Return to Transcripts main page

The Situation Room

"Regime Change" Chronicles Second Trump Presidency; Supreme Court: Trump Cannot Fire Fed Governor; Judge Orders DOJ to Turn Over Additional Epstein Files. Aired 11:30-12p ET

Aired June 29, 2026 - 11:30   ET

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

[11:30:00]

MAGGIE HABERMAN, CO-AUTHOR, "REGIME CHANGE" AND WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES: -- them as the top 10. And it was Stalin, Mao, the Caesars, Attila the Hun, Alexander the Great, Hitler, Napoleon, I mean, you know, I'm missing a few, I think.

But he was not in any way reflecting on what they had done to bring them to power and what they had done as leaders. It was the notion that they were memorable, they had had power, but that he had more and what he wanted us to understand was that he is willing to use his power.

JONATHAN SWAN, CO-AUTHOR, "REGIME CHANGE" AND WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE NEW YORK TIMES: The whole point of the title of this book, Regime Change, people when they think of regime change, they think of foreign regime. We're always used to talking about regime change in Iraq, regime change in Iran. We came up with this title long before Trump went into Caracas and snatched Maduro out of his bedroom or started a war in Iran.

It occurred to us pretty early last year that we were covering a form of regime change in America, that Trump was using presidential power like no president in our lifetimes and in some respects like no president ever in some of the respects that we cover in the book.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN ANCHOR: Do you think he sees any ceiling on his power or is it just an insatiable appetite?

HABERMAN: He has said publicly that he sees, you know, at least so far, no limits. Now, it's been in specific context.

BROWN: The Iran War. For example -- yes.

HABERMAN: What he said to our colleagues earlier this year was about the limits of his own power internationally. I think this is what he was saying, I'm paraphrasing, but it was that, you know, his own morality, his own sense of what's acceptable and not.

What our reporting shows in the book, and I think you are seeing this again with some of these rulings today, he is going to test the limits of his power in many different ways and the court system in the U.S. really was not built for someone like Donald Trump. It's not equipped to keep up with him and what we have seen is the only authority that this administration really acknowledges is the Supreme Court because they will take various cases through lower court challenges and then see whether they can expand power for good at the Supreme Court.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Your new book, Jonathan, includes really amazing insight into President Trump's decision to launch these strikes on Iran alongside Israel. You also note the confusion and even the pushback among some of his key cabinet members. In public they all seem to show unfailing loyalty and support, but tell us more about what actually was going on behind the scenes.

SWAN: It was a pretty astonishing sequence of events, starting with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, coming down to the White House Situation Room, pitching Trump on this war, showing a video montage of possible new leaders to take over Iran. Overnight the CIA did an analysis of that presentation and they concluded that the regime change scenarios from Netanyahu were divorced from reality.

So, Trump meets in the Situation Room with his team. John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, tells him it's farcical. Rubio uses coarser language. Trump goes ahead with it anyway from his gut instincts. What I think people don't realize about this war is there's basically no one on Trump's senior team who thought it was a good idea.

BLITZER: The vice president was very tough too.

SWAN: Well, he was the only one who really vocalized it. Basically no one on Trump's team thought it was a good idea. The closest to think it was a good idea was Hegseth. There was various levels of skepticism from almost everyone, but unlike the first term they didn't really express it to Trump. They weren't these big heated arguments. He was the exception and it actually cost him. It irritated Trump.

You did have people lay out risks, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs absolutely did, but there wasn't the sort of direct, you shouldn't do this, arguments.

BROWN: I wanted to ask, just to follow up with you. Do you see any correlation with the fact that it irritated Trump, that J.D. Vance was pushing back and now Trump has sort of made him the face in many ways?

SWAN: I don't see that really. I think J.D. Vance, from my -- our reporting, seems by all accounts to be quite happy to be the one to try to steer this toward a peace deal and to be associated with the peace of this. I mean, you barely heard from him during the war itself and he's everywhere now. I think he's quite comfortable talking about the peace deal element of this. Because he thinks that could help him potentially if he decides to run for president. I also think it's what he believes.

I mean, really, again, there wasn't really a political advantage to him doing what he did with Trump. He needs Trump support, the nominee.

BROWN: We were interviewing Chairman Comer coming up, of course, the head of the House Oversight, and I wanted to bring up Epstein. We're going to ask him about Epstein and you really, really bring us inside the White House, inside the Situation Room, as White House officials deliberated how to handle Epstein, which is really unusual to be in the Situation Room talking about something like this, right?

