Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Is interviewed About Sailor Went Overboard Amid Reports Of Poor Ship Conditions, Senate Ethics Panel Dismisses GOP Complaint Against Sen. Gallego; Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA), Is Interviewed About Dashcam Conflict With ICE's Account After Agent Points Gun At Woman; Federal Judge Demands Answers From DOJ Over Unredacted Files; Iowa Democrats Seek To Flip Seats In Rural Rebound; Dr. McBride: Redefine Health On Your Terms. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired August 13, 2026 - 17:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:00:26]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Is Trump's name about to go back up on the Kennedy Center? The Lead starts right now.

The world knows it as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. But today President Trump's handpicked board at the Kennedy Center voted a second time to put Trump's name on the building. This time, what they're trying to do is a little different. Board members seem to think they found a cutesy workaround after a judge ordered Trump's name removed earlier this summer. We're going to take you inside today's closed door meeting.

Plus, a growing call for answers and remedies for the toll of the Iran war on U.S. service members. Multiple reports detail worsening mental health and living conditions for the sailors aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and that a number of crew members have apparently attempted to jump overboard so filled with despair. That carrier has been deployed for a historically long period of time. What, if anything, is the Pentagon doing to address these issues?

And CNN was inside the courtroom today as a judge pressed the Justice Department about why they are still redacting parts of the Epstein files unrelated to protecting the identities of survivors. Will the public ever get to see what is printed on so many of those blacked out documents?

Welcome to The Lead, everyone. I'm Jake Tapper. We're going to start with our World Lead. A U.S. official tells CNN that a sailor was rescued this month after going overboard off the USS Abraham Lincoln. It's just one of many disturbing news reports of others jumping overboard.

A lack of proper food, worsening mental health conditions among the crew of about 5,000. The average deployment for a U.S. Navy ship is six to nine months long. And while the USS Abraham Lincoln is around the nine month mark now, they have set a modern day record for consecutive days at sea without a major port call. More than 200 days at sea. And now a different carrier group is heading to replace the Lincolns, a previously planned swap that frankly cannot come soon enough for so many of those sailors. CNN's Pamela Brown spent time aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln last month.

And Pamela, what are you learning about current conditions? And when you were there, were there warning signs about not just bad morale but sailors struggling with mental health?

PAMELA BROWN, CNN CHIEF INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT & ANCHOR: Absolutely. There were sailors I spoke to who clearly had enough. They were ready to go home. And they were very candid with me about the psychological toll this deployment has had on them.

You know, it's not a monolith, Jake. Not everyone told me the same thing. Others are saying, look, you know, this is just part of what we signed up for. I think the hardest part for these sailors is that they haven't had a regular port call, which means for some of them, they haven't -- they haven't set foot on land --

TAPPER: Yes.

BROWN: -- this entire year. They were docked in Oman for a time, but that was cut short because of the rising escalation with Iran. And so that was actually when I boarded the ship. So that's been the hardest part. One of the hardest parts.

Of course, there was complaints about food. At times, they had to ration food. There have been complaints about toilets not working, them not getting mail. Now the Navy says they have the resources they need. There had been times where there were logistical challenges because of the conflict, but right now, they are getting the mail.

They have functional AC and healthy meal options is what the Navy says. But I want you to listen to what these sailors told me, many of them very young and enlisted.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I miss my family, but being out here has been great. I'm here surrounded by friends and ship's my family.

BROWN: What's it like just from, like, a human level, a personal level, to be out at sea this long?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: For us, it's different because this is what we signed up for.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It's like, you know, when you wake up and you're like, this is like another day. It's like, oh, my God, again, you know?

BROWN: Does that feel like Groundhog Day?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes, Groundhog like really every single day. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Morale's low because we haven't hit a port in about seven months. I mean, I haven't stepped off the ship in the year 2026. I haven't been off -- I haven't been off the ship. I haven't touched land.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So just for context here, nearly half the ship you mentioned, there's around 5,000 sailors --

TAPPER: Yes.

BROWN: -- and also members of the air wing, nearly half are 25 years and younger. And just imagine, you saw how young they are in that video. It's a very different experience for the enlisted sailors versus the officers on the ship. And that's always the case on these aircraft carriers.

