baby oil or something of that nature, do you think the government just wouldn't have brought that up in a full-fledged criminal trial? Absolutely not, right?

So, that's not even logical. And so if the government had -- if there was any real evidence of those allegations, we would've heard all about it in the criminal trial.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WAGMEISTER: Now, Jake, Combs team has made numerous attempts at bail. Just yesterday, the judge denying him bail. His sentencing is set for October 3rd. His attorney there told me that they're disappointed in the decision for the judge to deny bail, but they do have a pending motion asking for the judge to fully acquit Sean Combs or to give him a new trial. And Nicole told me that she believes that the judge should grant that.

TAPPER: All right. Elizabeth Wagmeister, thanks so much, great work, I really appreciate it.

Republican Congressman Mike Flood took questions from his constituents at a town hall and he was heckled. We're going to talk to him about how all that went down. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:46:33]

TAPPER: In our politics lead, Washington, D.C., Capitol Hill is pretty quiet these days. Members of Congress are back in their home districts.

For some members of Congress, especially some Republicans holding town halls trying to defend their support of President Trump's big, beautiful tax and spending bill and more -- for some, it's anything but quiet.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): I want to go right into this bill because I know this is something a lot of people have questions about. And quite frankly, from where I sit, there's been a lot of misinformation out there about the bill.

These are the other important parts of the one Big, Beautiful Bill.

(CHANTING)

FLOOD: Next slide, please?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: They're yelling "tax the rich". I'm not sure if you could hear. Although I know Republican Congressman Mike Flood of Nebraska could hear.

Thanks for joining us. Appreciate it.

We're you expecting that kind of reaction. Is that normal for your district?

FLOOD: I was. You know, this is the political environment that we're in. This is the third town hall that I've held this year, and this was in my largest city, which is Lincoln, in the first district on the campus of the University of Nebraska. A great community with some very spirited constituents. Many of those that were the loudest last night, they took an opportunity and they were at all three. I got to answer their questions sometimes three times over the summer.

But as you can see, it was spirited. One of the things that I think the Democratic Party is reeling from, because I said this last night, I said, the heart and soul of working-class America now runs through the Republican Party. That was a tough pill to swallow for a lot of people. And when I said that, I looked at a lot of eyes there and I saw a party that's adrift, I saw a party that is fractured. I've seen this before in my own party, you know, going back ten years ago.

But I can tell you these are informative. They're important. And I know it doesn't look productive, but I get a lot out of them.

TAPPER: I want to play a sampling of some of the questions and comments from your town hall, just to give our viewers a little, a little taste of what you went through.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How much does it cost for fascism? How much do the taxpayers have to pay?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You said in Seward that you were not a fascist. Your complicity says otherwise.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And this is not about partisan. This is about issues because we're about to lose our democracy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What are the major issues your constituents are worried about right now?

FLOOD: Well, first of all, fascists don't hold town halls and have question and answer sessions. What did I hear about the most last night? What I expected to hear about. And that is Medicaid. And my message was we protected Medicaid. And I know that was met with some disagreement, as you probably saw in the video. But one of the things I started with, and I think it's important that we talk about this and I hope I get the opportunity to do as much as possible.

There's a lot of folks in their upper '70s and '80s that don't know the difference between Medicare, which is available to everybody, regardless of income over 65, and Medicaid, which is for the vulnerable, the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled, pregnant women.

And what I've noticed in my office in Washington is I'm getting a lot of calls from folks that are 78, 79, 80, maybe sometimes -- it's oftentimes a female because their husband has predeceased them.

[18:50:02]

And they are convinced that their free health care is being taken away. And I say, no, no, no, no, that's Medicare. You're going to be okay. Medicaid, there are some reasonable restrictions that are going to be phased in over time.

I wanted to take the opportunity to explain that to my constituents last night. I think it was helpful. I think it's important we do this regardless of your party, because a lot of folks in more senior of age, they're getting really worked up by all of the rhetoric that's out there about the changes to the Medicaid program, thinking it's going to affect their health care over the age of 65. And that's just simply not the case.

TAPPER: There are -- there are voices in your party, like Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri, who say that not only are these changes to Medicaid going to result in people eligible for Medicaid, American citizens losing Medicaid, but that it's also going to cost your party in the midterms? And I know your congressional district is not particularly swingy, but it is something that could cause your party to lose control of the House, especially with such narrow divisions.

