Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Trump Calls Focus on Epstein Scandal "Total Bullshit"; Gloria Allred and Epstein Accuser Speak Out; Victor Blackwell Interviews Rep. James Clyburn; Five Soldiers Shot at Georgia's Fort Stewart; "South Park" Takes on Kristi Noem. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired August 06, 2025 - 23:00   ET

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

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN HOST: Tonight, President Trump tries to shrug off the scandal he cannot seem to shake by dismissing the fallout over Jeffrey Epstein with one of his new favorite words. Plus, the redistricting war that started in Texas spreads to South Carolina. Could it wipe out the state's only Democratic congressman, James Clyburn? He joins me tonight. And Kristi Noem gets the South Park treatment and the Department of Homeland Security tries to spin it to their advantage. Tonight on "Laura Coates Live."

Welcome to the show. I'm Victor Blackwell, in for Laura. President Trump's message tonight over the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, nothing to see here folks. His frustration over the controversy his own team spent years hyping is boiling over in the Oval Office. And he used one of his favorite words to dismiss it. And then he dropped another word, a little spicier, that he seems to like here of late.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: The whole thing is a hoax. It's put out by the Democrats because we've had the most successful six months in the history of our country, and that's just a way of trying to divert attention to something that's total bullshit.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: Now, that was his response after being asked about a dinner to discuss the strategy over the Epstein fallout. Now, sources say it was supposed to happen at the vice president's residence. Several top administration officials were invited. Well, tonight, we're hearing it appears to have been moved or rescheduled because of the intense media scrutiny. Vice President J.D. Vance denies it was ever on the books.

But we do know one thing for sure. The scandal now engulfing the White House was self-created because if you look at what has been said and who said it, it's not hard to see who has really been pouring gasoline on this fire, starting with the very people who were supposed to be at this dinner tonight. First up, V.P. Vance. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. That -- that is an important thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: All right, that's Vance. Now, A.G. Pam Bondi.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey Epstein's clients? Will that really happen?

PAM BONDI, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL: It's sitting on my desk right now to review. That has been a directive by President Trump.

I think tomorrow, Jesse, breaking news right now, you're going to see some Epstein information being released by my office.

A lot of documents.

UNKNOWN: Yeah. Okay. All right. So, people can expect actual movement on this, not just empty promises?

BONDI: Oh, Donald Trump --

UNKNOWN: Yeah.

BONDI: -- doesn't make empty promises.

UNKNOWN: Yeah. Right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: All right, next, FBI Director Kash Patel.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN: Why is the FBI protecting the greatest pederast, the -- the largest-scale pederast in human history?

KASH PATEL, DIRECTOR, FBI: Simple, because of who's on that list. Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are.

UNKNOWN: The black book is not just sitting -- I mean, that's -- that's Hoover power times 10.

PATEL: And -- and to me, that's a thing I think President Trump should run on. On day one, roll out the black book.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: So, you don't have to stop with the dinner party attendees. The president himself flirted with the Epstein conspiracy during the campaign.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: There are those people. There are many people. I think you're one of them, right? But a lot of people think that he -- uh, he was killed. He knew a lot on a lot of people.

TUCKER CARLSON, CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER FOX NEWS HOST: He was killed.

TRUMP: You think so?

Yeah, I'd be inclined to do the Epstein. I'd have no problem with it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: And so did FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN BONGINO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FBI (voice-over): What the hell are they hiding with Jeffrey Epstein? Why do they want to make this Jeffrey Epstein story go away so bad?

BONGINO: I'm not ever going to let this story go because of what I heard from a source about Bill Clinton on a plane with Jeffrey Epstein. I'm not letting it go ever. Ever.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[23:05:06]

BLACKWELL: Now, speaking of Bongino, he was not one of the reported people invited to attend the strategy session that didn't happen, which is curious considering it was supposed to be an opportunity to clear the air after a White House clash last month between Bongino, Bondi, and Patel. That blow up was over the administration's handling of the Epstein files. And a source tells us it was so severe that it forced Vice President Vance to take urgent calls between rides with his family at Disneyland.

All right, back to tonight's dinner, though. It was more than just a chance to make peace. It was also meant to make progress toward answering one of the biggest questions facing the administration now, whether to release the DOJ's conversation with Epstein accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell. I guess there's no progress on that tonight.

