Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Epstein Emails Thrust Trump Back Into Spotlight Over Past Ties; Republicans Expecting Mass Defections On Epstein Vote; Florida's First Black Bear Hunt In 10 Years Sparks Clash; Trump Admin "Actively Evaluating" Portable Mortgages; Trump Admin Sues California Over Redistricting; Documentary Explores The United States' Fight For Freedom. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired November 13, 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]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- parts of the files that she feels she legally can and legally should if she must.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Why do you think the president is so focused on preventing this vote in the House?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I don't know. I don't know as much as the president knows about this. And so therefore I can't tell you.

HUNT: That's the answer.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can tell you, though, that the House of Representatives has got to get the government open and move on to other things.

HUNT: All right. Fair enough. Thank you all very much for being here. Thanks to all of you for being us as well -- with us as well. Don't forget, you can now stream The Arena Live or catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. Just scan that QR code below. You can also catch up with The Arena's podcast, follow the show on X and Instagram at The Arena CNN. Don't go anywhere. Pamela Brown is standing by for the lead.

Hi, Pam.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN HOST: All right. Hi, Kasie. Great to see you. We'll see you back in The Arena tomorrow.

HUNT: Have a great show.

BROWN: So just how many times is Donald Trump mentioned in the Epstein emails? The Lead starts right now.

New messages and new questions all emerging from the 20,000 newly released documents related to the dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Donald Trump's name keeps appearing. Who and what else is mentioned? Plus, the Trump administration joining a lawsuit challenging

California Democrats and their big win just last week to redraw the state's congressional maps.

Plus, 50-year mortgages and portable mortgages. Could these ideas help you afford a house or are they better for the banks?

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Pamela Brown in for Jake Tapper today. And we start with our Politics Lead and the fallout over Jeffrey Epstein's emails where he mentions Donald Trump by name. These emails are part of thousands of newly released documents the House Oversight Committee obtained from the Epstein estate.

It's worth underscoring here. Trump has never been accused of criminal wrongdoing by authorities in the Epstein case and has adamantly denied involvement in Epstein's crimes. But these emails reignite questions about what Trump knew and when. They also give a deeper look at Trump's relationship with the convicted sex offender.

And meanwhile, the White House is struggling to contain this Epstein saga. House GOP leaders are bracing for a significant number of Republicans to break from Trump and support a bipartisan bill calling for the release of all of Epstein's files.

It's a contentious bill that Speaker Mike Johnson said he will bring to a vote on the House floor next week earlier than expected. Again, the vast amounts of documents you're seeing from the House Oversight Committee were obtained from the Epstein estate.

And we have yet to see the entirety of what the Justice Department may have on the Epstein case. In a moment, we're going to dive into all of this with a journalist who is work experience the extent of Epstein's alleged sex trafficking ring. But first, I want to bring in CNN's Tom Foreman. Quite a lot to sift through here, Tom.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Way too much. I mean, literally thousands of messages to go through here. And yet there are certain themes that are emerging. Remember, the basic theme that we start with is Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein became friends in the 1980s, remained friends through the 1990s. They socialized together. Trump flew on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, they went to parties together.

And they openly shared and talked about this notion of having this real attraction and admiration for women. And as Trump said, Epstein especially younger women, but he called him a terrific guy. Then there was this fracture early on.

But these notes reveal above all else that Jeffrey Epstein was still watching Donald Trump even after the fracture. Look, when Trump took office in 2017 through 2018, Epstein noted to numerous people in various notes. One, he wrote, Donald is effing crazy. That's one of the early messages we found in here. And then he followed it up with another one saying maybe he's suffering from some form of early dementia. These are some of the emails that we have seen so far and said, maybe Trump is borderline insane. So these are all notes that are being found as we sift through

everything. They give you some idea at least, of how he viewed Trump at that moment, Pam.

BROWN: And also these were exchanges, some of them between Jeffrey Epstein and some prominent Democrats.

FOREMAN: Yes, yes, all sorts of people, because Epstein was now in the throes of being prosecuted for all of this, convicted for some of this. And Trump was on his way to, you know, was already in office at this point. He was in a big political career. And there is some sense that there was some searching for leverage here, whether by either doing Trump a favor or by threatening Trump in some fashion.

