Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

Trump Puts D.C. Police Department Under Federal Control; Trump: Friday Summit With Putin Will Be A "Feel-Out" Meeting; Judge: Trump DOJ's Motion To Unseal Maxwell Transcripts Aimed At Creating Illusion Of Transparency In Epstein Case. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired August 11, 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]

CLARISSA WARD, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And it's also so crucial to remember, Anderson, that international journalists are not allowed into Gaza. And so, that's why when you put it together--

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: And that's been the case, this entire war.

WARD: That's been the case, this entire war. I am -- in fact, I have this sort of dubious distinction of being the only international journalist, or the only western journalist, to have gone in and reported inside Gaza without an IDF escort. And that was back in December of 2023, Anderson.

This is why you're seeing groups, like the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, coming out and condemning this in the strongest words. The CPJ saying today, simply, Israel is murdering the messengers. Anderson.

COOPER: Yes.

And Clarissa Ward, thanks very much.

That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE" starts now

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, what President Trump's unprecedented takeover of D.C. police means for the capital, and the country.

I'm Kasie Hunt, in for Kaitlan Collins. This is THE SOURCE.

As darkness falls, on Washington tonight, some 700,000 residents, here in the nation's capital, are living through an unprecedented federal takeover, something that we really have never seen before.

President Trump declaring that the 3,000 officers, serving D.C.'s Metropolitan Police Department will now be under his administration's control.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam, and squalor, and worse. This is Liberation Day in D.C., and we're going to take our capital back. We're taking it back.

Under the authorities vested in me, as the President of the United States, I'm officially invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, you know what that is, and placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control, and you'll be meeting the people that will be directly involved with that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: In a lengthy news conference, it went on for more than an hour, the President said he is also deploying hundreds of National Guard troops.

The Army says that roughly 800 of them will be activated, all supporting not only a federalized police department, but what the President described as a surge of federal agents from a host of government agencies, including the FBI, ATF, DEA, Park Police, and the Secret Service, all to fight what Trump claims is a city absolutely overrun by crime.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen anymore. We're not going to take it.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: The President today signed an executive order that says as much. It's called, quote, "Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia." It slams rise in crime in D.C. as a crisis. And of course, that is the requirement, under the Home Rule law, for any president to take over D.C.'s police force, that there is a crisis. Which raises the question, do the numbers back up the claims that the President is making?

So, D.C. did have a major crime spike in 2023. If you lived here then, you lived through it. There was a 20-year high in homicides that year. But the city's most recent statistics claim that crime has fallen sharply in the years since then. They say that violent crime in D.C. fell 35 percent, from 2023 to 2024, and claim that it's fallen another 26 percent, from 2024 to now.

Here's the city's data by category. Homicides, down 12 percent. Assaults with a dangerous weapon, down 20 percent. Robberies down 28 percent. Sexual abuse crimes, down 50 percent. These statistics claim that violent crime here is the lowest in three decades.

And we should acknowledge that the most violent day, in modern D.C. history, happened inside that building you are looking at, as well as outside it, four and a half years ago.

But regardless of what the numbers show, the fact is that a lot of people do feel unsafe, living in Washington, D.C., especially since the COVID pandemic. President Trump is tapping into a feeling, there is a pervasive sense among many of the city's residents that the city is simply not as safe as it used to be. President Trump, again, tapping into that.

The question is, what will change in D.C. under the President's directive? He suggested, rather directly, what would change is how police officers respond to residents.

[21:05:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: See, they fight back until you knock the hell out of them, because it's the only language they understand. But they fought back against law enforcement, last night.

The police are standing, and they're told, Don't do anything under any circumstances (ph), and you can see they want to get at it. And they're standing there, and the people are spitting in their face, and they're not allowed to do anything.

But now they are allowed to do whatever the hell they want.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Do whatever the hell they want.

Charged words that prompted the D.C. Mayor, Muriel Bowser, to offer this warning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAYOR MURIEL BOWSER, (D) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: And while this action today is unsettling and unprecedented, I can't say that, given some of the rhetoric of the past, that we're totally surprised.

