Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

FBI Director: Alex Acosta "Limited" Epstein Investigation; Rep. James Comer, (R-KY), Is Interviewed About Epstein Case, Alex Acosta, Ghislaine Maxwell, Online Forum Users; House Oversight Committee To Interview Alex Acosta On Friday; Former AG Bill Barr: Epstein "Absolutely" Died By Suicide; Deputy AG Blanche: I Gave Maxwell The "Opportunity To Speak"; House Oversight Chair Invites CEOs Of Discord, Steam, Twitch And Reddit To Testify On Radicalization Of Online Forum Users; Fed Cuts Interest Rates To 4 Percent, Citing "Weakening Job Market". Aired 5-6p ET

Aired September 17, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right. Thanks to my panel for being here today. Thanks very much. Appreciate it. Thanks to you at home for being there as well.

If you missed any today's show, you can always catch up listening to The Arenas podcast. Scan the QR below. Follow along wherever you get your podcast. You can also find follow the show on X and Instagram at thearenacnn. Jake Tapper is standing by for the Lead. Hi, Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Thank you, Kasie. I don't need to do that with the QR code because I watched the show and it's fantastic. We'll see you back in "The Arena" tomorrow.

HUNT: Well, thank you. You're our finest viewer. See you soon.

[17:00:43]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Guess who's coming to dinner? The Lead starts right now.

Rupert Murdoch joining President Trump for his final night in London. Yes, that Rupert Murdoch, who's facing a $20 billion lawsuit from that same President Trump over an article about Trump and the Epstein scandal. And there is more, I'm going to talk to a Republican congressman getting ready to question the former prosecutor, the former U.S. attorney who gave the now dead pedophile that sweetheart deal.

And breaking shocking news, a shooting in central Pennsylvania, a source just told CNN multiple police officers were injured. We're working to learn more. We'll bring it to you as soon as we do. Plus, proof of poisoning, the stunning claim today from Alexei Navalny's widow about how her husband died in that Russian prison. And we'll also bring you the reaction from the Kremlin.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We're going to start with our law and justice lead. And the one problem that at least today, these days seems to be following President Trump everywhere he goes, even overseas, and that is the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. In fairness, that is partly because Epstein's repulsive reach extended to the United Kingdom long before today, entangling Prince Andrew in his disgusting web. Amid the pomp and pageantry for Trump's historic second state visit to the U.K., which includes a grand banquet still underway right now are anti Trump protests both in central London and near Windsor Castle, where Trump is staying.

Even though the protests are being kept miles away from President Trump and the splendor of a royal occasion, it is the Epstein scandal that is haunting Trump's unprecedented trip. In fact, this entire grand welcome for Trump could come crashing down tomorrow, theoretically, when Trump and the British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer hold a news conference. And the subject could no doubt rear its head, because, remember, it was just last week that Prime Minister Starmer fired the now former U.K. Ambassador to the United States, Peter Mandelson, after Mandelson's links to Epstein became public with the release of Epstein's birthday book. Mandelson had penned a handwritten note describing Epstein as, quote, "my best pal." Also, Bloomberg News had some e-mails between Mandelson and Epstein.

Back here in the United States, the refusal, as of yet, of the Trump administration to provide full transparency when it comes to the scandal continues to make waves. Some Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are to this day calling on the Justice Department to release all of the Epstein files.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSH HAWLEY (R-MO): I just -- I don't think this needs to be a big deal. Just release everything that -- release everything you can.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): We want to know if he trafficked any of these young women to his friends. And this issue isn't going away.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Certainly not going away, especially when the Deputy Attorney General, Trump's former personal attorney, said this to CNN's Kaitlan Collins about his meeting a few weeks ago with Epstein associate and convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Did you find her to be credible?

TODD BLANCHE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I -- it's an impossible question to answer. I met with her for two days. To determine whether a witness is credible takes weeks and weeks and weeks. I asked her questions that I believe all of us wanted answered, and she answered them.

(END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: It takes weeks and weeks and weeks to determine whether or not a convicted sex trafficker is credible, one whom prosecutors have previously charged with perjury, having, quote, "brazenly lied under oath about her conduct, including some of the conduct charged in the indictment," unquote. Huh. Interesting. All of this, as the House Oversight Committee prepares to interview former Trump official Alex Acosta on Friday.

