Return to Transcripts main page

The Source with Kaitlan Collins

DOJ Releases Ghislaine Maxwell Interview Audio, Transcripts; Trump Denies Knowledge Of FBI Search, Calls Bolton "Sleazebag"; Trump: Chicago Is Next Up For Federal Crime Crackdown. Aired 9-10p ET

Aired August 22, 2025 - 21:00   ET

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

NICK WATT, CNN NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: And other people tell me, I'm getting turned off by the whole idea of sports, because all I'm hearing about is gambling, and I want to get back to the purity.

Listen, it's going to be fascinating, over the next couple of years, to see where this goes. So what we try and do in this documentary is lay out all the facts, and then leave it to our viewers to decide whether they think this is a good thing or a bad thing, Boris.

BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: And we are excited to watch. Nick Watt, thank you so much for that.

Again, the all-new episode of "The Whole Story With Anderson Cooper," "Sports Betting: America's Big Gamble" airs Sunday at 10:00 p.m. Eastern and Pacific, right here on CNN.

That's all for us. We hope you have a good weekend. The news continues with "THE SOURCE" and my good friend, Brianna Keilar, starting right now.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: In DOJ's newly-released interview, Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, says she never saw Donald Trump do anything inappropriate. But will it really help put the Epstein saga to rest?

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

It's not the files that everyone has been asking for. But tonight, some tapes are out. The Justice Department releasing a transcript and audio of its interview with Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell.

For more than nine hours, over the course of two days, in July, Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, formerly the President's personal attorney, sat down with the convicted sex trafficker who is serving a 20-year sentence for a years-long scheme with Epstein, to groom and sexually abuse underage girls.

Maxwell is actively seeking a pardon from the President, and had this to say about Trump's relationship with Epstein.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GHISLAINE MAXWELL, BRITISH FORMER SOCIALITE AND A CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER: I don't think they were close friends, or I certainly never witnessed the President in any of -- I don't recall ever seeing him in his house, for instance. I actually never saw the President in any type of massage setting. I never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way. The President was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Maxwell also said she never witnessed former President Bill Clinton do anything wrong.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAXWELL: So they spent time on the plane together, and I don't believe there was ever a massage on the plane. So that would've been the only time that I think that President Clinton could have even received a massage. And he didn't. Because I was there.

President Clinton was my friend, not Epstein's friend.

TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: When's the last time that you went on a trip or saw President Clinton?

MAXWELL: It was in -- was late 2000 and, I don't know, '16, '17, '18--

BLANCHE: OK.

MAXWELL: --something in -- it was in Los Angeles.

BLANCHE: And what was the purpose of that meeting?

MAXWELL: I think he was hosting something, or he was at an event, and I was in L.A., and I had dinner with him.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: To be clear, neither Trump nor Clinton has been accused of any wrongdoing. Both say they didn't know about Epstein's crimes.

Maxwell also used the interview as an opportunity to distance herself from Epstein.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAXWELL: I'm not saying that Mr. Epstein did not do those things. I'm not casting those -- I'm not going to say -- I don't feel comfortable saying that today, given what I now know to be true. So I am not here to defend him. But what I can say is that I did not participate in that activity.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: But a jury found that she did. Some survivors even say she herself sexually abused them.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

VIRGINIA GIUFFRE, EPSTEIN ACCUSER: She is a monster. She -- she's worse than Epstein. She -- she did things even worse than Epstein did. She was vicious. She was evil.

MARIA FARMER, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: There's hundreds of us that were preyed upon by Ghislaine Maxwell.

ANNIE FARMER, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: She was the one who asked me to undress. She was the one who exposed my chest. She's the one who touched me.

The Department of Justice is clear on that, that she herself is a sexual predator who has participated in this abuse.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: As Trump and his administration try to tamp down conspiracy theories about Epstein and his death, one thing Maxwell said is likely to fuel those theories.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAXWELL: I do not believe he died by suicide, no.

BLANCHE: And do you believe that -- do you have any speculation or view of who killed him?

MAXWELL: I -- no, I don't.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Maxwell said she didn't believe he was killed because he was blackmailing people. She instead suggested it could have been an unrelated attack.

[21:05:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MAXWELL: In prison, where I am, they will kill you, or they will pay -- somebody can pay a prisoner to kill you for $25 worth of commissary. That's about the going rate for a hit with a lock today.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Let's start with my White House and legal insiders.

Kristen Holmes, CNN's Senior White House Correspondent.

And Elie Honig, former federal prosecutor and CNN Senior Legal Analyst.

