Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Source: Trump's Pardon Attorney To Leave DOJ In Coming Weeks; TX GOP Loses State Senate Seat Despite Last-Minute Push By Trump; Trump: Congress Nearing A "Resolution" To End Partial Shutdown. Aired 5:00-6p ET

Aired February 02, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST AND POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: All right, thanks to my panel. Thanks to all of you at home for watching. Jake Tapper is standing by for "The Lead." Hi, Jake.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN LEAD WASHINGTON ANCHOR: Hey, Kasie. We'll look for more tomorrow in "The Arena."

HUNT: See you soon.

TAPPER: President Trump today wanting to make it very clear he wasn't even friendly with Jeffrey Epstein. Really? "The Lead" starts right now.

President Trump earlier today attempting once again to distance himself from the dead pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, calling Epstein a sleazebag and more. But what are the revelations in the three million pages of Epstein files that are leading him to go on the attack?

Plus, an urgent search for the mother of a colleague, "Today" show anchor Savannah Guthrie. Investigators are calling Nancy

Guthrie's home a crime scene. What else is leading authorities to believe this is more than just a missing person's case?

And the real reason President Trump is closing the Kennedy Center, I mean the Trump Kennedy Center for at least two years. A congressional member of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees will be here with her take.

Welcome to "The Lead." I'm Jake Tapper. We're going to start in our "Law and Justice Lead." President Trump on defense over the Epstein files released this afternoon on Truth Social. The president claimed he -- quote -- "wasn't friendly with Epstein," writing -- quote -- "Additionally, unlike so many people that like to 'talk' trash, I never went to the infested Epstein Island but, almost all of these crooked Democrats, and their donors, did" -- unquote.

Now, President Trump's claim that he was never friendly with Jeffrey Epstein is simply a lie. It's not a secret. They were once friends. To illustrate, there are pictures, there is video, even a 2002 interview with "New York Magazine" where Trump said -- quote -- "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life" -- unquote.

Now, we should note that was before. Jeffrey Epstein was arrested a few years later. It sounds pretty friendly, though.

Now, if you want to know why Trump is posting this now, look no further than the three million Epstein documents the Justice Department was forced to release on Friday. Trump's name appears in them more than 1,000 times. Some of the references to President Trump were benign. Others included newly disclosed, unverified sexual assault claims.

Now, there's no public evidence that any of the allegations against President Trump contained in the new documents were deemed credible by the FBI. But let's also be clear about unverified allegations in general. Critics suggest that the FBI may not have seriously looked into many of the allegations against many men that appear in the Epstein files. Why? Well, there have been other huge cases where women and girls made allegations against powerful men that initially went nowhere.

Take, for example, former team USA gymnastics doctor, Larry Nassar, who was convicted ultimately of sexually abusing young athletes under the guise of medical treatment. An inspector general report on the Nassar case found that senior officials in the FBI's Indianapolis field office failed to respond to allegations against the doctor with the seriousness and urgency they deserved and made errors when responding to those allegations.

This triggered a larger audit of the FBI's handling of tips on sex offenses against children. That audit says that out of the 327 case files that they audited, 42 incidents were flagged for further FBI review. In one instance, the report says -- quote -- "The FBI did not take appropriate investigative action for over a year. During this period, the suspect allegedly victimized at least one additional minor for a period of approximately 15 months." The FBI only taking an action here after the inspector general brought it to the FBI's attention. The report saying the suspect was then indicted on federal charges. So, no one should automatically assume that the FBI handles every tip perfectly.

Separately, there's also, apparently, a major problem with some of the files that were released Friday. Lawyers representing Epstein survivors report thousands, literally thousands of redaction failures that expose Epstein survivors. They called it an unfolding emergency.

[17:05:00]

They're asking judges to force the Justice Department to take down all of the documents and told those proper redactions are made. This as "The New York Times" review found that even more disturbing content that identifies victims. More on that in a moment.

