Return to Transcripts main page
The Lead with Jake Tapper
President Trump And President Putin Set To Meet In Alaska; Russian Hockey Players In The NHL To Thaw Russia-U.S. Ties; Gov. Greg Abbot Is Interviewed Regarding The Texas Democrats, Redistricting And Flood Relief Legislation; Judge Rejects DOJ Bid To Unseal Maxwell Grand Jury Materials; Israel Strike In Gaza Kills Five Journalists, IDF Says Al Jazeera Correspondent Led Hamas Cell; New Technology Aims To Detect Possible Drone Attacks. Aired 5-6p ET
Aired August 11, 2025 - 17:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[17:00:00]
UNKNOWN: Amidala or something or other.
UNKNOWN: State wins.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: State wins, love it.
UNKNOWN: No affiliation --
HUNT: Go Green, okay. Jamal do you --
UNKNOWN: I had several so I can't remember.
HUNT: Yeah, mine was like -- and my nickname --
UNKNOWN: (inaudible) aliases.
UNKNOWN: I had aliases. I had a couple.
HUNT: Wait, so Jake Tapper is standing by. Jake, do you have an AOL handle you'd like to share with the -- the room.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: I mean, it was tapperjake@aol.com but I haven't -- I mean, I'm sure there is lots of lovely messages sitting there in some (inaudible) somewhere, accumulated since I last logged in. Thanks for the -- thanks for the nostalgia, Kasie. That was lovely.
HUNT: For sure. Have a great show, Jake.
TAPPER: All right. We'll see you back in "The Arena" tomorrow. President Trump says it's not his job to make a deal during his summit with Vladimir Putin on Friday. "The Lead" starts right now.
The President previewing his Friday Summit with Putin in Alaska as U.S. officials rush to finalize the details of this crucial face-to- face to end that war. Trump is also acknowledging that the meeting might not actually end with any kind of agreement. So is there a risk that this summit will enhance Putin's stature and not bring any peace? Plus, local officials in Washington, D.C. pushing back this afternoon
after President Trump deployed National Guard troops in the nation's capital and announced he's putting the D.C. Police Department under federal control. So what happens next? Do locals have any recourse at all? We'll talk to a member of D.C.'s City Council ahead.
And Texas Democrats once again block the Republican redistricting effort by refusing to show up at the state capitol as the standoff enters its second week. But with just over one week left in this special session, What happens if Democrats just wait out? Well, Texas' Republican Governor Greg Abbott is going to join us live in just minutes.
Welcome to "The Lead." I'm Jake Tapper. We're going to start with a huge week in our "World Lead" as U.S. officials are scrambling to finalize details for President Trump's crucial summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin set for the end of this week. The summit is going to be in Alaska on Friday. It's a meeting that President Trump hopes will move the needle on Putin's ruthless war against Ukraine.
But the details as of now are sparse. As of now, no venue's been announced. The details of the discussion are not clear. There's no formal White House invite for the leader of the country being invaded, Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Here's the president earlier today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm going to meet with President Putin and we're going to see what he has in mind. And if it's a fair deal, I'll reveal it to the European Union leaders and to the NATO leaders and also to President Zelenskyy. I think out of respect, I'll call him first and then I'll call them after. And I may say, lots of luck, keep fighting, or I may say, we can make a deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Of some significance is the relationship of Alaska to Russia. Alaska, which the United States purchased from Russia in 1867. Mainland Alaska and Russia are only 55 miles apart. And some Russian nationalists believe that Alaska should still be part of Russia. A Kremlin official says the summit's location is quote, "quite logical." While Russia's investment envoy, Kirill Dmitriev, celebrated the venue, highlighting Alaska's Russian heritage. All of this, as Zelenskyy and European leaders concerned that perhaps this summit will lead to significant concessions made to Putin.
Trump repeated his belief today that there would be some land swapping between Russia and Ukraine, adding it will include, quote, "some bad stuff" for both countries. President Zelenskyy posted today, quote, "concessions do not persuade a killer, but truly strong protection of life stops the killers."
