Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

DOJ Releases Audio, Transcript Of Maxwell Prison Interview; FBI Conducts Hours-Long Search At John Bolton's Home And Office; Think Tank Shares List Of Terms They Don't Want Democrats To Use; Police Give Update After Deadly Bus Crash In New York; Kilmar Abrego Garcia Released From Criminal Custody. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired August 22, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.

And we begin with breaking news in our Law and Justice Lead.

[18:00:001]

This afternoon, the Justice Department, for the first time, publicly released information about Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's two- day interview with sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, an interview that happened about over a month ago at this point.

Now, in the interview, Maxwell says she doesn't think Epstein died by suicide. She also downplays President Trump's involvement with Epstein.

CNN's Kara Scannell has been going through the transcript. CNN's Alayna Treene is at the White House for us.

And, Kara, I want to go to you first, as you and the team have been kind of combing through the 330-plus pages here. What stands out to you?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: So, Phil, they cover a lot of ground in this interview that lasted nine hours over two days, but there are two people that Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche focused a lot of questioning on, and those are two politicians, President Bill Clinton and President Donald Trump.

Now, asked to the questions on Bill Clinton, Blanche asked Maxwell a lot about the relationship and his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, and what Maxwell says is that Bill Clinton was her friend, not at Epstein's. And she said that while he flew on Epstein's plane, he never went to any of Epstein's properties and she said she never saw anything inappropriate. Here's an excerpt from that moment of the testimony.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GHISLAINE MAXWELL, JEFFREY EPSTEIN ACCOMPLICE: So, they spent time on the plane together and I don't believe there was ever a massage on the plane. So, that would've been the only time that I think that President Clinton could have even received a massage, and he didn't because I was there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCANNELL: She was also asked about President Trump. She said that she met him initially through her father back in the 1990s. She said that she admires Trump and that a lot of his relationship with Epstein, she was not privy to, but she also said she never saw any evidence of anything inappropriate. Here's a part of that exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAXWELL: I think they were friendly, like people are in social settings. I don't think they were close friends or I certainly never witnessed the president in any of -- I don't recall ever seeing him in his house, for instance. I actually never saw the president in any type of massage setting. I never witnessed the president in any inappropriate setting in any way. The president was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCANNELL: Phil, she also across the board said that she never was aware of any person being inappropriate with a woman of any age, including the women that were underage. Now, that is different position than what Trump's own Justice Department took in 2020 when she was in indicted and convicted at trial of sex trafficking and sex trafficking conspiracy for recruiting and grooming underage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. And prosecutors say that some of those girls Maxwell herself sexually abused. Maxwell is appealing that sentence.

But, certainly, some of this testimony is beneficial toward the administration now, but, you know, whether or not she can be trusted and believed is something that the Justice Department in the past did not believe her because they had charged her with perjury and then she was ultimately convicted at trial. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's critical context with this release this afternoon.

Alayna joining us from the North Lawn of the White House, very busy day over there, because at the same time this was released by the Justice Department, the Justice Department also started handing over its Epstein files to the House Oversight Committee. You were with the president in the Oval Office this afternoon. He was asked about the Epstein investigation. What'd he say?

ALAYNA TREENE, CNN WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: Yes, I was actually the one, Phil, to ask him that. I asked him, you know, the Justice Department is now handing over some of these Epstein files to the House Oversight Committee, do you support having them the committee publish all of these materials and releasing these files? He essentially told me, he said, I'm in support of keeping it totally open. Listen to what he said. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: People shouldn't be hurt, but I'm in support of keeping it totally open. I couldn't care less. You got a lot of people that could be mentioned in those files that don't deserve to be, people, because he knew everybody in Palm Beach. I don't know anything about that, but I have said to Pam and everybody else, give them everything you can give them.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TREENE: You heard him say there, he said, I couldn't care less. I've told Pam, he's referring to Pam Bondi, the attorney general, give them everything you can give them.

Look, I mean, I also think the timing of this, of course, is why we're also seeing some of this Maxwell interview being released today. I mean, we did know it was already planned that the Justice Department was going to be sending these files to the House Oversight Committee. They've been asking for a lot of materials. But you do hear the president here trying to kind of say, look, I'm in favor of releasing some of this information, but it needs to be what he said in the past, which is credible information, of course, the redaction of victims' names. And we know that in the Maxwell transcript, and I've been told this from a number of White House officials here, that she did raise a lot of names of victims who have not yet been made public.