Acosta, you may recall, was the Florida U.S. attorney general who cut a sweetheart plea deal for Epstein way back in 2007-2008. Right now, it appears the Trump administration is placing the blame on Acosta over his initial handling of the Epstein case. Take a listen to what FBI Director Kash Patel said yesterday in his Senate hearing on Capitol Hill.

[17:05:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: And I'm here to testify that the original sin in the Epstein case was the way it was initially brought by Mr. Acosta back in 2006.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Joining us now, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Republican Congressman James Comer of Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, thanks so much for joining us. Mr. Patel, FBI Director Patel also said it was Acosta who, back when he was a U.S. attorney general during the -- I'm sorry, during -- U.S. attorney and a U.S. attorney during the Bush administration, Acosta limited the investigation and the search warrants and the parameters of the investigation. I assume you're going to press Acosta about this on Friday when you interview him.

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY), CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Yes, Acosta is going to have a tough interview because the Republicans get an hour, and then the Democrats get an hour, and then the Republicans will get another hour, and it'll keep going like that. And I think both sides have a lot of questions. I've said from the very beginning, it's my hope that this is a bipartisan investigation. And, you know, Acosta is the one guy that I think has more explaining to do than anyone because it appears that he was the first real big prosecutor that had an opportunity to nail Epstein. And for whatever reason, as you said, and I think that's -- that's fairly accurate, it appears that he got a sweetheart deal.

TAPPER: Also in his hearing yesterday, FBI Director Patel was asked if Epstein trafficked young women to anyone other than himself. Take a listen to Patel's response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PATEL: There is no credible information. None. If there were, I would bring the case yesterday that he trafficked to other individuals. And the information we have, again, is limited.

KENNEDY: So the answer is no one?

PATEL: For the information that we have.

KENNEDY: In the files?

PATEL: In the case file.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: I -- I -- I have to say, I mean, we know that Epstein harmed hundreds of victims, maybe even more than a thousand. How do you explain that answer that he did not -- they did -- they don't have evidence that he trafficked any of these underage girls to anyone other than himself?

COMER: Well, thus far, with the information that we've received, what Patel said would appear to be consistent. And we met privately with the victims for over two hours, as well as their attorneys, many members of the committee, both Democrat and Republican, male and female, asked the victims if they would provide names and they didn't say there weren't any names, but they never -- they -- they didn't give us any names. And -- and we're going to follow the money.

I think the next step in trying to determine whether or not there were people other than Epstein that were involved in the human trafficking is to follow the money. And that's -- that's where we are in the investigation now. We're fixing to go in the Treasury cabinet and look at the bank violations. And as I've always said in previous investigations, the banks are always the first people that -- that usually catch criminal activity. And -- and we heard from Jamie Dimon today on the Hill when he spoke to the senators and -- and confirmed what I believed all along, that there were many bank violations dating back many decades.

So we're hopeful that those bank violations will -- will lead to people who gave Epstein money, and then we can question them and say, why -- why did you send Epstein money?

TAPPER: All right, good stuff.

Also on Tuesday, the Oversight Committee, your committee, released the transcript of former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr's testimony with House investigators. Barr said he absolutely believes that Epstein died by suicide in prison, that he saw no evidence of homicide. He did not think it was possible for anyone to go into Epstein's cell undetected. Do you buy that? Is that enough for you?

COMER: Well, I've watched the video, and a lot of people on the committee have watched the surveillance video, and it's -- it's very difficult to determine. The video camera was not pointed in the cell, it was pointed outside the cell. We all can tell there was activity prior to the -- the death of -- of Epstein, but you can't determine, or we couldn't from the video whether or not he was assisted in that, whether that anyone left stuff behind to help him carry out the -- the suicide, or whether someone actually went in and -- and murdered him.

And I respect Bill Barr. I think he's a good man, and that's what he said. And I believe I was in there when he gave the deposition, and he believed firmly that it was a death by -- by suicide. But from what we've seen, it's hard to determine whether it was suicide or -- or -- or was something else.

TAPPER: Does Bill Barr have information that -- that you don't?

COMER: No. I mean, he acted like he gave us all the information. And we've questioned six attorneys generals. We've heard back from all of them. Several are in the process of writing letters explaining their limited involvement. I believe that, you know, this -- this investigation appears, and the crimes appear to have occurred for six prisoners previous presidential administrations.

TAPPER: Yes.