Let's get right to CNN's Kristen Holmes at the White House for us. Kristen, Trump also seemed to acknowledge some frustration with Vladimir Putin. KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Jake,
that's right. I mean, it was interesting to see him kind of walk through his thinking around this meeting. And he's clearly coming into it in a different headspace than he was the last time the two men sat down. He now acknowledges, at least to some extent, that Putin has strung him along. He says, know that Putin is the reason that there has been no end to this crisis and he acknowledged that he's not sure what's going to come out of this sit down. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: This is really a feel out meeting a little bit. And President Putin invited me to get involved. He wants to get involved. I think, I believe he wants to get it over with. Now I've said that a few times and I've been disappointed because I'd have like a great call with him and then missiles would be lobbed into Kyiv or some other place.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: Yeah, and this is something he said over and over again in recent weeks that President Putin is all talk, that he'll promise him something and then do something completely different.
[17:04:59]
The other part of this is the sound that you played, which I thought was pretty critical in all of this, which is he's clearly trying to get some kind of European buy-in. I mean, we had seen for the first part of his administration before that NATO summit and even during the campaign that he had really been blasting European countries. Now he's saying he's going to call them right afterwards to discuss whether or not a deal is possible.
And as you noted, a saying that he himself understands that it's not his deal to make, that had been a concern of some Ukrainians and some officials across the globe that would just have two superpowers deciding how they were going to carve up Ukraine. He seems to acknowledge here that that is not something that he's going to do out of this meeting.
TAPPER: And Kristen, the vice president, J.D. Vance, made some relevant comments of his own this weekend.
HOLMES: He did, and this is something we heard from President Trump and from Vance on the campaign and as well as in the last several months. Vance has really painted himself as an isolationist, although he would take harm with that term. He does not like that term. And what he said here was that he believes that America is done with giving money to Ukraine, to funding the Ukraine war business, and that while they do want peace, that Americans were sick of sending their money, their tax dollars to this particular conflict.
TAPPER: It's interesting. Kristen Holmes at the White House, thanks so much. Joining us now, the former CNN Moscow bureau chief, Jill Dougherty. Jill, so good to see you. Thanks for being here. Let's get to more of Trump's reasoning on why Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, was not invited. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: He wasn't a part of it. I would say he could go, but he's gone to a lot of meetings. You know, he's been there for three and a half years, nothing happened.
UNKNOWN: And why does the --
TRUMP: I mean, do want somebody that's been doing this for three and a half years?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: I mean, that must be music to Putin's ears.
JILL DOUGHERTY, FOREMER CNN MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF: Oh, no question. I mean, he has been -- Zelenskyy's been defending his country for three and a half years. But this is really, you know, I was watching the Russian media today, they are crowing about this. You know, note, President Trump was saying, Putin wants a deal, wants to get this over with. He's back to that. He was critical of Zelenskyy. They're talking about Alaska --
TAPPER: Yeah.
DOUGHERTY: -- and kind of trolling, know, used to be ours, maybe we'll get it back. You know, they've, so far it looks pretty good for Putin.
TAPPER: Former U.S. Ambassador to Russia during the Obama years, Michael McFaul, posted on Twitter or X, quote, "Trump has chosen to host Putin in a part of the former Russian Empire. Wonder if he knows that Russian nationalists claim that losing Alaska, like Ukraine, was a raw deal for Moscow that needs to be corrected." You called it trolling, but I also wonder what the pro-nationalists or pro-Russian nationalists were doing.
But I also wonder, do you think that this is actually something that Putin would seriously bring up, whether or not Alaska?
DOUGHERTY: I don't think so. I mean, it's obvious they're never going to get it back. But I think, you know, everything here is -- let's say, with this issue, is played out in various levels.
TAPPER: Right.
DOUGHERTY: So you have Putin playing a role, Medvedev, remember him, Mr. Troller, you know, for the president.
TAPPER: Yeah.
DOUGHERTY: Then you have the media, then you have the war correspondents, and everybody kind of chimes in. So various messages can get out. And I think that nationalists, they are serious. They would like to get it back. They think it's theirs. In fact, there's even a rumor, which is not true, that it was given -- it was kind of in effect given for 100 years, 100 years have expired, and we can get it back.
TAPPER: How pervasive is this belief in Russia that Alaska is rightfully Russian?
DOUGHERTY: Well, even if you listen to Kirill Dmitriev, who's kind of the financial guy, the representative --
TAPPER: Yeah.
