Return to Transcripts main page
Erin Burnett Outfront
House GOP Issues Subpoenas In Epstein Case; FBI Arresting Texas Dems?; North Korean Spies Target U.S. Aired 7-8p ET
Aired August 05, 2025 - 19:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[19:00:26]
ERIN BURNETT, CNN HOST: OUTFRONT next:
Breaking news, a top Republican finally issues subpoenas related to Jeffrey Epstein. But who isn't on the list says a lot more than who is. This is the -- as Trump weighs in on Ghislaine Maxwell's unusual meeting with the Justice Department.
And Republicans tonight asking the FBI to round up Texas Democrats who fled the state, as Democrats across the country are now threatening to redraw their own maps, going nuclear. One Republican who could lose his seat says both parties need to stop. He's OUTFRONT.
And an OUTFRONT investigation, North Korean spies duping American companies into hiring them using A.I.-generated photos to appear more Caucasian, creating fake social media accounts. And it's working.
Let's go OUTFRONT.
And good evening. I'm Erin Burnett.
OUTFRONT tonight, the breaking news, the subpoena charade.
So, the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee, after weeks of dragging his feet, is now issuing subpoenas related to the Epstein investigation. All right, so that's a big deal. Who's targeted? Well, among them, nearly a dozen former federal officials and politicians who say nearly a dozen. That sounds good. Let's go through who they are. They do include former President Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former FBI Director James Comey, Robert Mueller and six former U.S. attorneys general.
It's a lengthy list. Maybe some of them are helpful. And to state the obvious, though, a lot of people are not on this list.
For example, you do see a former president there, but not another former president who happens to be the current President Trump, who is also in the Epstein files. But that really raises the question, right? A lot of people aren't on that list.
Will these subpoenas get to the bottom of what happened in the Epstein investigation? Who knew what, when and who did what? Not even close. Because in order to accomplish that, the oversight chairman, James Comer, needed to subpoena other key players. Now, that includes Trump's former labor secretary, Alex Acosta. Alex
Acosta is crucial. He is the prosecutor who negotiated Epstein's original sweetheart deal related to pedophilia. Acosta approved a deal in 2008 that allowed Epstein to serve only 13 months in a county jail. He was allowed to leave every day for 12 hours and given his predilections a pretty disgusting thing to think about.
Acosta's deal also shut down the federal investigation into his actions. So, if Comer wanted to get to the truth, it would seem that Acosta should be an important part of the list for a subpoena. And if Epstein had been charged and convicted of the allegations against him, he could have served a life behind bars, a life behind bars.
Well, in 2019, though, Acosta portrayed himself when it came to that whole deal that was originally done as a hero.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALEX ACOSTA, FORMER U.S. SECRETARY OF LABOR: There was value to getting a guilty plea. You can always look at a play after the fact and say, should it have been the safe play? Or should you have gone for the big score?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: So, there's Acosta. Also not subpoenaed is someone named Anne Marie Villafana, another important player. She was Acosta's number two. She helped craft that secret plea deal that allowed Epstein to avoid federal charges. But she later resigned because of concerns over this case.
And her attorney saying in a statement after her resignation, I want to quote the operative part, "Ms. Villafana believes the injustice in this case is a direct result of implicit biases based on gender and socioeconomic status, biases that allowed Mr. Epstein's defense team unparalleled access to the decision makers at the Justice Department, while the victims, Ms. Villafana and the FBI agents working the case were silenced."
Well, those people who were silenced are key to the Epstein investigations. The victims, the investigators and the people who knew what happened. They -- yet they were not subpoenaed.
And of course, as I mentioned, there's also President Trump. His name is mentioned in the Epstein files multiple times. He was alerted to that fact back in May. Epstein was a close friend of Trump's for a very long time. Several people that we've interviewed that have known him -- have known Trump and Epstein at different times and in different capacities were consistent in calling them best friends, in fact.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They were best friends.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: They were best friends. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was his best friend.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Best friends. Now, of course, Trump has never been accused of wrongdoing in this case. But if Comer wants to get to the bottom of who knew what and when, you would subpoena everybody.
[19:05:01]
And why not subpoena Epstein's former, quote/unquote, "best friend," someone who told "New York Magazine" in 2002, I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It's even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side, no doubt about it. Jeffrey enjoys his social life. A comment made two years after Virginia Giuffre was hired away from Mar- a-Lago by Epstein.
So, this whole kind of pomp and circumstance about the subpoenas that is taking place in the nation's capital tonight is coming at the same time that there appears to be a showdown over the grand jury testimony from the Epstein investigations. Now, there were only two officials who were even part of that. So, it has very limited helpfulness.
