Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

New Photos From Epstein Estate Show Trump, Clinton And Others; Ex-Michigan Coach Charged With Felony Home Invasion; Trump's Relationship With The Rich And Powerful Raises Questions; Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) Is Interviewed About Congress Running Out Of Time As Enhanced Obamacare Subsidies Set To Expire Next Month; Op-Ed: Trump's Border Triumph Likely Weakens His Political Prowess; Taylor Swift Docuseries Debuts First Episodes. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired December 12, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:07]

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: All right, thanks very much to my panel for being here on a Friday. Have a wonderful weekend. Thanks to you at home for watching as well. A programming note you can watch this weekend. This Saturday you can catch The Arena Saturday. It's going to be on at 8:00 a.m. and noon Eastern Time right here on CNN.

You can also stream The Arena Live. You can catch up whenever you want in the CNN All Access app. You can scan the QR code or below. You can also catch up with us by listening to The Arenas Podcast. Follow us on X and Instagram at The Arena CNN. Phil Mattingly is standing by for The Lead. Hi, Phil.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN HOST: Hey Kasie. Have a great weekend. We of course, will look for more in The Arena next week.

HUNT: You as well. See you soon.

MATTINGLY: There are new Epstein photos that include several high profile names. The Lead starts right now.

Trump, Bannon, Clinton and Gates. Just some of the men seen in new photos linked to the dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Why? Democrats on the House Oversight Committee call the images significant and worth releasing now.

Plus, stunning details behind the arrest of former Michigan football coach Sherrone Moore, all laid out in court today. What prosecutors reveal about an apartment encounter and an alleged threat with butter knives and scissors in front of a woman who's not his wife.

And with Congress up against a December 31 deadline, is President Trump open to a health care deal with Democrats? We'll ask Senator John Fetterman who will be here on The Lead.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper. We start in our Law and Justice Lead. Today, Democrats on the House Oversight Committee released photos from the estate of dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. The photos show powerful people who were in Epstein's orbit, including former President Bill Clinton, Steve Bannon, Bill Gates and yes, President Donald Trump.

Now, it's important to note none of the photos showing these individuals or President Trump depict any sexual misconduct, nor are believed to depict any underage girls. It's also not immediately clear when or where these photos were taken, but let's take a look.

One image shows what appears to be a bowl of condoms with a caricature of Trump's face. The bowl has a sign saying, quote, Trump condom 4.50 and each condom has text that reads I'm huge. Another showed Trump with six women whose faces were redacted by the committee. A White House spokeswoman said in a statement, in part, once again, House Democrats are selectively releasing cherry picked photos with random redactions to try and create a false narrative.

A White House official also said no documents have, quote, ever shown any wrongdoing by President Trump.

Now other released photos included Steve Bannon and Epstein taking a photograph in a mirror. Bill Clinton with Epstein, his accomplice Glenn Maxwell and another couple and tech billionaire Bill Gates with the former Prince Andrew.

Now, CNN has reached out to all of those men. A spokesperson for Clinton has repeatedly said he cut ties with Epstein before his arrest on federal charges in 2019 and did not know about his crimes. A reminder, the photos released today are from the Epstein estate. They were released one week from the deadline when the Justice Department is expected to release its files on Epstein as required by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The bill overwhelmingly passed by Congress.

We begin with Julie K. Brown, the investigative reporter with the Miami Herald whose reporting has brought so many Epstein sex trafficking details to light. She's also the author of "Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story."

Julie, just to start with, what you took from the photos today, what stood out to you?

JULIA K. BROWN, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, MIAMI HERALD: Well, it sort of further signifies the contacts that he had all over the world. There are some new ones that were just released, as a matter of fact, just moments ago, within the past 10 minutes. And there are some other people that are in there. Ehud Barak, who's the former prime minister of Israel, is in there.

And so we know it just further solidifies the fact that we know that he was a power broker who was using some of these important people, powerful people as leverage in order to get whatever financial deals he wanted to be done. Or, you know, we don't know.

There's so much mystery surrounding him and how he became as rich as he did. And there are a few answers. So these are all part of a puzzle that the Oversight Committee, I'm sure, is trying to put together. MATTINGLY: The top Democrat on that committee, Robert Garcia, said in

a statement, quote, these disturbing photos raise even more questions about Epstein and his relationships with some of the most powerful men in the world. We will not rest until the American people get the truth.

