Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump And Republicans Clash Over "Anti-Weaponization" Fund; Tulsi Gabbard Resigning As Director Of National Intelligence; Trump Fuels Confusion, Says He's Sending 5,000 Troops To Poland; Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA), Is Interviewed About Longtime Epstein Aide Names Three Alleged Abusers; Calls Grow For DNC Chair Ken Martin To Resign Over 2024 Autopsy. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired May 22, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:32]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Under fire from his own party today, it's Trump himself defending that $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization" Fund. The Lead starts right now.

The president at odds with growing pushback, even from Republicans over his fund to compensate those who feel wronged by the federal government. What Trump says this fund is really for and the very strong reaction against it.

Plus, a surprise announcement from Director of Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard stepping down from her post. What we're learning about her sudden decision to resign.

And brand new reporting in the Epstein scandal. The dead pedophile's longtime assistant naming names, accusing three specific men of sexual misconduct.

Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

The lead tonight, President Trump standing behind his $1.776 billion "Anti-Weaponization" Fund, even as Republican senators increasingly condemn the idea. And the controversy threatens to divide his party even further. Trump writing today on social media, quote, "I gave up a lot of money in allowing the fund," saying he could have settled his lawsuit against the IRS for $10 billion over his leaked tax returns.

For much more, the New York Times reported this week, we should note that IRS lawyers had prepared several ways for the Justice Department to fight Trump's $10 billion lawsuit. They wrote this down in a 25 page memo passed on to the Treasury Department, although it's unclear if that memo ever reached the Justice Department. Ultimately, the Justice Department, which reports to Donald Trump, of course, never fought the lawsuit, leading to this highly unusual situation. Both Treasury and IRS did not respond to the New York Times request for comment. And the Justice Department did not tell the Times why it chose to settle this case the way it did. Sources tell CNN that the White House has no plans to change the structure of the fund, even after a fraught meeting on Capitol Hill yesterday between the acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and several upset Senate Republicans. The White House says the administration appreciated the feedback and looks forward to additional conversations as needed. Well, it looks like they will be needed.

Senate Republicans abruptly left town last night without acting on key legislation, specifically Trump's immigration package, the White House is now feeling the full force of a furious majority. Former Republican leader Mitch McConnell rebuked the pitch, saying, quote, "So the nation's top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong, take your pick," unquote.

How about both? Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson is one of the few senators who has publicly supported the fund, but he does see its introduction on the same week as his key vote on Trump's immigration bill, angering his party at the wrong time, saying, quote, "Somebody described it as a galactic blunder, and I think that's probably true," unquote.

Joining us now to discuss, CNN's Lauren Fox and Paula Reid.

Paula, what are your sources telling you about why the White House and the Justice Department are so dead set on sticking by this fund and the way it's being distributed, which is confidentially and anyone can apply, despite the questions and the backlash?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: They're true believers. Look, they have been swimming in this idea and this concept for years. It goes back to 2023, when Trump was thinking about taking back the White House. And anyone involved in the creation of this is either a Justice Department lawyer, a White House lawyer, IRS lawyer, a Trump personal lawyer. These are the people that really believe that the president was mistreated while he was out of office, that he was a victim of the Justice Department and other people were, too.

And they truly believe that once they pick these five members and the rules are laid out, that people will see why this is a good idea. But they put forth a ton of money, not a lot of details. And there's no reason that taxpayers should just believe, right, five, as of yet unnamed people will protect this from becoming a feeding frenzy.

TAPPER: And they have refused to rule out that people who were convicted of beating up cops would get some of the money. They just have --

REID: Also an optics problem. Yes.

TAPPER: Optics at the very least.

And, Lauren, you talk with these Republican senators day in, day out. Help us understand why else they're so frustrated with Trump's calculation here.

[17:05:00]

LAUREN FOX, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I mean, this was a really tough week for Senate Republicans, in part because they saw one of their colleagues, Senator Bill Cassidy, ousted on Saturday night. Then you saw Senator John Cornyn, who was once the Republican whip in Trump's first administration, he was -- it was announced that his challenger was going to be endorsed by Donald Trump. And there was this feeling in the United States Republican Conference in the Senate that if this can happen to John Cornyn, it can happen to any of them. And it really, I think, made a lot of Senate Republicans that I was talking to really rethink how far they are willing to go for this administration, because there is a sense that there is no limit. And any time you take this risk, there's a possibility that Donald Trump can come for you in the future if you cross him, even in the slightest way.