HABERMAN: Yes, the White House Situation Room complex is, as you know well, as you know well, is typically used for national security discussions, emergencies, discussing foreign policy, sometimes natural disasters.

[11:35:00]

This was the first time that we knew of where it had been used for essentially a crisis PR center on how to get out of a clamor within the MAGA base over unreleased files related to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

And there were a number of meetings in that room. We just focused on a few of them, and there were people in Trump's orbit who were concerned about the victims, but that was not the primary discussion at these meetings. This was about how do you deal with something that the president just wanted to go away, and we report on this in the book. He wanted it to disappear. He was snapping at aides when they would bring up Epstein.

So, what ended up happening were these series of remarkable meetings with the top levels of this government. The vice president, White House Chief of Staff, White House counsel, attorney general, deputy attorney general, FBI director, and that's just a partial list, discussing what they saw as their options. And some of these meetings were described to us as surreal, at least in terms of how detailed they got.

BLITZER: And, Maggie, before I let you go, very quickly, how do you react when Trump bitterly and awfully, he goes after you in public and social media and elsewhere?

HABERMAN: It's not the first time he's attacked me. We've both been through it. It doesn't impact how we report, and we're in pretty good company at this point in terms of him attacking people.

BLITZER: You got me in your company.

HABERMAN: There you go. Thank you.

BROWN: Including CNN, there's plenty of them.

BLITZER: Yes. All right. Excellent, excellent book. Here's the cover.

HABERMAN: Thank you.

BLITZER: And as I said, I learned a lot reading this book. And I applaud both of you --

HABERMAN: Thank you so much.

BLITZER: -- for writing a terrific book. It's a major bestseller already, as it should be.

BROWN: All right. HABERMAN: Thank you very much.

BLITZER: Thanks for writing it.

HABERMAN: Thank you

BROWN: Thanks. Up next, a dramatic move from the House Committee investigating Jeffrey Epstein and the people linked to him. We're going to ask the Republican chairman of that panel how it could change their investigation. Thanks, guys.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:40:00]

BROWN: Breaking news, the Supreme Court has overturned a nearly century-old precedent expanding the president's power to fire officials, but the justices also rejected President Trump's attempt to immediately fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

With us now is Kentucky Republican Congressman James Comer. He's the chairman of the House Oversight Committee. Good morning to you.

So, this ruling gives the president control of most of the agencies under the executive branch that have long operated independently, separate from the Federal Reserve. What is your view of this ruling? What sort of precedent does this set?

REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY) OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN: Well, I believe that, if you ask me, my opinion, is probably a majority opinion of Americans, that we're spending too much money in Washington. You look at every agency in the federal government and what is the biggest expense in each agency, in each cabinet, and that's personnel.

So, there is a point where I think we have to reduce the number of federal employees, and before this ruling, you really couldn't do that. So, hopefully they won't be selected based on politics, they'll be based on merit, and what the taxpayers can afford. So, I think that's probably something that'll be to the president's advantage, and we'll see how he handles it, and if -- you know, if it requires Congress to step in to fix a mistake or an unintended consequence, then I think Congress is ready to do that.

BROWN: I want to turn to something else. I don't know if you heard the interview we just did with Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan about their new book on Trump called "Regime Change." Maggie laid out that in this book, it talks about Trump wanting to end the Epstein issue, to go away no matter what. When aides would come to him with it, he didn't want to talk about it.

There were these high-level meetings in the Situation Room at the White House to discuss how to handle the Epstein issue. Of course, that is very unusual for something like that. What is your reaction to that reporting?

COMER: Well, I was surprised when I saw it. Of course, the president has issued a statement that much of what was in the book wasn't true. So, you know, I don't know who's telling the truth.

But I'll say this, a lot of the problems would go away if we could just have a transparent discussion about what documents have yet to be released. Because what we're learning -- and I'm sure you're going to talk about the Leon Black deposition after this, but what we're learning is a lot of the Epstein survivors have signed nondisclosure agreements, and a lot of the Epstein victims were also people that recruited other women to come into the Epstein circle, so they were, I guess you could say, victims and victimizers, and the government treated them -- you know, it appears the government gave some of them immunity and things like that.

So, it's a pretty complicated case, and I'm sure there are legal restrictions and lots of varying legal opinions as to which documents should be released, which documents should be redacted, but I think the majority of American people, myself included, and I know a majority of the Oversight Committee, we want to see all the documents, and we want to get the truth to American people and see if there's any way we can provide any sort of justice for the survivors of Epstein.

