Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Claims Progress In Talks To End War, Then Threatens Attacks; FCC Chair Says, Trump Is Winning Against Fake News Media; Approximately 2.5 Million Files Still Not Released By Justice Department; Far-Left Political Streamer Drives Wedge Into Democratic Party. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired March 30, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

This hour, the Trump administration says its military operation in Iran is going according to plan. No changes will be made to its four to six-week timeline. We're in week five right now. So, why send thousands of U.S. troops to the region as the president is currently thinking about doing? We're going to go live to the White House.

Plus, the Epstein files, millions of documents have been released to the public, but millions more have not been released. We're going to talk to the top Republican in the Oversight Committee about the next steps to hold the Justice Department accountable.

Also, the controversial influencer dividing Democrats, some critics call him anti-American, anti-woman, anti-Western, anti-Semitic. So, why are so many other Democrats lining up to campaign with him?

And talk about a comeback, the major announcement today from legendary singer Celine Dion made on her birthday.

The Lead tonight, mixed messages as the White House touts diplomatic efforts to end the war in Iran. The president is claiming that the U.S. is having, quote, serious discussions, unquote, with a, quote, new and more reasonable regime in Tehran, comments that Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson seemed to dispute at a press conference. He said, quote, we have had no direct negotiations with the United States so far, direct negotiations doing a lot of work in that computation.

President Trump also threatening to completely obliterate Iran's electric plants and oil wells and desalination plants if a deal to end and reopen -- end the blockade and reopen the Strait of Hormuz is not quickly reached. Strait of Hormuz, obviously, the body of water through which 20 percent of the world's oil reserves, passes through each day before the war started.

Iran may have just thrown a wrench into hopes for a quick deal, however. Its Parliamentary Security Commission just approved a plan to regulate and impose tolls on ships passing through the strait while continuing to prohibit U.S. and Israeli ships from passing through. Iran. State Media says that toll plan is to enforce, quote, Iran's sovereign role in that of its armed forces. It all posed oil prices higher today, U.S. crude rising to $102 a barrel. That's the highest level since 2022.

CNN's Kaitlan Collins live at the White House for us. Kaitlan, did today's White House briefing provide any information about when the White House thinks this conflict might be brought to a close?

KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: No, Jake, they've still been maintaining that timeline of four to six weeks. As you noted, week six would come next week for the White House, and it remains to be seen how exactly this is going to look by then. The White House has been giving them some extra time, potentially, especially as the president has been touting these talks that are playing out. And one thing they touted today, Jake, were the number of ships that did make it through the Strait of Hormuz.

But as you noted, given what Iran has just done with the toll that it says it is now going to be imposing on this, we haven't yet heard President Trump weigh in on that. And it comes after his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, said over the weekend that they do not see this war ending with Iran still having control over the Strait of Hormuz.

Obviously, you've seen that they have wielded it to great effect here. And it mirrors an answer that the president told me last week when I asked him who he wants to control the Strait of Hormuz, and he said, potentially me and he, the quote was maybe me in the ayatollah.

And so all of that has raised questions about what's next here at, Jake, as the president has been touting the status of these talks that Iranians have been disputing in public, something that the White House has said they're going to do that in public. That doesn't mean that's what they're saying in private.

But the question about the legitimacy of those talks, how genuine they are, has come as we've seen this troop buildup inside the region, and this is what Karoline Leavitt, the press secretary, said about that today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Look, the president has been asked about boots on the ground or alleged ground operations various times. He's obviously declined to rule them out. It's the Pentagon's job to provide maximum optionality to the president. It does not mean he's made a decision, nor would he ever notify the media of such decision as not to tip off our enemy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COLLINS: And, obviously, Jake, when you listen to that, you have to think about how there were talks underway with Iranian officials when this war started, of course, last summer when those strikes happened on the nuclear plants as well. And so it does raise questions. As the White House says, basically, this is just giving him all the options that he has available should these talks not prove to be fruitful or at least sufficient to the president's liking. TAPPER: Kaitlan Collins at the White House, thanks so much. And, of course, Kaitlan's going to have more tonight on her show. It's called The Source with Kaitlan Collins. Her guest tonight include former CENTCOM Commander General Joseph Votel.