What could be a disaster is if we lose communities who won't call the police. That could be a disaster. What would be a disaster, if communities won't talk to the police, if a crime has been committed, and could help solve that crime? That could be a disaster. It would be a disaster, if people who aren't committing crimes are antagonized into committing crimes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: My lead sources tonight:

Retired Army Major General, Randy Manner.

The former federal prosecutor, Shan Wu.

Democratic strategist, Maria Cardona.

And former communications director for the RNC, Doug Heye.

Welcome to all of you. Thank you all for being here.

MARIA CARDONA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Thank you.

DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST, FORMER RNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: Thank you.

HUNT: Randy Manner, I do want to start with you, because of course, you have so much experience with the D.C. National Guard, and really understand how this city works. Can you explain what this would look like, what this does look like, and whether it's necessary?

MAJ. GEN. RANDY MANNER (RET.), U.S. ARMY (RET.), FORMER ACTING VICE CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU: Right up front, we've got to be certain that there is no data that supports that there is (ph) any kind of emergency that requires a military response in the District of Columbia. There is no data.

In all my time as the Acting Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau, as well as a member of the D.C. National Guard, there is nothing that supports the President's allegations. This, at best, is a police opportunity, where the Mayor is engaging with the community as she should be.

So again, there is no requirement here for military operation. This is absolutely a distraction, from the President's domestic woes. Whether it has to do with the Epstein files or the jobless rate, it's just him trying to divert attention by taking military -- armed military on the streets of our national -- of our national capital. It's actually a disgrace.

HUNT: Shan Wu, from a legal perspective. Again, the President has to notify Congress, if he wants to do this for more than 48 hours, which he says he's done. It also needs to be -- there needs to be a significant crisis or a problem. Do you think it meets the legal threshold?

SHAN WU, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: No, it doesn't. He can only do it for 30 days, to begin with. After that, you would really need Congress to do something. And if it gets litigated, which it may, it doesn't really seem like there's a factual basis for it.

I was a prosecutor in D.C., where we do the street crime as well as traditional federal crimes. The key to making the city safer is good community policing. You are not going to get that by federalizing the National Guard, putting FBI agents on every street corner, it does not make sense. There are task forces that already exist, for the police to work with ATF, DEA, FBI. This solution is just for show. It's not going to help the community.

HUNT: Maria?

CARDONA: I completely agree, and I completely agree with the Major General.

Donald Trump has absolutely zero interest in protecting the residents of the District of Columbia. He has every interest in distracting the American people, from everything that is going on with him that is causing his poll numbers to tank. Starting with the Epstein stuff, including numbers -- his numbers on the economy, his numbers on immigration.

And speaking of immigration, Kasie, here's another thing that I think is very concerning about what is happening and, a result, that could be another disaster, as the Mayor put it. I've talked to a lot of Latina moms, who are already concerned that her kids, their kids, could be snatched off the street by ICE agents that are already all over the city.

Now, I've spoken to young black mothers, whose young teenage boys, they fear for their lives, and they're saying, I'm not going to let my young teenage boy, who goes on the metro all the time, goes to see his friends, I'm not going to let him go, because I have no idea what's going to happen with this kind of police presence now. That's a huge concern for these communities.

HUNT: Doug Heye, I will say, one of the things we also heard from Muriel Bowser was, at one point, during the press conference, she said, Well, maybe it actually wouldn't be such a bad thing to have help in our neighborhoods, to have more support.

[21:10:00]

So, while I take the point that Maria is making, I certainly know quite a few people who are concerned about the crime rate in Washington, don't feel that the city is as safe as it was before the COVID pandemic.

What say you?

HEYE: Well, I think Muriel Bowser is one of the more interesting people to watch, as she negotiates things with Donald Trump, given where the District of Columbia is. She is a lot smarter than I think a lot of her detractors had given her credit for. Today was -- is one of the reasons why.

You used the word, feelings, a couple times already. And we can talk about statistics. Yes, violent crime has fallen in D.C., and that's a wonderful thing. But people are feeling unsafe in this community.

Anytime you walk through Union Station, three blocks from here? I do it every day. I'm liable to see a girl brawl. That was two weeks ago. I'm liable to see public urination, men and women, one and two. Sorry. I will see -- about two months ago, somebody using polite word here, a gentleman really enjoying himself in a public setting. This is Union Station. This is a flagship of the District of Columbia.