With me now, White House reporter for "The Washington Post," Cleve Wootson, former White House deputy press secretary during the first Trump administration, Sarah Matthews, and Republican strategist Lance Trover. Welcome to you all.

Sarah, let me start with you. So, this dinner is moved, rescheduled maybe. Is this an acknowledgement of the optics or are they just pushing this aside for a moment? What do you see happening here? SARAH MATTHEWS, FORMER TRUMP WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY: I think that they got so much media scrutiny that they knew the optics looked horrible. I mean, look, I'm young enough to remember when there was wall-to-wall coverage and it was a full-blown scandal when Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch met on a tarmac and spoke when she was investigating Hillary Clinton's email --

BLACKWELL: Yeah.

MATTHEWS: -- server scandal. And now, look at what -- like, the DOJ is supposed to have a firewall between the White House and is supposed to be an independently run agency.

And in this meeting, at this dinner, you were going to have the attorney general with the White House chief of staff, with the vice president of the United States, I don't know, conducting strategy on what they were going to do to push back on this Epstein scandal, to try to make it go away. And it begs the question of is there any more independence between these two because this is supposed to prevent any sort of politicization of the law enforcement agency.

And the DOJ is currently investigating Ghislaine Maxwell, who might or may or may not be involved with Trump in some way. I mean, it begs the question why they won't release the files. We know that his name was redacted several times in those files and there are plenty of pictures of them.

And so, it just -- there's a lot going on that makes me wonder, and I just have to say that I think it's rich, considering I know Republicans for years were criticizing Democrats for that tarmac meeting.

But this dinner would have been 10 million times worse. At least they called it off. But now, I'm sure it's happening under the cover of darkness in some way, that there is still some strategizing going on between the DOJ and the White House on a very political matter.

BLACKWELL: This doesn't make it go away. I mean, even in this period of (INAUDIBLE) over will they or won't they release the transcripts, what do they do now? Because simply postponing a dinner doesn't solve the problem of the Epstein story that they just can't get past.

LANCE TROVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER SPOKESPERSON FOR DOUG BURGUM'S 2024 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN: No, they're going to have to release more. We talked about this on Monday night. I mean, I think they will release more documentation. There's no question about it.

But you hit on something, which is the tarmac issue, which is the issue we've been talking about, which is the Russiagate issue, which I think a lot of Americans as well care about right now as well beyond that Jeffrey Epstein files thing. They're going to have to do more.

MATTHEWS: But hasn't that already been litigated like we've had?

TROVER: No. Absolutely not. I mean, absolutely not.

MATTHEWS: I think --

TROVER: Rasmussen had --

MATTHEWS: -- this is like something that Donald Trump campaigned on. He campaigned on releasing these Epstein files. And now, they're trying to gaslight his voters into saying, hey, no, this doesn't matter, look -- look at this other issue at hand. No. I mean, if this is an issue, why can't we walk and chew gum and do both?

TROVER: I think voters absolutely can walk, talk, and chew gum at the same time. Rasmussen has a poll out right now that says 65% of voters out there are very concerned and want to know more about the Russiagate issue.

MATTHEWS: And I think even more voters want to know what's going on with Epstein scandal.

TROVER: I didn't interrupt you. Can I finish? Sixty-five percent of voters are concerned about this Russiagate issue. I'm not suggesting Jeffrey Epstein is not important. But you're right, voters can walk, talk, and chew gum at the same time. We're not living in a vacuum where this is the only topic that they care about. I mean, come on.

MATTHEWS: It seems to be dominating the news cycle, though. It seems to be the --

TROVER: That's exactly right because everybody --

MATTHEWS: Because voters care.

TROVER: Yes. Correct. Because the Russiagate issue, which dominated every single station, including the one we're on right now, for many years to come, for some reason nobody wants to talk about the fact that we had documentation come out over the weekend -- that we had documentation come out over the weekend that said upper echelons, members of our government knew that Hillary Clinton contrived the entire Russia folks' scenario --

(CROSSTALK)

BLACKWELL: -- has been investigated by special counsel --

TROVER: Then why are we --

BLACKWELL: -- by Congress several times. And -- and let me just also say, when you put in a room the vice president, the chief of staff, the director of the FBI, the attorney general, of course, it's going to make news.