[18:05:00]

That's tonight at 9:00 Eastern, only on CNN.

Joining us now to discuss, CNN National Security Analyst Alex Plitsas and Global Affairs Journalist Tara Kangarlou, she's the author of a book called Heartbeat of Iran.

Alex, President Trump today threatened to, quote, obliterate Iran's electric plants, oil wells, even desalination plants. I'm not sure if that's allowed under international law. This is if a ceasefire deal is not reached soon. What do you make of this escalation of threats? Is he running out of cards, as it were?

ALEX PLITSAS, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: I think he's running out of time and patience. You know, it's pretty clear with the status of the oil trade coming through. As you mentioned, there's a few boats that have made it through. We're nowhere near the volume that's necessary. We've had about 7 million barrels that have been redirected through a pipeline to the Red Sea, but it doesn't make up for the 20 million barrels a day that usually come out of the strait. And so it's a ticking clock at this point until the economic pressure will force him to take additional action.

So, it's additional pressure on the regime. They still have not agreed to an in-person meeting at this point. It's been indirect negotiations, as you were talking about previously. And so we're going to see where this lands in the next week or so, and at that point, additional action may be necessary.

TAPPER: Secretary of State Rubio was asked about the discussions the president says are happening with Iran's, quote, new and more reasonable regime. Take a listen to Secretary of State Rubio.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I'm not going to disclose to you who those people are because it probably would get them in trouble with some other groups of people inside of Iran.

And if there are new people now in charge who have a more reasonable vision of the future, that would be good news for us, for them, for the entire world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Tara, yesterday, the president suggested that because so many of Iran's top leaders have been killed that regime change has already been achieved. What do you think? Has there been regime change in Iran? Do you have any idea with whom the administration's speaking with? TARA KANGARLOU, GLOBAL AFFAIRS JOURNALIST: Jake, there's a lot of unknowns right now, but a few things are crystal clear. And what we know so far is that the Iranian regime has evolved into a more hard line, rabid and confrontational version of what they were. And by that, I mean, of course, we haven't yet seen him or heard from him that being the son of the supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, who is closely embedded with the IRGC, with the Revolutionary Guard.

And, of course, of the man whose name has been thrown around, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the speaker of the parliament, he himself has extremely close political, but also intelligence and militarily ties to the IRGC. And if at all we have a situation with when, where this regime stays intact as is, it's going to be even more hard line than what it was before.

So, the idea of regime change and having more reasonable people in this current government is quite absurd. Because, again, for anyone who knows the Islamic regime, you can tell that, easily, it's the IRGC intelligence that's controlling the country and that itself is to the detriment of 90 million ordinary Iranians who have over and over and over come out on the streets with empty hands telling the world that we want to move beyond the regime.

The president, Jake, went in more ways than one into this conflict with the promise of help for ordinary Iranians. And right now, we're left with the situation that possibly, just possibly, when that war ends, we're going to have a situation where the United States went into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, but ultimately left the Afghan people with the Taliban. And that is the situation the day after for the Iranian people if this regime, again, and this was hardlined form, will remain intact, and those are the people in charge right now.

TAPPER: We're showing some new images right now of the damage from Friday's Iranian missile strike that destroyed a U.S. Air Force E3 Century aircraft on the runway of the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. Alex, what did these images tell you about Iran's continued capabilities?

PLITSAS: That they only have to be right a couple of times in order to cause some damage. And that's really the danger with the drones, the remaining missiles, and why central command is still working their way through targets.

So, that aircraft that we're looking at there is a couple of hundred million dollars. You know, there's information that intelligence may have been provided by foreign countries for targeting purposes to the Iranians. The Central Command commander has stipulated that we've gone through about 13,000 targets.

There's about 3,000 left. And that's really what we're talking about with that two-week timeline, is for the Central Command forces to continue to move their way through that target deck, which would include the remaining missiles, drones, the Air Force and the Navy. The Air Force was added today in statements by the secretary of state.

And so at the end of that two-week period that should be done, and potentially the nuclear program, which is what President Trump said is his number one priority. What is not clear though is what the disposition of the Straits of Hormuz is going to be, because that is what I'm describing as mission creep. That was not part of the original objectives that U.S. Central Command, the White House or the Pentagon has laid out.