But Ghislaine Maxwell is now asking a federal judge to deny the Trump administration's request to unseal these documents for its investigation. Her lawyers writing Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Ghislaine Maxwell is not whatever interest the public may have in Epstein, that interest cannot justify a broad intrusion into a grand jury secrecy. In a case where the defendant is alive, her legal options are viable and her due process rights remain.
Kristen Holmes is OUTFRONT live outside the White House.
And, Kristen, as I've just pointed out here, there are many, many people mentioned in these files. Up to 1,000 victims and many others who would have known Jeffrey Epstein in various ways throughout his life.
And Trump's name is, is one of them. We know he's in the files mentioned. He's been told that by his own attorney general, but he's not on the subpoena list.
So I guess the question is, Kristen, how involved was the White House with who's on this list, with who got a subpoena?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Erin, in terms of who exactly got a subpoena, it's unclear how the White House played a role in that. But I can tell you one thing. Overall, the committee and the White House have been operating in lockstep.
And in fact, I got a call from two White House officials last night, late last night, who told me that the committee would be releasing these subpoenas today. So, they knew very well the timing and the fact that these would be going out. Now, all of this is part of an effort for the White House to gain control of the Epstein situation. This is a story that has really operated for this White House as a
runaway train, without any way for them to kind of get a handle on the information, since that DOJ memo. And one thing, if you look at the Trump playbook, this really fits perfectly into it. It is the White House now going on the offensive. They've been mostly on the defensive.
They are sitting here now bringing in Democrats, bringing out -- bringing in people who President Trump and the right wing has really have really demonized and created into boogeyman of the left. And those are the people that they're calling in to talk about this Epstein case. And now they're going to turn the focus on that.
And part of what we were reporting earlier today is that there is an entire effort now within the White House and the administration, but particularly within the White House, because they are working so hard to try and protect President Trump, to try and take control of the optics. And that's why they aren't having these conversations about potentially even releasing the transcripts or the audio of Todd Blanche, the deputy attorney general's sit down with Ghislaine Maxwell, because this is all part of an effort for them to be on the offensive, not the defensive.
BURNETT: All right. Kristen, thank you very much.
So, let's go now to former "National Enquirer" editor Barry Levine, also the author, of course, of "The Spider: Inside the Criminal Web of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell".
Also with us, back with us, Tara Palmeri. She, of course, has reported extensively on Epstein and Maxwell, Virginia Giuffre and spoken to so many victims.
And Ryan Goodman, our OUTFRONT legal expert.
So, Barry, you know, we referenced this, you know, a subpoena charade in the sense of who's on the list and who isn't on the list, and what's really being accomplished here. How would you describe it?
BARRY LEVINE, FORMER "NATIONAL ENQUIRER" EDITOR: Well, Erin, I have to say, how could you properly subpoena individuals and then interview them if you haven't had access to all the Jeffrey Epstein files? It doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, this is turning into a witch hunt.
We know that the president has invoked former President Clinton before related to all of this, in fact, saying that he had something to do with the files themselves. It doesn't make sense.
We need to have full transparency. This is what the victims want with proper redactions. Let's look at all the files and then let's intelligently come up with questions for individuals who should be brought in under subpoena and go about it that way. This is not going to accomplish anything.
BURNETT: Right. And they're not -- they're not giving a rhyme or reason to it, Ryan. I mean, for example, you know, Trump, no mention of a subpoena, even an invitation, right? If he was going to -- if he wanted to testify before the House Oversight Committee, we know he's mentioned in the files. You know, they put the former President Clinton on the list, but not Trump.
I mean, how glaring is the Trump omission to you?
[19:10:00]
RYAN GOODMAN, FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL AT DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: It's very glaring. It's completely conspicuous because especially if you look at the subpoena letter that former President Clinton received, it says, quote, given your past relationships with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, the committee believes you had information -- you have information regarding their activities that's relevant to the investigation.
True. But equally, if not much more so true of President Trump, who had been a very close friend of Epstein's overlapping the very period that Epstein and Maxwell are indicted for.
And just by way of example, Brad Edwards is one of the attorneys that represents victims. Tara has interviewed him multiple times in his book. He said, I looked around and in 2009 decided who to subpoena. He subpoenas Donald Trump because he thinks Donald Trump could have useful information. Then he says in his book that he spoke to Trump and that Trump gave him useful leads.
So, it only stands to reason that if you're looking around to find the people that would provide information for the investigation, he would be pretty close to that top of the list, as at least as a material witness or having information and leads that would provide the committee for its investigative work.
BURNETT: Right. Well, someone that multiple people have described as incredibly close, they've used the words "best friend" to describe him over a period of years.
