Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

Trump Sees Clear Path To Pick Up Five House Seats In Texas; Trump DOJ Official Urges NY Attorney General Letitia James To Resign; Trump: It'd Be Better If Putin & Zelenskyy Met Without Me. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired August 19, 2025 - 21:00   ET

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

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: And that is really some good news at least, that it won't be making landfall.

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

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Tonight, Democrats are sleeping on the floor of the Texas State House, ahead of a vote that President Trump is hoping will lock Democrats out of power, in Washington, for the rest of his term.

I'm Brianna Keilar, in for Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.

At the White House tonight, President Trump is claiming victory, deep in the heart of Texas, and it's one that he hopes will be enough for Republicans to maintain control of the House, for the rest of his term. This looming vote could decide whether the last two years of Trump's presidency will be mired in investigations by Democrats, or if he'll continue to push the boundaries of power unimpeded by Congress.

And right now, in Austin, Democrats in the Lone Star State are staging a last-minute protest. It's a sleepover in the State House.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GENE WU, (D) TEXAS STATE HOUSE: This is a civil discussion, and there's a disagreement, and in order to win, the other side is willing to use force, to use the arms of a state to get what they want. Good guys don't do that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: On the eve of this vote, the Democrats had been pushing so hard to stop.

The Texas House Speaker will only allow Democrats to leave the floor, if they get written permission and agree to a police escort, until the House reconvenes in the morning. This way, the legislature maintains that all-important quorum, and Republicans can push through those map changes.

One Texas Democrat, State Rep. Nicole Collier, refused to comply last night and slept on the floor. Other Democrats tore up that written permission slip today, and are joining her protest tonight. The legislative slumber party doesn't change the fact that Texas Republicans do have the votes to redraw the state's congressional map and, as we said, plan to do so first thing in the morning.

The President is demanding tonight that Texas Republicans pass what he calls, quote, One big, beautiful congressional map. He said that he wants to add five more Republican seats in Congress, from Texas alone, and Trump is already eyeing Indiana to redraw its maps.

And in California, Democrats are responding with a Senate committee advancing a bill to change their map, which they hope will bump them up five seats in the midterms, nullifying Texas' gains.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CHRISTOPHER CABALDON, (D) CALIFORNIA STATE SENATE: We didn't ask for this fight. They brought this fight to us, and California cannot stand down if other states are attempting to cheat and rig the election.

CECILIA AGUIAR-CURRY, (D) CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY: We weren't planning on redistricting until they made attempts to rig the 2026 election, by stacking the deck in other states. We did not start this, but we won't roll over.

CATHERINE STEFANI, (D) CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY: You play stupid games, you get stupid prizes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Point of order.

STEFANI: And that's what you are doing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Unlike in Texas, however, Democrats in California can only redraw their map if voters approve.

And you can bet, the President will be watching all of this closely, because his ability to do what he wants, without Congress being a co- equal branch of government, keeping a check on him is riding on it.

My source tonight is Democratic congresswoman, Jasmine Crockett of Texas.

Thank you so much for being with us.

REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): Absolutely.

KEILAR: So, as we're watching this scene in Texas, what does sleeping on the State House floor accomplish?

CROCKETT: Well, not very much, except for the fact that there's a clear violation of constitutional rights at play.

To have a party claim to be the party of law and order, as they are federalizing law enforcement in D.C., and at the same time clearly violating the Constitution. Whether we're talking about these maps that they're trying to implement, as well as simultaneously violating the Voting Rights Act, or if we're talking about taking the body of persons who refuse to be coerced into signing an agreement, saying that someone can basically stalk them and watch their every move.

This is something we have not seen in modern-day democracies. In fact, this is not something that we see in democracies. And I really don't care your political affiliation, you should be concerned.

Now, a lot of people look at Democrats, and say, Well, Democrats will never do that, because they are the good guys. I get that. But this is a dangerous road to travel down, and I do applaud those in California that said, If you want to play with us, we will play back.

[21:05:00]

And right now, Kevin Kiley in California, I'm sure, he is so enlightened, maybe because his seat is on the chopping block. But the Representative is begging the Speaker of the House to actually bring his bill to the floor, to stop mid-decade redistricting, more so because he wants to save himself. He still has not said anything about Texas.

KEILAR: When you listen to Texas Democrats, they'll say, This is a success, what we did, because it brings national attention to this issue.