[18:05:02]

And so a lot of what we're likely to see, and, of course, what we're seeing and reading in this, you know, more than 300 pages of transcript in this Maxwell interview will be similar with these files that they need to go through and redact it before they really see kind of the light of day.

MATTINGLY: Alayna, can you take us behind the scenes here? You and our team have had some really great report both today, but also kind of breaking the news about how they were trying to figure out what to do with this transcript. I've lost track of time at this point. It was maybe a week, two, three weeks ago. What was happening that led up to this release?

TREENE: Well, so, look, I mean, yes, we did, we broke earlier this month that essentially that there even was audio and a transcript of Blanche's interview with Maxwell. And we knew in the earlier this month that the Justice Department had been going through. They were digitizing it, transcribing it, and redacting it, like I said, the names of victims going through and trying to kind of sanitize it.

And there was a decision made earlier this month, I'm told, from multiple people here at the White House and throughout the Trump administration, essentially that they wanted to release these materials from Blanche's interview. And part of that is because a lot of people recognize they need to be far more proactive in the handling of the Epstein case overall. Sure, there were people who were kind of wary of resurfacing this story at a time when many people at the White House thought it had died down, but they also knew they needed to get ahead of it. And so that's part of why we're seeing them release these publicly and push this interview out.

MATTINGLY: Kara Scannell, Alayna Treene, and great reporting guys. Thanks so much.

Well, here now is Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia from California. He's the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, which also received Justice Department material today on Jeffrey Epstein.

Congressman, I actually want to start with what your committee received today. You posted on Twitter that your staff was going through what had been transmitted to the committee. Can you explain or describe what the Justice Department sent your way and any early impressions of it?

REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): Sure thing. I mean, look, first, I think it's really important just to remind everyone that Donald Trump and the DOJ are going to try to manipulate the way this information comes out. And the timing of this, Ms. Maxwell's testimony, should cause alarm. There are 33,000 pages that have been sent to both Democrats and Republicans on the Oversight Committee in this first batch of documents. It is a significant amount of documents. We just got the documents about two-and-a-half, three hours ago from the DOJ. And so, of course, right now we have a, a large team going over every single page and line of those 33,000 pages that we just got.

We also know, of course, this is just a batch. There are many more batches in the future. It's too early to say exactly what is completely in this batch of documents. We have already seen some documents that essentially are already in the public record, like some court documents and court transcripts. But, of course, it's early to know exactly what's fully in there. But as we learn what's actually in this batch, we intend to release that to the public while always ensuring that we are centering, of course, the victims.

And I think it's also really important at this moment that we remember, as Ms. Maxwell's testimony is being put out there, that this is someone that is a convicted sex trafficker and liar, who has caused enormous harm to young women and girls, and that she cannot be trusted.

MATTINGLY: Can I ask you about the -- you know, talking about as soon as possible with obviously being very cognizant of victims and necessary redactions releasing this information. I want to play something that the chairman of your committee, James Comer, your colleague Republican from Kentucky, said yesterday about public release. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): We will work as quickly as we can. You know, this is sensitive information. We want to make sure we don't do anything to harm or jeopardize any victims that were involved in this. But we're going to be transparent and we're doing what we said we would do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Very similar kind of frame answer to what you were saying there. What's the process here? And I think what's interesting, having covered Congress in the House for a very long time and committees, how oversight works between majority minority, how things can be released, whether there has to be a bipartisan agreement, I'm actually not sure in this case how it would work.

GARCIA: Right. I mean, let's be real clear first. I mean, the only reason that we're actually getting these Epstein files is because Democrats forced a vote on the last day of session, and we got a couple Republicans to join us, even though it was opposed by the Republican majority and by the DOJ. And it's interesting, of course, that now Donald Trump is saying, oh, yes, release all these files when just a few months ago, he was clearly involved in trying to cover this all up and not get anything released.

And so it's important to start from a place where the administration, the DOJ and Republicans have not wanted at all to release his files since Trump became the president, even though they were claiming they wanted the release during the campaign.

[18:10:09]

Now, the files were in front of us, and I agree that right now we have to ensure that victims are protected. We also have to ensure that we get the complete files, and receiving this in batches like is happening today, was not the request of the subpoena.

MATTINGLY: Right.