The Justice Department says it's working around the clock to fix any issues that identify Epstein survivors. What about information that identifies people who might have committed crimes with Epstein? Well, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche told my colleague, Dana Bash, on State of the Union that there is no one to prosecute.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: There's a lot of emails. There's a lot of photographs. There's a lot of horrible photographs that appear to be taken by Mr. Epstein or people around him. But that doesn't allow us necessarily to prosecute somebody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now, you can't necessarily prosecute someone based on an email or a photograph, of course, but you can use an email or photograph to follow up and investigate. And the American people are left wondering whether that's happening at all. It doesn't sound like it.

CNN's Tom Foreman has a closer look at many of the other new revelations from this latest batch of the Epstein files.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I didn't see it myself. But I was told by some very important people that not only does it absolve me, it's the opposite of what people were hoping.

TOM FOREMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The newly released documents do contain a list compiled last year by the FBI of unproven allegations that President Donald Trump committed sexual assault, including one woman saying he raped her when she was just 13. That same woman sued Trump in 2016 over the claims, but dropped the lawsuit shortly after bringing them.

In another section, one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims says Ghislaine Maxwell presented her to Trump at a party. When asked about this, the White House points to a Justice Department statement that the files may include -- quote -- "fake or false submitted images, documents or videos." And Trump has always denied such allegations.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BLANCHE: In July, the Department of Justice said that we had reviewed the files, the -- quote -- "Epstein files." There was nothing in there that allowed us to prosecute anybody.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN (voice-over): Still, the files had put a number of high- profile people in an unwanted spotlight. A series of photos appears to show former British prince, Andrew, kneeling by a woman or girl on the floor. There is no context and CNN's requests for comment were not immediately answered.

Billionaire Elon Musk has previously said he refused an invitation to Epstein's island. The documents suggest he wanted to be there for the wildest party. After the release, Musk posted, "I have never been to any Epstein parties ever and have many times call for the prosecution of those who have committed crimes with Epstein."

Howard Lutnick, Trump's secretary of commerce, said he and his wife decided to cut ties with Epstein two decades ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HOWARD LUTNICK, UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: My wife and I decided that I will never be in the room with that disgusting person ever again.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOREMAN (voice-over): Yet the documents point to at least a couple of attempts to socialize with Epstein after that. The commerce department says "Secretary Lutnick had limited interactions with Mr. Epstein in the presence of his wife and has never been accused of wrongdoing."

Another one-time top Trump advisor, Steve Bannon, appears in the files at times mocking the president.

And the famous names go on though, notably, many show no links to any potential illegality. Dinner invitations for Woody Allen, Martha Stewart, and Katie Couric who said here, "I know you're not a foodie, but the lasagna was rocking!" Billionaire Richard Branson, New York Giants owner Steve Tisch are mentioned. And so is Brett Ratner, seen in a photo on a sofa with Epstein and some young women. He's the director of that new Melania Trump film.

The new release brought at least one fresh controversy, too. "The New York Times" raised the possibility that the Justice Department had released nearly 40 unredacted images showing both nude bodies and the faces of the people portrayed, noting the people in the photos appeared to be young.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

FOREMAN: Soon after informing the Justice Department of this, the Times says officials have largely removed or redacted the images.

And the DOJ, as you noted, Jake, has been saying it's working around the clock to address any victim concerns and additional redactions, which raises the subject many skeptics still want better explained. What was the complete Justice Department guidance for redactions and is there information we still ought to know hiding behind all those black boxes and in the documents that we haven't made our way through?

I will say this: You know, when you look at that case of New York Giants co-owner, Steve Tisch --

TAPPER: Yes.

FOREMAN: -- when you read the notes in there --

TAPPER: They're close.

FOREMAN: -- oh, my gosh! He's talking about being at a party where he met a woman at Epstein's house and he says, is she a professional or a civilian?

[17:10:03]

And then Epstein says, oh, I have a present for you, it's a woman whose Tahitian, speaks mostly French, exotic. And Tisch says, is she a working girl? And Epstein says, never. That's the exchange that we get out of these documents. And you had a statement from Tisch who says, we had a brief association, we exchanged emails about adult women, all we know now is he was a terrible person and someone I deeply regret associating with.

You know, Jake, I truly think one of the -- one of the problems with these files, for so many people who have questions, is they're looking at all of these people in positions of power and authority and leadership and saying one way or the other, where was your judgment? What were you doing hanging out with people where this was going on in any fashion? It doesn't have to be illegal. It bothers people.