[17:05:00]

I think the question is, we've known for a long time you made this point. Epstein had relationships with these men. I do think it's important for people to step back in these moments and say he basically had a veritable committee to run the world hanging out with him on a regular basis, which is unsettling in and of itself. But is there anything really new here?

BROWN: Well, let me put it from the perspective of the survivors who I speak to quite often. From their perspective, all these people should be looked at. From their perspective, these men were in a place where there often were a lot of young girls around them all the time, around Epstein at the very least. But there have been many of them that told me that they went to certain events, dinners with people who were in the room, like Woody Allen, for example.

And in their mind the -- these -- all these people should be looked at. And this case has never been taken as seriously as it should have. We know that he was trafficking in young girls and women. This does not mean that just because they were in a photo with him that they -- that any of these men did anything wrong, but all of it should be looked at.

MATTINGLY: You mentioned kind of the pieces of the puzzle that people are trying to put together. What pieces are you going to be looking for when the Justice Department releases the files it has on Epstein? Do you think that there's going to be critical pieces that you've been waiting for, looking for, thinking existed maybe, but didn't necessarily have nailed down?

BROWN: I think there will be some things in there that will be new, but to be honest with you, I think most of the interesting or the new revelatory information is coming out through the estate. I always sense that the FBI perhaps got reports that they didn't act on or that they did and they hit a wall because of political interference or they just got nowhere with the case.

I just don't think that the FBI ever investigated it as thoroughly as they should. So it will be interesting to see if some of these women who were trafficked actually went to the FBI and filed reports just like Maria Farmer initially did and she was ignored. How many other women over the years had went to the FBI and them what was going on and whether the FBI, it doesn't sound like it, but whether they took any action.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it'll be fascinating to see it. To your point, the state House Democrats making clear they have a lot more, they're going through a lot more documents related to it right now. Julie K. Brown, as always, thank you very much. BROWN: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: I want to talk about this more with Liz Stein, a Jeffrey Epstein survivor, and Lauren Hersh. She founded World Without Exploitation to combat human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

Liz, just to start with, what's it like to see photos like this released from the estate today? How are you doing?

LIZ STEIN, JEFF EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Thank you for asking that. I think that this can be really difficult for us. And when we're seeing these photos, things that might seem like they don't matter to the general public can really be meaningful to us. I was talking to a survivor earlier who said, to the rest of the world, that just looks like a room, but to me, that's the phone that I picked up to call for help.

And so these things can be really incredibly triggering for us. And at the same time, we realize how important it is for this to all come out. You know, this can be -- these images can be really horrific. There were some images that were released today that were particularly difficult for me, and we're going to see that happen as information is released.

But we are really standing together, united in the fact that it is so important that this information comes out, and we're willing to sit in that discomfort while it does.

MATTINGLY: Lauren, to that point, you have worked. And I think that the combination of balance, but also strength and courage, that comes with that balance. You've worked on behalf of Epstein victims, seen their reactions as more and more of these documents come out. You can't generalize an entire group, but how are people preparing for what the Justice Department is supposed to release?

LAUREN HERSH, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, WORLD WITHOUT EXPLOITATION: You know, it's been quite remarkable to watch this force of inspiring survivors. They have come together. Many of them before September had never met one another, and now they have really become this incredibly powerful sisterhood. They are supporting each other both forward facing and behind the scenes.

Today we watched many of them come together and really sort of recognize that this day was very challenging, very painful. And there was this overwhelming message, I've got your back amongst all of them.

[17:10:00]

So I think what you're seeing is a really united front who are ready to stand together on December 19th and going forward to make sure that all of the files get released.

MATTINGLY: And Liz, this past Tuesday, a federal judge in New York granted the Justice Department's request to unseal records from the investigation and criminal prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell. The documents will be redacted to protect victims' identities. What's your reaction to how that played out? STEIN: I think that this is information that's really important for us

to see. We need to know what the evidence was that led up to her being charged with these crimes. And I think that anything that we're able to reveal that kind of shows the patterns that were in place and tells us more about the people who are involved.

You know, there are things that we need to see and we are, you know, we're bracing for what comes out, but we feel really strongly that as long as our information is protected and they're properly redacted, that it's really important that we see, you know, everything that led up to her being tried for these crimes.