For example, In August of 2018, Epstein wrote to a former Obama White House counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler. You see, I know how dirty Donald is. And then in January 19, of course, he knew about the girls, as he asked Ghislaine to stop. And he said that to Trump biographer Michael Wolff, who is searching around for information. What does that mean, though? That's the problem.

As you noted, the White House has said, Trump has said himself, I did nothing wrong. He's never been charged with any crimes.

[17:05:00]

Yes, there's a story about women who worked at Mar-a-Lago being recruited by Epstein for something else, but we don't know if Trump knew anything about any of that. We also know, though, that there are a few real moments of friction that are showing up here that are fascinating.

In June of 2019, Trump made a state visit to the United Kingdom, and he was shaking hands with then Prince Andrew, who has now been completely undone by the Epstein sex scandal, but not at the time. So he was shaking hands with Prince Andrew.

And Epstein sends a note to Trump former adviser Steve Bannon. And in this note, he says, prince Andrew and Trump today too funny recall Prince Andrew's accuser came out of Mar-a-Lago. This thing is loaded with misspellings, by the way, but that's what he said. And Bannon wrote back, can't believe nobody is making you the connective tissue.

These are the things that are keeping this thing absolutely sizzling as people look for clues as to what's there. It's important to bear in mind, though, that what we have here is all sorts of material that is all out of context because we can't know the intention of a dead man, as Epstein is now when he wrote some note.

We can't know all the circumstances around any note he wrote. But it's also all in context because we do know they were friends. We do know that they were standing very close together for a good number of years as some of these events seem to be building toward this position today.

And we do know that it's very hard to get full or complete answers from a lot of people connected to this as to what was going on at the time.

BROWN: And that is why you have even some Republicans getting on board and saying all of these files from DOJ need to be released so that you have the full context.

FOREMAN: And even if they were released right now, every one of them just digging through all of this and making sense --

BROWN: Yes.

FOREMAN: -- of it is a monumental job. And yet a lot of people believe that's a job that has to be undertaken if you're ever going to understand what went on.

BROWN: All right, Tom Foreman, thank you so much, as always. And let's turn to Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown. Her work exposed many of the horrific details of Epstein's alleged sex trafficking ring. And she's also the author of "Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story."

Julie, I want to bring you in. You heard the conversation I just had with Tom Foreman. What from these newly released documents stood out to you the most. And why?

JULIE K. BROWN, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE MIAMI HERALD: Well, the one thing that's, you know, we've now had time to go through all of them and we're still going through them. There are over 20,000 of them. One of the things that we noticed is if you check to see how many times Trump's name is contained in these documents, it's over 2,000 times that Trump's name is mentioned.

Now, of course, this doesn't mean, this doesn't implicate him in any crimes or anything like that, but it does show how much room Trump held in Epstein's brain, so to speak, or how much Epstein was preoccupied with Trump.

He mentions him virtually all the time. Or people are emailing Epstein about Trump trying to find out information, as if Epstein is sort of the all wise Trump expert. So it's interesting to see how Epstein. Now remember these emails started around 2011. They go through 2019. So this is a period of time when his relationship with Trump is waning.

And by the way, there aren't any emails in here between Epstein and Trump and we don't know why that is, whether they weren't turned over, whether any even exist.

P. BROWN: Yes, I think that's a fair point. We know though that President Trump is not big on emailing, so perhaps that could have something to do with it.

J. BROWN: Right.

P. BROWN: But there's still a lot to learn. And what questions do you still have? I mean, as Tom pointed out, there are some context, but there's a lot of context we really don't have still. J. BROWN: Yes, and there's a huge problem right now, by the way, on

the internet with people putting some of these emails up there and saying, look what this means and it doesn't mean what they say it means.

So, you know, it's a very dangerous thing. That's why context is so important. I think that this is why we need a Department of Justice and an FBI. I mean, quite frankly, this case should have never been closed and there are still victims out there who have stories to tell about some of their abusers.

So I think that it just puts a finer point on the fact that we need more answers because these emails raise more questions.

P. BROWN: And as you know, the White House has said that President Trump at the time kicked Epstein out of Mar-a-Lago, that he thought he was a creep and so forth.

[17:10:03]

And then years later we're seeing these emails that he's exchanged with various people, right? I mean, including some high profile Democrats as well, where we see Epstein frequently question Trump's mental health. Why do you think he was so focused on that?