And to the point of my fellow panelists here, she's 100 percent correct. At the end of this, the president has stipulated, he does not want to engage in nation and state building, so he'd prefer to work with a member of the existing regime.

[18:10:00]

And it looks as though what sources in the region are describing as the Ramadan division folks have sort of taken over, which is Mojtaba Khamenei's folks that he worked with when he served in the IRGC or the Quds Force -- excuse me, the Republican Guard -- the Revolutionary Guard from '87 to '88 at the tail end of the war. And the intelligence services really taken a lot of power, which is why they've been working with the Pakistani and Turkish intelligence services to help bring about a deal to end this. And we haven't seen the Gulf states involved.

TAPPER: And, Tara, yesterday in an interview with the Financial Times, President Trump said this about Iran's oil, quote, to be honest with you, my favorite thing is to take the oil in Iran, but some stupid people back in the U.S. say, why are you doing that? But they're stupid people, unquote. We should note this is not the first time Trump has said something like that.

I want you to take a listen to comments he just posted on his social media account. This is from an interview with Barbara Walters back in 1987. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Why couldn't we go in and take over some of their oil, which is along the sea?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How would you do that? Would you send in the Marines? Would you take a chance in the war?

TRUMP: Let them have a rant. You take their oil. That's what I --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: But how?

TRUMP: How?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I mean, do we want a war? What do you mean, we take their oil?

TRUMP: You go in, you're going to have a war --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How do we go in?

TRUMP: You're going to have a war by being weak. (END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So, Tara, how do you think that those comments that the president himself just reposted will go over with the people of Iran, although I know the internet is shut down there, but it's possible that the Iranian government will make sure that that is seen?

KANGARLOU: And can we just say that perhaps history is repeating itself? Jake, you and I both know that Iran's oil have long been wanted and in ways controlled in the earlier years of the century by Russians and the Brits. And then 1953, the coup d'etat that was orchestrated by the CIA and the Brits overthrew the democratically- elected government of Mohammed Mosaddegh, who wanted to nationalize Iran's oil, and then 1979 happened, the Islamic Revolution thereafter. Of course, Iran's oil was heavily sanctioned.

And today, what we have is a situation where China buys 80 percent of Iran's oil at a heavily discounted price, and these tankers go in ghost vessels and circumvent the sanctions and essentially provide China with all the oil it needs at, again, heavily discounted price. And this is precisely how and why the IRGC has not gone bankrupt over the years.

So, what I would say is that the route to Iran's oil is not through Tehran, but rather Beijing. And I think this is why it's extremely crucial to look at China's stance in all of this. And I know for a fact that sources have been talking about how the Pakistani foreign minister and officials may in fact go to China and talk to Chinese officials to discuss ways to end this.

But, again, going back to what the President said much earlier in the war is it's going to be a Venezuela model. And, again, if so, we will be left with the crumbles of the Islamic regime that are at its most hardline and emboldened form all to the detriment of ordinary people in Iran.

TAPPER: Tara and Alex, thanks to both of you. I appreciate it.

Coming up next, hear why Brendan Carr, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, in which is supposed to be an independent government agency, says that President Trump is, quote, winning his war against a news media.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:15:00]

TAPPER: In our National Lead, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr is openly praising and rooting for President Trump in his war against what he calls the fake news media. Here's what Commissioner Carr said on Friday at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Texas.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRENDAN CARR, CHAIRMAN, FCC: President Trump took on the fake news media and President Trump is winning. Look at the results so far. PBS defunded, NPR defunded, Joy Reid gone from MSNBC, Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd gone, Jim Acosta gone, John Dickerson gone, Colbert is leaving. CBS is under new ownership. And soon enough, CNN has got new ownership as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Joining us now is Al Sikes. He's the former FCC Commissioner chairman under President George H.W. Bush. Al, thanks for joining us.

What's your reaction to what you heard Brendan Carr say?

ALFRED SIKES, FORMER FCC CHAIRMAN UNDER PRESIDENT GEORGE H.W. BUSH: It is amusement. You know, that's not the way you judge whether you're winning popularity, you know, the dismissal of given, you know, newscasters or whatever. You know, you judge popularity by how the polls report on the way the people appreciate or do not appreciate your administration.

