Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump: Putin Meeting Not Conditioned On Including Zelenskyy; Maxwell Survivor Responds To DOJ Meeting: "Extremely Disturbing"; Netanyahu Says Israel Intends To Take Full Control Of Gaza. Aired 9- 10p ET
Aired August 07, 2025 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[21:00:00]
DONIE O'SULLIVAN, CNN SENIOR CORRESPONDENT: --part of the culture, especially among Gen Z, online, is really sort of this sort of non- stop trolling, what is called shitposting.
And, for instance, during the recent Texas floods, when so many children died in that terrible tragedy, somebody like Destiny went online, started saying -- trying to poke conservatives, saying, Well, look, this is proof that God doesn't exist.
So like, there's this sort of constant culture of trying to poke the other side, no matter how tasteless a joke might be. But what we've seen on the right, in the MAGA-verse, is that they're OK with embracing that. And these guys are arguing that the Democrats need to get with the program.
JOHN KING, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Donie O'Sullivan, thank you. Fascinating report.
And the news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, what President Trump told me, in the Oval Office, about his potential summit with President Vladimir Putin.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
As we come on the air, from Washington tonight, we're about three hours away from President Trump's deadline, for Russia to make peace with Ukraine, or face major new consequences.
In Moscow, it's already tomorrow, and we'll have to see if the President follows through with his promise to impose what he has described as very severe tariffs and sanctions. It's in question tonight, after word of a possible summit, between the two world leaders, began to emerge.
At the White House today, the President told me his meeting with the Russian leader is not conditioned on Putin also agreeing to meet with Ukraine's President Zelenskyy.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: President Putin said this morning, he was pretty dismissive of this idea of meeting with President Zelenskyy.
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Who was?
COLLINS: President Putin was.
TRUMP: I don't know. I didn't hear him.
COLLINS: So, for you to meet with him, he doesn't have to agree to meet with Zelenskyy. Is that what you're saying?
TRUMP: No, he doesn't, no, no.
COLLINS: So when do you think that meeting would happen?
TRUMP: They would like to meet with me, and I'll do whatever I can to stop the killing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President, making clear he'd like to see this meeting with Putin happen, and quickly. It could, as early as next week, based on what we know. Though, of course, the timing here does remain to be seen.
One key question is how Ukraine and Europe respond to what the President had to say there.
This was President Zelenskyy, earlier in the -- earlier in the day, on the idea of talks happening, without him at the table.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PRES. VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINE (through translator): Everyone knows that key decisions in Russia are made by one person, and that this person is afraid of sanctions from the United States of America, and that it is only fair that Ukraine should be a participant in the negotiations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: We haven't yet gotten a clear answer, from the White House, about whether or not those tariffs, that I mentioned, are going to go into effect at midnight tonight.
But compare the way the President was talking about his latest deadline, just last week, and what he had to say today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: There's no reason to wait. If you know what the answer is going to be, why wait? And it would be sanctions and maybe tariffs, secondary tariffs.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is your deadline still standing for Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire tomorrow? Or is that fluid now that talks--
TRUMP: It's going to be up to him.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And do you--
TRUMP: We're going to -- we're going to see what he has to say. It's going to be up to him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I want to get straight to some of our favorite experts and insiders, this hour who are all joining us.
And David Sanger, you're joining us remotely. We've got everyone else here.
As we're looking and listening to what the President is saying, and how he was talking then, compared to what he's saying now. I wonder what you made of Trump saying today, There doesn't have to be an agreement by Putin to also sit down with Zelenskyy, in order for Putin to get face-time with Trump.
DAVID SANGER, WHITE HOUSE & NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST, AUTHOR, "NEW COLD WARS": Well, Kaitlan, I think President Putin is clearly getting the first gift, just by having the meeting with the President. He's been in isolation by NATO, by the United States, for more than three years now. Most leaders have not agreed to meet and talk with him.
The President did not get a ceasefire as the price for this kind of sit-down, he's removed all of the conditions. That doesn't mean that President Trump shouldn't speak with him. You only get agreements by talking with your adversaries.
But what the President has done, at this point, is basically remove every single pressure point. He's not going in with tariffs on Russia. He exempted them largely from the tariffs that have gone on, that have been applied to many American allies. He does -- has not made clear what the secondary sanctions will be, if any.
[21:05:00]
And so, I think Putin has probably rightly calculated, this is just the right moment to begin to go in and get a discussion going, so that the President doesn't impose those to begin with. He's playing him--
COLLINS: Yes.
SANGER: --pretty skillfully.
COLLINS: Well, and Jill Dougherty, as someone -- you know, David mentions Putin's calculations there. How is Putin calculating all this? And how he -- how is he listening to what he heard in the Oval Office today?
