Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump's Emergency Appeal on Mail-In Ballots; Dramatic Developments in Clancy Trial; Billionaire Refuses to Testify in Epstein Probe. Billionaire Leon Black Sues House Committee Investigating Epstein; California Winemaker Feels Caught Up In Trump's Canada Tariff War. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired September 03, 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]

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper.

This hour, a dramatic day in court in Lindsay Clancy's murder trial, the jury sent home until tomorrow morning after the defense claimed there is one juror who is refusing to listen to the law and preventing them from a unanimous verdict. Our teams were at the courthouse for every development and join us live in moments.

Plus, the first midterm ballots are set to be sent out tomorrow. But tonight, President Trump is making an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking them to allow his new restrictions on mail-in ballots. Those breaking details ahead.

Also, a billionaire who was supposed to testify in the House's Epstein investigation not only refused to show up, but he also sued the committee trying to block them from obtaining his non-disclosure agreement. So, what happens next? A member of the committee will be here to explain.

And ahead of this holiday weekend, we've got a new installment of business leaders. You're not going to want to miss ahead how President Trump's trade war with Canada could impact your next glass of wine.

We're following breaking news tonight, President Trump asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let him implement sweeping changes to mail-in voting less than two months before the midterm elections. It isn't clear whether the justices will act tonight or if this will affect North Carolina, which, by the way, is set to send out the first midterm ballots tomorrow.

Now, as we wait for a possible ruling on that emergency appeal, which could come tonight or not, there are major questions about how the U.S. Postal Service's online portal will work, a key part of these new mail-in ballot rules. Earlier today, a federal judge said it all felt like a, quote, experiment, according to the Associated Press. A few hours later, the Postal Service responded to the judge saying, quote, we anticipate being in a position to make the portal available to users for voluntary use by sometime next week. Let's get straight to CNN Correspondent Gabe Cohen and CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig. Gabe, this has moved really fast over the course of the last week or so, the publication of this 90-plus page rule, a whistleblower, several different court cases working in parallel. What is happening right now?

GABE COHEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, really, as you said, stunning developments over even just the past couple days. Obviously, that federal court judge had blocked the Postal Service from mandating these rules, and the administration was sick of waiting and said, we're going to leapfrog up to the Supreme Court and we want them to decide on this because we want these rules in place for the midterms.

You mentioned that the Postal Service earlier today, really for the first time, acknowledged that they do have this portal built, or at least they will, and operational as of next week. They said for voluntary use, but the administration wants it for mandatory use. It's only voluntary right now because of that injunction from that federal judge.

Remember, what these rules say is that state and local election officials not only have to adopt universal envelopes and unique barcodes for all envelopes with mail ballots, millions and millions that will go out across the country, but also they're going to have to upload that envelope information as well as the names and addresses of every mail ballot recipient across the country into this Postal Service portal before the ballots go out. Otherwise, they're going to get rejected and sent back.

And it is clear that election officials all over the country do not feel like they can implement this in a matter of weeks. As you said, North Carolina's ballots are about to go out. Several other states are going to follow in the days ahead. They have been sounding the alarm that there's no way they could reprint all of these ballots so quickly. It would cost a ton of money, and they will have to retrain a ton of election officials all over the country to use that portal to make sure there aren't administrative issues, that ballots do not get rejected perhaps in big batches and kicked back.

And then you mentioned that whistleblower account from a Postal Service worker who said that what they have witnessed inside the Postal Service is a sloppy and rushed effort to build this system, that it is not ready for primetime. And just a little while ago, I spoke to the American Postal Workers Union that really had strong words for the postmaster general, David Steiner, and this administration, saying that their staff have not been trained on this. It is not ready to go. They want the postmaster general to step in and say, we're not going to do this.

But as of now, the Postal Service hasn't done that, and we're now going to be waiting on the Supreme Court to decide.

MATTINGLY: You know, Elie, as Gabe lays all that out, my issue throughout the last couple of weeks in covering this and watching this play out is like the mechanics of this just simply don't add up in my mind. On the legal side of things, explain the significance of the fight that's playing out there, and where do you think it's going to go?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Well, Phil, the core argument made by the challengers here, led by a group of 23 Democratic states, is essentially that this executive order infringes on our constitutional rights as states to run our own election.