And where Donald Trump uses really nasty rhetoric? But when I think about Union Station? I think he's right. And part of that is, I'm also colored by it. Because when I walk down I Street, Northeast, and I go to the grocery store, as I did yesterday? I get jumpy on that 500 block, because that's where I got mugged, two, three years ago. And did the cops find those perpetrators? No, they didn't. Who did the same thing, 30 minutes earlier, half a mile away. So yes, this is continuing.

The numbers have fallen. That's a good thing. But people feel this, and it's why people are moving to nicer neighborhoods or outside of the District of Columbia. And we all know people who have done that in the past two or three years.

HUNT: General Manner, I want to play for you something that Trump also said, this morning, about other cities beyond the District of Columbia, because obviously he does have special powers, any president has special powers, because the District of Columbia is not a state. He has special powers over the National Guard.

But here's what he had to say about other cities, the warning that he had. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We have other cities that are very bad. New York has a problem. And then you have, of course, Baltimore and Oakland. We don't even mention that anymore, they're so -- they're so far gone. We're not going to let it happen. We're not going to lose our cities over this. And this will go further. We're starting very strongly with D.C., and we're going to clean it up real quick, very quickly, as they say.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: General, is that a threat?

MANNER: It's actually a statement of fact. The President will actually, with 100 percent certainty, from where I sit, as his numbers continue to tank, or he needs to divert the American people's attention? He will move federal troops into other cities that are not widely supportive of his policies. That means, we're talking about New York, we're talking Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, other cities.

So, this is something, where I do agree, we need to have a strong police presence in the local community, and I applaud the Mayor's efforts that she has been taking, with her Police Chief. That's exactly the way it should be. Again, this is a police matter for the local community. It is not the area to have armed soldiers on the street. You're taking them away from their civilian jobs, away from their families.

This -- and we also don't even think about the impact on the rest of the Guardsmen in our nation. Our Guard is probably not going to be able to meet the payroll, for the remaining part of the year, because they will not have enough money reimbursed by Congress to pay for all of these endeavors, to include the 4,000 Guardsmen that were in Los Angeles, as well as this one. And of course, the Army Birthday Parade, which has not been reimbursed yet to those various states that supported it.

So, this is affecting, literally, tens of thousands of families across our nation, and it's done as a political ploy on the backs of our young men and women in uniform. HUNT: This also raises the question, Doug Heye, about the $1 billion hole that Congress blew in D.C.'s budget--

HEYE: Yes.

HUNT: --and what that money could be used for, which is fighting crime here. And now, Republicans have basically said that they were going to fix it, but then have basically neglected to fix it. Is there any movement on that?

HEYE: No. And the money that should be repaid for the parade? That's not going to get repaid.

WU: No.

HEYE: That's just sort of the political reality on Capitol Hill now.

And Republicans know that if they're talking about being tough on crime? And I say this as somebody who was a big supporter of what President Trump did on criminal justice reform. Those were smart bills that I think only Trump sort of could have gotten through. That when they feel -- when they talk about being tough on crime, they're on tariff firmer (ph) for Republican voters. That's what they want to be talking about, regardless of distractions.

And I'm old enough to remember, whenever something came up in the Monica Lewinsky scandal? Well, we might have dropped some bombs somewhere. So, Donald Trump is a master at distraction.

CARDONA: Yes.

HEYE: He's not the only one to have done this.

[21:15:00]

CARDONA: And here's the other thing. I think D.C. is an easy target, because D.C. doesn't have senators, doesn't have members of Congress, right? They don't really have a voice in the federal government. And D.C. has always been a target for Donald Trump. We just know it, right? It's also a very blue district. Again, right, another target for Donald Trump, as are, will be the other blue cities.

But while I agree with you, Doug, that crime is an issue that has always been a plus for Donald Trump. There is massive, I think, danger for him in terms of political overreach, because people are seeing it across the country. They are saying, This is what a dictator acts like. There could be political backlash for Republicans.

HUNT: All right. Everyone, thank you very much for being with us. I really appreciate it.