JILL DOUGHERTY, FORMER CNN MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I agree with David that, he's already got point number one. The meeting is a big deal. The Russians want to see, and Putin wants to be on the stage with the American president. That's number one.
Number two, he got, apparently, no Zelenskyy, which would seem to be one of the preconditions. Now, that's off the table. We don't even know exactly what the Ukrainians are going to say about that. But that is a very big deal. Putin does not want to meet with Zelenskyy, considers him not even a president.
COLLINS: But does he want to -- does Putin want to bring the war to an end, if he's even refusing to meet with Zelenskyy, which is what Trump wants to happen here?
DOUGHERTY: I ultimately don't think he wants to bring it to an end, right at this point, if he can get more. And the question now is, can they get a ceasefire? I think that is exactly what President Trump wants to get. But Putin has made it very clear, he doesn't want a ceasefire. He wants the root causes.
And also, this gives him a chance, not just on a telephone conversation, but in-person, eye-to-eye, to talk with Trump, and say, Hey, can't we do a deal about X, Y, Z? I think it's a good schmoozing -- well, maybe that's a little too unkind. But it's a -- the personal relationship is very, very important.
COLLINS: Yes, these are two world leaders who both think that they can make a difference, when they're in-person, speaking with someone.
Shelby, what are you hearing from White House officials about this?
SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: This is all happening very quickly. And ultimately, it is up to Donald Trump, as is everything.
But I do think it's notable, the shift we heard from White House officials, saying that one of the preconditions was meeting with Zelenskyy. Then you heard from Donald Trump saying, No, that's not a precondition. And so, this just tells you how quickly everything is happening inside the administration.
And there's also talks going on about whether this is a good idea, right? There are people inside the administration, who would argue that this would sort of legitimize Vladimir Putin, in a way that the administration doesn't want to happen. There are other people who think that maybe if they meet, this can get the ceasefire, which is Donald Trump's ultimate goal. And so, there's a lot of conversations about the benefits versus the negatives of having this potential meeting in-person.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, Alex, and that is obviously a key part of this, in terms of, do they have tangible goals, walking into, to this meeting? And also, I mean, there is still real question tonight of when this could happen. I mean, I talked to White House officials, yesterday, who were saying, Maybe it will happen next week. I mean, when the President wants something done, he typically expects people to move pretty quickly on it.
ALEX ISENSTADT, SENIOR POLITICAL REPORTER, AXIOS: Yes, and it's been a little hard to keep track of where things stand, right, about who would necessarily need to be in this meeting, would Zelenskyy need to be in this meeting. And so it's -- you're right, the developments are happening really quickly.
But here's the thing. Trump sees himself as the ultimate dealmaker. He feels like he and he alone is the person who can -- who can bring this conflict to an end. The reality is, is he had meetings with world leaders during his first term. They didn't necessarily always accomplish what he wanted to accomplish. But he's going into this, saying that he believes he can finally bring this to an end. Whether that's true or not, that remains to be seen.
COLLINS: Well, and David Sanger, one thing that has been discussed is this idea of an air truce, or Russia agreeing not to--
SANGER: Yes.
COLLINS: --to basically strike in Ukraine with -- with all that. But what -- that sounds to maybe just the average person, Oh, that's exactly what Ukraine would want there. They continuously bomb Ukraine.
But I was reading today, in The New York Times, just about how -- well that actually, then takes away one of Ukraine's most effective points in this war, which has been using drones and that tactic that they've used, instead of just on-the-ground combat.
SANGER: That's right, an air truce would probably be to Putin's advantage here, because he's got the larger numbers in the trenches. Nobody can move on the ground, right now, because of the drones, and the Ukrainians have used these very effectively to try to freeze, or at least slow the Russian advances. So, while an air truce sounds like a good progress, in fact, what it probably would do would be enable Putin to keep moving.
But I think there's a broader point here, which is, during the Biden administration, the whole concept was that the war itself was both a moral violation and a violation of sovereignty.
[21:10:00]
President Trump has come at this differently. He, at the beginning of his term, would not say who was responsible for the war. He talks about dividing up Ukraine, as if it's a real estate deal. In fact, I think, in fact, Ukraine is probably going to have to give up some real estate.
But the big concessions that I think the Ukrainians are worried about is that President Trump will say Ukraine will never get into NATO, that he will say, the U.S. and Europe will not arm the Ukrainians beyond a certain level. And that's really what Putin is looking for. And I think that's what Zelenskyy most fears would be negotiated away behind his back.
COLLINS: Yes. And in terms of what those conditions could look like, what the outcome of this could look like.
There's another question, Jill, just in terms of, where does this happen? Where does this take place?
DOUGHERTY: Yes.
COLLINS: I've heard some people today saying, Putin's not going to Europe. That doesn't seem likely. There were some ideas, and the Middle East thrown out there, yesterday. I wonder when you're looking at the setting, for something like this, where it could take place.