[23:10:04]

TROVER: I'm not arguing that's news at all. But, frankly, I don't have a problem. If the issue is about releasing documents, which, apparently, a good chunk of this country wants to do, there's no problem in having a session to discuss what documents need to come out, what needs to be redacted. I don't think there's anything wrong with having those types of --

CLEVE WOOTSON, WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, WASHINGTON POST: It also makes it hard for the president to argue that his hands are tied, that it's in the hands of the Justice Department, that it's in the hands of the court, if they're all getting together or supposedly getting together to have this conversation and to meet.

And it just adds continuing gasoline to this fire. You know there are other issues that are coming up that are important. That kind of help Trump to turn the page from this. And now, it's sort of like another thing that's adding to the drip, drip, drip. That is something that we're talking about here. That's going out on Twitter. That's hitting everywhere.

BLACKWELL: Cleve, what was supposed to be the role of the vice president here? Was he supposed to be a peacemaker or is he an enforcer? What's his role in trying to reconcile A.G. Bondi with the FBI director?

WOOTSON: I mean, I think when you have J.D. Vance taking calls from Disneyland and between right --

BLACKWELL: Between teacups.

WOOTSON: Yeah, yeah, exactly. That -- I hope he got the express pass. Like he -- he -- he is trying to be somebody that -- it appears that he's trying to be somebody that is -- is -- is helping to settle things, is -- is a new neutral -- in quotation marks -- third party or whatever that will just get everybody on to the same page. But, you know, we don't really know what's going to happen in that meeting or if that meeting is -- is happening or has happened or will happen or has moved.

BLACKWELL: Yeah.

MATTHEWS: It makes it really difficult though for folks like Kash Patel and Dan Bongino who, for years, have been talking about the Epstein files. And now, they're working in these senior positions in government and all because Trump doesn't want these files to be out there, it seems seemingly so. And now, they are having to kind of go back on it.

And that's what's really interesting to me because they built such a following on it, of talking about it, and promising that in a second Trump administration, that they would release these files. And it's just another campaign promise, in my view, that Trump has broken. And this is one that does not seem to be going away for him, and it's going to continue to be in the news cycle.

BLACKWELL: As a vet in the press office, the discussion of Todd Blanche having a press conference or going on Joe Rogan's podcast, are either of those a good idea?

MATTHEWS: I can't imagine a world in which it is a good idea. I mean, I think that Joe Rogan or someone is actually going to hold his feet to the fire and ask, why did Ghislaine Maxwell get moved to a luxury prison that's basically the equivalent of a country club right after your meeting with her? And now, she's out there saying, oh, Trump didn't do anything wrong as far as I'm aware, nothing concerning.

And I think that any interview that he gives, whether it's with a Joe Rogan type or anyone, I think unless it's a very, very friendly host, they're going to get those types of questions. And I do think that someone like a Joe Rogan would hold his feet to the fire on that.

BLACKWELL: Uh, Cleve, to Lance's point earlier in the conversation, "The Washington Post" reported that the president had some success with parts of his MAGA base in getting their attention away from the Epstein fallout. How did he do it? And what has been the benefit thus far?

WOOTSON: Sure. I mean, at one point earlier this month or earlier last month, it seemed like Trump was throwing kind of everything at the wall as sort of distractions there, the MLK tapes.

But the thing that really sort of stuck with a lot of the MAGA faithful was, you know, the Obama treasonous conspiracy. Tulsi Gabbard, I was in the briefing room when Tulsi Gabbard came and spent 13 minutes talking about this declassified information, talking about how there was this effort to undermine Trump over a period of a decade.

And we use some A.I. to analyze what influencers and what Trump supporters, you know, were talking about on social media, and -- and we did see signs that while Epstein did remain salient as an issue, there was also sort of an increase in influencers and podcast hosts and other folks in talking about Obama, about this -- about this alleged conspiracy, about these declassified files.

BLACKWELL: Do you risk, do Republicans risk, does the White House risk repeating what is happening now, promising the world on Epstein, and then doing this with the Russia investigation, and we found these new documents, there's something coming and not being able to deliver?

TROVER: Yeah. Look, I'm -- and this is why I bring it up, because -- look, I think they're going to have to release more of the Epstein documents because they have -- they have been declassifying and releasing a lot of these Russiagate documents which, by the way, are showing some pretty stark things that are coming out, particularly with what Chuck Grassley released over the weekend, which again leads to what this government knew and when they knew it about the whole Russia hoax thing.