CARDONA: Thanks, Kasie.

HUNT: Coming up next here. President Trump says he is going to quote, "Feel-out" Putin's plan to end the war in Ukraine, when they meet Friday, in Alaska. He says both countries will have to swap land to make a deal.

My next source covered the Kremlin, from inside Russia.

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Tonight, President Trump seems to be tempering expectations ahead of his meeting with Vladimir Putin, Friday, in Alaska.

Trump, hoping it will help end Russia's war in Ukraine. But notably, he suggested it will not include Ukraine's President, Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: This is really a feel-out meeting, a little bit. And President Putin invited me to get involved. He wants to get involved. I think, I believe he wants to get it over with. Now, I've said that a few times. Then I've been disappointed.

We're going to see what he has in mind, and if it's a fair deal, I'll reveal it to the European Union leaders, and to the NATO leaders, and also to President Zelenskyy. I think out of respect, I'll call him first, and then I'll call them after. And I may say, Lots of luck, keep fighting. Or I may say, We can make a deal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: My sources on the story tonight:

Former CNN Moscow Bureau Chief, Jill Dougherty.

And CNN Military Analyst, Colonel Cedric Leighton.

Jill, let me start with you.

So, if the President is serious about this, as wanting to use this as a way to feel Putin out, what opportunity do you think that provides to Vladimir Putin?

JILL DOUGHERTY, FORMER CNN MOSCOW BUREAU CHIEF, CNN CONTRIBUTOR, RUSSIAN AFFAIRS, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, AUTHOR, "MY RUSSIA: WHAT I SAW INSIDE THE KREMLIN": Well, I mean, the President has had numerous opportunities to feel him out. They've had, I believe it's five conversations by phone. And so, this is obviously, you know, it's a personal meeting, but I think it gives advantage to Putin.

And that is, because Putin is, can be a very convincing person. And that is going to be his mission when he goes to Alaska, to convince President Trump that the real obstacle here is not Vladimir Putin. The real obstacle is Volodymyr Zelenskyy. And that, I think, is what he wants to do. Just blame it on Zelenskyy. So, it's an advantage to Putin.

And I would have to question, why do you need a summit at this point, if things are so unclear? There are very few details about this that are known at this point.

HUNT: One big piece of this, Colonel Leighton, is the location, right, of this summit, in Alaska, a former Russian territory, very close to Russia. Also worth noting, this is the first time that Vladimir Putin will be on NATO-controlled soil, since that arrest warrant went out from the International Criminal Court in 2023.

How are you thinking about this, from a strategic perspective? Because this region of the world is also very strategically important for the United States.

COL. CEDRIC LEIGHTON (RET.), CNN MILITARY ANALYST, U.S. AIR FORCE (RET.): Yes, it certainly is, Kasie.

And one of the big things, of course, is the Arctic. When it comes to minerals, rare earth minerals, oil, gas, all of that is up in the Arctic. And not only have the Russians been interested in that area for a long time, but the Chinese are also very interested in that.

But when it comes to Putin going to Alaska, from a domestic standpoint, as Jill has pointed out before, the Russians are ecstatic about this. They love the fact that this is a former Russian territory that, oh, by the way, they would like to have back. At least some elements of Russian society want to have back.

Now, Trump could turn the tables on that, if he so chose, and make it very clear that Putin is coming to America, literally, and he's doing this basically at Trump's bidding. But I don't think that's going to happen. So, from a strategic standpoint, I think it may be a lost opportunity for Trump to basically, in essence, put Putin in his place. That's not going to happen.

Putin will have advantages, as Jill mentioned, and it's going to be a very critical element to this. This is going to really weaken the chance that the United States has, of influencing the outcome of the Ukraine war, if it's not handled properly.

HUNT: And Jill Dougherty, of course, one of the big questions here, if not, the central question is this idea of swapping land, which the President has raised. And he spoke about this today at the news conference. And it also came up when he was -- it was almost a compare and contrast between Vladimir Putin and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine.

[21:25:00]

Let's listen to how the President talked about each of these men at this press conference, and then I'll ask you about it on the other side. Let's watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I thought it was very respectful that the President of Russia is coming to our country, as opposed to us going to his country, or even a third -- third-party place. And I get along with Zelenskyy, but, you know, I disagree with what he's done. Very, very severely disagree. This is a war that should have never happened, wouldn't have happened.