And Kristen, you've actually learned that there was a lot of debate, internally, over whether to release the audio and these transcripts of the Blanche-Maxwell interview. What have your sources been telling you about that?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, this has been a debate behind-the-scenes for several weeks now. I mean, remember, the interview happened months ago. But it started to come up, when they were trying to figure out, they being the White House, a way to actually take control of the narrative.

They had been on the defense about the Epstein files, the Epstein case, the rollout, which many thought was botched, for quite some time, and they couldn't get a handle on it. So, they started this idea of releasing the audio and the transcripts. And just the fact that the audio existed in itself was pretty rare. That's not something that every single interview like this has.

Then what started to happen was that the Epstein case started to become less prevalent. It wasn't in the news every day. And in fact, I was told by several sources that the White House was circulating a CNN clip that talked about the declining rate of searches about Epstein on the internet. And at that point, they thought, Let's hold off.

Beyond that, we know one thing. Today, Epstein was going to be in the news, no matter what. The Department of Justice was turning over the files to the House Oversight Committee, and this is the day they decided to release them.

KEILAR: So, we heard Maxwell saying that she never witnessed Trump in an inappropriate setting. That's what she said. And that may be true. But she's a convicted sex trafficker who still is referring to sexual abuse as a massage, right? So, she might have a different definition of what's inappropriate.

Do Trump officials have any concerns, that people hearing something from her, people may not believe it, this isn't going to perhaps satisfy Trump's base?

HOLMES: I think it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't, situation, for the administration.

I mean, Remember, they spent months not interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell. And then it became a huge uproar that they hadn't interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell. Why could they -- how could they not have interviewed her? How could the new administration not have done that, when they said they were going to release all pertinent information?

Then, of course, you interview her, and you're interviewing a known liar and a known sex trafficker. And so, there are obviously going to be a lot of questions about all of this.

Whether or not this satisfies the base, that's something that only time is going to tell. But remember, what everyone's really waiting for, right now, wasn't just these transcripts. This is the beginning.

What they're waiting for is to see what the House Oversight Committee actually releases. And at this point, we know the Justice Department has handed all of -- those documents, and Republicans on the committee, as well as Democrats, but Republicans, they'd really be driving this ship, are going to decide what they release.

KEILAR: Yes, we'll be waiting for that.

And Elie, you and Todd Blanche were basically raised and trained in the same SDNY office. And, oh, by the way, as I mentioned, he was President Trump's personal lawyer, before he took this DOJ role. What did you make of the way that Blanche questioned Maxwell? Was this designed to get the best answers?

ELIE HONIG, FORMER ASST. U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: It couldn't possibly have been so designed, because what comes out of this examination, this interview, is completely non-credible, Brianna.

I mean, if anyone, out there, truly believes that Ghislaine Maxwell did nothing wrong and is entirely innocent, as she has claimed, as her attorney claimed? Then go ahead and believe this transcript.

If anyone out there believes that Jeffrey Epstein maybe did something wrong, later in his life, but we're not sure? Again, feel free to believe this transcript.

If anyone believes nobody else in the world did anything wrong, outside of Ghislaine Maxwell, or Jeffrey Epstein? Again, then you can credit this transcript.

I don't believe any of those things.

And the way that Todd Blanche went about asking these questions completely failed to get any believable, credible facts or statements that anyone could use, to further a sense of transparency.

So, I don't know what the purpose of this whole exercise was, perhaps to try to appease people. But I want to meet the person who actually believes that this transcript is truthful.

KEILAR: All right, you're not impressed. Do you think that any of Maxwell's answers affect her appeals case? I mean, where does it go from here?

HONIG: Yes, so her appeal is completely separate. She's asking the Supreme Court to take her case. Because, her argument actually is in the deal that Jeffrey Epstein got, from Florida, back in 2007, prosecutors there said, We will not further prosecute any co- conspirators.

And Ghislaine Maxwell, here we are, 18 years later, is claiming, Well, that's me. I'm charged at being a co-conspirator, therefore I should never have been charged in the first place.

[21:10:00]

But it is interesting, looking at the transcript today, Brianna, Ghislaine Maxwell asked about that old case. And Ghislaine Maxwell actually says she believes that Jeffrey Epstein didn't get a softball deal then, he actually got a bad deal, when he was let off with basically a 13-month state sentence, where he served most of it, out of custody, hanging out at his lawyer's office.

So that gives you a sense of the sort of sense of aggrievement and entitlement that comes through, from Ghislaine Maxwell, throughout this transcript.

KEILAR: Yes. She also rejected the idea that he was creepy. We should note that.

Kristen Holmes. Elie Honig. Thank you so much.