[17:05:01]

And I want to note, after I left, there was this man overboard episode, I'm told, happened with a sailor that was part of the air wing. This sailor was wearing a life jacket, I'm told, jumped off the ship and was rescued in about an hour in choppy waters by helicopter, evaluated and then moved off the ship. I'm told for context, that has happened historically on aircraft carriers. But Jake, of course, there is extra scrutiny and concern from the family members and the sailors on the ship with just the not knowing the uncertainty. They're not wanting to give them a firm date because they had in the past, they said they'd probably be home in May, that has been extended many times.

And so they're trying to keep it loose. But we do know that the USS George Washington is on its way, should arrive around a week.

TAPPER: All right, Pamela, let me ask you, though, what is the Trump administration saying about this, if anything, are they acknowledging that this is a problem?

BROWN: Well, you heard Secretary Hegseth today say some of these reports are being misrepresented. So he seems to be downplaying some of it. But he also said in a statement, "We make sure every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment. Some deployments are longer than others, and I have more respect and gratitude for those sailors than anybody."

I also spoke to --

TAPPER: They don't want his respect. They want help. They want -- they want food.

BROWN: They want food. And to be clear, they are getting food. There was time where they were rationing food.

TAPPER: Right. BROWN: They -- when I was there, there was no food shortage. I want to be clear on that. But at the same time, they hadn't had fruits and veggies for many, many months.

TAPPER: Right.

BROWN: I mean, look, it's like on one hand, they know they didn't sign up for summer camp or a luxury hotel. On the other hand, they look at what it should be in terms of port visits and what they've seen historically. You know, six -- usually it's around six month deployments. And they just want to feel like they're seen and heard, right? And so --

TAPPER: Yes.

BROWN: -- I think the secretary's response might not give them that feeling.

TAPPER: Yes, there is a psychological toll taken when sailors at war or at sea for so long.

Pamela, go ahead. What?

BROWN: I just want to also just read what the Navy told me --

TAPPER: Yes, yes.

BROWN: -- because I did -- I pushed the Navy today on just the psychological toll.

TAPPER: Yes.

BROWN: And is there an increase in mental health issues? And the Navy said, "We have not observed an increase in suicidal ideations or attempts aboard the ship. We take every service member's well being seriously and have religious, medical and mental health professionals available to assess and address concerns."

I will also note though, I mean, sailors are very candid with me, but it's hard when you're in that environment to raise your hand and say I'm having a mental health breakdown. I mean, even with the man overboard situation, clearly that was a cry for help.

TAPPER: Yes, no, absolutely. Pamela Brown, thanks so much.

BROWN: Thank you.

TAPPER: For reaction to the story, let's turn to Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona, who's also a U.S. Marine Corps combat veteran.

Senator, thanks for joining us. So you're among the Senate Democrats demanding answers from the Pentagon. You're asking for a bipartisan congressional delegation to be able to visit the USS Lincoln. What have you heard from the Department of the Navy or from the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth? SEN. RUBEN GALLEGO (D-AZ), HOMELAND SECURITY COMMITTEE: We haven't heard anything and all we've heard is like public, you know, announcements that what they're -- what we're seeing, what we're hearing are absolute fabrications. However, I'm actually texting and communicating with a spouse of a sailor that's on the USS Lincoln. She's been forwarding me some of the text messages that her husband has been sending her about the conditions, about the work, about the overwork that's happening, the lack of sleep, lack of food, lack of morale. All these things that have just been compounding over and over again because this war was not properly planned.

These guys do not care about these men and women. They only want to use them as much as they can and abuse them as much as they can and not really thinking about the best outcome for them. And I know it's hard being in combat zones, but even when I was in some of the hardest days of combat and some of the most dangerous parts of Iraq, I still was able to receive meals and mail and keep morale up. The fact that this administration does not care for these men enough to plan for that men -- to plan for a proper deployment tells you that they didn't really care, A, to plan about for the -- at all for a full war. And B, don't care about these men or women.

TAPPER: As you noted, the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, is poohing these reports. He said today in Panama that the reports are, quote, "completely misrepresented." He also says, quote, "we make sure every ship, every crew, every captain has everything we can provide them at every single moment," unquote. What's your response to that?

GALLEGO: Look, it's not possible that we have so many family members, sailors reaching out to members of Congress to the media. And what we're seeing with pictures, with videos, with text messages is an absolute lie. We know for a fact they've only done one port, one port call in their whole deployment. This deployment's already gone 270 days longer than they anticipated. And so we know they're not lying and -- we know they're lying.

