Return to Transcripts main page

CNN This Morning

Ankush Khardori is Interviewed about the Epstein Emails; Rep. Wesley Bell (D-MO) is Interviewed about the Epstein Emails. Aired 6:30-7a ET

Aired November 13, 2025 - 06:30   ET

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

[06:30:00]

AUDIE CORNISH, CNN ANCHOR: A rare wildlife warning, watch out for the bears.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, "THE LATE SHOW WITH STEPHEN COLBERT": Democrat Adelita Grijalva was finally sworn in as a member of Congress.

That's a really big first day. All right, here's the key to the lady's room. Over there is the Xerox machine. Down there is the room where you're going to topple the pervert cabal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[06:35:06]

CORNISH: So, the government reopened. Congress is back to business, talking about the Epstein files. The House Oversight Committee released 20,000 more pages from Epstein's estate, including emails that mention President Trump.

Good morning, everybody. I'm Audie Cornish. I want to thank you for joining me on CNN THIS MORNING.

It's half past the hour. And here's what's happening right now.

The Reverend Jesse Jackson in the hospital. A statement from his Rainbow PUSH Coalition says the 84-year-old civil rights leader is under observation for a condition called progressive supranuclear palsy. He was originally diagnosed with Parkinson's disease but received this new diagnosis back in April. Jackson was a protege of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

And today, Cleveland Guardians pitcher Emmanuel Clase will appear before a judge. He is facing charges in a pitch rigging and sports betting conspiracy. His teammate, Luis Ortiz, pleaded not guilty Wednesday. The two are accused of taking several thousands of dollars in payoffs. And bear attacks, like this one, on the rise in Japan. That's forced the U.S. State Department to issue an unusual wildlife warning, watch out for bears. It's urging all Americans in the northern part of Japan to stay on alert. Since April, at least 13 people have been killed by bears and more than 100 injured.

OK, we're also now just days away from a vote in the House for a full release of all the files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. Speaker Mike Johnson said last night he would bring up the vote early next week after a discharge petition forced his hand on the matter. The House Oversight Committee has also released 20,000 more documents it received from Epstein's estate.

Among them, emails which include the name of Donald Trump. So, in those emails, Epstein tells author Michael Wolff, quote, "Trump said he asked me to resign. Never a member, ever. Of course, he knew about the girls, as he asked Ghislaine to stop."

Epstein was apparently referring to Trump's claim that he was forced to give up his Mar-a-Lago club membership. The White House says this is all a hoax by Democrats. The president has not been criminally charged when it relates to the Epstein files. House Democrats say the most recent emails are a new smoking gun.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MAXWELL FROST (D-FL): Now these emails come up where he's implicated once again. And it doesn't just say he knew what was going on. It says he spent hours -- hours with one of the victim -- with one of the victims. And not just that, but Jeffrey Epstein was speaking about with Michael Wolff on how much leverage they have over Trump as well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Ankush Khardori, senior writer at "Politico Magazine," is also a former federal prosecutor, and joins the chat.

I assume your chats were blowing up yesterday as people maybe trying to figure out what was in these documents.

These emails are not to Trump, from Trump. It is over and over again Epstein alluding to Trump in one way or another. So, is it fair for Democrats to use words like "implicated"?

ANKUSH KHARDORI, SENIOR WRITER, "POLITICO MAGAZINE": No, it is not. Look, as someone who has spent a fair amount of his time in his life as a lawyer, a former prosecutor, reading emails that have been pulled from various tranches, it is really not good practice to pluck them out and to assume that you can understand their meaning wholly out of context, without talking to people who are on the communications, identifying other communications, talking to witnesses around it. The idea that it's a smoking gun is inaccurate, I just have to say.

CORNISH: Yes.

KHARDORI: I mean it's just not good practice to just pluck emails out and just assume that you figured it all out.

I will say, this is one of the reasons why I was really not a fan of the whole notion of just like, let's release all the Epstein files into the -- dump them into the public because this is what's going to happen. You're going to get emails randomly out of context, and you're going to get a whole lot of speculation about what they really mean.