TAPPER: How did you view your job when you were chairman of the FCC versus how do you think the chairman, Chairman Carr, views his job? Because he seems to think -- and this is not the only thing he talks about a lot of other things, including affordability. But when it comes to talking about the media, he talks about fake news. You heard him insulting Chuck Todd on a personal note. You heard him talking about President Trump winning because of individuals being fired or changing their jobs or shows being canceled. Is that how you viewed your job when you ran the FCC?

SIKES: Absolutely not. And more importantly, that's not the way either President Reagan or President George H.W. Bush would have viewed my job. And had I acted the way Carr acted, I'm sure they would've found a way to quickly get me out of there. Sure, it was an independent agency, but you paid attention to the White House and the White House believed in free speech. They believed that it was foundational.

And beyond that, the Congress, I mean, I had two oversight committees, one headed by John Dehlin and one headed by Fritz Hollings, and I could tell you, they would've been all over me. But in this case, you know, we have Ted Cruz criticizing a Carr. We have Ron Johnson criticizing Carr, but we don't have the Senate doing anything about Carr or about the appropriations to the FCC.

[18:20:05]

TAPPER: I want you to take a listen to an exchange between Brendan Carr and Democratic Senator Lujan of New Mexico. This is during a Senate oversight hearing last December.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. BEN RAY LUJAN (D-NM): Chairman Carr, yes or no, and please, yes or no, is the FCC an independent agency?

CARR: Senator, thanks for that question. I think that --

LUJAN: Yes or no is all we need, sir. CARR: The FCC is not an independent agency, formally speaking.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: And we should note that I think after he said that, the word independent was taken off the FCC website. It had appeared there. Is the FCC an independent agency?

SIKES: I think the law says it is but it's certainly not operating that way now.

TAPPER: What did you make of the fact that when Stephen Colbert's show was canceled, Paramount, which then owned CBS, said that it was a financial decision, but here, you have Brendan Carr taking credit for it, saying that it's because of President Trump's war against the fake news media? Stephen Colbert is obviously not a newsman, he's a comedian, but it's basically suggesting that it was an editorial decision, not a financial decision, which contradicts what Sherry Redstone in Paramount said at the time.

SIKES: Well, I mean, the reality is that the FCC confronts an entirely different broadcast industry than when I was at the FCC. It has shrunken. You know, it is noted now that the broadcast industry has something like 30 percent of the news sourcing, whereas all the other news sources, particularly that is fed digitally, has somewhere in the 70 to 80 percent range. You know, when President Trump makes a pronouncement, he makes it on Truth Social, which is obviously a digital platform.

So, you know, my general view is that, yes, there are going to be changes that are going to be made. I think CBS just decided to cease its radio operation, its national radio news operation, and perhaps that was forced by economics. But I don't think that because Colbert is leaving that necessarily Trump or Carr have won.

TAPPER: Al Sikes, thank you so much, sir. I appreciate it.

SIKES: Good. Thank you.

TAPPER: Still ahead, the unease on one college campus when the Trump administration subpoenaed to get the list of every known Jewish person at the school.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

TAPPER: In our National Lead, apprehension, as the University of Pennsylvania has been contacted by the Trump administration who was trying to get a list of every Jewish person at that school, including their names and their addresses and their phone numbers, all of which the Trump administration says they're doing in the name of fighting anti-Semitism.

CNN's Danny Freeman has the story now from Philadelphia.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I cannot say I ever imagined that we would be at this moment. There's another book --

DANNY FREEMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): For Beth Wenger, that moment came when the federal government said it was seeking lists and personal details of members of the University of Pennsylvania's Jewish community in the name of fighting anti-Semitism.

BETH WENGER, HISTORY PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: Everyone wants to see a safe campus for Jews and for everyone else, no matter what their identity or background.

FREEMAN: But as a historian and professor of modern Jewish history for more than 20 years at the Ivy League School, Wenger fears for her own privacy, and also understands the risk of repeating history.

WENGER: It is important to understand the resonance of collecting names and personal information of Jews and identifying them as Jews and having the government collect that information. It's very concerning to me as someone who is Jewish, and it's concerning to me as a member of the university community.

FREEMAN: In late 2023, in the wake of October 7th, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, began investigating anti- Semitism at Penn. The school acknowledged concerns about anti-Semitism at the time and promised to do better, but the EEOC was not satisfied.