DOUGHERTY: Well, with Vladimir Putin, you have to remember, he is -- the ICC, International Criminal Court has indicted him as a war criminal.
COLLINS: Yes, he'll get arrested in--
(CROSSTALK)
DOUGHERTY: Yes, yes. So, there are certain places that he cannot go. So, I believe that he could go to the UAE. And coincidentally, he was speaking in Moscow today, with the President of the UAE, and he said that could be a good place to hold this. So that could definitely be one of the places.
COLLINS: I mean, we are, Shelby, just hours, less than three hours now, from this timeline of what had been this very big show, from the administration, saying, If they're not going to come to this agreement, Trump gave them this deadline, then he shortened the deadline. I have not heard based on -- before we came on air, I was talking to some people whether or not those sanctions are going into place, or if they're on hold because of this summit.
TALCOTT: Yes, it's extremely unclear.
I asked the President this question, on Wednesday. He dodged it. He said, Yes, the timeline is coming up. But didn't say whether or not the timeline was actually still enacted.
You heard him just today sort of reiterate that it is up to Vladimir Putin, which suggests that perhaps they're going to wait and see what the Russian president has to say.
But it's notable because, that clip you played earlier, that's a real change in his attitude from just a few weeks ago, when he was talking about this 10- to 12-day time limit. And so, is the administration, or is Donald Trump thinking perhaps this was a breakthrough? It remains to be seen. Maybe he thinks that sitting down with Vladimir Putin is going to -- is going to get him what he wants, a ceasefire.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll have to see.
Shelby Talcott. Jill Dougherty. Alex Isenstadt. David Sanger, from afar. It's great to have all of you here, as we wait to see whether or not that deadline is met tonight. We'll keep checking on that. Also, this week here in Washington, remember Congressman Mike Flood getting an earful from voters at a recent town hall? What he said about the President's agenda, and also when he was asked? We're going to speak to him live, next.
[21:15:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Today, we saw Vice President JD Vance taking a turn as a pitchman for his boss, during a trip to Indiana, where he's championing President Trump's plan to try to pack Congress with more Republicans than are there now to hold on to the House majority.
To do that, as we have seen reporting, out on the ground in Texas, the White House wants Republican-led states, and state officials there, to start redrawing some of their district maps.
As for Indiana, the Vice President didn't respond to CNN's questions, as he was going into the State Capitol in Indianapolis, as you can see here. But the Governor there, Republican, Mike Braun, was non- committal on this idea. He posted only that they had discussed, quote, "A number of issues."
Meanwhile, we have heard from the Republican senator, John Cornyn of Texas, who says, FBI Director, Kash Patel, agreed to assign agents to help find the Democrats in their state who decamped out of the state, in an attempt to block the plan there by the governor.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOHN CORNYN (R-TX): Well, I wrote a letter to Director Patel, of the FBI, and I asked him to look into the matter, and he responded to me directly, saying that he had assigned agents in both the San Antonio and Austin office to meet my request.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It doesn't remain -- it's not clear yet tonight about what the FBI can actually do, about Texas Democrats being out of the state, if anything at all, as we continue to monitor that, though, in this fight overall that is now playing out nationwide.
My source tonight represents a state where the Chair of the Republican Party has said she does welcome redrawing districts, to help President Trump. Congressman Mike Flood of Nebraska, who hosted quite the town hall this week, is here.
And it's great to have you, Congressman. We'll get to the town hall in a moment.
But do you agree, would you support redrawing the districts in Nebraska, in the middle of the decade?
REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): Well, let me tell you, I was the Speaker of the Nebraska Legislature for six years. I served there for 10. Remember, we have a unicameral, we also have the apportionment of our electoral votes by congressional district, where the Omaha district sends one this year for Kamala Harris, and the rest of the state did Donald Trump.
I was supportive, last year, of switching to winner-take-all. And what I'll tell you is that states are sovereign. If they want to reapportion their districts, that is entirely up to the legislature. And I don't think you can serve in a legislature, and be committed to the process, if you're not willing to respect your own state sovereignty. You could certainly disagree with the new lines, but it's entirely up to each state.
[21:20:00]
The only thing I would say is every action in this Game of 50 states has a reaction somewhere else. Every action has a reaction. So, I assume, if we're going down this path, that somebody's math this all out, because certainly California will respond to Texas, and another state, maybe Kentucky or somebody else responds to Indiana, for instance. Who knows what we're -- what we're really talking about here. But every action has a reaction, and--
COLLINS: Yes.
FLOOD: --it could change the face of Congress.
COLLINS: Yes, and of course, Democrats do this, Republicans do this.
But do you personally support it, would you support it, in the middle of the decade, which, as you know, is unusual? Typically, it happens around the census.