This was one of the Republican senators I talked to yesterday of Indiana, Todd Young.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: You --

SEN. TODD YOUNG (R-IN): This is why we were elected.

FOX: Do you think --

YOUNG: Why the American people elected us was to control the untenable open border situation. This is what unifies Republicans. And we talk through the best path to get there in a way that is filled with integrity and still maintains the trust of the American people.

FOX: Do you believe that this weaponization fund needs to get out of this bill?

YOUNG: I believe everything I just shared with you is how I'd like to frame this issue. I understand you may have different framing that you think is appropriate.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

FOX: So what he -- what he's referring to there, Jake, of course, is the reality that Republicans were ready to vote for this immigration bill, then this weaponization fund derailed it. He didn't really want to address the fact that that was what derailed it, but he wanted to focus on the fact Republicans are united about the immigration stuff. Let's just stick to that.

TAPPER: Yes. And, Paula, Trump says this fund is about helping others who were badly abused. That includes, as far as his officials say, as far as we know --

REID: Yes.

TAPPER: -- January 6th, defendants such as Ryan Nichols. He's seeking $35 million from the fund. Here's a video of this gentleman from January 6th itself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RYAN NICHOLS, PARDONED JAN. 6 PROTESTER: We're not going to have our election our country stolen. If we find out you politicians voted for it, we're going to drag your (BLEEP) ass through the street --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Exactly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Exactly.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

NICHOLS: Because it's the second revolution and we're (BLEEP) done. I'm telling you right now, Ryan Nichols said it, if you voted for (BLEEP) treason, we're going to drag your (BLEEP) ass through the street.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Voting for treason. What he's saying is, if you vote to except the electors that were -- that were voted by the American people. Nichols pleaded guilty to two felonies tied to January 6, including assaulting law enforcement officers. He was sentenced to more than five years in prisons. Then, of course, he got a pardon from President Trump on day one of the second Trump administration.

And this gentleman, Mr. Nichols posted today, quote, "for a stolen election, we didn't go hard enough. As the president said we were right." We should also note that he was actually arrested in Texas last week of -- on charges of harassment and deadly conduct. Separate issue.

As the fund is structured right now, will the Justice Department ever have to release to the public who they grant taxpayer money to? Because certainly, certainly there is an issue and it's not just optics with giving this gentleman $35 million.

REID: Yes. On paper, in the settlement, no, there is no requirement. But on Tuesday, when the acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche testified under oath, he said he would be as transparent as possible with names and with amounts. Now, there are carve outs for privacy laws, so he has vowed transparency. But remember, he's the acting attorney general.

So in a universe where he is not selected or confirmed as attorney general, someone else could come in and say, well, I didn't promise that. So, yes, but --

TAPPER: Yes. Also, politicians have a way of not always honoring their promises.

Lauren, House Republicans do not appear to be on the same page as Senate Republicans about. The Senate Republicans, many of them seem upset about this, except for Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. We're not getting that from House Republicans. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): I think it's a gutless move by the Senate. I think they ought to be ashamed of themselves. And if the House pulled that stunt, I'd be calling our leadership out right now.

REP. KEVIN HERN (R-OK): This all started under Joe Biden going after President Trump with the courts and, you know, this is an opportunity for those folks out there that felt like that happened to them to have access to monies that they otherwise wouldn't have.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Are you surprised that there's such a difference between House Republicans and Senate Republicans on this?

FOX: No. In part because, you know, the House and Senate fighting with one another is a tale as old as time on the Hill. But I will say I do think the Senate reached a new level of frustration this week that I have not seen since they failed to repeal and replace Obamacare in Trump's first administration. The vibes on the Hill, in the Senate chamber, they were really bad this week.

TAPPER: I have to tell you, I loved being a congressional correspondent. It was one of my favorite jobs.

FOX: Don't tell. It's the best job there is. Yes.

TAPPER: I know, because they're all right there and you can actually talk to them and they're like you saw Senator Young, he's legitimately upset.

[17:10:02]

Shifting gears to another important story that just broke, Paula, federal judge dismissed charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia. That's the man that the Trump administration deported to El Salvador initially despite an order barring his removal to that country. The judge said that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche played what he called a tainted role in this investigation. What else can you tell us about this?