Constitution gives that power to the states, not to the president. Now, this case first went to the Supreme Court about ten days ago, early last week, and the Supreme Court in that ruling said, we're not going to address whether the executive order is constitutional or unconstitutional at this point because it's all premature, because the harms that the states are saying they're going to suffer haven't come to pass yet and they're not imminent.

[18:05:13]

They're not close at hand. All they had at that point was an executive order. There was a long ways to go.

Now, since then, as you and Gabe noted, first of all, there's been publication of a final rule, which moves things closer. And now today, we learned that there's actually a portal in place at the Postal Service. So, the challengers are now saying, okay, now we're close enough. Now, we've moved far enough along.

It looks like, based on today's proceeding, that the district court judge agrees with that. The district court judge has ruled against the Trump administration at every turn, and that's why the Trump administration is now running to the Supreme Court on this expedited basis.

MATTINGLY: Elie, the solicitor general has a lot of experience moving on an expedited basis to the Supreme Court over the course of the last 18 months, with a lot of success, I would say, in some of those efforts. When are we expecting the Supreme Court to rule here?

HONIG: This is going to move lightning fast. Actually, the government is asking the Supreme Court to do something procedurally unusual and skip the middle layer court of appeals and take the case directly. I think this is a custom-made case where the court has to do that. We're, what, 60 days away from midterms now.

And when the court gets this, the case, when they decide it, they're going to be looking at three things, one, is it still premature or are we close enough that we can decide now? Has the case ripened, as lawyers would phrase it. Two, does the executive order actually infringe on the states' rights to hold their own elections? And then, third, a sort of wildcard here, there's this thing in the law called the Purcell principle, which says we cannot and should not change the rules around election procedures and balloting if we're too close to an election.

Now, we've never been given a specific number of days, but, man, 60 days is really close for all the reasons Gabe just laid out, all the technicalities, all the procedural problems that'll happen here. MATTINGLY: Elie Honig, always appreciate you, my friend. Gabe Cohen, you and the team have been doing extraordinary work on this. I know it continues, maybe even tonight we will see. Thank you guys both very much.

Well, this mail-in ballot fight is particularly urgent in North Carolina, a purple state absolutely crucial to the balance of power in the U.S. Senate.

CNN's Manu Raju is in the Tar Heel State. Manu?

MANU RAJU, CNN ANCHOR AND CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Phil. This is one of the most closely contested Senate races in the country. Democrats absolutely need to flip North Carolina if they have any chance of taking the Senate majority. This is an open seat, and the former governor, Roy Cooper, who won two terms here in North Carolina, is running. He's running against the Republican, Michael Whatley.

And there is a lot of uncertainty about what will happen with mail-in voting, particularly as the president tries to clamp down on mail-in voting and the push by the U.S. Postal Service to try to restrict some mail-in ballots.

That's a question that I put directly to Cooper himself about how he views the impact this will have as North Carolina prepares to be the first nation in the country to vote.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: The mail-in ballots come out on Friday, absentee ballots. This is the first state in the nation that's really going to start voting. And we've seen the president try to clamp down on the USPS. And are you concerned about the impact that this may have on mail-in voting?

ROY COOPER (D), NORTH CAROLINA SENATE CANDIDATE: Well, I think it's a violation of the law. And, yes, I'm concerned about the impact because look at who it affects. It affects rural people. It affects veterans. It affects people who are disabled, people who rely on the absentee mail system in order to be able to let their voices heard through the vote. And if they're going to get the Post Office picking and choosing which of these ballots go through and which don't, that's crazy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: While there's a view in Washington that Roy Cooper has a formidable lead in this race, there's a much different reality here on the ground, in which people believe on both sides that this is a very tight race. In fact, one poll that recently came out showed it within the margin of error.

And Donald Trump has won this state three times, and the last time a Democrat won a Senate seat here was in 2008, which is why a close race, and potentially one in which mail-in voting could make a difference, or if people can't get their mailed ballots to the ballot box in time, maybe that's enough to sway an election one way or the other.

Which is why Roy Cooper in particular, he told me his biggest concern right now is Democrats taking this race for granted by looking at the polls right now and seeing him ahead. He said it's a much different sense on the ground here, where this race is much tighter than it may seem. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Manu Raju in Fayetteville, North Carolina, thank you, my friend.