MATTINGLY: You know, Lauren, one of the questions that I've had is what actually happens after the information is released? It's been a Sisyphean task that has been remarkable to watch the boulder actually get rolled up the hill here. But what's necessary after things are released? What more will survivors be pushing for?

HERSH: Yes, I mean, the reality is these women together have really moved mountains. And what comes next, we're not sure. I think in large part it depends on what we see on the 19th, what we see after. We're going to be going through what comes to us, what we see, what we don't see. If there are, you know, high levels of redactions with information, you know, we, these survivors know in large part what they've shared.

And so they're going to know if there are things that are missing. And so the next step will be to comb through to see what's there, to see what's not, and then to make sure that what's not becomes available to the survivors and to the public.

MATTINGLY: Just before I let you guys go, it's worth noting and saying repeatedly because there's been a lot of releases and a lot of information moves mountains is an understatement with what this group has been able to accomplish. Liz Stein, Lauren Hersh, really do appreciate your time.

STEIN: Thank you.

HERSH: Thanks so much.

MATTINGLY: So our House oversight Democrats cherry-picking which photos to actually release. That's what the White House says we're going to ask a Democrat on the committee. That's a hag.

Plus, California Governor Gavin Newsom taking on a new target in his online trolling, his snarky comment for Indiana Republicans one day after their rebuke of President Trump.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:17:07]

MATTINGLY: Breaking news in our Sports Lead. A court hearing former University of Michigan football coach Sherrone Moore produced more details about what led to his abrupt firing eventual arrest on Wednesday. CNN's Whitney Wild is in Ann Arbor, Michigan where more was arraigned today. Whitney, what more have we learned about charges here?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, we now know that he is being charged with felony home invasion. We also know that he is being charged with one misdemeanor count of stalking and two misdemeanor counts of entering.

Prosecutors really laid out the first substantive details we have seen in this case at all over the last couple of days, Phil. Prosecutors saying that Sherrone Moore was in a relationship with the victim in this case for a number of years. And then on Monday, she broke it off.

We know that this incident happened Wednesday afternoon after Sherrone Moore was fired. And prosecutors described Sherrone Moore breaking into this apartment, basically forcing his way in, grabbing kitchen butter knives, grabbing kitchen scissors and threatening to kill himself in front of the victim. The prosecutor saying that she found this behavior highly threatening. They said that she was terrorized.

Here's more from the Washington Washtenaw County Prosecutor's Office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KATI REZMIERSKI, PROSECUTOR: As we all now know, defendant was at some point on Wednesday afternoon fired from his employment. He then at some point soon thereafter came to her apartment in the address that is alleged in the complaint, barged his way into that apartment immediately, then proceeded to a kitchen drawer, grabbed several butter knives and a pair of kitchen scissors and began to threaten his own life.

I'm going to kill myself. I'm going to make you watch. My blood is on your hands. You ruined my life. And a series of very threatening, intimidating, terrifying, quite frankly, statements and behaviors there.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WILD: The defense attorney said that Sherrone Moore has no criminal history. He insisted that Sherrone Moore poses no risk to the public. So the judge in this case set for a specific bond conditions. He is and has been released on $25,000 bond. He has a GPS ankle monitor now, a GPS tracking device.

We also know that as part of his bond conditions, he's going to have to undergo mental health counseling. So this case, this criminal case, very much moving forward. His next court date, January 22nd.

Phil, there's a specific process here. Basically in this hearing, he stood mute on his charges. And so what happens here in Washtenaw County is in that case, a magistrate judge enters a not guilty plea on Sherrone Moore's half. Now, the questions are for the University of Michigan. What did they know? When did they know it?

A Source is telling CNN's Dana O'Neil that this investigation began as early as October.

[17:20:00]

We are still working to learn more about what happened this week that pushed the university to say now they have enough evidence, now they have to tell Sherrone Moore that his employment is terminated. We know that decisive action happened Wednesday.

We've reached out to the University of Michigan with a detailed list of questions. They are saying very little -- they're not commenting really much more than saying this is a personnel matter. The University of president -- the University of Michigan president, though, released a little more information saying, yes, this was an inappropriate relationship with a staff member. This conduct is not tolerated and they have a zero tolerance policy for this type of behavior. Phil.