And again, to your -- your story was really good because it highlighted how interested the folks are in the story. That's what I was getting to as well, which is the Rasmussen polling that comes out, that voters are also as interested in Russia as they are at Epstein.

[23:15:01]

I just think we should be talking about both, not just focusing on one.

BLACKWELL: All right. Lance, Sarah, Cleve, thank you all.

An investigative report out with the scoop (ph) tonight that the DOJ is starting to notify Epstein victims of a possible release of grand jury testimony. I'll ask Gloria Allred and an Epstein accuser what they've heard. Plus, gerrymandering spreading across the country. Republicans are signaling they could target Congressman James Clyburn's district. He'll respond right here next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:19:56]

BLACKWELL: Tonight, the Trump administration appears to be nowhere near bringing closure to the numerous victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell once and for all.

My next guest, Alicia Arden, an Epstein survivor, is demanding the release of the files. She tells the government, just do it. The then 27-year-old model and aspiring actress filed a police report accusing Epstein of groping her in a California hotel room in 1997. Also joining us, prominent women's rights attorney, Gloria Allred, who represents more than 20 alleged victims of Jeffrey Epstein. Uh, welcome to you both and thank you for being with me.

Alicia, first to you. Um, Virginia Giuffre's family is calling on the Trump administration to give survivors a seat at this table. When they're bringing together all these high-ranked government officials, there should be someone there speaking for the victims. Do you want to be involved in these meetings and these conversations?

ALICIA ARDEN, FILED COMPLAINT AGAINST JEFFREY EPSTEIN: I could be. I would like to be involved in the conversations along with my attorney, and I would be freely speaking about it. I just don't know why it's taking so long. They keep saying that they're going to release them, and they never do.

And I feel sorry every day. I think about it every day. Why don't they just do it to bring myself and the other victims, especially Virginia Giuffre who I met in New York when we were all in meetings with the Homeland Security and the FBI?

And I met her, and I went up to her in the meeting, and I said, hi, Virginia, I was able to file a police report, were you? I filed one in California. And she told me that day she couldn't do that. She was around rich and powerful people. So, for closure for myself and for her family, I -- I want to see it come out. And yes, I would be happy to speak about any of it.

BLACKWELL: Yeah. You've asked the government, just release the files, do it instead of dragging this out, deliberating week after week.

ARDEN: Uh-hmm.

BLACKWELL: House Oversight Committee, Alicia, subpoenaed the Department of Justice for its files. Um, they've deposed or they want to depose former top government officials, but not any of the survivors. I should probably stop saying victims. The survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. Why do you think that is?

ARDEN: Well, some -- some survivors may not want to speak. I'm free to speak about it and to bring closure to myself and the other victims. So, if -- if they want to speak to me about anything and then my attorney will speak with me, I'm happy to do it.

And I don't know if we can really believe, like, if they're interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell, I don't know if we could ever believe what she says, and she lies about everything. So, I definitely would only want to hear myself and the other survivors speak and not her because I don't know if she's telling the truth.

I want to hear what Todd Blanche -- he interviewed her, and what did he ask her, and what did she say for the hours in that interview --

BLACKWELL: Yeah.

ARDEN: -- with him.

BLACKWELL: Gloria, let me come to you and this reporting from CNN's investigative reporter, Sarah Fitzpatrick, that she says the Department of Justice, they're now starting to send out notifications to survivors through the victim notification service, informing them that the DOJ is going to submit a motion to release grand jury testimony that involves victims' names. You --

GLORIA ALLRED, VICTIMS' RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Uh-hmm.

BLACKWELL: You work with, uh, several survivors. Are you aware of this happening?

ALLRED: I am on the victim notification list. I do get updates. In fact, I got one yesterday. And so, I'll be informing my clients who have asked me to be the point of contact for victim notification.

But Victor, what I have said today is, yes, we should not have victims subpoenaed, but we should invite them to testify before Congress, before the subcommittees. Hopefully, not only before the House subcommittee, but I'd like to see a joint committee with the Senate.

But nothing should be done to bully them, nothing should be done even to identify them publicly with their names or their faces if they wish to remain anonymous but they wish to be heard. They need to be supported, and that's what's important.