COMER: So there were lots of attorneys general, both Republican and Democrat, that probably years back didn't know about it because it wasn't a high profile. But certainly after the Acosta case, from that point on, every attorney general should have a pretty good knowledge of the Epstein crimes and who was involved.

[17:10:10]

TAPPER: Last night on CNN, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche was interviewed by Kaitlan Collins, and he defended his interview of Epstein's associate, convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell. I want to play a little excerpt and get your reaction. Let's roll that.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHE: The point of the interview was not for me to pressure test every single answer she gave. Of course not. She had been in prison for many, many years and she had offered to speak on many, many occasions and she was never given that opportunity. And so what I did is I gave her that opportunity to speak. It was recorded.

It's really up to the American people to determine whether they believe that her answers were credible or whether they found her not credible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Do you find Maxwell credible?

COMER: Well, I mean, she's. By all the evidence I've seen, she appears to be a bad actor, a criminal of the -- of the worst sort. But we're going to have an opportunity, hopefully to interview her on the House Oversight Committee. I subpoenaed her. Her attorneys responded that they would prefer that we wait and go in and interview her until after the Supreme Court rules on her appeal. We think that could be in 30 days or less. So, I fully expect the House Oversight Committee to interview Maxwell and that'll be both Republicans and Democrats. TAPPER: Finally, Mr. Chairman, in the wake of the horrific assassination of Charlie Kirk, you're inviting the CEOs of Discord and Steam and Twitch and Reddit to testify. The subject being the radicalization of online forum users. I'm sure they're going to say to you along the lines of we're no different from Google people e-mailing each other, we're no different from the phone companies people talking to each other, what would you say to them and how can you hold them accountable?

COMER: Well, this is a tough issue. And you know, we -- there are many of us who respect freedom of speech, we expect -- respect privacy rights. But there's also seems to be a pattern of where some of the criminals in the recent mass shootings as -- as well as some of the more high profile crimes that have been committed here lately, the -- the younger criminals have been communicating via those platforms. So we're -- we're trying to bring them in to get answers. Obviously we have a lot of questions.

There are a lot of conspiracy theories from the left and the right on the Internet right now. We don't know what's factual and what's not. But if there's something that we can do, were there warning signs, was there a way to detect some of these crimes that have been committed where there was, you know, clear multiple lines of communication on those platforms? And we're going to see if there's something that -- that we can do without respect -- you know, without abusing the -- the freedom of speech.

TAPPER: Republican Congressman, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer. Thank you so much, sir. Appreciate your time today.

COMER: Thanks for having me.

TAPPER: There are also questions about how Jeffrey Epstein continued to finance his business even while under investigation. You just heard Chairman Comer talking about the question of finances. The major action taken today to try to follow the money. But first, the breaking news, a source saying that multiple police officers have been injured in a shooting in central Pennsylvania. The brand new details coming in next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:17:12]

TAPPER: We're following the breaking news out of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Multiple police officers were injured, we're told, in a shooting in York County, that's close to the Maryland border, while they were serving a warrant, that's what sources tell us. Let's go right to CNN's Jason Carroll.

Jason, what can you tell us?

JASON CARROLL, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jake, we're still trying to get more information about this, but we have been able to get some more details about what may have happened out here. Apparently now what we're hearing is that there are two officers who have been transported to hospital. We are trying to get word about their condition. But again, as you stated, multiple officers were involved in a shooting while it appears they were trying to serve a court order at a property out there. This occurring in North Corodus Township.

It's a very, very rural area in York, in central Pennsylvania. The emergency director from York County, he's there on the scene on the ground within the past hour he did give a briefing. He gave very little information. He did not take questions. But he did say that initially an emergency call came in at around 2:10 p.m., numerous police EMS responded out there to the property.

Pennsylvania State Police are the ones who are currently conducting the investigation. They described it as a very much of an evolving situation. The schools in the area, Jake, for a short period of time, K through 12, were asked to shelter in place as a precaution.

Pennsylvania's governor, he is on his way. He is expected to give some sort of a briefing at 6:00. So perhaps at that time we're going to get some more information. In the meantime, Pennsylvania's lieutenant governor released this statement on X saying the following, asking people to pray for the officers and those involved in the shooting in your county. Jake.

TAPPER: All right, Jason Carroll, we're going to check back in with you when you have more. Obviously our -- our thoughts are with these police officers. Thank you so much, Jason.

