Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Trump Urges Republicans to Vote to Release Epstein files; Greene Apologizes for Her Role in "Toxic Politics"; British Journalist Calls His ICE Detention "Attack on Freedoms ". Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired November 17, 2025 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: We're hearing a notable shift from President Trump as he now says he wants House Republicans to vote to release the Epstein investigation files. And this comes days after he held meetings in the Situation Room over the House's effort potentially forcing the Justice Department to act.

For more perspective, we are joined by former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani. Hi, Neama. Thanks for coming on. So, part of the president's post yesterday mentioned releasing whatever the House Oversight Committee is legally entitled to. What is your sense of what that would include?

NEAMA RAHMANI, PRESIDENT, WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS AND FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Pamela, well, under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the House is trying to get everything that the Department of Justice has. And let's be honest here. The DOJ can choose to release these files at any time. There are some restrictions, of course, for grand jury material and for material that identifies victims of sex abuse. But these are privileges that the Department of Justice has. The law enforcement privileges, the deliberative process privilege, executive privilege. They can waive that at any moment and release the files.

But if they produce everything to Congress, I expect that to include everything. The judicial files, the terabytes of data that were discussed in the Ghislaine Maxwell case, the Virginia Giuffre civil case. And I think if Congress does have everything, we're going to see a lot more than the emails that were released last week.

BROWN: Yes, I just had a Republican congressman on last week who was talking about there is lots of tapes as well involving Jeffrey Epstein and victims. So, there is still a lot out there that hasn't been made public. But I wonder, you know, you note that DOJ could release everything. But now, as you well know, President Trump has called DOJ to launch its own investigation on Epstein and high-profile Democrats. The attorney general on Friday said she's on it. She's already assigned a prosecutor. So, could the DOJ now say, well, we can't release anything because we have an ongoing investigation?

RAHMANI: Potentially, yes, and we know the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District of New York attorney -- U.S. Attorney Clayton is going to lead that investigation. But let's not forget, Pamela, just in July, the DOJ issued its memo saying there is no basis to charge anyone else related to the Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse. So, that would be a 180, not just for President Trump, but for the DOJ itself.

And when you're talking about a legal case, you need more than what's in the Epstein files, those emails, or even Virginia Giuffre's memoir, for a criminal prosecution or even a civil case, for that matter, you're going to need a ready, willing, and able victim. And unless someone comes forward and accuses anyone of sex abuse and that person is willing to testify at trial, everything that we've seen, it's hearsay.

And under the Confrontation Clause of the Constitution, anyone who's accused, a criminal defendant, they have a right to cross-examine their accuser. So, we're going to need more than the evidence that we've been talking about, whether it's emails, whether it's videos, to actually pursue a prosecution against anyone. Everything we've seen so far is more for the court of public opinion than evidence that can actually be introduced in a courtroom.

[10:35:00]

BROWN: So, there are two tracks going on right now. There is this petition for this full vote on the House floor that is expected tomorrow to release all the Epstein files that would then go to the Senate and then to the president's desk, right? So, some hurdles. And then you have the House Oversight Committee, it has issued subpoenas in this case, including to DOJ.

And I interviewed a Democratic member of the committee who says DOJ hasn't handed over everything responsive to the subpoena that the committee had issued it. What could the committee do to compel DOJ to hand over more information?

RAHMANI: Well, there's the political track that you talked about, Pamela. So, the House, Senate, president, potentially an override of a veto. But it seems like the president would sign that bill into law based on his statement yesterday. Then there's the legal track. So, the question is, there are these privileges that the DOJ normally holds, the law enforcement privilege, the deliberative process privilege.

This is what protects them from having to disclose evidence related to an ongoing criminal investigation or for even an investigation that's closed. And typically, the DOJ protects these privileges very aggressively. So, is there a possibility where Congress passes this law and the DOJ says, no, we're not going to waive this privilege? We're going to assert the privilege and we're still going to resist producing these files to Congress. In which case, of course, the courts would have to weigh in and deal with that dispute between Article 1 Congress and Article 2, the executive, which they do all the time.

BROWN: Which could also drag on for quite some time. Neama Rahmani, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Wolf.