Number two, deal with the problem. Fix the problem. That's what true leadership is, right? When I was in the hardest of situations and my officers saw that we weren't doing well, they went and fixed the problem, whether they was trying to get us better meals, better communication, any type of respite. They -- that's what you do when you're a good leader.

[17:10:12]

Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump, all they care about really is like the big, big, you know, flashy things. They're not really being honest with how this war is going. And because they don't know how the war is going to end, they don't know how to actually properly deploy these men. That's why it's putting us in this situation right now.

TAPPER: As you noted, deployments quite often are very tough. Explain to our viewers why there's something about this one for the USS Abraham Lincoln that seems to be more punishing than other deployments for other service members. GALLEGO: Well, for example, you know, and I was an infantryman, so I never got the luxury of serving on aircraft carrier. But that is still very difficult work. Number one, they haven't done any port of -- port calls, so they haven't actually gone into any friendly ports, actually, you know, refurbish or resupply or just have any type of just recreation. Number two, the food is, from what I understand in talking to the sailor is starting to dwindle. So people are getting less and less food, less and less quality food.

The hours are going longer and longer in terms of people working with less sleep. And when you start adding all that up, it becomes a very dangerous situation. Aircraft carriers can be very dangerous. You have a lot of moving parts, you have a lot of airplanes, engines. You have people that could be falling over.

And then plus the social isolation of just being on a ship for 270 days. This isn't a cruise ship, mind you. These men and women will have pressure that's put upon them, plus their jobs, plus being away from the families and the fact that they're being, you know, pushed to the limit is going to cause some, unfortunately, mental breakdowns. And we've already heard about that, too. This is why you have to properly plan for war.

This is why you understand when you're going to go into war and when you're going to come out of war and how you're going to come out of this war. This president and this secretary of Defense did not do this. And this is why they're basically flying by the seat of their pants. At the same time, it's our men and women that are suffering from it.

TAPPER: As long as I have you, in June, the Senate Ethics Committee dismissed a complaint brought against you by Republican Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna. She alleged possible campaign finance violations by you, potential sexual misconduct by you. The Ethics committee said it found no evidence that you violated federal law or Senate rules. You said that you looked forward to an apology from the congresswoman. Did you ever hear from her?

GALLEGO: No. No. And look, at the end of the day, it's -- we all knew it was lies. It was just a political hit. It continues to be more and more political hits in the future and we're just going to have to continue to push forward.

Sorry, my daughter just came in from the swimming pool.

It -- and this is what they do. They go after political -- you know, they go after the political enemies.

TAPPER: OK, go take care of your daughter. Senator Ruben Gallego, thank you so much. Appreciate your time.

GALLEGO: (Inaudible) right there.

TAPPER: If you or anyone you know is struggling with thoughts of suicide or self-harm, please call the Suicide and Crisis LifeLine at 988. You can text it too, 988. There is help for you. There is love for you.

My next guest says that he's demanding answers and consequences after an ICE agent drew his gun on a Virginia woman who was insulting him, but nothing more. What could those consequences look like? Democratic Congressman Don Beyer of Virginia is next.

Plus we're going to be joined by an attorney who just sued President Trump after the president started selling instant access to his Truth Social posts before anyone else gets them. That means companies could pay money to know what the president's about to announce before you or your other businesses find out. Those messages often move markets. That legal battle's coming up.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:17:37]

TAPPER: In our national lead, once again, ICE or Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents claim one version of events. And then videos appear and seem to show an entirely different factual set of events. On Monday, an ICE agent pulled a gun on a Northern Virginia woman, prompting renewed outrage over ICE agent's aggressive and dangerous interactions with bystanders, including American citizens. Carolina Molina told the Washington Post it, quote, "felt like a Renee Good moment," a reference to the Minnesota mom shot and killed by ICE in January.

The Department of Homeland Security called Molina a, quote, "anti-ICE agitator" who, quote, "attempted to harm officers by weaponizing her vehicle," unquote. Take a look for yourself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. You record us. You almost ran us over.

CAROLINA MOLINA, RECORDED ENCOUNTER WITH FEDERAL AGENTS: I didn't almost ran you over.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You almost ran us over. Stop playing.

MOLINA: You're a (BLEEP).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Stop playing.

MOLINA: You are full of (BLEEP).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're not funny.

MOLINA: You're not funny.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I will arrest you. Keep it up.

MOLINA: I'm a legal citizen.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep it up. I don't care.