Also, tonight, Congress has its hands, as we've been talking about, on some of these Epstein files from the DOJ, a lot of them.

House Oversight says it's sifting through tens of thousands of pages of subpoenaed documents. That's according to the top Democrat on the committee. My next source sits on that committee. Democratic congresswoman, Yassamin Ansari.

Congresswoman, have you seen any of these documents yet?

REP. YASSAMIN ANSARI (D-AZ): So, as you know, just a couple of hours ago, our committee received 33,000 pages. This is just the first tranche of the documents that are required by the subpoena. They were several days late already. And our legal counsel for the Oversight Committee has begun to sift through. I intend to do the same. Any member of the committee can work with staff to get access to it.

And to me, my number one priority is making sure that what we have received is honest, it's straightforward, it's transparent, there are no unnecessary redactions, because this is the most corrupt administration in American history.

And the way that the Trump administration has handled this debacle thus far. Starting with Pam Bondi, at the outset of the year, saying, she has the files ready for release on her desk. To the President, continuing to call it a Democratic hoax. To now today's news that you were just discussing, showing an absolutely uncredible interview, with a convicted sex trafficker, trying to say that Donald Trump and Epstein himself really did no wrong.

So, I will be playing a very hands-on role in this, and look forward to the additional tranches, because we need all of the files.

KEILAR: OK, so let's just be clear. You having not seen the documents yourself yet, is that right? Staff is going through them?

ANSARI: Correct. It was just three hours ago--

KEILAR: OK.

ANSARI: --that they were delivered (ph).

KEILAR: Yes, no, so I -- I fully understand that. And so, are they -- they're going through them right now? Have they learned anything? Have they been able to tell you anything about the level of redaction? Have they found anything surprising there yet?

ANSARI: No, I don't want to give you information that doesn't exist.

KEILAR: OK.

ANSARI: I think we are anticipating it'll take at least a day or two to get through the early stages of it.

KEILAR: So, you're looking for the next tranche, and maybe the next tranche after that. Has DOJ told committee members when it's going to send over the rest of the files? Do you have a sense of that?

ANSARI: We do not. And not only are we looking for the entirety of the files, but one area that I think we are all concerned about is making sure that we are getting the same information that -- as the Republican members on the Oversight Committee, and that the -- there's been no unnecessary redactions on the part of the Department of Justice.

I think that's where we need to be going through this, with a fine- tooth comb, to make sure that this is truly the transparency that the American public has been demanding.

KEILAR: The committee has also subpoenaed numerous officials. This includes A.G.s from previous administrations.

Alex Acosta, of course, was not on the subpoena list, even though he was the one who negotiated that sweetheart deal that clearly Maxwell doesn't think was one, when he was a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida. Later had to resign as Labor Secretary from the fallout because of it.

Is he going to be called? Are you talking about that? What are Republicans saying, if Democrats are requesting that?

ANSARI: We are urging the leadership. Our Ranking Member, Congressman Garcia, has been doing an excellent job. He's been pushing and calling for Alex Acosta to be subpoenaed immediately.

We also need other members of this administration to come forward and talk. I mean, for me, my top priority is the Attorney General, Pam Bondi. What is she hiding? What is the change of course and change of actions that she's had, since she began this position earlier in the year? I think these are the people that we really need to hear from.

Now, are the Republican members of this committee going to do that? Probably not. They, very reluctantly, even got to this point. They were backed into a corner. Their constituents are up in arms about the flip-flopping on this issue, because there clearly is a coverup.

And as has happened, throughout the entirety of this administration, we have seen Republican members of Congress do whatever it is that Donald Trump wants them to do. It's very much a cult. And this is one area where they wanted to do that, but have been so backed into a corner because the American public, irregardless of political party, is not on their side, that they have had to come around and likely will be forced to vote on this topic, when we return to Congress in September.

[21:15:00]

KEILAR: Yes, and some Republicans are very curious about this. We'll see if they do join you in some of these desires to get someone like Acosta to answer some questions.

Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari, thanks for being with us.

ANSARI: Thank you for having me.

KEILAR: So yes, the Epstein files have become this political football. But at the heart of this story are the survivors, so many of them, young girls who were preyed upon and abused by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.

Joining us now is Lisa Phillips, who says that she was 21 when she first met Epstein, and that she endured his sexual abuse for years.

Lisa, I wonder what you make of the fact that amid the public's push for answers, the only new piece of information the Justice Department has been willing to release publicly is this interview with Maxwell.

