Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

House Panel Votes to Subpoena Bondi Over Epstein Case; House Prepares for War Powers Vote After Senate Rejection; Who Will be Iran's Next Supreme Leader?; New Explosion Heard in Abu Dhabi. Aired 10:30-11a ET

Aired March 05, 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]

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Happening now, a very rare and stunning rebuke of the Attorney General of the United States, Pam Bondi, by members of the President's own party. Yes, five Republicans on the Key House Oversight Committee defying their chairman and joining with Democrats to subpoena Bondi over the Justice Department's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: CNN Crime and Justice Correspondent Katelyn Polantz, is here with us. So, tell us more about what these lawmakers want from the attorney general.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're making a turn. A lot of this investigation the House Oversight Committee has done around Jeffrey Epstein has been talking to people about Epstein himself. They brought in former President Bill Clinton for a deposition. They had Bill Barr, a predecessor of Pam Bondi. But now it's a question of how the Justice Department, under Bondi's watch, handled the redaction, the processing, and the public release of these files after Congress mandated transparency for them.

The representative, Nancy Mace, a Republican on the committee, was the one that moved to subpoena Bondi for testimony about this and has made clear one of the issues here for the committee is that not all of the Epstein files have been released. Congress is not happy with the Justice Department and with Pam Bondi.

And really, it has been a boondoggle for the Justice Department as they've been working through these files and getting them up. There were failures to redact information of victims, exposing survivors' private information. There are documents that have not been released still and questions about that.

And also, Pam Bondi is the person who a year ago said that the Epstein client list was on her desk and that never materialized as a real thing. So, it's going to be a really tough deposition for Pam Bondi. We're waiting to see what the Justice Department does to respond.

BLITZER: We'll wait with you. Katelyn Polantz, thank you very, very much.

BROWN: Thanks so much, Katelyn. And just ahead, messaging gap. The Trump administration is calling the operation in Iran a war, but why are Republicans calling it everything but? I'll ask GOP Congressman Warren Davidson about that next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[13:35:00]

BLITZER: Time now for a Situation Room special report. Since the United States and Israel first launched strikes on Saturday, more than 1,100 people have been killed inside Iran. That according to a U.S.- based human rights agency.

CNN's Jomana Karadsheh shares the fear and hopes of many of the approximately 90 million Iranians living in this war.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If I die, I'm OK with it, if that leads to the destruction of this regime.

JOMANA KARADSHEH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): As U.S. and Israeli bombs started raining down on Iran, a woman who says she's in the southeastern city of Kerman shared this rare audio recording from inside the country.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: U.S. strikes have begun, and I feel like I should record a video to say thank you, Mr. Trump. First of all, thank you, Benjamin Netanyahu and the people of Israel. Responsibility of this war is on the Islamic Republic.

KARADSHEH (voice-over): While this voice by no means is representative of a country of more than 90 million people, over the past six weeks, we have been speaking with Iranians inside the country who opposed the regime. Many told us they wanted President Donald Trump's help. They were desperate, they said, after the bloody crackdown on protesters in January that killed thousands. But with a massive bombing campaign, reports of rising civilian casualties, including scores of schoolgirls killed and hospitals hit, the mood is shifting, even for some of those who want nothing more than this regime gone.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): People are not happy. Many police stations are located next to homes. Last night, they struck one and nearby homes were damaged.

KARADSHEH (voice-over): The regime's repression and disruption to communication make it difficult for us to speak freely with people inside Iran. But we managed to get some text and audio messages.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We were happy that those who had shot at the people, at the youth and killed them were being punished. The situation now is a mix. There's happiness, but also concern. And above all, we all hope that in the end they leave and that the Islamic Republic is no longer there.

KARADSHEH (voice-over): Video this weekend showed celebrations on the streets as news broke that the man who depressed them for more than 40 years, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is gone. The killing of Khamenei does not mean the end of this regime for now. It's lashing out and striking back hard. And inside the country, it seems it fears another uprising.

In Iran's Kurdish region, some people received this message. The enemy's plan, it said, will be, quote, "street riots" next. "Any movement that disrupts security will be considered a direct cooperation with the enemy and will be faced with the strong fist of the IRGC Intelligence Organization."

So, many Iranians want to believe that freedom is within reach, that this is the beginning of the end of a four decade nightmare.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): You always think the Islamic Republic is finished. And suddenly, from a place you wouldn't expect, everything becomes OK for them again. That scares me.

[10:40:00]

KARADSHEH (voice-over): After the initial euphoria of this weekend as the help Iranians were promised finally arrived. Now, for many, the reality that this may be a long and costly war is starting to sink in.

Jomana Karadsheh, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BLITZER: And our thanks to Jomana for that report. Pamela.

BROWN: Well, Wolf, most Republicans in the Senate and one Democrat have rejected a resolution that would have reined in President Trump's war powers against Iran without permission from Congress. A House vote is expected today, and the resolution faces an uphill climb there as well.

