Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

Clintons Refuse to Testify in Congressional Epstein Investigation; Trump Heads to Michigan for Economic Remarks; Senator Kelly Sues Over Secretary Hegseth's Punishment for Illegal Orders Video; Supreme Court Hears Challenges to State Bans on Transgender Athletes. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired January 13, 2026 - 10:30   ET

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

[10:30:00]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Which is why both parties said we would like President Clinton, former President Clinton, to come on in to answer these questions. And he chose not to. So, yes, there was plenty of communication back and forth.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The DOJ has yet to release all the files. What is your plan with that? Are you pressing for the release?

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY), CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: Well, first of all, let me say, I've subpoenaed Pam Bondi. I don't remember Jamie Raskin or Elijah Coventry whenever subpoenaing a Democrat Attorney General of their own party. We subpoenaed Pam Bondi for the documents. She started producing the documents. Then Congress voted for the discharge petition to send another message, and we all voted for that.

She is -- they are sending documents. They sent a big batch. The Democrats were unhappy. They said there weren't enough redactions, so now the DOJ is going through trying to make sure they redact everything. So, from my standpoint, the Department of Justice is cooperating. They are turning over documents. We would all like for them to turn documents over quicker.

But at the end of the day, they are complying. President Trump is answering your questions about Epstein. He's answered them over and over and over again. Who we haven't heard from is Bill Clinton. And I stated why. The amount of time that Epstein spent with Clinton was president and post-presidency. So, I don't think it's out of line for former President Clinton to come in for a bipartisan subpoena and sit down and answer questions. So, thank you all very much.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: All right. So, there you heard Representative James Comer, Republican of Kentucky. He's the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, reporting, saying that Bill Clinton, the former President of the United States, was subpoenaed to come and testify before the House Oversight Committee on his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.

But today, Bill Clinton has just confirmed that neither he nor the former First Lady Hillary Clinton will agree to testify. She was supposed to testify tomorrow. Both have now refused to do so. And he's suggesting that there will be a vote in the coming days to hold the Clintons in contempt if they refuse to testify. Let me get the legal analysis first. Elliot Williams, what's your analysis?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: This is common saber-rattling in Congress over the issuance of subpoenas. Now, to be clear, before anyone is ever held in contempt of Congress, there's usually an extended period of back-and-forth negotiation between the parties. Like, it's rare to go from zero to 60 of subpoena issued, recipient of subpoena says, well, you know, I'm not going to come in and proceed.

Usually what would happen is there would be some back-and-forth over, OK, perhaps your appearance won't be public. Perhaps it won't be transcribed. Perhaps it'll be just a conversation with the chair or whatever else. And so, you know, there's obviously huge political umbrella hanging over this. And I think that's what's driving some of this. But we haven't seen the end of it. There will be some negotiation between the parties because it is still a subpoena from Congress.

BLITZER: All right. I want to bring in Democratic Congresswoman Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire. She serves on the House Armed Services Committee. She was an intelligence officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve as well. Congresswoman, thanks so much for coming in. Thanks for all your service to our country.

REP. MAGGIE GOODLANDER (D-NH), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Thanks, Pam and Wolf.

BLITZER: What's your reaction to what we just heard from the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer, that the committee will move next week to hold the former President Bill Clinton in contempt of Congress for refusing to show up at today's deposition on the Jeffrey Epstein files?

GOODLANDER: Look, I'm not familiar with the details of this particular subpoena. I think you're absolutely right that you don't take it from zero to 60. This is something that's got to be worked out. I believe deeply that lawful, legitimate subpoenas should be complied with.

And when it comes to transparency and accountability around the Epstein files and justice for the victims of brutal crimes, we have got to be relentless in pursuing the truth and in pursuing justice.

BLITZER: Hold on one second. The president is speaking to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House, getting ready to go to Detroit on Marine One over to Joint Base Andrews. I want to hear what he's saying.

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: A nice, beautiful big rate cut, which would be great for the country, but rates are falling also and growth is going up. We have tremendous growth numbers. So, growth is going up. So, I'll be talking about that today in Detroit, the big speech. And I can only say that the country is doing well.

You saw my statement on Iran. You saw my statement on Minnesota. On Minnesota, we have taken out killers, rapists, drug dealers, people from mental institutions that came in illegally, all of them. Most of them came in illegally. They're from other countries. They came in under the Biden ridiculous open border policies, and we've gotten a lot of them out.