DOUGHERTY: I mean, he's talking about Russian churches, Russian culture, and that really is true. So to this day, from 1867 to today, there is some Russian culture. But the irony here is that it was sold, literally sold and legally sold.
TAPPER: Right.
DOUGHERTY: And what we're talking about in Ukraine is Russia invading Ukraine --
TAPPER: Yeah.
DOUGHERTY: -- and taking territory.
TAPPER: And on that topic, European leaders believe that Putin's plan would give Moscow full control of Ukraine's entire eastern Donbas region currently under partial Russian control. Trump said that the land swapping might be bad for both countries. Zelenskyy is adamant he won't concede any land. What do you think is going to happen?
DOUGHERTY: Well, it's very complicated in that sense because we do not know. There's no clarity at all on exactly which lands would be, if the Ukrainians accept this, would be held by Russia and not. And this trading, I don't see any possibility for trading. So right now you have Putin going at this straight ahead with the maximalist demands that he's been making since he invaded.
[17:10:05]
TAPPER: Yeah.
DOUGHERTY: And then you have, obviously, Zelenskyy saying, according to the Constitution, we cannot give up our land.
TAPPER: Right.
DOUGHERTY: So they're going to have to find some type of agreement. And interestingly, I think it surprised me a little bit. Trump today said, I'm not going to make any decisions here. I'm just kind of, in a sense, like an intermediary.
TAPPER: Right.
DOUGHERTY: I will listen to Putin, and I'll know in two minutes if it's a good deal, and then I'll give it to Zelenskyy. So he is defining what a good deal is, even if he says I don't have any role, he will define and then he will give it to Zelenskyy. TAPPER: Just to set the table for Friday, is it not true that in all
likelihood this war was going to end with Ukraine having to give up some land to Russia? Whether Kamala Harris was the president or Donald Trump, if there was going to be some sort of peace deal, wasn't that inevitable?
DOUGHERTY: You know, that is in a sense -- there are some people who would say, yes, that is true. But you know, land isn't just land. Land is people.
TAPPER: Right.
DOUGHERTY: And there are Ukrainians living in those lands that potentially could be given to Russia. And if you know your history, you know the horror of being in places that have been occupied by the Russians.
TAPPER: Right. And also the freedoms that they're going to have to give up because --
DOUGHERTY: Exactly.
TAPPER: -- Ukraine has more Western democratic traditions than Russia, obviously.
DOUGHERTY: Yeah. So it's easy to sit here and say, well, you know, it's just territory and its land and it's like a monopoly game. But when you're talking with Ukrainians, this is really their lives. This is people who are going to be trapped, if that happens, behind the lines.
TAPPER: Jill Dougherty, thank you so much. Really, really interesting. As U.S. and Russian leaders face this momentous test, some of the most famous Russians who work in North America, namely hockey players and NHL players, think that they can help thaw the U.S. and Russia's historically icy relationship. CNN's Fred Pleitgen reports now from Moscow, where hockey's biggest stars are looking ahead to the Trump- Putin summit on Friday.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice- over): It's game on at the OV Hockey Cup outside Moscow, headlined by Washington Capital superstar Alexander Ovechkin and many other Russian NHL players. The match aims to boost youth hockey, but the Great 8 tells me he hopes hockey can also help thaw U.S.-Russia relations.
ALEXANDER OVECHKIN, RUSSIAN HOCKEY PLAYER, WASHINGTON CAPITALS: Yeah, both countries loves hockey so I hope it's going to connect well and we'll see.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): Last season, Ovechkin became the NHL's all-time leading goal scorer, drawing praise from both U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia's leader Vladimir Putin. The Russians even floating a possible friendly match with American and Russian players to help jumpstart relations. (On camera): Do you think hockey can help bring America and Russia
closer together?
EVGENI MALKIN, RUSSIAN HOCKEY PLAYER, PITTSBURGH PENGUINS: People love hockey here and people love hockey in the U.S. I hope with the big meeting, I think, next week between Trump and Putin and I hope they have good meetings and everything is done.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): But there's a long way to go. With Trump and Putin set to meet in Alaska on Friday, the fighting in Ukraine remains as brutal as ever.
Russia saying its forces are making gains, reluctant to agree to an immediate ceasefire President Trump wants. It's also now clear that Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy will not have a seat at the table. President Trump saying he'll judge whether a peace agreement is possible.
