Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
House Committee Releases Records Provided By Epstein Estate; Trump Admin. Announces "Operation Midway Blitz" In Chicago; Trump: Cuomo "Might Have A Chance" In One-On-One Race. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired September 08, 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]
JOHN BERMAN, CNN HOST: Of course, when he signed, it was just Sirius.
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: It was Sirius.
BERMAN: Now it is SiriusXM. It's been like a bunch of years since they merged. How are they doing?
ENTEN: Yes, how are they doing? Look, they're doing significantly better than when Howard Stern first came on the air. But there's been somewhat of a decline, over the last few years, in terms of coming down from their peak. We're talking about 33 million subscribers, paid subscribers, compared to 35 million a few years ago.
So look, they're struggling, like a lot of other people in this streaming era. But look, Howard Stern put them on the map, and I doubt Howard Stern stays, but we'll have to wait and see.
BERMAN: Harry Enten, if he's the King of All Media, you're the Czar, the Emperor of All Media.
ENTEN: Thank you, sir.
BERMAN: Great to have you here.
ENTEN: Great too -- happy to.
BERMAN: The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: Congress just released hundreds of documents from Jeffrey Epstein's estate, including that birthday letter that President Trump said didn't exist.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
We have breaking news, as we come on the air, this evening, as hundreds of documents that until tonight had been the property of Jeffrey Epstein's estate are now public.
Those documents include Jeffrey Epstein's will, the Justice Department's controversial agreement to not prosecute Jeffrey Epstein on much more serious charges, back in 2007, and page after page after page of unredacted names from Jeffrey Epstein's address book. Now, this isn't a client list, per se. It's the names, phone numbers and addresses of the people that he knew. And judging by what we're looking at tonight, he knew a lot of people.
Also released this evening, that collection of birthday messages from friends, for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday.
The Republican Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, Congressman James Comer, said the decision to release all of this tonight, was because Democrats on that committee released this. It's the letter, purportedly from the President of the United States, that the White House and his attorneys insisted didn't exist.
It's a sexually-suggestive drawing for Epstein, on his birthday, with what appears to be Trump's signature there, at the bottom. A picture that Trump strenuously denied ever drawing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I don't do drawings. I'm not a drawing person
REPORTER: Do you think it was fraudulent?
D. TRUMP: I don't do drawings.
REPORTER: Saying with name (ph)?
D. TRUMP: Sometimes people say, Would you draw a building? And I'll draw four lines and a little roof, you know, for a charity stuff. But -- but I'm not a drawing person. I don't do drawings of women, that I can tell you. They say there's a drawing of a woman. And I don't do drawings of women. And also, you know, Epstein was always a very controversial guy.
REPORTER: Do you maintain that you did not write a letter for Jeffrey Epstein's birthday?
D. TRUMP: I don't even know what they're talking about. Now, somebody could have written a letter and used my name, that's happened a lot.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: When this story was first published, the Vice President said that The Wall Street Journal's initial reporting that the letter even existed was, quote, "Complete and utter bullshit."
The President himself sued The Journal for billions, and his attorneys insisted, in court filings, that this letter was, quote, "Nonexistent," and that "No authentic letter or drawing exists."
The President's son, Eric Trump, echoed that sentiment, just tonight.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ERIC TRUMP, AMERICAN BUSINESSMAN, PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S SON: My father does not sketch out cartoon drawings.
It's no different than the Russian hoax. I mean, listen, The New York Times, the same people who are going to, by the way, try and do everything they can to keep me from becoming the number one best- seller, you better believe, they were the ones that got Pulitzer Prizes for writing about the Russia hoax, something that was untrue. And they didn't even give back the prizes, right? I mean, this is the level of dementia in the mainstream media.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, immediately after Democrats published that picture, I just showed you, the White House's immediate reaction was to focus on the signature, which is different from the ones that we're used to seeing lately, at the bottom of so many of the President's executive orders that he's been signing.
The White House press secretary tweeted, quote, "It's very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it."
The Deputy White House Chief of Staff said, quote, "It's not his signature."
And of course, when you look at the signature, you can judge for yourself. There's a lot of examples of the President, from that same era, of when this birthday book was compiled, signing his name in a similar style. Like, this 1996 letter, to then-New York City Mayor, Rudy Giuliani. Or this 1995 letter to a member of a local Palm Beach commission.
There's also that 1999 letter to the legendary CNN host, Larry King, that you see here, and a 1984 letter to the Executive Editor of The New York Times. There's even an inscription in a Trump book that Epstein owned from 1997, that The New York Times recently published.
Those are the signatures there. And of course, this is the one the White House is denying, is the President's, tonight.
[21:05:00]
As we're digging through these hundreds of new documents that were just released tonight, CNN's Manu Raju is up on Capitol Hill, where obviously Manu, it's been about 21 days since the committee interviewed then-Attorney General, Bill Barr. Of course, that interview, and so much that they have done, has been behind closed doors.
