Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Trump Denies Writing Epstein Birthday Note With Racy Drawing; Trump Authorizes Attorney General To Release Some Epstein Grand Jury Docs; At Least Three Dead After Explosion At L.A. County Sheriff's Department Facility; CNN Poll Shows Americans Increasingly Skeptical Of Israel's Actions In Gaza; Christian Leaders Make Rare Visit To Gaza Following Deadly Israeli Church Attack; Trump To Sign Crypto Bill Into Law. Aired 2-2:30p ET

Aired July 18, 2025 - 14:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:01:09]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": We are keeping an eye on the White House as President Trump is digging in today on his denial of a damning Wall Street Journal report involving accused sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein. The Journal is reporting some details about a letter bearing Trump's name that was sent to Epstein in 2003 for Epstein's 50th birthday, part of a compilation in a book. And again, the president says that this isn't true.

He says he'll be suing the newspaper and its owner, Rupert Murdoch. Overnight, the president also said he asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to "produce any and all pertinent grand jury testimony on Epstein's case." The DOJ officials there saying they'll ask a judge about this today. We have CNN Chief Media Affairs -- Chief Media Analyst, Brian Stelter, and CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent, Paula Reid with us. First off, Paula, just walk us through what the DOJ is saying that they're going to request.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So, a Justice Department official tells me, we should still expect that they'll make this request to a federal judge in Manhattan at some point today to unseal some of the material from the grand jury proceedings related to Jeffrey Epstein. But, I want to note a few things here. One, this is a long shot. Grand juries are by default confidential. This is where a prosecutor goes in, presents just enough evidence to get an indictment, much lower bar than conviction. They don't present everything they have and that these proceedings, again, they are confidential.

So, the Attorney General is going to have to come up with a really good reason why now, after all this time and previous litigation over releasing some of this material, they should suddenly release more. But this also only represents a tiny fraction of all of the evidence that the Justice Department gathered in the course of this probe. So even if, again, it's a long shot, nothing would happen anytime soon. This judge needs to get buy-in from other people, victims, accusers, lawyers, anyone who could be impacted by this. Even if the judge grants this though, there are still going to be questions about why the Justice Department is not releasing more of those tens of thousands of documents that they have in addition to this grand jury material.

KEILAR: And Brian, you have been hearing from sources about how Journal staffers are the -- the sentiment there, right? As they are getting these threats from the president. He's talking about suing the Journal and Murdoch, what are you hearing?

BRIAN STELTER, CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Right. There's a real sense of pride inside the Journal today, even a sense that this was a brave act to go ahead and publish the story. And that's given Trump's litigious nature and his threats against the journal and other media outlets. We've heard from a number of press freedom groups today saying, it's incredibly abnormal for an American president to be threatening a newsroom, threatening to sue in this way. Here's what the FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere said in a statement to CNN.

He said, these kinds of threats are not normal in a free society. And let's be clear, Trump has won no rulings from any court in his previous clashes with other news organizations. Instead, he has been able to use the levers of government to coerce settlements from regulated media companies. Bob saying here, the use of raw power does not convert frivolous claims into valid actions. As for The Wall Street Journal and its parent company, Dow Jones, no comment on Trump's legal threats. But the attitude I'm sensing from staffers is, Hey, we've reported what we believe is true. We've done it in good faith. The president can then do whatever he wants in response.

But we do know Trump has made a lot of legal threats without following through in every case. So, he may just be huffing and puffing. Time will tell if he actually follows through, Brianna.

KEILAR: The president says the letter in this case is fake that it's not his writing, it's not his drawing, which is of a naked woman, the Journal is reporting here. How are his denials being received, Brian?

STELTER: This reminds me of that old ESPN football catch phrase. It goes like this. "Come on, man. Come on."

[14:05:00]

We have heard this so many times from Donald Trump over the years, a claim that something he doesn't like, something he doesn't want you to believe is actually fake, is actually made up, is actually a hoax. If Trump had a playbook, if there was a playbook for his rhetorical techniques, this would be the entire first chapter. We have seen this so many times. So, it's a recycled attempt to divert attention. And I would argue that in some cases, it is working. We've seen some MAGA media influencers express doubt about the Journal story, and there's nothing like a media scandal to unite Trump's base.