FLOOD: See, I see it much differently. And I pose this question last night. Do you agree with a 28-year-old able-bodied person that can work, but chooses not to work getting free health care? And the answer I got from the loudest in the room was yes.

That is not where 70-plus percent of Americans are. Expecting able- bodied people to work is common sense. Making sure that this health care, free health care isn't given to people that are in the country illegally is common sense. Those were the two big changes. TAPPER: Uh-huh.

FLOOD: And by the way, in my state, the state directed payment system is just kicking in. So, there's an additional $700 million coming into Nebraska hospitals next fiscal year because of the state directed payment system. That's a lot of money in a state with 2 million people.

TAPPER: So let me ask you about -- I'm not using the term fascism, and I'm not using the term authoritarianism, but your constituents were some of them.

And an example of the kind of thing that might concern these people would be President Trump getting a bureau of labor statistics jobs report that is not as robust as he wishes, and firing that woman who was Senate-confirmed, even though what he said about her that she gave a great jobs report before the 2024 election and then a few weeks after, revised all the numbers downward.

That's not true. That didn't happen. The jobs report right before the election was bad. It was like only 12,000 jobs created.

And then after the election, it was revised upward. I mean, it's the exact opposite of what he said. And yet this isn't just like a misunderstanding. This actually caused him to fire this woman. And now people are concerned about the integrity of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

I don't know if any of your constituents asked about that last night, but is that not something that concerns you at all?

FLOOD: Yeah, they did ask me that exact question. And here's what I said. I said, I've been an employer for more than 25 years. Theres always two sides to every story when it comes to this. But I did concede in the event that there was nothing wrong with her report and that it was absolutely factual, then in my opinion, she shouldn't have been fired.

I -- you know, I believe that, but I also know and based on some of the presidents comments, that he felt he had reasons to terminate her employment, and I'm the first one as somebody that's been an employer myself and somebody who's practicing employment law to know, there's often two sides to almost every employment story.

But I'll concede that if it was the facts as you laid them out, I would agree.

TAPPER: Congressman Mike Flood, Nebraska, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

You're taking our questions. Appreciate you're taking their questions.

We'll be right back.

FLOOD: Thank you, Jake.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:19]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Without it, they don't talk to us. They don't correct their trajectory. They don't turn the heat shield around. We got to turn everything off.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: When it comes to space travel, power is everything.

And our out of this world lead, "Apollo 13" foreshadowing an announcement from acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy earlier today as he directed the space agency -- space agency to fast-track plans to put a nuclear reactor on the moon. Why? Power, for space exploration.

CNN's Brian Todd joins us now to break down the latest space race.

Brian, why is NASA focused on a power supply on the moon?

BRIAN TODD, CNN CORREPONDENT: Jake, they need that power supply on the moon because they eventually want to build a base on the moon so they can establish a U.S. presence on the moon to build that base, obviously, you need to get the materials there first.

Now, once the materials are there, you've got to keep the materials warm so that they don't break down during those long lunar nights, which can last about two weeks. Now, putting a nuclear reactor on the moon, they would keep those materials warm and provide all the other needs to sustain human life and to eventually build that base on the moon.

Acting NASA administrator Sean Duffy talked about those prospects earlier today. In addition to how it's going to help the U.S. get to Mars, eventually. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEAN DUFFY, TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY: Energy is important. And if were going to be able to sustain life on the moon to then go to mars, this technology is critically important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TODD: Now, it's also important to note that expediting the placing of a nuclear reactor on the moon is going to place the U.S. ahead of China and Russia. In a race to place a nuclear reactor on the moon, China and Russia are working to develop a similar project by the mid 2030s. Some scientists, including Joe Cirincione, who was on our air earlier today, some don't think that's very practical to try to do this. They think it's dangerous, that there could be an explosion, there could be a problem with the launch vehicle. It's a very risky proposition, but they are committed to it.

TAPPER: All right. Fascinating stuff. Brian Todd, thanks so much.

If you ever miss an episode of THE LEAD, you can listen to the show once you get your podcasts.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now. See you tomorrow.