What are you hearing from sources, about why they're putting these documents out now?
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, James Comer, the House Oversight Committee Chairman, had insisted that the documents that they would receive would eventually become public.
But Comer himself blamed Democrats for what he said were cherry- picking individual pieces from this document dump tonight, to try to embarrass Donald Trump. So, they went out ahead and put out all the information that they received just today.
But the question here on Capitol Hill is, to what extent does this change the dynamic among Republicans, particularly those Republican members, who had been demanding the release of all these Epstein files, and now have the opportunity to try to force a vote, in the full United States House, if they were to sign on to a bipartisan effort, on a bill, calling for the release of those documents.
But in talking to a number of those Republicans, particularly ones who are in the MAGA camp per se, in the House GOP, if they are moved, if they are willing to buck the President now, in the aftermath of all this? Many of them, like Congressman Tim Burchett of Tennessee, someone who sits on the House Oversight Committee, contended that these documents, he believes, siding with the White House, as he says, are all a fake.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. TIM BURCHETT (R-TN): I mean, anybody can do a signature. We've seen the Autopen has been used quite a bit with the Biden administration. So, I've never known Trump to be much of a -- of an artist, either. So, I kind of draw that into question.
RAJU: There's a history of him drawing stuff--
BURCHETT: Look, the thing is, it's been there for four years, and now it's just come out? I just don't buy it.
RAJU: So, you think, really, someone might have just forged this somehow and sent this to the Epstein estate--
BURCHETT: Yes, I mean, somehow, it's so easy to do. I just -- I just don't buy any of it right now, because it's -- we have a administrate -- prior administration that's had a history of dishonesty, and they bring something like this out now? Why wouldn't they bring it out during the campaign?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
RAJU: And of course, these documents were from the Epstein estate, not from the Biden administration.
But nevertheless, you're hearing that defiance from some of those Republicans, who had been calling for the release of those documents, but very much siding with the President, which just shows you that perhaps this has not really moved the needle, among some of those key Republicans, whose support would be needed, to force a vote on that bill, calling for the release of all the documents.
COLLINS: Yes.
RAJU: At the moment, you're seeing the White House seeing its allies sort of circle the wagons, in the aftermath of the release of that birthday book.
Kaitlan. COLLINS: Well, Manu, with the birthday book. Obviously, it's not illegal to send someone a birthday letter. This was before Jeffrey Epstein had been arrested, I believe, based on the dates of when his 50th birthday would have been.
But when The Wall Street Journal published this story, it kind of bolstered the White House, because they've been under fire by so many in the GOP. And then this came out, people came and rallied to Trump's defense.
I wonder if the White House, denying that this letter existed, or that that was Trump's signature, if that changes anything, now that they can kind of look at it with their own eyes?
RAJU: Yes, I mean, you heard from Congressman Burchett there. They are believing what the White House is saying, that it's simply not his signature. That is enough for the lot of the Republicans to simply say, OK, I believe you. Despite what they are seeing right there.
And I actually showed Burchett the letter there. I said, Do you want to look at this yourselves? But he still kind of shrugged it off. And that's just what I heard from one Republican after another tonight, Kaitlan. So, we're seeing a sense that the Republicans are going to fall in line behind Donald Trump, on this issue, like they have on so many others, over the last many years.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll see if that changes.
RAJU: Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Manu Raju, as we look through all these documents tonight, thanks for that reporting, up on Capitol Hill.
And speaking of Capitol Hill, my lead source tonight sits on the House Oversight Committee, which is now at the center of this story. Democratic congresswoman, Jasmine Crockett of Texas joins me now.
And thank you, Congresswoman, for being here.
Because Chairman Comer says that Democrats are cherry-picking the information that they're releasing, they're politicizing what's being released tonight. As a Democrat, on the House Oversight Committee, what is your response to the Chairman?
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): No, listen, here's the deal. We have a president that is sitting in office, that obviously had a very close relationship, with arguably one of the worst pedophiles that we've ever seen in this country.
And he's gone from, I don't really know him like that, No, we're not really that close, Yes, he was the FBI informant. To now, he said there never was this birthday book, there never was this letter. And I think it goes to his credibility or lack thereof, when it comes down to this particular investigation.
It also goes to when we hear the White House say things like, Hey, this will be seen as a hostile act if you sign off on this.
[21:10:00]
Listen, as American people, we should all be in unison, no matter if you're a Democrat, Republican, or Independent, when it comes down to cracking down on something like this. And this literally is so big. As someone, who practiced criminal law, in Texas, in Arkansas, and in federal courts, I have never seen a case this big, and I did it for literally over 15 years.
COLLINS: In terms of what Democrats on your committee are putting out, the address book that came out tonight, it's got -- I mean, I looked at it. It's names and phone numbers of people we know, their addresses. Was there a consideration about redacting that information? Or was it intentional to just release it with everything?