GARCIA: The subpoena was clear, we want the full, unredacted files. And in no way should the names of people that cause harm to these women and girls be redacted.

Now, of course, it's too early to know what's in the batch we just got. So far, there's a lot of information that's already public information, but we intend the Democrats in the committee to release as much information about what's in those files as possible.

MATTINGLY: Before I let you go, do you have any idea how many more batches are coming? Has there been any communication with DOJ on that front? And just to clarify the point you just made, you don't need James Comer sign off to release you. You can do that unilaterally. You plan to do that unilaterally once you have a sense of what you have.

GARCIA: I mean, it's clear to us that, I mean, Republicans and James Comer on the Oversight Committee have been trying to hide and evade and not get any of the files released. And so we want to make this public. What we've said from day one is we don't care who's in the files. We don't care what party you're in, how powerful you are, how much wealth you've accumulated. If you cause harm to these women and girls, you should be exposed.

And I'll say one other thing, which I think is really important. We don't know how many batches there are because the Department of Justice won't tell us. And we were asking those questions. We want to ensure and confirm that the batch that we got today is the exact same batch with the exact same possible redactions that the Republicans may have had.

And so it's going to take us here a couple days to understand exactly what we have, but the American public should know that we want transparency and we want them to know everything and all the information that we're getting as well.

MATTINGLY: Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia, I appreciate your time, sir. Thanks so much.

Well, as we dig through the flood of new material from the Justice Department, there's still a ton of outstanding questions. One major question, why was Ghislaine Maxwell moved from a prison in Florida to a lower security facility in Texas?

Much more ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

MATTINGLY: We're back with breaking news on our Law and Justice Lead. A trove of new information and yet still major outstanding questions after the Justice Department released a 337-page transcript of the Justice Department's interview with Jeffrey Epstein accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, in prison last month. At the same time, the House Oversight Committee received thousands, 33,000 pages of documents from the Justice Department.

I want to bring in former State and Federal Prosecutor Elie Honig. Elie, I want to kind of step back for a second. Based on your review here, still a lot, I think everybody's trying to digest, sift through, but what are your major outstanding questions at this point?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, is anyone really going to believe Ghislaine Maxwell is the number one question I have. I mean, if you look at this testimony, she's incredibly defensive. She denies that she's ever done anything wrong, the criminal charge against her, which resulted in a trial and a conviction, everything false there, she claims. Even the civil allegations against her made by many, many victims, people who were children at the time, all of that she claims is false.

So, I don't know how anyone could actually credit that. If you do believe that about Ghislaine Maxwell, fine, we will differ, but I don't know how DOJ could put this out there as some sort of truth teller telling us the truth. It's really hard to swallow.

MATTINGLY: Drilling in a little bit, what did you make of the manner of questioning by President Trump's deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche? As a prosecutor, as you were reading through how he went about this, what were you thinking?

HONIG: It's odd, Phil, and I say that, by the way, as somebody who worked at the SDNY almost exactly the same time as Todd Blanche did. He started maybe a year after me. So, we were raised and trained in the same office in the very same way. I've done countless interviews like this. Todd has done countless interviews like this. I know that I know how to do it and I know that Todd knows how to do it and this is not it.

What he does in this interview over and over again, and it's sort of hurried, is he'll throw a name at Ghislaine Maxwell, say, do you know such and such, a lot of high profile names. Maxwell will say, yes, I knew him myself, or I knew him through Epstein. And then Blanche will say, what was the nature of this person's relationship with Epstein? And Maxwell will say something like, well, they were social friends, or they partied together, or I saw them at this event or that. And then sometimes Blanche will say, do you know if that person ever doing anything wrong? And Maxwell will say, no, I don't. And that's it. I mean, that is not how you dig into information. That's how you sort of breeze past stuff and get it done as quick as possible.

Also, I should say, there's times when you forget that this is a prosecutor questioning Ghislaine Maxwell. I mean, there's a whole long passage where Blanche is sort of walking Maxwell through the fact that she claims millions of dollars sent from Epstein to her had nothing to do with anything illegal. It was just to purchase helicopters and stuff like that. And it just -- you read it and you're thinking, who's questioning here, a prosecutor or a defense lawyer?

MATTINGLY: Just kind of real quick before I let you go, kind of brings me to something I've been thinking about constantly. Because this was not a normal thing for the number two Justice Department official to go down and interview somebody like this over two days, several hours, 337 pages. What was the point here?