J. BROWN: I think that Epstein viewed himself as superior in a lot of ways and especially to the idea that here is this man who was -- they were in competition in some respects financially with the idea of who had more women. I think they were sort of in that category, almost like brothers who were sort of in some kind of a feud.

And I think that when he got elected president, he also may have had a little bit of fear about what Trump would be able to expose about him and vice versa. They both probably had skeletons in their closets that they didn't want the other to reveal.

P. BROWN: I want to just ask as you look ahead, what all this means here in Washington because it can be confusing to keep up with. But should the House vote to release the Epstein files pass, it would still have to pass the Republican led Senate and then be signed into law by President Trump. That's a lot of hoops to go through.

What do you think should happen? Should it get all the way to Trump but he doesn't sign it?

J. BROWN: Look, the thing that I think should happen is very simple. The FBI and the DOJ should hunker down and investigate this case regardless of there are absolutely files they can be released. There are files that if you redact the victims' names and certain personal identifying information, there isn't any reason why the public can't.

But more importantly, I think that this shows that there are so many problems and things that they didn't investigate that they should now hunker down and look at this interview all the women, now these women were very young, many of them when this happened. Some of them or many of them were underage. So they weren't actually willing. They were scared.

They still are scared and they might be too scared to talk because of what's happened with the Trump administration calling this whole scandal a hoax. In their minds, of course they were sexually abused and this is not a hoax in their -- in their minds, you know. So I think that this is, should be investigated like a crime that we got more evidence on.

P. BROWN: Julie K. Brown, thank you so much.

J. BROWN: Thank you.

P. BROWN: And how the Epstein saga is leading to a growing moment of unity on Capitol Hill. But will it be short lived? I'll talk about it next with the newest member of Congress after her first day on the job.

Plus, the cost of living in America according to President Trump and the disconnect from reality despite all the facts. We'll be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:16:51]

BROWN: Back with our Politics Lead, sources are telling CNN that Republicans are bracing for mass defections in a vote on the Epstein files next week in if it passes the House, the Republican led Senate will then take it up. Lawmakers on board hope to make it veto proof before it gets to president Trump's desk.

Joining us now is the newest member of congress, Democrat Adelita Grijala from Arizona. Nice to have you on the show. Before we get to Epstein, I just want to talk about the fact that the house has gaveled out until next week. How was your first day as an officially sworn A member of Congress.

REP. ADELITA GRIJALVA (D-AZ): Well, it's been about 24 hours. It's been pretty busy, and I'm looking forward to it.

BROWN: All right, so let's get on to the business on Capitol Hill. And of course, one order of business is the Epstein vote. Republican Thomas Massie, who led the fight to release the Epstein files, came up to you right after you signed that discharge petition. And here's what he told CNN's Kaitlan Collins about that moment. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): I apologize to her for what my own party did, which was to keep her from being sworn in and depriving an entire congressional district of representation for 49, 50 days.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: These bipartisan moments are so rare in Washington. What was that like? GRIJALVA: It was nice. He actually said, I apologize. I'm so, I mean,

really furiously shook my hand and said, I'm really glad to see you here. And so I am very much appreciative of that. And I did have other Republican members of Congress come up and welcome me.

And so overwhelmingly, the Democratic caucus has been incredibly supportive and welcoming from, you know, the very beginning, and over the last seven weeks have offered help, support, all of the above. So it's been really great. Leadership has been helpful, and, you know, there's a lot of work to do.

BROWN: Well, we saw a cordial exchange with you and Speaker Johnson after all of this yesterday with Speaker Johnson said you shared some, quote, intense fellowship together. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA) HOUSE SPEAKER: She may not agree with me, but we follow the custom of the House on the timetable, and we've had a little, as we say in the Deep South, some intense fellowship about that.

GRIJALVA: Yes.

JOHNSON: But she's here now.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So you said on CNN earlier this week you would personally confront Johnson after you were sworn in. I'm just wondering, did you? How did that conversation go? Bring us in.

GRIJALVA: I think that was the intense fellowship he was talking about.

BROWN: OK, so what was that like? Tell me.

GRIJALVA: It was really very much he's like, you know, I want you to know that none of this was personal. And I said it felt very personal. And I'm happy to talk to you specifically about what I could and could not do before I was really sworn in. Very little that could be done.