MOLINA: Oh, my goodness.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Keep it up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're going to lock you up.

MOLINA: OK. For what?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You're the one that tried to ran us over.

MOLINA: Ran you over when? I got recording. I got dash cam. I got dash cam. That's a lie.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: So here is part of the dash cam footage she mentioned. An ICE agent blocks her car and immediately pulls her gun. Molina added this at a news conference last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOLINA: I am loudmouth. And I do feel, as an American citizen, I have a right to my First Amendment. And so I saw them out here arresting people. As you can tell by my dash cam, I passed by one of them and called him a hoe.

I decided to pull into a parking spot, pull out, and just go on my merry way when I got blocked in by one of the ICE agents, and he got out with a gun, pointed it to my head.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Joining us now, Democratic Congressman Don Beyer from Virginia, who represents the congressional district where this took place.

Congressman, obviously we haven't seen all footage of the incident. Was there a period where Ms. Molina did anything that could be construed in any way as trying to ran over the ICE officers?

REP. DON BEYER (D-VA): Not from -- we can -- we can see from the dashcam video. It's fascinating, Jake, that once she said, I have a dashcam, that ended it for them. They let her go.

[17:20:07]

And, you know, they're supposed to be wearing body cams. They've been filming lots of things, as we've seen in earlier weeks. Let's see the video that contradicts it because she's very clear that she didn't -- no way wanted to ran them over. By the way, she mentioned to our team that she loves her car. The last thing she'd want to do is hurt her car, much less hurt somebody else.

TAPPER: Congressman, you were quick to respond to the video, and you said you're going to be demanding answers. Have you reached out to DHS or ICE? How do you plan to pursue justice or consequences if, in fact the ICE agents were wrong here? If. BEYER: Well, we first called for an investigation from ICE, of course, and we want transparency. You know, we like to see whatever videos they have. We like to know, you know, who's -- what's happening there. You know, we also like to know why are they violating their own rules of engagement, their own rules of force. They made it really abundantly clear, I think, was the secretary, that we shouldn't be firing into cars.

Certainly like cars that are parked.

TAPPER: So, as mentioned, it looks like some of the agents were wearing body cameras. It's unclear if they were turned on, which is obviously an important part of the whole thing. Earlier this month, ICE announced it expected to equip every agent in the field with a body cam by the end of August. But who gets to see that footage? That's largely up to the agency.

Is there a way to demand that ICE release the footage?

BEYER: Yes, but only probably if a judge actually orders it. And if they decide to obey the judge. They don't pass it up to the Supreme Court shadow docket or something like that.

You know, the bad part is, you know, you can hear them say, she recorded us. I mean, that apparently was enough to really flip them out. But the sad part is, why pull a gun on a woman born and raised in Virginia, a mother, someone just -- you know, endangering no one, just trying to exercise her constitutional rights?

TAPPER: Yes, I mean, if she had tried to ran them over, I think it's pretty clear they would have arrested her. It seems like a fairly aggressive group of fellows.

BEYER: Yes.

TAPPER: A week ago, you made an unannounced visit to an ICE facility in Virginia with fellow members of Congress. What did you learn?

BEYER: Well, we didn't learn much that time. We went out there unannounced because we're getting lots of feedback from constituents about overcrowding, about poor medical care and about not getting fed. When we were there, there was only 15 people in the facility. It's meant for less than 12 hour holds.

So the great concern is that these unannounced visits are important just to make sure that the ICE knows that we are -- we are watching. We want to make sure that they're obeying the law.

TAPPER: CNN reporting shows that ICE is planning on spending between 10 and $20 million on electric shock gloves. The company that makes the gloves markets them as a, quote, "de-escalation device." Do you have any reaction to that news?

BEYER: I was -- I was just horrified. It reminds me of the sadness part about Abu Ghraib and about all the torture that went on in the wake of 9/11. We are not supposed to be torturers. And there must be much better ways than shocking people into submission.

TAPPER: Virginia Democrat Congressman Don Beyer, thank you so much for joining us today.

A new vote today could mean President Trump's name is going back up on the Kennedy Center despite a judge's order to remove it from the building earlier this summer. They're going to try a different tack. Those Kennedy Center board members will explain next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:27:57]

TAPPER: We're back with our Politics Lead. And if you thought the whole issue of Donald Trump's name on the Kennedy Center, if you thought that issue was gone, well, think again. Sources say the Kennedy Center board, of course hand-picked by Trump, voted to get his name on the building in a different way. They're going to add an inscription below the Kennedy Center sign says John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and underneath it, it will say restored and renovated by President Donald J. Trump. Kind of a little cutesy workaround, they think.