HONIG: Yes, I have no -- what was the point? I don't know what the point was. I think it was intended to, A, exonerate Donald Trump. And, look, on the face, Ghislaine Maxwell does exonerate Trump, and there's nothing to the contrary anywhere else on the record. But, politically, if this is designed to promote transparency, I think it's going to achieve the opposite effect.

MATTINGLY: Elie Honig, always appreciate you, thanks so much.

So, what exactly was the FBI looking for when it searched Trump critic and former National Security Adviser John Bolton's house and office for hours today? We'll talk to a former FBI agent next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

MATTINGLY: The Law and Justice Lead tonight, FBI Agents spent hours today searching the home and office of President Trump's first term national security adviser, John Bolton. They showed up at Bolton's home earlier this morning and arrived later at his office in downtown D.C. It was mid-afternoon before they left.

Now, Bolton became an intense critic of the president after he was fired in September of 2019. And while the president says he didn't know about today's raid, didn't bother to hide his feelings either.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I purposely don't want to really get involved in it. I'm not a fan of John Bolton. I thought it was a sleazebag actually. And he suffers major Trump derangement syndrome.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: CNN's Tom Foreman has a closer look at the Trump-Bolton relationship.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

TRUMP: He is like a very quiet person except on television. He could say something bad about Trump.

Not a smart guy, but he could be a very unpatriotic guy.

[18:25:00]

I mean, we're going to find out.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): President Donald Trump's beef with John Bolton has been stewing for years, especially after Bolton's 2020 book described Trump as stunningly uninformed, obsessed with his image and bumbling through relations with North Korea, China, Russia, and more.

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: He doesn't operate the basis of grand strategy or even policy. He operates on the basis of what's good for Donald Trump.

FOREMAN: With the 2020 election looming, Trump immediately attacked.

TRUMP: He released massive amounts of classified and confidential, but classified information. That's illegal and you go to jail for that.

FOREMAN: It wasn't always that way. Back when Trump first took the White House, Bolton, who had worked for every Republican president since Ronald Reagan, cheered the incoming commander-in-chief, in particular for building up the military. Trump eventually tapped Bolton to be his national security adviser.

TRUMP: I have other people that are a little more dovish than him, and, ultimately, I make the decision. No, I get -- I like John. I get very good advice from John.

FOREMAN: But soon, the two were clashing over North Korea, Afghanistan, and the general chaos of Trump's orbit, in which Bolton wrote work was like executing policy inside a pinball machine.

Trump would come to see Bolton as too hawkish.

TRUMP: I've been with foreign leaders, and I didn't even have to act tough because they said, look, that moron, John Bolton, he's crazy.

FOREMAN: A bitter split followed with Trump's Justice Department launching an investigation into Bolton, which was dropped by the Biden administration and revived in this new Trump term. Bolton has become a media fixture, relentlessly calling out his old boss even just days ago after the administration touted its Ukraine summit in Alaska.

BOLTON: I think Trump did not lose but Putin clearly won.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOREMAN (on camera): Of course, there are disputes about the book was ever officially approved before he put it out, but there are also very different views about what's happening right now. Some obviously on the right are going to say, well, maybe they're finding evidence, maybe he's done something wrong. And some on the left are saying, this is just the next stop on the Trump retribution tour. And they weren't there to find something. They were there to leave something, a message to anyone that gets under Donald Trump's skin.

MATTINGLY: Man, the archives are rich in this relationship. Great piece, Tom Foreman, thanks so much.

I want to bring in former FBI Special Agent David Shapiro. I really appreciate your time. I want to start with the searches that we saw, home, office, started early this morning, went for hours. The length of time, but also what do you think stands out in terms of what they may have been looking for here?

DAVID SHAPIRO, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: It seems to be they were likely looking for anything related to information and communication technology, like computers, cell phones, because that's where information hides and lives and can be concealed. Though information, of course, can be in hard copies, documentation, papers, notebooks, and so forth. So, because these ICT devices and paper can be so easy to conceal, it's no wonder that the search took a long time and appeared so comprehensive.

MATTINGLY: In a search like this, there aren't necessarily like limited parameters, right? Like if they wanted to look through financial aspects of things, bank document, they could do that as well. Would they here?