MATTINGLY: Whitney Wild, I haven't been paying attention for a couple of hours. You just gave me every update I was wondering about. Great reporting as always. Appreciate it. Thanks so much.

Well, up next, President Trump and big business. How much sway does he legally have in negotiations among big name brands? Tech journalist Kara Swisher joins me next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:17]

MATTINGLY: In our Tech Lead, concern that members of the Trump administration, maybe even the president himself, are putting their fingers on the scale to benefit big business. Adding to already existing questions about ethics or possible conflicts of interest.

The latest case, well, it's the president's new executive order, essentially designed to block state laws from restricting artificial intelligence. Let's discuss now with Kara Swisher, host of the podcast on and Pivot.

Kara, having heard at length both sides of the preemption state versus federal argument on a new technology that is singularly the future of the entire world. The way both sides seem to describe it.

Having one set of rules instead of different rules in all 50 states. Is this a gift to big tech leaders or is this --

KARA SWISHER, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes. Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- something designed to innovate or allow for innovation?

SWISHER: Also yes. I mean, I think the issue is if the federal government had ever done any regulation around big tech, which they haven't yet and we're 30 years in, perhaps it would be an argument to make. Right. That we shouldn't have 50 different ideas, by the way, we don't have 50 different. California tends to rule them. And that's California is almost as big

-- is as big as a nation, actually. And in terms of importance. So there are -- it isn't that confusing. I think the issue is the federal government has yet to move on tech in any way. And so there's no privacy laws. There's no transparency laws.

You know, this thing, he can sign anything he wants, but the states are going to block it, including from Florida, from Ron DeSantis and many others. So this is never going to happen. Like, it's not until the federal government gets its act together and actually passes policy rather than politics. And that's what's here. This is all politics and nothing else.

MATTINGLY: And the Congress has such a great record of passing anything, let alone something.

SWISHER: Right. Right. Well, they used to.

MATTINGLY: No, I know. I know.

SWISHER: They never passed the tech law. Right.

MATTINGLY: Yes. No, it's a really good point.

SWISHER: I don't think states are going to let this happen like they're going to -- it's going to go to lawsuits, et cetera, et cetera. And then it's going to be too late for the Trump administration. Right. They're not -- if they're interested in policy, they should get together with everybody. They only get together with big tech. They don't get together with critics or group interest groups or citizen groups or consumers and things like that.

If they're really interested in keeping AI safe and also letting it innovate, they should actually make policy. This is not policy. This is fiat. And that's -- it's not good. Nothing's going to happen here.

MATTINGLY: Yes.

SWISHER: Sorry.

MATTINGLY: It's an important point. An executive order is not a law and the states are going to sue the second this comes up.

SWISHER: No.

MATTINGLY: And the presumption is when --

SWISHER: Correct.

MATTINGLY: I do want to ask you --

SWISHER: Correct.

MATTINGLY: I've actually been interested, asking about this all week. The president indicating he's prepared to take a side in the competition between Netflix and Paramount Skydance -- SWISHER: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- related to our parent company, Warner Brothers Discovery, again, the parent company of CNN. WBD already agreed to sell the company to Netflix. Paramount launching a hostile bid to take over all of WBD.

Paramount argues its --

SWISHER: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- proposal will have an easier path with the Trump administration. David Ellison, the CEO of Paramount Skydance and also the son of Trump's friend, billionaire tech CEO Larry Ellison. Here's what he said earlier this week in a remarkable interview on CNBC. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID ELLISON, PARAMOUNT CEO: We are trying to combine the number four streamer with the number five streamer. When you put Paramount and HBO Max together, you get round numbers, 200 million subscribers. That creates a streaming service that is competitive with Disney.

When you put number one and number three together, you are handing Netflix unprecedented market power, which is anti-competitive in every single measure -- every single metric you can measure.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: So Kara --

SWISHER: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- for somebody who's sitting back and saying, look, I mean, Paramount's got a host of other entities, film studios, local TV stations, CBS News, cable stations, is it me --

SWISHER: Correct.

MATTINGLY: Is the media footprint actually that much smaller than Netflix's?

SWISHER: No.

MATTINGLY: The point he's making about the streaming space though, is the one you hear --

SWISHER: Yes.