RAHMANI: Thanks, Pamela.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Very good interview. Thank you very much. I want to talk a little bit more about all of this with CNN senior political and global affairs commentator Rahm Emanuel is here with us in the Situation Room. Why do you think, Rahm, the president is now telling Congress to vote to release the Epstein files after previously dismissing that effort? It seems like a very significant U-turn.

RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR, (D) FORMER MAYOR OF CHICAGO AND FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO JAPAN UNDER PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well, because there's a big gulf and a wedge between him and the MAGA base. And this has been a massive problem on top of the fact that a week earlier he drove a giant wedge between him and the American people on the government shutdown. When he was looking very cruel denying health -- food benefits to children so he could deny their parents health care benefits.

So, you had two things going on back-to-back simultaneously. One, a wedge between him and the MAGA base. And two, a wedge between him and independent and swing voters. And both are telling you he's now polling at the worst point in six years of his presidency.

BLITZER: Let's follow up a little bit. The president says there's, quote, "nothing to hide," his words, nothing to hide. How do you see that squaring with his push to get Republicans to back off their votes just days ago?

EMANUEL: It doesn't square. And if it's nothing to hide, he would -- as just said earlier by the guest on, they would release it all from Justice Department. What he's trying to do is get this off the news as quickly as possible. But the way they're handling it, it's going to stay here and stay here and stay here until people are satisfied.

BLITZER: What do you make of the president's very public split with Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene over this Epstein issue? What could it signal potentially about the MAGA base?

EMANUEL: Well, I think what you are is in the first weeks of a post- Trump MAGA world. And it's going to take a long time. But when you put the break with Marjorie Taylor Greene, you took a look at Indiana and Kansas not doing redistricting like the president wants. You look at what happened with Tucker Carlson and the split there. You are seeing the fissures within a post-Trump MAGA base and Republican Party that will play out for a long time.

BLITZER: You know, it's interesting because Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene did something few politicians do during her interview with Dana Bash yesterday. She apologized for something. I want you to listen to this.

EMANUEL: OK.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I would like to say humbly I'm sorry for taking part in the toxic politics. It's very bad for our country. And it's been something I've thought about a lot, especially since Charlie Kirk was assassinated, is that -- I'm only responsible for myself and my own words and actions. And I am going -- I am committed, and I've been working on this a lot lately, to put down the knives and politics. I really just want to see people be kind to one another.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: And it's interesting because Trump keeps referring to her as a traitor. And she has pointed out in that interview with Dana yesterday that that potentially could endanger her when Trump keeps calling her a traitor.

EMANUEL: Yes. I take her comments and also Mrs. Kirk when at the eulogy said that she forgave the shooter. I think both Republican women, and I mean this sincerely, have shown a generosity of spirit and also a sense of self-reflection that all of us should, which is to own what we do in a way, if I could, not to be too partisan, that the Republican men have not done. Where the president goes to a eulogy and says, I hate my enemies, and the wife who lost her husband was more generous in spirit.

[10:40:00]

And we do know, and the American people know this, our politics is way too toxic. I've participated in my own kind of poisoning the pool. All of us have to own our actions. We can have our disagreements without wanting it to be a Hunger Games. So, I take Marjorie Taylor Greene's comments of self-reflection and acknowledgement of responsibility. And all of us have to do a piece of that. I have participated in my own way.

But I do think it's ironic that when you look at kind of what's happening with Tucker Carlson or the president, the kind of toxicity that they're talking about, and yet the Republican women have been upfront about both responsibility and somehow to actually clean the slate.

BLITZER: We give them credit for that, to be sure.

EMANUEL: A hundred percent. And obviously there's got to be follow- through, and I'll trust but verify, but I give her credit. And again, this is on all of us. We have got this. You know, I say this, China is trying to bury us. The only thing that will bury us is our divisions at home. And every one of us have a responsibility to not only bridge that, to get ready for the conflict that's coming with China in the sense of both economic, political, and strategic. And so, I give them credit for ownership.

BLITZER: You know, while I have you, Rahm, I quickly want to get your thoughts on the tensions that seem to be escalating dramatically right now with Venezuela. President Trump has sent the nation's largest aircraft carrier group to the Caribbean. He's also floating the idea of negotiating possibly with the Venezuelan President Maduro. Where do you see this going?