But when you look at the broader map of the entire U.S., I wonder if that attention is going to matter, when Republicans clearly have the advantage, when it comes to controlling states and having single-party control. There's 15 states the Republicans have that, to Democrats' four. Is that really enough that it brought national attention, when that broad map could hand power to President Trump in the next Congress?

CROCKETT: Well, here's the deal. He was going to seek power and seek to take it no matter what. We saw how he attempted to handle things, the last time he lost an election, he called down to the governor. This is a guy who does not care about the rule of law, whatsoever. So, the fact that we're actually fighting back, I think that does matter.

When you look at the approval ratings of the Democratic Party, part of that isn't because of our policies. It's because of a lack of fight. So, at a very minimum, we are going to have to overperform. We have been overperforming ever since he's been in office, and that is one of the scariest things.

They can draw this map, whatever way they want to. I have a feeling that they're still not going to get five seats out of Texas. I know that that is their plan. But the reality is that when you look at somebody, like a Henry Cuellar, Henry Cuellar won his seat while Donald Trump won that seat by seven points.

So, I know that there are Democrats that know how to overperform, even when they draw these maps these ways. They always thought that they were going to have Vicente Gonzalez's seat as well as Henry Cuellar's. And they have beat back the odds. I don't think that they won't necessarily beat back the odds, this time.

I can tell you that we are finally getting some investments into Texas because of how they are treating us, especially in a state that is a majority-minority state, a state in which we have seen how he has handled immigrants.

And so, I think it is going to be interesting. I think the backlash is going to be even bigger, because he decided to do this. And at the end of the day, you don't have to worry about California. You can stop this right now, if you just say, Hey, we will stop in Texas. Because California doesn't go into play unless Texas does. It is a trigger.

But as it relates to Indiana, he's probably not going to get that one.

KEILAR: You--

CROCKETT: The state law is probably not going to be very helpful for him in Indiana.

KEILAR: You commend California for responding.

CROCKETT: I do.

KEILAR: And you call what Republicans are doing in Texas, cheating.

CROCKETT: Yes.

KEILAR: And yet, the appearance for some, looking at California with the response, may also be that California is cheating.

CROCKETT: People can say what they want to say. But at the end of the day, we are fighting for democracy.

This is not something that California wanted to do, as you heard from the state senators in California. This is something that they feel forced to do, something they feel obligated to do, because in a democracy, you have to answer for your policies or your lack thereof. That is what democracy looks like, where the power belongs to the people.

They are trying to take the power away from the people, so that he doesn't have to answer for his failed policies. If he believes that his big, ugly bill is just that beautiful? Then go sell it and go win the legit way. But we know that they cheated to get the majority this time.

If you will recall, when we look at North Carolina, as soon as they ended up with a Republican majority in that Supreme Court, what did they do? They decided to take their map from seven-seven, which is pretty much what the State of North Carolina looks like. And instead, they added an additional three seats for the Republicans. So now it's 10-four. Well, when you look at the voting, nothing looks like 10- four. And they only did that once the Republicans took control.

Do you know the difference in the Democrats and Republicans controlling the House? It was three seats. So the Republicans, they are cheaters, all day, every day. But we have never tried to match their energy until now, and I applaud it.

KEILAR: On the Epstein records, which I want to ask you about because you sit on House Oversight. The Committee Chairman, Republican James Comer, says that, DOJ is going to start turning over Epstein records, on Friday, that they're going to be made public after some redactions.

Have you been given a timeframe on when the public is going to get to see those?

CROCKETT: No, I have not. Obviously, we are currently out of session. I did show up for the deposition on yesterday. I personally believe once we're in, he will have some conversations with our Ranking Member, and we will see what it is that they're proposing. But we're going to do everything that we can to make sure that there's some real transparency.

Everything about this particular administration has been less than transparent. When we think about the way that they've tried to pass the most horrible iteration of their bills, they've tried to do that when people were sleeping. And right now, they have tried to brush this under the rug, while they are distracting and destroying in our country.

So, I am pushing for what the American people have asked for, which they are asking for transparency, because they want to know who these child rapists are.

[21:10:00]

KEILAR: Let's talk about transparency, because you posted on X, yesterday, quote, "DOJ owes us the Epstein files beginning tomorrow. All of them. Client list included. No delays. No redactions. No excuses. Anything less is a coverup."