Joining us now is Republican Congressman Warren Davidson of Ohio. He serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is an Army veteran, we should note. Congressman, nice to have you on. So, our understanding is you're planning to break with most of your party and vote for this war powers resolution. Explain why.

REP. WARREN DAVIDSON (R-OH), ARMY VETERAN AND FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE: Well, look, the Constitution is very clear that wars of choice, where it's not repelling an imminent threat to the United States, are declared. They're declared by Article 1, Section 8 by Congress.

And, of course, Article 2 says, of course, the president is the commander-in-chief. He executes any war that is declared. And he has a clear path to act in defense of the United States. So, if it was to repel an imminent threat, of course he should be able to do that. And that's where you get, you know, Senator Tom Cotton trying to say, well, it's been imminent for 47 years. I don't think that's what those words mean. And right now, the meaning of the word Republicans are struggling with is, what is a war? It's about as laughable as when Democrats struggle with, what is a woman? BROWN: Well, on the war front, let's talk about that. I want to play how some members of your own party have described what's going on with Iran. Let's listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Then we may have casualties that often happens in war. We're doing very well on the war front.

PETE HEGSETH, U.S. DEFENSE SECRETARY: We set the terms of this war from start to finish.

MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Marco Rubio 9,000 Americans have been able to leave the region since the start of this war.

REP. BRIAN MAST (R-FL): Nobody should classify this as war. It is combat operations.

SEN. TOMMY TUBERVILLE (R-AL): I wouldn't call this a war as much as I'd call it a conflict that should be very short and sweet.

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): I don't know if this is technically a war.

SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): We have declared war. So, if we haven't declared war, then I don't see that. The president hasn't asked us to declare war yet, but they have declared war on us.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Do you consider it a war?

REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): It's a significant military operation.

REP. ANNA PAULINA LUNA (R-FL): Strategic strikes are not war.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): They have declared war on us. I don't believe in the semantics. We've talked about the language this morning. We're not at war right now. We're four days in to a very specific, clear mission, an operation.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BROWN: So, to your point, Congressman, you have the administration, including the president, calling this war, and then you have Republicans in Congress not calling it that. Is the United States, in fact, at war with Iran? And if so, do you think politicians should be more explicit with their constituents, the American public, about that?

DAVIDSON: Well, that's precisely why Congress is supposed to vote, right? Congress is supposed to have this debate so that when the country goes to war, you don't just find the military at war. The country is in it together. We responded in three days after 9/11 and gave a clear authorization for use of military force. It didn't say the words declare war, and part of the reason it was more open-ended and ambiguous there is you were going after transnational criminal organizations, terrorist groups, al-Qaeda and their affiliates. And so, here you're really truly focused on a nation-state. I think it would be clean to have a declaration of war if the president felt that was the thing. We're not voting on that today. And I think it's right for the public to be cautious about committing to another war, and they put pressure on their representatives to give a vote. And I think whether you're for it or against it, Congress should vote. The War Powers Resolution that we're voting on today isn't even that.

BROWN: Just to follow up with you, do you see this as a war?

DAVIDSON: Yes. I mean, it's clearly a war. I think everyone thinks it's laughable, and it's the same. Like, it's most people -- I mean, apparently, only if you lean to the right you can differentiate between men and women. But most people know that this is a war. It's an act of war. And if it's an act of war for Iran to attack us, and now they're at war with us, I think it's pretty clear when you take out the leader of their country and the top 40 or so other leaders in his team, it was an act of war. It was meant to be an act of war, and we shouldn't shirk from calling it what it is.

BROWN: And just to stay on the topic of the war in Iran, how worried are you, especially given the fact that you're a veteran, how worried are you about American boots on the ground in Iran? And would there be any acceptable reason, in your view, for the U.S. to take that step?

[10:45:00]

DAVIDSON: Well, look, we should be very clear. Iran is an enemy of the United States. Anyone at war with Iran is acting justly. I mean, these people are evil people. No one should mourn the loss of Khamenei and many of his leadership teams. It was a great thing when Qasem Soleimani was removed from the U.S. So, I think the world will be a better place without the IRGC.

But does that mean that it's in the interest of the United States to commit to another regime change war on the ground? You know, there were people that live in this fantasy world where if you drop some bombs that everyone's just going to surrender, or if you took out the leader, then everyone else would scatter, and then the public would just come in and install a different leader. That didn't even happen in Kosovo and Serbia.

I mean, Iran is four times as big as California with 90 million people, and the leadership in power right now has just been validated by saying, you see, these guys are a threat to us. And the people that are supposedly going to rise up, the regime in power just killed tens of thousands of them, so they're a little reluctant to rise up. So, I think that's the kind of debate Congress should have, and I'm encouraged that many of my colleagues who will vote no today on the War Powers Resolution are at least conceding that in 60 or 90 days that we would have a constitutional crisis if Congress doesn't vote.