BROWN: Just to follow up with you, because in this book they do provide a fair amount of receipts, and they're very credible reporters here.

[11:50:00]

The fact that there were these Situation Room, high-level meetings about how to handle a matter like this, and they report the president had no interest in talking about it, and he wanted it to go away, does that concern you at all, as someone who says you're there investigating on behalf of the victims?

COMER: Every investigation I've done over the previous two administrations, neither president has been real excited about our investigation. But at the end of the day, you know, I've said this many times on TV, especially on Fox News and other conservative networks, that we're going to get the truth to the American people, we're going to get the documents, and it's just a matter of time.

Now, I do understand more today than I did two months ago about why there are legal challenges as to which documents can be released and which can't, but we need to have a transparent discussion about that, that's why I fully expect Todd Blanche to come in front of the committee.

And I'd like to note he did come in front of the committee to answer questions and the Democrats stormed out a few months ago, but we're going to have him back in the committee, because we want to have an honest, transparent conversation about which documents have not been released and why, and then we will conclude -- we will determine whether or not those documents can be released, because I think that some of the documents that I know some lawyers are advising, the White House and the Department of Justice has not to release, I believe they can be released.

So, we've just got to work through this together. While the documents are being debated as to which documents can be released legally and which can't, we're still bringing people in for depositions. We've deposed or interviewed over 16 people, and we have five more on the books, and these are some of the most powerful people in the world, and, you know, hopefully, we'll be able to get some justice. And to answer the question, how did Epstein and Maxwell get away with this for so long?

BROWN: Just again, on Blanche, I'm just wondering what you think about how he has handled this investigation so far. I mean, he did say if there was more evidence that DOJ will investigate. You actually, as part of the investigation your committee did, sent over criminal referrals for two individuals.

Do you believe he has been aggressive enough in handling this investigation? And as you know, this judge just ruled last week that he basically was violating the Epstein Files Act by not releasing the documents that the judge believed should have been released. What do you think?

COMER: Well, one judge thinks all the documents should be released. Another attorney thinks, well, you can't release anything pertaining to a nondisclosure agreement or any type of grand jury notes or FBI notes or anything like that. So, that's what we've got to determine.

But with respect to Blanche, I think Blanche is doing a good job as attorney general. And I think when he said the investigation was closed, he probably believed that at the time because what I've learned in this investigation, Pam, is I think there were documents the Southern District of New York had that Palm Beach had never seen and documents that Palm Beach had that New Mexico had never seen. So, this is the --

BROWN: They have those documents. I'm just -- I mean --

COMER: The Department of Justice -- And again, this predates Todd Blanche. This goes back several administrations.

BROWN: Right.

COMER: The Department of Justice did a terrible job investigating Epstein and Maxwell. Terrible.

BROWN: But even under the Trump administration, why wouldn't they have had those documents? Why didn't they go in before interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell with all the information to be fully informed?

COMER: I think when they went in there -- this is my opinion, Pam, I think when they went in there, they had what the Department of Justice had. And the Department of Justice didn't know what New York had or what Palm Beach had or what Virgin Islands had or what New Mexico had. This has been a colossal failure by the Department of Justice, dating back at least five presidential administrations.

So, we can, you know, blame whoever, but at the end of the day, I think we've done a good job on the committee getting all this information. I subpoenaed the estate. We've subpoenaed the Department of Justice. And we're bringing all this information together. So, I think there's new information. And now, if we can get some more names through these transcribed interviews and through meetings with the Epstein survivors, hopefully there'll be some criminal referrals to where we can finally hold some of these men accountable.

BROWN: But it does raise questions why they would release that memo when Pam Bondi was A.G. saying everything's closed, nothing further. Will you subpoena Todd Blanche, though? Because as you know, Democrats have been critical, saying that these transcribed interviews aren't enough. It's not really holding their feet to the fire. And you saw that with investor Leon Black. You ended up issuing those two subpoenas as a result of that interview. Will you subpoena him?

COMER: The process for a subpoena is you have to invite them to come voluntarily first. If they refuse, then you subpoena. When we sent the letter to Leon Black, we knew all along that he was at the top of the list of people of interest in this investigation. He agreed to come in voluntarily. He knew we were going to talk about the nondisclosure agreements. Then he acted surprised that we mentioned the nondisclosure agreements, and he got mad and got out and left.

[11:50:00]

BROWN: So, no subpoena for Blanche, right? No subpoena?