The Lindsay Clancy jury is set to return tomorrow morning after a very eventful day of deliberations. The defense trying to get one juror removed for allegedly refusing to, quote, listen to the law. So what does that all mean for the possibility of a unanimous verdict? We'll go live outside the courthouse next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:10:00]

MATTINGLY: Breaking news in our Law and Justice Lead, the judge in the Lindsay Clancy trial is expected to question a lone juror tomorrow. That's according to court records and Clancy's defense attorney, who asked the judge to remove one member of the jury today, claiming the juror is not following the law and blocking the jury from a from reaching a verdict.

Now, this all comes after jurors again today could not unanimously decide whether Clancy is criminally responsible for killing her three children in 2023. The judge this afternoon dramatically questioning each juror at the bench before sending them back to deliberate, then later sending them home with orders to resume deliberations tomorrow.

Let's get right to CNN Legal Correspondent Jean Casarez outside the courthouse in Massachusetts. Jean, Clancy's defense attorney had more to say about the situation after court ended today. What are you learning?

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, what he said, and, remember, we're not hearing this from the judge, we don't even know what the actual note said because we just heard Kevin Reddington's argument in court. But what Mr. Reddington said outside of court is that yesterday, there will -- that tomorrow, there will actually be an inquiry first thing in the morning with this juror that the defense says refuses to follow the law, and he believes it will be in open court.

[18:15:04]

Now, question is, is this juror really going to come in by himself and everybody will see this one juror, be able to identify him? Normally, something like this would be done at sidebar, but we're going to have to see what happens because the fireworks will continue tomorrow, trust me.

MATTINGLY: Jean, can I ask, like you're always the colleague and reporter that I go to learn about any type of legal situation that's going on, any court case that you're always following. Have you ever seen anything like what played out so dramatically this afternoon?

CASAREZ: Absolutely not, ever. You know, when -- I've covered many cases where there are potential issues with a juror, questions for a juror, it's always done in the judge's chamber. It's not done in open court where you see everything, because the jurors and what they may have to say is just -- it's something that is you protect. You protect it carefully, and especially when you're in deliberations. It's a very sacred time.

The judge cannot question so much that they invade the jury deliberations of what they're actually saying in that room. It's just a sacred time because a jury's verdict and their deliberations, they -- it goes untouched. You never want to know. It's something that will remain with them as they go on.

So, this is extraordinary, it truly is, but, of course, the judge wants to get to the heart of the issue, I am sure, and that's why he had every juror come in one by one. And they swore and answered a question by the judge. We don't actually know what that was, but the prosecutor, in her argument, because she agrees with what the judge is doing in all of this, seemed to imply the judge was asking them if they could follow the law in this case.

MATTINGLY: Yes, as the defendant was just a couple feet away.

I guess, Jean, I would ask if this reaches a point -- obviously, deliberations continue. If this reaches a point where the judge declares a mistrial, what happens then?

CASAREZ: Well, if this is a mistrial declared, then this is over. This trial is over. And the prosecution was most definitely at this point, even if they have to figure out if they're going to retry this case or not, they would want the defendant to stay in custody because even though she is in a mental hospital, she is in custody because this is a triple homicide case.

And they would ask that she remain in custody. They would ask this continue to be a no bail situation, and they may even give a hint on what they're going to do when they stand up, that our intent at this point is to retry this case. We don't know, but the prosecution does have that option.

MATTINGLY: Jean Casarez, great reporting as always, today of all days especially. Thank you, my friend.

CASAREZ: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: Well, up next, what we're learning about an ICE agent facing federal charges accused of lying about what happened in the moments before he allegedly shot someone in the leg.

Stick with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) [18:20:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, an ICE agent is facing federal charges tied to a January shooting in Minnesota. Authorities say 52-year-old Christian Castro shot a Venezuelan man, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, in the leg, then allegedly lied to federal investigators about what happened, according to multiple people familiar with the matter.

CNN's Whitney Wild is following this story. Whitney, what are we learning right now?

WHITNEY WILD, CNN LAW ENFORCEMENT CORRESPONDENT: Well, Phil, Christian Castro is the ICE agent here, and according to the Hennepin County Attorney's Office, who has already filed state charges against him for second degree assault as well as making a false statement, he gave an account of what happened that night that is completely contradicted by video and victim's statement.

So, here's what he had claimed happened. He claimed that he was out in Minneapolis during the height of Operation Metro Surge. He ran a license plate. The plate came back to a registered owner of a vehicle who is not a U.S. citizen. A car chase ensued. A foot chase ensued, and you see it right here on your screen.