So, Tara, what do you think that message the subpoena list sends?
TARA PALMERI, REPORTED EXTENSIVELY ON EPSTEIN AND MAXWELL: I think it's a really strong point that President Trump could be subpoenaed. I also think, why isn't there a witness, a survivor on that list, either? Speaking on behalf of the survivors, especially the ones who have been willing to come out, who have been willing to tell their stories and who have been dismissed so callously over the years?
I think that that would show an understanding of the truth of this story, that it isn't just a political story trying to pin a prior administration for wrongdoings, but really trying to get down to the heart of it. No matter, you know, who was involved in this injustice because if you really understand the 2008 non-prosecution agreement, you know, it started with a Democratic state attorney and Epstein hiring one of the most powerful Democratic attorneys in the country to sway him, Alan Dershowitz, he was a Democrat, obviously, at the time. And then it ended -- and then it went on to Ken Starr being involved,
and Jay Lefkowitz, prominent Republican attorneys to influence Alex Acosta, who, like you said, should be on that list with Marie Villafana.
This is a crime that is across political borders, and they can't pretend that they can just pick and choose who they can -- who they want to testify and who can be subpoenaed.
BURNETT: Right. And yet, obviously, it appears to be exactly what they're doing, even though, as you point out, if there's any crime that every American should agree is nonpartisan, it would be sexually assaulting underage girls, right? It would be pedophilia, as Epstein and whoever else was aware of or participated in, Maxwell convicted of doing so, Barry.
So when it comes to this subpoena of her, they want her to come testify, but they've now delayed this until her appeal plays out to the Supreme Court. And they're fighting any grand jury testimony coming out, which, as I pointed out, has very limited value because it's based on two people. So it's not as if that is the equivalent of the Epstein files, right? It's a -- it's a tiny little needle in a haystack.
But, Barry, does her testimony when they say were going to subpoena her when her appeal is done. What does that even mean?
LEVINE: You know, I have no idea, Erin, in the sense that we don't know at this point exactly what she covered when she discussed these 100 individuals with Todd Blanche nine hours of an interview that took place down in Florida. We have to sort this out. You know, my fear is that this is turning into some type of Warren Commission, going back to the, you know, JFK assassination inquiry.
I don't know why we're moving in this direction when what we really set out for at the very beginning, what Pam Bondi promised us was the full transparency of all the Epstein files. And now it has become so convoluted in terms of this investigation that's going on, the subpoenas, and the request to bring in Ms. Maxwell.
So I would say --
BURNETT: Yeah.
LEVINE: -- the starting point should be the files. We should have a full transparency of the files and then appropriately bring in individuals that are going to help answer the questions that we find from the files themselves.
BURNETT: Right. You look at J.D. Vance, Dan Bongino, Kash Patel, Pam Bondi, Trump himself with Epstein files, right? These are people who all said that they should see the light of day. So now, suddenly, when they have power to not give them the light of day, it does beg the question like, what is there to hide? Why not?
You thought it was so important. Why is it not important now to know who consorted with pedophile?
Ryan, today, Trump was asked because of that Todd Blanche number two at the DOJ meeting with Maxwell in the prison when she ostensibly mentioned about 100 names, that right after that meeting, Maxwell gets moved to this lower security prison in Texas in a residential neighborhood, minimal security, right after the meetings with Blanche.
[19;15:12]
And so, Trump is asked, okay, did you -- did you know about that move ahead of time? He said, no, here he is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Were you aware of? And did you personally approve the prison transfer for Ghislaine Maxwell that your Justice Department --
TRUMP: I didn't know about it at all. No, I read about it just like you did.
REPORTER: And do you believe that she is --
TRUMP: It's not a very uncommon thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Okay, Ryan, just to be clear, I think it's important to have a fact check here. It is uncommon for someone convicted of sex crimes and pedophilia like Maxwell, to be put into a minimum security prison in a residential neighborhood.
In fact, in fact, uncommon might be too soft of a word.
GOODMAN: It's extremely uncommon, extremely uncommon for a sex offender. Also, at her early stage of her sentence, to be sent to a prison like that. In fact, it would require a waiver. That waiver would have to be issued by somebody very senior within the Bureau of Prisons and Justice Department.
It's so unusual. President Trump just should have said, look, we're dealing with unusual situations or something unusual happened that would be maybe some way of approaching it. What he said is just not plausible. And it is so unusual that you would hope that the Justice Department would have informed him that he would not learn about it in the news. You would think they would tell him, because it's such an extraordinary step, taken with a very high-profile convict.
HUNT: All right. Extraordinary, that -- the more appropriate word.