FLOOD: Well, it's going to be very hard to do it in Nebraska, because we were unsuccessful. And I was in Nebraska with Lindsey Graham, last year, trying to talk our legislature into changing to a winner-take- all state, like everybody else except Maine, and we couldn't get the 33 out of 49 votes. So yes, if the legislature has a majority, and they can get the 33 votes required? Absolutely, I would support it.
COLLINS: OK, so you'd support it, if there's a majority yet. Don Bacon says that there are conversations about this happening.
I think one question some people might have is, looking at this, is obviously it's clear why the White House wanted Texas to do this. They want to make sure they have those extra seats, to try to hold on to the Republican majority in Congress, when the midterms happen next year.
Some people might look at that and say, Well, if the actions of what the Republican majority have been doing, and they're as popular as the GOP says they are, why the need to redraw the maps in the middle of the decade?
FLOOD: I hate to keep coming back to this, but when I was working on winner-take-all, last year, I had all of these people around the nation say, Why would you dare do that, Nebraska? Keep it the way it is.
And I say to people in California and New York, Well, if it's such a great idea to apportion our congressional districts to different candidates, why isn't California doing it? Why isn't New York doing it? Why isn't any other blue state doing it?
Listen, this is a choice that's left up to the legislature, represented by and through the people that would use the rules of its independent legislature in each state, whether they're House or Senate, or, in my case, unicameral, to make a decision about how to draw the lines. If they choose to do it? Fine.
I think the bigger question here is, what does this mean for -- what does this may -- make Congress look like? Hey, there could be some good things that come out of this for America, bigger than even the partisan ships that we're talking about here.
COLLINS: But what if -- you talk about state sovereignty, and saying if the majority does that, and the state legislature wants to do that, then they should. But they're under pressure from the White House to do this. I mean, the White House is the -- are the ones who reached out to Texas, and urged them to do this. They're now trying to get other states to do it too.
FLOOD: Well, listen, Beto O'Rourke came to Omaha, two nights ago, and his message to Democrats in Omaha was, You get ruthless. We will not get our power back unless we are ruthless, like we're up against people here that will do anything.
Trust me, I've got people in costumes following me out of bathrooms in Lincoln, Nebraska. There is a problem in this country, like the Democrats are motivated, they are -- their tagline is ruthless, and their goal is power. So that's the--
COLLINS: Yes, I think--
FLOOD: --that's the world we're living in.
COLLINS: I think some people might look at that and say, Well, Beto O'Rourke is an unsuccessful Senate candidate. JD Vance is the Vice President of the United States, putting that pressure on.
But let me ask you, because you did have a raucous town hall the other night. I think a lot of people have seen it. Part of the questions that you were asked was about the bill that Republicans just passed in Congress. And because of higher borrowing costs, we actually have just heard from the Congressional Budget Office, that now says that mega bill is actually going to add $4.1 trillion to the national debt.
This is something that you personally have expressed concern about before. I wonder if, based on what you heard at that town hall, you're finding it harder to sell that bill than you maybe thought it would be?
FLOOD: Not at all. And to clarify, yes, I am concerned about the national debt. But I have always been consistent, we have to trim spending, which we did. We cut $2 trillion out of federal spending, the most we've ever cut in 50 years in this country. And you've got to grow the economy. You don't grow the economy by allowing tax cuts to regress, and put a draconian blanket of taxes across every middle- class American family.
And I think there's one thing that we have to be really aware of here. In 2012, when President O'Biden -- when President -- when President Obama was working to extend the George W. Bush tax cuts, he had the same argument. He says, Do not pay attention to the CBO numbers that you see here, because the policy of the United States now is that these taxes have been cut.
[21:25:00]
President Trump (inaudible) 25 -- this is a convenience line that the Democrats are using. And let's be honest, if the Democrats were in power, they'd be extending these very same tax cuts. The only difference today is that working-class Americans are now, their heart and soul is with the Republican Party.
COLLINS: Yes.
FLOOD: And what people at that town hall discovered was that they were in a party adrift, not with the working-class--
COLLINS: Yes, but this bill obviously--
FLOOD: --but with people that felt like you should -- you should not have to get a job and still get free health care. That's what they said to me.
COLLINS: Yes, that was shared when you had brought that up at one point. Obviously, there are questions about other people, who do have jobs and whether or not they can still get Medicaid.
But the bill did, obviously, a lot more than just extend the Trump tax cuts from last time around.
And I do wonder, as we're watching this bill get passed, the ramifications of that, now seeing the tariffs go into full effect, if you're hearing concerns from farmers in Nebraska, who I know the last time Trump enacted tariffs, on a much smaller scale, are they worried about these tariffs now, that they're in full effect, and how they're going to affect them?
FLOOD: I love that question, because I spent all day with farmers, in Shelby and Rising City, Nebraska, in Butler County. And you know what they're saying? For the first time in a long time, we have a president that's paying attention to trade.