I was a little bothered by the fact that Zelenskyy was saying, Well, I have to get constitutional approval.

I mean, he's got approval to go into war and kill everybody, but he needs approval to do a land swap.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: What do you make of how he talked about each of those men there?

DOUGHERTY: Well, he actually does have to get approval, constitutionally, for a land swap. If there's to be any type of transfer of land, according to the Ukrainian constitution, he does have to have that approved, constitutionally. So I think the President -- the American President is dismissing that, perhaps not understanding that really is part of the deal.

And, I think the future of Zelenskyy is really, really important, right, in all of this. We don't talk about it a lot. But I think one of the things that the Russians are trying to do is put Zelenskyy in a really difficult situation.

I mean, if he agrees to a land swap, which still is very unpopular among Ukrainians? Then he risks political problems at home, which is exactly what the Russians want. And then if he does do it -- if he doesn't do it? Then he risks alienating President Trump, and that creates military and political, geopolitical problems for him. So this is very, very sticky for Zelenskyy.

And I think the Russians -- again, as Cedric was saying, Putin's very happy with this. Anything that he can do to make life difficult for Zelenskyy, anything that he can do to divide the United States from Europe, and from Ukraine, is perfect for Vladimir Putin.

HUNT: All right. Jill Dougherty. Colonel Cedric Leighton. Thanks to both of you. Really appreciate the time tonight.

And coming up here. The Trump Justice Department's bid to unseal Ghislaine Maxwell's grand jury documents denied. Why the judge says the ask was an illusion. That's next.

[21:30:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Tonight, a federal judge has issued a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration's efforts to unseal grand jury transcripts, in the Ghislaine Maxwell sex trafficking case.

The Justice Department had been pushing for the release of the court materials, as Trump's own supporters have criticized the DOJ for not releasing its files on Jeffrey Epstein. The judge, however, making clear he's keeping those traditionally secret transcripts under wraps, not because they're too sensitive, but because they don't reveal anything new. Quote, "[The government's] entire premise -- that the Maxwell grand jury materials would bring to light meaningful new information about Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes, or the Government's investigation into them -- is demonstrably false."

Judge Paul Engelmayer added this. Quote, "A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the Government's motion for their unsealing was aimed not at 'transparency' but at diversion -- aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such."

Let's get straight to our legal and political sources.

Elie Honig, former federal prosecutor.

And Zolan Kanno-Youngs, White House correspondent for The New York Times.

Lovely to see both of you this evening.

Elie, let me start with you here.

I mean, this judge, very direct, very straightforward, rather scathing, in his assessment here, basically saying, I'm not going to put out this thing that's traditionally secret, and break this norm, because you're not going to learn anything from it that you don't already know.

ELIE HONIG, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Exactly. The judge cuts right through the fog here, gets right to the point, and calls out DOJ, explicitly, in that excerpt you just showed us, Kasie. The judge says, basically, This is all about appearances. This is about the illusion of transparency, not actual transparency.

And let me explain why that's all legally relevant. Because ordinarily, grand jury materials are secret. That's the very essence of the grand jury. There is a rule that allows a judge to unseal grand jury records, but only in very narrow circumstances that do not apply here.

And so, DOJ argued to this judge, Well, Judge, there's this great need to know, and we are proponents of transparency.

And the judge then looked at the grand jury transcripts, and said, This is already out in the public. This is mostly contained in the indictments that we've all seen, in the trial evidence that we saw against Ghislaine Maxwell. And so, the judge really called out DOJ.

And by the way, I know this judge, and this is uncharacteristic. I mean, this is not a judge who tends to be a bomb-thrower, but he did here.

HUNT: Wait. Say more, Elie.

HONIG: Yes.

HUNT: What else do you know? How else would you characterize this judge for us?

HONIG: He's careful. He's moderate. He's modest. He has a deep background in the law.

[21:35:00]

There are some judges, Kasie, that are more likely to say dramatic things or to issue sort of sharp rulings. I would say, this judge, Paul Engelmayer, is not among them. And so, it really caught my attention that he came out so strong in this opinion.