MATTINGLY: -- from analysts saying like this could be --

SWISHER: Sure.

MATTINGLY: -- a regulatory problem. Do you think that's actually the case? SWISHER: No, because I don't -- I think you shouldn't limit it to

screening. Recently, tech has won two very significant victories. Meta and Google is that there's lots of competition, right? Especially about social networks. It's not about social networks anymore. It's about TikTok and cable and Reddit.

And you know, you can't just decide streaming is the only thing because people are getting their entertainment everywhere. If you're looking at the larger market, Netflix wouldn't have that much impact. And I think the issue is will prices go up? I think that is a significant issue and things that we should worry about. Or maybe we could get Netflix not to do that, right. There's a thing called, you know, they make corporations do all kinds of things when they're making these deals.

I think the argument that my daddy is friends with President Trump is not the best one I would be putting forward. Or that they're so big and scary.

[17:30:00]

I think it's how we can make this a better company. I don't think telling -- telling the president that I will change CNN to your liking is not a particularly good argument. Again, I'm not sure which one we want.

Do we want higher streaming prices or do we want oligarchs to run things? I mean, this is -- President Trump has no business in any of this. Actually, it should have been done through normal means. And in the end, it'll matter about money, like the investors who matter and the Arabs who want their money.

And, you know, there's very significant questions of which deal is better. Some people think this Netflix deal would be better for these companies and have CNN spin off. What is the value of CNN and the cable assets? There's all those things.

And I think the big question for me right now is, is these Saudis and other Mideast countries involved here in terms of doing loans and things like that? And Larry Ellison himself has -- has put in $12 billion, which seems like a lot. But if -- he's one of the world's richest men, why can't he -- why does he need the Saudis? I don't know. It's just -- it's just -- there's a lot of sticky things in both proposals.

But it seems to me Warner wants to go with Netflix. I think -- I thought it should have been Comcast, honestly. I thought that probably was the best choice. But they couldn't afford it. So it'll -- it'll come down to money. It'll come down if they suddenly throw in a $34 share kind of bid and it doesn't have all kinds of strange foreign entities hanging off of it, maybe -- maybe that'll win, I guess.

MATTINGLY: Yes. It's -- it's going to be fascinating to watch play out.

SWISHER: Yes. MATTINGLY: And I'm going to want to know your thoughts on it throughout this entire process, however long it goes.

SWISHER: Sure.

MATTINGLY: Kara Swisher, always appreciate your time, my friend. Thank you.

SWISHER: Thanks.

MATTINGLY: Well, Senator John Fetterman will be here on The Lead, next. Where does he see the divisive health care debate going in Congress less than three weeks before the major deadline?

And right now at the White House, President Trump in the Oval Office with who else, the miracle on ice. The 1980 U.S. men's hockey team is about to sign a bill awarding them the Congressional Gold Medal. We'll monitor to see if he takes questions. We'll be back in a minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:36:15]

MATTINGLY: In our Politics Lead, 19 days, that's how long Congress has to act before health insurance premiums skyrocket for millions of Americans. That, of course, following the loss of the enhanced COVID- era subsidies, which are said to expire at the end of the month. House Republicans, just a short while ago, unveiled a narrow health care package, one that does not extend those subsidies.

And in Congress, at least at this point, unlikely to avert those explosive insurance premium hikes. Here to discuss, Democratic Senator John Fetterman in Pennsylvania. Senator, after the Senate effort, dueling effort, failed this week, you said they were, "designed to fail."

And said you want a proposal that can pass and deliver real relief. First off, analysis and assessment of the facts, 100 percent accurate. Both those votes were designed to go down. But the idea of what -- what an actual bipartisan agreement would look like. What are the elements of that in your mind?

SEN. JOHN FETTERMAN (D-PA): Well, I mean, I think that's really the most that's really possible. That when you have effectively -- effectively two, maybe three days next week to do just that, I think would just be like a clean -- a clean one year extension of it. Do you know what that is?

MATTINGLY: Yes. Do you have a sense, you know, there are Republicans on, you know, Lisa Murkowski has been very upfront about this, so as Susan Collins, do you have a sense of what the group on the other side is might be able to work with their leadership to get onto the floor in two or three days?