CROCKETT: So, as it relates to the committee, and what the committee itself has put out, we, as committee members, haven't sat down in a room and said, This is exactly what's going to happen when. Those are--
COLLINS: So, who made this decision?
CROCKETT: Those decisions are made by our Ranking Member, along with the lawyers that are serving on our committee. Because honestly, we don't sit and do that kind of stuff.
The things that we're doing is we're trying to make sure that we are going after, and we're subpoenaing the information that is going to lead to real answers, whether it's people or whether it's documents. So, we are coming up with a plan around that.
In addition to that, obviously, we are going to have staff that is going to go up and speak with those attorneys, that released this most recent information to us. Because there have been redactions. And so, they're going to see everything unredacted to make sure that they're just not cherry-picking how much information they're giving to us as well.
COLLINS: So, do you have any issues with all the numbers and names and addresses being published?
CROCKETT: I mean, I think that I personally probably would, simply because of the environment that we're in right now, and as someone who is consistently receiving death threats, because of kind of political sycophants, I would.
COLLINS: You have no problem with it? On this drawing--
CROCKETT: No, no, no, I'm saying, I would have an issue.
COLLINS: You would have redacted it?
CROCKETT: Yes, I probably would have.
COLLINS: Oh, OK. CROCKETT: Yes, I probably would have.
COLLINS: Yes, just, I mean, it's like there are addresses and New York phone numbers--
CROCKETT: Unless we're -- but -- but then again, it may be that none of this is actually relevant now. Like, as far as I'm concerned, these people could have moved, these cell phone numbers may not work anymore, that kind of stuff. So, I don't know if the team dug into that type of information, just so that it could say, At this moment, this person lived here or there, but they may not even live there anymore.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, it's hundreds of names, as you know.
On the drawing itself. The White House has denied that the drawing existed. They denied that it was Trump's signature. Tonight, they are denying it, saying that, releasing it is proof that it's not his signature. I mean, we showed, obviously, examples that mirror it. What is you -- what do you make of the White House's defense here?
CROCKETT: The fact that the President is a liar. I mean, he's consistent. I mean, that's all I really got for you.
I mean, here's the thing. We got this from the Epstein estate. This isn't something that came from a random Democratic something. This came from the estate. And so--
COLLINS: Because basically that would mean that someone had to forge this years ago.
CROCKETT: Correct. And--
COLLINS: It didn't come from Democrats.
CROCKETT: Exactly, that's the whole thing. Like, before he even got elected. Remember, when Epstein died, right? That was before Donald Trump got elected this time. And they would have had to have some kind of foresight that he was going to run for office again, somehow win again, and we've got to make sure that this is sitting here, so that when a committee comes through to get this, then it'll -- it's crazy.
COLLINS: Do you agree that, even if that is his signature, having his signature on the letter doesn't constitute any wrongdoing or a legal action from the President?
CROCKETT: No, I think that -- I think the biggest issue is the fact that he cannot be honest about it, right? Like the -- why lie? Because it doesn't implicate, right? But the fact that you're lying makes it look like, What else are you lying about? Those are the questions that we have. If you'll lie about something this simple, then when you're trying to tell us that you had nothing to do with these women or these girls, why should we believe you?
COLLINS: Can we just show the signature on that, the page that was released today, one more time, the White House is denying is actually his.
And when you look at this, on this drawing, from the White House -- or from what was released today by your committee, if we have that picture of Trump's signature here, or what is allegedly his signature that they're denying? You see that and you believe that's his signature?
CROCKETT: Yes, who else signs like that? I mean, it is that when -- it is a signature of signatures. I mean, that is his signature. End of story.
Now, I don't think that it's worth time, trying to get somebody to come in and, you know, who's an expert and goes through the curves, and that kind of stuff. We have experts that can do that if he really wants to. But I don't think that it takes an expert to know that that is his signature.
COLLINS: Can I ask about something else that House -- the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee published tonight?
It's a tweet tonight, and it says -- has a picture, and it says, this picture, it alleges, it says, shows Epstein and a longtime Mar-a-Lago member joking about selling a fully depreciated woman to Donald Trump for $22,000 and -- $22,500.
Can you explain what is being alleged here in this picture?
[21:15:00]
CROCKETT: I mean, obviously, I didn't write it. But from the looks of it, it does look like he engaged, potentially -- now I think that that is more incriminating than the birth -- the birthday just makes him look like a creep. But this, it's -- it's joking about selling a woman. When, and why is that ever funny? And why is it that they would say that he would be one that would be buying a woman?
And so -- and to say fully depreciated and -- and it had some things that really made you feel like it was somebody that was young, because it was talking about the ability to learn, like a quick learner, or something like that, I don't remember the exact language. But it's really disturbing.
And honestly, it's really a sad day in this country that this is the guy that is leading our nation. I mean, we used to care about the morality of a leader. But when you're looking at this, and you're looking at his actions overall, it doesn't seem like he has a moral compass, or that he has an honest bone in his body.
