Return to Transcripts main page

CNN News Central

Deputy Attorney General Blanche to Meet with Maxwell in Florida; Interview with Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI): House Oversight Subcommittee Votes to Subpoena DOJ for Epstein Files; Columbia's Acting President Speaks Out About Deal with Trump Administration to Restore Federal Funds. Aired 8:00-8:30a ET

Aired July 24, 2025 - 08:00   ET

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

[08:00:00]

KATE BOLDUAN, CNN ANCHOR: ... they used to smash the glass displays, the security guard was pepper sprayed, but nobody was seriously injured. Police say they identified and arrested the primary suspect, but they're still looking for the others.

Police are also still trying to identify one of the suspects involved in a very scary car crash caught on camera. Police say two -- wow -- two suspects in a stolen car lost control, careened through a parking lot, slammed right through the doors of a North Carolina church. This happened Tuesday. They say officers tried to pull the car over after they spotted the two men inside wearing masks, but the suspects sped away and then they, well, you see what happened just minutes later.

Both suspects fled the scene after the crash. Police were able to catch and arrest one. He's facing several charges, including possession of a stolen vehicle. Obviously, they're clearly looking for the other.

New Hour of CNN NEWS CENTRAL starts right now.

Today, the deputy attorney general -- hey boys -- the deputy attorney general will meet with longtime Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell in a prison in Florida. Will the Trump administration try to cut a deal with her to get her to speak?

Also, new reporting that President Trump was told months ago, though he denied it last week, that his name is in the Epstein files.

And Columbia University becomes the first university to reach a negotiated settlement with the Trump administration over anti-Semitism claims. And for her first TV interview since it was announced overnight, the acting president of Columbia will be joining us live.

The new police documents reveal unsettling details on what happened in the lead up to the murders of four Idaho college students. The victim's family is confronting the murderer, Brian Kohberger, in court as he begins his life sentence today.

I'm Kate Bolduan with John Berman. Sara is out today. This is CNN NEWS CENTRAL. JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: All right, the breaking news this morning, President Trump was told his name is in the Jeffrey Epstein files. He then said he wasn't told. And now a congressional subcommittee with Republican votes is going to subpoena those files. That's a lot to chew on.

And sources tell CNN, the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche, will meet today with longtime Jeffrey Epstein associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, convicted of conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse minors.

Now, in May, Blanche and Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed the president on the findings of the Justice Department's review of the documents related to Epstein, which found that the files appeared to include several unsubstantiated claims that they determined not to be credible, including those relating to Trump.

And just being named in the files does not indicate any wrongdoing. But the timing is notable. He was told his name was there weeks before the release of a DOJ memo that said there would be no more disclosures in the case.

Overnight, a House subcommittee voted to subpoena from the Justice Department for the release of those files in full. And it was a bipartisan vote. As I said, a lot to chew on.

So let's get to CNN's Evan Perez for the latest on, again, what is a really unusual meeting today with the deputy attorney general of the United States and a convicted felon?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: That's right, John, this is really going to be a very unusual meeting, in part because, you know, there's two burning questions. What does Ghislaine Maxwell know? And what can Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general, really offer her to get her to talk? Right.

And so the big question here remains, you know, Ghislaine Maxwell has a goal, which is to to get out of prison. She has a 20 year sentence that she is serving. She has maintained her innocence. And so she really doesn't have much of an incentive to tell Todd Blanche anything unless she can get something in return. And as we pointed out, she wants to get out of prison.

So we'll see what -- how that meeting goes down in Tallahassee, which is where the deputy attorney general has headed today.

And as you pointed out, look, the the names that Ghislaine Maxwell knows about, the names of of people who were associated with with Jeffrey Epstein is on everyone's mind, including the president. We were told that -- our team was told at the White House that the president was briefed by Todd Blanche and by the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, that his name was in those files, which the FBI spent several weeks reviewing and redacting some of the that information.