So, a whole congressional committee, and the staffers needed to process the material, should be entrusted with child sexual abuse material, unredacted, names unredacted when -- I mean, no offense, Congresswoman, Congress isn't exactly known for its discretion, when there are political points that are--

CROCKETT: Yes.

KEILAR: --there to be scored. Is that what you're calling for?

CROCKETT: I'm calling for us to get everything over to us. And any redactions--

KEILAR: Unredacted?

CROCKETT: Oh, absolutely.

KEILAR: As you said?

CROCKETT: Absolutely. I mean--

KEILAR: So all of the -- all of those names available for all of you to see, and for staffers who would process the information to see?

CROCKETT: Unfortunately, we have had people that we -- elected people that are not trustworthy. But at the end of the day, they were duly- elected. So yes, I think that it is terrible. But Congress is supposed to be a place that can be trusted with these types -- this type of information. It is why we have this power. And ultimately, we need to, again, hold people accountable, if they fail to--

KEILAR: What do they say to victims' concerns though?

CROCKETT: Oh, I now -- now listen--

KEILAR: That is a lot of information being widely disseminated.

CROCKETT: As you know, I practiced criminal law. So for me, I don't think that we need to release the names, out to the public, of these victims. But when it comes down to it, the DOJ needs to give it to us.

Now, if there is a transgression that takes place, then I think that we need to hold those staffers and/or those members that end up engaging in that transgression. Because you cannot be entrusted to do what's right, and then violate that very trust, and then say, Oh, oh well. So no, we're going to have to hold people accountable if, for some reason, they violate their trust.

But I do think that it is important that we get everything unredacted, because the problem is, I don't trust this DOJ whatsoever. We know that we have an attorney general that seemingly has sworn an oath to the man in the White House, instead of swearing an oath to the Constitution. And so, I don't know what it is that you are trying to delete if I can't see what's deleted. And so no, we need the full unredacted versions turned over to us.

KEILAR: Your Democratic colleague and the Ranking Member on Oversight, Robert Garcia, said that former A.G. Bill Barr, whose testimony I think you were just referring to, said in that testimony, before the Committee, that he could not clear President Trump of wrongdoing. That is how Robert Garcia characterized it.

Do you know why he said that? What was it that Barr was asked, how did he respond, so that Garcia would characterize it like that?

CROCKETT: So, I'll say this. We have rules. And clearly, the Republicans love to violate the rules. And so, Comer is in violation.

I will say that the way that I would characterize this testimony is that Bill Barr basically was acting as an Attorney General. Typically does. They are more so a figurehead than a day-to-day kind of involved in cases, type of people.

One of the things we were trying to clarify is, typically, you will see, whether it's an elected prosecutor, or whether it's somebody like this, they typically get engaged in the high-profile cases. So, it was more so a matter of how engaged were you, and how much information did you have? You do have to realize that he was out as Attorney General before Maxwell was even taken to trial. So we're talking about, at least when it came down to the co-defendant, he wasn't even the Attorney General anymore. So, as it relates to how much of the investigation had been concluded, by the time he had concluded his tenure, we do not know. In fact, it was suggested that the investigation was still ongoing, even after she had gone to trial, which that took place and she was convicted in 2021.

So, I do feel like they brought him forward to say that they did something, but they also did it while we were on August recess. And also, you're talking about an attorney general that has been Attorney General twice. And so, I will say that he wasn't necessarily the most forthcoming witness.

I will say that I definitely had to dig back into my trial experiences, to try to tie him down, to make sure that the record would be clean, by the time it does come out, if it ever is released, of what he said. I definitely had to spend my time protecting the record.

KEILAR: I do want to ask you about something that President Trump posted on social media today.

He said, The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been -- Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future. We are not going to allow this to happen, and I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities.

What is your response to that?

CROCKETT: It is -- it is funny.

My question to the President would be, would you say the same thing as it relates to the Holocaust? And the Holocaust did not take place in the United States.

[21:15:00]

It seems like there are certain people, specifically on that side, that any time we want to discuss what has taken place, as it relates to black people, and how they took our labor, how they took our lives, how they ruined families. They never want the truth to come out, because it hurts their feelings. It's kind of like when we decide to call a racist, a racist, such as these racist maps that are going through Texas, they always are upset when you just call them for what they are.