And, you know, he talked about working with my dad and how he thought I was going to be a good member. I did, you know, explain to him that I'm hoping to get support from both parties on a bipartisan piece of legislation that would prevent this from happening again, regardless of who the speaker was or what party was in the majority, and he didn't say no.

[17:20:04]

And he didn't say no. He just sort of looked through and we said, you know, we'll see. I mean, he's a nice enough person in person. Most people that I interact with that we disagree on a lot of issues, when you talk to them face to face, it seems to be a little different.

BROWN: And were you surprised by the interaction?

GRIJALVA: You know, I'd never met him before. I didn't have a strong opinion about him. And then he's -- when he started speaking about me in press conferences, you know, I thought, well, he doesn't know me. And now that we've had an opportunity to at least have a face to face exchange, hopefully when we disagree in the future, you know, it will -- he'll be able to pick up a phone maybe and give me a call. We'll see.

BROWN: All right. Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva, thank you so much. Nice to have you on the show. GRIJALVA: Thank you.

BROWN: Well, the state of Florida is holding its first bear hunt in 10 years, trying to curb a growing population. Some hunters say it's necessary, others say they just can't bear it. We'll explain. Coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:20]

BROWN: In our National Lead, for the first time in one -- in 10 years, I should say, Florida will soon begin its black bear hunting season. It is state approved, but it's facing a legal challenge with one group calling the hunt illegal. CNN's Randi Kaye has the story.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

RON BERGERON, HUNTER AND FORMER FWC COMMISSIONER: Back in the 90s, they stopped hunting the black bear because there was only three to 500 black bear in Florida.

RANDI KAYE, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): "Alligator: Ron Bergeron, as he's known, is a big fan of black bears. He was a commissioner with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, or FWC, during the last bear hunt 10 years ago. He voted against the hunt then and he's against this one now.

KAYE: You're a lifelong hunter and you don't think that this black bear hunt should go forward?

BERGERON: No, I don't. I have seen no science that there's more bears than the natural food can support. Hunting is a management tool if there's not enough food.

KATRINA SHADIX, FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR OF BEAR WARRIORS UNITED: Florida black bears happen to be the most amazing species of bears. They are the most gentle and most timid.

KAYE (voice-over): Katrina Shadix with the conservation group Bear Warriors United, wants next month's black bear hunt called off. Her group is suing the FWC.

SHADIX: It's a very sad state of affairs when the people that are tasked with protecting Florida's wildlife are the ones making decisions to kill them off.

KAYE (voice-over): The bear hunt is scheduled to begin December 6th. It will take place in these four Hunt Zones and the FWC has approved the killing of 172 bears. The last hunt in 2015 on was abruptly ended after hunters killed more than 300 bears in just 48 hours.

SHADIX: They are ignoring the science.

KAYE (voice-over): Documents filed in the lawsuit show much of the science the FWC used in voting for the hunt is at least a decade old. Several bear population studies underway now will be finalized in 2029.

BERGERON: I really don't understand what the urgency is.

TRAVIS THOMPSON, HUNTER NAD EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALL FLORIDA CONSERVATION: The fact is we can take some number of bears without impacting the population in any way, shape or form.

KAYE (voice-over): Hunter Travis Thompson is in favor of the bear hunt.

KAYE: I've heard this called a trophy hunt. What do you say to that?

THOMPSON: Florida has want waste laws. Anybody that says that doesn't understand conservation in the state. So on a bear you take the pelt, you take the meat and unlike many other game species. You also render the fat.

KAYE: People really eat bear meat?

THOMPSON: Oh, bear meat is delicious. It's fantastic. Yes, ma'am.

KAYE (voice-over): Still, this report, prepared by a former FWC biologist for Bear Warriors United, includes new data for Osceola County, which is which shows a two-thirds reduction in the bear population since 2015. This data became available after the FWC approved the hunt.

In response, the FWC lowered the number of bears that could be killed by 15, which critics say is hardly adequate.

Orange County Commissioner Kelly Martinez Semrad, who's not a hunter, snapped up a permit for the hunt.

KELLY MARTINEZ SEMRAD, ORANGE COUNTY COMMISSIONER, OPPOSES BEAR HUNT: I have no intention of using the bear tag. I purchased my permit to spare a bear.

KAYE (voice-over): A member of the Sierra Club, she was inspired by its back a tag and spare a bear campaign to help keep bear tags out of hunters hands.