[17:19:06]

The big money news today, the cost to borrow just got less expensive. The breaking news on the highly anticipated interest rate cut and what that means for you. Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: This just in in our money lead, a roller coaster market close today with a Dow up 260 points, the S&P and NASDAQ both just slightly as investors take in today's Federal Reserve announcement that interest rates will drop by a quarter point to 4 percent. It's the first cut of President Trump's second term after months of his pressure campaign, public pressure campaign, against Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Economists will say today was a result of a weakening job market, however, not the pressure from the president. Let's bring in Justin Wolfers from the University of Michigan.

Justin, between the job market and what we know about inflation being at its highest rate since January, what does today's rate cut say about where our economy is tracking right now?

JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR TO ECONOMICS & PUBLIC POLICY, UNIV. OF MICHIGAN: Yes, we could actually just listen to the Fed directly. The first sentence of their statement is actually where they bring up front what they -- what they see. And they say job -- job gains have slowed and the unemployment rate has edged up. Inflation has moved up and remains somewhat elevated.

Look, Jake, normally we get one of those bad things at a time, what we're getting is both. So they're saying both, there's some economic stagnation, there's some inflation. So today the Fed made it official where in the early days of what at this point is a mild stagflation, we don't really know what lies ahead.

TAPPER: You said that usually you get one of those either unemployment or inflation, not both. And we have slight elevation on -- on both. Is that because of the tariffs?

WOLFERS: Yes. Hey, I just got back from teaching Economics 101. And one of the things we teach is when it's a demand shock, you get one good thing and one bad thing. When it's a supply shock, it's the two bad things.

[17:25:09]

And so the fact that inflation's rising at the same time as unemployment is rising tells us it's the supply side of the economy. Tariffs are exactly that. They make it harder for Americans to do business, they're raising costs, and they're also making it harder for people to get the inputs that they need.

TAPPER: The only dissenter today on the board of the Fed was the newest Fed Governor, Stephen Miran, President Trump's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers until he was sworn in yesterday, he favored a much larger rate cut. Is there anything we can infer from his vote about Trump's pressure campaign on the Fed and -- and if it will continue?

WOLFERS: Yes, I actually think this is very worrying. I want to be clear to your viewers, not everyone shares my reading of this, but the concern coming in is that Miran, who is on leave from inside the White House and so hopes to return to Trump's employee -- employee any day now, the concern was that he would be carrying water for the White House. In his very first meeting without enough time to have been properly briefed, he alone dissented from everyone else. That's a statement. It's a signal.

What's the signal? Look, I don't know. But I do know if you wanted to signal, I am the White House's boy, this is the signal you'd send.

TAPPER: With Miran installed at the Fed and Trump's rage against the entire institution, obviously worries continue to swirl about the Fed's independence. And Jerome Powell, the chair, answered a question about whether the public will be able to tell if the Fed's independent has been compromised. Take a listen to what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEROME POWELL, FED CHAIR: Part of Washington, everything is seen through the lens of does it help or hurt this political party, this politician, you know, that's -- that's the framework. And I think people find it hard to believe that's just -- that is not at all the way we think about things at the Fed. We're taking a longer perspective. We're trying to, you know, serve the American people as best we can.

So I think -- I think you'll -- you would be able to tell. I don't -- I don't believe we'll ever get to that place.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Did what the chairman had to say assuage any concerns you might have about the Fed's independence?

WOLFERS: Yes, and I can add one more, which is I happen to be friends with about half the governors, if they felt they were under pressure that was improper, they'd be leaking like sieves. They'd be calling me and I'd be calling you, Jake. So, there's a lot of pressure for sure, but right now it's all out there and in public, I think.

TAPPER: All right. Justin Wolfers, professor, thank you so much for being with us. We really appreciate it.

Go Blue.

WOLFERS: Pleasure, mate. Go Blue.

TAPPER: What following the money could mean in the Epstein scandal. My next guest has followed the saga for years. We're going to have her take on flagged bank accounts next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[17:31:53]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you meet with the victims as well?

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: The FBI will meet with anyone who has new information.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will you personally meet with them?

PATEL: The FBI and the professionals who are handling the case as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That's FBI Director Kash Patel earlier today before the House Judiciary Committee, unwilling to commit to meet with Jeffrey Epstein victims. Journalist Tina Brown has been covering the Epstein case for years and joins us now. Tina, so good to see you. You followed this saga, including from the international side, digging for connections between Epstein and Prince Andrew.