Joe Biden was the first president, since Jimmy Carter, not to do a trade deal. When Mexico said, We won't take your white corn, Nebraska farmers said, Please, President Biden, take the podium, go to bat for us.
Crickets. At least, when President Trump was there, in 2017, he went to bat for the farmers. Yes, he used tariffs. But we got better deals from Canada, Mexico and China.
Farmers in Nebraska, right now, we want to get into India, we want to get into Vietnam, we want to be in all these other countries that we believe he can get us into, and we'll be patient and hope that this gets done sooner rather than later. We've got a big harvest--
COLLINS: But last time they said it--
FLOOD: --with a bountiful (ph) crop coming this fall.
COLLINS: The Nebraska Farm Bureau said, in 2019, it cost them a billion dollars. Is that something they can -- they can stomach again?
FLOOD: Well, the Nebraska Farm Bureau, right now, let me tell you, prices on corn, it's $3.80 a bushel right now. Soybeans are down. I was worried a year ago about this. We just don't have the markets to sell our crop. And we have so -- such a good crop, this year, our yields will be high, but we're worried about what the price will be.
Listen, this is complicated stuff. At least we have a president paying attention to trade. We hope that this is all figured out by Christmas time, because we crave the predictability, and we crave the reliability of our trading partners. But the reality is, we've been beaten out by other countries for too long, because Joe Biden, and others, have been asleep at the wheel.
COLLINS: Congressman Mike Flood, we'll see what happens by Christmas, obviously a key timeline here. Thank you so much for your time tonight.
FLOOD: Have a good night.
COLLINS: Up next here. Another story that we've been tracking closely out of the White House. Jeffrey Epstein's survivor and accuser, Annie Farmer, is going to join me. Her warning, and what she has to say to the White House about how all of this is playing out. As we're getting new reporting about a meeting that happened between the Attorney General, the FBI Director and others, where, the Epstein situation and what to do came up.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: CNN has now learned that a meeting between the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, the FBI Director, Kash Patel, the Vice President, JD Vance, and others, did happen, last night, at the White House, with a source telling CNN that they discussed a number of topics, including the Jeffrey Epstein case, and the administration's next steps on that matter.
As we've sought to emphasize here, a group that feels like they are missing from the administration's conversations, are the survivors of the abuse by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Tonight, my source is a survivor, Annie Farmer. Maxwell recruited her, and groomed her, when she was just 16-years-old. Annie testified at Maxwell's 2021 trial that both Maxwell and Epstein had abused her.
And Annie joins me now, along with her attorney. Jennifer Freeman, is back with us.
And I'm very grateful to have both of you here tonight. Because Annie, I do think this is something that is missing from a lot of the conversation, about subpoenas, or witnesses, or Congress.
And just, for everyone to remember, you testified at Maxwell's trial. You were actually the only survivor to do so by your full name. Others did so by pseudonyms, understandably.
And I just, one, I want to say thank you for being willing to come back and talk about it. But secondly, I wonder what you want people to know, who are at home, who are watching all of this play out, with Ghislaine Maxwell tonight.
ANNIE FARMER, KEY WITNESS AT GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S SEX TRAFFICKING TRIAL, JEFFREY EPSTEIN AND GHISLAINE MAXWELL ACCUSER: Well, first, I just want to say thank you so much for having me here, and also for the coverage you've been doing, centering survivors, because I agree that that's something that hasn't been done, nearly enough, in these last few weeks.
I think that one thing, I think, it's important people understand, is that this chaotic process that's been unfolding has a real cost for survivors. A central part of trauma is a feeling of a lack of control, and that has certainly been triggered here, and I think has a lot of us feeling, very uneasy, really, exhausted by this process.
[21:35:00]
And we are learning things, just like everybody else, mostly, through the news, through texts from friends. We have not been given any kind of a heads-up about things that are happening that are directly related to us. These meetings, you know, even this prison transfer was something I expected we would learn about, prior to learning about it in the news. And unfortunately, that's not how it has unfolded.
COLLINS: Yes. When you find out that Ghislaine Maxwell is being moved, which we really haven't been told why or who signed off on that, from this prison in Florida, to a lower-security federal camp in Texas, I wonder what goes through your mind when you hear that?
FARMER: Honestly, just even learning that the DOJ would be meeting with her was extremely disturbing.
This is someone who has been convicted of sex trafficking, by a jury. She not only procured girls and young women for Epstein, but she also participated in the abuse of minors. And to hear that they are meeting with her, and considering involving her in the investigation, after she has been -- you know, been a perjurer, you know? It's just -- it was very confusing and disturbing.