[10:35:00]

We just had numbers from Chicago where Chicago crime has gone down pretty good. We could go down 100 percent virtually, but we're fighting with that governor who's so incompetent. But as you know, we took out a lot of killers, murderers, drug dealers, drug addicts, mental institution people and people from jails. We took them out of Chicago. So, Chicago's got much better numbers now than it had a few months ago. We will get no credit for it, but these are minor details.

Crime in Washington, D.C. is almost non-existent. It's a safe place. So, people can come bring their families. They can send their son and daughter to look at Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, or whatever they want to look at. But it's almost non-existent. We're very proud of that.

Memphis is making tremendous strides, and so is New Orleans. We have a whole group of people. And crime in New Orleans is down about 65 percent. We've only been there for three weeks. So, it's really amazing what's happening throughout the country. The crime numbers are among the best numbers we've ever had.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE).

TRUMP: Well, he's billions of dollars over budget. So, either he's incompetent or he's crooked. I don't know what he is, but he doesn't -- certainly he doesn't do a very good job.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you committed to mass deportations to (INAUDIBLE) on ICE?

TRUMP: We're getting rid of a lot of people that are criminals that shouldn't be in our country. They came in through Biden's open borders, and we're getting them out of our country. That's why our crime numbers are so good We have record low crime numbers. Thank you.

BLITZER: All right. So, there we just heard from President Trump on several issues, repeating a lot what he said in recent days and weeks, indeed, going after the Democrats and going after various issues involving what's going on with crime in Minneapolis, Chicago, D.C., Memphis, New Orleans, elsewhere. Representative Maggie Goodlander is here with me. Democrat, what's your reaction?

GOODLANDER: Look, my reaction is I spent years working at the Department of Justice. Public safety depends on public trust. And right now, the public's trust has been tested in ways that we've never seen before. We saw an American citizen shot in broad daylight in Minneapolis. We need an independent investigation to get to the bottom of this. We need accountability.

And I know from my time at the Department of Justice that the best place for that to happen is with nonpartisan, patriotic public servants who have the expertise to get to the bottom of this. This has shaken communities across the country to the core. And we need to see accountability and we need to see an independent investigation. And the president's refusal to commit to that is deeply alarming. It should alarm every American.

BLITZER: Because the Justice Department is refusing to cooperate with local investigators in Minneapolis, for example, on what happened to that 37-year-old mother of three.

GOODLANDER: That's right. It's a refusal to cooperate with state and local law enforcement, which is the beating heart of how we keep our communities safe. It's cooperation at every level of government. It's also, we see some of the most experienced investigators and prosecutors at the Department of Justice in our Civil Rights Division who have resigned because of the way that this administration is handling this investigation.

BLITZER: So, you're losing confidence in the Justice Department and these various law enforcement branches of the Justice Department, like ICE, for example?

GOODLANDER: You know, I'm deeply concerned, because the bottom line is that law enforcement is about the facts and the law. It's about pursuing justice without fear or favor. And what we've seen is a president who is directing a department to pick winners and losers, to reward friends and punish foes. And that is exactly the opposite of what we need in this country right now. We need trust, public trust, in public safety officials and in law enforcement officers. And there's nothing that undermines trust more than an intransparent, incompetent, and frankly, unprincipled investigation into an incident that has seized the attention and imagination of every American.

BLITZER: As you know, the Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona, a man you know well, is now suing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for his attempt to cut Kelly's retirement pay, reduce his military rank. He served in the U.S. Navy for years.

[10:40:00]

All of the stems from that video that you, Senator Kelly, and other Democrats made, all veterans in the military or the Intelligence Community, members urging other people who are serving to refuse illegal orders. What do you make of how this has now played out?

GOODLANDER: Look, what we did was to do our jobs and to state a completely uncontroversial and bedrock principle of American law, that you follow lawful orders and lawful orders only. This is something that Attorney General Pam Bondi has repeated in briefs to the United States Supreme Court. This is something that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has said repeatedly in recent years. This is an uncontroversial and I believe really important principle.

So, the way that the President has responded, which is to become so unglued by what the law says, I think unfortunately speaks volumes about how he feels about the rule of law. And the way -- Mark Kelly is a patriot who has served our country honorably and I stand with him in what I believe is his continued commitment to doing his job and upholding his oath to our Constitution.