REID: So you may remember when Brigo Garcia was sent to El Salvador, he sued, he was returned. And then the Justice Department filed this case alleging that he was trafficking unlawfully migrants back in 2022.

TAPPER: Yes.

REID: And his lawyers were trying to get this toss, saying, look, if you hadn't sort of embarrassed the administration with this lawsuit over being sent to El Salvador, they never would have brought this criminal case. And this judge agreed, calling it, you know, improper, these prosecutors to do this. So the Justice Department just weighed in. They're punching back against this judge, saying that this is dangerous, that he is politically motivated and they have vowed to appeal. But this is, you know, this is -- you know, this isn't great for the Trump Justice Department because there have been a lot of questions about politically motivated prosecutions.

And to have such a high profile case tossed, not great. But this is not the end of the road. I mean, this will be appealed. And I would expect that this Justice Department would fight this all the way to the Supreme Court.

TAPPER: Theoretically, Garcia could apply for money through this weaponization fund.

REID: He could. Yes. No partisan requirements.

TAPPER: Don't think that would be granted. That's just my take. Paula Reid --

REID: Wait (ph) for the members.

TAPPER: Paula Reid, Lauren Fox, thanks so much.

Ahead, the growing calls for Ken Martin, the current head of the Democratic National Committee, to take a hike in the wake of the party's bungled autopsy of the 2024 presidential election. But first, the abrupt announcement today from former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who's resigning as Trump's Director of National intelligence. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:38]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, a major resignation in Trump's Cabinet. The Director of National Intelligence, former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, Tulsi Gabbard, says she will step down at the end of June. On X she wrote, quote, "My husband Abraham has recently been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of bone cancer. He faces major challenges in the coming weeks and months. At this time, I must step away from public service to be by his side and fully support him through this battle," unquote.

Very sad news. And we are, of course, on a personal level keeping Abraham and Tulsi in our prayers during this difficult time for them personally. But of course, this is also a story that has political and intelligence ramifications. So let's discuss that with CNN National Security Analyst Beth Sanner.

So, Beth, you served as the Deputy Director of National Intelligence under both the Trump and Biden administrations. What's your reaction to Tulsa Gabbard's exit?

BETH SANNER, FORMER DEPUTY DNI: Yes, well, I also want to extend my condolences. I mean, this is --

TAPPER: Horrible. SANNER: -- having cancer myself, you know, horrible. So, you know, but I think that the issue here is what is the role of the Director of National Intelligence and does it matter? And under this administration, it doesn't matter. And I think that that's bad because, you know, there's certainly been critics for a long time about the purpose of ODNI, but it fills important gaps and holes and forces coordination and makes different agencies behave and, you know, is the final arbiter of the PDB, the Presidential Daily Brief.

TAPPER: Presidential Daily Briefing. Yes.

SANNER: You know, so all of these things matter. But in this administration, you know, Tulsi was, you know, put in a position where I think that she just was such a bad fit that it became absolutely nothing. And she then turned to other endeavors.

TAPPER: So her tenure, it's impossible to say it hasn't been rocky, at least --

SANNER: Yes.

TAPPER: -- within the administration. You might remember earlier this year, when President Trump and his inner circle were in the Situation Room finalizing the operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, DNI Gabbard was nowhere near the White House, instead she was posting photographs of herself on a beach in her native Hawaii. Do you think that -- I mean, look, what's going on with her husband is horrible.

SANNER: Yes.

TAPPER: But removing that from -- do you think that her tenure was bound to come to a quick -- an end soon enough anyway?

SANNER: Totally. I mean, I think it was inevitable. She was almost fired. She was this close to being fired two months ago. And, you know, only the intervention of Roger Stone saved her, and he repeated that publicly. So I think we know that that's true.

And, you know, and this was because basically, she's just not in sync with this administration. And I feel like it's interesting because she was in sync with the campaign --

TAPPER: Right.

SANNER: -- anti-war, anti-foreign intervention, concerns about nuclear war, all of these things.

TAPPER: But she was always very outspoken against the war, against any war in Iran. And in fact, when she ran for president as a Democrat, in 20 --

SANNER: T-shirts.

TAPPER: Yes. She had T-shirts about, like --

SANNER: Yes.