TRUMP: At the end of that meeting, probably in the first two minutes, I'll know exactly whether or not a deal can be made.
UNKNOWN: How will you know that?
TRUMP: Because that's what I do. I make deals.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): But with Trump's threat of punishing sanctions looming, many Russians hope the two leaders reach an agreement and diplomacy will prevail. Like it did during and after the Cold War, when the first Russian players around defenseman Viacheslav Fetisov won the NHL Stanley Cup and brought it to Moscow's Red Square.
VIACHESLAV FETISOV, RUSSIAN FORMER HOCKEY PLAYER: I was first who came to National Hockey League. It was 1989. It was still a Cold War. Still it was hate between the United States people. But as soon as we started playing, we started to understand each other, started to become friends.
PLEITGEN (voice-over): Now the stakes are high once again as President Trump gets ready to face off with Russia's leader in the Arctic North.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
PLEITGEN: You know, Jake, that's one of the interesting things about the vibe here in Russia, whereas President Trump obviously is saying that for him, the singular focus of the summit is going to be to end the fighting in Ukraine.
[17:15:01]
For the Russians, it's about more than that. It's about a reset of U.S.-Russian relations, a possible one, obviously meaning possible sanctions relief, cooperation in sports, but then of course, first and foremost, also cooperation in business, possibly even in the Arctic as far as rare earths are concerned, Jake.
TAPPER: All right, Fred Pleitgen in Moscow, thanks so much. The Texas State House forced to adjourn again today as state House Democrats remain out of the state in their efforts to block Republicans' redistricting efforts. Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott is going to join me live next to discuss what he's going to do next. Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: In our "Politics Lead," Texas state House Democrats once again stayed out of their own state today, delaying the unusual mid-decade Republican redistricting effort in that state.
[17:19:58]
We're now in week two of this standoff over the new congressional maps for U.S. House seats that could give Republicans at least five additional seats in next year's midterm elections, thus staving off any potential midterm losses for Trump and the GOP.
Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott today said that law enforcement officers are scouring the state of Texas to try and arrest any statehouse Democrats who are avoiding their business in Austin. But today the leader of the statehouse Democratic caucus said his party will keep denying a quorum to be called unless Governor Abbott prioritizes flood relief legislation over redistricting.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GENE WU, TEXAS STATE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC LEADER: If Governor Abbott says we will take care of the people of the state of Texas first, if he makes that commitment today, we'll be back.
TAPPER: Texas Governor Greg Abbott joins us now. So, Governor, four items related to flood relief are on the agenda. When you call the next special session, would you consider removing redistricting from the agenda in order to pass this very, very starkly needed relief for Texans?
GREG ABBOTT, GOVERNOR OF TEXAS: So a couple things. One is the first four items on the agenda right now deal with flood relief. Second is during the regular session there are about 200 pieces of legislation that get passed every single month. I'm asking for only 18 items to be passed during this 30-day special session. They know full well that they have every capability of addressing all these pieces of legislation.
And what these Democrats have done They have turned their back on the people of the state of Texas. For one, it is gutless for Democrats to cut and run. That's anti-Texas. Ever since the time of the Alamo, Texans have stood and fought their ground. Here, Democrats are fleeing like a bunch of chickens. Second, they can address both the redistricting map as well as all these other issues that are so important to their fellow Texans.
Know this, and that is average Texans who are watching this show. They have to show up to work. If they don't show up to work, they could get fired. These Democrats think they are above that. These Democrats think, well, they can take the day off, they can take the month off, they can jet-set across the country, ignoring their duty.
By the Constitution, they are required to meet and consider and act on every bill that becomes before them. They're failing to fulfill their constitutional duty.
TAPPER: Yeah. They are, just to explain for our viewers who are not Texans, as the minority party with a very small minority. They argue that their only way to stop this redistricting effort is to deny Republicans in the state house a quorum. So that's why they're doing what they're doing, just to provide their explanation.
The "Texas Tribune" reports that in June, you told Texas Republican delegation in Congress that you were reluctant to add redistricting to the legislative agenda in Austin. "The Tribune" says that President Trump then called you to discuss redistricting, and you agreed to put it on the special session agenda. Would you have gone forward with redistricting if President Trump had not personally gotten involved and asked you to do this?