Also, on the list and for the transcript of Ms. Maxwell's answers to the deputy attorney general's questions, look, we know there are reasons to doubt her credibility, but if they're going to put that transcript out, they better put all of it out, not just pieces, not just selective answers that they wish to have the public see.

[23:25:11]

And in addition, I'd like them, for each statement she makes, to put at the bottom of the screen or the bottom of the transcript whether there's independent corroboration of what she's saying or whether that's an inconsistent statement or whether it's a lie. And if they are saying it's a lie, what is the proof that shows and demonstrates that it is a lie? That's what we need to do, not just put it out as the truth which it may be, which it may not be. I don't know.

And the last thing I would like to say is, yes, as you pointed out, a number of public officials have been subpoenaed as well to be heard or deposed at the committee hearing. Of many attorney generals, why is the attorney general, Pam Bondi's name, not on that list? Why is not the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche's name, on that list to testify before the House committee? I think let them have all the attorney generals, not just some. That will lead to more confidence in the public. Otherwise, it's kind of cherry picking --

BLACKWELL: Yeah.

ALLRED: -- for some reason that they're choosing some, not others.

BLACKWELL: There's also the question of Alex Acosta, who negotiated the deal for Jeffrey Epstein, who's not on that list to be deposed. Let me clarify Sarah Fitzpatrick.

ALLRED: Yes, and I asked today at the press conference for him to be added.

BLACKWELL: All right. Sarah Fitzpatrick, a fantastic independent journalist who appeared here on CNN. Alicia Arden, Gloria Allred, thank you both for being with me tonight.

ALLRED: Thank you, Victor. Thank you.

ARDEN: Thank you, Victor.

BLACKWELL: Our next, he's the only Democratic congressman in his state, and a Republican running for governor wants to redraw the congressional map and push him out of his seat. South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn responds right here after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: The next target in the now nationwide redistricting fight could be the longtime and lone Democratic congressman from South Carolina, James Clyburn. GOP Congressman Ralph Norman believes now is the time for the state to redraw its congressional districts.

Right now, Republicans hold a 6 to 1 advantage. But Norman says -- quote -- "We have Republican super majorities in South Carolina. Let's use them to create more competition in our congressional seats. Jim Clyburn is a nice man and I respect him. But he is a liberal Democrat who helped put Joe Biden in the White House. That's not the kind of representation South Carolina needs."

Now, this is the latest expansion of the redistricting battle that began in Texas. And we should point out, Norman is running for governor of South Carolina and not all of his Republican colleagues are on board. In fact, fellow House Rep and candidate for South Carolina, Governor Nancy Mace, appeared to pour cold water on the idea tonight.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): Well, constitutionally, there has to be a seat for a Democrat, a black, you know, census for Jim Clyburn, for Democrat seat. So, that's constitutionally civil rights that exists. It's always going to be a Democrat seat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: All right, South Carolina Congressman James Clyburn joins me now. Uh, congressman, good to see you. At least he called you a nice man. What's your reaction to what Congressman Norman says about redrawing the districts and possibly ending your career in Congress?

(LAUGHTER)

REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC): Well, you know -- thank you very much for having me, Victor. You know, all I'll say to that is that, you know, Norm is looking, uh, for some attention, and I suspect this is the way of trying to get it. I do believe that South Carolina is a part of this great nation, a nation which, yes, will condone partisanship, uh, but absolute unanimity. How does he say that 7 to 0 is partisanship? That's absolutism. And so, I don't know what he's talking about, but that's Ralph Norman. He is always looking for attention.

BLACKWELL: So, you dismiss it? Not concerned?

CLYBURN: I'm not concerned at all. Uh, I know the people of South Carolina very well. Uh, I know Ralph Norman very well. I know the governor of this state very well, who is as partisan of a Republican as he can be, but he's as fair of a Republican as he can be. Norm doesn't believe in fairness.

BLACKWELL: All right. Let's move on. Let's broaden this conversation out because Democrat -- Democratic governors appear ready to redistrict across the country if Texas moves forward with their plans. So, if that happens, what's the direction, you think, that these Democratic governors should go?