Tara, you've published a new article about the time you met with Juan Alessi. I hope everyone will read it on Substack. But he was a longtime house manager of Epstein's home in Florida, I believe, and reading your report, you talked about how he testified in Ghislaine Maxwell's trial about how he would drive her to spas and clubs around Palm Beach, including Mar-a-Lago, to scout for girls. That he was also a driver at times for some of Epstein's victims, that he had to deal with the day to day of Epstein's depraved acts.
And you once asked -- you said he once asked Maxwell, why did she stay with Epstein? What was her answer, Tara?
PALMERI: She said she couldn't leave him. She had to stay with him. And you know, from -- from my understanding afterwards, you know, she did sue Epstein's estate, saying that he would always provide for her in terms of covering her financially, in terms of all of her legal bills, which made me think that there was always been a sort of -- there's always been some sort of arrangement between them that she would be covered financially by Jeffrey Epstein if she committed these crimes for him, if she continued to procure girls for him, then she would be subsidize -- her lifestyle would be subsidized because after her father died, Robert Maxwell, he died broke.
I mean, he stole the pensions from the pensioners at his at his newspaper, "The Daily Mirror", and left her with nothing. And she told her friends, according to my interviews with them, that she would say, "I'm broke, I'm broke". And she lived in a one-bedroom apartment on the Upper East Side afterwards.
It was only until she met Jeffrey Epstein that she moved into a multi- million-dollar townhouse on the upper east side. So, to sustain this lifestyle, she just had to find three girls per day for him. So, she was the Bonnie and Clyde. She is very much involved in this. And she -- yes, she cried that she didn't want to be a part of it, but at the same time, she didn't want to give up the high life. That was the price for her.
BURNETT: Right, right. And an explanation is not an excuse for such depraved acts and disgusting acts, as you describe them.
PALMERI: No.
BURNETT: Thank you all so very much, I am grateful.
And next, a close Trump ally who is usually in lockstep with the president tonight, breaking with Trump and insisting that the Epstein investigation is not a hoax.
Plus, Trump today on the White House roof talking about installing nuclear missiles.
And tensions escalating in Texas. The president now saying he supports the FBI getting involved, rounding up the Democrat representatives in the state capitol who fled the state.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:23:36]
BURNETT: Breaking news just moments ago, President Trump was asked whether he has spoken with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche about his unusual meetings with Ghislaine Maxwell and if he believes that Maxwell, who has perjured herself under oath, is credible.
Here's what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I didn't talk to him about it, but I will tell you that whatever he asked would be totally appropriate, and it's not an uncommon thing to do that. And I think he probably wants to make sure that, you know, people that should not be involved or aren't involved are not hurt by something that would be very, very unfortunate, very unfair to a lot of people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: All right. Well, those words come as Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is sounding a very different note, and she has been right once one of the most reliable megaphones for Trump. And I use the word megaphone very seriously. She has -- she is loud. People hear her and she is not giving this administration a millimeter when it comes to Epstein.
She is demanding more transparency, saying today, quote, Epstein files is not a hoax. He was a convicted pedophile and we demand to know the rich, powerful elites who approved of and participated in his evil ways.
OUTFRONT now, Van Jones and Alyssa Farah Griffin.
Van, you know, pretty fascinating what Marjorie Taylor Greene is saying because she is not just saying the people who participated in, she's saying powerful elites who approved of -- meaning knew and did nothing about.
[19:25:09]
I mean, she is probably speaking for how most Americans, I would hope all Americans feel about something like this. Not giving a millimeter.
So, when you look at this, Van, at the list of who's getting subpoenaed, former President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, a bunch of people like that, no Acosta, no Trump, no tons of other people who knew Epstein in some way over, over these years.
So, does this satisfy Trump's base, this list of people on subpoenaed?
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't -- I don't think so. I mean, look, there are people who, you know, like the speaker of the house who just want this to go away, would really like, sends everybody home, it's like, we won't even run America's government. Just please, God, stop talking about this.
And then you have people like Marjorie Taylor Greene who's like, won't talk about anything else. And I think this is a big, big problem I think for Trump and for this story. And I think this is -- this goes to the heart of the elitism that Trump says he's against and he's the biggest elite in the middle of the biggest elite cover up conspiracy. And I don't think they're going to let him go.
BURNETT: What do you think, Alyssa?
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Listen, I have actually an odd prediction, which this is certainly dogging Donald Trump, but he kind of is the master of turning the page. And I think even his own base is going to give him a bit of leeway if he just leans into, I'm running the free world. I've got to deal with trade, I've got to deal with foreign policy.