TAPPER: -- you know, no war with Iran.

SANNER: No war with Iran.

TAPPER: Yes.

SANNER: Exactly.

TAPPER: Yes.

SANNER: So that became awkward, to say the least.

TAPPER: To say the least. Which is not to say that she was necessarily wrong.

SANNER: No. No. But this is why her initials DNI became Do Not Invite.

TAPPER: Right. So she wrote in the Post that -- or Trump wrote in the Post rather, that Aaron Lucas is going to take over her position in an acting capacity. What do we know about him and how long will a transition period last, do you think?

SANNER: So there -- his background is now public, so I can talk about it, that he is a former CIA Director of Operations officer. He has gained some experience, obviously, from this and from being Rick Grenell's chief of staff. But he is a case officer. And I think that, you know, for me, that is not the position I would put someone into this role because there is such a wide thing that ODNI does. It has to do with satellites and overhead architecture and intercepts and, you know, coordinating all of that that is way beyond just human collection.

And so, you know, I think it will be a big step up for him. He's a likable person, but I think, you know, a big step up in terms of this is a very big role compared to what he's been in the past.

[17:20:04]

TAPPER: Beth, there are only so many jobs Marco Rubio can do. So I don't know what you're thinking.

SANNER: I am enjoying the meme.

TAPPER: Beth Sanner, thanks so much.

A rather confusing reversal today from President Trump. He's sending 5,000 troops to Poland after stopping in order to do just that weeks ago. We're going to try to make sense of that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our World Lead, President Trump is fueling confusion around the world after his announcement today sending 5,000 troops to Poland. The surprise move comes one week after Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth stopped a combat team's deployment to Poland. Hegseth's reasoning? Well, he said European allies have not stepped up enough when America needed them.

[17:25:08]

Now the Wall Street Journal reports, quote, "Trump asked Hegseth in a recent phone call why the troop deployment to Poland had been canceled." Trump told Hegseth that the U.S. shouldn't treat Poland poorly, given it is an American ally with close ties to the White House," unquote.

Joining us now, Leon Panetta, former secretary of defense and former CIA director under President Obama.

Director Panetta, what message is Trump sending with reversing his own defense secretary plan, deploying 5,000 troops to Poland? And what do you make of the fact that, at least according to the Wall Street Journal, Trump didn't even know why Hegseth was doing this?

LEON PANETTA, FORER DEFENSE SECRETARY, OBAMA ADMIN.: Well, the bottom line here, Jake, is that the White House and Department of Defense are sending an awful lot of mixed messages about just exactly what is the United States commitment to NATO and to supporting our efforts to try to make sure that NATO remains strong. And by -- you know, look, there's, there's no question here that the president acted first by reducing the 5,000 in Germany because he didn't like the chancellor's comments about his handling of the war in Iran. And then it became an effort to move some of those to Poland, and now it was reversed by the president. But now he's going to take the 5,000 and send them to Poland.

I mean, the problem is it isn't based on defense strategy. It's not based on what's important in order to protect our national security. It's based solely on personal whims.

TAPPER: Yes, that's what I was going to ask. How much does this deployment seem driven by strategy and geopolitical needs versus his transactional, Trump's transactional approach to which allies are nice to him?

PANETTA: Yes, no, no, there's no question. It's, you know, he likes Poland, so he's going to send him a few troops. That's a nice gesture, but it's not what we ought to be doing in terms of our national defense policy. I just think that the most important thing the United States has to do is to stand by our allies, particularly in Europe.

Now, look, we've got 80,000 troops that are stationed in Europe, so in terms of numbers, this is not going to impact very much. But when you -- when you -- when you have these kinds of mixed messages, what it does is it sends a signal to our allies that the United States cannot be trusted.

TAPPER: Secretary --

PANETTA: And that hurts our credibility in terms of our position in Europe with our allies.

TAPPER: Secretary of State Rubio was in Sweden today, an ally, meeting with NATO leaders. His visit comes as America's relationship with the NATO alliance remains strained for a number of reasons, but right now, especially over the war in Iran. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: The president's views, frankly, disappointment at some of our Naito allies and their response to our operations in the Middle East have they are well documented. That will have to be addressed. It won't be solved or addressed today. That's something for the leaders level to discuss.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Do you see the U.S. remaining in Naito much longer? Are you worried about that?