SHAPIRO: Well, here, they would it. There are limitations and they would be spelled out in the search warrant itself. It wouldn't be just a broad look for anything that looks suspicious. But, here, financial records would be relevant because they would likely bear on the intent, the state of mind of Mr. Bolton in cutting short the pre- publication review and disclosure obligations he needed to fulfill.

MATTINGLY: What do you expect to happen next year? I know that there's not necessarily a roadmap in this particular case, but if you see this happening today, what's the next step for the Justice Department? SHAPIRO: Well, there are basically three pathways. One, they can determine, well, nothing to see here, we'll close the this preliminary investigation, goodbye. Two, they can say, we've got -- we found stuff, we found valuable stuff, we're going to take it to a grand jury, and Mr. Bolton will be criminally indicted. Or three, they can see evidence for which war (ph) is needed, and so they may sharpen their pencils a little bit and come up with an additional search warrant, maybe subpoenas for financial records. They can seek additional evidence.

MATTINGLY: President Trump said today that he had no knowledge of the Bolton search, but he might be briefed on it, said he could be briefed on it today. Look, the president has an expansive view of executive authority and the president's role of the Justice Department, but being briefed on an ongoing investigation or a search here, is that normal in your experience?

[18:30:02]

SHAPIRO: Well, it should occur with such a high-profile case as this. So, that would that would not surprise me. I mean, if we were investigating perhaps a fairly low level drug distributor, you'd hardly expect that to be brought to the president's attention. But a former national security adviser, that's what they say a horse of a different color.

MATTINGLY: That's very, very true. I want to ask this, the whole kind of series of events this morning bring to mind the FBI search of the president's property, Mar-a-Lago, the pictures showing the boxes of classified documents stacked on the stage, in the bathroom. Back then, the president was a private citizen, a former president, just like Bolton is now. What's the difference between that and this?

SHAPIRO: Well, in many respects, there are no major differences. Both were private individuals, both had significant ties to the policies, to politics, to the bureaucracies, to the information that we rely on to use to protect our national security. So, there's a lot of overlap in these cases. And, basically, how well these individuals, and not just Mr. Trump or Mr. Bolton, what kind of -- what standard of care do they use upon receipt of classified information? Do they protect it? You know, how do they view it? Is it a source of profit, you know? And these things -- that's how I see the overlap here.

MATTINGLY: David Shapiro, I really appreciate your time. Thanks so much.

SHAPIRO: It's my pleasure. Take care. Thank you for having me.

MATTINGLY: We want to sneak in some other big headlines today, including one that has political insiders talking, suggestion that if Democrats want to claw back power, they should stop using certain words and phrases. The Democrat who created the list will join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Politics Lead, as Democrats struggle in poll after poll to connect with voters, one set of left think tank is out with a list of words they'd like to see the party cut out of their vocabulary in order to stop President Trump and Republicans in next year's midterm elections. And if Democrats are listening, here's one phrase you wouldn't hear on the campaign trail.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. ELIZABETH WARREN (D-MA): Climate change is the existential threat.

KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: An existential threat to America's labor movement.

JOE BIDEN, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: Climate crisis is the existential threat.

TRUMP: He loves his word, it's an existential threat, existential. He has no idea what the hell the word means.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Here now is Matt Bennett. He's co-founder and executive vice president for public affairs for Third Way, the group that published the memo this morning. And I was telling Matt during the break, this pretty much lit up everybody's social media accounts, text messages, group chats around Washington this morning.

We've heard existential threat a lot, but I want to keep people some context on some other words and phrases that were in this memo, body shaming, cisgender, holding space, incarcerated people, intersectionality, LGBTQIA-plus, pregnant people, systems of oppression, the unhoused. Why do you think it's a words, not a policies thing that Democrats are suffering from right now?

MATT BENNETT, CO-FOUNDER AND EVP FOR PUBLIC AFFAIRS, THIRD WAY: Oh, it's definitely both. I mean, we're a think tank. We talk about policies all the time. But I think sometimes we give short shrift to the words that public-facing Democrats, like the ones you just showed and others, are using. And those words matter a lot. Ask yourself if you're watching this, does anyone in your family around the table use words like this? Do you hear this when you talk to people that you went to high school with or folks you're talking to at the grocery store? People just don't talk this way. And when Democrats do, they're putting a barrier between themselves and voters in ways that are deeply alienating and really off-putting, and we thought it was time for somebody to tell them that.