We heard the FBI director say that the FBI so far does not have a record of any Epstein clients, mainly because the former prosecutor, Alex Acosta, limited the investigation back in the day just to Epstein. But I have to wonder if there are other men who were clients of Epstein who the girls and women were trafficked to, would you agree that the FBI would not need to go far to find that evidence?

TINA BROWN, JOURNALIST: I mean, it's in plain sight. It also means that you're really, that Kash Patel is really saying that we're supposed to think that every one of these girls who has talked, all these women, these victims are just lying. I mean, we have Virginia Giuffre's long and detailed account of how she was trafficked to Prince Andrew in -- in -- in the U.K., and he was defenestrated by the BBC's Emily Maitlis taking apart all of his so-called sort of alibis for that night.

And this is -- this is proven stuff that's out there in the world. And how he can sit there with a straight face and say that there's no evidence blows my mind, frankly.

TAPPER: I agree. That interview was so good they actually made a movie about it. I think it's called "The Interview." It's -- it's an excellent film. Meanwhile, the Royals pulling out all the stops for Trump's historic second state visit to the U.K. Is it being overshadowed by the Epstein scandal, do you think?

BROWN: I don't, although I do think that it's kind of ironic that there are three sort of principles involved, you know, subliminally or actually in this event. Prince Andrew, the fired British ambassador, Peter Mandelson, who was bounced just before the -- the state visit because of the release of very warm messages to Epstein long after, you know, he was a convicted sex offender. And, of course, Trump himself.

I mean, they're all kind of mixed up with Epstein. And we saw last night the projection onto the towers, the granite towers of Windsor, thousand-year-old towers, you know, pictures of Trump and Epstein, which some very creative protester had arranged to have projected there. So that obviously is a bit of a shadow.

But, you know, the fact is that a state visit is a massive, massive big deal. And nothing can really overshadow that. It's not good for -- for Prime Minister Keir Starmer to have had to deal with this Mandelson fracas. But, you know, I still think the images are going to be those that Trump wants.

TAPPER: Earlier today, the House Judiciary Committee voted to block a Democratic move to subpoena banks connected to Epstein, banks that previously had flagged Epstein accounts. What kind of information do you think could come out of those bank transactions?

[17:35:00]

BROWN: I think a lot. I mean, money was just whirling around between these massive players and Jeffrey Epstein. We still haven't really found out to this day the real nitty-gritty source of Epstein's enormous fortune. I mean, in her interview with Todd Blanche, Ghislaine Maxwell said, you know, he told me that he was good at finding stolen money. I mean, what's that suddenly?

There are massive sums of money from Epstein into -- into Ghislaine's bank account where she says she can really hardly remember sort of how $18 million suddenly sort of fetched up in her account. So there's all of this stuff where we're kind of wondering what was he really up to, Jeffrey Epstein? I mean, how much of it was -- was bribery? How much of it was -- was -- was, you know, blackmail? How much of it was him being a con man? I think it's all mixed up but really still hasn't been thoroughly, properly, forensically sorted.

TAPPER: Tina Brown, always great to have you on. Thank you so much.

BROWN: Thank you.

TAPPER: Coming up next, the backstory on a massive $2 billion deal. The computer chips reportedly exchanged for a major crypto investment to benefit the Trump family. One of the journalists unveiling this incredible transaction will join me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:40:39]

TAPPER: Our Tech Lead now, a "New York Times" investigation sheds light on the Trump family's crypto dealings with the UAE, the United Arab Emirates. The report outlines how World Liberty Financial, a crypto firm backed by the Trump and Witkoff families, announced a $2 billion investment from the UAE and just weeks later, the Trump administration allowed the UAE access to the world's most advanced computer chips.

Quote, "The Times" found that the agreements were intertwined in ways that have not been previously reported and that they provoked concerns about conflicts of interest even from staff members in the Trump administration, unquote. Let's bring in one of the reporters who broke the story, Eric Lipton.

And Eric, your team interviewed more than 75 people for this investigation. What were the key pieces of evidence that helped you to draw the conclusion that we just read, that these agreements were in many ways intertwined?

ERIC LIPTON, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: What we found was that there were executives that were from the chips company that were also working on the crypto side of the ledger. And so, for example, there's an executive at this company called G42 that's financed and run by UAE. His name is Fiacc Larkin, and he was tasked to help World Liberty as it was preparing to launch its own stablecoin.