CORNISH: Yes, about other public figures. Also about victims.

KHARDORI: Exactly.

CORNISH: Although some names have been redacted.

But did anything else come up in the documents, you think, that follows along their narrative of, well, does the president have a -- did the president have a closer relationship with Epstein than he implied? And what does that mean for the treatment of Epstein or Epstein associates, like Maxwell, who is now in a way more comfy prison after a talk with Trump's former lawyer at the DOJ?

KHARDORI: Yes. I mean, look, I think that the emails are consistent with the notion that Trump had a closer relationship with Epstein than he's publicly said. But we've known that for a while through other public reporting from CNN, "The Times" and elsewhere.

In terms of, like, what they suggest about Trump's relationship with people like Ghislane Maxwell. I mean, look, the Justice Department and the Trump administration should never have been engaging with her in the first place.

One thing that I will say that the email suggested that she may have lied to Todd Blanche about what -- whether and to what extent that there were references to Trump in information that she was privy to, in which case she should be charged for lying to prosecutors when she did that proffer that never should have happened.

[06:40:05]

CORNISH: I want to ask you about one more thing, because buried in the shutdown language in the bill to reopen the government was a provision added at the last minute by Senate leadership, where they say senators are now allowed to sue the FBI if they are searched without notification, if their phone records are taken. And funny enough, this would apply to the eight Republican senators whose records were seized in connection with the January 6th investigation. Like I said, this was put in by the Senate. And here is the response from House Republicans.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. AUSTIN SCOTT (R-GA): I think it's poorly worded. But I'm glad that other people were paying attention and read the legislation and were able to explain to the American citizens what's in it.

REP. TROY NEHLS (R-TX): That was dumb. That was stupid, quite honestly, to put that language in this bill. This $500,000. MANU RAJU, CNN CORRESPONDENT: John Thune did that.

NEHLS: Well, I just think it's stupid.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I found out about it last night. I was surprised. I was shocked by it. And I was angry about it, to be honest.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: OK, so we know how they feel emotionally. How do you feel legally about this provision?

KHARDORI: I think this is entirely backwards and quite offensive, to be honest. The idea that we would have a provision enacted into law because a small number of U.S. Republican senators were swept up in the criminal investigation of Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election. They should be extremely embarrassed that their records were among those that were of interest to prosecutors. And we know from the public record why, for instance, Ted Cruz might have been of interest to prosecutors, why, for instance, Josh Hawley's phone records may have been of interest to prosecutors. Their phones were not tapped, as Josh Hawley has said.

CORNISH: Yes.

KHARDORI: We're just talking about metadata. I don't know if he ever cleared that up, by the way.

CORNISH: Yes.

KHARDORI: But he should have known that his phones were not tapped, despite him saying that publicly.

This is really offensive, I have to say.

CORNISH: Well, let me tell you the response from Senator Blackburn, because she's one of the Republicans who was subpoenaed. She says, "there was no criminal predicate, no justification, no excuse for Verizon aiding and abetting Jack Smith's political witch hunt. We will not rest until justice is served and those who were involved in this weaponization of government are held accountable.

So, what's your response that basically the ability to sue is somehow accountability, the ability to go after the FBI for these kinds of actions?

KHARDORI: Well, first of all, the beginning of that statement is false. There was a criminal predicate and there was a justification for Smith to do what he did.

I think this is a terrible precedent. The one thing I would say is, you know, we've heard a lot of talk about, in the last months, about two tiers of justice, two different sets of the justice system. Ordinary Americans do not get this benefit when their phone records are picked up in the context of a criminal investigation, or maybe no one is charged. This happens all day, every day. Why is it that the senators get this half a million dollar windfall when, for all you know, you have been -- your phone records have been swept up in an investigation unbeknownst to you because the provider was also under a nondisclosure agreement.

CORNISH: So, in the meantime, while SNAP benefits are still sort of wiggling their way, they're expecting a check to come.