But the reality is that we need to start speaking more truth, if we are really going to get to the real power. And if we don't recognize the full history, then we are doomed to repeat it. And frankly, this is a guy that is trying to do everything that he can to repeat it. That is why there are so many people saying that if you wonder what you would have been doing during the Civil Rights Movement, then the question is, what are you doing right now? Because we are literally living through a modern-day civil rights fight. The fight in which there was a Texan who signed the Voting Rights Act into law because of these -- these literacy tests, and because of Jim Crow.

And now, just the other day, what did he say? He wanted to get rid of mail-in ballot voting. This is a guy that wants to take us back. We knew that we had an opportunity not to go back. In fact, that was the theme of a campaign when she said, we won't go back, she knew what he wanted to do.

And I am here to tell you that regardless of what he does, we are going to make sure that we are investing and sharing our history, our true history, our real stories. Because there have been so many times in this country, where they wanted to delete us, where they wanted to kill us.

But Black people are survivors. We are the ones that made sure that we got through the Underground Railroad. We are the ones that made sure that somehow we went from slavery to the White House. We are the ones that if it meant that we were going to sing songs that nobody else understood, we will tell our stories regardless of what he does.

KEILAR: Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, thank you so much for being with us tonight.

CROCKETT: Absolutely.

KEILAR: And let's continue the conversation on this redistricting war. We have our legal source tonight. CNN Senior Legal Analyst, and former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig, with us.

So Elie, you have California Republicans now asking the State Supreme Court to stop Democrats from moving ahead with their redistricting effort. What is their legal argument here?

ELIE HONIG, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So Brianna, it's really important to understand, these redistricting fights are going to happen state by state. Every state has its own rules and regulations.

So, in California, as you said earlier, in order to redistrict, it has to go to a voter referendum. There's a timing issue, though. In order to get on the ballot in November, essentially, it has to get through the California legislature by the end of this week.

Now there's something called the 30-day rule, which says anytime you introduce new legislation in California, it can't be voted on for 30 days.

Republicans are saying, OK, well, you can't vote on it till 30 days from now, which is essentially mid-September, which will be too late.

Democrats are saying, We've actually not introduced new legislation. What we've done is taking existing legislation, and basically gutted it, and then rebuilt it with something new, so the 30-day rule does not apply.

But the lesson here, Brianna, and get ready for this, in Texas, and California, and elsewhere, is these are going to be nuanced regulation-specific state-by-state battles.

KEILAR: Yes, I mean, given the nuances of each state's laws, we could see that play out differently from state to state. Could these cases end up then in the Supreme Court?

HONIG: Well, the Supreme Court has largely taken itself and all of the federal courts out of the business of evaluating gerrymandering and redistricting.

There was a decision, back in 2019, a five-to-four opinion, five conservatives in the majority, four liberals in the dissent, that basically said, Gerrymandering, redistricting, that is an inherently political activity, and we are not going to get into the business of deciding what is too political or not political enough. And so, the courts have largely drawn out of it.

The only way that you can really successfully go into federal court, at this point, to challenge redistricting, is if you can show that there is a racially-discriminatory intent. Representative Crockett was just talking about this. That is really hard to show. So, by and large, I would not be counting on the federal courts to resolve this. I think it's going to wind up in the state courts.

KEILAR: All right, we'll keep our eye on that.

Elie, thank you so much.

HONIG: Thanks, Bri.

KEILAR: And up next. New video, exclusively obtained by CNN, shows a top Justice Department official posing for photos, outside the home of a Trump rival that he's investigating, New York Attorney General, Letitia James.

The attorney for James, Abbe Lowell, is my source, next.

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: A photo op outside the home of a top Trump rival is raising eyebrows tonight.

CNN has exclusive new video, showing DOJ prosecutor, Ed Martin, posing for photos outside the Brooklyn home of New York Attorney General, Letitia James, who Martin is actively investigating for mortgage fraud, among other things. James denies any wrongdoing in that matter.

But in this matter, that's Martin himself in the tan trench coat, joined by a DOJ colleague, and a photographer from the New York Post. Now, this is so unusual, it reportedly even caught top Trump officials off guard. The New York Times reports that Attorney General Pam Bondi, and her top deputy, Todd Blanche, let Martin know that his actions were not helpful.