And so as G42 was seeking access to the chips in the United States, it was helping World Liberty preparing for its newest product, the stablecoin. Similarly, the -- there is a lawyer whose name is Martin Edelman, who's been a longtime friend of Steve Witkoff, the Middle East envoy. And Martin Edelman is both the general counsel at G42, the chips company, and he is on the board at the other company called MGX that was pushing the $2 billion into World Liberty.

So there was this crossing of interest. And -- and Witkoff himself was involved in the chips conversation at the same time as he has a part -- he has -- he has an interest in World Liberty. So he was on two sides of the ledger as well. So he had this crossing of interest and money that -- that was happening at a, you know, at a deal that has enormous national security implications.

TAPPER: So the deal really begins with a member of this ultra-rich ruling family in the UAE controlling more than a trillion dollars of government money there. How did Trump's victory open doors for him to try to expand the UAE's technological industry in a way that -- that would not have happened, perhaps, if Kamala Harris had won? Or maybe it would have, I don't know.

LIPTON: Yes, well, the UAE is enormously wealthy, has trillions of dollars, effectively, in sovereign wealth funds. It's a bank of sorts for other countries, and that's oil wealth. But they -- they see the end of the line for oil, you know, eventually it's going to happen. And so they want to transform themselves with this giant pot of money into a global leader in A.I. and technology. They want to become a tech -- a global tech mecca instead of just an oil place.

And in order to do that, they need access to NVIDIA chips. And the United States really dominates in developing the most advanced chips. These are some of the most important technological innovations in modern American history. But in order for UAE to transform itself into a tech capital, it needs these chips.

And it didn't get as many chips as it wanted from the Biden administration. And it saw the opportunity to make a much better deal with Trump and with Witkoff. And Witkoff and Trump are both involved in World Liberty. And so in the middle of this conversation about we want more chips, the UAE decides to push $2 billion to the crypto company that -- that Witkoff and Trump helped found and that their sons are still running.

TAPPER: And one of the players you highlight in the investigation is David Sachs, the White House A.I. and crypto czar. His involvement raised the alarm of administration officials, you say. How did his role in this deal come about and -- and why were they concerned?

LIPTON: So, I mean, Sachs is another senior adviser to the president. He's a venture capitalist. He is simultaneously working both as a White House adviser part time and as a venture capitalist part time. And he comes from the world that wants to sell, sell, sell. And it wants to spread American technology as widely as possible. And so he was very aggressively pushing to allow the UAE to have more chips.

And there are others in -- in the administration who were concerned about the United Arab Emirates and the potential that it might share this technology with China in away that could actually help China militarily. And so Sachs was clashing with some of these other figures inside the Trump administration. And but and Sachs is, you know, is still a venture capitalist.

[17:45:07]

And he comes from this mindset from Silicon Valley that the United States is better served by selling as much as possible. TAPPER: We should note that the White House and World Liberty deny there's any relationship to the transactions. They say the $2 billion deal was totally, quote, totally unrelated to any government business. And they also say Steve Witkoff is in the process of divesting from World Liberty Financial. Eric Lipton, thank you so much for bringing your reporting to us. Really appreciate it.

I'm joined now by our political experts. And let's start with what we just heard. These computer chips and cryptocurrency deals seem at the very least to -- to blur the line between public figures benefiting financially from government. But I guess the big question is, do regular voters care? Do -- do congressional committees run by Republicans care?

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: You know, when I opened up the article, I want to dig into this. I don't read about it every day. It's a political campaign.

TAPPER: It's confusing.

ROCHA: When I said play on the New York, it was 27 minutes long. If this reporting was in depth and then the other thing that stood out to me was special waivers from the White House. It was done, quote unquote, legally. There's some gray areas. This administration has pushed on lots of things and this being another one of those things.

Another one of those things that stood out to me in this reporting was that they had to get an agreement to make sure they wouldn't give the chips to China. Because that was one of the concerns from the beginning. But to your point, Jake, and I think you're exactly right as a guy who makes ads for a living. There's no way I can explain this in a 30 second ad to try to say Donald Trump is corrupt if I chose to say that myself.

But what it does do is it just puts another layer of uncertainty about another thing that they did. And I would have really went and leaned into the waiver piece of this and the China piece.

TAPPER: What do you think?