[23:35:02]

CLYBURN: Well, you know, there's an old saying that you must fight fire with fire. This is a position I would not want for the country. I've made that clear several weeks ago, that what they were doing in Texas is not good for the country, and it would not be good for the country for us to do it on our side. But it is not good for the country, for Democrats to find themselves rolling over. You have to fight fire with fire.

And just think about Texas. Now, in Texas, they have right now 65% of the congressional seats in Texas, but they want to have 79%. If you look at the results of the last election, which I've done, Kamala Harris got 43% of the voting in Texas, 43%. So, let's call that the Democratic voting in Texas. So, if you're talking about partisanship, why isn't it that you've got 43% of the congressional districts in Texas?

BLACKWELL: Well, congressman, let me --

CLYBURN: So, we need to look at what's going on here.

BLACKWELL: Let me ask you this because this is not something that is exclusive to Republicans, as you know, and Republicans invoke the decision made in Illinois as part of their defense. So, is the issue for -- for you or for other Democrats the timing that this is not happening on the typical every-decade cycle or that it is partisan? What's the big issue here?

CLYBURN: Well, the big issue is how you do the redistricting. That's the big issue. If you look back all the legislation that we've proposed, the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act and other bills that we've proposed on the Democratic side, we have always proposed bipartisan commissions to draw the lines. That's what we've done, and that's where we are.

Now, I've never been all for that simply because I knew that we would get to this point when you might have to use politics in order to offset this stuff, and that's what's going on now. If Texas do what they say they're going to do, California is going to follow suit, New York, Illinois. And I guarantee you, uh, that we are going to fight fire with fire. That's what we've got to do.

BLACKWELL: Now, if you fight fire --

CLYBURN: -- interesting to me that people --

BLACKWELL: I apologize for jumping in.

CLYBURN: I'm sorry.

BLACKWELL: But when you say you fight fire with fire, Washington Post points point that Republicans control more state legislature than Democrats. So, if you're fighting fire with fire, don't Democrats ultimately lose that fire fight?

CLYBURN: Well, we could, but we don't have to lose because I think the American people will step into this. Uh, who are the Democrats? Who are the Republicans? The fact of the matter is most of the American people that I interact with believe in fundamental fairness. And there's not a single person who will look at what they're doing in Texas and call it fairness. And that's just where we are here.

And I've seen people all day today and yesterday talking about the fact that Democrats don't have the stomach for this kind of a fight, and they're kind of right about that. We're in the position we're in because we have been being fair. But that's not what people like Ralph Norman wants. They want power, absolute power, and that is what they're attempting to do in Texas. Absolutism is a whole lot different from a democracy, and that is what's at threat.

BLACKWELL: Congressman James Clyburn, always good to talk with you. Thank you.

CLYBURN: Thank you very much for having me.

BLACKWELL: Next, five soldiers shot by one of their own. We'll bring you an update on the mass shooting at an army base in Georgia after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:40:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BLACKWELL: We're getting new details tonight on the man now in custody for allegedly shooting five soldiers at an army base in Georgia. Officials identified 28-year-old Army Sergeant Quornelius Radford as the suspect. Sources tell CNN Radford had a disagreement with one of the victims just a day ago. And tonight, his father tells "The New York Times" that Radford wanted a transfer after complaining about racism at the military base.

For more, let's bring in CNN correspondent Ivan Rodriguez, who is live outside Fort Stewart, Georgia. Ivan, first, what more are you learning tonight about this suspected gunman?

IVAN RODRIGUEZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Victor, as you mentioned, we're learning that Radford had a disagreement with one of his coworkers yesterday, according to a law enforcement official who was briefed on the case. It's still unclear, though, exactly what that disagreement was about.

We know that this morning, Radford arrived here at the military base with a personal handgun. He then followed that coworker into a maintenance area, we're told by a law enforcement source, and then shot them in the chest.

[23:45:02]

He then went on to shoot four other soldiers. We also know that soldiers who were nearby and started hearing the shots ringing out immediately ran, tackled Radford, and subdued him until law enforcement was able to arrive and take him into custody. It took about 40 minutes or less since the shooting started for law enforcement to take Radford into custody. And we know that Radford was also arrested for a DUI back in May. That was off base.