And so that really does color some of the discussion on this. You pointed out correctly that the president's name occurring there, the name of dozens of other people doesn't mean that they did anything wrong. And so the question remains, how can we get those files?

[08:05:00]

We also got an answer from one of the judges who's been reviewing this, these requests to review transcripts from grand jury testimony. Now, one of the things that happened there in Florida was a judge said, you cannot release that under the Florida rules, under the rules in that circuit.

However, there are two pending requests in New York for judges to release transcripts in those cases -- John.

BERMAN: All right, Evan Perez, for us following just part of this developing story. Thank you very much -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Important part of it today for sure. Joining us right now is Nick Akerman. He's a former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York and former assistant special Watergate prosecutor. So, Nick, how unusual is this set up, this meeting between the deputy attorney general and Ghislaine Maxwell?

NICK AKERMAN, FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY IN THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK: This is extremely unusual. You never have the number two person in the Department of Justice go and interview anybody. I mean, that is something that is done by line attorneys.

What really is going on here, once you dig into this and you realize Todd Blanche was Donald Trump's former criminal defense lawyer. What they're doing and what's going on here is that they're hoping that Maxwell wants a pardon from Donald Trump. She knows that the only way she'll ever see the light of day and get out of that 20 year sentence is to get a pardon.

And what they're hoping is that in order to do that, she will be motivated to say that Donald Trump didn't know what Jeffrey Epstein was up to with underage girls and they never participated in that. The problem, of course, is there's no way you could ever believe Maxwell by virtue of the fact that she's got every motive to say whatever she wants in order to get that pardon. So the real question is, if she says that, are they still going to take that and then at some point later, give her the pardon?

I don't think there's going to be quite the same quid pro quo that you had with the Eric Adams case. Don't forget, Blanche's second in command, Bove, did basically the same thing with Eric Adams by dismissing his federal criminal case in the Southern District of New York. Return for him playing ball with the administration's immigration policies.

So you see the same thing going on here. But if you kind of sit that back and say, what are they trying to do? They're hoping that if Maxwell thinks that she can get a pardon, that she'll say things that are favorable to Donald Trump. They'll use that. And who knows? Maybe down the road, they'll actually pardon her. But all of this really stinks. BOLDUAN: Interesting your take on this. I mean, who knows what he's going to be going in there to to I would say you have to offer in order to try to even see if she would be open to speaking. And if they would accept it and what she would ask, we just don't know.

But you also have this like series of subpoenas that are well, you have you have the grand jury ask to the to the judge. The judge denies the grand jury transcripts to be released. You have the subpoenas coming from Capitol Hill saying release all the documents, Justice Department, and then one on Ghislaine Maxwell.

And you said that the DOJ is asked to get the grand jury transcripts released is nothing more than a distraction. And you're looking at what the Justice Department has and can release without a judge's approval, right?

AKERMAN: That's right. I mean, first of all, the odds of getting a judge to approve this, I mean, certainly was struck down in Florida because the law in the 11th Circuit, where that district court judge presides is different, a little bit different than the Second Circuit, where there's a little bit more leeway. But both of those judges have asked for more information.

But knowing what we know now, the fact that Donald Trump knew that his name was in those files and knowing that he then tried to say, forget the whole matter, this whole thing should go away. Epstein has been dead for a couple of years. When we know all of that, it's so obvious to me that this whole business about trying to get the grand jury minutes is just kind of a distraction.

They know, one, that there's not going to be anything in there. I've conducted 100 grand jury investigations as a former prosecutor. You don't put in the entire investigative file. You don't put in personal files of the possible defendants. In both of these cases, there were such that all you would really do is try and zero in, shape the testimony that relates to the charges that were brought by the grand jury, not all of this other information, extraneous information. All of that is in the Department of Justice files. All of that is what should be produced.

BOLDUAN: Nick, it's great to see you. Thanks for the perspective on all of it. Really appreciate it -- John.

BERMAN: All right, with us now is Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island who sits in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator, thanks so much for being with us. It's the House committee that has subpoenaed Ghislaine Maxwell and wants to depose her, not on the Senate side.