BRYAN LANZA, SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: Listen, I think the challenge you have is -- is, you know, with President Trump being president, you really can't limit what his kids do for a living. You know, we don't have laws and rules against that to say the kids, you know, can't be, you know, can't seek any type of business opportunity. Crypto, the space right now, is a unique space. It's being -- it's very -- it's in -- it's in -- its birth stage here in the United States. President Trump has said he's going to make this the crypto capital of the world. You can't -- you can't hold it against for Don and Eric for wanting to get involved in this sector.

When I read the article, you're right, it's 27 minutes long if you were to play it. But what it also said, I think probably in the 10th paragraph, is there's been no direct links. And that's what we want to hear. We want to hear there's no direct links between what -- what action took place here and what action is taking here. There's a lot of innuendo. There's a lot of smoke. But what we've seen so far, there's no direct links.

And you're going to -- you're going to bump into each other. I mean, these guys are young men who have the right, constitutional right, to have a career for themselves. And they're not going to -- and they're not going to sit back.

TAPPER: Let me just ask you as a -- as a quick political issue, do you think activities like these take off the table any future Hunter Biden type scandals? Because, I mean, just in terms of wealth and how much anybody's cashing in, quote unquote, allegedly, I mean, this is just a whole different.

LANZA: This is -- this is massive and this is bigger than anything else. But I think the problem that you had with the Hunter Biden scandal is -- is the media, the left, they decided to put their head in the sand and say, no, this is not taking place. Whereas the media today and the left is saying this is absolutely taking place.

I think it's, you know, it's where everybody turned a blind eye to when the Democrats do something like this. But let's look at Trump's first terms. They actually took these pledges and they still got criticized for -- for -- for not -- not investing in these things. So no matter what they were going to do, the criticisms are going to happen. They should be allowed to have a career.

TAPPER: Something that happened earlier this week, Monday morning, I think, is President Trump ordered another strike on an alleged Tren de Aragua, Venezuelan drug cartel boat. I want you to listen to something Vice President J.D. Vance said this afternoon during a rally in Michigan talking about the U.S. military attacking these boats allegedly carrying drugs from Venezuela.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: And I was talking to Secretary Hegseth and, you know what he said, he said, you know what, Mr. Vice President, we don't see any of these drug boats coming into our country. They've completely stopped. And I said, I know why, I would stop, too. Hell, I wouldn't go fishing right now in that area of the world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: I mean, President Trump made a similar joke, too, about -- about fishing. I don't think they're laughing in South America, though.

ROCHA: No, and I'm not going to be laughing this weekend when I'm fly fishing in the keys because I'm literally going to this part of the country. But really, the thing here is about the midterms and what they're wanting to do so desperately as a political consultant is they're wanting to just message, message to make sure they can make an ad, whether it means a difference or not.

You could have pulled a carrier up, not a carrier, but a smaller boat to that boat to find out if they were actually smuggling drugs without blowing people out of the water. They're doing that just like they brought the National Guard into D.C. and just like they do other things so they can say we've cleaned up the streets of L.A. We straight cleared up L.A., cleaned up the streets of D.C. and we're blowing up drug dealers. Whether they were or not, they want to be able to say that to American public. I think the distract from the big, beautiful bill that's very unpopular.

TAPPER: What do you think? I mean, obviously, the administration wants to talk about crime and crime reduction.

LANZA: Listen, I think crime is a big deal with this administration. That's why you see the border policy that took place, you know, basically shutting down the border to make sure that fentanyl and these other drugs don't come in. This is an extension of that. We win. Republicans win when we have a conversation about crime. Because what you do is you have an extreme reaction from the left to whatever President Trump is doing.

[17:50:12]

And that reaction inevitably ends up defending, you know, child molesters, spousal abusers, and the worst of the worst. So anytime we have this debate, we will always end up in the same position.

ROCHA: And they want to have this debate because you just reported on the Fed doing what it did with interest rates because the economy is slowing down. They want a message on that. We're going to want a message on the economy.

TAPPER: All right. Thanks to both of you. Appreciate it.

Coming up next, the very real impact on funding for critical research has been stopped. The effect on the parents of a three-year-old little girl fighting brain cancer. We'll tell you the story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Health Lead, a very personal look now at the impact of Trump administration funding cuts coming for a group that studies children who have brain cancer. The Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium is a network of top physicians and scientists across the country. They're using new treatments and clinical trials to try to help some of the country's youngest cancer patients. The Trump administration wants to stop its funding in about six months. CNN's Rene Marsh spoke with a family navigating this daunting reality.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

[17:55:15]

JULIETTE LESKO, BRAIN CANCER PATIENT: This is a fluffy one right there.