TAPPER: Wow! And there was clearly a lot of illegal things --

FOREMAN: Some illegal stuff going on, too.

TAPPER: Also, it's weird though how they never make any redaction mistakes when it comes to naming the people who are accused of --

FOREMAN: Yes. You can't help but notice that when you go through this, it's always and maybe we'll find out otherwise. So far, it sure seems like the redactions exposed victims a lot more than they ever exposed.

TAPPER: Yes, the accused. Tom Foreman, thanks so much. Let's bring in an Epstein survivor, Annie Farmer, along with Jennifer Freeman, an attorney and advocate for Epstein survivors. Annie, again, it can't be easy seeing that some information identifying Epstein survivors was not properly redacted. I mean, in some cases, photographic evidence. How are you doing?

ANNIE FARMER, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Yeah, it really makes me sick, to be honest. When I found out about the photos in particular, I just thought, you know, of the damage that that could do. The fact that whether or not those are now taken down, they have been out there. And the harm is hard to overstate. That comes from something like that. So, I'm really -- I'm really disgusted and upset with the way that this has unfolded.

TAPPER: Jennifer, in a letter to judges, some of the Epstein survivors' lawyers wrote -- quote -- "there is no conceivable degree of institutional incompetence sufficient to explain the scale, consistency, and persistence of the failures that occurred -- particularly where the sole task ordered by the court and repeatedly emphasized by the Justice Department was simple: redact known victims' names before publication" -- unquote. So, what do you think happened here? Do you agree with these lawyers that all of the files released on Friday should be taken down at least for now?

JENNIFER FREEMAN, ATTORNEY AND ADVOCATE FOR EPSTEIN SURVIVORS: Well, I think that the production has been atrocious because -- let's step back a minute and let's think through how this is supposed to work. You have, apparently, had about 500 government attorneys working on this. You give, let's say, each attorney some amounts of documents, a thousand, 10,000 documents, go through them with instructions, and try to decide, do you need to redact anything here or is anything of concern to you here? And that's not all where it should stop. It should then go to a supervisor who then double checks that.

So, how could this all have happened? It certainly is not that difficult to redact documents.

TAPPER: Annie, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said that there was nothing in the files that would allow them to prosecute anybody necessarily. What was your reaction when you heard him say that?

FARMER: I was not surprised because, you know, we haven't seen much in the way of accountability from this administration and this DOJ. But I, you know, would ask the question that I think you were asking at the top of show, which is, where's the evidence that they actually investigated these claims?

There's plenty in there that suggests that people were named. And some of those names, of course, are redacted, even though they shouldn't be. But there are also some names that are not redacted. But we're not seeing where were those people interviewed.

What was the investigation that led you to believe that crimes did not occur? And until we see that, I don't know how you can make that determination.

TAPPER: And what is it like for -- to see this glaring, obvious miscarriage of justice in the sense that here are these tips and no evidence that they were ever followed up with any investigation?

And meanwhile, President Trump is sending the FBI down to Fulton County, Georgia for this cockamamie idea that an election six years ago was stolen from him. I mean, it's the FBI doing that and not following up on what you're talking about.

FARMER: Yes. Well, there's a long history in this case, of course. You know, my sister, Maria Farmer, reported in 1996. We've been looking for evidence that they did anything with that report other than bury it, and we can't find it, right? And then we see -- you know, they came back to us in 2006, and they came to so many other victims at that point. There was plenty of evidence there for charges that would have kept him in jail for the rest of his life.

[17:15:00]

But what we've seen with this latest release is that there was even more after that, right? So, it is really disturbing to see that the DOJ seemingly did not do their jobs here and yet, yes, are investigating things that I think all of us realizes are bogus.

TAPPER: What are you hearing, Jennifer, from other Epstein survivors? Is there anything in the batch of files that makes them feel at least validated in the same way when you're referring to your sister's police report that came out in the last batch and it was like, look, she did actually do this? They wrote it down. Didn't necessarily do anything after that. But is there anything validating released here?