LISA PHILLIPS, EPSTEIN ABUSE SURVIVOR: I think the most important thing for survivors is just to get the list out there. I feel like a lot of us know who are on the list. We've been speaking out about who's on the list, but nobody wants to do anything about that. And so, this is -- this list is the most important thing, for us to get justice.

KEILAR: DOJ -- Lisa--

PHILLIPS: So, why hasn't it happened?

KEILAR: Can you be clear about that? Because DOJ is saying, there's not a list. When you -- when you speak of it, are you talking figuratively--

PHILLIPS: Well, I don't know--

KEILAR: --about the names of people? Just explain to me what you mean when you're saying, the list.

PHILLIPS: OK. List is your term, right? But for us, it's just who is responsible for the sex trafficking ring, that Jeffrey Epstein was getting all these young women for. It wasn't just for Jeffrey. So everyone's talking about, Jeffrey's this bad guy. But who are the other bad guys that he was servicing? Right? So, that's what we're concerned about. Who are the other men that need to be held accountable?

KEILAR: Yes, and that's important to note, as you describe it that way, that makes a lot of sense. So even though you met Epstein separately, from Maxwell, you did interact with her. You did see her over the course of years.

PHILLIPS: Yes.

KEILAR: What can you tell us about that?

PHILLIPS: Well, Ghislaine had a reputation of being the creepy one. So, it's kind of funny that you're saying that she said he's not the creepy one. Everyone knew that she was the one that was enticing the young women, or wanting to have dinners with them.

And Jeffrey needed his wing-woman, right, to set up the dinners and the events, and make the girls feel comfortable to show up. Because if we're showing up for a party, and there's just a bunch of old men, and we're all younger women, it doesn't make sense to us. So, she was always there, and she was the one that would make us feel comfortable and have conversation with us.

And then later on, Jeffrey would call and be like, Would you like to meet Ghislaine? And there's usually a celebrity with her and -- so that was the enticing thing of, Oh, I want to meet the celebrity. But she was always there, right? Or, I want to meet someone from the modeling industry, or the acting world, whatever it is that that young person had interest in, he would prey upon that. But she was always there.

So, she deserves to be in jail for what she did, and I believe that she's just as guilty as Jeffrey Epstein. But for me and the survivors, it's not a list. It's the other people that both of them were serving.

KEILAR: Yes, certainly, and that makes sense.

The administration has moved Maxwell to this prison camp with better conditions than she had experienced, where she was in Florida, right? As she's appealing her conviction, she's also seeking a pardon, and the President hasn't ruled it out. What would it mean, if he grants that? What would it mean to you?

PHILLIPS: Well, I mean, it just means we lose, right? This fight, for us to get justice, for what happened to us, hundreds of us. And if she -- I mean, unfortunately, she is the only woman that's been held accountable. That doesn't make sense to anyone. But she is guilty for her crimes. So, if she was let go, we're just taking steps backwards. Because she needs to speak up, and also she knows who these men are. So, if we lose her, I think we just lose the fight altogether.

KEILAR: Lisa--

PHILLIPS: It'll be a really sad day for survivors.

KEILAR: Lisa Phillips, thank you so much for speaking with us. We really, really appreciate it.

PHILLIPS: Thank you. KEILAR: Coming up. What the President and Vice President said today about the FBI searches at the home and office of a guest, who was on this show, last night. John Bolton, President Trump's former National Security Advisor, turned outspoken Trump critic. I'll get reaction from one of Trump's former attorneys, next.

[21:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Today, federal agents searched the home and office of President Trump's former National Security Advisor, turned high profile Trump critic, John Bolton. FBI agents were seen packing boxes, you see here, other materials as well, into unmarked vehicles.

The specific basis for the search, not clear, but sources tell CNN it's part of a larger investigation into whether Bolton disclosed classified information, in his unflattering 2020 memoir of his time in Trump's first administration, "The Room Where It Happened."

That's not a new allegation. The President once called for Bolton to be thrown in jail, for just this same thing, and the Justice Department did investigate Bolton in Trump's first term. But that investigation was closed under President Biden, with no charges filed.

President Trump said today, he had no knowledge of why his political foe was targeted.

[21:25:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I saw that just like everybody else. I try and stay out of that stuff. I'm allowed to be, and I'm chief law enforcement officer, believe it or not, you know. I don't like to go around saying that, but I am. That's the position. But I purposely don't want to really get involved in it. I'm not a fan of John Bolton. I thought he was a sleazebag, actually.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Reached by CNN earlier, Bolton said he was unaware of the FBI activity, and was looking into it further.