ABBOTT: To be clear, Jake, this is something that I've been interested in for a long time. First of all I've been involved in redistricting litigation for more than 20 years now. Second, one thing that spurred all of this is a federal court decision that came out last year. By the way, a case that was filed by Democrats, the federal court decision that came out last year said that Texas is no longer required to have coalition districts.
And as a result, we had drawn maps with coalition districts in it. Now we wanted to remove those coalition districts and draw them in ways that in fact, turned out to provide more seats for Hispanics. For example, for the districts are predominantly Hispanic. It just coincides it's going to be Hispanic Republicans elected to those seats.
One thing that's happened in the state of Texas is the Hispanic community, a lot of it, have decided they're no longer with the Democrats who believe in open border policies, who believe in going against our law enforcement, who believe that men should play in women's sports. And they instead align with Republicans. What we want to do is to draw districts that give those Hispanics and African- Americans in the state of Texas the ability to elect their candidate of choice.
TAPPER: That's not really -- I mean, you're doing this to give Trump and Republicans in the House of Representatives five additional seats, right? I mean, that's the motivation, is to stave off any midterm election losses.
ABBOTT: Again, to be clear, Jake, that the reason why we're doing this is because of that court decision. Texas is now authorized under law that changed that was different than in 2021 when we last did redistricting.
[17:25:00]
Under new law as well as new facts that surfaced in the aftermath of the Trump election showing that many regions of the state that historically had voted Democrat that were highly Hispanic now chose to vote Republican and vote for Trump as well as other Republican candidates.
Districts where the electorate voted heavily for Trump, they were trapped in a Democrat congressional district. They have every right to vote for a member of Congress who is a Republican. We will give them that ability.
TAPPER: The law is pretty clear that state legislators in Texas denying the majority party a quorum can be fined and can even be arrested, but now you and your administration are taking the unusual step of asking for democratic leader Gene Wu, who we played a clip from a little while ago, to be actually removed from office. What gives you the right to override the will of his voters who elected him?
ABBOTT: So, I think the will of the people who elected him are not being met right now. The people who elected him as well as the other Democrats who've run from their duty, they didn't elect them to run off to Illinois. They elected them to go to Austin, Texas and cast votes as required by the Constitution. What I have the authority to do as governor is to require these members of the legislature to follow the Constitution, which is very clear on its face where it says that these legislators must act on bills before them.
They're refusing to perform their constitutional duty And that's exactly why I filed that lawsuit in the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Supreme Court has required Gene Wu to respond to that. And the Texas Supreme Court is considering that right now. And what I'm seeking to do in that case --
TAPPER: Yeah.
ABBOTT: -- is to have Gene Wu removed from office for failing to perform his constitutional requirement.
TAPPER: So you had a -- your state had a Congresswoman, Kay Granger, who tragically developed dementia. And then in the middle of her, I guess, second year in office in her final term, she and her family just checked her into a dementia center in Texas, and nobody represented that congressional district for like six to eight months or something. And I don't recall you saying anything then.
ABBOTT: Well, I have the authority to apply the Texas Constitution to these members of the Texas House of Representatives. With regard to members of Congress, that's going to be up to the congressional delegation and to the federal laws of which the state would have no control over. What I do have control over, Jake, is what we're dealing with right now.
TAPPER: Yeah.
ABBOTT: And that is I called a special session, I put items on the agenda, and by Texas law, those runaway Democrats are required to act on that agenda. They're failing to do their duty. So there's a violation of state law that allows me to seek the removal of those who've abdicated their responsibility. Let's play this out. If they do not get removed by this court, this process is going to continue. I'm going to call a special session after special session after special session.
They could remain in hiding for literally years tying the hands of the state of Texas --
TAPPER: Well --
ABBOTT: -- from performing essential government needs. That cannot be allowed and that's exactly why I should prevail and my lawsuit to have this Democrat removed from office because they are denying Texas the ability to conduct business.
TAPPER: I mean not entirely though, right, because I mean, there are filing deadlines for candidates in September and November and then in March of course would be the primaries in Texas so they really -- I mean, I'm not advocating this, but they really only need to wait you out until the fall.