The board voted last December to add Trump's name to the center. So it's the Donald Trump and John F. Kennedy Center, but that was removed from the facade of the building in June after a court order. CNN Sunlen Serfaty is outside the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.

So Sunny (ph), Trump's name may be going back up after all. But that isn't the only major decision made today, huh?

SUNLEN SERFATY, CNN WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: That's right, Jake. Big moves today by the Kennedy Center board. They finally met after a few months of silence this summer, and they decided and voted to come up with a plan to close the Kennedy Center for two years while also maintaining one building called The REACH, just a short building part away from the Kennedy Center. That part would remain open, but the main complex of the Kennedy Center, known for its concerts, would be closed according to what the plan wants to do.

Now, this was, of course, in response to the judge's order saying, look, the Kennedy Center has to come up with a way to show that they actually did their due diligence, looked at plans, really deliberated, and then sought to close. They -- all the time, the judge really wanted the board to actually weigh in and not be a rubber stamp for the chairman, which of course, is President Trump. So that was an effort by the board today to make those steps.

But it was that big news that was very striking coming out of today, Jake, the fact that they are also being very defiant here and really challenging the courts in a way by saying they are going to likely and they intend to put Donald Trump's name back on the side of this building, except a small change. Instead of being over the John F. Kennedy Center, it will now be under, and it will say, "Restored and renovated by President Trump." [17:30:13]

Now, of course, the fact of the name being on the side of the Kennedy Center has been a focus for so long, since the judge ordered his name to come off this building in mid-June. I spoke just a few minutes ago to the co-counsel, the plaintiffs in this case. They said that they believe that this was cute, and they also believe that they will bring suit against Trump. Here's what the lawyer told me just moments ago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NATHANIEL ZELINSKY, WASHINGTON LITIGATION GROUP: This is very much an act of defiance. The court was very clear. The court said that the name had to come down and that it had to revert to the status quo. This is a kind of cute attempt. It's too cute by half to try to find a workaround to the court's order. And even if it's not a direct defiance of the order, it certainly is an effort to evade the court's justice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SERFATY: Now, we will see, Jake, both sides next week. They have to submit status reports to the judge by the 18th of August. So we'll get additional information from the board and also the plaintiffs, how they're arguing now with this huge act today that the Kennedy Center board voted to, again, add his name back on this building after it was the subject of so much focus over the summer.

We were here in the wee hours of the morning when the sign was coming down and when they put that tent behind me, as you can see, up so that people would not see it come down. That tent has remained up since then, Jake.

TAPPER: Sunlen Serfaty at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. Thanks so much.

CNN was inside the courtroom today as a lawsuit challenges why the Justice Department is still redacting parts of the Epstein files that are not hiding the identities of the survivors and victims. So what is being kept from the public? That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:36:22]

TAPPER: In our Law and Justice Lead, a federal judge is demanding to know why, why the Trump Justice Department, and this is actually a really good question for all of us, why is the Trump Justice Department keeping some additional Epstein files redacted? Today's hearing stems from a lawsuit challenging exactly that question.

In a moment, I'm going to talk to the independent journalist behind the lawsuit. But first, more on the judge reminding Justice Department prosecutors that he has the power to ruin their professional lives. CNN's Katelyn Polantz was inside the courtroom today. Katelyn? KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Jake, the thing that hovered over this entire hearing is whether or not Judge Emmet Sullivan would be willing to hold Justice Department lawyers in contempt, sanction them, a very profound thing that the judge has the power to do. The warning he was issuing in this hearing is that the Justice Department, what they have said in court to try and give answers to the judge about why certain documents in the Epstein files have been held back, why certain redactions are still being made, why certain pieces of the law haven't been followed yet.

The Justice Department couldn't answer some of those questions. In other ones, they said some of the information is already out there. We don't need to put out more. We don't want to put out more. And Judge Emmet Sullivan, he said that is not a good enough answer at this time. Here's the quote. "The public has a right to know what the hell is going on in this case. The victims have a right to know. The court has a right to know."