FREEMAN: Well, certainly, Maria Farmer -- the report, the FBI report regarding Maria Farmer was wonderful to see, finally, and to have an opportunity to say, look, this is true, this is absolutely true, what she has been saying all along.

TAPPER: Right.

FREEMAN: But other than that, I haven't seen anything thus far. And there are three million pages, three million documents. I haven't seen anything that any survivor is saying, oh, that's really great that that came out. In fact, what I'm hearing from some of my clients and from other lawyers are the extent of the redactions and the failure to reject.

One story I heard was that it's not only hundreds of failures to redact, hundreds of exposures of victim names, but in one case, apparently 538 times, this survivor name was revealed. I just -- I just -- I just don't understand it.

TAPPER: And Annie, what are you hearing from your fellow survivors?

FARMER: Yes, we've been -- we've been in touch with them quite a bit. And I think people have felt, you know, at some point just very upset, at some points very angry. You know, the fact that people did not have the ability to decide for themselves whether they wanted to come forward in this case.

You know, for those of us that are public, some of our information coming out, it's upsetting, but we anticipated it. But to see these people that had worked so hard to remain private, and then have that come out, I think that is just deeply disturbing to a lot of us.

TAPPER: Yes. Annie Farmer, Jennifer Freeman, thank you so much. And Annie, thank you for your courage as always for being here.

FARMER: Thank you.

TAPPER: A big story on Capitol Hill right now. The partial government shutdown is now on day number three. We just got some new information as to how long this one might last. But first, what authorities in Arizona are saying about the upsetting disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, the mother of our colleague and friend, "Today" show host Savannah Guthrie. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHERIFF CHRIS NANOS, PIMA COUNTY, ARIZONA: We saw some things at the home that were concerning to us. We do, in fact, have a crime scene, that we do, in fact, have a crime.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: In our "National Lead," authorities in Arizona are shutting down their search and rescue mission for Nancy Guthrie, and they're investigating instead her disappearance as a crime. Guthrie, Nancy Guthrie, is the mother of our friendly colleague, "Today" show anchor Savannah Guthrie. The 84-year-old was last seen Saturday night near her home north of Tucson in Arizona. A family member reported her missing Sunday afternoon.

Let's bring in CNN senior correspondent Josh Campbell. And Josh, homicide detectives were sent to Nancy Guthrie's home, which is not always done in a missing person's case. What else are authorities saying?

JOSH CAMPBELL, CNN SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: That's right. The sheriff is saying that what he learned on the scene caused enough concern that they wanted to bring in these homicide investigators. As you determined -- as you said there, Jake, they're also determining that this is a crime scene that they're dealing with. So, this is really taking a dire direction, going from a missing person's case to now a crime scene.

Now, authorities have not said that they believe that Ms. Guthrie is deceased. So, they're not reading the homicide detective part of that in right now, but that's something that they will bring in to try to identify what actually happened to her. Authorities are still trying to understand that. Of course, when you have a crime scene, the question is, well, a crime committed by whom? No details on a possible suspect.

We are learning details about this massive investigation that's now underway. It's being led by local police. Law enforcement official tells me that FBI agents in Arizona are now -- quote -- "fully engaged in this case," offering various different resources, one of which being the FBI has a specialty in missing person and fugitive cases where they can analyze cellphone tower data around an area of interest to try to help identify who it may have been in and around that area.

They're also conducting what are called video canvases around the residential area, trying to determine if any of the neighbors there or businesses actually caught anything on surveillance footage. That's a really tedious process they have to go through in order to scour that imagery, to try to get clues, but that is underway right now.

And, of course, Jake, you know, obviously, this is a very sad story that had sadness added still because authorities say they are literally racing a clock here. Take a listen here to the sheriff speaking earlier today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NANOS: This is an 84-year-old lady who suffers from some physical ailments, has some physical challenges, in need of medication. Medication that if she doesn't have in 24 hours, it can be fatal. We need her back. We need to find her. And time is very critical.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMPBELL: Authorities are appealing to anyone with any information. If they saw anything, to obviously call police. This is obviously something that -- you know, our hearts go out to Savannah and, obviously, her mother, and the NBC News family as they're trying to grapple with. One indication right now the authorities have -- you know, identify exactly what happened or who was responsible. We're now hearing it is all hands on deck. Multiple agencies now involved, Jake.

