Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Signs Epstein Files Bill After Trying To Kill It; DOJ Admits Grand Jury Never Reviewed Final Comey Indictment; Democratic Lawmakers Urge Troops To "Refuse Illegal Orders." Aired 9-10p ET
Aired November 19, 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]
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --I continued my conversation with Speaker Pelosi, in the National Statuary Hall in the Capitol. We'll bring you more of that this week.
Also, one more piece of breaking news tonight. Harvard school paper, The Crimson, now reporting that former University President, Larry Summers, has stepped aside from teaching duties. This follows earlier reporting, also in The Crimson, that Harvard is investigating yet again his ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: The 30-day clock is now ticking, as President Trump just announced that he has now signed the Epstein bills -- bill into law, and also just announced when he's going to be meeting with Zohran Mamdani at the White House.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
We do have some major breaking news, as we come on the air tonight, because President Trump has now signed the Epstein files bill into law, the final step to force the Justice Department to turn over everything it has on Epstein, within the next 30 days.
Part of the President's lengthy statement, I'll read it here, where he said, quote, "Jeffrey Epstein, who was charged by the Trump Justice Department in 2019 (Not the Democrats)" with an exclamation point, "was a lifelong Democrat, donated Thousands of Dollars to Democrat Politicians, and was deeply associated with many well-known Democrat figures."
The President goes on to write, "Perhaps the truth about these Democrats, and their associations with Jeffrey Epstein, will soon be revealed, because I HAVE JUST SIGNED THE BILL TO RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES."
Trump says, As everyone knows, I asked Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, to pass this Bill in the House and Senate.
That, of course, came, after he fought the bill. But he concluded with, This latest Hoax will backfire on the Democrats just as all of the rest have. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Of course, this is the bill that the President spent months trying to kill. He is now taking credit for its passage, on Capitol Hill, after it became clear that it was going to pass at least the House.
While it's a moment that so many of Jeffrey Epstein's survivors that you've heard from here, on this show, have waited so long for. It is notable the President did not mention the women who fought for this bill's passage in his post tonight.
The fact also that the President didn't take the opportunity to sign it today before cameras, is notable, given how many bill signings and executive orders he has regularly turned into lengthy Oval Office events and press conferences.
We did hear from the Attorney General on this matter earlier. Pam Bondi was asked, multiple times, how her department plans to handle this process, of turning over these materials to Congress, given the massive amount of data on Epstein, that the Justice Department has.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Does the new investigation by the Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney prevent the department from releasing all of the remaining files?
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: So we have released 33,000 -- over 33,000 Epstein documents to the Hill, and will continue to follow the law and to have maximum transparency.
REPORTER: What are you doing here over the next 30 days as we understand it?
BONDI: We will continue to follow the law with maximum transparency while protecting victims.
REPORTER: When you say follow the law, Attorney General, do you mean that you will provide all the files by 30 days?
BONDI: We will follow the law. The law passed both chambers, last evening. It has not yet been signed but -- but we will continue to follow the law, again, while protecting victims, but also providing maximum transparency.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Attorney General Bondi declined to give any explanation on how the plan to follow the law is any different from what the department has been doing already, especially given it was just two months ago, when the FBI Director told Congress this, about those same Epstein files in their possession.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: We have released where Mr. -- where President Trump's names in the Epstein files and everybody else, and all credible information that we are legally allowed to release has been released.
Pursuant to Mr. Acosta's collection of information based on the search warrants, that's all we have in our possession.
REP. DAN GOLDMAN (D-NY): I understand. And I'm asking you, that stuff.
PATEL: That's all we got.
We are releasing as much as legally allowed.
We are providing everything we can legally provide.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The Attorney General did try to explain why. Just months after her department declared that there was no evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties, she announced those very investigations that President Trump demanded last week.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What changed, since then, that you launched this investigation?
BONDI: Information that has come for -- information. There's information that -- new information, additional information. And, again, we will continue to follow the law to investigate any leads.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That would seem to differ from what the President has been saying, over the course of the last few months, as his team has been trying to make the entire Epstein saga go away.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: It's really a Democrat hoax.