PANETTA: Well, I worry about these signals that are constantly being sent either by the president or by the secretary of State or by the secretary of Defense that keep indicating that we're not going to be there in terms of support for NATO.

Look, I don't think we're going to leave NATO. The Congress certainly isn't going to vote for the United States to leave NATO, and that's what would have to happen. But unfortunately, there's damage being done every time these kinds of mixed signals come out. And right now if you talk to the head of NATO, what he's saying is, frankly, we don't trust the United States as an ally right now. And that I think is dangerous in terms of the security of Europe.

TAPPER: Secretary Leon Panetta, thanks so much for your time. And on this Memorial Day weekend, I wish you a meaningful Memorial Day. I know you're a veteran and I'm sure you'll be thinking about your fallen -- your fallen colleagues.

We knew Jeffrey Epstein's long --

PANETTA: Yes, thank you, Jake.

[17:29:46]

TAPPER: We knew Jeffrey Epstein's longtime assistant accused three men of sexual misconduct, which he was being questioned by House Oversight Committee members yesterday. Today we are going to tell you the names of those men. We have brand new reporting on The Lead. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: We have some new reporting in our Law and Justice Lead. Sources tell CNN that lawmakers investigating convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein are turning their attention right now to three men who yesterday were accused by Epstein's longtime assistant Sarah Kellen of sexual abuse during her closed-door testimony with the House Oversight Committee.

Sources told CNN that Kellen named these three men Frederic Fekkai, a French celebrity hairstylist, whose representatives deny that he's done anything wrong, Philip Levine, the former mayor of Miami Beach and cruise industry entrepreneur, and Patrick Demarchelier, a French fashion photographer. CNN reached out to Levine and to representatives for Demarchelier, who died in 2022, but we have yet to hear back.

[17:35:06]

Sources also told CNN that Kellen accused Fekkai and Levine of sexually assaulting her and testified that Demarchelier exposed himself to her. We should note none of the men have been charged with any crime in connection with Epstein.

Joining us to discuss is Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw of Virginia, who is on the House Oversight Committee, and you were in this closed session. You can confirm that she named these three individuals?

REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: That's correct.

TAPPER: And what is -- so what? Like, is the committee now going to call the two of the three that were named who are still alive?

WALKINSHAW: Well, look, I think this is the purpose of our investigation, is to try to suss out who else might have been involved in Epstein and Maxwell's crimes. And the transcribed interview with Ms. Kellen produced several names. And look, our role in Congress isn't to prosecute anybody.

TAPPER: Right.

WALKINSHAW: But our hope, my hope, has been that our investigation will lead the Department of Justice, either this one or a future Department of Justice, to reopen this investigation that we know fell short in so many ways and pursue all of these allegations that are credible.

TAPPER: Is the committee going to call other Epstein survivors? Because it seems like these three names are, they're not new for the people who have been following the Epstein prevails over the years, but there are much bigger, wealthier people that have been named that likely other survivors would be able to name if they also testified for the committee.

WALKINSHAW: Well, a number of the -- many of the survivors have shared their stories publicly to the extent that they're comfortable sharing. We know some of those key figures like Les Wexner were never even interviewed by the FBI. I don't think we want to find ourselves forcing survivors or victims.

TAPPER: Oh, I don't mean forcing, but if any of them want to name names.

WALKINSHAW: Absolutely. Well, certainly, yes. Anyone who wants to share more information should come to us at the Oversight Committee. We've said we'll provide a forum, private or public, for anyone who wants to do that. Absolutely. TAPPER: Kellen described in graphic detail some of the sexual abuse that she says she endured by Epstein himself. She also blamed Ghislaine Maxwell for some of his wrongdoing, saying, "Maxwell turned Epstein into the monster he became." Is the committee going to continue trying to seek information from Ghislaine Maxwell?

WALKINSHAW: Absolutely, and I think Ms. Kellen's testimony yesterday highlights why this concept that Trump continues to float or consider that Ghislaine Maxwell should be pardoned is so flat out wrong. Maxwell was at the center of this. She was as abusive in many ways as Epstein was, as Ms. Kellen and others have shared with us. She shouldn't have been moved to a cushier prison situation.

TAPPER: You know, a lower --

WALKINSHAW: Pardon, yes, shouldn't be on the table. It should be ruled out. But clearly there's some information she has that Donald Trump wants to make sure it doesn't get out to the public.