So, last summer, the Federal Commission decided to subpoena the university demanding lists of members of Penn's Jewish community. That meant names, phone numbers, mailing addresses of employees of the Jewish studies program, lists of clubs, groups and organizations, quote, related to the Jewish religion, faith, ancestry, or national origin, and rosters of those groups, even names and contact information of staff and faculty who participated in confidential listening sessions focused on anti-Semitism.

The government said it wanted the information to find witnesses or victims of religious-based harassment in order to investigate anti- Semitism.

AMANDA SHANOR, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, WHARTON SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA: The government has been clear that what they're looking for is essentially a list of Jewish employees.

FREEMAN: Amanda Shanor is a professor at Wharton and also represents Penn community members whose information is at risk. She argued the subpoena is unconstitutional on several fronts.

SHANOR: Unlike things like race or sex or age, that people oftentimes voluntarily tell their employer about themselves. Nobody tells their employer about their religious beliefs or their associations with different groups.

FREEMAN: The subpoena would force Penn to comb through organizations itself and create lists of Jewish-affiliated community members who work in some way for the university. Shanor says that's unprecedented.

[18:30:00]

SHANOR: This case is about whether or not the government has the power to do that, not just with regard to Jewish groups, but with regard to anyone.

FREEMAN: Penn offered other solutions but declined to create the lists. So, the government sued to enforce the subpoena, and Penn stood firm. The government's demand implicates Penn's substantial interest in protecting its employee's privacy, safety, and First Amendment rights, the university wrote in a court filing.

Well, this march, all parties argued in federal court in Philadelphia. You are being accused of trying to, among other things, create a central registry of Jews or a list of Jews, said Judge Gerald Pappert during oral arguments. How do you respond to that? The government's attorney dismissed that as political rhetoric before arguing, I can't imagine anything more relevant in a hostile work environment case than gathering the folks subjected to that environment and finding out what went on.

RABBI GABE GREENBERG, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PENN HILLEL: I have been the director of Penn Hillel for five years. There is not a single issue that I have seen such widespread agreement on until this, that this move by the EEOC is the wrong way to go about getting this information.

FREEMAN: Why, from your perspective, should other people who are not just Jewish, pay attention to what's happening here?

GREENBERG: Every minority group should feel invested in the protection of other minority groups. This -- it's a slippery slope. Giving too much power to the government can lead to future governments or bad actors using that information.

FREEMAN: Danny Freeman, CNN, Philadelphia.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TAPPER: And our thanks to Danny Freeman. In response to the story, the EEOC said it does not comment on pending litigation. A judge's ruling on the subpoena is expected any day now.

Will the Justice Department ever release all of its files on now dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein? And why are those files not already public? The top Republican leading the charge in the House Oversight Committee to get those answers is going to join us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, tomorrow marks two weeks since the House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the attorney general, Pam Bondi, over the Justice Department's handling, or mishandling, of the investigation into the deceased pedophile. Jeffrey Epstein. The subpoena set April 14th for her testimony. That's two weeks from tomorrow.

Lawmakers could question Bondi theoretically about her department's compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which required the release of all the department's files.

Were joined by the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Kentucky Republican James Comer, right now. Chairman Comer, thank you for joining us.

So, the DOJ, they've released about half of the 6 million Epstein documents that they claim to possess. Do you have any idea if the Rest, the other 3 million documents or so, will be made available to the committee or to the public?

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): Well, that's a great question, one that I probably couldn't have answered prior to Attorney General Bondi coming in last week giving us a briefing on where we are. Well, obviously, there's a lot of frustration on both sides of the aisle in Congress, as witnessed by the subpoena to Pam Bondi for a deposition on this very subject.

So, what she told us is that there are so many class action lawsuits. And you saw, I believe it was Bank of America settled with many of the victims last week, that's a third bank that settled with the victims of Epstein. There are many more banks that are -- that have ongoing class action lawsuits. And then, you know, because of the class action lawsuits, it's difficult for the Department of Justice to turn over some of the documents.