BLITZER: Have you received any indication at all that they're going to go after you like they have with Senator Kelly?

GOODLANDER: Yes. You know, as it's been reported, the Department of Justice has reached out to us. We've asked questions and tried to understand what it is they're looking at. It is not a crime for me to do my job, for me to say what the law is. Just the opposite. This is my solemn oath to the Constitution and my responsibility.

Look, this is an effort to intimidate and harass that we're seeing repeated again and again from the Chairman of the Federal Reserve to other members of Congress. This is an effort to silence and I will not be silenced. I know Mark Kelly will not be silenced. I think we're both constitutionally incapable of giving up the ship.

BLITZER: Congressman Maggie Goodlander, thanks so much for coming in.

GOODLANDER: Thank you, Wolf.

BLITZER: And good luck.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. We're going to go back to the Supreme Court hearing the arguments there over transgender athletes playing in girls' sports teams right after this quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:45:00]

BROWN: We are following those historic Supreme Court cases that could determine the future of transgender athletes. So, let's bring in Montana's Republican Attorney General Austin Knudsen. He is backing West Virginia and Idaho and opposing the participation of transgender individuals in girls and women's sports.

So, thank you for coming on the show. I want to start big picture. I know you've been listening to the arguments. What has stood out to you so far?

AUSTIN KNUDSEN, MONTANA ATTORNEY GENERAL AND SUPPORTS STATES IN SUPREME COURT TRANS ATHLETES CASES: Well, what stood out to me, I mean, obviously we're seeing some tough questions from, from Justice Sotomayor, from the more liberal members of the court. Not surprising. I think we're seeing some good questions from, from some of the other members as well.

But I mean, these are the kind of cases that you're going to get tough questions like that. But we've got a couple of really good solicitors in there who are well-prepared and I think are making good arguments.

BLITZER: Your state, Montana, currently bans transgender youth from playing on school sports teams that align with their gender identity. So, how many transgender athletes do you, do you believe are in Montana right now? And is this a widespread issue or has it been magnified at all because it's a political flashpoint?

KNUDSEN: Well, I mean, I think that's an issue that likes to get thrown at us, but actually, we were the first in the country to have an NCAA athlete actually take a position from a female athlete, a transgender that came into our -- one of our university systems. So, this does happen. It's not something that's just remote. We have seen this numerous times in Montana.

But look, big picture, we've got over 1500 competitions that have been taken away from girls, over 850 medals that have been taken away from women and females. So, this isn't something that's just remote that doesn't happen. We know this happens. We've got documented cases of it in Montana and Idaho and West Virginia and, you know, all the states.

BLITZER: So, one of the plaintiffs, Becky Pepper Jackson, who was assigned male at birth, transitioned in third grade. She says that because she takes a puberty blocking medication, she has not gone through typical male puberty and does not have the muscle mass, bone density or hormone levels of boys. So, what do you say to the argument that the circuit upheld that it would be unfair for female transgender athletes who don't go through hormone treatment to play on boys' teams?

KNUDSEN: Well, biology still matters. You can take all the puberty blockers and all the hormones you want. It doesn't change the fact that you've got a set of chromosomes and you do have, in a lot of cases, you do have a biological advantage over a lot of female athletes.

Wolf, I've got a 14-year-old daughter. She's five foot four. She loves playing basketball. She loves playing volleyball. She's five foot four and 120 pounds. If a 15-year-old boy who's six foot one and 190 pounds comes on to her team and decides he wants to play with her, I've got a problem with that. That's going to be unfair to her. It could be unsafe for her in a lot of those physical contact sports. And it's just fundamentally unfair to her ability or any female athlete's ability to be successful. Biology is the thing. Again, I don't care how many hormone blockers you take. Biology is going to play a role in athletics.

BROWN: I want to lay out some of the facts here that we pulled. So, you have the president of the NCAA that testified in December 2024 that he was aware of, quote, "less than 10 transgender athletes" out of the sports governing bodies, more than 500,000 total athletes. So, that's not even 1 percent. In West Virginia, there is only one known openly transgender athlete. That is one of the plaintiffs in this case.

[10:50:00]

And according to a 2025 estimate from the research organization, the Williams Institute approximately says approximately one percent of the U.S. population age 13 and older identify as transgender. So, when you and others on the other side of this issue talk about fairness, do you have any concerns about unfairness to this very small group of people? We heard that play out a little bit in the arguments we heard earlier.