FETTERMAN: I -- I -- I really don't know. But what -- what I -- we do know is, is that when they were asking for three years -- we were asking for three years, we got four votes. I mean, it -- it doesn't matter if we have 59. It doesn't mean any more different than if we have one vote, it has to hit 60 and then it's not going anywhere for sure.

So for what I'm trying to say is, is that -- that when you have effectively no time left and you have one way to deliver those tax credits subsidies, just like that. And then it's just like as -- as elegant and as quick as it was to do what I think what we, as Democrats want and enough Democrat, I mean, as enough Republicans want now too, that would only require effectively, you know, eight or nine, maybe Republicans. It doesn't even have the Republican caucus to agree with that too.

So, and I think that we'll discover, you know, are the Republicans concerned about health care subsidiaries in 2026 or not? Or if we, you know, I think as a -- as a Democrat, I -- I want to deliver health care and -- and it's like a vote that's absolutely going to fail. Doesn't do that. What a vote actually that could, that actually has a chance of passing.

And that's for me. I think that's the -- that's the most simple, the most elegant way when you effectively have no time left before the end of the year.

MATTINGLY: It's difficult sometimes to track where President Trump is on a particular day related to the issue of health care, including on this specifically, which seemed like he might get behind an extension or something near that and then kind of reverse course fairly quickly thereafter.

Last night he broke from kind of his combative streak on health care, predicting both parties will soon be working together on health care. Listen.

FETTERMAN: Yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: What a nice group of Democrats. We do have a lot of Democrats and we welcome you. Honestly, we do. And I think we're going to start working together in health care. I really predict that. I really believe we can work on health care together and come up with something that's going to be much better, much less expensive for the people, less expensive for our nation, but really most importantly, better and less expensive for the people.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:40:03]

MATTINGLY: Have you gotten any indication from the White House that something might be possible? Do you want the President more involved here?

FETTERMAN: Oh, I haven't -- I haven't had any back channeling or anything at the White House. I'm just saying everybody knows how little time there is left in. And -- and we all know that it's a math problem in the Senate and that has to hit it at 60.

Now you can have all these different things and it still has to hit 60. And just like both that were put out on Thursday, neither one got really close, but the one that got closer was the three years thing. Now maybe two years would get six or seven, maybe more.

But for me, you know, if any of the Republicans, it doesn't require like a full on buy-in. It just needs enough people on the Republican side, just like we had as a Democrat, as myself as one to reopen our government, because they happen to believe overall party views, because I think that's the right thing for the country at that particular kinds of solution now, right now. That's the thing.

And I'm welcome for another option that, you know, because they -- we saw two on Thursday and everybody knew that was going to fail. And I predicted, yes, there's not a single Democrat would vote for theirs. And I thought maybe two or three. The only surprise mild one was four did, but I think so that's -- that's where we're at. But nothing really matters until you hit 60.

And I think that's the, you know, it meets the time, it delivers the kinds of tax -- tax subsidiaries. And it also, it's something that's already well known and it just would require an understanding that we can spend next of 2026 negotiate on a package after 2026 is enacted for '27, '28 or no.

So for me, that's what I'm recommending. And I want to -- I want a better one. I want one that you can pass because I haven't seen anything that's remotely in that. And that's similar to keeping our government open. That's -- and enough Republicans have to realize that we want to deliver this for their constituents. And with -- we have time at this point. Something other than that I'm not aware of it.

MATTINGLY: Yes. We will be watching certain Senator John Fetterman. Appreciate your time sir. Thank you.

FETTERMAN: Thanks for having me.

MATTINGLY: But the very least California Governor Gavin Newsom is getting attention with his tone towards Republicans. But is it unwanted attention for the party. See how he trolled Indiana Republicans in the redistricting fight. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:46:52]

MATTINGLY: In our Politics Lead, there's an op-ed that's getting at something that's been talked about somewhat quietly over in Washington for the last couple of months, which is Trump's dominance in Washington just 11 months in. Is it slipping a little bit? And if it is, why? "Wall Street Journal" columnist Peggy Noonan argues, in part, Trump may be losing his touch not just with his own party, but with Americans as a whole, coast to coast. She writes, in part, the President's border triumph will likely weaken his and MAGA's political position.