EMANUEL: Look, I think the president of the United States now realizes he's got way over his ski tips. You don't have that much metal in a small little piece of both the Caribbean on either side. And I think he's, some elements of his administration, if I'm reading this correctly, are much more forward leaning than where he is. If you look at his history, he has never put boots on the ground anywhere else but in an American city, which is unfortunate given what he's done. I'm not for putting boots on the ground without being thoughtful given what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. He never has.

So, in that sense, I think he realizes I'm ready to negotiate because I think he's way over. And B, I'm not a fan of President Maduro of Venezuela, but he indicated weeks ago that he was ready to figure out a way out of this kind of conflict. And I'm hoping we get to a place where we don't have to have any kind of kinetic conflict.

BLITZER: Let's see what happens. All right. Rahm, thank you very, very much.

EMANUEL: Thank you.

BLITZER: Pamela.

BROWN: All right. Wolf, coming up, a British journalist has been released from ICE detention after more than two weeks. Let's hear how he describes the conditions when he joins us in the Situation Room live from London up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:45:00]

BLITZER: A British journalist and commentator says his detention by ICE agents this month was an attack on freedoms. Sami Hamdi was held by federal immigration agents for 18 days before being released and sent back to the United Kingdom. He gave a speech to the Council on Muslim-American Relations the day before he was detained.

The U.S. State Department says it won't comment on specific cases. But a Department of Homeland Security official said in a social media post at the time, and I'm quoting now, "Under President Trump, those who support terrorism and undermine American national security will not be allowed to work or visit this country," end quote.

Sami Hamdi is joining us right now. Sami, thanks so much for joining us. Tell us what exactly happened the day you were detained here in the United States.

SAMI HAMDI, MANAGING EDITOR, INTERNATIONAL INTEREST AND BRITISH JOURNALIST DETAINED BY ICE FOR 18 DAYS: Thank you very much for having me, Wolf. I think that what's important to note is that on the day that I was arrested, the Monday before, one, a far-right extreme activist, if you want to call her, called Laura Loomer, had posted a video saying that because I was criticizing the Israelis, there was an urgency to have my 10-year visa that expires in 2028 removed. I didn't take her tweet seriously.

On the Wednesday, she tweeted that she had flown to Congress and met with officials and that, quote, "I have good news coming to you in two days." On the Sunday, I had finished lectures on Friday in Bay Area. I had finished lectures in Sacramento. Sunday, I was to fly to Florida and then New York and then to fly home. When I checked in my luggage, I passed through security. I looked up to see where Gate D38 is to fly towards Tampa, and the man approached me and said, excuse me, are you Sami Hamdi? I said, yes. Your visa has been revoked, so now you are here illegally.

I said, why has my visa been revoked? They said, here is the memo from the State Department. I read the memo. It did not state any reason whatsoever. When I asked them, OK, do you know the reason? They said, we don't have any reason. We just have orders to detain you. I told them I'll book my ticket and fly straight home to London. You know, I work in London. They said, that's not how this works. And five other agents suddenly appeared.

Then they escorted me out of the airport and told me to get into a black car with tinted windows. I said to them, I'm a journalist and a British citizen. I know my rights. This looks like a movie. I need to tell somebody where I am. Initially, they refused to let me use a phone. But when I insisted that I would not enter the car unless I let somebody know, I called a civil liberties organization, the Council of American Islamic Relations. And then when I asked to speak with my family, they pushed me against the car, handcuffed me from behind, put me in the car.

I would then enter a van and then enter another car on a six-hour journey to a facility in McFarland where I was detained for 18 days until two federal judges reported, or two federal judges found that there were serious concerns over an infringement of freedom of speech by which the government later approached and made a deal and said, listen, there won't be any charges whatsoever. Just go home and apply for a visa and come back to America later.

[10:50:00]

BLITZER: At any point, Sami, before that day, had anyone told you anything about your visa potentially being revoked?

HAMDI: There was no indication whatsoever that my visa was under review. No one contacted me to tell me it was under review. And to be quite frank, Wolf, I did not think that in the land of the brave, the land of freedom of speech, that somebody like Laura Loomer would be the arbiter of who gets to say what in the United States of America.

It was -- even when I had sent the original tweet, when Laura Loomer had said, I'm going to get his visa revoked, when I sent it to the lawyer saying, is this an individual -- I'd never heard of her before. Is this an individual I should be concerned about? And they said, this is still a land of law. This is a land where you have freedom of speech. No one is going to listen to somebody like Laura Loomer.