MATTINGLY: Yes. Can you explain kind of how you guys decided the origin story of why you decided to do this and what you think the impact has been throughout the course of the day?

BENNETT: Sure. I mean, look, the November elections were a catastrophe for Democrats and for country, in our view. And we're doing everything we can to try turn that around. And one of the things that we've seen very clearly is that we have lost the faith of a lot of voters that were with us not that long ago. I mean, a whole bunch of people voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and then voted for Trump in 2024.

So, to get those people back, we got to be clear that we cannot be alienating them on issues relating largely to culture. And the way that we're talking to them is deeply alienating. I mean, we have heard from people all day today, consultants that run focus groups and others, who said, yes, I've heard this from people. They just don't understand or like the way that Democrats talk.

It's not that they're dumb. They understand what the words mean. It's just that that is not how they relate to one another. And we seem very weird when we use these kinds of words. I mean, literally, no one says, incarcerated persons. They say people in jail. You know, it just is -- it's a very unnatural way of talking and we got to stop doing it.

MATTINGLY: Do you think this is a generational issue? And I ask this because, you know, you talk to kind of Democratic -- a lot of Democratic lawmakers will say, look, my younger staff, and I'm not going after younger people in any way, shape or form, but there's a divide, I think, between some lawmakers, some of the younger staffers, some longtime staffers and some kind of newer generation staffers. What do you think the genesis of this moment in the party came from?

BENNETT: Yes. I think some of it is age, but a lot of it is college. A lot of this stuff comes straight out of the faculty lounge at universities. I mean, no one talks about the Overton window at football games. You know, you talk about the Overton window in faculty, in seminar rooms. And so this kind of stuff gets put into the heads of young people in college and almost everybody serving as a staffer for members of Congress and for other elected and for candidates, almost all of them have gone to college.

That, by the way, is a problem Democrats should be addressing as well. We need a lot more people working with us who fit into the 68 percent of voters who don't attend college. But the fact that all of these people come out of the same kind of system and use the same kinds of language, I think, is part of the problem.

The other thing is like these words were, and these phrases were generated in goodwill. They were an attempt to, you know, protect vulnerable people or to not harm people's feelings. We understand that. But the problem is it's doing more harm than good because it's helping the right, and those are the people that are the very people attacking the ones we're trying to protect.

MATTINGLY: Yes. That's what I point out, the recognition of groups that haven't gotten enough attention or minority groups that haven't necessarily always been raised was kind of the reason why, initially.

The -- in terms of the party itself right now, who do you look to? What Democrats do you think at this point hold up as effective communicators to persuadable voters? BENNETT: And we have a whole bunch of them. I mean, one of them is Andy Beshear, the governor of Kentucky. He talks like a normal person. It's the reason that a Democrat is so popular in Kentucky, which is a very, very red state. And he would never use any of these words, and he's very clear that that matters to his voters. They feel like they understand him and that they share his values and that he's part of their culture.

And there's plenty of others as well, Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona. You know, he says, look, people in my district, they want a big ass truck. Like that is how people talk, and that is how you should talk. Elisa Slotkin, senator for Michigan, Ritchie Torres. We got really good communicators and we want them to be the ones showing others how to do it.

MATTINGLY: Matt Bennett, it was the story of the morning for sure in Washington, D.C. Thanks so much. I appreciate it.

BENNETT: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, in our National Lead, in just a week, thousands of Americans will take to the skies to kick off the Labor Day holiday. And the FAA is warning passengers of a disturbing uptick in fires involving lithium ion batteries on planes.

CNN's Pete Muntean takes a look at what happens when a lithium battery explodes in flight, and the items you may want to avoid packing.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

PETE MUNTEAN, CNN AVIATION CORRESPONDENT (on camera): Test after test shows what happens when lithium ion batteries ignite in flight, creating a crisis thousands of feet up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: United 2664 declaring an emergency, we have a laptop on fire in the aircraft and need to return.

MUNTEAN: New data says the batteries malfunction on flights twice a week. The worst case is erupting in flames and filling passenger cabins with smoke.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was terrified. I didn't know what was happening.

MUNTEAN: The problem, batteries are the standard source of power for phones, laptops, vapes, and external power banks used to recharge other electronics. Here at its massive research center in New Jersey, the Federal Aviation Administration is about to show us what happens when a lithium battery heats up uncontrollably until it burns, called a thermal runaway.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It will get warmer and warmer and warmer until the battery -- the structure of the battery itself fails.