It's a Democrat hoax. It's just a hoax. The whole Epstein thing is a Democrat hoax.
I call it the Epstein hoax.
I don't understand why the Jeffrey Epstein case would be of interest to anybody. It's pretty boring stuff. It's sordid, but it's boring.
(END VIDEO CLIP) COLLINS: The whiplash over Trump, Bondi and Patel's hyping, and then downplaying, and then hyping again, the Epstein investigations, is even being felt by some of the President's biggest supporters in MAGA.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, HOST, "THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE" PODCAST: Heard it's a hoax. And then all of a sudden, he's going to release the files.
(LAUGHTER)
ROGAN: Well, I thought there was no files.
BRIAN SIMPSON, COMEDIAN: Man.
ROGAN: He wants an investigation now.
SIMPSON: Listen.
ROGAN: Like, what is going on?
TIM DILLON, HOST, "THE TIM DILLON SHOW" PODCAST: This is the end of the Trump administration. This is the beginning of the lame-duck presidency. It's obvious to everyone.
He will trail off. He will get older. He's going to -- he's adorned the White House in gold. Epstein is going to suck the oxygen out of a lot of this.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I want to start tonight with CNN's Senior Justice Correspondent, Evan Perez, who is among those questioning the Attorney General today.
And Evan, I think she said multiple times, they are going to follow the law. What stood out to you being inside that room today with Pam Bondi?
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: I think the whiplash that they are feeling in that building, because they really have stuck their necks out, to try to defend the President, in the sense that, they've gone out and they said, There's nothing to see here. We've closed the books.
And then, they were trying to persuade members of Congress. You reported this, right? Lauren Boebert and among others--
COLLINS: To strongarm them.
PEREZ: Yes, that's another way to say it. But certainly they were there to persuade them to say, Look, if there's stuff you want to see and for us to brief you on, we are here to do that.
And then, the President goes out and says, We want a new investigation -- a new -- I wanted another investigation. And they do that. And then he sort of pulled the rug -- pulls the rug from out of under them, on Sunday, by saying, OK, now vote for this bill, that he was using the Justice Department, all along, to try to fight.
So, they are feeling the whiplash, and now they're kind of left in a very difficult place. Pam Bondi is now, you know, obviously there is an investigation. And so, she has to navigate how to release documents within those 30 days that they're going to comply with the law, but also satisfy the rules that are, you cannot release documents that may be relevant to an ongoing investigation.
COLLINS: Well, and so the President signed it today. 30 days from today, would be December 18th. And so, do we have any idea what the Justice Department's game plan is, in terms of what they're going to release, if they have more than 300 gigabytes of data and material?
PEREZ: Well, one of the things that we know is that some of the document -- the documents have already been redacted, for instance, for to remove the names of victims, anything that would -- that would -- that would harm victims, has already been done.
The big question is, can they release documents related to some of the uncharged people -- people who associated with Epstein, but who are not accused of any wrongdoing. There is a law that is supposed to protect their privacy. And so, that's kind of the big difference here.
Some of the documents that -- the kind of things that you saw this week from -- that were released by the Democrats, right? And, obviously, Larry Summers is an example of what happens. Those people still associated with Epstein, even though he had been convicted in Florida, continued to communicate with him. They're not accused of any wrongdoing. And so, now all of those communications, I think, are fair game to be released.
COLLINS: Yes, and that's a good point, because I think Mike Johnson was one of the leading voices, saying that other people could get swept up in this.
PEREZ: It's true.
COLLINS: Potentially just be embarrassed by this. I mean, Larry Summers, it's reporting tonight, he's not going to be teaching at Harvard anymore while he's under investigation. That's according to The Harvard Crimson.
But, I mean, that is exactly what President is pointing to, in his very lengthy post tonight. As he's saying, This is going to be way worse for Larry Summers and for Democrats than for me. I mean, he seems to want that information to come out.