HUNT: Really fascinating.

And Zolan, the politics of this, right? I mean, we've spent a lot of today, talking about diversion. Certainly, some people have suggested that what the President did today on D.C. was diversion from exactly this, the Ghislaine Maxwell situation.

But talk about how their requests for this grand jury material fit in, considering that they have so much at their own disposal that they could simply decide to put out there, that they don't have to ask a judge for?

ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: Right. Well, we know, just looking at this, the judge is writing today, we know that this isn't just about a criminal investigation here, that there are politics at play as well, and a political crisis to also tame when it comes to the administration.

Now, a couple weeks ago, I would tell you, based off of what I was hearing from officials in the White House, that they were hoping this would just go away. They were hoping that the -- that the far-right flank of the MAGA wing would stop asking about this, that they would stop facing questions about it, and that will go away. It hasn't, right?

So, now you need a way where you can almost appease that flank that is watching this. And by the way, was watching the words of the President's Attorney General as well, who rose expectations for this. Was watching the words of many people around the President who, during the campaign, stoked the flames of this and rose expectations. Now you're looking for a way to appease them.

Well, this is a Justice Department action here. You can point to the Justice Department, while creating some distance, and say, Well, we're trying here. You can point to the President's lawyer who is going to meet with Ghislaine Maxwell's attorneys as well, and say that there's an attempt there. All the while, you're still not (ph) keeping the spotlight slightly off of the President and the White House.

That seems to be the thinking here for the White House, Have the Justice Department go through this bureaucratic action, something you can point to, to say, There's an effort being made. But all the while, we've seen that has not calmed or quieted these questions from his own supporters.

That's what makes this a real political crisis here, that the heat is coming from his own political supporters. We haven't seen that. They've been able to tame that pressure yet.

HUNT: Yes.

And, I mean, Elie Honig, where could we learn more that's new that we don't know about Jeffrey Epstein? Where?

HONIG: Well--

HUNT: Where is it?

HONIG: It's in DOJ. I mean, if they wanted to give us everything but the grand jury materials, they could absolutely do that.

And look, as Zolan just pointed out, like this is something that Pam Bondi, and Kash Patel, and the President, and Vice President, all came blazing into office, promising to throw open the files. They can do it if they want.

I should note, by the way, though, that's not the way business is ordinarily done. I mean, those promises they were making were wild. They were out of step with DOJ policy.

What I think DOJ should have done from the start here is just say, Sorry, folks, we don't crack open our investigative files just because people are curious. If there's a subpoena? We'll deal with it. If there's a Freedom of Information Act Request? We'll deal with it.

But instead, they went down this rose of -- this road of promising and guaranteeing that, Our socks will be blown off by all this. And then when they had to slam on the brakes? That's how it rebounded against them, politically, as Zolan was just laying out.

HUNT: All right. Elie Honig. Zolan Kanno-Youngs. Always good to see you both. Thank you very much.

HONIG: Thanks.

KANNO-YOUNGS: Thank you.

HUNT: My next source tonight is Teresa Helm, an Epstein abuse survivor. She says she was 22-years-old when Ghislaine Maxwell groomed her.

Teresa, thanks so much for spending some time with us tonight.

TERESA HELM, EPSTEIN AND MAXWELL SURVIVOR, SURVIVOR SERVICES COORDINATOR, NATIONAL CENTER ON SEXUAL EXPLOITATION: Hi, good evening.

HUNT: So, I want to start today with the judge, who responded to the Epstein survivors, who supported releasing the grand jury material, and the judge says that this appear to be premised on an understandable but mistaken belief that the materials would present new information.

Do you agree with the judge here? Was this the right decision?

HELM: I can't say for sure whether I think it's the right decision, at this point. I believe that if there were some pertinent information that would lead to further investigation, and due process, and justice, and accountability, then I believe that these absolutely should be released.

I don't know why anything, at this point in time, would continue to be further hidden or covered. I think it's way past time, the answers -- these -- these answers need to be -- we need to hear the answers to multiple questions, ongoing questions.

HUNT: Yes, ongoing indeed.