COLLINS: And we don't know that Trump wrote that. Do you know if that information has been vetted, or is it in the process of being vetted, whatever is being alleged in that tweet?
CROCKETT: The most that I can tell you is that that came from the estate. That is something that we got from the estate. So usually, when we're looking at documents, we're looking at the trail and like, who had what? All I can tell you is that it came out of the estate. So this is something that is older.
I'm sure that as our attorneys go up to see the unredacted versions of all the documents, there will be questions about who the people are that are in the photos, and things like that. And ultimately, I think that they may be people that we ultimately end up questioning, as a part of this larger pro--
COLLINS: Oh, so you may question people who are in these documents that are mentioned--
CROCKETT: Yes. Yes, that's--
COLLINS: --everybody from that list (ph)?
CROCKETT: --that's the whole point of getting them, absolutely.
COLLINS: Do you have any ideas of who you -- who may be called? Or is that something that the committee is still sorting through tonight?
CROCKETT: We're still sorting through, because we legitimately are still trying to sift through documentation.
COLLINS: You mentioned the FBI informant thing a moment ago. For people who aren't familiar, that's a comment that was made by the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, a couple days ago.
CROCKETT: Yes.
COLLINS: He now was trying to clarify, clear that up today. I just want everyone to listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I mentioned that what the attorneys for the victims have been very clear about.
I'm just repeating what is common knowledge, and has been out in the public for a long time. President Trump was never a hindrance to the Epstein investigation. He was trying to assist in that.
I don't know if I used the right word. I said, FBI informant. I'm not sure. I wasn't there.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Is that common knowledge about President Trump trying to assist in the Epstein investigation? Have you seen any evidence of that?
CROCKETT: That's the first time I heard of it, so. So, I must say, No, I don't have any documentation to that effect. And I was able to sit down during the Bill Barr deposition. I don't recall the former Attorney General stating anything to that effect. I can't say what all he said. But I don't remember anything that would lead me to believe that he was informed of anything like that. So no, I would not say that. And we know that Bill Barr was the Attorney General, at least at the time that Epstein ended up dying. And so, I would imagine that he would have the information as it relates to who the informants were, and that kind of stuff. And I can just tell you, point-blank, that it never came up that the President somehow was an informant for the FBI.
COLLINS: Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, thank you for your time tonight.
CROCKETT: Absolutely. Great to see you.
COLLINS: And of course, we'll keep sifting through all these documents.
And also tonight, what does it mean for the unprecedented legal fight that the President is engaged in, with The Wall Street Journal, after their initial reporting on this. We're going to speak to our excellent legal source, Elie Honig, next.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Trump's unprecedented lawsuit, against The Wall Street Journal, may now be impacted after the House Oversight Committee released these documents, tonight, from Jeffrey Epstein's estate, including that so-called birthday book.
In that book is this letter, bearing Donald Trump's name. Of course, you'll recall, the President sued The Wall Street Journal for defamation, back in July, after it first reported on the existence of a birthday letter to Jeffrey Epstein.
The President has maintained no such letter actually exist. And in his lawsuit, which is seeking at least $20 billion, alleges that The Journal's reporters, and I'm quoting now, "Falsely pass off as fact that President Trump, in 2003, wrote, drew, and signed this letter," stating, quote, "The reason for those failures is because no authentic letter or drawing exists."
My source tonight is CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
And Elie, now that you can see this letter that allegedly bears Donald Trump's name. Obviously, they've been denying that over at the White House, and saying that it proves their point. What impact, though, does this have on this lawsuit?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Well, Donald Trump's lead argument just went out the window, Kaitlan. Because, you said the key word in the intro to this show, Nonexistent. Twice in the complaint that Donald Trump brought to initiate this lawsuit, he claims the letter is nonexistent. Now we know that it is quite existent, so to speak.
And it's really important, Jasmine Crockett just made this point, the way that this letter came about is relevant, because it's not as if The Wall Street Journal just said, Aha, here's an image of the letter. No. We now have seen it, because Congress, the House, subpoenaed it from the Epstein estate, and that's exactly where you would expect to find it, if it was as The Wall Street Journal says it was.
[21:25:00]
And now, Donald Trump is falling back to argument B, which is, I didn't sign it. But you know what? Legally, that actually doesn't matter. We're all going to get out our magnifying glasses, and analyze how does he draw his letter D, and letter L. Doesn't matter.
Because The Wall Street Journal doesn't say definitively that he signed it. They're actually quite lawyerly and hedged, and what they do say is it's uncertain how this letter came about. So, even that is not going to get Donald Trump anywhere. He's running out of options. I think this lawsuit was a long shot from the start, and it just got quite a bit longer.
COLLINS: Well, and the reporting was that Ghislaine Maxwell put this book together. And Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, actually asked her about the letter, when he had that interview with her, that rare interview, that happened in July.