KAYE: The proposal for this year's hunt includes the use of feeder stations, which would help lure the bears toward the hunters. Also hunting dogs and bow and arrows. BERGERON: Hunting should be a challenge. I don't believe in sitting on

feeding stations. That's not much of a challenge.

KAYE (voice-over): But for the hunters that approve of the hunt, they insist it helps the bears long term.

THOMPSON: When a bear is harvested, there's going to be a strict reporting of that harvest weight, size. So we're collecting science and data on bears, and hunting is contributing to the science that's going to help protect and grow our population of bears.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KAYE: The FWC told us in a statement that the bear subpopulation that will be hunted have shown positive annual growth rates. Still, a big concern for critics is that too many mother bears will be killed. That's what happened in 2015, so the cubs were left orphaned.

Now, a judge in this case will hold a hearing on the emergency injunction that was requested to stop the hunt. And the judge will decide next week if the hunt can go forward. Pamela?

BROWN: All right, Randi Kaye, thanks so much. Well, the latest idea to fix the housing crisis, portable mortgages, where homeowners might get to transfer an existing loan with its interest rate over to a new house. Is it worth it? Can this work or is this all better for the banks? We're going to talk about that. Up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In the Money Lead, mortgage rates rose for the second straight week after reaching the lowest level of the year. But the Trump administration is actively evaluating this option that's called portable mortgages that could make housing more affordable and open up supply, letting homeowners take their original mortgage rate with them when they move.

So here to help us break it all down is Justin Wolfers, professor of economics and public policy at the University of Michigan. Great to see you, Justin. This is really a talker. In my team meeting today, we -- we were all talking about this and how would this work because as we know, as I mentioned, there's a supply issue in the housing market, right? A lot of people are staying in their homes due to the fact their interest rates are so much lower than the market rate right now. Could this work?

JUSTIN WOLFERS, PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AND PUBLIC POLICY, UNIV. OF MICHIGAN: Yes, I love everything about this idea and we should do it.

BROWN: Wow. OK.

WOLFERS: So let me give you a real simple analogy. We -- we have something like this. When you think about your cell phone plan, when you buy a new cell phone, you don't always have to go and get a new plan right away. Your cell phone carries over with you rather than with your phone. And this is sort of saying your mortgage should move with you.

[17:34:57]

After all, you're the one with the earning power. You're the one who has to repay it rather than living with your house. So this could work and it could also unlock the housing market. A lot of people right now that are sitting on mortgages with really low interest rates. That's fantastic for them. But it also means that if you wanted to downsize, maybe the kids left the house. If you want to downsize, you'd have to actually get a higher mortgage rate.

You'd actually lose money by moving to a smaller house. And that's why a lot of people right now feel like they're frozen in the house that they're in. Well, that unlocks this.

BROWN: Right. And there's that supply and demand issue. So housing prices are higher because of the -- that supply and demand dynamic. But so we were -- we were we were trying to game this out in our meeting. And listen, we're journalists. We're not mathematicians. So help us understand this. What would happen if you had a portable mortgage, but you still owed money on your home?

WOLFERS: Right. So this isn't an abstract exercise. We don't need math. You can just look across the border to the Canadians who already do this, as do the Brits. So you're currently in your home. You've paid half of it off, but you haven't paid the other half off. Well, what would happen is you would get to take that half that you still owe with you to pay for your next house.

And so it's basically saying, I -- I made a deal with you at the start, which is I'm going to pay you back all the money I -- I lent you. And just because I'm moving, we don't have to rewrite the deal. And it's as simple as that.

BROWN: So you're saying we were overcomplicating it. It's like we were overthinking it, thinking it was more complicated than maybe perhaps it was. But, you know, it -- it almost sounds too good to be true. I mean, what about the banks here? Is this good for them?

WOLFERS: Right. So here's where we need to be a little bit careful. So when I say it's all pretty simple, it's all pretty simple if we made all future mortgages portable, because you're right, there's a lot of math in the background. Banks employ a whole lot of nerds who have huge spreadsheets. You think about all the risks and what could go right and what could go wrong. And that math does change when we're in a world of portable mortgages.

Why is that? Because at the moment, your bank might think, oh, you're only going to be in your house for 10 years. Now, if the mortgage is portable, it thinks you're going to keep that mortgage for a long time. So it's math changes. So it just means it will change the types of mortgages that offers in the future. If we talk about making existing mortgages portable, that's a lot more complicated in a whole lot hairier.