TAPPER: Have you found out why she was given this nicer prison to go to, this lower security prison? Like, I mean, was there -- it's really odd, right, because she talked to now acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, said that President Trump had nothing to do with anything, and then all of a sudden was transferred to a nicer prison.

WALKINSHAW: Well, that's exactly why we're going to be questioning Pam Bondi on the 29th of this month. She's going to be asked detailed questions about that, what conversations took place with the President or anyone at the White House with Todd Blanche about that conversation, that meeting that he had with Ghislaine Maxwell.

He's refused to give straight answers about that. He claims she wasn't moved to a less secure prison situation. That's in contradiction to the facts and what even folks in those prisons have told us. So we're going to ask Pam Bondi tough questions about that.

TAPPER: Last question for you. So one of the leading proponents of making as much of the Epstein files public, Thomas Massie, congressman of Kentucky, was defeated in his reelection bid, targeted by President Trump. I've seen floated by Massie allies the idea that he should just go to the floor of the House and name names and read files that we in the public don't have access to. For those who don't know, members of Congress are -- cannot be sued for liable for things that they read on the floor of the House. There is this protection for it. Do you want him to do that?

WALKINSHAW: I want him to reveal any information that he has. Absolutely. He's done some of that already. He may feel even more free to do more of that. And I think you'll see him over the next six months before the end of his term, continue the, in my view, courageous fight he's taken on behalf of these survivors to get accountability and transparency.

TAPPER: Do you think he was targeted because of his role in getting the Epstein file? WALKINSHAW: I think that was a big part of it. Yes, I think the tens of millions of dollars spent against him by Trump and the MAGA machine, part of the Epstein cover up. No question.

TAPPER: Democratic Congressman James Walkinshaw of the great Commonwealth of Virginia. Thanks for being here.

Also in our Law and Justice Lead the British investigation into it. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, you might know him as the prince, formerly known as Andrew or the Andrew formerly known as Prince, I guess, may they be expanding.

[17:40:10]

Today, police urged the public to come forward with information as they may examine allegations of sexual misconduct. This is all part of a broader investigation to accusations that the then Prince shared confidential information with now dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he was Britain's trade envoy. Andrew vehemently denies any and all wrongdoing in his dealings with Epstein and any personal gain from his role as a British trade envoy.

Let's bring in CNN royal correspondent Max Foster. Max, what pushed investigators to make this public plea?

MAX FOSTER, CNN ROYAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it's interesting. So a general misconduct inquiry into his role at the time when he was a trade envoy in this country. So we were under the impression that was just in relation to potentially swapping files with Epstein state secrets. But the police are making clear they have also been looking at it as broad misconduct, including sexual misconduct, particularly in relation to a woman who claims that she was taken to address here in Windsor in 2010 for sexual purposes.

They have reached out to her lawyers. She's not currently cooperating with them. But as I understand it, there may be some sort of negotiation going on there. I think the purpose for this briefing, though, was to call for witnesses. There's a real determination amongst the police here to investigate properly, but they need witnesses to come forward and give them the evidence. So that's really what today was about.

But it is obviously to the public's knowledge, at least at this point, a second case, because a previous case of Virginia Giuffre, who sadly died by suicide, obviously isn't involved in this case. But she made much more serious allegations about Andrew that was settled out of court without Andrew accepting any culpability. But it does broaden this.

And it does show, I think, that in this country that the police force is doing all they can with not enough witnesses. Whereas in the United States, there seem to be lots of survivors and witnesses willing to give evidence and not the same level of investigation. So two juxtaposing positions on either side of the Atlantic.

TAPPER: Yes. Maybe we should invite Scotland Yard over here to get to the bottom. Max Foster, thanks so much. Appreciate it.

Coming up, the hot mess in the wake of the Democratic National Committee's so-called autopsy into the 2024 presidential election, complete with misspellings and glaring omissions about what went so terribly wrong with the Democratic campaign for president, and now growing calls for the DNC chair to resign. We're going to talk about this one next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:46:58]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, calls are growing for DNC Chair Ken Martin to resign over how he handled the release of the party's autopsy of the 2024 presidential election. Democratic Congressman Seth Moulton of Massachusetts is calling for Martin to exit, telling Axios it's, "Utterly nuts it took us this long to release the autopsy." Congressman Mark Pocan tell, "There doesn't seem to be a plan to turn things around and the clock is ticking. November is literally around the corner. I believe it's time for him to move on." Let's bring in the panel.