MUNTEAN: It sounds to me like you're describing an explosion.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There can be explosions as well.

MUNTEAN: We'll let it heat it up.

For our test, a power bank fitted with special heating tape has been placed into an airline seat back pocket. And if the safety glasses, protective window and firefighter are any indication, the team here is ready for this to be big.

Wow, it took me by surprise.

MUNTEAN: But this is not your average fire. The FAA demonstrates using the fire extinguisher available to flight attendants and the fire reignites. The FAA says, water is key to cooling the thermal runaway and stopping the flames.

It seems kind of counterintuitive to put water on something electronic.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It does, and most people think that. But at this point the device has failed, it's not, it's no longer an electronic device now.

MUNTEAN: Now, I want you to imagine what would happen if you were sitting in this seat. They say this test on the grand scheme of tests that they do here was pretty violent when that battery exploded. You could see all the embers that really blew back and it nearly hit the Plexiglass window, the safety window that we were standing at about 20 feet away.

Earlier this year, a suspected external battery pack fire on the ground left this Air Busan flight barely recognizable and injured 27 people. The latest federal data shows external battery packs are the top cause of incidents. And the FAA has banned them from check baggage where they're harder to extinguish.

But safety organization, U.L. Standards and Engagement, says two in five passengers still check them.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know that this is a solvable problem and, first and foremost, it is about passenger awareness and education.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MUNTEAN (on camera): Now think about what you fly with.

[18:45:01]

The latest data says the average passenger travels with four devices powered by lithium ion batteries. It is one of the big reasons why numbers of incidents are going up.

2024 was the worst year on record for battery fires on planes, and this year is on pace to beat that number. Right now, airlines are coming up with their own precautions on their own, and Southwest is now the lone U.S. carrier to tell passengers to keep their battery packs in plain sight, not in overhead bins. The thing that I was really surprised by here is that we're all kind of a walking fire risk, and I did an inventory of my own stuff in my backpack. These are the five devices, not including my laptop. So I'm 50 percent at a greater risk than the average passenger.

The big thing you can do here is to inventory them and know where your batteries are, and know that it's water. It's not a fire extinguisher that's going to put these out.

MATTINGLY: Pete Muntean, great piece.

MUNTEAN: Anytime.

MATTINGLY: Thanks so much.

Well, police are speaking after a tour bus with about 50 passengers heading back to New York City from Niagara Falls rolled over and crashed into a ditch. Let's listen in.

POLICE OFFICER: And federal law enforcement, fire and EMS for their assistance today. I'd like to ask anyone with information whether it be an eyewitness account or dashcam footage, that could help us in this investigation. Contact Troop A SP Batavia at 585-344-6200. Again, that's 585-344-6200.

In closing again, I ask you all to please give the families their privacy, their time to mourn and grieve their lost loved ones, as well as pray for and keep in your thoughts and mind those involved as well as their families and their friends.

At this point, I'll take a few questions.

REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE)

POLICE OFFICER: I do not have the exact ages, however, no children passed away. Yes. Initially, it was believed that a child had passed away, but further investigation has deemed that to be false. There were children transported to the hospital. Many people have subsequently been released from the hospital. I'm unaware of any serious physical injuries to children at this point.

Their points of origin vary. The bus again was coming from New York City initially to the American side of Niagara Falls, and then now was returning to Niagara falls in New York, returning to New York City.

M as in Mary and Y as in young. Yeah. So M and Y, as in Mary, yes. M and Y, Tour, Inc., Staten Island. Yes.

REPORTER: And were they just coming up to Niagara Falls? Was that the plan?

POLICE OFFICER: They had already been to Niagara Falls. And yes, they were returning.

REPORTER: Can you talk about the scale of this? Is the worst crash ever -- POLICE OFFICER: Tragically, there in the many years of the thruway,

there's been several horrific, horrific accidents. With this being one of them. Which is why the New York state police are actively out enforcing the speed laws. Move over laws, DWIs --

MATTINGLY: You have been watching an update. We're going to continue to listen about a tour bus that was heading back to New York City with about 50 passengers from Niagara Falls. It crashed into a ditch along Interstate 90, about 40 miles east of Niagara Falls.