But this is really hurting House Republicans who have to run in these midterm elections. We've seen the clips from town halls where people are getting asked about the Epstein files. Folks are hearing from their constituents back home over this August recess. And it's not going away.
And we know Speaker Johnson did not want to deal with this issue. He broke a week early to August recess, sent folks home. But now that you have the oversight chairman actually issuing subpoenas, including of the Department of Justice for the full Epstein list, I think it shows that there is a concern that vulnerable house members who are up in just over a year for reelection cannot ignore this issue and keep trying to punt it the way that the White House is.
So, there's a bit of a disconnect there. I think it's -- I think it's not reflecting well on anyone, but it's much harder for those who have to run for reelection soon.
BURNETT: Well, they have to answer questions, and nobody, Van, wants to be in a position where they're put in a position of having to defend. Why putting out the files related to Jeffrey Epstein is something that now should not be pursued. Right? It just doesn't -- it doesn't fly. There are red lines.
And I guess that's the question. Well, maybe, maybe I should have phrased it differently. Are there red lines as opposed to putting out a statement? Let me put a question mark on it.
Some people who are very familiar with MAGA and specifically around the Epstein situation, have described the consequences of what could happen here. Let me play it, Van.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GRETCHEN CARLSON, FORMER FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I've said this before and I'll say it again, there will be an insurrection if he pardons Ghislaine Maxwell.
TUCKER CARLSON, PODCAST HOST: I just think it's very dangerous to play around with this stuff. Like very dangerous.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, I --
T. CARLSON: I don't want a revolution, but if you wanted a revolution, this is how you would act.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Insurrection, revolution. Rhetoric until it's not, Van.
JONES: Look, I just think that the idea of Donald Trump pardoning this woman is so abhorrent that even people who have put up with a lot from Donald Trump, who have held their nose, who tried to polish every turd, who just tried their best to make this thing work, are just going to have to say, I just can't take this one.
And I think he needs to understand. I think it will be catastrophic for him. Look, Donald Trump has gotten away with thing after thing after thing. And the reality is even all these subpoenas are nonsense, why are you subpoenaing everybody you've ever heard of? You know, Huey, Dewey and Louie, just subpoena the files. And get it over with.
So, everybody's tap dancing around trying to figure this thing out. But I think that if there's ever a bridge too far for Donald Trump, it's going to be letting an elite pedophile. Enabler go based on a Trump pardon. I think that's the end. That would be the end of the rope.
BURNETT: I mean, and, Alyssa, you know, you mentioned those town halls. Mike Flood from Nebraska, you know, at the -- was asked about it. And then -- at his very last phrase was I am for the release of those records, right? He put the period after every single one of those words. Right?
I mean, there is a time maybe is what you're saying, that these Republicans are being asked to choose and they are choosing and they are not being ambiguous about their choice. But that's rhetoric.
What about when it comes to coming back and voting and demanding the transparency in the House?
GRIFFIN: Well, Erin, that's the million dollar question, because, listen, congressional subpoenas, I hate to say, are a bit feckless these days. Many high profile cabinet secretaries in many administrations have ignored subpoenas, or they've turned over what they choose to.
[19:30:01]
I don't think because Chairman Comer sent this out that you're by any means going to be getting the full Epstein files from this Department of Justice. I think what's most likely is they may comply and turn over some of what they choose to, with many things redacted. But I think that this -- having some sort of a floor vote when Congress gets back into session and getting members on the record, it's becoming untenable for these Republican members to not vote for the full release.
And that's when you're going to see the most clear break from where the White House has been and what the position has been around these files.
And listen, my other prediction is this is the White House, the Department of Justice are going to be looking for prominent Democratic names that they can throw to their base. Thats the reason you hear the Clintons dangled out there and others. And by the way, if they are involved in any way, they should be investigated, they should be subpoenaed.
But that's going to be the next thing is, how do we distract and make someone else the bad guy so we can forget that the president's name is in these files.
BURNETT: Right.
All right. Thank you both. Van, Alyssa, appreciate you.
And next, new reporting tonight that Putin is caught between powerful factions inside Russia, making Putin a, quote/unquote, hostage.
Plus, a story you'll see first OUTFRONT tonight. North Korean operatives now flooding the U.S. job market, using A.I. to alter their appearances and make themselves look more Caucasian, the ultimate spy.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:35:37]
BURNETT: Breaking news, Trump's Hail Mary, the president sending his top envoy, Steve Witkoff to Moscow. He'll be landing there in a few hours. A last-ditch effort at a ceasefire days before Trump's deadline for Putin expires. Entering a whole new question mark as what then really happens?
Trump claims he knows exactly how to get Vladimir Putin to end his war in Ukraine, something that, frankly, he's been saying for years.