And so, the rumors that followed, a possible commutation or pardon, very upsetting. And then -- and then with this prison transfer, I think it again, feels like she is getting preferential treatment. That sounds like something that's unprecedented, and it's really worrying to us about what might be coming next.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, one of the things she was accused of lying about involved you. And, at trial, just so everyone remembers, your mom actually testified that when you went to the ranch, in New Mexico, in 1996, that Jeffrey Epstein had promised your mom you were going on a retreat, and that there were dozens of other girls who were going to be there, that Ghislaine Maxwell was his wife. And then you got there, and you were the only one. I believe that's what your mom testified at trial.
And so, I just think maybe that is part of this that, we've heard some people describing Ghislaine Maxwell -- I should note, people who are on the far-right, describing Ghislaine Maxwell as the victim here.
FARMER: Yes, I have seen that as well. I think this attempt to sort of rehab her image in order to, potentially, make a -- some sort of commutation more palatable?
But I've actually felt -- you know, really appreciative of the public's response to that. It feels like that campaign is not working. People recognize that she's a predator, not a victim, and I think that any additional lessening of sentence, or negotiation, will really be met with a lot of outrage, and seen as a sign of some guilt.
COLLINS: If the President's not ruling it out, a pardon, and just -- he just emphasizes that he has the ability to do so, I wonder what you would want to say to him about even considering that?
FARMER: Yes, I just would want him to know it would be devastating for the victims of Epstein and Maxwell. I mean, this was the one person who was held accountable for these crimes, and she was held accountable for her crimes, not for someone else's, but for the ones that she committed.
And I think there's many other ways for him to move forward with this, that would actually be indicative of, him, not being involved, that would not involve her, right? Releasing more information, as people are clamoring for. I think anything that involves her participation would be seen as a sign of guilt.
COLLINS: And Jennifer, you're with us here as well. When you just watch how all this is playing out, do you -- do you get the sense that the administration is listening, or that Republicans, as they're fighting for this, or fighting about this, I should say, that they're listening to stories, like Annie's, when they're -- when they're listening to all of this?
JENNIFER FREEMAN, ATTORNEY FOR EPSTEIN VICTIMS: I'm afraid, not, which is really upsetting to other survivors. Obviously, Annie has spoken beautifully. But many others have told me how upsetting this is. It feels like a betrayal. It feels atrocious to them, and it's hard to stomach.
COLLINS: Annie, I mean, one comment that we heard from the President, yesterday, was, This is being pushed by the Democrats, that it's a hoax, that it's -- that it's BS.
As someone who lived it and experienced it, and as a survivor, I wonder what you make of that?
FARMER: It's offensive. It's -- this is not a hoax. There has -- there have been so many people that have come forward and shared their stories.
I hate that it has been politicized, the way it has, because I think we lose sight of the bigger picture in that. And I think this is really about people using their power to harm others. And that is not a political issue.
[21:40:00]
I think people, on both sides, care about the safety of children. And I really -- yes, I really hope that Trump understands that a message is being sent beyond just the individuals involved in this case, to the wider community, about how we -- you know, about the seriousness of these types of crimes.
COLLINS: And Annie, where do you -- where do you personally come down on the calls to release everything? Do you -- do you agree with that?
FARMER: Yes, I'm definitely supportive of more transparency in this case. My sister has filed this lawsuit, in order to have more information released, as to why her FBI -- her 1996 FBI report, why nothing was done, right? That's something that has been so upsetting for us, to know how many people were harmed, that didn't need to be, if there had been more follow-up at that time.
And a piece of this case that hasn't gotten a lot of attention is the fact that, when she was assaulted, there were also photos that were stolen from her. She was an artist. She was a figurative artist, and she took photos of myself and my sister, partially nude photos, to work from, as a lot of artists do.
But those photos were stolen by Maxwell and Epstein. And we've never been told, even though we know that photos have been found, we've never been told, were our photos a part of that. We would like to know, of course, if that is the case. And I think that's the kind of thing, transparency might bring, it's more information for people involved.
COLLINS: Yes, and when you ask those questions, does anyone answer? What kind of response do you get?
FARMER: So far, there hasn't been a lot of official response, to our queries. Even in this, I reached out to the prosecutors who, brought -- you know, who got the guilty verdict for Maxwell, saying, What's going on? And they knew so little, because they have not been involved in this process. So, I wrote a letter to Deputy Attorney General Blanche, saying, These are my concerns about what's happening. And there has not been a response.
So, we -- I know, speaking with other survivors, in this case, that even though so many politicians are talking about this, I don't think anyone has actually been contacted by anyone.
COLLINS: So you reached out to the Attorney -- Deputy Attorney General, and you haven't heard back?
FARMER: Yes.
COLLINS: Wow.
Jennifer Freeman. Annie Farmer.
Annie -- Jennifer, I spoke with you last night, and thank you again for your time.
But Annie, I just want to reemphasize, I'm really grateful for you being willing to come on, and talk about this, and have such an important conversation. So thank you.