Authorities just updating. At least five people were killed. Dozens more were injured. Most of the passengers were Indian, Chinese or Filipino, and officials believe most were not wearing seatbelts. We'll continue to monitor and we'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:52:59]

MATTINGLY: Time now for our "Business Leader" series where we hear from small business owners from coast to coast about the impact of President Trump's tariffs so far.

In a story in New York, The Brass Owl and the Tiny Owl boutique sell a host of unique clothing, accessories and gifts. The first location opened its doors 11 years ago.

Owner Nicole Panettieri joins me now.

And, Nicole, you carry a wide variety of products and my saying is you source a lot of it domestically, but how are tariffs impacting your business?

NICOLE PANETTIERI, OWNER, THE BRASS OWL & THE TINY OWL: Absolutely. And first, thank you for having me and giving a voice to small business during these times, but you're very trying.

Yeah. My so -- I have one store that is a women's fashion and gift store and then I have a kids store. We support about 80 percent domestic vendors. We love to work with small makers so my mission when I opened the store 11 years ago was to support domestic -- domestic made products.

The problem that we're seeing in the gift store is it's components. So, a lot of components, like in a candle, it's the jars. It's the tops that are made overseas. And there's just no infrastructure for that to be made domestically.

So a lot of some vendors are -- some artists are absorbing the prices. Some are not able to. But at the end of the day, a small business doesn't have the margins to absorb that, whether it's the maker, or the boutique. So we're seeing prices go up in candles and clothing. And blind boxes, all of those things. The prices are going up.

MATTINGLY: You mentioned margins. And I think what people sometimes don't understand on the small business side of things is they're not huge by any means, no matter how successful you are. In this -- given that, how do you handle the increased costs? Is it raising prices? Are you trying to eat them? What are you doing?

PANETTIERI: I mean, we don't have the -- we don't have the structure to eat the costs. I mean, I'm a small, small business. We have eight people on our team, and I mean, quite honestly, I haven't been able to give raises this year because of it.

We -- and then in the kids store, we're seeing -- on the kids store, most of those things are made in overseas, either China or the E.U.

[18:55:01]

And those prices have all gone up months ago. So, we're already feeling the squeeze in business. And I'm having a really an issue with our expenses right now.

So, it's -- it's tough. I mean, I'm raising prices where I can, but we're in Queens. We're in a working class neighborhood. There's only so much people are willing to pay for a candle.

MATTINGLY: What would your message be to policymakers who are watching this right now, given kind of your day to day, as you think through the period ahead?

PANETTIERI: Yeah. I mean, I think the number has come out that $30 billion has been generated from tariff -- tariff revenue, and small businesses haven't seen a dime of that.

So we weathered a huge storm in COVID, and it was hard, but the government assistance got us through it. And if there's something they can do with this, $30 billion of revenue to go back to small businesses. I mean, I'm on the verge of closing my children's store because I can't -- we also had a target open up. We just can't --this one-two punch is too much with tariffs and big box.

So, if there's support for small business financially, we need it.

MATTINGLY: So, just the Brass Owl & The Tiny Owl, they're located in Astoria in New York. Go visit them. Visit them.

PANETTIERI: (INAUDIBLE)

MATTINGLY: It's, look, it looks like an awesome place. I really appreciate your time, Nicole Panettieri. And your story, your perspective. Thanks so much.

PANETTIERI: Appreciate the time. Thank you.

MATTINGLY: We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:59:06]

MATTINGLY: In our last leads today, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was released from criminal custody in Tennessee while he awaits trial on federal human smuggling charges. This marks the first time he walks free since the Trump administration admitted he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March. Abrego Garcia was previously held in El Salvador's notorious mega prison, before sent back to the U.S. to face federal charges in June. He has a trial set for January.

And our sports lead. We head to the Kennedy Center in D.C. because that's where President Trump says the opening event for the 2026 FIFA World Cup will take place on December 5th. In the Oval Office today, Trump said the Performing Arts Center is the location where the groups and matches will officially be announced for the world's biggest soccer tournament. But for soccer fans hoping to watch the event in person, the president also said fans from, quote, certain countries are going to be very easy getting into the U.S., while others will find it more difficult.

Well, coming up on Sunday, "STATE OF THE UNION", House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries. That's Sunday morning at 9:00 Eastern and again at noon here on CNN. If you ever missed an episode of THE LEAD, you can listen to the show wherever you get your podcasts.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now. Have a great weekend.