That's how Judge Sullivan set up this hearing. But he quickly turned it into one that was a history lesson, a talking to, really. It sounded at times like a teacher or a parent explaining to children, the Justice Department prosecutors in the courtroom in this instance, what Judge Sullivan was explaining to them was what had happened in his courtroom almost two decades ago in the criminal trial of Senator Ted Stevens, who was convicted.

And then Judge Sullivan had found prosecutorial misconduct. There were sanctions. There were all kinds of problems for the lawyers in that case. And it led to things that followed those lawyers for the rest of their careers. Judge Sullivan spelled that all out for the Justice Department lawyers in the courtroom today who weren't willing to be as transparent in the Epstein files as the judge wanted them to be and said, it's not a threat, but I'm just bringing this to your attention. This is a promise that he has the power to do something like this, like sanction lawyers as he did before.

No one's in trouble, he said, over and over again. And he said he just wanted to have a conversation. But contempt of court sanctions for lawyers handling the response to the judge over the Epstein files is something clearly that's a possibility on the mind of Judge Emmet Sullivan in the D.C. federal court.

TAPPER: All right, Katelyn Polantz, thanks so much. And joining us now is independent journalist Katie Phang, who filed the lawsuit. Katie, thanks so much for being here. It's great to have you. So on the possibility of the Justice Department attorneys being held in contempt of court, Judge Sullivan also essentially warned, don't ask for it unless you're really serious. Do you think that the Justice Department attorneys have shown contempt for court and should be held that way?

KATIE PHANG, SUING JUSTICE DEPT. OVER EPSTEIN DOCUMENTS: Yes, and I think it starts from the top down, as that saying is, the fish rots from the head down. Todd Blanche, conspicuously absent from court today, and he continues to send in other lawyers from the Department of Justice to be on the firing line when Judge Sullivan wants to have accountability on the fact that his orders are being ignored. Candidly, Jake, I was a little bit surprised that there wasn't more of an enforcement by Judge Sullivan today, because there's been a myriad of orders, a series of orders that have been entered by him telling Todd Blanche to do something. The critical thing about today was Todd Blanche was given yet another opportunity to come and explain why he wasn't complying.

[17:40:00]

And then there was this brand new prosecutor who filed a notice of appearance late last night named Andrew Block. He's the one who stood at the podium today, and Judge Sullivan said, but didn't you know you had to come today to answer these questions? Because Block had none of the answers that the judge wanted.

TAPPER: It's almost as if it was intentional.

PHANG: Wouldn't you think?

TAPPER: So on your lawsuit itself, aside from wanting the Justice Department to provide a list with all the redactions in the Epstein files, what specifically are you looking for and why?

PHANG: The lawsuit that I have brought wants the entirety of the Epstein files with proper legal redaction withholds that the Epstein Files Transparency Act says.

TAPPER: Which is just that -- which is just identifying information of the survivors and the victims. That's it.

PHANG: Exactly, because what we have heard through Blanche's filings, what we heard today from this federal prosecutor is the DOJ decided to do something called an attorney protocol review or attorney review protocol. And the timing of it is very interesting because they decided to publish this DOJ memo talking about how they went through the Epstein files to redact them.

But it came out in January when the full production was supposed to be due in December of 2025. But what the DOJ did under Blanche and I guess maybe then Pam Bondi is they expanded the universe of people that could claim that they were victims. And so what the federal prosecutor told the judge today was, hey judge, the redactions that have happened in this case, it's victims that have self-identified or identified through lawyers.

And we haven't actually tested any of that. There's no litmus testing on whether or not they're real victims. We're just letting them self- identify. But if you can think about that, that opens up a huge Pandora's Box of people that are doing it. I don't want people to be improperly exposed. That is not what the DOJ, well, that's what the DOJ said today, but that's not the case.

What I want is the DOJ to follow the law.

TAPPER: Right. PHANG: Nothing more, nothing less. And what we have seen time and time again is this active concealment and cover up by this DOJ to not release this information. I also want the files that Todd Blanche continues to sit on.

TAPPER: Like 3 million of them, right?

PHANG: Yes. He claims that they're duplicative. He claims that they're not responsive. And yet what we heard today, even from Judge Sullivan is, I don't believe you, DOJ, you have to show your work. And once again today, there was no actual proof provided by Todd Blanche.

TAPPER: And some of this is handwritten notes from the FBI agents interviewing victims and also potentially even perpetrators, right?

PHANG: Well, the FBI handwritten notes implicate Donald Trump. And I don't think it's a secret why they're doing this dance at the DOJ to not release them. They are handwritten notes by four different meetings with a victim who alleges when she was 13, she was sexually abused by Donald Trump. That's the allegation.