After a brief scuffle with the driver of that vehicle and Julio Sosa- Celis, those two men ran inside the home, and that's when Christian Castro opened fire. He had claimed that during this incident, he was beaten for several minutes and that he only opened fire when he was in fear for his life. The Hennepin County Attorney's Office says that is completely untrue.

The Department of Homeland Security had initially defended Castro, but as they investigated, it became clear that his story was unraveling. The two men here were initially charged by federal officials. A month later, they dismissed that case, saying that he and another agent had not been truthful about what happened. They were placed on administrative leave. Meanwhile several months later, Minnesota prosecutors filed their case.

It is not clear that he is in anywhere that is easily attainable. He does not appear to be in custody in this federal case, which we now know he is being charged with making false statements. So, it is not clear he's in custody in the federal case. He is not in custody in Minnesota, and so the search for him now begins.

Phil, this is a pivotal moment. This is the first time the Department of Justice is charging an ICE agent for actions that occurred while they were on duty at the height of these immigration surges that happened all across the country.

So, again, this is a watershed moment, Phil, and there's much more to come on this. Meanwhile those charges have not yet been unsealed, and, again, it is not clear that he's in custody in either the federal or state case. Phil?

MATTINGLY: And, Whitney, at the same time, the Justice Department is also investigating one of the lead prosecutors in this case. Why?

WILD: Well, this is an unexpected twist. This began with a ProPublica report. ProPublica reported that earlier this week the lead prosecutor in this case had told the victim's attorneys that the Justice Department was blocking a more serious civil rights charge.

[18:25:04]

That lead prosecutor has since been fired. That lead prosecutor also now under investigation for obstruction.

The -- Phil, that is a quite unexpected moment here for a U.S. attorney's office that has seen quite a bit of chaos since the beginning of the year. There -- it's really something that we were not prepared to see, we were very surprised by. And, again, sources are telling CNN that the discussions about whether to bring a civil rights charge remain ongoing.

So, again, there is much more to see about this case. They could add that charge later. But that, again, is a twist we certainly did not expect to see here. Phil?

MATTINGLY: Yes, a lot of moving parts. Thank you as always for tracking all of them somehow. Whitney Wild, I appreciate it.

Well, we're still counting down to the midterms, but today, Vice President J.D. Vance was asked about his 2028 presidential ambitions. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: In our Politics Lead, Vice President J.D. Vance holding the first White House briefing since the departure of former Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, at one point, joking with reporters during the briefing about whether he planned to make his presence in the briefing room a permanent one.

[18:30:04]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Are we talking to you as the vice president or the press secretary?

J.D. VANCE, U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: So, I'm not Marco. I have not yet accepted any additional jobs.

Before I came out here, I was talking with the president in the Oval Office, and he said if -- he said, be careful. I want you to do well, but if you do too well, I might make you the press secretary. So, I've got to screw up a little bit because I'm busy enough as it is.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: The panel joins me now. Marc Short, one of the things that I'm always interested in these moments is like he's always going to be asked about 2028. He's always going to be asked if he's the heir apparent. He was asked. He, I think, showed some agility in trying to dodge it. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VANCE: You should be focused not on a job a few years from now, you should be focused on the midterms, and that's the approach that I've taken. I think people sometimes don't believe me because they assume you're the vice president, you must think about this all the time. What I'm focused on, man, is trying to get as many Republicans elected as possible.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: You were the chief of staff to a vice president who absolutely had ambitions, but also a lot of people that wanted him in the future to run for the presidency. Is it true that like the vice president, you're not thinking about that, you're not planning about that? Or is there something that it's only smart to be planning about things about what happens next?

MARC SHORT, FORMER CHIEF OF STAFF TO V.P. MIKE PENCE: Well, the circumstance is a little bit different, because keep in mind that in 2020 Trump was on top of the ticket. In '28 he won't be. And so it is a different scenario for the current vice president. I think that's exactly the right answer to give, and there's a lot that has to play out between now and then.

And so you already are familiar with a lot of his advisers having left and the conversations, they're beginning to build a campaign staff or operation for him. But he's right to say our focus needs to be on the midterms.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's absolutely the right answer. Pence would say that and actually mean it. I'm not sure if he's just kind of like genuine like that.