ABBOTT: Sorry Jake, that's not the case. Because I can call a special session at any time to have these districts redrawn. And even if we get to and beyond the filing deadline, we are still going to redraw these maps. Before we've done this, what we can do again, and that is have two different elections. One for all the other candidates on the ballot, one for members of Congress. And that's exactly what we'll do this time.
If they think all they have to do is wait it out until November, December, they're wrong. I'm gonna do this for the next two years and they're going to have to basically take up residency in Illinois, they might as well start voting in Illinois.
TAPPER: Well let me ask you just this final question sir as a bigger picture item which is what's unusual about this is that you're attempting to do it in 2025 as opposed to waiting till the end of the decade as normally is when the redistricting takes place. You've explained the Supreme Court decision that led you to do this but what's going on obviously is not happening in Texas, it's not happening in a vacuum.
We have Democrats in California and New York and other states saying, well, if Governor Abbott does this in Texas, we're going to add five Democratic seats. Are you not worried at all about a redistricting, gerrymandering arms race going on?
And theoretically, is it not just better for voters to be picking their politicians instead of politicians to be picking their voters through gerrymandering?
[17:30:10]
ABBOTT: Well, to be clear, listen, all those big blue states, they've already gerrymandered. Look at the map of Illinois. Look at the map of California, New York, and Massachusetts, and so many other blue states. They gerrymandered a long time ago. They got nothing left with regard to what they can do. And -- and know this, if -- if California tries to gerrymander five more districts, listen, Texas has the ability to eliminate 10 Democrats in our state. We can play that game more than they can because they have fewer Republican districts in their states.
TAPPER: Texas Governor Greg Abbott, don't be a stranger. Thanks for popping by. Really appreciate it.
ABBOTT: Thank you.
TAPPER: Today, a federal judge rejected the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury materials in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. The judge's strong words for the Trump administration and their request, that's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[17:35:11]
TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, a federal judge earlier today rejected the Trump Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury materials from the sex trafficking case against Ghislaine Maxwell.
In a scathing opinion, Judge Paul Engelmayer writes, quote, contrary to the government's depiction, the Maxwell grand jury testimony is not a matter of significant historical or public interest. Far from it, unquote.
Let's bring in some legal experts to discuss. Former Trump White House attorney Jim Schultz, former federal prosecutor Elliot Williams. Elliott, the Justice Department would have had to clear a really high bar to allow the public release of grand jury materials. Was this opinion from the judge and the tenor of it because it was pretty scathing, was it a surprise at all to you?
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: It was not a surprise. This is probably the least surprising judicial opinion any of us have read, Jake. You know, let's be clear, our laws in America are quite vague and there's wiggle room often. The laws governing grand jury secrecy are not vague. They are quite clear. There are very limited circumstances under which grand jury materials are ever released publicly. And let's be clear, this just ain't it. And the judge said that quite clearly today.
This is just not -- the fact that the Internet is clamoring to hear this information, does not hit that high bar of releasing grand jury materials.
TAPPER: And Jim, Judge Engelmayer alluded to the unfamiliarity that Justice Department officials to him seemed to have with the very materials they were asking to unseal, given that so many of the details in the documents they were asking to -- to be released were already public knowledge.
He writes, quote, a member of the public appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at transparency, but at diversion aimed not at full disclosure, but at the illusion of such, unquote. How do you think that is going to sit with those who have been demanding more about the case of judges basically saying this was all just kind of a red herring anyway?
JIM SCHULTZ, CNN LEGAL COMMENTATOR: Yes, I mean, they clearly asked for information. You know, the Justice Department was under no illusion that they weren't going to get it when they filed this. As Elliott said, it's a huge bar to get over -- to get over the hump to try to get these things released. And I think the focus here, I keep bringing it back to it has to be about the survivors, right?
And that's the most important issue of the day is how does this impact survivors? Grand jury secrecy is definitely is there to protect witnesses and protect those folks that need the most protecting so that people will feel like they can come forward and testify. So, yes, the judge smacked him down pretty hard on this, but I don't think it should come as any surprise.
TAPPER: Elliot, the judge mentions in his opinion that a number of the survivors and the victims of Epstein and Maxwell wrote letters in favor of the materials being unsealed. But he says that those victims seem to be of the mistaken belief that the grand jury documents would reveal new information. What options do the victims have at this point, if they would like to see more information released publicly?