[08:10:00]

But I am curious, if you had a chance to speak with her, as I guess the deputy attorney general of the United States is today, what would you want to know from her?

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): Well, let me mention first just how very bizarre it is that the deputy attorney general of the United States is going out to do a witness interview. It really raises the question whether he's doing that in the role as deputy attorney general of the United States or if he's stepping back into his role as Trump criminal defendant and having kind of a Tom Hagen moment with this particular witness.

One really obvious question for Ghislaine Maxwell, the Wall Street Journal reporting about the birthday book for Jeffrey Epstein to which Trump contributed a letter, the Wall Street Journal report on that is that Ghislaine Maxwell put that book together.

If she put that book together, she knows about that Trump letter. She may have stories about how she obtained the Trump letter. Perhaps she went over to meet with him to get the Trump letter. Perhaps they joked about stuff as he filled in his name, where the pubic hair of the drawn woman would be. All of that is a very immediate question for her, given the Wall Street Journal reporting.

There's obviously tons more that she knows, but that's something that's very, very immediate. And if they're not asking about that while the president is denying that this letter even exists, then it clearly is more of a cover-up effort than an investigation effort.

BERMAN: And as you mentioned, the president, of course, does deny that he wrote that letter and is suing the Wall Street Journal over their reporting on that. The Senate Judiciary Committee --

WHITEHOUSE: She'll probably be a witness in that case.

BERMAN: The Senate Judiciary Committee, of which you are a member, Punchbowl is reporting that there are discussions on the Democratic side to try to have a vote at some point, maybe even today, on going after some of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Have you been able to convince any Republicans in that committee to vote for that?

WHITEHOUSE: The problem with Senate subpoenas, which we discovered or which was demonstrated when we subpoenaed Leonard Leo about his mischief-packing the Supreme Court, is that in order to enforce a subpoena in the Senate, you have to go to the floor and get a vote which is filibusterable. And you have to get floor time. And it's not the least bit clear that the Republican majority in the Senate would give us floor time and that we'd get 60 votes to break through a filibuster.

So it's more important for the House to proceed because they don't operate under the shadow of a filibuster.

BERMAN: Again, in the files in general, at this point, I mean, it's no surprise that Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump knew each other. We knew that they knew each other. It's not incriminating by any means, necessarily, that Donald Trump's name is in the files.

So what would be gained from seeing them at this point?

WHITEHOUSE: Well, I think at this point, the issue is likely as much the cover-up as the underlying conduct. If they were just friends, if Trump was not involved in or aware of Epstein's misconduct, despite having pointed out to reporters that he seemed to like very young women, if that was all true, you still have this question of who knew what about Trump being in the files, who was untruthful to the public about what they knew and whether he was in the files. You potentially have a flat-out lie with Ghislaine Maxwell having the story about Trump's letter, which he denies even exists.

So you get into a lot of credibility issues on this, even if, and that's an if, even if Trump neither participated in nor was aware of all of this.

BERMAN: Yes.

WHITEHOUSE: And when you throw in the Ron Wyden information, the $1.5 billion in suspicious financial activity reports associated with Jeffrey Epstein, and you wonder why none of that was investigated by the Bondi Department of Justice, that adds a whole new wrinkle to who's telling the truth, who's doing the cover-up, where's the real investigation, what the hell is going on here?

BERMAN: Again, we should note, no indication before, you know, or now that President Trump is accused of any wrongdoing in regards to Jeffrey Epstein and their friendship, by all accounts, ended decades ago.

I do want to ask you, you're on the Judiciary Committee, which, without any Democratic help, moved through the nomination of Emile Bove to the appeals court. You spoke on this nomination last night in the Senate. What's your feeling about where it's headed?

WHITEHOUSE: Well, I think there is some anxiety on the Republican side. Bove is a genuinely bad guy.

[08:15:00]

He was in the Department of Justice for six months and managed to get into or run three significant known instances of very real and grave prosecutorial misconduct.