Xochitl, Vance was also asked about Ted Cruz who has made several high-profile trips to Iowa this year, made other moves. Vance's team hasn't totally taken -- well, they've at least taken note of these moves. The Wall Street Journal saying Cruz is quietly asking people if they want to work on his 2028 campaign. Today, Vance called Cruz an authentic and likable guy, which is like very funny because he just like offhand added that in, and every -- people laughed.

Is this a rivalry? Is this something like if you're a Democrat right now, are you looking at the potential '28 field and saying like, yes, Cruz?

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think that there are two things that are happening. One, J.D. Vance was at that podium to audition for -- to be the president of United States with Donald Trump. I don't think this was, like, a broader audition. I think that in order -- it's like a multi-step process, and the number one step is to make sure that you lock in Donald Trump, right? And then from there you have to lock in the rest of the Republican Party, et cetera. I think what he's doing here with Ted Cruz is, first of all, I think Ted Cruz is, understands how unpopular Donald Trump's agenda is. And I do think that at the end of the day, J.D. Vance is going to need to figure out whether or not he's ever going to distance himself from Donald Trump. It is really hard to be a vice president of the United States and run and win for the presidency. We have seen that happen multiple times where that has not been successful, and I think Ted Cruz understands that. Ted Cruz knows that he also can appeal to the MAGA base and to other parts of the Republican Party, and so I think he's also considering that.

For him, it just sounds like, hey, I'm going to keep my options open just in case this guy, you know, completely just steps in it or whatever it is and does not end up becoming the nominee.

MATTINGLY: Mar, it's too early to be having these conversation, like I will be candid with the audience. However, it's fun. And also, more importantly, people are talking about this. People are planning things. People are not showing up in Iowa and New Hampshire because they love Iowa and New Hampshire. I personally do, but I'm not trying to run for president.

HINOJOSA: You're also not Mormon.

MATTINGLY: Do not besmirch Iowa or New Hampshire. I think my question actually, Marc, Cruz aside, any number of people, if somebody came to you right now as somebody who's considering running in '28, what would you tell them about what they should be doing?

SHORT: Well, look, let's go back to Xochitl's answer. The reality is that I think that the track record would suggest that the president really isn't invested in his vice president's succession plan. And so the reality is that he's going to want to see sort of an Apprentice- style play out in front, and not really go all in behind his current vice president.

So, you're going to see other candidates say, let me test the waters, particularly if the midterms turn out as poorly as people are forecasting right now. It's not going to give a lot of boost to J.D. Vance's candidacy. And so I think you're going to see a pretty crowded field. I think the advice that would be giving is that, you know, right now, I fear that Republicans -- there's a lot of vitriol in our politics undoubtedly, but if you look at the policies that we've been pursuing economically, frankly, they're frankly right out of the playbook the Democrats have had for many years.

[18:35:00]

The trade policy is exactly what Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have advocated for. State-owned enterprises are exactly what the far- left has advocated for. Price controls are exactly what the far-left has advocated for.

I need to be encouraging a candidate to say, you know what? Let's get back to free market economics. Let's begin to show a contrast to the socialists in the Democrat Party as opposed to trying to embrace the same policies they've been pursuing.

MATTINGLY: Aforementioned former Vice President Mike Pence's group is one of the rare lonely Republican operations that actually make these points economically, which I always find fascinating given having covered the party on economics for so long.

Xochitl, speaking of vice presidents who have run, and not successfully, Kamala Harris, the former vice president, was asked about a Politico report that some Democrats running in battleground states are shunning her. This was her response.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAMALA HARRIS, FORMER U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: We need to win, okay? Bottom line, we need to win. I have run locally, I've run for statewide office, and obviously nationally, and these candidates know what they need to do to win, and I would expect nothing less. I look forward to being on the trail and helping folks where I can be helpful.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Well, solid response, mature response. Right response?

HINOJOSA: Very different response to what Donald Trump would say, which Donald Trump would say, I have to be on the trail. People love me everywhere, even though he is not beloved.

I will say for Democrats more broadly, you -- we are not -- our base is important, but we don't have the problems that the Republican Party has with our base. We are looking to make sure that we have a big tent, and we're going after moderate voters.

When I am looking at polling right now, I would say the only national Democrat that really stands out is Barack Obama. He is polling in purple states at about 50 percent, and I think that is interesting given the fact that the president of United States and other national Democrats aren't even polling at 50 percent.