And then the other issue, Jake, is that there are some women who were victims, but they're also victimizers, meaning that they were victimized by Jeffrey Epstein, but somewhere along the way, they became in his inner circle and started recruiting other girls to come in and be victimized by Jeffrey Epstein. So, those who were victims and victimizers want their names redacted on everything. Many of us on the Oversight Committee, including some Democrats, don't want the ones who were also victimizers. We don't want their names redacted.

And there's been confusion with the Department of Justice. They released some names, and you remember some of the victims said that's not fair. My name wasn't redacted. I wanted my name redacted. That's because they were a victim and a victimizer.

So, there's a lot of issues as to why all the documents haven't been released, but we're still pressing forward trying to get as many documents released as humanly possible, as many as the courts will allow us to release, because we promised transparency and we're doing everything in our ability to deliver on that promise.

TAPPER: Right. But, technically, the Justice Department for months now has not been in compliance with the law. I mean, they just -- they haven't released all the files as mandated. They didn't properly redact some of the release files. Not -- I'm not even talking about the victims/victimizers that you discussed, I'm talking about hiding the names of men that, you know, were in Jeffrey Epstein's inner circle.

Do you have confidence in the Justice Department as it pertains to the Epstein case?

COMER: Well, I think the Justice Department has botched this. I don't think anyone in America, Republican or, you know, avid Trump supporter, would defend the way that this has been rolled out. Having said that, it's very complicated because of all the lawsuits.

And here's another thing that adds to the difficulty in this whole investigation, is we've met with the victims numerous times. My staff attorneys are in contact with their staff attorneys. I know many of the female members in both parties are in constant communication with many of the victims. And to this day, they have not given us one single name of a man who has victimized them. Now, part of the reason is because many of them have received settlement.

So, what they're asking us to do is to get as much information and make public as possible, and that's what we're trying to do.

[18:40:01]

And I do think after listening to Attorney General Bondi, that there are legitimate legal reasons as to why some of the documents haven't been released, those being, as I said earlier, there are many ongoing class action lawsuits and there are many non-disclosure agreements that have been signed by multiple parties, not just men, not just businesses, but also some of the victims.

So, it's a pretty complicated mess here, but we're going to continue to do everything we can to get the answers to the American people. We want to see prosecutions and we want to see people held accountable, and we're going to do everything we can to see that that happens.

TAPPER: There are a number of men named in the files, according to people who have looked at the documents at the Justice Department. And I guess the question I have is, is there enough credible testimony in what has been released and what has not been released for, at the very least, the FBI to be covered -- to be engaged in investigations for potential criminal prosecution of some of the male perpetrators who raped the underage girls or otherwise participated? Do you think there's enough to investigate?

COMER: It's difficult. The government did a terrible job investigating Jeffrey Epstein, going back to, you know, the Alex Acosta days when he was U.S. attorney in Miami. I believe that was 2006, '07 and '08, those years, the government failed the victims, and then the gap between 2008 and his later conviction in 2019. That spanned many presidential administrations, many attorney general, many different Departments of Justice. All along the way, the government failed. And there's not a lot of evidence lying around to prosecute some of these men.

Now, we're bringing many of those men in. We've already deposed several of them, and I'll name a name right now, Les Wexner. We deposed him for several hours. That was a bipartisan deposition. The Democrats and Republicans both grilled -- our staffs, staff attorneys, who were professional deposers, grilled Mr. Wexner, and we've released those videos. And he either couldn't recall or claimed he wasn't that close with Epstein. That's counter to what everything in the documents would suggest.

But because these crimes were committed decades ago, because the federal government did a terrible job putting together hardly any evidence to prosecute Epstein, it's very difficult to prove whether or not Mr. Wexner was telling the truth or not.

TAPPER: Republican Congressman James Comer of Kentucky, the chairman of the House of Oversight Committee, thank you, sir. I appreciate it.

Critics have called the online influencer, Hassan Piker, anti-woman, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic. So, why are so many Democrats doing campaign events with him? We're going to explore that very question next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:46:44]

TAPPER: Our politics lead now. Now, Hasan Piker might not be a household name, at least among adults, but ask your kids. His new role as a midterm surrogate for some Democrats is proof that his political influence is expanding far beyond the streaming platform Twitch, where he has taken up residence.