KHARDORI: Yep.

CORNISH: OK. Well, Ankush, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate your time.

KHARDORI: Thanks.

CORNISH: All right, if you missed any of that conversation or, honestly, any other part of the show, please know we're a podcast. You can catch us later in the day. Scan the QR code now. You can find it here. CNN THIS MORNING is available anywhere you get your podcasts.

And next on CNN THIS MORNING, he was one of the 218 signatures on the Epstein discharge petition, and his committee dropped explosive new Epstein emails. I'm going to ask Democratic Congressman Wesley Bell about that next.

Plus, this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): Am I going to guarantee a vote on ACA?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Promises made, but will promises be kept? Senate Democrats risked health care to make a deal to reopen the government.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[06:48:12]

CORNISH: So, as the government reopens this morning, lawmakers are moving quickly on the Epstein files. Democrats on the House Oversight Committee Thursday dropped 20,000 documents obtained from the Epstein estate. They include emails from Epstein, which include the name "Donald Trump," but the White House claims they don't prove anything.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These emails prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong. And what President Trump has always said is that he was from Palm Beach, and so was Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein was a member at Mar-a-Lago until President Trump kicked him out because Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile and he was a creep.

This administration has done more with respect to transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein than any administration, ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Joining me now, Democratic Congressman Wesley Bell of Missouri.

Thank you so much for being here, Congressman.

REP. WESLEY BELL (D-MO): Thanks for having me.

CORNISH: In fact, there isn't a better person to be here because you are on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. You were telling us, you also were in that group that first saw the Epstein files when they came to the House. Were you part of the process of like which emails should go out?

BELL: Well, our staff on Oversight, under the leadership of Representative Garcia, and obviously under the overall leadership of Hakeem Jeffries, is doing a tremendous job going through a lot of -- a lot of information. And there's been a data dump, as we've seen. But our staff is going through those thousands and thousands of emails. And it is -- there's a lot there.

CORNISH: But we just had a former prosecutor on set and he basically was like, this is a bad idea. Cherry-picking emails is a bad idea. Implying that somebody has committed crimes when they haven't, it's kind of a guilt by association situation. What's your response to those who say like, great stunt, but this isn't good form?

[06:50:03]

BELL: Also, a former prosecutor.

CORNISH: Yes.

BELL: And what I do know is that although they call us prosecutors, we're really victim advocates. And let's not lose sight of the fact that there were victims here who were victimized for years. And so, it is important for us to get this evidence out into the light of the day --

CORNISH: But if they weren't victimized by Trump why is --

BELL: Well, how do we know that?

CORNISH: Like, you're calling it evidence, but --

BELL: How do we know that? Until we --

CORNISH: Say more about what you're implying here.

BELL: What I'm -- what I'm saying is, and I'll -- and I'll be direct, is that it is important that the evidence is out because we are not in the business of protecting pedophiles. If -- this isn't just about the president. This is about justice. And if the -- and if the president is innocent of these accusations, then the evidence will exonerate him. But we should not be hiding information, particularly from a president who was the champion of advocating that this information get out. He ran on this information. But now it is impossible to ignore that there is some connection. And I think that is important for us to vet that, to investigate that, and for the public to know exactly what's going on.

CORNISH: Do you think there are Republicans who want to vote for this when this bill comes to the floor?

BELL: Absolutely.

CORNISH: More than the handful who helped?

BELL: Absolutely.

CORNISH: Have they talked to you? Have they been like, hey, I'm --

BELL: They -- I know for a fact that there are Republicans who want to support this. They -- but what they're balancing is their fealty to Donald Trump. And too often we're seeing Republicans put that fealty to him above the American people and the Constitution.

CORNISH: I want to bring in Mike Dubke, because I heard a heavy sigh there.

Mike, what are you feeling?