Noonan goes on to write, remove the issue that made you, and you can no longer use it to gain votes or maintain unity. My brilliant two panelists joining me now. Mike, what's interesting about, he's been too successful in that framing, and therefore it makes it more difficult from a political perspective. I think there's layers to, does he have a problem right now, post-Indiana, Senate, kind of how things are moving?

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Look, I -- he has defied gravity to such an extent in the first administration and now in the second administration that I think any time you see some -- some slippage or some anomaly, you think it's slippage. I don't see it yet. What I'm amazed by is even in the poll numbers that have him at 35 percent on the economy or 35 percent on immigration, if you look at the Republican numbers, they're still rock solid. So I don't think he's had the -- the slippage that -- that maybe Peggy Noonan is referring to yet.

CHUCK ROCHA, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: There's one thing that I know is that politicians, Democrats and Republicans, care about two things. They care about money and they care about votes and getting reelected. I think you're going to see a lot of Republicans start growing spines when they no longer have a deadline on filing to be in their primaries. And let me make my case.

The point I'm making is that there's filing deadlines coming up to run for Congress. He has a huge war chest. If he wanted to primary one of those folks, he could do that, but not if they're not open to having a new candidate there. So when those filing deadlines pass, I think it'll open up a lot more Republicans to maybe have some courage.

MATTINGLY: You're that cynical that you think that --

ROCHA: Yes, I do. I do. I run campaigns.

DUBKE: Yes, yes. But your money is a very big point because he's still going to have that money. I mean, again, this is a -- this is a president that has raised money in the first year of office like we've never seen before. And he's going to have that money.

So I -- I will disagree with you on the filing deadline. I think you are -- you're on to something, but I think the money factor is so large here that it won't go that way.

ROCHA: -- candidate to put it behind.

MATTINGLY: Can I ask you? But the money factor is in play in Indiana as well. And again, I want to be cautious about taking too much out of what's happening in a state's parochial politics as it relates to redistricting.

DUBKE: Right.

MATTINGLY: However, the threat was made very quickly, very overtly. We're going to have a Super PAC. We're going to light up anybody who doesn't come with us. And that was four months ago. And they never got it over the finish line.

DUBKE: Yes. Well, they never. But I haven't seen the advertising. I haven't seen the money yet. And the President today, I -- he made a comment about that state senator that he doesn't think he's going to get through the primary. So we'll see it.

Look, I -- I think Indiana is a very nice state. I think the people of Indiana are very nice people. They want to get along with each other. I don't know if that is the rumble tumble of Washington politics. And you may have seen a little Indiana nice yesterday.

[17:50:05]

ROCHA: I think, in the middle of the country with what we call the I states. And for those folks, listen, I is I like the letter I is Iowa, Illinois, Indiana. Those folks don't like Washington, D.C., telling them. And I think that there's such a red state in red areas that Donald Trump has a lot of play and underestimate him at your own peril. I've said that to everybody. I'm like, I just think Indiana and some of these Midwestern states are different.

MATTINGLY: You can add Ohio. And I'd like to be in that group. I call -- I call that group. A new political article profiling California Governor Gavin Newsom and his prolific trolling of President Trump and the GOP. Just today, Newsom's target was Indiana Republican Governor Mike Braun, who vented his disgust with Republicans who did not vote for the state's redistricting plan. We were just talking about Newsom responded, quote, on X. Your kneepads are in the mail. XOXO. Chuck, from your political expert strategist perspective, we're good with that message?

ROCHA: Look, Donald Trump has been whooping Democrats for so long, it makes Democrats so desperate for anybody to fight back, no matter if it's fighting back as a troll, fighting back in Indiana, fighting back wherever. Democrats and our base, we were talking about the Republican base earlier, are hungry to see somebody take on and not be scared of Donald Trump. And this is the latest analogy of that.

DUBKE: I mean, you've got Pritzker doing it and Newsom doing it and all these Democrats trying to out -- outdo themselves. The one thing that I think they're missing is where Donald Trump sets himself apart, is that he's also willing to take on his own party. And I haven't seen the Democrats willing to do that and go after each other yet.

And I think when they go after Trump and they go after each other and I'm going to cheer on that as a Republican, that's -- that's when they found --

ROCHA: Just to say you should watch some Democratic primaries in Texas and Michigan. And we're coming out around the country --

DUBKE: -- states where you can win.

ROCHA: No. We're going to win these states, all of these states.