So Martin, this is just not good. He has been facing pressure to release the report after defending claims he was flip-flopping on his promise to do so in this interview with Pod Save America's Jon Favreau earlier this month. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Why not release the full report? What's in the report that you wouldn't want to publicize?

KEN MARTIN, DNC CHAIRMAN: Well, first off, yes, there's no smoking gun in the report. And I know that's what everyone's so eager to learn, the smoking gun. Guess what, Jon?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But if there's no smoking gun, why wouldn't you just release it then?

MARTIN: Because we want to keep the focus on the lessons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: So, Rob Flaherty, you were the deputy campaign manager for the Biden 2024 campaign and then the Harris 2024 campaign. You said there's no way Ken Martin can stay as DNC chair. Do you think he's going to step down?

ROB FLAHERTY, DEPUTY CAMPAIGN MANAGER, BIDEN 2024 CAMPAIGN: Well, it's hard to say, Jake. My sense is it's a harder process than it appears from the outside. So, you know, it's hard to say whether or not he will go.

TAPPER: Is there an obvious replacement?

FLAHERTY: There isn't really. I mean, there's a lot of, you know, the group chat parlor game today is trying to name who --

TAPPER: Jon Tester or whatever. Yes.

FLAHERTY: Yes, names like that. But, you know, it's hard to say what the mechanism is by which that would happen. But I do think that he does probably need to go. I mean, this is a really challenging mistake and there's a trust building process that I think we need to go through.

TAPPER: I have to say, Jonah, the bigger story to me than the fact that this autopsy is poorly written and badly constructed and contains a bunch of errors is like, I mean, as Ken Martin says, there's no smoking gun. That's the problem.

JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yes.

TAPPER: I could tell you the three smoking guns.

GOLDBERG: Yes. No, I mean, like almost all of the sort of the talk about waiting so long to release the autopsy. It's like waiting so long for Thanksgiving dinner. And then what's brought out is a nearly raw turkey, right? I mean, it's like it's not even an autopsy report. It doesn't have conclusions.

TAPPER: It doesn't mention Joe Biden running for reelection, being too old, any of that.

GOLDBERG: It doesn't mention Gaza. It doesn't mention -- I mean, it doesn't mention things that various partisans within the Democratic Party wanted it to be about. And like it turns out, it's just like an incomplete nothing burger of a mess. And it's, you know, it might as well be the new holy text for the religion of Dems in disarray.

TAPPER: Yes.

GOLDBERG: It's just -- it's like -- and so I think it's an embarrassment for Ken Martin. I think it's an embarrassment for Democrats because it's not -- what is it that Talleyrand said? It's not even a crime. It's a mistake. I mean, it's just a mess.

TAPPER: So and Kristen, you know how even though Republicans are facing headwinds because of President Trump and dissatisfaction with high prices, registered voters aren't happy with Democrats either. That doesn't mean they're not going to win the House or maybe even the Senate. But a recent New York Times poll, New York Times/Siena poll found 70 percent of those polls said they're dissatisfied with Democrats, 26 percent satisfied with the party. Trump and high prices might be enough to help them, but it's going to be a problem.

[17:50:16]

KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Yes, we're in a moment where it feels like both of America's major political parties are actively trying to lose at every possible turn. Right now, the best thing Republicans have going for them is the fact that Democrats have not yet been able to coalesce around a leader, a message, a platform, really anything besides Trump is bad.

And Democrats are fortunate that that very well may be enough, because right now, Donald Trump is committing political malpractice on a daily basis at a moment when gas prices are really high, when they're feeling unsettled about things like the war in Iran, doing things like, hey, I'm going to find $1.7 billion and I'm going to give it to Jake. I mean, just the number of things that the President seems focused on doing that are the exact things you would do if you wanted to throw the midterms away is extraordinary. And yet it's what keeps happening. And yet Democrats still doesn't feel like they're fully capitalizing on this moment as much as they probably could be.

TAPPER: You're the Democrat at the table. Do you disagree? I mean, what is the Democratic agenda?