So, I would say that if anyone is looking in these tough districts for a surrogate, it would likely be someone like Barack Obama and someone who can raise the money. She will be utilized in places where voters really think that she can do a good job. And so I think that that is very mature of her and the right way to approach it, especially as she's also considering a run in 2028.

MATTINGLY: I think you just teed up a Trump versus Obama third term, that's -- no one -- no, absolutely not. Thank you, guys, as always, I appreciate you.

SHORT: Thanks, Phil.

MATTINGLY: A billionaire who ran in Jeffrey Epstein's circle is suing the House Oversight Committee, trying to block the panel from getting his non-disclosure agreements. How the committee is responding, that's ahead next. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:40:00]

MATTINGLY: In our Law and Justice Lead, billionaire investor Leon Black is suing the House Oversight Committee, which is investigating Jeffrey Epstein. Black, who has ties to Epstein, is refusing to testify and is trying to block the committee from getting his non- disclosure agreements.

Black is also individually suing the committee chairman, Republican James Comer. Comer accuses Black of hiding behind litigation.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): I would hold him in contempt right now.

Of all the powerful billionaires and political people we've brought in for interviews and depositions, this is the first time anyone's filed suit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Joining me now is House Oversight Committee Member James Walkinshaw of Virginia, a Democratic Congressman. Congressman, I know Chairman Comer wants to talk to the House counsel about kind of next steps here, how to move forward. Is it your sense that the committee will move forward on contempt?

REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA): I think if Leon Black doesn't come in the committee will move forward on contempt, and Congress will support it.

Look, complying with a Congressional subpoena is not optional. The lawsuit, I think, is laughable. We'll double and triple check that with our lawyers, but at the end of the day, Leon Black is going to have to come in and answer our questions.

MATTINGLY: In his voluntary interview in June, Black told the committee that he never abused women or had sexual relations with minors. He also said he did not know the extent of Epstein's crime. But the interview ended abruptly when Chairman Comer issued two subpoenas after Black refused to answer a series of questions. What questions was he refusing to answer?

WALKINSHAW: He was refusing to answer questions about NDAs, non- disclosure agreements, that he had entered into with women who accused him, made allegations, credible allegations of abuse. He was hiding behind those NDAs. Those non-disclosure agreements do not apply to the United States Congress. We can ask questions about them and demand answers about them, and we are.

MATTINGLY: Can I step back a minute? Because one of the things that I always try and remind myself covering this is like this is the victims. This is people trying to get information, people trying to get justice, people trying to get the recourse that they deserve. Are you frustrated about Black's ability to do this, about witnesses not being forthcoming, about witnesses not talking at all at this point? Do you think that there will be an outcome that is sufficient for what occurred?

WALKINSHAW: It's enormously frustrating. I think throughout this process and throughout the Epstein saga, we've seen a callous disregard for the courageous survivors. Leon Black typifies it.

I'll add another. Chairman Comer mentioned powerful people who need to come before us. Todd Blanche is one of those. Todd Blanche was responsible for the management and the release, the legal release, of the Epstein files. He released files he shouldn't have, revealing private information about survivors. He continues to refuse to release files that the law requires. He needs to come in and talk to our committee as well.

MATTINGLY: How are you thinking about -- how is the committee, Democratic side of the committee, planning through what options you will have if in the majority come January of next year to maybe take different pathways than Chairman Comer to try and get more information?

WALKINSHAW: Well, there are pathways that we will continue, so the Leon Black pathways of private individuals who are engaged in this activity that Chairman Comer and the Republicans, by and large, have pursued. But they've had a double standard for Trump administration officials like Todd Blanche. So, we're going to be very aggressive in getting answers from the Trump administration and former administrations about the cover-up of the files and the whole situation.

Look, my goal, I think already we have enough information that if we had a Department of Justice willing to reopen investigations, they could open those investigations, perhaps pursue prosecutions. I'm hopeful a future Department of Justice will do that.

MATTINGLY: One more question. You're still waiting to hear from Alan Dershowitz, Epstein's former attorney who helped negotiate Epstein's 2008 sweetheart plea deal.

[18:45:02]

He's long denied any wrongdoing related to Epstein or Epstein's victims. Why hasn't Dershowitz shown up for a voluntary interview? Is a subpoena on the table right now?