But Martin defended the move, over the weekend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ED MARTIN, DOJ PROSECUTOR: I wanted to lay eyes on it. I think most people, if you know, if you're -- if you're prosecuting something, you're careful. I didn't go there and announce it. Some woman came storming up, and shooting video, and talking to me. But I wanted to see the property.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: My source tonight is Letitia James' attorney, Abbe Lowell, who says that these investigations of her are politically-motivated.

[21:25:00]

Abbe, first, you hear Ed Martin there, with his explanation, that he wanted to see the property. What is your reaction to that?

ABBE LOWELL, ATTORNEY FOR NEW YORK A.G. LETITIA JAMES: Really, it's so easy to make fun of the things Ed Martin does and says. I've seen headlines likening him in his trench coat to being Inspector Gadget. Somebody has said that he's making the Keystone Cops look good. But the point is, because it is so easy, people forget how serious this is, and it's not a funny matter at all.

40, 50, 80 years ago, each attorney general has spoken to the power of an individual prosecutor, to affect lives of people, not because of what they've done, but who they are or what they've represented. And this is not a theoretical problem. It's not just at the level of Washington.

When we allow prosecutors to do what they do, not because of the conduct, but because they are carrying out the President's wishes for revenge against, for example, Attorney General James who brought a lawsuit against Mr. Trump, and his businesses, and got a multi-100- million-dollar verdict? It can creep down to the point where Democrats then do it against Republicans, Republicans against Democrats, and soon, even on everyday justice. And people rely on police and prosecutors and courts. We basically destroy the rule of law. So one brick at a time, you can bring down a building.

KEILAR: Ed Martin made another highly unusual move. He sent you a letter, suggesting that Attorney General James should resign as an act of good faith. How are you responding to that?

LOWELL: Yet again, as I said, everything that Ed Martin does seems to create a new page in the not-to-how-you-do-it book of being a responsible, ethical and a person who's supposed to obey the law. So think about this. He was appointed on August 8th. Four days later, he sent his first communication to me as lawyer for Attorney General James. You would imagine that in the world we're supposed to live in, somebody might ask for the facts, how it applies to the law, some information that might help the investigation. He certainly hadn't done much in four days. So four days in, does he ask for facts or the law? Twice in his letter, he asked for the Attorney General to resign.

If people did not have better evidence that this is not about what she did, but it's about what President Trump has ordered the Justice Department to do? Nothing better than his letter that asked for -- or demanded those two things. It just, again, is, I don't have to say much, because he says it himself. And every time he does something, he's only proving the point.

By the way, one piece too. Remember that of his many titles, if you look at his letter, he seems to have four or five different ones, one of them is to be the Director of this thing called the Weaponization Working Group.

Everybody should read George Orwell's "1984" about doublespeak. It's not that he's there to prevent weaponization. He's actually there to administer weaponization. And that's an example of that too. A prosecutor doesn't ask somebody to resign. A prosecutor asks somebody to give them the facts and the law.

You also may remember that on the day he was appointed, I think he was on Fox News to announce his appointment, and I think he likened his mission, as a theoretical prosecutor, to something he said was to land -- to hit the landing, to kind of hit the mark.

Well, as I had to say in my letter today--

KEILAR: To stick the landing, I think, right?

LOWELL: --job of a prosecutor is not the same as being a gymnast.

So, I think people have to look at this, not because this is a tit- for-tat from the Republicans against Attorney General James. But it basically, every day, breeds dis -- a lot of disrespect for the whole process, and that then seeps down to everything that people rely on, the courts, prosecutors, police to do.

KEILAR: I want to play what Martin said, over the weekend, about the investigations into James, but also about Senator Adam Schiff. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MARTIN: We're going to go to the very bottom of the facts, and if somebody did something wrong, we're not only going to hold them accountable, we're also going to look at everything else that they've been doing. Because when you're a liar, you lie not just on one thing. When you're a cheater, you cheat not just on one thing. When you're doing corruption, you generally don't just do it on one thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Martin has also made clear that he wants to play out DOJ investigations in the court of public opinion. He said, if they can be charged, we'll charge them. But if they can't be charged, we will name them. And we will name them. And in a culture that respects shame, they should be people that are ashamed.

What is the effect of the full legal heft of the federal government taking that approach?

[21:30:00]

LOWELL: If we're at the point at which prosecutors, be them, federal or state, being in the Republican administration now, believe that their job is to try people in the court of public opinion? Then we're basically turning the clock back to mob rule, aren't we? That's why we have laws, evidence rules, judges, juries.