I want you to listen to what Ghislaine Maxwell had to say about this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, UNITED STATES DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: Do you remember one way or the other, whether President Trump submitted a letter for his 50th birthday?
GHISLAINE MAXWELL, BRITISH FORMER SOCIALITE AND A CONVICTED SEX OFFENDER: I do not remember.
BLANCHE: And the article that references the letter talks about like a -- sounds like either a naked -- a picture of a naked woman or something like that. Do you have any recollection of that?
MAXWELL: I do not. But just -- no, I don't.
BLANCHE: Do you remember asking President Trump to submit a letter for that?
MAXWELL: I do not.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: As an attorney, Elie, how does that sound to you, now that we could see this purported letter and drawing?
HONIG: That's not going to help Donald Trump's case one bit here, for a couple reasons.
First of all, Ghislaine Maxwell is full of it. I mean, this is a woman who, in that same interview, said she did nothing wrong, committed no crime, nobody else she knew of committed any crime, except maybe Jeffrey Epstein, and she's openly campaigning for a pardon.
Second of all, they're not going to be able -- if this case ever gets to trial, and I doubt it will get that far, they can't just play that tape of Ghislaine Maxwell. That would be hearsay. You could never put that in front of a jury.
They would have to actually call Ghislaine Maxwell to the stand, take her out of federal prison, march her up to the stand in district court, in front of a jury, and say to the jurors, You need to believe this person. That is not going to happen. So, that's politics. That's not going to influence or help them in this legal case at all.
COLLINS: Elie Honig, as always, thank you for your legal expertise.
HONIG: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. There has been a major ramp-up of immigration operations in some of the U.S.'s biggest cities. We have new reporting on what this means, for places like Chicago and Boston, ahead.
[21:30:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Trump administration says it has now started a major immigration operation, inside of Chicago, with the Department of Homeland Security calling it Operation Midway Blitz, and saying it's underway in the Windy City to target, quote, Criminal undocumented immigrants.
Now, this comes after the Supreme Court today handed the Trump administration a huge victory. They're now going to allow them to continue having immigration officials do what the critics are calling, roving patrols.
It was a case that was over incidents that were happening, around Los Angeles, where masked and heavily-armed ICE agents were pulling people aside, who identify as Latino, including some U.S. citizens, to interrogate them about their immigration status. Now, for now, I should note, the Supreme Court says those kinds of stops can continue.
My sources tonight are:
CNN's Priscilla Alvarez.
And the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tom Dupree.
And Tom, obviously, there's a lot of back and forth between -- from the Supreme Court over this.
Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, We should not have to live in a country where the government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job. Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent.
Obviously, this isn't the last stop for this case with the Supreme Court. It might go back. But what does it mean for what they can do now, not just in L.A., but also in other cities, like Chicago?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, today's decision was a big win for the Trump administration. No getting around it. The Supreme Court has greenlighted, basically, the criteria that ICE agents have been using in Los Angeles, to temporarily detain and to question people they suspect of being illegal immigrants.
So, from a practical standpoint, the decision is immensely significant, because it means that the administration can kind of keep doing what it's doing, whether that's in Los Angeles, or whether they expand that approach to other cities, such as Chicago.
This litigation will continue. To your point, this is just one procedural hurdle along the road, but it's a very important hurdle. And it's really the first time the Supreme Court has spoken directly to this administration's policy, aggressive policy, of immigration enforcement.
COLLINS: Yes.
And Priscilla, I mean, what is the administration saying? What are you hearing from people about -- you know, obviously, they felt pretty emboldened by this decision, I think today.
PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes.
COLLINS: And that they are going to continue doing this for sure. But does it impact other plans?
ALVAREZ: Well, to put it simply, the man, the Homeland Security official who has been in charge of the operations in Los Angeles, called this a huge victory, and immediately posted a video of some of the enforcement actions they've been doing in Los Angeles, like in the Home Depot parking lot.
So, it gives you a sense of the way that they're thinking about this, and how they're going to continue their aggressive actions. And not only look at it with California, that's where this ruling was focused on, but also as they expand their operations in other cities, like Chicago, like Boston.
Because the idea, as they move into those cities, is to step up their enforcement there, to take the aggressive strategy that they executed in Los Angeles, and apply that elsewhere. And so, we can anticipate seeing more of what they're doing, as they're emboldened by these rulings.
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: Well, I mean, and we've seen this with Chicago itself, being where the President has been, kind of forecasting, they're going to go in there. They're going to start with this. We've seen the comments about deploying the National Guard, and the President's post over the weekend, about going to war in Chicago, essentially.
I wonder how that affects the legal aspect of all of this. DUPREE: Yes, well, I think it's, frankly, a very difficult thing for judges to get involved in. Judges are typically not in the business of trying to micromanage the details of either immigration enforcement, or military operations, as it were.