But for his part, Bolton has not been a silent critic of the President, since he was fired back in 2019.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS, AUTHOR, "THE ROOM WHERE IT HAPPENED: A WHITE HOUSE MEMOIR": Trump doesn't learn much very quickly.

I think it's a -- it's an indication his mind is full of mush.

I don't think he's fit for office. I don't think he has the competence to carry out the job.

I think that requires believing Trump can think in a consistent philosophical framework for more than about 10 or 15 seconds, and it's just not possible.

I think there's -- there's obviously no preparation, no -- no real preparation for this hastily-called summit. Not that that's unusual for Trump.

He is going to try to use the Justice Department to seek retribution against his enemy.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Now, just hours before the search, Bolton was on this show, just last night, saying this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOLTON: Of course, the Russians want to slow-roll this. They are hoping the whole thing will go away as they successfully slow-rolled the -- Trump's efforts during the first six months.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: Today, Vice President JD Vance said the investigation into Bolton was not politically motivated.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KRISTEN WELKER, MODERATOR, "MEET THE PRESS," NBC NEWS: Is Ambassador Bolton being targeted because he's a critic of President Trump?

JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: No, not at all. And in fact, if we were trying to do that, we would just throw out prosecutions willy- nilly, like the Biden administration DOJ did.

We're investigating Ambassador Bolton. But if they ultimately bring a case, it will be because they determined that he has broken the law. We're going to be careful about that. We're going to be deliberate about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: My sources tonight:

Semafor's Shelby Talcott.

And former federal prosecutor, and former Trump attorney, Jim Trusty.

Shelby, today, I interviewed a Democrat, a House member, who was defending John Bolton. I thought, Has hell frozen over here, right? You have Democrats defending John Bolton. But I mean, that's the perception, how strong it is, that politics are really at play here.

SHELBY TALCOTT, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, SEMAFOR: Yes, I mean, Donald Trump has made no secret that he doesn't like John Bolton. He said it today. He has said it for years. He has repeatedly made comments about John Bolton. So, that sort of overshadows everything, right?

And we really don't know that much about the actual investigation, because the FBI has been pretty tight-lipped, which is not unusual. But it's notable that Donald Trump has been such a critic of John Bolton. And John Bolton has, of course, been a critic of Donald Trump. That this is happening now. And that you have, as a result, Democrats in the unusual position of defending somebody like John Bolton.

KEILAR: Yes, it is very strange.

And Jim, you were actually part of the initial team, representing the President, in his own classified documents case, though you left early on. The Feds are now investigating whether Bolton disclosed classified info, including in his book or to the media.

But his book was initially cleared by a non-political appointee, on the National Security Council, before a political appointee without publication review experience, flagged all kinds of things. And here's Bolton describing that process.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BOLTON: The book went through a four-month-long pre-publication review to make sure there was no classified information in the book. That's been explained in court documents.

Donald Trump didn't like the book because it was critical of him, and it came out in June of 2020. That is an assault on free speech, pure and simple.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: OK, even if all of that is true, Jim, what's the potential legal jeopardy here for Bolton?

JIM TRUSTY, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR: Yes, I mean, look, there's a whole bunch of stuff we don't know. And, look, if every -- if every Trump critic is going to get targeted for a classified document case, then I'm wondering, why Rosie O'Donnell is not in prison yet.

But look, the reality is, these cases can be on a spectrum. An unintentional holding on to documents that are marked classified by somebody who had access in the intelligence community. That may be a crime, but it's hardly a mortal sin or a cardinal sin.

But there's, on the high end of the spectrum, you have people that are literally using that information to work for foreign powers or to profit from foreign powers. I'm not saying John Bolton's doing that, but that's the kind of wide universe we're talking about.

Somewhere in the middle of that universe are the people that have the hubris to do kiss-and-tell books, and that gets you in trouble. I mean, you think about it, Joe Biden's documents were held on to, so he could talk to a biographer, and say, Look what I said at this meeting. General Petraeus got in trouble for trying to write a book and sharing classified information. And now, perhaps John Bolton is as well.

[21:30:00]

And the only other point I'd make is what we don't know at all, aside from the affidavits contents, which would really be helpful to know, what the evidence is, is whether there were communications between the FBI or DOJ, and Bolton and his attorney, prior to this. We have no idea if there was a buildup of negotiation, of conversation.

And so, we're all kind of left scrambling, saying, It would be nice to have more information. But without Jim Comey at the helm, the FBI doesn't seem to be leaking as freely.

KEILAR: Well, you said, Shelby, that the FBI has been tight-lipped. There have been norms broken, though. I just want to be clear. FBI Director, Kash Patel, Deputy Director, Dan Bongino, Attorney General, Pam Bondi, all seem to tweet about this, cryptically, I guess. But nonetheless, this happened as the search of Bolton's house was underway.