PEREZ: Well, yes, I mean, we don't know, because there's got to be -- there are going to be mentions of President Trump in these additional documents. We know that that is actually one of the problems here for him.
But the issue is, are there other people who, again, have not been credibly accused of any wrongdoing, and do their lives get upended in that? And you could argue, right, that if you knew he was a convicted sex offender, and you continued to associate with him, then what happens? You knew what was going to happen eventually.
COLLINS: Yes.
Evan Perez, thank you for that reporting.
We'll see what the Justice Department does, now that that 30-day clock is ticking
Our political sources are here as well tonight.
[21:10:00]
Karen Finney is the former senior adviser to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Scott Jennings is a former senior adviser to Senator Mitch McConnell. He's also the Author of a new book. It is "A Revolution of Common Sense: How Donald Trump Stormed Washington and Fought for Western Civilization."
And Scott, the President announced tonight he signed this bill. We showed how many times he signed other bills on camera. Why don't, you think, he signed this one in front of reporters?
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO MITCH MCCONNELL, HOST, "THE SCOTT JENNINGS RADIO SHOW" ON SRN, AUTHOR, "A REVOLUTION OF COMMON SENSE": Well, look, I mean, I think that he just wants to get this over with at this point. I mean, it's been a little bit of a whiplash on, where they've been on it. And so, he says, OK, fine, vote for it. All the Republicans vote for it. And now it's going to come out. I don't know -- I don't know that you need any fanfare around it. I did read his statement, just before we came on.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISER, HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, DNC: Kaitlan, I don't hear Scott.
JENNINGS: And his position has been quite clear, and I agree with him.
The hoax here is that Democrats have tried to make this a story about Trump and Epstein. But the reality is it may turn up being a story about Democrats and Epstein. All the people we know about recently, Larry Summers, Hakeem Jeffries fundraising, Plaskett communicating, they're all Democrats. And what we know is Trump got rid of Epstein out of his life, but Democrats continued to cozy up to him. So, I guess I'm quite interested to see what other Democrats turn up in these files.
COLLINS: Well, I do think one thing, Scott, though, that stood out. And we've heard from some Democrats who say anyone should be investigated on this.
FINNEY: Kaitlan-- COLLINS: But in the President's lengthy Truth Social post, he said, As everyone knows, I asked Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, to pass this Bill in the House and Senate.
He tried to fight it, Scott. The White House didn't believe this bill should be passed initially, until, basically, Republicans remained united and they had the votes to do so.
JENNINGS: Yes, look, he finally just said, Fine, you guys want to vote for it? Vote for it. And guess what? Every Republican did, except for one, I think. I think, though -- if he had not changed his position, it would have gotten a lot of no-votes, but his word did mean a lot to the conference.
And so, look, I'm glad it passed. If transparency is what everybody wants, and the Democrats want transparency? Let's have transparency. Let's see what other Democrat contacts Epstein had, long after Donald Trump got rid of him out of his life.
COLLINS: Well, Karen, what's your view on that? I mean, the President said he would sign it on Monday. He has signed it tonight. Isn't this what Democrats said they wanted?
FINNEY: Actually, most importantly, it's what the survivors have wanted. I mean, let's -- this should not be a partisan issue. This is about these survivors, and getting justice for them. That's something I've long said. Scott, you have too. And so, sure, Democrats want transparency. It's, I think, it's why it was a bipartisan issue at a point.
But the whiplash and the tread marks that folks at the DOJ have over, as you've pointed out. I mean, Trump was in a very different position. All of this, he could have released on day one. Or, on day one, he could have said, Let's make sure that the appropriate names are redacted and then release it.
Most importantly, though, now, hopefully, the Department of Justice will move forward and release the information. I appreciate that Pam Bondi said, Transparently as possible. Let's see if she holds to that.
I mean, again, I think we're -- if we really do get to see the fullness of the documents, I think there're going to be a lot of people, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, business leaders, you name it, who are -- who are likely, either, somewhere from embarrassed to maybe engaged in criminal activity that we'll find out.