MATTINGLY: Really? DUBKE: You're going to win Texas?

MATTINGLY: You win Texas?

ROCHA: I really feel strongly about Texas. Look, I know there's been a lot of good money thrown after bad, but as your resident Texan here, if you look at all the elections that have happened in the last 11 months and quote the overperformance, I'm not saying everything is over performance, not everything is Georgia. I'm just saying there's a chance. Give me a chance.

DUBKE: I wish I wore my Bill's hat today so I could bet it against your stats.

ROCHA: Come on now.

MATTINGLY: I'm just going to put a pin in that and some money underneath it. Well, let's wait and see. You guys are the experts. All right. We'll see you guys a little bit. Thank you guys very much.

Well, up ahead, the new docuseries from Taylor Swift and the must see moments that fans talking.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:56:39]

MATTINGLY: In the Pop Lead, the Swifties are getting a brand new behind-the-scenes look at the life of their favorite showgirl, Taylor Swift's "The End of an Era" docuseries making its Disney Plus debut today with two episodes featuring interviews with the pop star and her crew from her record-setting Eras Tour concert series. If you're a parent, can't find your daughters, that's where they are.

CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister is here to tell us more. Elizabeth, new revelations. What are we getting in the first two episodes?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Yes, so you really get a behind-the-scenes look of the making of the Eras Tour, which of course is the biggest tour of all time, a total cultural phenomenon. But we also get the emotional side of Taylor. You remember, Phil, when there was that very scary incident, that thwarted terrorist attack in Vienna, Austria during one of her tour stops. Taylor speaks about it for the first time. Let's take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TAYLOR SWIFT, SINGER-SONGWRITER: We dodged, like, a massacre situation. And so I've just been kind of all over the place. Like, there was this horrible attack in Liverpool at a Taylor Swift-themed dance party. And it was little kids that -- that thwarted the split.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WAGMEISTER: So there, Phil, you remember, there was that thwarted terrorist attack. But then there was also that horrific knife-stabbing at a Taylor Swift-themed dance party that resulted in the loss of three little girls. So that's what Taylor's talking about there.

She then goes on in this docuseries to meet with some families. And then you see her on tour. So it's not all going to be emotional. We are promised to get a lot of behind-the-scenes with Travis Kelce and more of the tour. So definitely look forward to some upbeat moments. But for Taylor, this was a really poignant moment for her to get so emotional.

MATTINGLY: Yes, no question about it. I do want to ask you, you also went behind the scenes to talk to the stars, paired up to interview one another for Variety's Actors on Actors series, which has been great. It's been streaming exclusively on the CNN app. Tell us about the new feature.

WAGMEISTER: Yes, so we are so excited to have Actors on Actors here at CNN on our new streaming app, as you said. And I was on set for the entire production. There you see me with Ethan Hawke and Sydney Sweeney. And today, the newest episode is father and son Alexander Skarsgard with Stellan Skarsgard. They talk about how Alex actually really hated growing up in a showbiz family. But then afterwards I caught up with them. I asked if they prepared at all. Just take a look at what they told me.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WAGMEISTER: Did you probably just showed up --

ALEXANDER SKARSGARD, ACTOR: like research and stuff?

WAGMEISTER: -- research on all their film history, watching all their --

A. SKARSGARD: Oh, interesting.

WAGMEISTER: Or was like showing up to talk to dad.

STELLAN SKARSGARD, ACTOR: Was this a show?

A. SKARSGARD: I did a lot of research. A lot.

WAGMEISTER: Forty-nine years worth.

A. SKARSGARD: Forty-nine years worth of research. I went deep.

S. SKARSGARD: Deep. Yes.

A. SKARSGARD: Yes. Very committed journalist. No, it was pretty obvious that I didn't do.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[18:00:02]

WAGMEISTER: They were honestly hysterical, Phil. So make sure to tune in to their episode because hijinks definitely ensue. But we have them today, the Skarsgard pairing. And then as the days go on through next week, we have different pairings every single day. Everyone from Michael B. Jordan with Jesse Plemons and Leonardo DiCaprio with Jennifer Lawrence.

MATTINGLY: I endorse that approach to preparation. Elizabeth Wagmeister, you're the best. Again, you can stream Actors on Actors exclusively on the CNN app.