JIM LESKO, DAUGHTER HAS BRAIN CANCER: We want Juliette to feel like she is a regular kid. But to that end, she doesn't know that anything is unique about her. RENE MARSH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Mornings look normal at the Lesko house, but it's not. When Juliette was just three, doctors found a tumor on her brain stem, ependymoma, an incurable brain and spinal cord cancer.

JULIETTE LESKO: I made that and I made that.

MARSH: You made this one?

MARSH (voice-over): She's now five, but doesn't yet know about her devastating diagnosis.

MELANIE LESKO, DAUGHTER HAS BRAIN CANCER: I will never forget that nurse walking us to the elevator, just saying to us, you guys are going to be here for a while. Your world kind of changes.

JIM LESKO: There is no cure for this condition. There's a treatment that works sometimes, and it didn't work for Juliette.

MARSH (voice-over): After two brain surgeries, 30 sessions of radiation and two relapses, Juliette is now being treated with an experimental drug, but it's unclear if it's working.

JIM LESKO: I hope it still fits.

MARSH (voice-over): Her parents, Jim and Melanie Lesko, hope to line up alternative treatments, but the National Cancer Institute recently cut funding to the Pediatric Brain Tumor Consortium, limiting Juliette's treatment options.

JIM LESKO: For me to log on to the clinical trials website and see that one of the novel treatment techniques that's being tested, the trial is suddenly active but not recruiting. It goes beyond hurt. It becomes insulting.

MARSH (voice-over): The PBTC is a national network of top doctors, scientists, and hospitals with expertise in pediatric brain tumors. Giving children like Juliette access to experimental treatments that are often their last option. The funding cut means current patients can continue treatments, but no new patients like Juliette can enroll.

JIM LESKO: Our next scan being on September 25th. Right now is when we need to know which trial we want to pursue. If the tumor has grown, it means we need to try something new, and we -- we need to try it fast.

MARSH (voice-over): Dr. Eugene Hwang is also feeling the impact of federal cuts. He didn't get the funding he expected for a cancer vaccine he and a colleague created that cured lab mice of one of the worst forms of brain cancer. Then, the pediatric network that would have run his clinical trial also lost funding.

DR. EUGENE HWANG, PEDIATRIC NEURO-ONCOLOGIST: It felt like the train was really starting to gain some momentum, and now it feels like not only has the brakes been applied, but the engine is being disassembled, and the tracks are being taken off the road in front of us. MARSH (voice-over): Health and Human Services defends the cut, saying it will allow resources to be more effectively used by rolling these clinical trials over to another larger pediatric cancer network. They say they do not anticipate any funding gap for pediatric brain tumor research.

JIM LESKO: Can I put your backpack on you?

MARSH (voice-over): The clinical trial Juliette's family is locked out of is designed for patients with cancer like hers. And D.J. Daniels, the young patient President Trump highlighted this March.

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: His name is D.J. Daniels. He is 13 years old, and he has always dreamed of becoming a police officer. But in 2018, D.J. was diagnosed with brain cancer.

JIM LESKO: For us to see that was actually very hopeful. My child's rare disease is being -- is in headlines and acknowledged. And then following that, all the actual budget cuts and proposed budget -- budget cuts to NCI and NIH has I mean had completely taken the wind out of our sails.

MELANIE LESKO, This was already a hard battle. It makes it even harder.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MARSH: And Jake, this is about more than six paused clinical trials. It's all happening against the backdrop of upheaval in the cancer research community driven by policies and actions under the current administration. Deep cuts to NIH grants and exodus of experienced staff from NIH and the National Cancer Institute, the country's primary cancer research agency.

And the fear is that some critical research won't get done. And that could mean losing years of progress in the fight against cancer. In just eight days, the Leskos will get Juliet's brain scan results and they are still figuring out their next steps if the cancer has spread. I should note also my own son died of brain cancer. And many families struggle with the limited treatment options. So scaling back, what few options do exist for what is the deadliest form of childhood cancer is seen as devastating in that community. Jake?

TAPPER: Thank you, Rene. We really appreciate it.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, the fired CDC director making her case. What she says about her disagreements with the Health and Human Services Secretary, RFK Jr. and why some Republicans insist that she is not telling the truth.

[18:00:09]

Plus --