He is, without question, an online influencer with nearly 3 million followers. His rise as a prominent voice on the left is now driving a wedge between Democrats and for good reason. Hasan Piker's past and present is checkered with controversial, it not outrageous, if not bigoted comments like this one.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HASAN PIKER, ONLINE INFLUENCER: America deserved 9/11, dude. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) it, I'm saying it. We (EXPLETIVE DELETED) totally brought it on ourselves, dude. Holy shit.

The ultra-orthodox Jews leaving Israel. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) hilarious. Okay? If they serve in the military and then they get their (EXPLETIVE DELETED) untrained, inbred asses shipped into southern Lebanon again. Again, very funny.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Piker calling orthodox jews inbred.

Pikers also posted comments such as these where he unequivocally sides with Hamas, calling them the lesser of two -- Israel's compared to the government -- evils -- lesser of two evils compared to the government of Israel.

Piker has since apologized for his comments on 9/11, but he stood by the rest. He's accusing others of taking him out of context and a "Wall Street Journal" op-ed, the leaders of the Democratic think tank Third Way, right? Quote, "Mr. Piker is anti-American, anti-women, anti-Western and antisemitic. No Democrat should engage with him. All should seek to push him to the fringe where he belongs," unquote.

Hasan Piker has recently become an issue in Michigan. It's home to a competitive three way Democratic primary for governor. Dr. Abdul El- Sayed, one of the three candidates and a former CNN commentator, announced that Piker will join him for two rallies in April. His opponents quickly seized on that, slamming the decision as unacceptable, calling piker not somebody that you should be campaigning with at a moment when there's clearly a lot of pain and trauma across our state.

Our Donie O'Sullivan caught up with Piker over the weekend at a "No Kings" rally in New York, and asked how he fits into the Democratic Party's future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: You have become -- you have become an issue within the Democratic Party yourself. Tell us about that.

PIKER: I don't think I'm necessarily an issue within the Democratic Party as much as I am an issue for a lot of consultants.

I don't want fascism to win in this country. I don't want Republicans to win in this country. We can argue on the methods. Maybe you think that my world view and my values and the policies that I want politicians to represent might be different than yours. But at the end of the day, I think we have the same goals.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: I should note, I misspoke. It's a Michigan Senate primary, not governor primary.

Jonah Platt is with us. He's the host of "Being Jewish with Jonah Platt" podcast.

Peter Hamby is the founding partner of Puck News.

And, Peter, look, obviously he has said a lot of things that a lot of people find outrageous. And he's called one Jew a Zionist pig dog. He is called Hamas, a -- the Palestinian resistance. He has justified October 7th and on and on and on.

What does his influence tell you about where the Democratic Party stands today? And I guess, is it despite those comments or because of those comments?

[18:50:01]

PETER HAMBY, FOUNDING PARTNER OF PUCK NEWS: I think it's despite those comments a little bit. I mean, back to your first question, what it says about the party, I think Dr. Abdul El-Sayed is looking for a lane in a three-way primary. He is slightly behind in the polling. And like a lot of Democrats and a lot of progressives, after the 2024 election, wants to connect with young people, connect with young men, go into the manosphere, go into the podcast space.

It just so happens that Hasan Piker is aligned with a lot of Dr. Abdul El-Sayed's views on healthcare, on taxing the rich and billionaires, et cetera. He is a Bernie, AOC, Zohran guy, but with that, he has a long reputation of saying all of the things you just played here. I was just talking to you before the segment.

I mean, I think it is a risk for Abdul El-Sayed to have him come into the state. It's an obvious risk, but he is grasping for votes in a crowded three way primary in a state, Michigan, which you remember from 2024, both in the primary Democratic primary and the general election, has a lot of Arab and Muslim voters outside of Detroit and Dearborn and Dearborn Heights. And Democrats have been suffering there. And I think he's trying to grab on to them. He's doing rallies at Michigan and Michigan State, so he's trying to go after young people.

But one thing I do want to point out, jake, that you said in the intro that he's not a household name speaking with American Men Project, which was launched to study young men by Democrats after 2024, polled Hasan Piker's name among young men. He's not well known at all. About half of young people don't know who he is.

And then his favorable rating, he's negative 9 percent. He's underwater with faves. Only 20 percent of young men have a favorable opinion of Hasan Piker. And that's sort of why I say, is it worth the gamble to do this?