BROWN: How do you see this ending? Because the administration has tried to argue that this war is different from wars of the past. What is your view on the way that this pans out? DAVIDSON: Well, if you look at it, you know, for a long time, administrations came up with this phrase, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq, and under the Biden administration in Ukraine, as much as it takes, as long as it takes. You know, that sounds like a resolve, but it never defines as it takes to do what. What exactly is your objective?

And I think President Trump, Secretary Rubio, Secretary Hegseth, have been decisive. They have listed very clear and very achievable objectives. They want to make sure Iran never has a nuclear weapon. They've added to that now three things. They will not have a missile production capability that threatens their neighbors. They will not have a Navy that can close the Straits of Hormuz. And they will not continue to fund the proxy groups that have been destabilizing the entire region. Those are achievable goals, and if that's what they want, they should come and ask for an authorization to do just that.

BROWN: All right. Congressman Warren Davidson, thank you so much for coming on. We appreciate it.

DAVIDSON: Thank you.

BROWN: And up next, we'll speak to GOP Congressman Mike Turner and Democratic Representative Jim Himes. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:50:00]

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ISOBEL YEUNG, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Now, that Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei has been killed in U.S.-Israeli airstrikes, Iran's clerical regime is quickly deciding who is going to succeed him. This is obviously a very big role. It's the most powerful position in the Islamic Republic and one that Khamenei has occupied for nearly four decades, ruling over Iran with a brutal iron fist.

Whoever is appointed matters because it's going to answer one key question. Is this a regime that's going to double down on Khamenei's repressive policies, or will it take the chance to recalibrate? These are the top contenders for the position.

First up, we have Mojtaba Khamenei. He's 56 years old, he's the second son of Khamenei, and has strong links with the Revolutionary Guards as well as the besieged military forces, which is important if he wants to continue ruling in the same vein as his father had been. He's been branded as the frontrunner, but father-to-son succession goes against the ideals of the regime, which overthrew a hereditary monarchy in 1979.

We also have Alireza Arafi, a confidant of Khamenei. He was appointed to senior and strategically very sensitive positions and is part of the clerical establishment. He's also part of the three-member leadership council which is currently running Iran. He's apparently very tech-savvy, fluent in English and Arabic, and is generally seen as more of a moderate. But he's not known as a political heavyweight and doesn't have close ties to the security establishment.

Then you have conservative clerics like Mohammad Mehdi Mirbagheri or Hashem Hosseini Bushehri, less known publicly but reportedly more close to conservative elements, or the former head of the judiciary, Sadeq Larijani, whose brother Ali is currently the powerful national security head.

Outside of those runners, the picture gets a little bit more complicated with the likes of Hassan Khamenei, the grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic, who has traditionally been seen as closer to reformist factions of Iranian politics, but obviously also carries religious and revolutionary legitimacy. His younger brother Ali has also been making headlines recently, leading some analysts to suggest that he's positioning himself.

And finally, there's the potential of the system to pivot and go for someone like Hassan Rouhani, the former president who hails from more moderate camps of Iranian politics, but is still very close to elements of the security establishment to take the realms.

Whoever is appointed as the next supreme leader is going to need the backing of the IRGC, or at least portions of it, and they'll need to act quickly to consolidate power amongst the various elected and non- elected officials that have been ruling the country so far. On top of that, their appointment could be short-lived, as this person could be a clear target for Israel and the U.S.

U.S. President Donald Trump has weighed in to speculation, saying that several of the people his government had viewed as potential leaders are now dead.

TRUMP: I guess the worst case would be we do this and then somebody takes over who's as bad as the previous person, right? That could happen. We don't want that to happen.

YEUNG: Isobel Yeung, CNN, London.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

BROWN: And coming up, spiraling war. We are learning of new explosions in Abu Dhabi. The latest on the breaking news just ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:55:00]

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN Breaking news.

BLITZER: And 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.

And we begin this hour with multiple breaking news stories, Iranian drones, striking Azerbaijan for the first time, dragging yet another country into this rapidly expanding regional conflict. Plus, we're asking two lawmakers, one Republican and one Democrat about the administration's reasons for this war and how they match up with the information that they have all seen.

And we'll also ask them whether the conflict is actually a war. The Trump administration hasn't been shy about calling it a war, but Republicans in Congress, at least several of them, don't seem to be on the same page with their descriptions.

And we'll get reaction from the former U.S. defense secretary and former CIA director Leon Panetta about the CIA's reported efforts to arm Kurdish forces in Iran and spark an uprising against the regime in Terah.

Also happening this hour, the U.S. military Central Command has released new video this morning. Here's video of the U.S. strikes on Iran's military air facilities and aircraft. And here are Iranian missile launchers being destroyed. The U.S. military Central Command says its forces are hunting and destroying the --

[11:00:00]