FLAHERTY: Yes, look, I think Democrats are focused on trying to bring costs down despite Donald Trump's best efforts to make them go higher. I mean, every day Donald Trump is hitting the prices go higher button with some decision he's making. And I think focusing on affordability is the right maneuver for us at this particular time. And yes, Donald Trump is going to help us a lot on the way there.

TAPPER: So I want to ask you, Jonah, President Trump's on the campaign trail with Congressman Mike Lawler of New York today. It's one of the most competitive congressional districts. There is New York 17th. Harris won it. There are only three House Republicans who represent districts that Kamala Harris won and Lawler's in one of them. And that same New York Times/Siena poll -- Siena college poll gave Trump an approval rating of 37 percent. I mean, do you think it's smart for Trump to be in the district with Lawler?

GOLDBERG: I think it would be dumb to try to tell Trump that --

TAPPER: He can't go.

GOLDBERG: -- he can't go, right? And but no, I like at some point we may see, you know, a classic prison break where we actually see people running away from Trump. The problem is, is right now I don't think anybody can afford to do it. But it's I mean, I agree entirely with Kirsten. It's like he's a Democratic plant these days.

TAPPER: It's just Trump.

GOLDBERG: Trump, yes. I mean, like picking Paxton. I mean, you can just go down an incredibly long list. And I don't see how, you know, the basic flaw is that he's governed as if the marginal voters who basically voted against Harris or for the pre 2019 -- the pre-COVID economy. He assumed they were all super MAGA and they're not. And they're bolting away. And he can't see it.

TAPPER: And I wonder when you do your focus groups, when you read the polling. I mean, it does seem as though it voters see the same thing we see. Do they see this, he's focused on the slush fund, the so- called, he's focused on his billion dollar ballroom. He's focused on the reflecting pool. It is this like Marie Antoinette kind of presidency. You know, like people are literally having trouble making ends meet because of the war in Iran. And he said that he doesn't think about them when he's negotiating with Iran.

ANDERSON: Well, the problem that it's created politically for Republicans isn't just that it's really firing up Democrats. Every time Donald Trump does something like this, it further reminds Democrats of why they need to crawl across broken glass to vote in November. But for Republicans, while Donald Trump still firmly has hold on his MAGA base, as you've seen, when with his ability to determine who wins a Republican primary.

TAPPER: Yes.

ANDERSON: It is what I call sort of normie Republicans, Republicans who are not MAGA, but are an essential part of the Republican coalition.

TAPPER: Yes, like you two.

ANDERSON: If they don't turn out, you are not going to win. And it's those voters who are they going to complain to me in a focus group about the ballroom? Maybe not, but they're basically just going to say this doesn't really feel like what I love. And I don't feel like it's worth turning out for.

And if there's -- they're not at risk of voting for Democrats, but if they don't turn out in November, and if Republicans don't find a way to say, here's what the stakes are, here's why you've got to participate. That's going to be the kind of turnout differential that is why midterms are always so hard for the party that is in power. But just like turn that up to 11.

TAPPER: Rob, if you were king of the Democrats right now, who would you appoint to be in charge of the message and everything going forward until November?

FLAHERTY: Oh, I mean, the thing is, is I think that there's a lot of different people who can have a great message on this.

TAPPER: But who is the best one? Who's the best? I mean, is it Buttigieg? Is it Harris? Is it Hakeem? Is it Schumer?

FLAHERTY: Look, I think we've seen folks like Jon Ossoff really stepping up in Georgia, painting a really visceral image of corruption. Buttigieg has been doing really great in a number of Western states on a on a tour there. So, you know, I think there's a lot of great voices who are stepping up to tell the story of how the party is focusing on affordability.

[17:55:05]

TAPPER: And thank you all. We should note that the congressman who voted no time for the DNC to turn things around is Mark Veasey, I misspoke at Mark, not Mark Pocan. Congressman Pocan has also agreed, though, that DNC chair Ken Martin should step aside. We saw an uproar from Senate Republicans over that 1.766 billion Anti- Weaponization Fund. But the tone is not the same among House Republicans. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. This hour, a new report claims that a White House official tried to ban voting machines used in more than half of the states in the United States. Reuters detailing how this was part of a larger discussion about ways that the federal government could take control of elections away from the states. I'm going to get reaction from a Republican lawmaker in just moments.

[17:59:58]