TAPPER: OK. Thank you so much, Josh Campbell. And for anybody who sees anything, the tip line at the Pima County Sheriff's Department is 520-351-4900. That's 520-351-4900.

[17:25:02]

Josh Campbell, thanks so much.

We have some breaking news from Northern Virginia. A verdict has just came in a high-profile double murder involving a man's affair with his Brazilian au pair. We're back with that story next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: There's a breaking news for you now in the "Law and Justice Lead." A verdict just came in in the au pair double murder in Northern Virginia. Now, you've likely heard about this one. Prosecutors say that Brendan Banfield concocted an elaborate scheme with his Brazilian au pair to kill his wife and another man so that he could avoid divorce and keep custody of his daughter.

CNN correspondent Jean Casarez has been covering the trial since the beginning. Jean, the jury had a lot of testimony to review before reaching this verdict moments ago. Tell us more.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Well, this was a complicated case.

[17:29:53]

The jury found that Brendan Banfield in this double murder case willfully, deliberate, and with premeditation murdered his wife, Christine, a pediatric intensive care nurse, by stabbing her in the neck 8 to 10 times. Some of the wounds were two and a half inches deep. Also a man by the name of Joseph Ryan, who was an escort that came to the house with FetLife.com, and the theory was that Brendan Banfield, who you're looking at right there in court as he was being told that he is guilty of these crimes, and the au pair, the nanny that they had hired from Brazil, that they worked together to create a situation where they purported to be Christine, got a Gmail account, signed up on FetLife, acting like Christine, asking this man to come to their home, Christine wants him, and be sure to bring his knife as part of everything he does, and when that man arrived in the house, the prosecution theory was Brendan Banfield, former IRS investigative agent, by the way, and the au pair stormed into the bedroom, shot Joseph Ryan to death, and then proceeded to stab Christine.

Why? So they could lead a life together. And the au pair turned on Banfield, that's the au pair right there in the center, and she testified for two days saying it was Brendan's plan, divorce not an option, she would have too much money, I would lose my little four- year-old girl, so this is the way we have to go, and that he was the one that designed the plan, they executed it, and now he will spend the rest of his life in prison, no possibility of parole in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: All right, Jean Casarez, thanks so much, appreciate it.

Some major news reported first on CNN, a major departure coming soon at the Justice Department, what our teams are learning about this one is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:36:13]

TAPPER: We have some really great reporting now for you in our Law and Justice Lead. Sources say that Ed Martin, the pardon attorney and the head of the Justice Department's weaponization working group, which isn't what you think it is, but is what you think it is in a different way. Well, Ed Martin is expected to leave the department in the coming weeks.

CNN's chief legal affairs correspondent, Paula Reid broke the story. Paula, why would someone once called President Trump's favorite U.S. attorney, though he couldn't get confirmed? Why would he want to leave or be shoved out the door?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Because President Trump's other favorite prosecutor, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, has made Martin's life miserable inside DOJ. As you noted, Martin couldn't get confirmed as U.S. attorney, so he was sent to the Justice Department to work in the main justice headquarters, and he was given two titles, director of the weaponization group, and then also pardon attorney.

But once he was inside DOJ, Todd Blanche, the number two, he runs the day-to-day operations. He wanted to make sure that Martin didn't have too much power to make mischief in a Justice Department that has already seen a series of scandals. So when it comes to the weaponization group, he was never really leading that group.

Now, one source suggested that Todd layered him. Another source suggested that Martin was never doing the work, but bottom line is he was never in charge, really, of that group, nor has he done any significant work. Now, when it comes to the pardon attorney, that is currently where his office is.

He does review pardon applications, but you and I both know, you know, you've written a book on the Biden administration. Pardon decisions are ultimately made at the White House. You review some paperwork.

TAPPER: They're not supposed to be, but they are under the last two. Yes.

REID: They are. Exactly. So the fact is that he really just doesn't have a lot of power. So we are told that he's expected to leave the department in the coming weeks. We don't know where he's going, but a source tells me he has spent the last week at the White House. So again, not out of favor with the administration, but expected to be out of DOJ.