So perhaps in some ways, this is actually helping Trump as he tries to confuse people about the nature of this. But I know one thing about The Wall Street Journal, that newsroom would not have published this story if it did not believe it was rock solid. KEILAR: And Paula, I think we also need to focus on the fact that in this case, and there's all this discussion about there's so much information, what might come out, what might not come out, will it even matter? There are a lot of victims, people who claim --

REID: Yeah.

KEILAR: -- just tremendously horrible wrongdoing by Jeffrey Epstein. Talk a little bit about how that is being considered and also, just kind of how it's intersecting with the politics of this because that's a real legal consideration.

REID: Sure. So for the months, years leading up to Trump's re- election, the people who were sort of fanning the flames of the Epstein controversy, some of them were raising very legitimate questions about what exactly went on with this man, who was he working for? Where did he get all his money? But there were also sort of stoking conspiracy theories or suggesting there were pieces of evidence that don't necessarily exist, but it was very rare for anyone to remind people that part of the reason, that some of this is under seal is to protect the victims and to protect the accusers.

And that is something that the Attorney General has talked about in terms of releasing the information that she has authority over. They don't want to re-victimize anyone. Pam Bondi was a prosecutor for decades in Florida. She understands those repercussions, but that is not something they have done an effective job of communicating over the past several years. That that has to be something you take into consideration. And even if they release a lot of the evidence that the Justice Department has, much of it will be redacted to protect those victims.

Now, victims and accusers will likely be able to weigh in through their attorneys on this decision about that limited amount of grand jury material, up in New York. But again, that is something that needs to be considered. I think there are some very legitimate questions about how all of this has been handled. But once you're there and you see the file and you realize how much you really do need to protect and redact to protect those victims, this whole rollout, it does become a lot more complicated. And Pam Bondi is not the first government official to run into this reality.

KEILAR: Yeah, redactions will, I mean, for people out there who are trying to make hay of something, redactions will also be used politically as well. Paula Reid, Brian Stelter, thank you so much to both of you. Omar?

OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN CO-ANCHOR OF "CNN NEWS CENTRAL": With me now is CNN Senior Law Enforcement Analyst and former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe. I guess, let's just start with, do you have any big questions or concerns as the Justice Department is expected to seek the unsealing of this testimony? What are their chances they actually succeed here?

ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST AND FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Well, Omar, that depends on how you define success. I think part of the tactics here of the administration are basically to make this kind of nominal gesture and do it in a way that will instigate a what will undoubtedly be a long court process. And this gives them the ability to say, Hey, we're trying to be more transparent. We've gone to court and asked for it, but it's now in the hands of the judiciary. We need to step back and let the judicial process work through and we'll abide by whatever comes out of it.

So while all that's going on, they're going to try to put this behind them in terms of it being a story every day. What comes out of that process? I have a lot of questions about that. I think Paula's comments were all spot on. This is a very, very small subset of the entirety of the information currently in the government's hands. And to be clear, it is in his directive to the DOJ, it's only for grand jury testimony. So, those are witnesses who came into the grand jury. As Paula mentioned, you never bring in all of your witnesses. You don't even bring in your best witnesses because you don't want your best witnesses, who you're going to rely on at trial, to put down a sworn statement before the trial in the grand jury that can then be used against them if they're called to testify at trial.

So, you're talking about a very small batch of information. It would not include other grand jury procured information like anything that was procured with a grand jury subpoena, like financial records or phone records. And that's really the meat of the investigation. That would show you the network connections between Epstein and the people that he was dealing with.

[14:10:00]

But none of that is going to be considered under this request. So, it's a very small amount of material and it's going to a long process to get to the end of. And at the end of that process, we might get very little, if anything, and what we get will be heavily redacted.

JIMENEZ: It was really, because we're just talking about the threshold needed for indictment here, as you mentioned, not everything. But of course, when you look at the investigative material, those are files that the FBI and Justice Department would have beyond the grand jury testimony or beyond whatever the Justice Department seeks to get here. What kinds of files are -- do the FBI and Justice Department have that would not come from, let's call it, a "successful attempt" by the Justice Department to get this grand jury information?