MIKE DUBKE, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: I -- like, I -- the bottom line here is, I do think it was a cheap, political -- a cheap, political move for the Democrats to put these emails out. And here's the reason why. Timing is everything in life. If the Republicans, when they did their data dump, redacted these emails, and you put these emails out later to say, look, what Republicans are hiding, I think that's a story. But to get ahead of the story and get ahead of the dump by putting these out so they made sure they were headlines in "The New York Times," that's a cheap, political trick.

BELL: I'd like to respond to that.

DUBKE: Yes.

BELL: Because it does seem interesting that when these -- when this email dump was put out right before an election, implying that only Hillary Clinton was being investigated and not Donald Trump, who was being investigated, I think that's kind of the pot calling the kettle black.

DUBKE: We can talk about (INAUDIBLE) later.

BELL: But what I'll -- what I'll also say is, as a prosecutor, put the information out. If the president or anyone is innocent or not guilty, which is our standard, then the evidence will exonerate them. But why are we hiding information and protecting pedophiles?

CORNISH: Is -- what are you going to do if there's a big Democratic name in there? You going to be fighting the same way?

BELL: Listen, I've said this before. If my mother -- forgive me, mother, for saying this.

CORNISH: Yes, don't be getting me in trouble with your mom.

BELL: But if my mother was in the Epstein files, the Epstein files, I would still vote to release them. Now, fortunately, she is not. But it does not matter, though the justice, though the heavens fall.

CORNISH: OK. So, one thing I want to come back to actually is a conversation we were having just before you came on set, which is, in the language to reopen the government is a bill put by the Senate, some Senate Republicans, that says, if you investigate one of us and you get our phone records, we can sue the government over these actions. If the -- if the law is weaponized against us. I understand there's a lot of people reacting to that in the House today, both Republican and Democrat.

BELL: Yes, here's the -- here's the concern that I have. The investigation into what we believe may be the largest sex trafficking ring ever has been hidden. But now these senators, these Republicans, are up in arms about an investigation for a riot, not just a riot, I'm sorry, for an incursion into our --

CORNISH: Yes, but -- well, the election interference case by Jack Smith and others.

BELL: Absolutely.

CORNISH: Yes.

BELL: And so now we're -- now they're paying $500,000 per device, because I heard the conversation earlier, for an investigation. But on the other side of the coin, when we're looking at a pedophilia sex trafficking ring, that information has been -- the House was closed down for 51 days to avoid a vote on the Epstein files. It is -- it is, as a prosecutor, is unethical. As a Christian, it is -- it is deplorable.

CORNISH: I want to -- there's one thing I want to raise because I hear this criticism a lot, which is, you know, Democrats are cynically leaning into this scandal for political points. That you've had years and years to go through these files or release them or whatever conversation you want to have.

[06:55:06]

But due to the sort of horseshoe political politics, all of a sudden you're aligned with the conspiracy folks and you're only too happy to embrace it, even though, politically, what benefit will there be? In six months, how will this help the party?

BELL: What I'll say is, I'm a freshman member. I -- you know, what was happening before, that's not my -- that's not my fight. What I know is, I'm coming to D.C. I'm not playing the D.C. games. And I know D.C. is going to D.C. But what I'm saying is, I'm a former prosecutor. I came here to represent the constituents of my district and the American people. And the American people want to see justice. They want to see transparency. They want us do -- doing the people's business. And what we're seeing in this gutting of health care and the gutting of Medicaid, the largest -- the largest cut to Medicaid in the history of the country, what we're seeing is a covering up of pedophilia, a sex trafficking ring, and now a payout to a handful of senators, senators, senators or senators, there's a slip of the tongue, but there might be something to that.

CORNISH: Yes, that's OK.

BELL: Is that it is -- it is -- it is devastating to American families. It is against our American values.

CORNISH: OK. All right. So now I'm going to do a couple that are much harder for you because Democrats actually aren't happy about how the shutdown ended, especially House Democrats. You have someone like Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez who thinks that they gained nothing from the deal. She's used words like "cowardice." And now you have to figure out what to do after the Senate folded. I just want to play for you what she said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ (D-NY): You have the refusal and the outright cruelty among House Republicans and the White House who went to court to try to sue for their ability to deny people's access to food. This is the reality that we're in right now. And we need to act like it. And we cannot enable this kind of cruelty with our cowardice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CORNISH: Were the Senate Democrats who voted to end the shutdown cowards?