REP. JAMES WALKINSHAW (D-VA), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: It looks to me like he's playing games. He has said he wants to talk about it. He has said he would come in. Then he backs out at the last minute.

I think we might end up having to subpoena Mr. Dershowitz as well. He was not only Epstein's attorney when that sweetheart deal was made with Alex Acosta. He was also Epstein's friend for many years.

MATTINGLY: Have you gotten any sense the Justice Department is doing anything but putting this behind them? WALKINSHAW: No. The Justice Department wants this to go away. They

don't want us to talk about it right now. They don't want the survivors to be out there talking about it. They want it to go away because I think it embarrasses Donald Trump.

I don't care about Donald Trump. I care about the survivors and getting them transparency and justice.

MATTINGLY: Congressman, I always appreciate your time. Thank you very much, sir.

And now I want to bring in Epstein survivor and anti-trafficking advocate Liz Stein. And Lauren Hersh, the national director of world without exploitation.

Liz, it's always my first question. How are you doing?

LIZ STEIN, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Thanks. I appreciate you asking that.

We're doing well. You know, this is a fight that we've been in for over a year, and we're in it for the duration. And so, I think that, you know, we are all doing well and ready to see what comes next.

MATTINGLY: Liz, you know, I just asked the congressman the same thing. Like the frustration of somebody like Leon Black refusing to testify, then suing outright. You've seen some not the lawsuits, but some iteration of refusal to testify, refusal to answer questions from a number of high-profile witnesses. I know you guys have been through a lot, and it has been a hell of a process. What you've gotten thus far is still stunning to me in terms of your ability to do so.

Are you frustrated right now?

STEIN: I think everyone is frustrated. Not only the Epstein survivors, but I think citizens across this country are frustrated.

We are now looking at two separate things. We're looking at the crimes committed by Epstein and his coconspirators, and now we're looking at the crimes of the cover up. If these men have nothing to hide, then why are they hiding? And I think that we're watching this play out in front of our eyes. And I think that, you know, people across the country just cannot stand for it anymore.

MATTINGLY: You know, Lauren, to that point, the ability of the survivors and their supporters to push this into the forefront of public consciousness was remarkable as it was dynamic. Do you feel like that still exists right now, that that the kind of inertia that was moving this forward because of that is still durable over time

LAUREN HERSH, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, WORLD WITHOUT EXPLOITATION: So, Phil, one year ago today, the survivors came together for the very first time. Many of them had never spoken about their abuse publicly, and many of them had never spoken publicly at all. And over the last year, their unity has been remarkable, their fight has been unstoppable. And I am fully confident that we are in a much better position today.

But this is just the very beginning. These survivors are strong, they're resilient, and they are going to push truth, transparency and justice. We'll get there. It may take some time, but we will get there.

MATTINGLY: You know, Liz, Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer said today he's asked U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche numerous times to come in and answer the committee's question. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY), OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: He indicated to me that he would, after he got confirmed and he's been confirmed, and I again sent the note out. I would love to get the attorney general in, but I remind everyone, he has come in and answered questions. What other Epstein documents remain and why exactly have they not been turned over? That's the number one question.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Liz, what's your reaction when you hear that?

STEIN: Well, I think that we all want answers from Todd Blanche. But I think that we also need to remember that justice doesn't come in just one action, right? Justice is a commitment, and we're committed to seeing this through. And I think that Todd Blanche has a lot of questions that need to be answered. And we're looking forward to seeing him answer them.

MATTINGLY: Lauren, you mentioned it's been one year since World Without Exploitation brought Epstein survivors together on Capitol Hill for the first time, demanding answers, demanding accountability.

How do you think about year two? How do you continue to build, like what you were saying about the survivors and their like, I, again, never seen a more remarkable political force in my time in Washington. But how are you thinking through kind of strategically, not to simplify it, but the next 12 months?

HERSH: So, I would say where we were a year ago, we were in a moment of outrage. We were able to turn outrage into activism. And now we're all set to turn activism into accountability. What we've seen over the last year with the American public is a total intolerance of powerful people being able to prey on vulnerable people.

And so, we need to make sure that we join forces as a country. We've seen remarkable support behind these survivors. We hope that people will join forces with us at worldwithoutexploitation.org, and support these survivors. And we're ready to make sure that we're putting pressure on Congress to get to the truth on DOJ, to begin to investigate these leads and follow the leads.