But here we are. Here's what he's saying now.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
TRUMP: Putin will stop killing people if you get energy down another $10 a barrel. He's going to have no choice because his economy stinks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: An economy completely now a war economy. Russia is not taking Trump seriously thus far as Russia media monitor Julia Davis points out. Watch this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KONSTANTIN SIMONOV, DIRECTOR OF RUSSIAN THINK TANK: They can impose the sanctions even now, but Trump won't do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
OUTFRONT. Now, Christo Grozev, the world-renowned investigative journalist who's on Russia's wanted list for his groundbreaking reporting on Putin's regime.
So, Christo, let's start there, because your sources are telling you, you know, when it comes to what's going to happen here and the war or not, that Putin is stuck between two warring factions on Ukraine, in Russia, and that he's essentially a hostage when it comes to Ukraine.
What do you mean?
CHRISTO GROZEV, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: What I mean is that he really cannot stop the war at this point in time. So, everything that he says publicly, everything that he says to Witkoff or to Trump is in fact a lie because he's really between -- squished between these two camps. And the only thing that is giving him -- giving him a sufficient time of political survival is a war of attrition, which is what he is doing at the moment, a war that will continue for as long as it can without a major shift, either in the direction of a surge. He cannot afford the surge of sending additional soldiers through a new mobilization, or nor can he afford -- afford to stop it.
This has been the case for a while, and it was obvious when President Trump came to the into the administration and was sure that he can achieve a settlement, a peace settlement with Putin, that that is not an option. What is new here is that in addition to the very hawkish camp of the generals, let's call them the generals, who are essentially completely not open to ending the war under any circumstances.
This is the army around Putin and the GRU, military intelligence, and many of the radicalized mercenaries. There's a new group that has suddenly achieved some sort of legitimacy and power, and those are the, the deaths. These are oligarchs. These are oligarchs who previously didn't have the courage to actually propose an alternative to continuing the war indefinitely. And they've been suffering their quality of life, have been suffering for years, as we know.
But now, they are joined by some people with actual power, such as, for example, the head of one of the largest military manufacturers in Russia, Rostec, that Sergey Chemezov.
Chemezov holds a lot of -- wields a lot of power. He's probably the second most powerful person in the country. And what we noticed recently is that he has been trying to create a back-channel communication with the United States, where he proposes an alternative end to the war, essentially by buying off Ukraine and buying off the United States, offering commercial deals that will make it possible for the west, for Ukraine and for the United States to accept some sort of end of the war. And this is a new development.
BURNETT: Yeah, but fascinating that Putin is, in a sense, as you describe it, that his hands are tied by his generals. Right. When you talk about absolute power and authoritarian, it has become, in some senses powerless in some crucial regards.
But it comes up crypto is something has changed and that is Trump. I mean, he's been talking fast and loose about nukes in a way that that that isn't usual for the U.S. and that he had not done before. Right. So first, he sent those nuclear submarines in response to a post by the former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, a person who is not taken seriously, although is used, no doubt to convey certain messages.
Then, Trump went to the White House roof today and brought up nukes again in a very specific way. I want to play it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What are you trying to build?
TRUMP: Missile.
REPORTER: Sir, do you approve --
TRUMP: Nuclear missiles.
REPORTER: You're saying more missiles? Are you building missiles?
[19:40:02]
What?
(EN VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: Right, the nuclear missiles. And then making that arm gesture. And then account associated with his campaign actually then posted an A.I. video of him dancing on the roof after those comments were made.
So, Christo, this is different. How does Putin view Trump's newly loose nuclear talk?
GROZEV: Again, Putin has to balance two conflicting pressures on him and one of the pressures is saying America is actually our enemy and they're trying to destroy Russia. And that's what essentially the messaging that former President Medvedev was using when he provoked Trump into this response.
What this rhetoric is doing, and it appears to be very brave and unprecedented in a way, from coming from Trump, but it is, in fact, feeding into exactly that camp that is now going to be able to quote these words to the Russian electorate and say, you see, America is actually planning to attack us. And they're preparing nukes.
So, in a way, this is favoring the hawkish part of the -- of the of the two lobbyists in Russia, as much as it appears at first glance to be a very brave response from Trump.
BURNETT: Christo, thank you very much.
And President Trump now upping the ante, suggesting that the feds may have to round up Democrats who fled Texas as Democrats are threatening to redraw their own maps. I'm going to talk to a Republican next whose seat could soon be in danger. And he says all of this has to stop. He'll explain what he's doing about it.