BELL: You know, I'm not going to get into the name calling. Let's talk about policy and what matters to the American people. I'm not happy with this -- with this resolution. I voted no. As a matter of fact, I voted hell no to be perfectly, they had that option and -- when we were voting.

CORNISH: I know, but 650,000 Missourians were losing SNAP benefits.

BELL: I agree. Absolutely.

CORNISH: Would they be happy that you were sticking it out to make a point?

BELL: Absolutely. And that's why I voted no.

CORNISH: Yes.

BELL: And 260,000 Missourians could lose their health care or see their health care costs skyrocket.

CORNISH: Yes.

BELL: But I'll say this quickly, though. The issue, though, is that I'm not going to spend my time focusing on eight individuals when we see Republicans who have the House, Senate and the presidency cutting health care, cutting Medicaid. And I'm going to train my sights on them who are responsible for -- the Republicans who are responsible for a Republican health care crisis.

CORNISH: I think that I'm looking at a Quinnipiac poll showing that 45 percent of voters blame Republicans. But here's the thing, 39 percent blame Democrats for the shutdown. So, are you missing how much the public is disappointed with Democrats as well?

BELL: It's a -- I think that -- I think folks are disappointed in government, period, full stop. I think that we, you know, we need to do a better -- do a better job. I ran because of that. And so, I've been here now in office ten months and I'm seeing how D.C. works and I'm seeing that -- the dysfunction. And what I'm saying is, we need to clean up this corruption. We need to start working for the American people. And we need to start putting the interests of regular working class folks first. And where -- we haven't seen that. And it's time that we got to that business.

CORNISH: OK, Congressman Bell, before you go, we have a little bit of hazing here, which as we discuss what's in our group chats.

BELL: OK.

CORNISH: And since you're a freshman, I'm assuming yours is not filled with lobbyists yet. So, what are you talking about in your group chats?

BELL: One, I want to give a shout out to Reverend Cleaver (ph) on the Kansas City side.

CORNISH: Yes, Emanuel Cleaver.

BELL: Republicans are trying to gut his district. It is. It is criminal. He is a -- he is a American hero.

CORNISH: Are you talking about redistricting? Potentially redistricting.

BELL: Redistricting. Absolutely.

CORNISH: OK, so that makes sense. Certainly for folks who are new to office to find out the lines are being redrawn, even for the pros.

BELL: (INAUDIBLE). Absolutely. Absolutely.

CORNISH: So, thank you for sharing that. Appreciate it.

BELL: My pleasure.

CORNISH: You guys, thank you so much for talking with me. We talked about a lot.

I feel like, Mike, I should sneak in your group chat.

DUBKE: My group chat is --

CORNISH: He always has (INAUDIBLE) --

DUBKE: Well, mine's not political anyway.

CORNISH: Yes. Yes, that's why.

DUBKE: With the -- with the elimination of the penny, what is going to happen to all those --

CORNISH: Oh, the end of the penny, yes.

DUBKE: What is going to happen to all those, give a penny, take a penny trays.

[07:00:01]

MEGHAN HAYS, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Penny loafers? What are we going to do with that now?

DUBKE: Penny loafers are gone. I mean they're nickel loafers now. What is going to happen?

CORNISH: The economy is -- that's a recession indicator.

DUBKE: Exactly right.

CORNISH: If your penny loafers are now nickel loafers.

DUBKE: You've got all these little plastic trays that are going to landfills. It makes no sense.

CORNISH: I know. That's how I teach my kids how to count.

DUBKE: I'm an environmentalist.

CORNISH: Thank you for being here with these -- the group chat here. Thank you for waking up with us. I'm Audie Cornish. And the headlines are next.