It is so extraordinary, for somebody who wields the power of the federal prosecutorial apparatus, to say, If we can't make a charge against the person, we'll shame them in the media. When have you ever heard something like that?

This Justice Department creates new bad optics, every day. I can't think of a time that it's been any worse, except even worse than, for example, the relationship that occurred between Attorney General Mitchell and President Richard Nixon.

So, the idea that we have somebody who is at the highest levels of the Justice Department, saying, By the way, if I get a referral, I'll now look at not only what I've referred, but I'll check every other person's document, everything a person has done, every transaction, and if I can't find anything, then I'll go to the court of public opinion? It is scary. It's extraordinary. And that's why it's important that today, I and others are calling it out.

KEILAR: Abbe, can I--

LOWELL: Because it creates just the opposite.

KEILAR: Can I ask you really quickly--

LOWELL: Go ahead.

KEILAR: --because we're almost out of time here. But do you see, legally, any opportunity in this? You have Ed Martin outside of the A.G.'s house. You have him sort of describing his approach here, which is extraordinary. Is that something that could actually favor you in court?

LOWELL: Well there are these--

KEILAR: Your client, that is.

LOWELL: I understood what you meant. There are these concepts in the law called, for example, selective prosecution and vindictive prosecution. And what they basically mean is what their titles suggest they mean.

So, when Ed Martin, or Attorney General Bondi, empowering him, says, You are now to be the special attorney for mortgage fraud, but he announces he's only looking at Democratic senator Adam Schiff of California, or New York State Attorney General in New York, where the same allegations of questions are raised against Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas? That is the definition of selective prosecution.

When President of the United States orders his administration to go after his enemies and those that he has been the subject of a lawsuit for, like in the case of New York, that is the definition of vindictive prosecution.

And so, this case that he, Mr. Martin, is likely to bring, without regard that there's no underlying facts, wrongdoing, or law to support it, will be the subject of what will become a classic example of selective and vindictive prosecution.

KEILAR: Abbe Lowell, thank you for being with us this evening.

LOWELL: Thanks for having me, Brianna.

KEILAR: Up next tonight. More National Guard troops from more states arriving to patrol the streets, here in the nation's capital. We have the latest in the President's escalating police takeover, next.

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: National Guard troops, from around the country, started arriving here, in the nation's capital today, as a total of six Republican-led states announced they're jumping in to help President Trump in his takeover of Washington, D.C., which will put a 1,000 more troops on the ground, in addition to the hundreds of federal agents and D.C. National Guard troops that President Trump activated.

D.C. Mayor, Muriel Bowser, responding today, telling CNN, We don't have any authority over the D.C. Guard or any other Guards. But I think it kind of makes the point that this is not about D.C. crime.

My source tonight served as the Acting Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau. Major General Randy Manner is with us.

Major General, thank you for joining us this evening.

So, as you're looking at what's happening in D.C., are these additional out-of-state troops needed here?

MAJ. GEN. RANDY MANNER (RET.), FORMER ACTING VICE CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU: It's important to say that none of these troops are needed. This is absolutely not a requirement for the use of our National Guard or our military. This is, at best, a need for -- it's a police opportunity, both for the local police there, in Metropolitan Police Department, and if they need any additional assistance, the Mayor has the authority to ask for it.

So, I want to make sure, for all of your viewers to understand, there are no requirements, in my 36 years of military service, where these -- this is a legitimate mission for any National Guard or military, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. It is just a political prop, where the President wants to exercise the authority, which is a legal right, by the way, it's a legal order, to put armed military on the streets of the city.

KEILAR: General, I've talked to Hispanic Americans. These are citizens, American citizens, who live just outside of D.C., in Virginia and Maryland, and they're afraid to come into D.C., during this takeover, to work, to go to museums. They're afraid of being profiled. They're afraid of ending up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

When that's how people start feeling about the National Guard, which is so often activated to help people in times of disaster, what's your concern about that?

MANNER: This actually will cause people to lose confidence in our -- again, our fellow Americans are serving in uniform, where they are predominantly there, when they are used within the United States for disaster recovery, in times of floods, fires, forest fires, hurricanes. In fact, we're coming up hard and fast on hurricane season.