Plus, fake social media accounts, A.I. generated images to make North Korean spies in America look Caucasian. See how Kim Jong Un is successfully keyword successfully infiltrating U.S. companies.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:46:06]
BURNETT: Breaking news, President Trump backing a top Republican senator's request for the FBI to locate or arrest -- those are the exact words -- dozens of Texas Democratic lawmakers who fled the state.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Should the FBI get involved?
TRUMP: Well, they may have to. They may have to. No, I know they want them back. You can't just sit it out. You have to go back. You have to fight it out. That's what elections are all about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: It comes as California Democrats are going nuclear in response to Republicans in Texas vowing payback for the Trump backed plan in Texas.
That plan would give Republicans five more seats ahead of the midterms. GOP-friendly seats, very bright red seats in Texas.
So, California is saying, fine, we'll go seat for seat, targeting five districts that they could turn a very bright blue.
Governor Gavin Newsom warning that he will move forward if Republicans in Texas don't back down.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GAVIN NEWSOM (D), CALIFORNIA: Things have changed. We're reacting to that change. They've triggered this response, and we're not going to roll over, and we're going to fight fire with fire. Whatever they are doing will be neutered here in the state of California.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BURNETT: OUTFRONT now, Republican Congressman Kevin Kiley, he is from California, one of the five California Republicans whose seat would be target of California lawmakers redraw this map arbitrarily in the middle of a census. And so you're also, I know, Congressman, introducing legislation that would prevent both parties across this country from arbitrarily redistricting right in the middle of a, you know, they're supposed to do it every ten years around a sentence, a census. I'm sorry, but you can't do it now in the middle, as Texas is doing. And now, Newsom is saying he will do as well if Texas proceeds.
So, Congressman, you're saying to Democrats and Republicans, stop, stop with the random redrawing of congressional districts, stop doing it arbitrarily. But I just want to understand why. I mean, obviously, your seat could be at risk. So, you got skin in the game, but why else do you feel so strongly about this?
REP. KEVIN KILEY (R-CA): Well, I'm actually not particularly worried about my seat. I won by 46,000 votes last election and so, there's only so much they could do to me. But this is, you know, about democracy in California. We actually have a Citizens Redistricting Commission in our state that was -- that's independent of the political process that was established by voters in an overwhelming vote. And now the governor is trying to abolish that commission, override the will of voters, and to assume the power to draw this declines for himself precisely what the voters said they didn't want.
And so, I think this is a very unhealthy thing, though, across the country, to be having district lines shuffled at arbitrary times in the middle of the decade in a way that is as politically motivated. And so, I don't love what's happening in Texas, and I don't think it's going to be a good thing if we see this domino effect where state after state is continually upending congressional districts, that's not a good thing for representatives or for constituents. I don't think it's a good thing for Democrats or Republicans, and it's certainly not a good thing for the country.
BURNETT: All right. So, you're trying to be sane. You're trying to put something out there. You're saying mutually assured destruction in the form of redistricting is bad for democracy, bad for both parties. Okay.
President Trump, though, is not mincing words on this congressman. He sees it differently. He says his word is that he's entitled to more seats in Congress. Let me play what he's had to say about it.
(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats. We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. And I won Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas, as you probably know, and we are entitled to five more seats.
(END AUDIO CLIP)
BURNETT: All right. So, what do you say to him? You don't like what's happening in Texas, but he is the fuel behind what's happening in Texas.
[19:50:02]
KILEY: Well, I think we need to be fair to the president and the perspective that he's coming at this from, because it is true that states like Illinois are wildly gerrymandered and are way more imbalanced in their representation than a state like Texas is. And then you add to that the fact that the Census Bureau actually made counting errors in the 2020 census, they've come out and acknowledged that in a way that gave Democrats several extra seats. And then also the fact that when it comes to apportionment, illegal immigrants are counted in terms of how many representatives each state gets, so that has an effect of, you know, an effect as well. And so, I think the president probably is approaching this from the
perspective of kind of balancing the equities, perhaps not having been fully advised on what the larger picture of this was, that it may well ignite this redistricting war that were seeing across the country, and that there's people like Gavin Newsom who are willing to violate the state constitution and ignore the will of voters in order to pursue their own partisan agenda.
So, at the end of the day, I think that it's ultimately up to the speaker --
BURNETT: But just to be clear, Gavin Newsom is doing it because Greg Abbott is doing it, right? I mean, just to be clear, I mean, you are -- you are correct saying you don't want either party to be doing it arbitrarily in the middle of a census.
KILEY: Yeah. And I think that the governor of California's statement that some other state is doing something wrong. So, we should do something wrong, too.