TAPPER: And this comes hours after you also reported that the Justice Department's weaponization working group plans to significantly ramp up efforts. I just need to take one second. The weaponization working group is supposed to be looking at how the Justice Department weaponized the Justice Department under Biden or whatever, even though we all see lots of examples of the Trump administration doing the same, if not worse. Anyway --

REID: One hundred percent, yes.

TAPPER: -- that said, how would Ed Martin's departure affect this plan to ramp up the weaponization working group?

REID: So it doesn't really appear that it has much of an impact. It's unclear if he was invited. They met today because now the Epstein review sort of behind them, they have more resources and they want to focus on this because Trump has admonished the Justice Department for not delivering on his prioritized investigations.

Now, of course, some people would argue that in and of itself, the White House pressuring DOJ is weaponization. But this group is expected to start meeting every single day to deliver on one of seven reviews that Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the day she got in office. This includes the prosecutors who investigated Trump when he was out of office, both in New York and the Jack Smith investigations.

There are also some issues that are just sort of Republican causes, generally allegations of Catholic discrimination under the Biden administration, a memo on protecting school officials against threats, protections for whistleblowers, prosecuting anti-abortion demonstrators. We don't know what they might be able to come up with in the next two months, but they are under a lot of pressure. I'm told that they will try to get something out from this group in the next two months.

TAPPER: All right, Paula Reid, thank you so much. And welcome back.

REID: Thank you. TAPPER: From your maternity leave. Beautiful, beautiful, beautiful baby.

REID: Thank you.

[17:39:45]

TAPPER: Coming up with some notable Republicans, including President Trump, are saying about an upset election in Texas, a Democrats double digit win in a district that Trump claimed victory in in 2024. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I'm not involved in that. That's a local Texas race. You mean I won by 17 and this person lost? Things like that happen. It's too bad. What can I say? I have nothing to do with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, that's President Trump pretending not to be involved at all in this weekend's special election for a Texas state senate seat despite having endorsed the Republican candidate and urged his base to turn out the vote in at least three different social media posts.

Now, despite Trump's involvement, the Democrat Taylor Rehmet held a 14-point lead in a district that Trump won by nearly 17 points in 2024. Here now, the panel. So, Shermichael, Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions was on CNN today trying to talk about the Democrats' upset victory. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[17:45:13]

REP. PETE SESSIONS (R-TX): The success of a rain dance has a lot to do with timing. And what happened is there was a huge snowstorm, ice storm, really, that hit North Texas and Central Texas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: No, that's true. And the vote tally was down. And yet Democrats turned out and Republicans didn't. We should note a different reaction from Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. He said, "Republicans should be clear-eyed about the political environment heading into the midterms." Shermichael, who's right, the congressman or the governor?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm probably going to err with the governor on this one. I mean, look, it's an indication the President won that district by, what, 17 points, I believe you stated in the opening monologue. It matters. Like, it's not a congressional race, but what it indicates is that there's an enthusiasm increase on the opposite side. And perhaps we need to figure out a way to do a bit more to turn out our voters, number one.

Number two, you're looking at some of those independents who may have crossed over and voted for Trump in 2024. Some of the numbers I've seen suggest, it's still kind of early, but it suggests that those folks decided to vote Democrat this time. That should scare Republicans or at least raise some alarms, because you're going to have a lot of tight races where you're going to need about 5 to 6 percent within the margin of error to turn out those people to get a victory. If we're losing them, you're almost handing the House to Democrats.

LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Remember who those people were? They were Latinos. That's actually who has --

SINGLETON: Fifty percent, I think, right?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Well, yes. There was a 50-point swing in one particular district or part of this district that really swung just in an incredible way. And it's a heavily Latino district. And there's only one real message to take from that. They don't like what they're seeing. They don't like what they're seeing on the economy. They don't like what they're seeing on immigration.

And so this is, I think, a real bellwether, because we've seen Latinos be a huge swing vote. Donald Trump got them in the last election. They made a big swing in his direction. But now we're seeing that shift right back.