[21:40:00]

Seeing armed soldiers on the street, for no reason whatsoever other than the President said for them to get there? Again, this is a police action, not -- it should be a police action, not a military action.

It's something that really is difficult for the average American to understand, that taking a few thousand military off of their military training for overseas missions, helps to reduce our readiness to fight our wars, not only for the 4,000 that were deployed to Los Angeles, but also for the several thousand that are going into D.C. Those are soldiers that are not available for individual training, not ready for their unit to be prepared to go into a combat role. It is absolutely reducing our readiness.

The thing that also concerns me greatly, which many of your viewers may not know, is because of these deployments, the National Guard is scrambling to pay for this. What that means is many states are going to find it very difficult to pay their soldiers in the September drill. So, for their activity, military training in September, many states are going to go without. There's not enough money in the budget to take care of this.

And I find it appalling, absolutely appalling, that the President is doing this kind of a political prop, on the backs of our young men and women in uniform and their families. Many of our soldiers and airmen actually earn more money in their civilian jobs than they do on the National Guard duty. And therefore, they're losing money in such an endeavor. So, you can imagine people being yanked away from family vacations, in the month of August, are being yanked away from the situation of getting their kids off to school. Perhaps, if they're a single parent, they have to deal with this.

Again, these are lawful orders, and our soldiers are going to do what they are told and to follow all lawful orders. But I find it absolutely disgusting, as a career military officer, that this kind of a mission is being imposed on our young men and women in uniform.

KEILAR: And just real quickly, you mentioned hurricane season. Do you foresee any problems, where these members of the Guard, what they might normally be doing, they're not doing because they're in D.C.?

MANNER: Now, the -- each of these states has many thousands of additional Guardsmen available to them. So, it's not impacting the individual state's ability to respond to natural disasters in their respective states. It is, however, reducing the readiness in terms of a unit being prepared to go into combat.

So, it's not yet enough to negatively impact the state's ability to respond to a hurricane. But recurring mobilizations, like this, when there is no money for it, states will start to run out of money, unless, of course, Congress authorizes additional money to go to the Department of Defense, to funnel down to the National Guard Bureau itself, and then go down to the states, so the states can pay these young men and women.

KEILAR: That's a really good insight.

Major General Randy Manner, thanks for being with us.

MANNER: Thank you, as always. Thank you for what you do.

KEILAR: And up next. President Trump's reasoning for why he's set on personally brokering a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If I can save 7,000 people a week from being killed, I think that's a pretty -- I want to try and get to heaven if possible. I'm hearing I'm not doing well. I hear I'm really at the bottom of the totem pole.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did the--

TRUMP: But if I can get to heaven, this will be one of the reasons.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Tonight, President Trump says efforts are underway to get Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, and Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to meet face-to-face without him.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: I had a very successful meeting with President Putin. I had a very successful meeting with President Zelenskyy. And now I thought it would be better if they met without me. Just to see, I want to see what goes on.

You know, they had a hard relationship, very bad, very bad relationship. And now we'll see how they do. And if necessary, and it probably would be, but if necessary, I'll go, and I'll probably be able to get it closed.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: While the White House insists that Trump has Putin's word he'll meet with Zelenskyy. Today, Russia's Foreign Minister refused to commit to a meeting.

Still, sources say multiple locations, like Hungary and also Switzerland, are under consideration to host the potential summit. The options are limited, of course, since Putin is facing an arrest warrant in many nations, for his alleged war crimes in Ukraine. That apparently has had no bearing on Trump's relationship with Putin.

Earlier today, the President even appeared to repeat Russian propaganda, blaming Ukraine for starting the war, even though it was Russia that invaded the country.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: You saw that when he got off his plane, I got off my plane, there's a warmth there that you can't, you know, there's a -- there's a decent feeling, and it's a good thing, not a bad thing. People would say, Oh, that's such a terrible thing. It's not a terrible thing.

Ukraine is going to get their life back, they're going to stop having people killed all over the place. And they're going to get a lot of land. But this was a war, and Russia is a powerful military nation, you know, whether people like it or not, it's a powerful nation. It's a much bigger nation. It's not a war that should have been started, you don't do that. You don't take -- you don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[21:50:00]

KEILAR: My source tonight is M. Gessen, a Russian-American journalist and Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times.

M, you heard the President there saying, Ukraine will, quote, Get their life back, get a lot of land. But you call this talk of a land swap, extortion, in your Times Op-Ed today. Explain why.