FARMER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next here for us. We're going to check in, in the Middle East, as protests are erupting, across Israel today. The Prime Minister there, Netanyahu, now confirming he is planning a full military takeover of Gaza. My source tonight is a Democratic congressman who just returned and met with the Prime Minister.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, protesters and police are clashing in Tel Aviv, as Israel's security cabinet has now been debating, for more than nine hours, whether or not to take a dramatic new step, in the military campaign to fully occupy Gaza. It's a plan being pushed by the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL HEMMER, "AMERICA'S NEWSROOM" CO-ANCHOR, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Will Israel take control of all of Gaza?
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: We intend to, in order to A, assure our security, remove Hamas there, enable the population to be free of Gaza and to pass it to civilian governance, that is not Hamas, and not anyone advocating the destruction of Israel. That's what we want to do.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: According to an Israeli official who has knowledge of the plan, that right now is under consideration, Israel would basically encircle and potentially enter the few remaining areas in Gaza that are outside its direct control, in an effort to destroy Hamas.
United Nations officials are warning that this could have catastrophic consequences, not only for the millions of displaced Palestinians, many of whom who are already living in miserable conditions and struggling to find food and water, clean water, I should note.
My source tonight is Democratic congressman, Josh Gottheimer, who just got back from Israel, after leading that bipartisan congressional delegation there, and meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, as well as Palestinian officials in the West Bank.
And so, it's great to have you here, Congressman, just given the fact you were just there. What do you believe happens if--
REP. JOSH GOTTHEIMER (D-NJ): Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: What happens if Israel fully occupies Gaza?
GOTTHEIMER: Well, I mean, I think the main objectives, which have been clear all along is you still have 50 hostages that are in Gaza, controlled by Hamas, by a terrorist organization, those -- we've got to get those hostages out. I'm sure you've seen the recent videos of those emaciated hostages that they're refusing to feed. One of them digging -- their own course, to dig their own grave. So you have to get the hostages out.
You have to, and I discussed this with the Prime Minister, the importance of, of course, ensuring that Hamas is not the governing body, long-term, and as he said today, transitioning to a new governing body, he mentioned, being led by Arab nations. That's the ultimate goal here. But in the short-term, we've got to get the hostages out, and you've got to surge humanitarian aid into the region.
[21:50:00]
We know that Hamas is not letting aid get to where it needs to get. We know that. I saw with my own eyes. I was at the Shalom crossing, where either aid trucks, literally moving from Israel, sitting in Gaza, not -- the aid not getting out. These trucks are literally in Gaza, sitting there, not getting to people, and the U.N. put out a statistic, in the last days, saying that 85 percent of the trucks they're sending out, the caravans, which I'm sure you've seen videos of, are getting looted--
COLLINS: Yes.
GOTTHEIMER: --and not getting to the families, the ultimate destination, right? Which is hard. We got to get the food to people. But if we know the U.N. trucks are getting raided, that's not a solution that's working.
COLLINS: Yes, but there was a -- there was a period, where Israel wasn't letting any of that aid get in. Do you also hold Prime Minister Netanyahu responsible, for making sure aid can get in and get to people in Gaza?
GOTTHEIMER: The aid is getting there, and I mean, it's getting to that -- from Israel to Gaza. I saw that, all the trucks moving, I saw how quickly the aid was moving.
I also know that -- listen, the U.N. has been failing. The GHF, which is the other model, I met with them as well, which are the -- and they've got four sites now. There'll be 16 sites. There, there's actually a much more orderly process of aid distribution, and the aid is getting to families in those instances.
And listen, the U.N., in my opinion, these truck situations or the delivery are get -- they're all getting looted. And Hamas is taking the food and selling the food back to innocent Palestinians.
We know that Hamas does not care about the Palestinian people, right? They're willing to shoot them. The ones who are working and trying to get aid out, they're killing them. There was a story in the BBC today talking about the fact that, and I was shocked by this--
COLLINS: Yes.
GOTTHEIMER: --that Hamas families are getting -- are getting money and food, and their next-door neighbors, innocent Palestinians next door, are not getting any food or money--
COLLINS: Yes, and--
GOTTHEIMER: --because Hamas does not want them to, right? They want to maintain control.
COLLINS: Yes, and no one is defending Hamas, obviously.
I will say, there was a report that said, that was from the internal U.S. government, that found that there was no evidence of widespread theft by Hamas. Obviously, there is theft happening. But I just, I wonder, your view of Israel in this, because you're calling from New Jersey.
GOTTHEIMER: I was just looking at this -- the BBC is not--
COLLINS: Mikie Sherrill--
GOTTHEIMER: --the BBC is not a fan of Israel, and -- and the BBC is not a fan of Israel, as you know, in their reporting. And they put it out, this was their story today, of what's going on about the looting, right? And you can look at the pictures of the looting. We know what's happening.