What's interesting though here, Victor, is that his commanders above him didn't know of that arrest. And it's unclear right now as well why his superiors didn't know about that, why that wasn't reported to his commanding officers at that time, and they just became aware of that because of the shooting here as well. And army officials tell us that they're also not aware of any other behavioral instances or issues involving Radford. The motive still is unknown. We know that at this hour, Radford is currently still awaiting pre-trial. He's awaiting that charging decision, currently in confinement here on the military base.

One of the biggest questions, though, Victor, that investigators will now be looking into is how Radford was able to bring that personal handgun on to the base.

BLACKWELL: Ivan Rodriguez, lots of questions you have put out that we need to get some answers to. Thank you so much for the report.

Let's try to get some now from retired Army Major General Randy Manner. General, good to have you on tonight. So, let's start here with the question that Ivan posed about getting this personal gun on to the base. What are the rules surrounding bringing the weapons on and how could this have happened?

RANDY MANNER, RETIRED U.S. ARMY MAJOR GENERAL: So, first of all, my heart goes out to all the families and all those soldiers that were wounded in this situation. It's extremely unfortunate. It's important to understand that there are -- every military base has rules and regulations about weapons, personal weapons, and how they should be kept on the base.

It's important to also note that that this sergeant had access to the base. Whether he lived on the base or would come on to it, he could easily put a weapon inside his car. And this is something where all of the -- just like any military base, all of the vehicles are not necessarily searched for this kind of contraband in this particular case.

So, whether or not it was authorized to be on the base, like in a personal home, in a safe and secure or not, I don't know. But there are rules and regulations about this. But that does not mean this NCO could not have just brought it in the trunk of his car.

BLACKWELL: Hmm. Let me ask you about the DUI that he had back in May, that his chain of command did not know about. If they'd known about it, would that have created more scrutiny around him?

MANNER: First, it's important to understand that the reporting relationship is from the local communities to the military. And so, it's something that is -- that is where it comes because if doesn't, if military is not aware of it, it's not necessarily -- it is a requirement for the individual to report it, to self-report. Many people, unfortunately, do not do that. So, the idea of there being a gap in the communication of such a DUI is not unusual, unfortunately.

On the other part of this, any time a soldier or any person picks up a weapon and uses it to actually try to murder or injure someone else, there obviously is a mental health issue here, and that's, I'm sure, where part of this investigation is going to find out, is what exactly was the mental status of this individual and were there other indicators over time that will come out through the interview process.

BLACKWELL: Hmm. He's now in the military justice system. What does this look like next as it compares to the civilian justice system that we're all familiar with?

MANNER: It's a very similar process under the uniformed code of military justice. He will be arraigned, he'll be charged, he will receive a defense attorney. It's actually -- it somewhat mirrors it relative to the military justice system as well as for the civilian. When I say mirrors, is it exactly the same? No. Judges can be a little bit different, how this is actually administered. But this is a potential -- we don't know what the charges are going to be but, obviously, the more serious the charges, then the more serious the consequences as well.

BLACKWELL: Major General Randy Manner, thanks so much.

MANNER: Thank you, sir.

BLACKWELL: Next, "South Park" out with the new episode tonight. This time, they take on Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and they've already gotten under ICE's skin.

[23:50:03]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Welcome to the team, recruits. I'm Kristi Noem, head of Homeland Security.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): She seems nice, okay, very pretty.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): A few years ago, I had to put my puppy down by shooting it in the face, because, sometimes, doing what's important means doing what's hard.

[23:55:00]

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: So, the residents of South Park, they are not slowing down in their satirical take down of the Trump administration. And tonight, they're swinging in some new targets. ICE and, as you saw, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Remember, only detain the brown ones. If it's brown, it goes down. Jesus! Look out!

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: In case that wasn't clear, that scene showed ICE rage in heaven, of all places. And it ends with Noem shooting a dog, something she does over and over and over again throughout the episode.

It's a reference to this line from her book where she writes about killing her untrainable dog, Cricket. She says that -- quote -- let me read it here. "At that moment, I realized I had to put her down."

Joining me now is CNN media analyst and senior media reporter for Axios, Sara Fischer. You've watched the episode. So, ICE raids in heaven, at a Dora concert. J.D. Vance rubbing baby oil on Satan. Just weeks ago, Paramount was accused of trying to curry favor with the administration. Not now.

SARA FISCHER, CNN MEDIA ANALYST, SENIOR MEDIA REPORTER FOR AXIOS: No.

BLACKWELL: They don't need to.