And that's where I think the concern is here, in that a journalist with a 10-year visa, a short-term business visa, B1, B2, that entitles me to six months a year in America, that that visa can be revoked because somebody was upset that I said that there shouldn't be a genocide in Palestine and that America should come first as opposed to the Israelis. The point here being is I did not criticize the American government. My visa was revoked because I criticized a foreign government. It is a most bizarre and unusual situation. And when you have the World Cup coming next year, does this mean that if a fan raises a Palestinian flag, that they're going to revoke the visa without informing that fan and then detain them 18 days? And for the record, by the way, Wolf, the reason I think it was 18 days, the other inmates, who have far more tragic stories than my story, the inmates said, the reason you're out in 18 days is because people are talking about you. People haven't forgotten you. Otherwise, you would be eight, nine months with us here.

And the point that I'll make here is, just if you'll allow me to make this particular point, what I noticed with ICE is that when they know that the case can win in front of the courts, they try to trap you in the loopholes. For example, my original court hearing was the 6th of November. When they cuffed me and took me to Fresno in very tight cuffs until my leg was swollen, when I went to Fresno, they said to me, and they threw me in a cell, a five-by-four cell with 15 inmates in that particular cell, sleeping in the cuffs until the morning. They said to me, your court date has been moved from November 6th to November 10th. I said, why? They said, because on your charge sheet, which only charging with overstaying because of the revocation of the visa, I know you mentioned the DHS tweet, privately, none of those things that the DHS was saying were presented privately. And the DHS, while it was saying those things publicly, were privately saying, listen, can we just make a deal and just get this cleared up?

When I went to Fresno, they told me, the reason your court date has been moved is because on your charge sheet, it says that you landed in Santa Ana, California, which is true. I told them I did land. They said, we changed it to you were pre-cleared in Calgary, Canada, which is where I took off from. I said, I don't understand. They're both true. Why would my court be delayed four days as a result? They said, that's the way it works here.

And this is why what you find with ICE and even these detentions, and this is the worry here, is that based on rule of law, this doesn't happen. The federal judge immediately said, there's infringement of freedom of speech. Then when the government challenged the jurisdiction, they said, as a foreign alien, I'm not entitled to freedom of speech. And a federal judge responded and said, he is entitled to freedom of speech.

What ICE would do to another inmate who doesn't have the media attention that I got is that somebody like Leqaa Kordia in the facility in Texas, where a judge has ruled twice that she is to be released immediately, ICE, a for-profit organization that is allied with G4S NGO, decide to keep her detained regardless in the hope that the rule of law will be subverted and that they'll find some way just to get rid of her from American soil.

This is an attack on American freedoms, not on Sami Hamdi. It's an attack on the rule of law. And there are grave consequences if ICE are not held to account for the arbitrary manner in which they go after people who criticize foreign governments while celebrating rule of law in America.

BLITZER: Sami Hamdi, thanks so much for joining us and good luck to you.

HAMDI: Thank you so much, Wolf.

BLITZER: And we'll have more news right after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

BLITZER: Happening now, the New York Jets cornerback Kris Boyd remains hospitalized this morning after a shooting outside of Manhattan Restaurant early yesterday. So, far, no arrests have been made.

BROWN: CNN Sports Anchor Coy Wire joins us now. Coy, do we know what may have led up to this shooting?

COY WIRE, CNN SPORTS ANCHOR: We do have a bit. Good to see you, Pam and Wolf. We are told that the New York Jet's cornerback Kris Boyd is recovering in the hospital after being shot in the stomach early Sunday morning. A law enforcement source also tells us Boyd was shot outside a New York City restaurant after a dispute escalated into gunfire. Two cars were spotted on a surveillance camera leaving a parking garage near the restaurant. Both vehicles pulled over and interacted with Boyd and his group. No arrests made. Investigation ongoing. Boyd, who's been on injured reserve this season is reportedly in critical but stable condition.

Now, let's go to one of the big highlights of the NFL's Sunday games. Josh Allen, a force of nature, the Bills, quarterback and reigning league MVP scoring six touchdowns for Wolf Blitzer. A 44-32 win over the Bucs. First player in NFL history with at least three passing and three rushing touchdowns in multiple career games. The only other player to do that was Otto Graham, way back in 1954 --

[11:00:00]