BROWN: OK, interesting. So let me ask you about this other idea that's been floated, this idea of a 50-year mortgage to reduce monthly payments. It's obviously garnered some criticism because of how much an interest you'd be paid over time. What's your take?

WOLFERS: Look, there's a similarity to these two plans, which I think is really worth emphasizing. Both of them are thinking about demand for housing. Now, the housing problem, the housing crisis, is we have too many people relative to the number of houses. Well, if you make houses more affordable, if all of these things are basically creating more buyers, not fewer.

In some sense, they make the problem worse. If you want to solve housing affordability, the single best way of doing it is figure out ways to make it easier to build more houses. The biggest problem, of course, is zoning local governments. They often don't like to let people build, but that's basically the people within a city saying, hey, we've already built our house in this city. We don't want to share. And so they're preventing that new construction from occurring. But if you want lower house prices, you've got to work on construction rather than working on lines.

BROWN: All right, Justin Wolfers, thank you so much. Nice to see you.

[17:38:32]

Well, if you can't beat them, sue them. Why the Trump administration is joining a lawsuit to try and stop California from redrawing its congressional maps after last week's big ballot win.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In our Politics Lead, the Trump administration is joining a lawsuit by the California Republican Party trying to stop the state from redrawing its congressional map, setting up Democrats to get five more house seats in the 2026 midterm elections. Just last week, voters approved the ballot measure known as Prop 50 led by Democrats and in response to Republicans in other states like Texas trying to boost their chances of holding on to the house majority or to win the house majority we should say.

My panel joins us now to discuss this. All right, I'm going to kick it off with the lawyer. OK, that makes sense, right? So the Trump administration lawyers are arguing essentially that this plan was sold to voters in California as purely partisan, but actually this is unconstitutional because it's racial gerrymandering.

And it's interesting because that exact same argument is being made by Democrats like in Texas where you're also seeing the gerrymandering fights.

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: And the court in the law technically doesn't care who's making the argument. If parties are coming in and saying that racial gerrymandering is what drove a districting decision -- decision, then certainly they can strike it down on that basis. Now, you know, and I know and Mo knows and Shermichael knows that that's a political argument they're making there and they're throwing it back in Democrats faces regardless of what the legal legitimacy of it is.

I mean, this -- I -- I certainly can't think of a time in which Republicans have argued racial gerrymandering in court. So we'll see how it all plays out. But -- but that's a very common argument made in these redistricting cases.

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This is a new for us. What's funny about this is a lot of Republicans have really made the argument that the 19 potential congressional seats that republicans would garner out of the success of gerrymandering would yield to our benefits despite what the overall public sentiment may be on whether or not Republicans have delivered on the cost of living affordability.

But it seems to me, Elliot, and correct me if I'm wrong, these legal cases may take a while. We may not necessarily know if Texas or North Carolina will be successful in adding those additional seats, which does benefit my democratic friends in November.

WILLIAMS: Yes. Let me just say, of course, they take a while. Things can take years to percolate through the system. Now, I would think any of these parties would file them on an emergency basis knowing that they have elections coming up and saying, your honor, we have to get this resolved by the primary date in our given state. So I would think they'd move along. But you're right, Shermichael, it could take forever.

[17:45:09]

BROWN: And you bring up affordability, Shermichael, because that is obviously that's really important for so many Americans. The government is shut down is now over, right? But the impact is not. You still have millions of Americans who are uncertain over when they're going to get their food benefits, their health care costs, backup pay. There's a lot going on. But if you ask President Trump, everything's fine. The economy is thriving. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Costs are way down. Energy is way down. Gasoline is at $2.50 a gallon versus $4.70 for the Democrats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: What's the risk here? And President Trump not acknowledging the day to day reality for so many Americans.

SINGLETON: I remember having this debate last year and Joe Biden and Bidenomics, it kept all the spreadsheets showcase the numbers are amazing. Everything's doing great. The average person said that may be the case, but I'm not feeling it. Steve Bannon to more mainstream Republicans have all advised the president and the White House to walk away from this message.

Republicans were handed the keys to the palace. I would argue because the average American voter believed that we could do better than Democrats on affordability on the cost of living. I don't think we've really delivered enough on that front and I think we're literally handing the keys of Democrats to take over if we don't deliver.