And so, I think that's one hurdle that challengers to the administration policies are going to face going forward, is trying to persuade a judge that it's vital for them to get involved at this stage of the case, and in the -- or at least the administration's view, second-guess the decisions being made on the ground by enforcement officials, and by military officials in some cases.
COLLINS: Yes.
And we also have John Sandweg here, who served as the Acting Director of ICE under President Obama.
And I'm so glad to have you here, just given your expertise in this.
And in terms of what this means going forward, following this decision by the Supreme Court. Do you think that this means we'll see targeted operations? Are we going to be seeing more indiscriminate ones on the streets?
JOHN SANDWEG, FORMER ACTING ICE DIRECTOR UNDER PRES. OBAMA: Yes, unfortunately, Kaitlan, look, it remains to be seen in Chicago and Boston. They just launched these initiatives there. So, I guess it's too early to say.
But unfortunately, I think we're probably going to see a lot more of L.A. And the problem with that is it makes no sense, from a public safety perspective. You talk about, This is about reducing crime. But when you do these operations, you're just casting out a random net. And typically, what you're catching are economic migrants. This is not where you find your gang members. This is not where you find your convicted criminals.
Those targeted operations, first of all, don't create these profiling concerns, because you've done your research in advance, you know exactly who you're arresting. But more importantly, you know their criminal history, and you know that by getting those people off the streets, you might be making an impact on public safety.
COLLINS: So, if their goal is to go after the worst of the worst, which is what we've heard from Border officials all along, not just on the campaign trail, but since they took office, you're saying this is not going to achieve that goal?
SANDWEG: Yes. I mean, they'd like to say, We're going after the worst first. But really, these operations are not designed to get the worst.
Look, the problem with ICE complaints about in sanctuary cities, like Cook County, is that they let out violent criminals that ICE would prefer to arrest in the jail. The problem, though, is that ICE still knows, they can track where those individuals are. Early in the administration, we saw them doing those targeted operations. The problem was the number of arrests were too low. So, the agency got put under tremendous pressure to ratchet up the number of arrests. And what that means is, you go after the lower-hanging fruit. And Kaitlan, that's where we see what we saw in L.A., hitting the Home Depot parking lots, these work sites that are low-wage jobs. That's where you can find large number of migrants.
You can make a larger number of arrests of undocumented individuals. The problem is, they're just not the criminals. You got to go out there and do the hard work for the criminals. It's slower, more tedious, but ultimately, the public safety value's much higher than this kind of work.
COLLINS: Can I ask you about collaboration? Because what we keep hearing from officials, in Illinois and Chicago, is there's no coordination with the federal government. They were saying, basically, there had not been a lot of contact. Trump was saying he was hoping they'd call and ask them to send people in to help with crime.
But in terms of, if there's not a lot of collaboration, and ICE is going in, what does that mean for the actual ICE officers, but also people on the ground?
SANDWEG: Yes, look, I hope that there's more collaboration going on quietly. Typically, Kaitlan, when there's all this political rhetoric, the police department engages in conversations with the law enforcement officers at ICE. I hope that, because it's an officer safety issue, it's a public safety issue.
You need to make sure there's deconfliction that the local -- the Chicago PD knows where ICE is going to be operating, and knows when those guys jump out of a car, and are grabbing some of -- those are federal agents, and isn't it some kidnapping that they're witnessing.
But the problem, again, is this overtly-politicized kind of approach really hinders that cooperation. In a perfect world, ICE is working collaboratively with Chicago PD, on the highest-value targets, using the federal resources intelligence, and the agents that they have, to bring to bear on the crime problem.
But this again, you know, I worry that -- again, it remains be seen what's going to happen there. I just worry that this is much more about the optics and the rounding up of a large number of migrants than it really is about public safety.
COLLINS: John Sandweg, it's great to have your expertise on this.
And Tom Dupree, I want to ask you about something else that's been in the headlines today.
It is an incredibly disturbing video of a gruesome murder of this poor innocent woman, a 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee, who actually fled her home, to come to the United States for safety from war, and was murdered here on the streets of Charlotte.
Her name is Irina Zaruka (ph), and she was seen -- Zarutska. And she was seen entering a light rail car, in this video, which I do want to warn people, is graphic, if they have not seen it yet. She gets on the train. She sits there behind Decarlos Brown, who is seated in the red sweatshirt behind her. She's there for about four minutes before he takes out a knife, and stabs her multiple times and murders her.
[21:40:00]
We looked at his court records, now that he's been arrested. He has a long history of arrests, including for armed robbery, felony larceny, and breaking and entering. Those are all convictions.
A lot of people are going to look at this, and his past mugshots, and say, How is this someone who was -- who was out and able to commit this murder?
DUPREE: That is the question. And it's incomprehensible to me that someone like this was still walking the streets, notwithstanding what is a long-demonstrated track record of aberrant, violent criminal behavior. He should not have been walking the streets. He should not have been on that subway car.