[21:40:00]

And for viewers here who may be hearing from you, and hearing your story for the first time, I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about Ghislaine Maxwell, and the role she played here, the role she played in your story, considering that she seems to be playing a significant role in what the government is doing right now.

HELM: Yes, indeed.

Ghislaine Maxwell had a leading role, in my experience, unfortunately. She is the grand facilitator of setting me up for utter tragedy, really. So, she was very, very good at what she was doing there.

And it's, very clearly, the understanding, due to the charges and the conviction that she had so much to do, unfortunately, with facilitating many, many crimes against many young girls and even children. And that's pretty -- that kind of behavior should be landing her right where she's at, in jail.

The current -- the current temperature, I would say, around what is happening with her. It's all still massively confusing, I think, to me. I think that her being shifted from one federal maximum security prison to another, or to the place that -- the prison she's at right now, in Texas, is extremely questionable, and I don't quite think that anyone really understands why this -- this seems like a privilege. This seems like a privilege to what she -- what she's been given.

And she's just played a massive role in the heartache, in the -- in the trauma and tragedy of so many people. So, I don't feel there should be any type of reduced sentence, or any type of -- any type of privilege that she's receiving. She's caused so much destruction, unfortunately.

HUNT: Would there be any reason to believe anything that Ghislaine Maxwell has to say? HELM: I don't understand how that could be the case, considering she has been charged with lying under oath already. I feel like we have seen this act before, where she was willing to raise her hand under oath, and declare what she had to say was the truth, when in fact, it was entirely false. So, what she has to say now, I just don't see how that could possibly be believed, because she's very self-serving. She's proven that.

HUNT: Teresa Helm, I want to thank you very much for taking some time to be with us tonight. We really appreciate it.

HELM: Thank you so much.

HUNT: Tonight, President Trump nominating a staunch critic of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to be its new commissioner. What Trump's pick told Steve Bannon about the agency he could be leading soon, next.

[21:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: 10 days after he hired -- fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, over a weaker-than-expected jobs report, President Trump just announced his pick to replace her.

President has nominated E.J. Antoni, a conservative economist at The Heritage Foundation, and an outspoken critic of the agency that he could soon lead. For that reason, he had the stamp of approval from Steve Bannon, and other influential Trump allies.

He appeared on Bannon's podcast, the day the Commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, was fired.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE BANNON, FORMER TRUMP AIDE: Have we put in our own person into BLS? Is a MAGA Republican that President Trump knows and trusts, are they running the Bureau of Labor Statistics yet, sir?

E.J. ANTONI, CHIEF ECONOMIST, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION: No, unfortunately, Steve, we still haven't gotten there, and I think that's part of the reason why we continue to have all of these different data problems.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: President Trump writing on social media, tonight, that Anthony will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE.

Axios Business Editor, Dan Primack, is here. Along with my political sources, Maria Cardona and Doug Heye.

Dan, let me start with you.

This guy is an economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation. He has been incredibly critical of how the BLS was doing business, was putting out their data.

I had a conversation with a previous conservative head of the BLS, Bill Beach, on "State of the Union," a week or so ago. And he criticized the firing of the BLS chief, while still acknowledging that having them be a political appointee was an important thing.

[21:50:00]

What do you think it's going to mean if this man, Antoni, is confirmed as BLS Commissioner?

DAN PRIMACK, BUSINESS EDITOR, AXIOS: Yes, first, it's worth noting Bill Beach, who you interviewed, I mean, also came from Heritage Foundation, did something in between the two jobs, but he was from Heritage. So it's not a Heritage thing, per se.

But I mean, this is somebody who is, you know, as he said to Steve Bannon, a MAGA Republican. And the real question here is going to be, is he going to put his thumb on the scales?

Because what Donald Trump said, when he fired the last BLS Commissioner wasn't, There are problems with the methodology. And that's something a lot of economists have talked about. You've got surveys that don't get answered as much as they used to. We should do a top-down change of methodology, or at least. What Trump said was, The numbers were rigged, they were lied about.

One thing that's worth noting, BLS also provides the inflation numbers, which Trump has liked so far in his term. And we get new ones tomorrow.