FISCHER: They definitely don't need to. So, they have the regulatory approval that they need, Paramount, which is the parent company to Comedy Central, and Paramount Plus, which is where "South Park" airs. And so, they don't have to be as careful anymore. The deal is actually expected to close tomorrow.

But also, you're talking about two of the most iconic free speech advocates in American history with Matt and Trey, the founders and sort of the co-writers of "South Park." These are people who've never wanted to back down no matter what kind of political pressure. And I'm actually glad to see that they feel like they still have that platform even amid all of this political pressure.

BLACKWELL: Yeah. And interestingly enough, the DHS tried to spin this a bit and use it to their advantage and use the shot. I think we have it. They've used it in their social media and their recruitment ad here, to which "South Park" replied, wait, so, we are relevant? I mean, this is after the White House said that the show hasn't been relevant for 20 years. What type of -- what kind of cultural impact does "South Park" have?

FISCHER: Massive cultural impact. So, for one, it's one of the longest running animated comedy shows in American history. Two, it's one of the highest rated continuously, not just when new episodes come out, but when back episodes get streamed.

BLACKWELL: Hmm.

FISCHER: And then three, "South Park" is always known to push the envelope, and they've never been afraid of doing that. And so, when they go after someone politically or someone really relevant in the news cycle, it tends to go viral like wildfire.

Remember, South Park is something that everybody knows. It's a franchise that everyone is familiar with. And so, if you are the target of a comedy at "South Park," in some ways, it is actually kind of an honor. It's saying that you're someone that's relevant enough to be on "South Park."

BLACKWELL: Yeah. Also, it is something, and I learned this from Harry Enten, it's something that is popular with conservatives as well as liberals as well.

FISCHER: Yes. And one of the reasons is because it's based in this fictional town in Colorado, right? BLACKWELL: Uh-hmm.

FISCHER: Which is, you know, it's a blue state, but it has Republicans in it, and it's not necessarily super polarizing. It's not on either one of the coasts. Also, "South Park" and comedy in general tends to be a nonpartisan thing. Some of the best comedians and the best shows tend to break through on both sides. What you're seeing is a little bit different in the late-night sphere where that tends to be, you know, pinned as being much more progressive and liberal.

When it comes to comedy cartoons, whether it's "Big Mouth" or "Bob's Burgers" or "South Park " --

BLACKWELL: I love "Big Mouth."

FISCHER: Same.

(LAUGHTER)

FISCHER: Same.

BLACKWELL: Yeah.

FISCHER: "Futurama, all that good stuff, "King of the Hill," like that type of stuff doesn't tend to get labeled as being partisan.

BLACKWELL: Yeah. The president, though, he is renewing his attacks on late-night, specifically Colbert, again. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Colbert has no talent. I mean, I could take anybody here. I could go outside in the beautiful streets and pick up couple of people that do just as well or better. They get higher ratings than he did. He's got no talent. Fallon has no talent. Kimmel has no talent. They're next. They're going to be going. I hear they're going to be going. I don't know, but I would imagine because they get -- you know, Colbert has better ratings than Kimmel or Fallon. You know that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLACKWELL: What do you see here?

FISCHER: So, when it's a cartoon, it's really hard to put a name to the joke and say they're bad, they're -- they're responsible for something that I'm offended by.

BLACKWELL: Yeah.

FISCHER: When it's a person, it's a lot easier to attack. I think the president is going after late-night hosts in the same way that he has been going after journalists, right? If it's content that he doesn't like, that mocks him or makes fun of him, he's going to dismiss it and say that they're going to be out. You know, in the case of Colbert, there's a lot of complex reasons around why that show was canceled.

BLACKWELL: Uh-hmm.

FISCHER: But late-night in general is a medium that struggled a little bit.

[23:59:59]

It's super expensive to have a daily show where you have live audiences every night. And so, one of the challenges that networks face is, like, when does the benefits outweigh the cost? A lot of these shows loses money. When Donald Trump says, like, these guys got to go, I think he's just trying to imply that's what he would like to happen. But I think that a lot of these networks don't have plans to cut these hosts.

BLACKWELL: All right. Two episodes in through "South Park." We'll see where they head next. Sarah Fischer, thanks so much.

FISCHER: Thanks, Victor.

BLACKWELL: And thank you for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.