And you hear -- I heard the North Carolina authorities say, Well, look, overall crime in the Charlotte area and other, it's been dropping by 25 percent, and that sort of thing. But all the statistics in the world aren't going to overcome just the disturbing nature--
COLLINS: Yes, it's not going to be any--
(CROSSTALK)
DUPREE: --when you see something like that, and how people experience their communities and the world around them.
I mean, the fundamental responsibility of government is to keep us safe. And when you see videos like this, people out on the streets who have no business being out there? You wonder if our government is really fulfilling its most basic responsibility to keep us safe from people like that.
COLLINS: Yes, it's just heartbreaking for this poor woman who was fleeing war.
Tom Dupree, thank you for that. Priscilla Alvarez, your reporting as well.
Up next here for us. President Trump's attempt to shake up the New York City mayoral race, whether or not it's actually helping the candidate he wants to lose is an open question. We're going to speak to New York congressman, Republican Mike Lawler, to weigh in next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the White House intervention in the New York City mayoral race has now led to President Trump calling on two candidates, to drop out of the race altogether.
The goal? Upping the odds of former New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, to defeat Democratic candidate, Zohran Mamdani. A strategy that the President himself all but acknowledged, on Friday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
D. TRUMP: If you have more than one candidate running against him, it can't, you know, it can't be won. If you have one candidate, if he's the right candidate, I would -- I would say that Cuomo might have a chance of winning, if it was a one-on-one. If it's not one-on-one, it's going to be a hard race.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Time is of the essence here, because the City Board of Elections is going to approve November's ballot, this Thursday.
And today, we heard from Andrew Cuomo upping the ante with this attack on Mamdani.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANDREW CUOMO, (I) NEW YORK MAYORAL CANDIDATE: I think Mamdani would be his dream as mayor, because then it wouldn't just be President Trump. It would be Mayor Trump. He would just bigfoot Mamdani.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is the Republican congressman, Mike Lawler of New York.
And Congressman, first off, do you think this is a good idea for President Trump to get as involved as he is getting here?
REP. MIKE LAWLER (R-NY): Well, look, he's a New Yorker, born and raised in New York City.
COLLINS: Nice authority (ph), but yes.
LAWLER: Obviously, he cares deeply about what goes on in New York.
I think the fact is, this is disastrous for the country, to have an avowed socialist, who talks about seizing the means of production, who talks about banning private property ownership, who wants to defund the police, shut down prisons. Now he's talking about getting rid of the gang database, which is insane. He wants government-run grocery stores.
What happens in New York does not stay in New York. And I think the President certainly understands the impact that Zohran Mamdani's election would have, nationwide.
We've seen since AOC won her election, in 2018, a number of socialist candidates get elected to City Council, to State Legislature, in New York, including Zohran Mamdani, who won in a Democratic primary, back in 2020, for State Assembly in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's district. So, the reality here--
COLLINS: This wasn't (ph) about who were defeated social -- people who had ran on ideas like this, and instead, centrist Dems were elected. But--
(CROSSTALK)
LAWLER: But now you have him as the Democratic candidate for mayor, and he is espousing all of these views.
COLLINS: I'm not surprised you don't like Zohran Mamdani, or agree with his views. But do you--
LAWLER: We served together in the State Assembly.
COLLINS: Yes, you did, back in 2020, I believe, right?
LAWLER: Yes.
COLLINS: Do you believe, though, that President Trump's involvement is helpful here?
LAWLER: Look, ultimately, New York City voters are going to make a determination. I think the President is right that this cannot be a multi-candidate race. Each of the candidates needs to look introspectively, and see whether or not they have a viable path forward. And if they don't, in my opinion, I've been saying this for months, they need to get out of the way, so that one candidate who does have support, can actually unify the anti-Zohran base of voters.
You've got to look at New York City elections. Only 25 percent of registered voters, in New York City, have voted in the last two mayoral elections. It is a very low turnout. Zohran Mamdani won the primary with about 13 percent of registered voters supporting him. So ultimately, you have a pathway, if it's a one-on-one race.
COLLINS: So, do you agree--
LAWLER: If it's a multi candidate race, Zohran will be the mayor.
COLLINS: So, do you agree with President Trump that the others should drop out, so it's Mamdani versus Cuomo?
LAWLER: Look, I am supporting Curtis Sliwa. I think Andrew Cuomo is responsible for a lot of the problems in New York, including signing cashless bail into law, which has been a disaster. Jessica Tisch coming out today, saying what a disaster cashless bail was--
COLLINS: The Police Commissioner.
[21:50:00]
LAWLER: --for crime in New York City. You look at, New York being a sanctuary state. Andrew Cuomo signed that. Congestion pricing. Andrew Cuomo signed that. The challenges impacting New York, a lot of it at the hands of Andrew Cuomo. So, I don't think he's a great solution here.
But my view has been, whoever is best-positioned, by September, to take on Zohran Mamdani, the other candidates need to look themselves in the mirror, recognize the reality, and do what is right by New Yorkers, not themselves or their party. And so, ultimately, I think the candidates need to make a very quick decision, as to whether or not they have a viable path. And if they don't, they need to get out.