WILLIAMS: Well, there can certainly be more information released publicly, just not grand jury materials. There is -- there is information probably in the possession of the Justice Department, Jake, that is not protected by law in the way that grand jury materials is.
Now, that's up to the attorney general and the -- the deputy attorney general and others. Quite frankly, the U.S. attorney's office that prosecuted the case, whom I would note, did not have a say in this motion to unseal materials, but they can decide which of their files, if any, they can disclose. But to be clear, grand jury materials are just not the type of materials that would ever be released in a case like this.
TAPPER: And Jim, the judge overseeing the request for grand jury documents and materials in Epstein's case has not yet ruled on the motion. That's the Epstein case. But does this opinion today on Maxwell's case have any influence on what might be decided there?
SCHULTZ: I think it does, if -- if -- if -- again, it's the same burden that they have to get -- that they have to sustain in order to get these documents.
TAPPER: I've just lost the audio.
SCHULTZ: -- unless there's something --
TAPPER: OK. I'm sorry. Keep -- keep going, Jim. SCHULTZ: Unless there's some compelling reason, they're just not going to get it. So I -- I -- I don't think, I -- I -- I don't see a difference in that case. I think it's a distinction without a difference. This judge was very clear that there was no information to lead to any additional charges. I think you're -- you're likely to see the same thing in the -- in the Epstein case. So I think we end up in the same place.
TAPPER: All right, Jim Schultz, Elliot Williams, thanks to both of you.
[17:39:48]
We're getting new details from investigators after an explosion rocked a steel plant in Pennsylvania. Search and rescue crews are digging through the rubble, looking for at least one missing person. We're going to have a live update from the scene, ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: Our World Lead now, the Israeli government and the Israeli military are facing a fierce international storm of criticism after intentionally targeting and killing five journalists in Gaza, journalists affiliated with the "Al Jazeera News Network." The Committee to Protect Journalists says that 186 journalists have been killed in Gaza since the start of the war, 178 of them Palestinians killed by Israel, the committee says.
Now, Israel insists it has unequivocal proof that correspondent Anas Al-Sharif led a Hamas cell that was responsible for rocket attacks on Israeli citizens and IDF troops. Here's CNN's Nada Bashir.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NADA BASHIR, CNN REPORTER (voice-over): On Monday, mourners gathered in Gaza, carrying the bodies of Palestinian journalists killed in a targeted Israeli strike late Sunday night.
[17:45:06]
Among them, journalists from the international news network "Al Jazeera," including prominent Palestinian journalist Anas Al-Sharif. Al-Sharif had become a much-respected household name in the Arabic- speaking world and beyond, delivering live news coverage around the clock from across the Gaza Strip, risking his life on a daily basis to continue his work, documenting the daily horrors inflicted on the people of Gaza.
Al-Sharif was in a tent with other journalists marked with a press sign near the entrance of a now-destroyed al-Shifa hospital when he was killed by an Israeli strike, according to the hospital's director. "Al Jazeera" also confirmed the deaths of their staffers Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa.
The news outlet issued a statement describing the attack as a desperate attempt to silence voices ahead of the occupation of Gaza. The Israeli military had previously accused Al-Sharif of leading a Hamas cell. The military claimed Al-Sharif joined Hamas in 2013 and accused him of leading a Hamas cell that advanced rocket attacks against Israel.
The IDF said they had unequivocal proof of Al-Sharif's link to Hamas, posting an undated photo apparently showing him with slain Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, and publicizing images of documents that include personnel lists, terrorist training courses, phone directories, and salary payments. CNN cannot independently verify the documents.
Previously, Al-Sharif had vehemently denied the allegation that he was affiliated with Hamas. In a statement shared on social media, the reporter said, I am a journalist with no political affiliations. My only mission is to report the truth from the ground as it is, without bias.
The U.N. special rapporteur on freedom of expression had also previously denounced the, quote, unfounded accusations by the Israeli military, describing Israel's claims as a blatant attempt to endanger his life and silence his reporting on the genocide in Gaza.
The U.N. official also cited growing evidence that journalists in Gaza have been targeted and killed by the Israeli army on the basis of unsubstantiated claims that they were Hamas terrorists. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, at least 186 journalists have been killed since the beginning of the war in Gaza.