WILLIAMS: Really important point. You know where you see that, that -- that whole idea a lot in public safety to when, yes, the world might be safer, but if people don't feel safe --

SINGLETON: I don't feel it.

WILLIAMS: -- politicians wagging their finger and telling them, look at the statistics, everything is great. You got to meet people where they are and right.

BROWN: And I think the shutdown sort of put a magnifying glass on that, when you talk to some of the SNAP recipients who marketing their full benefits and the affordability, go ahead.

MO ELLEITHEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGETOWN INSTITUTE OF POLITICS & PUBLIC SERVICE: Yes. No, I mean, this is a problem almost every incumbent has, right? They don't want to -- they -- they -- they love the macro numbers, they want to point to the macro numbers. But if people aren't feeling it, then it doesn't matter, right?

What Shermichael just said is actually the message that you ought to be hearing from this President. I know what you elected me to do. We've made some -- some gains, but it ain't enough. And here's what we're going to do moving forward. This President in particular is incapable of admitting that he hasn't fixed whatever problem it is he says he wants to fix. So there's the disconnect.

SINGLETON: I think it's OK, by the way, to say, look, we haven't completely gotten to the place that we want. It's going to take more time, but we certainly don't want to go backwards. We -- we recognize where you are. Give us additional time.

ELLEITHEE: The problem is things are actually getting worse across the board. People are paying more in the grocery store. They're paying more for rent or for housing costs, and they're about to see their insurance premiums go up. So he's actually going backwards and claiming victory, and that's going to be a problem for him.

BROWN: Right. Go ahead.

SINGLETON: I don't know if the Democrats writ large have the discipline to make that argument.

ELLEITHEE: Well, I'm not saying they do.

SINGLETON: Which -- which is why I think on my side --

BROWN: Right.

SINGLETON: -- we still have time before midterms to correct the course. BROWN: So let me just bring in this sound from the Agriculture Secretary. I had her on my show today, Brooke Rollins, and I asked her about the shutdown and specifically the USDA fighting in the courts against giving full SNAP benefits to -- to recipients. And we talked about this pot of money because it could get confusing, this pot of money that was used to transfer money to the WIC program, a separate pot, but not used for SNAP. Here's this exchange.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: This fund, again, had $23 billion in it, right? And that even if you took out 4 billion to fully fund SNAP, that pot of money would still feed children through next year. Let's talk about that.

BROOKE ROLLINS, AGRICULTURE SECRETARY: I mean, are -- are we serious right now? Are we really talking about moving billions of dollars from one pot to another to feed children through next year when the Democrats 15 different times voted not to fund this program.

BROWN: I understand -- I understand you want to keep it on Democrats. But what about the children that was -- were hungry now because they didn't get the full SNAP benefit?

ROLLINS: Well, then they should understand that the Democrats are the ones that are keeping. They even admitted it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: What do you think, Mo?

ELLEITHEE: You asked her about the families and the kids who are going hungry and what she would say to them. And she said she wanted to make a political argument to them. That's not going to win right now.

BROWN: Shermichael weigh in.

SINGLETON: Look, I think there is a political argument to make Democrats did vote 15 times. But Republicans who care about families, you understand that people are struggling were going to deliver to make sure before Thanksgiving, every single American family has exactly what they need to have a great Thanksgiving. That's the message.

BROWN: So what do you think -- how do you think the voters got it? Because I -- I've spent a lot of time talking to these, you know, everyday Americans who rely on SNAP.

WILLIAMS: Yes, look, it's a -- if you're explaining you're losing when you're -- when you're getting in the minutia of SNAP versus WIC versus it's --

BROWN: Well, because I was asking her those questions.

[17:49:56]

WILLIAMS: But even still -- no, but even still -- but even still, she -- she sort of veered into territory where is there a government shutdown, number one, or at least at the time was or just a government shutdown? Number two, are people struggling? And number three, do people have their food stamps or not? Are people suffering? And I think if you're not answering that question directly, you're losing. And I just think it's getting a little bit into the weeds and it just -- she lost it.

BROWN: All right. Thank you all so much. Love having you on.