MCCABE: Sure. So they have -- as I just mentioned, they have a lot of other information that may be grand -- protected by grand jury secrecy, things that were obtained, information that was obtained from businesses or phone companies or whatever, at the request of a grand jury subpoena. So they still have all that stuff. They're not even asking to have -- they're not going to ask to have that stuff unsealed. There's other information that they have just from the own -- from the interviews that FBI agents do. Like, before anybody ever testifies in front of the grand jury, they've been interviewed several times by FBI agents.

So, there is notes of those interviews. There's internal documents we call FD-302s that are the -- that's the substance of the interview as kind of memorialized by the agents who did it. There's all the investigative work that they do. They may do surveillances; they may do spot checks on people's houses, confirming addresses, or facilities, communication devices that people are using. So, the results of all of that investigative work is just sitting in those files. Most of it is not protected by grand jury secrecy, and the Justice Department can do whatever they want with that.

Now, I'm not suggesting it's necessarily a good idea to release all those things because you have all kinds of information in there that could cast suspicion on all kind -- on people who were identified in the course of that investigative work. But who were -- they don't have any inform -- they don't -- certainly don't have enough evidence to charge the people who you can't really prove did anything wrong at this point. Certainly by the fact -- assuming from the fact that they haven't been charged so far.

So, it's a minefield of information that could really negatively impact the lives and the reputations of people who came up in the investigation as well as victims and witnesses who were persuaded to come forward and provide information. And many of them don't want to be identified or dragged through the public eye once again. So, it's very sensitive material, which is why FBI files are not typically released to the public.

JIMENEZ: Andrew McCabe, appreciate the insight, as always. Brianna?

KEILAR: And we are continuing to follow some breaking news out of Los Angeles where officials say at least three people died as a result of an explosion at an L.A. County Sheriff's Department training facility. This incident is believed to be an accident. It happened at a facility that houses the department's special enforcement units and bomb squad, a source telling CNN it is unclear whether it's related to a training session or whether officers were handling evidence. CNN Chief Law Enforcement and Intelligence Analyst, John Miller, is with us now. John, are you getting any insights into what happened here?

JOHN MILLER, CNN CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND INTELLIGENCE ANALYST: Well, we're starting to piece it together and of course, the information is very preliminary. This didn't happen long ago. And frankly, the sheriff's department and the investigators there are trying to put it together themselves in terms of what were the chain of events. But, here's what we've learned so far. We are told by sources who have been briefed on this, that there was some kind of call yesterday involving explosives somewhere in L.A. County where the sheriff's bomb squad responded and picked up some kind of device.

Here's what we don't know. We don't know whether that device was a piece of military ordinance, like a mortar shell or a grenade. The kind of things that when I was in the Los Angeles Police Department, our bomb squad responded to on a fairly regular basis as people would discover relics in their garages or basements, cleaning things out. We don't know whether it was that or an improvised explosive device. Whatever it was, they transported it back to their headquarters facility, which is where their headquarters is, the Special Enforcement Bureau where the bomb squad's located at the training center. And the plan was, let's leave it there and we will deal with it tomorrow morning, where they will perform some kind of render safe procedure.

[14:15:00]

What does that mean? That means they either counter charge it and blow it up in an open area where they can do that, or they perform a more intricate procedure where they take it apart and render it safe from detonating. Somewhere in the movement of that device this morning, very early this morning, around 7:30, possibly from the bomb truck to another vehicle or to where they were going to render it safe, the device functioned. That is pretty much all we know so far. There's a lot of blanks that need to be filled in, a lot of other information, but that's what we've been told.

KEILAR: We know that you'll continue to track it. John, thank you so much for all of that information. We appreciate it.

Still to come, some new polling showing a big drop in the number of Americans who believe Israel's military actions in Gaza are fully justified. Plus, this hour, President Trump signing the bill establishing a framework of crypto currency regulations into law. We'll have details on that. And we're following the latest testimony from the poisoned protein shake trial, why James Craig's daughters say he asked her to buy a cheap laptop in a letter from jail. We'll have that and much more coming up on "CNN News Central."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[14:20:57]

KEILAR: New CNN polling shows Americans are increasingly skeptical of Israeli actions in Gaza and a growing number think that the U.S. should pull back on military aid to Israel. The poll shows only 23 percent of Americans feel Israel's response to -- Israel's response is fully justified in Gaza. That's a 27-point drop from a similar poll that was conducted in October of 2023. That was just after the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel. And this new poll is coming a day after an Israeli strike killed three people at the only Catholic Church in Gaza.