TAPPER: So the big question, though, is -- I'll come to you right now.

SINGLETON: OK.

TAPPER: The big question is whether or not this is a bellwether, not just of a political environment nationally, but also specifically in Texas, because Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, Democrat from Texas, she's running to be the state's Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate. She posted, "This is a seat no Democrat has held since the 80s. And today we prove what we've known all along. Texas is in play. And don't count us out." Do you buy it, Lulu?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: It depends who actually is going to run. So I think Jasmine Crockett will have a tougher race than if it's Talarico, who is more moderate, who I think is probably better suited to the map that we see in Texas.

But yes, I mean, this has been the dream and the hope of Democrats for so long, right? How long have we heard Texas eventually is going to go blue? It's finally the moment. Oh, my goodness.

TAPPER: Oh, long before that, are you old enough to remember Ron Kirk, the mayor of Dallas, running?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes.

SINGLETON: God, yes, I was like a middle school kid.

TAPPER: Yes. You know. But what do you think, do you think Texas is in play, whether it is the Senate race, which depends obviously also on whether John Cornyn will win the primary --

SINGLETON: I was just going to say, yes.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes.

TAPPER: -- or the governor's race, where a Latina, who is the sister of Xochitl Hinojosa, our colleague, is running to be the Democratic nominee to take on Abbott?

SINGLETON: So, OK, the answer to the Senate seat, I actually do agree, I know the Congresswoman, I like her a lot, but I do think she -- I think Republicans, I think my side would utilize a lot of her previous messages against her. And if I'm a Democrat, you've got to be concerned about that. In terms of the governorship, we have a huge Hispanic population there, and one of the groups that I keep looking at are young men.

Lulu and I have talked about this a lot off-air, on-air. We are losing them, and you look at this most recent race, Jake, a lot of the Latino men who voted for Republicans, voted for President Trump in droves went back to the other side. I'm not necessarily sure what the messaging will be from Republicans to convince them to stay with us.

It has to be economics. I do think we've got to figure out this immigration thing. I think Lulu is absolutely right about this. A lot of those young men are also seeing uncertainty in terms of educational attainment. What does the future look like for young men who aren't going to college at the same rates and levels as our female counterparts? We haven't necessarily provided a clear message to that.

And so if you're a young man, Hispanic, even Black, by the way, and you're not seeing that from Republicans and Democrats appear to be talking about the right things, whether or not they deliver another question, you're likely going to give them another look.

TAPPER: So here's, one of the issues, obviously, is that President Trump gets in his own way. He'll achieve something, and then he'll change the subject with something that doesn't help him. Here's an example.

President Trump is now threatening to sue comedian Trevor Noah, who hosted last night's Grammy Awards. I'm going to play the jab that Trump apparently took issue with, which, by the way, I wouldn't have played if Trump hadn't threatened to sue him. Anyway, here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[17:50:01]

TREVOR NOAH, HOST, GRAMMY AWARDS: That is a Grammy that every artist wants, almost as much as Trump wants Greenland, which makes sense, I mean, because Epstein's island is gone. He needs a new one to hang out with Bill Clinton. So, oh, I told you it's my last year. What are you going to do about it?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Well, I'll tell you what President Trump says he's going to do about it. He jumped on Truth Social at 1:00 a.m. and wrote, Trevor Noah said incorrectly about me that Donald Trump and Bill Clinton spent time on Epstein Island. Wrong. It looks like I'll be sending my lawyers to sue this poor, pathetic, talentless dope of an emcee and suing him for plenty dollar sign. Get ready, Noah, I'm going to have some fun with you. Look, parody satire is protected, but even if it weren't, what?

SINGLETON: I got to tell you, I'm actually surprised that he mentioned Bill Clinton. I haven't heard many people, I don't know Trevor Noah's politics, but I'm going to presume he's to the left of where I stand. I haven't heard many people bring up the former President in that regard, so to me there's humor in that alone.

I know this is a very touchy topic for the President. I completely get it, but it was kind of humorous, and anyone after Clinton took a jab, so why not?