That must be some kind of a Department of Justice record for all time. One of those instances of prosecutorial misconduct is the subject of a court contempt investigation, which has been stalled by two Trump judges on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. But one day, we'll go forward. And one day, those facts will come to light about this man's misconduct.

And all the Republicans who voted for him, having turned a blind eye to this information, having rushed it through while the stall was in place, I think there'll be an accountability moment for them. Why did you not wait for this sworn court testimony about this individual's misbehavior before you shoved him onto the court?

So this isn't going away. I think this individual is going to be the subject of continued scrutiny even after he's on the bench if he gets there.

BERMAN: Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island, we appreciate your time today. Thank you -- Kate.

BOLDUAN: Columbia University reaches a settlement with the Trump administration, the first university to strike such a deal since the president started targeting the Ivies. Hundreds of millions of dollars now to be paid in exchange for getting federal research funding finally restored.

Coming up, the acting president of Columbia is our guest, her first TV interview since this deal was announced.

And Thailand launches airstrikes targeting Cambodian military sites, the latest escalation in a long-running border dispute.

And French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife file a new defamation lawsuit against a right-wing podcaster.

[08:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BOLDUAN: Breaking overnight, Columbia University is now the first school to reach a negotiated settlement with the Trump administration over claims of anti-Semitism. As part of this agreement, the university will pay more than $220 million over three years to settle these claims of anti-Semitism on campus. And in exchange, the Trump administration will unlock the hundreds of millions of dollars and I will add unrelated scientific research funding that they froze to force Columbia to try to bend to its demands.

And also as part of the deal, Columbia is not required to admit wrongdoing, the school saying this, The institution's leaders have recognized repeatedly that Jewish students and faculty have experienced painful, unacceptable incidents and that reform was and is needed.

President Trump celebrated the deal overnight, posting this in part, I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right. I look forward to watching them have a great future in our country, maybe greater than ever before.

Joining us here in studio for her first TV interview since announcing the settlement is the acting president of Columbia University, Claire Shipman. Thank you so much for being here.

CLAIRE SHIPMAN, ACTING PRESIDENT, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Of course. I really appreciate it.

BOLDUAN: What -- this was, this is a very big moment for the school and for higher education and its relationship with the federal government.

SHIPMAN: Absolutely.

BOLDUAN: What was it that -- it was negotiated for quite some time -- what was it that got this over the finish line? SHIPMAN: So many things. Look, I think in the biggest possible of pictures, this resolution is really going to allow us to turn a page on a period of deep instability for our institution. I think, as you mentioned, it took us months, months of a lot of conversations, deep deliberation and almost word by word negotiation.

And our view was always we were willing to talk as long as the talks were productive. It took longer in many cases than we had anticipated, but we were willing to keep moving because the stakes were so high. And I think there are a couple of really important things about this agreement from our point of view.

One, it doesn't cross the red lines that we laid out. It protects our academic integrity. That was, of course, essential to us.

And two, it does reset our relationship with the federal government in terms of research funding. And that's, you know, there's many headlines about $400 million. This is really access to billions.

BOLDUAN: It was a lot more than that.

SHIPMAN: Billions of dollars in future funding. And it's not just money for Columbia. I mean, this is about science. It's about curing cancer, cutting edge, boundary breaking science that actually benefits the country and humanity. So that was essential.

BOLDUAN: How existential was the threat becoming when you talk about, I mean, I saw over like $1.3 billion that the school was not -- losing. How existential was this threat to the university if it continued?

SHIPMAN: There are lots of ways to measure it. So $1.3 billion a year, billions in future funding. But we are a massive research institution, one of the best in the world.

It's hard -- we'd have to sit here for hours for me to tell you everything we do in terms of that boundary breaking research. And that's research really that powers the technology in this country, innovation and of course, all the biomedical research that so many people benefit from.

So I think the stakes were high for us in terms of what we do. And by the way, for our students also, we're an incredible training ground for the future of science. But I think it's fair to say they're existential broadly for science in this country as well. We have to get that funding back on track.