Today, leaders from the Catholic and Orthodox Church made a rare visit to the damaged site there, trying to express their concerns for the community of Gaza. Israel says it "deeply regrets the incident." It's blaming stray ammunition for the strike, and an investigation is underway. I'm joined now by retired Army Lieutenant General, Mark Schwartz. He's a former U.S. Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Sir, thank you so much for being with us. And as you look at these numbers, what's your reaction to what we're seeing as a significant drop to now only less than a quarter of Americans believing that Israel's actions have been fully justified.

LT. GEN. MARK SCHWARTZ, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Good afternoon, Brianna. I think the principle reason is that majority reporting that comes out of Gaza and Israel are these very unfortunate strikes that you just mentioned, the one on the Catholic Holy Family Church that took place 24 hours ago. And then, just recently, this past Sunday, there was a strike on a water distribution site, acknowledged by the IDF and the government of Israel that it wasn't errant strike, but it killed children and wounded several others.

So, I think that's certainly playing into these numbers. But also, despite the hard work that's being done by the administration and other Arab countries to try to get to another ceasefire to get the release of hostages and the remains of those that have perished, there's really no end insight in place that's known to the international community and certainly, not the U.S., to -- as of today, there's been no work done to find a security alternative for Gaza, if in fact the IDF do retrograde and ultimately move out and only secure Gaza's borders. So, I think there's a number of factors that are playing into the numbers that you just mentioned.

KEILAR: A 56 percent majority of Americans in this polling says that the U.S. should not take a leading role in trying to solve international problems. So, just zooming out a little bigger here, a little farther, it's important to note that could mean a number of things, right? Is it military aid, humanitarian aid, diplomatic alliances? There's a lot that goes into that. But what do you think that means for America's role in the world and also for the post-World War II world order?

SCHWARTZ: Well, there's certainly a large constituency that supports the current administration that wants to see a more isolationist approach to -- in our international affairs and look for America's security first. But I think there's also probably a more broader representation of the American public, maybe not as vocal, that understand and it is no exception for this ongoing conflict in Gaza and I'd extend that to the West Bank, that absolutely understand that U.S. leadership is vital. No matter which administration is in place, the rest of the -- the world looks to the United States leadership to solve crisis.

So, I think, while maybe the most vocal are those that want to see a more isolationist approach, there's not going to be a resolution to this current conflict without Mr. Witkoff and his team working very closely with our Arab partners and the Arab states that are involved, both upfront and behind the scenes, trying to work to a resolution to this conflict with Israel.

[14:25:19]

KEILAR: We were talking about this Catholic Church that was hit in Gaza. Three people killed several people injured, and that included the parish priest. It is a church, obviously, that more Americans can identify with. Should that bring into relief, more broadly, what Israel is doing, how it's executing this war in Gaza?

SCHWARTZ: It should. There's been countless reports of, and I hate to use the term collateral damage for the innocent loss of life, but whether hit the structure or the innocent loss of Gazans that are caught in this conflict, the challenge is what we don't see and the transparency, which I would say the U.S. has done a much better job historically, because we've certainly had our errors in combat. I personally oversaw multiple investigations of those types of errors, is the transparency of the outcome of those investigations.

And every nation approaches it differently. And I haven't seen that. I didn't see that in my time when we had a few instances in the West Bank when I served as a security coordinator. So, transparency builds trust and I think trust is waning. And again, this strike that took place against a Catholic Church, ideally there'll be a full accountability and then a transparency not only to the Catholic community, but most importantly, to the international community, so we know what is going to be done to prevent these types of actions in the future.

KEILAR: General Mark Schwartz, thank you so much for being with us. Really appreciate your time today.

SCHWARTZ: Thank you.

KEILAR: President Trump is about to sign the first major crypto currency legislation into law. We'll have details straight ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)