M. GESSEN, OPINION COLUMNIST, THE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, it's not a swap. Basically, what Putin is proposing is that he will ask, he will generously ask for less of the land that Russia doesn't occupy than he has been asking for before.

So, let me rephrase this. Russia currently occupies about 20 percent of Ukraine, as a result of Russia's illegal war of aggression that it started in 2014. And basically, for the last three and a half years, since the start of the full-scale invasion, Putin has been demanding either all or a large part of Ukraine, basically as a precondition for negotiations.

Now, he came to Alaska, and he said, OK, I'm not going to ask for as much as I was asking for before, but I'm still going to ask for more than Russia currently occupies. And this is what he calls a land swap.

KEILAR: And if Russia, though, believes that it can get what it wants, through these talks, right? They're not pausing the war because there is no ceasefire. They're avoiding sanctions.

The president -- President Trump, is actively talking about these land swaps, which you say are not land swaps, handing over land. They're dictating the terms of NATO membership with Ukraine. They have the President talking about that as well.

Do you think that means that actually Putin ultimately may agree to meet with Zelenskyy?

GESSEN: I very much doubt that Putin will actually meet with Zelenskyy. In our profession, we never say never. But it's extremely unlikely.

It's extremely unlikely, because Putin does not recognize Zelenskyy as a legitimate president of Ukraine, even though Zelenskyy, by any measure, is the legitimate elected leader of Ukraine, unlike Vladimir Putin, who hasn't had free and fair elections in more than a quarter of a century.

And I think it's likely that he will avoid the meeting in one way or another. My prediction is that he's probably going to invite Zelenskyy to come and meet him in Moscow. And if Zelenskyy doesn't agree, will say, Well, hey, the invitation was extended.

KEILAR: And if Russia were to get the Donbas, the Eastern Ukrainian oblast that Putin desires, what would that mean for the Ukrainians who are there, what would that mean for Ukraine, more broadly, when you consider the Donbas' contributions to the country?

GESSEN: Well, that's just the thing. It's not -- it's not just about the Donbas' contributions to the country. The Donbas was, at some point, a very important coal region, an industrial region for Ukraine. It's really, it's, for years, it's been a depressed region. That's not the point.

The point is that when we talk about land, we're not talking about contours on a map. We're talking about people who live there. We don't know exactly how many people live in the unoccupied portion of Donbas. But the two major cities there that are still held by Ukraine are Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. Their pre-war population was about 400,000 people combined. Some people obviously have left. Some people have been killed. Some people have fled there from the east, from the part that's occupied by Russia.

So we're talking about, certainly tens, most likely hundreds of thousands of people. What's going to happen to these people? Is Ukraine being asked to submit them to Russian occupation? We know what Russian occupation means. Russian occupation is why Vladimir Putin is an indicted war criminal, because Russian occupation means kidnappings, summary detentions, summary executions and torture.

Is Ukraine being asked to forcibly displace people who now live in these territories, that Russian wants? Well, that would be an out-and- out war crime. It is a war crime to displace people by force. And is Ukraine going to be asked to be complicit in a Russian war crime?

KEILAR: It is a good question.

M. Gessen, thank you so much for being with us tonight.

GESSEN: Thank you.

KEILAR: Up next. The latest on evacuations tonight with a hurricane getting too close for comfort.

[21:55:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Three more things before we go tonight.

America's largest home improvement retailer will raise prices due to Trump's tariffs.

The Home Depot CFO says, For some imported goods, tariff rates are significantly higher today than they were at this time last quarter. So as you would expect, there will be modest price movement in some categories, but it won't be broad based.

About half of Home Depot's inventory comes from outside the U.S., and the company has said it wants to bring that down to just 10 percent.

[22:00:00]

And Hurricane Erin is expected to send destructive waves and storm surge to North Carolina's Outer Banks. The worst impacts are expected to begin tomorrow. And Erin is not expected to make landfall, but North Carolina governor, Josh Stein, has declared a state of emergency.

Also, the FDA says, do not eat certain bags of frozen raw shrimp, sold at Walmart, over concerns about radioactive material, called Cesium- 137. The advisory applies to Great Value white shrimp, sold in 13 states, and Walmart tells CNN that it's been recalled from the affected stores.

Thank you so much for joining us.

"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.