BOLDUAN: Was the president himself personally involved in the negotiations at any point?

SHIPMAN: You know, I don't have -- he was certainly not personally involved in any negotiations that that I was part of. And I don't really have a sense as to how involved he was. But I do think he was keeping track of what was going on.

BOLDUAN: What do you say to the criticism that you have already faced and spoken to? And you will -- you will need -- you will answer to here, which is you threw in the towel and you are capitulating by making this agreement and bending to the will of the administration.

[08:25:02]

SHIPMAN: Yes, part of my role is to accept a lot of criticism. That is what I am and have been ready for and have have faced in recent months. I understand that. But I actually think the narrative that paints this as a kind of binary situation, courage versus capitulation is just wrong. It's too simplistic.

This was a really, really complex problem. And I will argue over and over again that choosing to listen, choosing to try to solve the problem with everything that we had at stake is not capitulation. It was extraordinarily difficult.

It took an immense amount of effort from our board, from me, from our academic leadership team, from people who are working to keep the institution afloat.

BOLDUAN: Because you've got other examples, right? You have Harvard taking the administration to court. What was it that you saw and those around you that you didn't want to take that route? This was -- you said it was very hard. Why not take the route and just go to court?

SHIPMAN: Look, we -- and I've said this to our community openly -- we kept all options at all times open.

BOLDUAN: Yes.

SHIPMAN: We had many other legal options. That's true. But we did look carefully at that and we saw we could have some short-term victories, but we worried we would have long-term damage.

For example, we could have faced the loss of any future relationship in the coming years with the federal government, and that would have effectively meant an end to the research mission we conduct as we know it.

BOLDUAN: And this is -- this is important for the university, but it is also a first, and the question is, is it a last? Like, are you worried with this, of a precedent that this sets, that this proves that the Trump administration's strategy of weaponizing research funding works, and that this will lead them to do this more often, not less?

SHIPMAN: I can tell you, first of all, I am confident in the agreement we struck. We worked, again, on every word, so I am confident it does not cross our lines that were essential to us.

Of course, I'm aware of the atmosphere in which we, you know, are and were talking to the federal government and what other institutions are facing.

It's a very complex moment for higher education. I respect every decision that every other institution is making and will make. I've had incredibly helpful, deep, thoughtful conversations with the leaders of other institutions, and I really think we are all facing many of the same issues, and I understand there may be different choices made. But this was the responsible path for Columbia, and I think it's a path that, again, is going to allow us to move on with the work we do so well.

BOLDUAN: And that is, and you said this was one of your red lines, but when it comes to independence and free expression and academic independence and free expression of your students, if people see this settlement and question if they can trust the school's academic independence now, question if students or anyone on campus will be -- that free expression will be allowed and not punished, what do you say to them? I mean, this is a core question.

SHIPMAN: Absolutely. Look, free expression is a bedrock principle for us at Columbia, and I would say at Columbia especially. We have a real history of celebrating free expression, and we always will, but not when it crosses the line into discrimination, harassment, calls for violence, or when it disrupts our ability to just conduct our work as an academic institution.

So that is the challenge we've faced in recent years, and I think our systems are working better now. I think I would encourage everybody to read the agreement.

It does not impinge upon that. But of course, there are always going to be lines on our campus as regards free expression if they're veering into that territory of harassment, discrimination, or disruption of our ability to function.

BOLDUAN: Yes, I think this is a very big moment. I mean, you just came into the position in March, and what a few months this has been, but a very big moment for higher education, far beyond Columbia. So thank you so much for coming to talk to us about it.

SHIPMAN: It's my pleasure. Thank you for having me.

BOLDUAN: I really appreciate it. It's great to see you.

SHIPMAN: Thank you.

BOLDUAN: John.

BERMAN: All right, the families of Idaho College murder victims come face-to-face with the killer as new documents released overnight reveal new details about the night of the murders.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[08:30:00]