KNUDSEN: Well, we want fairness for everybody, but I'm going to flip this on you. I mean, to your to your point, it's such a small minority. They're the ones who brought these lawsuits. They're the ones that chose to come in the federal court.

BROWN: They brought it because of the bans. Because of the bans.

KNUDSEN: But these plaintiffs chose to file suit and bring these cases before us, and that's the reason we're in front of the U.S. Supreme Court now. So, again, I think this is a matter of fairness. And that's exactly what Title IX is about. Title IX is about protecting fairness for women, for girls in educational settings. And that applies to sports as well.

And so, I think the idea that you've got this very, very small minority that we've decided somehow that their feelings are more important than the safety and fairness for women and females is a real problem.

BLITZER: I know you're a parent of three kids. Do you think you would feel any differently about this issue if you had a transgender child who simply wanted to participate in sports just like friends?

KNUDSEN: No, no, I don't have that concern. I'd be looking at this the exact same way. I mean, regardless of how my child would identify, we'd be looking at the biology, like if you're a boy, you're going to play in boy sports. If you're a girl, you're going to play in girl sports. That's what we've done in this country as a status quo for, you know, heaven knows how many generations now. This is a relatively new thing. I think the court's going to look at this and they're going to find that that's the case.

BROWN: Are you willing to consider or at least sympathize with the position of these athletes who are transgender, who worry that their rights are undermined if the courts side against them, that they just, you know, this is their belief, right? You see Becky Pepper Jackson. She's a plaintiff from West Virginia. And, you know, she's concerned that her rights are being violated by not being allowed to play on the girl sports team.

KNUDSEN: I don't see it that way at all. I think that's an individual who's looking for special treatment. That individual wants to play sports. There's an avenue for that individual to play sports and it's going to be defined by your biological sex. I think that's the right -- that's the fair, that's the safe way to do this. That's the way that we ensure that women and girls continue to have a level playing field in athletics, whether it's at the collegiate level or whether it's the high school level, like my 14-year-old daughter playing volleyball.

That's what this is about. This is about fairness and this is about not elevating one small group of people because they want to feel special. That's really what this is about.

BLITZER: So, you don't consider transgender girls, girls? KNUDSEN: I do not. No, I don't. No, I think biological sex is what defines you as a person. That's my opinion. I don't know --

BLITZER: Even if they've gone through all that transgender, that transition?

KNUDSEN: No. No, I don't.

BLITZER: Which justices are you watching most closely in today's arguments and what is your message to them?

KNUDSEN: You know, I don't have a message for the justices. I'm no constitutional scholar, but I've been in front of -- I've been to the Supreme Court a few times. It's always interesting to hear what Justice Kagan has to say. I mean, she's incredibly bright. She's an incredibly thoughtful justice. I think she always asks really tough questions. That's always stimulating and fun to watch.

Obviously, we're watching what Justice Gorsuch has to say following Title VII and Bostock. I think that's going to be a really interesting point of contention for these discussions today.

BLITZER: So, what's your prediction at the end of June, let's say, when they come out with their decision, what do you think it'll be?

KNUDSEN: Well, I mean, obviously I'd like to see a unanimous nine- nothing decision. Again, I'm no constitutional expert. I don't claim to be, but I think this is going to be controversial. I'm not holding out hope that we're going to get a unanimous decision, but I do think the court's going to get this one right. I think they're going to overturn the Ninth Circuit and they're going to rule in our favor.

BLITZER: You're the Attorney General of Montana. Austin Knudsen, thanks very much for coming in. Appreciate it very much. And we'll continue our conversation down the road.

KNUDSEN: Thanks for having me.

BROWN: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. And the House Committee is launching contempt proceedings now against Bill Clinton after he refused to testify about Jeffrey Epstein. We are getting reaction from former Republican Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene. She just retired from Congress ahead in the next hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

BROWN: Breaking news. Critical cases before the Supreme Court that could reshape school sports. At issue, whether transgender athletes can be banned from women's teams.

BLITZER: Also, we have new reporting coming in this morning on how the U.S. might have broken international law when it struck an alleged drug boat.

Welcome to our viewers here in the United States and around the world. I'm Wolf Blitzer with Pamela Brown, and you're in the Situation Room.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking News.

BLITZER: And we begin this hour with breaking news happening right now. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments in two cases that could have major implications. The rulings here could set a precedent for whether states --

[11:00:00]