Iconic filmmaker Ken Burns explores the American war for independence in a thrilling new documentary. Are there lessons we can still learn from the founding fathers? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BROWN: In our Pop Lead, next summer, the U. S. will celebrate its 250th birthday. And who better to remind us of the tumultuous history but iconic filmmaker, Ken Burns. Jake Tapper spoke with him about his new documentary called the American Revolution, which explores the country's eight year fight for freedom.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

[17:55:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: The actual birthday is July 4th, 1776. History was happening in my hometown, Philadelphia. The Second Continental Congress was debating the Declaration of Independence. Take us back in time to that moment.

KEN BURNS, DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKER: It's a wonderful thing. Remember that the actual revolution had become 15 months before in April of '75 on Lexington Green and then later at the North Bridge and conquered and -- and was pretty much from Concord on a patriot victory as the British are scurrying back to their quarters in -- in Boston. And there's been lots of debate going on about independency.

Most people still want to stick with the crown. They just hope that the king will come to their rescue. It's Parliament sets a mistake. Then in January of '76, Thomas Paine publishes the most important pamphlet in American history, Common Sense, in which he says, no, it's hereditary stuff. It's the Kings that are the problems. And -- and what happens is that Second Continental Congress forms a committee.

The French need us to -- to -- if they're going to give us help, they want us to show that we're going to come together. So a Declaration of Independence is important. A victory will be even more important. That will come a few years later at Saratoga, but they have a committee of five. Franklin's in charge of it. He assigns the writing to a young 32-year-old Virginian named Thomas Jefferson, who writes in the second sentence of the Declaration, the second most important sentence in the English language after, of course, I love you.

And that is, we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. It is the establishment for the first time people are citizens. Everyone heretofore has been a subject. And this is a big deal. There's something new in the world altogether, turned upside down, however you want to phrase it.

TAPPER: You start the documentary, speaking of Thomas Paine, you start the documentary with Paine's famous words from a small spark, kindled in America, a flame has risen not to be extinguished. Explain.

BURNS: Well, this is the idea of freedom and liberty, and he talks about, you know, despotism is this thing that can be overcome by willing it. In order to be free, man just needs to will it. And what happens is, in a couple sentences after the pursuit of happiness phrase in -- in the Declaration, Jefferson says, all experience has shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable. It's not easy to, I mean not -- it's not hard to understand.

He's just saying that everybody has been a subject before, and it's going to -- we're -- we're creating something more difficult, something with more responsibility. That pursuit of happiness, by the way, is not acquisition of objects in a marketplace of things, but lifelong learning in a marketplace of ideas.

And in or -- if you -- if you live a virtuous life, you then kind of earn the mantle of citizenship, the highest office in the land. It's very powerful. It's very amazing. And it's what's animated us for 249.5 years.

TAPPER: The country is so divided right now. It feels so divided. But as you note, the American Revolution, when it came to the American people, was an incredibly divisive time in our history. Tell us about that period for us, not just about fighting the British, but about how Americans were turned against each other.

BURNS: Yes, I think, you know, it's always a chicken little. Our own times are always the worst, the most divided, the most whatever. It's really divided during our revolution. This is not just a revolution of ideas and a -- and a battle against the British. It's against our own neighbors. There are people who remain loyalists, many people. It's about huge civilian deaths, more so than our own civil war. And it's a global war. This is the fourth global war.

France enters on our side, as does Spain and the Netherlands. We're fighting Britain and the German soldiers that it hires as mercenaries. There are Native American people involved. Of course, among the colonists are 500,000 free and enslaved black people. This is an incredible variety of people who are warring against each other, making decisions for liberty, for freedom, opposing those movements.

Benjamin Franklin's own son, William, was the deposed royal governor of New Jersey, spent some time in a prison. When he was released, it was presumed he'd go home to England. Instead, he started a terrorist organization of loyalists killing patriots, just as there were many patriot organizations killing loyalists.

I mean, you don't want to be in New Jersey or South Carolina, particularly during the American Revolution, or at least when the revolution center focused on -- on those particular colonies slash states, because it was really bad kind of guerrilla warfare insurgency, really it's -- it's an 18th century war. It's not a good way to die by bayonet or cannon or musket.

TAPPER: Yes, I can't wait. The American Revolution premieres Sunday, November 16th on PBS. Of course, Ken Burns, thanks so much.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

[17:59:58]

BROWN: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Pamela Brown in for Jake Tapper. And this hour, the federal government is officially back open. But the struggles continue. Workers who haven't gotten paid in weeks are still waiting --