The days of these powerful people preying on vulnerable people are over. And so, we need to really make sure that we get there. And we support these survivors. MATTINGLY: Liz Stein, Lauren Hersh, always appreciate your time, your

perspective. Thank you so much.

STEIN: Thanks.

MATTINGLY: Well, up next, it's the latest installment in our series, Business Leaders. And tonight, we're taking a look at the impact president Trump's trade war with Canada is having on your wine supply. Stick with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:55:30]

MATTINGLY: It's time for our "Business Leaders" series, where we talk to small business owners from coast to coast about the impact of President Trump's tariffs.

Crosby Roamann is a luxury winery in the Napa Valley. Owner and winemaker Sean McBride says it's one of many in the area stuck in the middle of the Trump administration's trade war with Canada.

Sean joins me now.

Sean, really appreciate your time.

Just to start with, explain why Canada is such a crucial market for you and other Napa wineries.

SEAN MCBRIDE, OWNER & WINEMAKER, CROSBY ROAMANN: Sure. Well, Phil, thank you for having me on the show. I really appreciate it. It's a pleasure to be here.

It's important for viewers to understand that Canada is the largest export market for American wine. They account for roughly $400 million in sales annually for American wineries.

Even for a small American winery like ours, Crosby Roamann, we only produce about 1,500 cases of wine per year. But of our production, we will sell 5 to 10 percent of our wine into Canada, specifically to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which is the state monopoly in Ontario for the purchase and sale of wine.

So, it's a significant amount of wine, and it's a very important relationship. The other thing to consider is the fact that of all the wine that Canada imports, they purchase more American wine by dollar value than any other wine that they bring into the country. So not only are they our biggest customer, but they choose American wine, or at least they have historically.

MATTINGLY: How are you working to make up the loss of that market? And I remind people who think that this blow up just happened last week. This has been a continuous thing for the better part of a year. Plus, at this point, what are -- what are the losses look like? What have you done to try and make it up? MCBRIDE: So that's a -- it's a very good question. You know, the

truth is we have sold we've opened up new markets. We've opened up sales into Europe. We've opened up sales into the Caribbean.

We continue -- continue to sell wine to Japan. But there's only so many markets that we can take our wines to, and it's impossible to replace our single best customer, historically. As I said, we've had a very long-standing relationship with Canada. We have great customers there.

And for now, going on about 18 months, the sale of American wine has been largely prohibited in all of Canada. It's a discouraging situation to be in.

So the first thing that needs to happen, and this is the message that we'd like to communicate to our trade representatives and policy makers in Washington is we need to get back to the table and start to have the conversation about where do we go from here?

We would like to get our biggest market back. And that can't happen unless trade representatives are at the table negotiating a deal.

MATTINGLY: That was actually what I wanted to ask you at the time we had left. Like we cover this on a macro basis. You're watching truth social posts, you're trying to figure out the negotiations, who's up, who's down, who's got leverage, who doesn't.

What's it like watching this from your perspective? Like the personal perspective where like naming something like America has got to seem so absurd given what you're focused on, how do you think about this?

MCBRIDE: Well, it's a -- it's a very fair question. What I would say is we're not policy makers, we're winemakers.

MATTINGLY: Yeah.

MCBRIDE: We trust and depend on our trade representatives to exhibit the same, you know, skills and talents that that we do. I'm a winemaker. I face very difficult, complex, you know, problems on a daily basis. I have to put on a different hat every single day of the week.

MATTINGLY: Right.

MCBRIDE: We have floods, we have fires, we have the occasional earthquake. I need to find new and novel solutions to approach difficult situations.

I trust and depend on our trade representatives to have the same wherewithal. I think, in this situation, which is a very complex situation --

MATTINGLY: Yeah.

MCBRIDE: -- they need to go back to first principles and start to come up with a solution to this problem. MATTINGLY: That's very important message.

Sean McBride, owner and winemaker of Crosby Roamann. Thank you, my friend. I appreciate it.

MCBRIDE: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: You can join me for my video series, "CNN Breaks It Down". We tackle some of the most pressing questions in business and politics. Find new episodes on CNN.com/watch.

And you, of course, can follow the show on X and Instagram @TheLeadCNN. If you ever miss an episode of the lead, you can watch the show on the CNN app.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now.