GARCIA-NAVARRO: This is the action of authoritarians around the world who cannot take a joke, who are thin-skinned, and this President in particular is incredibly thin-skinned. He does not like jokes at his expense, but why would you highlight a joke about the Epstein files at a moment when everyone is talking about the Epstein files and his relationship to Epstein, even if, of course, he is right. There has been no proof that he ever was at Epstein island.

TAPPER: The Grammys in general were not a hospitable environment if President Trump was watching. It doesn't sound like he was. Sounds like somebody sent him the clip after. Here is artist after artist condemning the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm up here as a granddaughter of an immigrant. I'm a product of bravery, and I think those people deserve to be celebrated.

BAD BUNNY, SINGER: I'm going to say ICE out. We're not savage. We're not animals. We're not aliens. We are humans, and we are Americans.

BILLIE EILISH, SINGER: I feel like we just need to keep fighting and speaking up and protesting, and our voices really do matter, and the people matter, and I say sorry.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: There's nothing wrong with your audio. That was them beeping out Billie Eilish when she said, reportedly, F ICE. Here's a question. Does it matter? Obviously, we know that artists in Hollywood tend to lean left. Does it matter when people, because there was a lot of criticism I think it was, was it the Oscars, when people weren't that vocal? At the Grammys, they were. GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, I think we're actually seeing a shift, and we know that it matters because President Trump is always fighting the culture war. I mean, that's why it's called the culture war, and this is very fertile ground for him. This is exactly what he loves to battle against, and so we are now seeing celebrities. I interview celebrities, a lot of them, and after Donald Trump won the last election, there was a big muted response.

TAPPER: Oh, I remember your interview with Jennifer Lawrence.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Yes, she's like, I don't want to talk about this anymore.

TAPPER: Yes.

GARCIA-NAVARRO: I don't think I can convince people what celebrities say don't matter, and I think now we're seeing them catch up with the culture, right? We're seeing protesters on the street, and now they're saying they're speaking out again, and I think we're going to see more of it.

TAPPER: I love your interviews, New York Times Magazine. Thanks to both of you. I really appreciate it.

[17:53:24]

Moments ago in the Oval Office, President Trump said a resolution could be closed to end this partial government shutdown. Is it? A lot of federal workers want to know what CNN is hearing on Capitol Hill. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: And we're back with the Politics Lead. Moments ago President Trump said that Congress is close on ending the partial government shutdown that is currently on day three.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I will say that I spoke with Senator Schumer numerous times. And I don't think they want to see a shutdown.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: The House is expected to take up the vote tomorrow. CNN's Manu Raju is on Capitol Hill. Manu, you watch this stuff all day, every day. Is the shutdown going to end?

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: There's a very good possibility. I should say a decent chance, Jake. It ends tomorrow. But it's very uncertain at this moment because Speaker Mike Johnson has virtually no margin for error. Democrats in the House have abandoned this bill that was cut between Chuck Schumer and the White House.

They said they are not part of this agreement. And as a result, Mike Johnson needs to pass his vote with Republican votes alone. And he can only afford to lose one Republican vote. And there are several members in the far right of his conference who are threatening to tank this in the first procedural vote tomorrow which is one reason why that President Trump himself is laying down the pressure. He's calling individual members and he's making the case for them to vote yes in this key vote tomorrow.

This is what Congressman Tom Cole, the Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, told me just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TOM COLE (R-OK): If you want to vote against it, make sure it gets the floor, then you have that opportunity. But I think there's a bipartisan coalition bill that will pass the funding as long as the legislation gets the floor.

RAJU: The President need to get involved here?

COLE: President actually has issued a tweet this afternoon, I just read it. And he's called individual Republicans. So he's working it hard. He wants this bill passed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And the speaker himself has been working it to meeting with individual members tomorrow, Jake, is that critical vote. We'll see what happens if he can get Republicans in line, if he cannot get Republicans in line beyond that first procedural vote, then they'll have to go to Democrats and see what the Democrats want to. And that could potentially prolong the government shutdown even longer. Jake?

[17:59:49]

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour we're learning new details about what reportedly happened behind the scenes of that FBI search at a Georgia elections office. "The New York Times" reporting today that President Trump not only had ordered the director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard to travel down for the search related to the 2020 election.