COMER: Well, I believe with all my heart Blanche is going to come in very soon. If he doesn't, we'll talk about the next steps. But I'm pretty confident we're going to hear from Todd Blanche. Because we need a transparent conversation to determine whether or not there are still documents that we can legally obtain in the committee. And we know which documents are out there, or the majority does, the Republicans, we think we know. And there are.

A court has ruled against turning over the grand jury note. So, there are obstacles to getting these, but I want them, Pam. I want them, and I want to show them to the American people.

BROWN: Just really quickly as we let you go, I want to ask about 4th of July coming up, America's 250th anniversary. Critics say that Trump is trying to profit off of this, selling merchandise, selling coins for thousands of dollars. He created a commission, an alternative commission, Freedom 250, where critics say donors can pay a large amount of money to gain access to the president.

Is this something you would be willing to investigate as the head of oversight, whether the president is profiting off of the president, the president and his family?

COMER: Well, there's a story almost on a weekly basis that would imply that there's some profiteering taking place from members of the president's family. But, you know, they say, well, you need to investigate it. Well, you reported it. We investigated it Biden because --

BROWN: So, because it's transparent -- OK. So, hold on. Let me just make sure I understand. So, because they're open about it, it's OK. But if they're not open about it, it's not OK?

COMER: I wanted to pass ethics. I had an ethics bill with Katie Porter. It was a bipartisan ethics bill last Congress. And Jamie Raskin killed it because he thought Kamala Harris was going to be president and we were trying to do something nefarious to her.

BROWN: OK.

COMER: I think that there needs to be -- there's nothing I've seen that President Trump or his family has done that's illegal. If people don't like it, I think that's a political debate. And I think that's something that, you know, voters can decide at the polls. But I think in the future --

BROWN: But the bottom line is you won't investigate, correct? Just to make sure.

COMER: Well, what it -- everything -- you know the deals that they're in. You may not like them. I've not seen any law that says anything's illegal. Now, do I like them? I think that answer's pretty clear. I've done a lot of interviews on that.

BROWN: But you've previously raised concerns about influence peddling in the past. So, you've previously raised those concerns. So, I just wondered if you had the same concerns. We have to run, but I'll give you the final word here.

COMER: Yes. Well, the concerns with Biden because he said he wasn't taking money from China and these other countries. When we subpoenaed the bank records, they were. So, Biden said he wasn't doing this stuff. Trump acknowledges that he is.

Now, should some of this be illegal? I think that's --

BROWN: But he hasn't released his tax returns. Should he release his tax returns then?

COMER: Yes. Well, I wish you -- I think -- I've always said every president should release their tax returns. Yes.

BROWN: OK. And just to be clear, Biden has said no wrongdoing. Have to put that out there. Trump has also said --

COMER: But the tax returns didn't show all this money from China and other places.

BROWN: And let me just be clear, the president is not subjected to conflict-of-interest laws in the way that others are. So, I just want to also make that clear as part of this conversation.

BROWN: And we should say, I think that's something that should be looked at by Congress. We've never had a business person as president before. We had presidents like Jimmy Carter that had little businesses about the size of my little business in Kentucky. But we've never had a business person on this level. So, I think that that's a new conversation that Congress needs to have. And, you know, we need to debate whether or not there need to be any type of laws pertaining to what businesses a president or his family should be allowed to participate in. But right now, there are none on the books, Pam.

BROWN: All right. Well, you're a member of Congress. You laid that out. So, we'll see what happens. Congressman James Comer from my great home State of Kentucky that's also dealing with some flooding right now. I know you're focused on that as well. Thank you so much for coming on the show.

COMER: Thank you.

BROWN: More when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:55:00]

BLITZER: Coming up this weekend on CNN, kick off your America 250 celebrations with Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohn. They'll countdown to midnight when there's a ball drop to ring in the nation's birthday. Independence Eve live with Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohn starts Friday night, 8:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific.

BROWN: And then for the big holiday, CNN will have the brightest fireworks and biggest stars. Anderson and I will host CNN's 4th in America, celebrating 250. That's Saturday. It starts at noon Eastern and Pacific. You can watch both specials here on CNN or stream on the CNN app. Very much looking forward to hosting that with Anderson.

BLITZER: I'm looking forward to watching you. It'll be exciting. Thanks very much to our viewers for joining us here in the Situation Room this morning. You can always keep up with us on social media @wolfblitzer and @pamelabrowncnn.

BROWN: We'll see you back here tomorrow morning and every weekday morning at 10:00 Eastern. Inside Politics with our friend and colleague Manu Raju starts after a quick break.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:00]