COLLINS: Speaking of cashless bail, that's something that the President was talking about today, when talking about his kind of federal takeover of D.C., crime here, in Washington today.
It was during a speech he was giving at the Bible Museum in Washington. There was one comment he made that caught our attention. I want everyone to listen to that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
D. TRUMP: They said, crime is down 87 percent. I said, No, no, no, it's more than 87 percent. Virtually nothing, and much lesser things, things that take place in the home, they call crime. You know, they'll do anything they can to find something. If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say, This was a crime, see? So now I can't claim a 100 percent.
(LAUGHTER)
D. TRUMP: But we are -- we are a safe city.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Did that strike you as dismissive of reports of domestic assault, domestic violence?
LAWLER: Wasn't very clear to me.
But the bottom line is, domestic violence is a serious issue, across this country. We have seen it. I have met with numerous organizations that deal with domestic violence, on a daily basis. They do great work, trying to help victims of domestic violence. It's part of the reason why I have fought, time and again, to make sure that those who perpetrate domestic violence don't have access to guns. We see the impact there.
But if you look at the overall situation, in Washington, D.C., crime is down, in large measure, because resources have been extended, law enforcement, the National Guard, the DEA, the ATF, the FBI, have come in to flood the zone.
This is a problem in cities all across our country. You look at New York. 80 percent of those who commit crimes with a gun are released back out onto the street. Zohran Mamdani talking about getting rid of the gang database? Under Raise the Age, 16- and 17-year-olds are using guns in the commission of a crime, and they're getting a slap on the wrist, and released back out into the streets. That's why gangs are hiring them. We have to take this seriously. The problem has not been the police. It has been politicians, like Zohran Mamdani, like Andrew Cuomo, like Kathy Hochul, who support cashless bail, Raise the Age, defunding the police. That has created this crisis that we have seen all across our country.
COLLINS: We started this show, asking your Democratic colleague in the House, about the release of these new Jeffrey Epstein documents tonight. Have you looked at them? And what is -- what is your view of what was released tonight, and the letter that the White House has said doesn't exist, but seems to purportedly show President Trump's signature at the bottom of it?
LAWLER: So look, I have said from the very beginning, anyone who committed a criminal offense, as part of this entire Epstein scandal, should be prosecuted. Anybody who was involved in Jeffrey Epstein's crimes against these women, these victims of rape, of sexual assault, of abuse, should be prosecuted.
The FBI and the Department of Justice have had all of these records for years. Our committee, the Oversight Committee on the -- House Oversight Committee has already released over 30,000 documents. Last week, I supported--
COLLINS: Yes, but a lot of that was already published.
LAWLER: --I supported a resolution, a rule, to authorize the committee to release this, to continue to push them to release these documents. The document you're reporting on tonight came from those subpoenas that were issued by the committee. So this -- all of this information is going to come out. It's going to be made available to the public.
But as I've said, the challenge here, what I see, is that this has been politicized in such a way, to make it all about politics, as opposed to the victims. Anybody who has been abused by Jeffrey Epstein, or anyone that has been involved in the human trafficking, or the sexual assault, and exploitation, of these women, these children, should be prosecuted. Period.
COLLINS: Yes, and the women have asked for the documents to be released.
Congressman Mike Lawler, thanks for your time tonight.
LAWLER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next here. Everyone knows the first rule of Fight Club is that you don't talk about Fight Club. But a lot of people are talking about what happened, this weekend, at an exclusive MAGA-aligned club, between two of President Trump's top economic officials, this weekend.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: An exclusive MAGA-aligned club, here in Washington, nearly turned into Fight Club, last week, when two of President Trump's top economic aides nearly came to blows.
Sources tell us that the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, threatened to punch the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, that's Bill Pulte, who you see here, during a dinner at the Executive Club, which was created by Trump allies, as a place for members of the administration to go and hang out.
And on one of the opening nights of the club, we're told that Bessent accused Pulte of trashing him to Trump, which I'm told by a source is true, Pulte did convey negative views of Bessent to the President. And someone who overheard the exchange told me that Bessent said that Pulte, Gets the F out of here, or I do. Except, Bessent used the actual expletive.
The fight was ultimately broken up as Bessent pushed Pulte, to quote, "Take the matter outside." Neither actually left the dinner, and instead were just separated for the rest of the evening.
[22:00:00]
And of course, this is not the first time that Bessent has clashed with another Trump adviser. You'll recall, when he got into a shouting match with Elon Musk, over who was running the IRS and making decisions over there.
But for Pulte himself, who Bessent was in this fight with, he has pretty big sway with the President, right now, and has been elevated after he accused that Federal Reserve Governor, Lisa Cook, of committing mortgage fraud, which the Justice Department is now investigating. We'll stay tuned on that.
Thanks for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