I'm not sure how voters are going to respond to that. I think a lot of people are going to ask, wait a minute, why is it that two wrongs make a right? But it's actually a lot worse in California because we have this independent commission that the voters established whose role is to draw lines in a nonpartisan way. And now, there's this effort to push that aside so they can be drawn in an entirely partisan way.
But --
BURNETT: All right.
KILEY: -- at the end of the day, I think that, you know, we're talking about elections to the House of Representatives. So, I've introduced a bill, and I want to see the speaker of the house and ideally Leader Jeffries as well support it to just say enough is enough. Let's take a deep breath. Let's not go down this path. Let's have a little sanity here and get back to the issues that really matter to the American people.
BURNETT: All right. Well, Congressman Kiley, I appreciate your time. And thank you very much.
And North Korean spies are now inundating U.S. job applications, fake profiles, A.I. generated pictures. And guess what? U.S. companies are falling for it. A report next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[19:56:01]
BURNETT: Tonight, an OUTFRONT investigation. North Korean operatives backed by Kim Jong Un are duping American companies into hiring them.
And Ivan Watson has this special OUTFRONT report.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Did you know that you were working with North Koreans?
(voice-over): Arizona resident Christina chapman is going to court for sentencing after pleading guilty to criminal charges, including wire fraud and identity theft.
U.S. law enforcement says Chapman ran laptop farms for North Korea.
MATTHEW GALEOTTI, ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: She was involved with an extremely dangerous and serious and sophisticated. Criminal scheme in which individuals were directed by the government of North Korea to apply for information technology jobs to make it appear that they were either U.S. based workers or workers in third party countries that were not sanctioned.
CHRISTINA CHAPMAN, ARIZONA RESIDENT: Hi, everybody. TikTok fan.
WATSON: Chapman documented her life extensively on TikTok from poverty in 2021.
CHAPMAN: I'm classified as homeless in Minnesota.
WATSON: To two years later when she had a new job in what she described as the computer business. It allowed her to rent this house in Arizona.
CHAPMAN: I started 5:30, go straight to my office, which is the next door away from my bedroom.
WATSON: The FBI raided Chapman's house in October 2023, seizing more than 90 laptops and accusing her of helping North Koreans use stolen and purchased U.S. identities to get remote I.T. worker jobs at more than 300 U.S. companies, earning North Korea more than $17 million.
GALEOTTI: We are resourcing one of the most hostile nations in the world funding their weapons program.
BRIAN JACK, CHIEF INFORMATION SECURITY OFFICER AT KNOWBE4: If you post remote software engineering jobs and those positions are listed on a site like Indeed, I can guarantee you are fielding resumes from North Korea.
WATSON: Brian Jack knows firsthand. Last year, his company discovered it had unwittingly hired a North Korean. Now, he says his teams are experts on spotting North Korean job applicants.
JACK: In the last year, I know of and have looked at, at least 100 North Korean resumes.
WATSON: They often use similar generic names and almost identical job and educational experience. They also use A.I. generated photos and even A.I. face filters.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Like are you using something to like, change your camera view?
WATSON: Such as this one where the man on the left used a Caucasian filter to hide his identity in an online job interview.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can see that you're using some kind of software.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is instruction manual by them for them.
WATSON: U.S. Army veteran and I.T. security expert Michael Barnhart (ph) has been collecting evidence that the North Koreans accidentally share.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've seen their chats. We've seen their emails. We've seen their faces.
WATSON: Including Google and ChatGPT searches that show how they're trying to fit in with American society, asking questions like, I want to know about American football. And when is lunchtime in the USA?
U.S. law enforcement can't physically catch North Koreans.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was working remotely most of the time.
WATSON: Believed to be running their schemes out of China and Russia, but American laptop farmers are a different story.
GALEOTTI: These schemes always happen with U.S. based facilitators, whether they're financial facilitators allowing their bank accounts to be used, whether they're hosting laptop farms or whether they're helping create or sell false identities.
WATSON: Christina Chapman's prosecution is a warning to corporate America about the North Korean threat that can come with every job application.
Moments ago, I watched a judge in this courthouse sentenced Christina Chapman to eight and a half years in prison. He said the safety of the nation was at issue in this case.
As for Ms. Chapman, she told the court, weeping that she hates herself for what she did and that she feels like a monster.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WATSON (on camera): Erin, in June, the Department of Justice announced a separate bust, saying it raided 29 suspected laptop farms across 16 states and arrested two suspected laptop farmers in New Jersey. It is estimated the scheme earns North Korea between $225 million and $600 million a year. It is so successful that the authorities are worried that other adversary countries and organized crime might try to get in on this scheme -- Erin.
BURNETT: Absolutely incredible reporting.
Ivan, thank you so much.
And thanks to all of you for being with us.
"AC360" starts now.