TALCOTT: Yes, I mean, they're making no secret that they sort of want this known, that this is right -- they said, nobody is above the law. They're making no secret that this is about John Bolton, that this is going on, that this is targeted at him. Legitimate or not, is an entirely different conversation.

But this is an administration that is much more online, on average, than I think past administrations. You look at Kash Patel, he was oftentimes on TV before getting into the administration. You look at Dan Bongino, he had a very popular podcast. You look at Pam Bondi, she sort of got in trouble herself when she was on TV, talking a lot about the Epstein files.

And so, this is an administration that does things a little bit differently, and they are more online, and they are more sort of open about portraying what their sort of plans are, at least hinting at what their plans are and why they're doing things.

KEILAR: Yes, Jim, they certainly do tweet a lot more than Jim Comey, I'll say that. And notably, Kash Patel actually listed John Bolton in his 2023 book as a, quote, Member of the Executive Branch Deep State. Was alongside a number of other perceived political rivals of President Trump.

It is a different world that we're in now, the way the FBI and DOJ are acting as instruments of the White House. Broadly speaking, how do you see this going?

TRUSTY: Well, look, I don't know that I buy into the premise entirely here. I mean, you had an attorney general under Obama who said, I'm his wingman. So the Attorney General has always been somebody who's directly answerable to the President. What we don't have is an FBI that's at a -- has a special employee leaking things to The New York Times. So, a little bit of openness, although it can tread carefully, it can -- it can become a dangerous area to kind of prejudge people's guilt, a little bit of openness or a little bit of tweeting is hardly as bad as leaking classified information to a friendly at The New York Times.

So, I think that there's something to be said for the visibility of these law enforcement officials. It's not necessarily a sign of weaponization. It's just a different regime than what we're used to.

KEILAR: All right. Jim. Shelby. Thank you so much for that analysis. We appreciate it.

And still ahead, President Trump says Chicago is next in line for his federal crackdown on crime, as his Defense Secretary orders the National Guard troops, here in Washington, to carry weapons while on patrol.

[21:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Just days after ordering a federal crackdown on crime, in the nation's capital, President Trump is already setting his sights on larger, Democratic-led cities, beginning with Chicago.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: After we do this, we'll go to another location, and we'll make it safe also. We're going to make our country very safe. We're going to make our cities very, very safe. Chicago is a mess. You have an incompetent mayor, grossly incompetent.

So, I think Chicago will be our next, and then we'll help with New York.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: The President did not lay out a timeframe, on when this could happen, or even how it would work, given that state National Guard units are under the control of the governor, not the president. He also does not have the power to temporarily take over city police departments, in the same way he has in D.C., where the federal government has unique authority over the district.

My source tonight is Kat Abughazaleh, a Democrat who is running for Congress, in Illinois' 9th District, which includes parts of Chicago.

Kat, I'm sorry. I think I messed up your name there. I apologize. Ghazaleh.

So, thank you so much for being with us.

Just give me your reaction, to the President setting his sights on your city next. KAT ABUGHAZALEH, (D) ILLINOIS CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE: Yes, I also want to apologize, because I'm in a car after a campaign event, where I asked every single person there, if they want the National Guard in Chicago. And surprise, they don't. That's because this is a stunt. This is an authoritarian measure, to try to make people think that Donald Trump is strong, that they should be afraid. And they shouldn't.

What we need to do is make sure that A, our communities know their rights, know that you can film from a safe distance, know your rights when it comes to searches and refusing searches. When it comes to being detained, ask if you are being detained. If you are not, you can walk away. If you are, contact a lawyer.

And our leaders need to make sure they are doing everything to obstruct what the Trump administration is doing, communicating effectively to voters, and actually fighting, because this is what weak men do when they want you to think that they are powerful and strong.

KEILAR: In Chicago, homicides, fatal and non-fatal shootings in the city are down significantly in past years. And yet, there are many residents, as you are well aware, that still do not feel safe. A recent Chicago Tribune op-ed points to this 2024 Harris Poll that found two-thirds of Chicago residents are concerned about public safety, in the areas where they live.

[21:40:00]

So, what is the message that Democrats should be using on this issue, considering there's certainly a needle that needs to be threaded?

ABUGHAZALEH: Yes, I think a lot of that is, first off, many places across the country aren't investing in communities. We know what affects crime is investing in resources, making sure people's material needs are met. But the fact of the matter is, crime is down in Chicago. It ranks, I believe, 98th when it comes to violent crime in the U.S.