COLLINS: Right. But we also know people are starving as well.
GOTTHEIMER: They're attacking the trucks, the U.N. trucks--
COLLINS: Right. But--
GOTTHEIMER: --and taking the food. COLLINS: Well but let me ask you though, the--
GOTTHEIMER: Yes, terrible.
COLLINS: --the question about your colleague from New Jersey, Mikie Sherrill, had to say that Netanyahu has to be held accountable. She pointed to the images that people have seen, and she said, Netanyahu has been a really bad actor in this space, the starvation of people in Gaza is unacceptable, and the idea that in rooting out Hamas you're going to kill hundreds and hundreds of innocent children and families is not the way the United States conducts their support of their allies.
Do you agree with that sentiment?
GOTTHEIMER: Well, I agree that -- that we got to do everything we can to ensure that no one starves. And the blood is on the hands of the terrorists, right, who are starving the hostages, and starving their own, and going after -- they're supposed to be the governing body there. They're not taking care of the Palestinian people, and they haven't at all.
The aid has got to get in, and we've got to figure out any way to get that aid in, and to surge the aid in. It's one thing I stressed with the Prime Minister, about how critical it is that we do everything we can to get aid in.
But let's not forget that Hamas, tomorrow -- this could all be over. Hamas lets the hostages out--
COLLINS: Yes.
GOTTHEIMER: --and gives up, right? And then turns the government -- and turns over governance to a multi-national Arab leadership, which, you know the Arab League came out the first time ever and said, Hamas, give up, it's over, stop.
COLLINS: Right, and obviously, there's still questions of what that--
GOTTHEIMER: Right? That's unprecedented.
COLLINS: There are still questions of what that looks like, Congressman.
GOTTHEIMER: So we -- so, we know where this should go.
COLLINS: But I do want to note, when it comes to what is going to happen tomorrow, it doesn't seem this is going to be over tomorrow. Because, right now, we still don't have official confirmation on the outcome of this security cabinet meeting that's happening.
But Barak Ravid, who is one of the best-sourced reporters in the region, says that the gathering has approved Netanyahu's proposal for occupying Gaza City. He's citing an unnamed Israeli official.
But when you met with the Prime Minister, does he have a concrete plan of what this looks like, and when Israel goes in and when Israel goes out? Because I don't want to tell you, the last time Israel took over Gaza in 1967, Israel didn't withdraw until 2005.
GOTTHEIMER: He made it very clear that they have zero plans for a long-term occupation. Their goal is to crush the terrorists, to get the hostages out, to get humanitarian aid in.
But if you have Hamas still there, right? A terrorist organization, leading, and refusing -- taking care of some of people in Palestine and that -- some of the Palestinians, and not taking care of other Palestinians, right? That's what's going on right now. Looting the U.N. trucks, 85 percent not getting to people they need, which is why I think the GHF should be working closely with -- the U.N. should work closely with the GHF, and get this food out to people as quickly as possible.
COLLINS: Yes.
[21:55:00]
GOTTHEIMER: But you can't allow terrorists to continue to be there. They are holding hostages. They're starving hostages. They're continuing to wreak havoc. They're continuing to fire at Israel.
COLLINS: Yes.
GOTTHEIMER: So the bottom line is, we know what the outcome needs to be. We've got to get there. This could all be over, tomorrow, if the terrorist organization just says, OK, we're done--
COLLINS: Yes.
GOTTHEIMER: --we're willing to agree to a ceasefire, willing to let the hostages go, and not be the govern -- and not govern anymore. Because obviously you can't have the terrorist organization--
COLLINS: Congressman--
GOTTHEIMER: --that are governing long-term.
COLLINS: Congressman Josh Gottheimer, thanks for your time tonight.
GOTTHEIMER: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: Up next here for us. The President has been doing some redesigning at the White House. Some pictures today of the before and after that will show you just how much has changed.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the latest stage of President Trump's Rose Garden revamp has it looking a lot more like home, specifically, Trump's Florida home.
(GRAPHIC IS SHOWN OF PRESIDENT TRUMP'S ROSE GARDEN REVAMP MATCHING MAR-A-LAGO SETUP) [22:00:00]
COLLINS: This is the latest look at the historic White House space. The new white stone patio is now home to several sets of white tables and chairs, each with yellow striped umbrellas. The setup looks a lot like what you see that the President has on the patio at his Mar-a- Lago Club, down in Florida, down to the yellow umbrellas, minus, of course, the surrounding water and palm trees.
The iconic spot in the Rose Garden had a lot more grass and green, before the renovations. But that's why the President says he insisted on a change, because the grass would become muddy and be unsuitable for events, and bill signings, after the rain. That's an update from the White House.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts now.