Now, the actual 302s, the official FBI reports, they've been turned over after much hollow and pushing by media, they were turned over. Why aren't you turning over these handwritten notes? Well, today the prosecution said, well, you know what? They're duplicative. That's the first time they've ever said it. Before they said it was substantially similar to the 302s.

So what did the judge do today? He said that the handwritten notes must be turned over in camera, unredacted so that he can check them out because they continue to refuse to give them to the court.

TAPPER: And of course, President Trump denies any wrongdoing having to do with the Epstein file.

PHANG: As he does.

TAPPER: Yes, as he does. Thank you so much, Katie Phang. Great to have you.

[17:43:11]

As we near the midterms, we've heard Democrats hoping to pick up seats in traditionally purple states or districts. But what about Iowa? Do Democrats have a chance anywhere in Iowa? It used to be a purple state. Believe it or not, I'm old enough to remember that. Obama won it twice. CNN's John King spoke to voters to find out, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead with the midterms, just 82 days away. Man, that's close, 82. Iowa's third congressional district is key to Democrats' hopes of retaking the House. That's right. You heard me right. Iowa. Iowa, of course, is a state that Trump not only won by 13 points in 2024, he carried every single one except for one county. Now, in his latest edition of All Over the Map, CNN's John King traveled to the Hawkeye State and spoke with rural voters to see if they're willing to give a Democrat a chance.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): This is the Iowa Amateur Championship, Beaver Hills Country Club in Cedar Falls.

CHRIS MUDD, IOWA VOTER: I would probably just run a nine iron up there.

KING (voice-over): Chris Mudd plays as often as he can.

MUDD: He's going to play it back in his stance and hit it low and I'll bet he's up pretty good. Beautiful.

KING (voice-over): And he clearly knows this course.

MUDD: Everyone has their way. I'm not good enough to need a way.

KING (voice-over): Loyal Republican. Three-time Trump voter. Yes, has a few friends upset with Trump. Others, though, like him, more frustrated with Republicans in Congress.

Mudd's vote is not in question, but his take on the economy and the mood here helps you understand why Iowa is now in the middle of the midterm competition.

MUDD: Housing is expensive. The interest rates are expensive and gas is expensive. People are upset. They're frustrated with the way things have gone on. You know, I can't tell you that I'm 100 percent excited about everything that's happened, but I believe that there's some pain that we have to go through to get this thing fixed.

KING (voice-over): These new homes are in West Des Moines, part of the fastest growing metropolitan area in the Midwest. These changing suburbs, a critical piece of Iowa's midterm math. The reading and public bookstore doesn't hide its politics.

Linzi Murray was born in China, adopted by a family in Kansas City, went to college in Iowa and returned three years ago to open the bookstore and start a family. She sees the chance for a big blue year, organizes the shelves with a purpose.

LINZI MURRAY, IOWA VOTER: We're just going to keep pushing and pushing and pushing. And we just have no more, I don't know a more diplomatic way to say we have no more F's to give.

[17:50:07]

KING (voice-over): The third district includes Polk County, Des Moines and its suburbs, but then a giant rural swath stretching to the Iowa- Missouri border. Trump won 20 of its 21 counties in 2024. Yet the third is a midterm toss-up and another test of whether Democrats can manage at least a modest rural rebound.

Shanen Ebersole is a rancher, a Republican, a three-time Trump voter and a midterm wildcard. Not happy with the war. SHANEN EBERSOLE, IOWA VOTER: First and foremost, we need to take care of our Americans. And that is one frustrating point of the Iran war is because I voted to take care of us first.

KING (voice-over): And not happy with a Republican congressman, she sees as too willing to put the party line ahead of rural Iowa.

KING: Do you take a chance on a new Democrat and say that would send a message, right?

EBERSOLE: I am really still leaning that way.

KING: Leaning for change?

EBERSOLE: Yes. I believe that change is always a good thing.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

KING: Right there in the end, Jake tells you everything you need to know about the season of opportunity for Democrats, even in Iowa. That's a three-time Trump voter, thinking about voting Democrat for governor, thinking about voting Democrat for Congress. Not convinced just yet. Worried if she votes Democrat for Congress, that person will come here and come under the influence of the Democratic Socialists or whatever. But open to change in a place like Iowa.