And what we really need to do is recognize that what the right is doing is making people afraid. Chicago is their favorite cudgel. There is nothing they love more than spinning racist narratives, talking about crime, making people afraid of cities, because fear is what drives their votes.

What Democrats need to do is make sure people know that they are standing with them. Make sure people know that they shouldn't be terrified of the National Guard, that they are stronger than what the Trump administration is doing.

Every authoritarian regime thrives when the opposition doesn't put up an opposition. And if you look at National Guard in the streets, in every blue city across the country, that's not what the freest country in the world looks like. That's what authoritarian regimes look like.

And one of the big things here that we're worried about is complacency. Sure, it starts with the National Guard, trying to support law enforcement. But then it goes to giving them power to enforce the law. And then it escalates further than that. We're already seeing detention centers being built across the country.

And one of the things about fascism, about authoritarianism, is they try to take you step by step, through the extremes, until you feel like that's normal. And it's not.

KEILAR: Kat Abughazaleh, thank you so much for joining us tonight. We appreciate it.

ABUGHAZALEH: Thank you so much for having me.

KEILAR: And tonight, a new development in President Trump's federal takeover of law enforcement, here in the nation's capital. Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has ordered the hundreds of National Guard troops, patrolling D.C. streets to carry their service weapons on their person.

And my next source is the former D.C. Chief of Homeland Security and Intelligence, Donell Harvin.

Donell, they were keeping them in, for instance, their trucks, right? They wouldn't be keeping them on their person, for example. Why is it such a significant development to do it this way?

DONELL HARVIN, FORMER D.C. CHIEF OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE, HOMELAND SECURITY ANALYST: Well, I'm not actually quite sure why they need the National Guard to be armed. I'm not quite sure why the National Guard need to be out there. I was actually in Union Station, earlier today. I saw National Guard standing out there, with their Humvees. It's really performative.

I think the danger here is that police, local law enforcement, specifically, DCMPD, really gets hundreds of hours of training in the Academy, and post-Academy, on how to use force, escalation of force, what we call the use-of-force protocols, as well as the use-of-force continuum. I'm not quite sure what the National Guard is being trained to.

And certainly, I think the public needs to know this. You can log on to any website, for any state or local police, and see what their use- of-force protocol is. And we can't quite see that for the National Guard. So, I'm not quite sure where this is coming from, Brianna.

KEILAR: Are there risks to the Guard being armed like this?

HARVIN: Well, I mean, once again, we don't know what their qualifications are. I'm not -- I'm not here to besmirch the National Guard. That's the first thing. And once again, I fear that this is more performative than anything--

KEILAR: And Donell, can I just be clear--

HARVIN: --I don't think that they're putting them in the--

KEILAR: --can I just be clear, because I want to -- I'm not asking you to besmirch the Guard, because these are--

HARVIN: Right.

KEILAR: --service members who are following legal orders. This is not normally what they do. And this is what they have been called upon to do, and they are doing, right? So not besmirching the Guard, let's be clear.

HARVIN: Absolutely.

KEILAR: But there are also a lot of residents in this city that are so unhappy with what is happening, and it feels like it could be ripe for some kind of altercation. So, I guess, the question I'm really asking is, in that environment, what is your concern about what could happen?

HARVIN: And what I was alluding to is, I don't want to question the level of training. I know what local law enforcement gets in terms of training. I did that training myself. I spent time in the Academy. We actually did simulations. They had us in 3D rooms with all types of use-of-force situations.

I don't believe that the National Guard gets that, specifically for patrolling urban environments. And so, my concern is that arming these individuals and not really giving them the background or the training, on how to patrol and police local areas, and neighborhoods, can put them and the community at risk.

The fear that you talked about, I saw firsthand. There was a woman crying, about 20 feet away from the National Guard today, saying, We don't want you in our city. And so, that frustration is there.

KEILAR: Yes, we're seeing that.

[21:45:00]

What are you going to be watching for here, in the coming days, as this directive is taking effect?

HARVIN: Well, you know -- and I've said this before, and I'll say it again, as a former law enforcement officer, I can't argue about more law enforcement in the streets of our country, right?

But if you're doing that, without the wraparound services needed to actually prevent crime? And President Trump, last week, talked about juvenile crime, and talked about homelessness. Then what you're doing is creating a police state, right?

And so, you're not going to get any law enforcement executive, any police chief or sheriff, to come on this show and say, All I need is more boots on the ground to cure crime. What they're going to say is, We need opportunities. Just like your previous guests talked about, we need empowerment of these individuals.