So, if he's confirmed, the big question for the markets, and for the economy and economists, is going to be, Do you trust the numbers, or do you think you've now got somebody in there who is making sure what the boss wants to hear is what comes out?

HUNT: Doug Heye, what are the risks here?

HEYE: I think first and foremost, to markets. They need numbers they can depend on. And so if they -- if the markets view that, and investors view that the mark -- that the numbers are being fudged, whether -- whether we've seen this politically, or now we just fundamentally can't trust it because they've been so politicized? That becomes a very real market -- a real problem.

And I was -- I was thinking what, you know, listening to Dan earlier, I remember being in Vietnam, one time, and saw a headline, Production Up In All Sectors. And if those are the sort of headlines that we start seeing from BLS? Its credibility has gone. If they start sounding like the medical reports from Trump's doctors? Markets are going to react to that, because they just know that they aren't real.

HUNT: Yes. Maria?

CARDONA: I think, also, there's a huge risk to the private sector, right? Companies -- the foundation of so many of the economic decisions that are made in this country come from numbers from the BLS.

I used to work at the Commerce Department, where a lot of economic data comes out as well. And these are the most carefully-kept and carefully-managed numbers by non-political people. I remember even, that we were very careful not to let the Secretary talk about any of these numbers, until after everyone had already blessed them and they were public, so that there would be no saying that there was any political shenanigans going on. That's how important those kinds of numbers are.

And now that we have this kind of intrusion, because of what Donald Trump just did? Doug's right. If -- does this mean that there's never going to be any bad numbers? Does this mean that there's never going to be any revisions downward? I think it's going to be a huge question as to what -- how the markets react.

HEYE: Yes. And the numbers are never absolutely precise, right? So, that's why we have revisions coming after the fact.

CARDONA: Right.

HEYE: But if we've moved now to yet another example of where you can't make a mistake, you've been weaponized and politicized and so forth? This could have a really serious impact on our economic outlook, because of what investors are doing with markets.

HUNT: Well, and that's one thing, Dan, that Bill Beach also told me, was basically that he didn't have any chance to touch the numbers, because the staff economists that were working under him, those who were responsible for compiling this data, did it all without political input.

Now his argument, and I think one of the questions I had for him, was why this job should be politically confirmable, right? Like, it needs to be confirmed by the Senate. And his argument there was, Well, I need to know what the President's prioritizing. He used an example of Native American data. They wanted more of it. He needed to communicate that.

What is your sense of how and if and whether there should be -- I mean, should this person even be a political appointee in the first place?

PRIMACK: I think it's fine that they're a political appointee. I think the question and, in this particular case, is going to be, as Bill Beach said, in theory, having a new person in charge, whether it's a Trump pick or not, shouldn't necessarily matter, because, as he said, this is getting done by career kind of bureaucrats and statisticians, and really the job of this person is to sign off and kind of look at the final press release language.

But there's a question, though. If the numbers come in differently than what the White House wants, do those underlings, do they keep their jobs? We don't know yet. Is that something that there could be kind of a purge throughout the department? That's something that's got to be paid attention to. I assume that's something senators will ask about during confirmation hearing.

HUNT: Seems like a safe assumption.

Thank you all for being here tonight. Really appreciate it.

And just hours before a midnight deadline for those massive tariffs on China to snap back, President Trump just made a big announcement. That's next.

[21:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: Before we go tonight, here are three things you might have missed.

An explosion at one of the largest steel coking plants in North America has killed two people and left 10 others injured. Officials say the Clairton Coke Works facility, outside Pittsburgh, is stable, but they're still investigating what caused the blast.

Just hours before a midnight deadline, President Trump says that U.S. and China have agreed to pause tariff hikes on each other's goods for another 90 days. The extension prevents, for now, a tariff surge on the world's two largest economies.

And finally, after 30 years, this sound, about to become a relic of the past.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

(AOL DIAL-UP SOUND)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[22:00:00]

HUNT: The sound of a simpler, slower loading time. But not for much longer. AOL has decided to pull the plug on its dial-up internet service, on September 30th. 2023 Census data shows that about a 160,000 people still used dial-up to get online. We'll all miss it.

Thanks for joining us.

"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.