TAPPER: And, Jonah, in that "Wall Street Journal" op ed that I talked about, the think tank Third Way, they wrote, were all for a big tent, but the Democratic Party needs to draw a line in the sand. Hasan Piker and his fellow Jew haters belong on the other side.

Donie O'Sullivan asked Piker to respond to critics who call him antisemitic. He quoted a few things that Piker had said, especially Zionist dog or Zionist pig, or I think the actual quote was Zionist pig dog, whatever that means.

Here is Piker's response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PIKER: I've spent my entire professional media career and far beyond that, combating antisemitism. I've been doxxed, swatted by neo-Nazis, for my consistent advocacy against antisemitism.

I just also happen to be an avowed anti-Zionist. I believe Zionism is a very racist ideology. It's an ethno-religious supremacist ideology, and it's the underpinning ideology that has caused the genocide of Palestinians in the hands of Israel and also the United States of America.

(END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: Jonah, there's a lot to unpack there. What's your response?

JONAH PLATT, HOST, "BEING JEWISH WITH JONAH PLATT" PODCAST: Yeah, I mean, what piker does that a lot of people of his ilk do is they try to inoculate themselves against claims of Jew hatred by pointing it out in places that aren't them. He's been very clear, pointing things out on the right. Oh, that's antisemitism. These are the tropes they use.

And then he'll use the exact same tropes and just sub Jew for Israel, which is the place where all Jews collectively have a connection to and is the homeland where more than 50 percent of Jews on planet earth live. So, it's not -- he would never say Jews control the media, but Israel controls the media. And, you know, the Jews didn't pull us into the war with Iran and control the American government, but Israel does.

And so, he's able to sort of get away with some of this stuff in these subtle ways, when really his impact is just as harmful as any out and out antisemite. Just he's got a different name and he comes from a different wing of politics.

TAPPER: It's interesting. "Politico" asked a bunch of Democratic politicians running for president, or who might run for president if they would ever do his podcast, and the only two Jews thinking about possibly running for president, Rahm Emanuel and Josh Shapiro both suggested that they might be willing to.

HAMBY: I think this gets to something important with this debate in Michigan. It's different to go on to his podcast and joust over ideas. I think seeing Josh Shapiro and Hasan Piker on his Twitch stream would be fascinating. I think Josh Shapiro is smart, and they would have a spirited debate. As they say in politics. The difference is going out to campaign with somebody and the candidate. Its implicitly endorsing his views or suggesting, why don't you come to Michigan and campaign with me?

That's the difference. I think candidates should be able to go on to podcasts with people who disagree with them. But yeah, I mean, the politics of Israel heading into 2028 are going to be fascinating. You're already seeing tons of Democrats kind of come out against AIPAC --

TAPPER: Right.

HAMBY: -- but also defending Israel. Gavin Newsom obviously had to walk back, calling Israel an apartheid state.

The other thing that's a factor here, the more Democrats engage with influencers heading into 2028, they're going to have to confront some views, the things they might have said in the past.

TAPPER: Quick one sentence, final thoughts on this. Are you worried about the direction of the Democratic Party?

PLATT: I'm worried. I agree that they should be able to debate. [18:55:01]

But they have to come in clear-eyed and know that they're there to debate and push back on these bad ideas, not to get chummy and have a fun conversation.

TAPPER: Thanks so much for being here. Great -- What a great time to be in L.A. to have you both in studio. Really amazing.

PLATT: Thanks, Jake.

TAPPER: The U.S. army is launching an investigation into this Apache helicopters hovering over Kid Rock's home. Check out that pool. What we know about this one. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our national lead, why were Apache helicopters hovering over Kid Rock's Nashville area home? While the U.S. Army is investigating this video he posted, where the Trump-supporting musician is seeing waving at choppers that briefly hover his swimming pool Saturday. CNN's reached out to Kid Rock's agency for comment.

Also on our pop culture lead, superstar Celine Dion is celebrating her birthday today. She had a big announcement. She's returning to the stage for a 10-show run in Paris starting in September. For years, Dion has been struggling with what's called stiff person syndrome. It's a rare neurological disorder.

Today, she said she's doing great and of course, we all wish her the best.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now. I'll see you tomorrow.