And if the Democrats have opportunity in Iowa, think about states that are less red, less Trumpy. So it's a great season of opportunity for Democrats, you know, in 82 days.

TAPPER: You and I are old enough to remember a Democratic senator from Iowa, Tom Harkin, and Democratic governor, Tom Vilsack. And Obama won it twice.

KING: Launched Obama.

TAPPER: Yes.

KING: You make a very key point right there. Launched Obama in the middle of an unpopular war.

TAPPER: Yes.

KING: A very unpopular war in Iowa right now. Iowa speaks up in the middle of unpopular wars.

TAPPER: It's interesting. I thought maybe it was red forever, but I guess we'll see. John King, appreciate it.

When you see your busy doctor, what should you ask that encourages a better outcome for you, the patient? A primary care physician has a helpful prescription. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:56:18] TAPPER: Our Health Lead now. Have you ever felt as if a doctor doesn't have time for you or is just ordering additional tests instead of listening to you? Our next guest is a primary care physician and she might have the correct diagnosis. Her name is Dr. Lucy McBride. She's a Harvard Medical School grad and she has a popular newsletter called "Are You OK?" She has a book out. It's called "Beyond the Prescription: A Doctor's Guide to Taking Charge of Your Health." And the doctor is in. Thank you so much for being here, Dr. McBride. We really appreciate it.

So you talk about in your book the importance of humanizing health care beyond the medicine, beyond the science. When you were in medical school, you were performing CPR on a young woman dying of ovarian cancer and you later found out that nobody had talked to her or her family about hospice care. What impact did that event have on you?

DR. LUCY MCBRIDE, PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN: It made me realize that medicine is wonderfully capable at treating the disease, but less good at treating the person. So I went into medicine to be the doctor who understands your lab results, your imaging test results, and who understands you as a whole person.

TAPPER: So I come from a medical family. My dad's a retired doctor. My mom's a retired nurse. But actually, this book most was resonant with me because of my experience as the father of a patient. My daughter had a misdiagnosed case of appendicitis when she was 14 and she almost died. The doctors were positive that she had a viral infection, but she had a perforated appendix that was leaking into her system. She almost died because of sepsis. Your book is very detailed about the need to try to improve not just the communication between doctors and patients, but the listening of physicians.

MCBRIDE: Through no fault of doctors. I really don't blame doctors. There just isn't time to understand the whole story.

TAPPER: And they got dozens of patients and thousands of possibilities, of course.

MCBRIDE: Right. Our system is designed to process people, to treat people like a set of transactions. When health is born out of a relationship, the conversation, understanding your symptoms, your goals, your patterns, and also the limitations of your life. It's very easy for me to say, eat better, exercise more.

But what about if you can't go to the gym because you can't afford it? Or you are working two jobs. So we need to understand who we're talking to, not just what the diagnosis code is.

TAPPER: So you talk about how people should live and you talk about a patient's infrastructure, which really means understanding their own bodies. And the first question is, when you wake up in the morning, what hurts? The answer is my back. What feels strong? The answer is everything else. But why is that self-examination so vital?

MCBRIDE: Because doctors don't have time to elicit the questions beneath your questions. So for example, someone may come in and say, I think I need a GLP-1 or I need a pain medication for my back when what you need is a better mattress or you need help managing stress that lives in your low back. So until doctors are given time to elicit the kind of questions that live beneath the question, we're really just playing whack-a-mole and treating symptoms and diagnoses and not the whole person.

TAPPER: So after my daughter had her ordeal and she's fine now, she's recovered, she's great, she's training for a marathon. She wrote a children's book called "Use Your Voice" about the importance of kids communicating, becoming empowered. And that's a big message in your book too. Not a children's book, but the same idea.

[18:00:07]

MCBRIDE: Yes.

TAPPER: How do we become empowered patients?

MCBRIDE: So, yes, the solution is not to become your own doctor. It's to become a more empowered patient is to understand your goals, your needs, your past history, the story you tell yourself about who you are, the I shouldn't, I can't or I'm not the kind of person who takes that pill kind of thing. It's to learn a vocabulary with which to advocate for your needs in the doctor's office is to understand how to frame a question to elicit a conversation and not just a yes, no or a permission giving from your doctor. It's really about learning who to trust and how to supply people responsible for your care with the information they need to help you.

TAPPER: All right. Dr. Lucy McBride, thank you so much.

MCBRIDE: Thank you so much.