In the minutes before he was killed, Al-Sharif, who was also a father, separated from his two children for months while reporting, shared this message on social media. If this madness does not end, Gaza will be reduced to ruins, its people's voices silenced, their faces erased, and history will remember you as silent witnesses to a genocide you chose not to stop.
Nada Bashir, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
TAPPER: And our thanks to Nada Bashir for that report.
[17:48:06]
There's a new push for more security preparations as the U.S. prepares to host the World Cup next year and the Olympics in 2028. Next, CNN's Pete Muntean gets a look at new drone technology that could help stop bad actors.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TAPPER: In our National Lead, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy recently announced new rules that could clear the way for drone deliveries across the United States, even beyond an operator's line of sight. But as drone technology grows, so do security concerns, especially with the World Cup and the Olympics in the United States on the horizon.
CNN Aviation correspondent Pete Muntean shows us now the systems being tested to stop a drone threat before it can hit its target.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're good to go. You can launch.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Copy.
PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is what it looks like when drones are flying where they shouldn't and are about to be taken over. This demonstration by Israeli company D-Fend Solutions comes as drones are taking off as a tool of war.
ZOHAR HALACHMI, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, D-FEND SOLUTION: They are a threat for airports. They are a threat for critical infrastructure.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): CEO Zohar Halachmi says even off-the-shelf drones can now be easily outfitted to drop grenades or carry explosives, like during the Ukrainian attack on Russian air bases in June. It is the latest concern of lawmakers on Capitol Hill as they're calling for greater coordination from federal agencies to protect large events like the 2026 World Cup and 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles.
REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL (R-TX): With minimal skill, bad actors can use these drones to launch attacks or create chaos.
REP. CARLOS GIMENEZ (R-FL): Potential for a coordinated drone attack on an airport, seaport, or mass gathering is a credible and growing threat.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): Here, D-Fend system uses an antenna to detect radio signals emitted by drones from the moment they take off, feeding information back to a command center in real time.
MUNTEAN: You essentially just create your own no-drone zone.
HALACHMI: Correct, it's a no-fly zone.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): First, a demonstration of a lone, unfriendly drone flying into our airspace. The system detects the drone, then with the push of a button, takes control, sending the drone to land in a predetermined spot.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So this is our unfriendly drone here.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): Next, a demonstration of multiple hostile drones in the air at one time, what's called a drone swarm.
MUNTEAN: It looks like they're all coming towards us now. Once again, the system pulls the drones into its metaphorical tractor beam, setting them down in a safe zone and providing the location of the drone operator whose controls have gone dark.
[17:55:00]
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The pilot has no idea that we're doing this. MUNTEAN (voice-over): D-Fend says this is based on the science of attacking computer viruses, filtering out good and legal drone users from malicious ones. Even the Federal Aviation Administration has tried this system and similar technology from other companies during a series of tests this spring.
BRYAN BEDFORD, FAA ADMINISTRATOR: I can assure you that government's focused on making sure that we get the technology right and we get the security right.
MUNTEAN (voice-over): The cost to buy this system? Hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. D-Fend calls it a small price to pay to protect against a growing threat in our skies.
MUNTEAN: Why not just shoot it down?
HALACHMI: Because it's really dangerous. What you would like to do is to take that in the safest and controlled way as possible.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
MUNTEAN (on camera): Drones are such a new threat that there's another problem. Rules and laws are struggling to keep up now and members of Congress say the federal government has limited authority to disable malicious drones, leaving what they call a glaring gap in our national preparedness.
Major sports leagues like the NFL and Major League Baseball are pushing Congress to give them more authority over drones, and in June, a Maryland man pled guilty to flying his drone near an NFL playoff game when he knew he shouldn't have. Jake, that was sort of a fluke, but the real thing here is this, that the CEO of Defense showed me you can buy a lot of this stuff to make a malicious drone, even on Amazon. It's a scary Wild West out there.
TAPPER: I am grateful, but I am still amazed, you and I were talking about this, that nothing bad has happened, significantly bad has happened with this technology. And in terms of members of Congress, I mean, they're still using AOL dial up, members of Congress. They don't know what's going on with drone technology. Pete Muntean, thanks so much.
President Trump says he's taking over D.C. to fight crime in the nation's capital. How will local leaders respond? Well, I'll ask one of them next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