Law enforcement is just one leg of the stool. If they're not providing any of those other wraparound services, then they're really just putting a band aid underneath the wound and catching some blood. KEILAR: Donell Harvin, great to get your perspective. Thank you.

HARVIN: Thank you.

KEILAR: And up next. Nearly 20 years after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, a new CNN Original Series shows how the Saints helped bring the city back. Former player and Super Bowl Champ, Malcolm Jenkins, is my source.

[21:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: 20 years after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, CNN's new Original Series New Orleans: Soul of a City "Rebirth of the Superdome" explores how the home of the NFL Saints became more than just a stadium. In the years of rebuilding, the city rallied behind its team, and the Saints' journey to the Super Bowl offered a beacon of hope.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When you talk about football in the south, that's the heart and the heartbeat of that land.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We could be enemies on one day. But on Sundays, we all are rooting for one team.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There -- there's no way to talk about New Orleans without the Saints.

The Superdome and the team are really right at the center of the city.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: After Katrina, football became this narrative of renewal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KEILAR: And joining me now is former New Orleans Saints player, and two-time Super Bowl Champion, Malcolm Jenkins.

And Malcolm, from that clip, it just shows us, right, this relationship between the Saints and the people of New Orleans. It's so special. Can you just talk about how much the team meant for New Orleans after Katrina?

MALCOLM JENKINS, FORMER NEW ORLEANS SAINTS PLAYER: Yes, I think, right after Katrina, just like the citizens in New Orleans, the Saints team was displaced, and everyone was wondering if they would come back.

And it became a symbol, really, for the city. So when the Superdome was reopened, and they played the Atlanta Falcons, and they blocked a kick, it signaled, really to everybody, that not only could we rebuild and were we going to come back, but there was hope that it could be better than it was before. Never be the same, and we were forever changed, but this -- the team really became a rallying point, or a rallying cry, for the city, that New Orleans is still here, we can get back to normal, and we can continue to carry on the traditions that made this place special.

KEILAR: And you were on the team, in 2010, when the Saints took home their first Super Bowl Championship. What did that win feel like, for the team, and for the city. How do you think it felt different because of the recovery from Katrina?

JENKINS: I was a rookie, coming in at my first year, and all you heard was, you know, about how bad the franchise was, but how loyal the team -- the city was to the team, even when they were the Aints and had paper bags.

So to be able to take this team and the city, all the way to a Super Bowl and beat Peyton Manning, and the Colts, as underdogs, was again, just one of those things that most people waited their entire lives to see. And that particular moment, really brought the entire city together as proof that this is a place that is resilient, that can rebuild, and be better.

KEILAR: I also wonder if it's because -- you know, New Orleans, it's so special. There's just -- there's no city like New Orleans. And every NFL team, of course, and the city that they represent, has this connection with its fan base, and they all have their unique contours. But what makes the relationship between the Saints, and its fans, and the City of New Orleans, unique to you?

JENKINS: I mean, this city, in general, is just unique. There's no other city like it. But when you talk about the relationship between the fans and the team, you know, New Orleans is one of those cities where its heroes are its artists, are its chefs. It's all around culture is its athletes.

So, the athletes and the teams become part of the community. They're not really separate. They're all one, and I think that's very unique. I've been in the League, played in the National Football League for 13 seasons, and this is a place like no other. That relationship truly is one where the city and the team feel like they're one.

KEILAR: Malcolm, I so appreciate you being on with us tonight. Thank you for being here.

JENKINS: Appreciate you having me.

KEILAR: Malcolm Jenkins, we appreciate you.

And do not miss the premiere of New Orleans: Soul of a City "Rebirth of the Superdome." That is Sunday at 09:00 p.m. Eastern, only on CNN.

And still ahead, the Defense Secretary just fired the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, the latest in a string of shakeups in military leadership.

[21:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KEILAR: Breaking tonight. Sources say Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has fired Lieutenant General Jeffrey Kruse, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. That is the agency that produced the initial damage assessment of the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities that angered Trump.

You may recall, back in June, the agency's early assessment was that the strikes did not destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, even as Trump claimed, the sites were, quote, Totally obliterated.

A source says Hegseth also fired at least two other military leaders tonight. It does remain unclear why. The move is just the latest instance of the Trump administration removing top officials, who appear to be at odds with the President.

[22:00:00]

The Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is responding to this news, tonight, saying, quote, The firing of yet another senior national security official underscores the Trump administration's dangerous habit of treating intelligence as a loyalty test, rather than a safeguard for our country.

And thank you so much for joining us, this evening.

"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.