COLLINS: Well, and Scott, on that front, the -- you heard what the Attorney General said today about what she'll release. But MAGA is what was demanding this. They were the ones who were so upset when Pam Bondi and Kash Patel, and everyone, came out and said, There's nothing more to see here. I mean, will they be satisfied, if this Justice Department doesn't release everything in the next 30 days?
JENNINGS: Well, I hope they are, because the President gave them what they wanted, which was the release of the files. But Pam Bondi, as the Attorney General, does have a responsibility to uphold all the laws. And if there are other laws in play here that do protect certain people from having information released? She's got to look at that too.
So, I don't know how they're going to end up synthesizing what just passed, with what's already on the books. But I do think just because this law passed, it doesn't necessarily nullify other laws on privacy. So, I'm sure they'll do their level best to be as transparent as possible.
I don't know what volume that means that will have to be held back. But it sounds like most of what they've got is going to come out. And this is what certain people around the President who supported him wanted. So, I hope they're satisfied with it. He, after all, called for its passage and signed it into law.
COLLINS: Yes, and Karen, can we talk about the other news that came out tonight?
Because one, we had been waiting and waiting to see when the President was going to sign this bill. The White House had not responded to any of our questions about that all day, until he posted tonight.
But then he also posted that he has a date now set for his meeting with Zohran Mamdani, that they are going to be meeting, inside the Oval Office, 48 hours from now -- less than 48 hours from now, on Friday, here at the White House.
I wonder what you're going to be watching for in that meeting.
FINNEY: Well--
COLLINS: Be on fireworks.
[21:15:00]
FINNEY: Yes. Look, sure, but let's just -- most importantly, any president should be willing to meet with the new Mayor of New York City, which is one of, you know, obviously the largest city in the country, and a city where, frankly, Trump himself has a number of business interests. And of course, he should meet with Zohran.
And I think the Mayor is -- was wise to reach out and -- Mayor-elect, I should say, was wise to reach out, to request the meeting, because he's got to get a sense of, whether or not Trump is going to be someone he can work with or not.
I suspect what he's going to find is that Trump is going to be hostile, and nasty, and negative, given the way he treated him during the campaign, and probably not someone who cares about doing anything to help with affordability in New York City.
Because Donald Trump, as we've seen, he views the country in terms of who's a blue person, and who's a red person. And he was certainly willing, during the government shutdown, to try to take measures that he thought would hurt certain types of people over other types of people.
But it's certainly an important meeting. So, I'll be looking for the sort of red -- red, blue talk coming out of Trump.
COLLINS: Scott, what about you?
I mean, in his post announcing it, he referred to him as the communist mayor.
Obviously, as Karen notes, he hasn't actually started yet. And he is a Democratic socialist.
But what are your expectations, for this Oval Office meeting, with Trump and Mamdani?
JENNINGS: Well, I'm glad Mayor-elect Mamdani is going, because he's never had a job before. So, Trump is going to have an opportunity now to explain to him how the world works.
Number one, you're not going to be arresting Prime Minister Netanyahu, when he comes to New York City. So, you can put that out of your mind.
COLLINS: You can't say he's never had a job before, Scott.
FINNEY: Had a job.
JENNINGS: Number -- number two -- number two. You need to cooperate with federal law enforcement and federal immigration, when we come into the city, to try to enforce federal -- existing federal immigration law. So, you need to put that out of your mind as well.
I hope the President explains to him how the world works. We have federal laws and we have international diplomacy, and those things are handled by the President, not the Mayor of New York City.
FINNEY: Maybe Mayor Mamdani could explain to Donald Trump why his party lost so abysmally in the elections, earlier this month. He can explain -- Trump said, he didn't really seem to understand this affordability talking point. Maybe Mamdani can help explain that to him.
COLLINS: Scott?
JENNINGS: No, I don't think we need any explanations about communism and socialism, Karen. And if you're -- if you're so excited about a Democrat winning the Mayor of New York City, and this is some pinnacle of a political dominance for you? God bless.
But it's New York City.
FINNEY: I didn't--
JENNINGS: And the guy's a Democrat. He lost a third of his party to Andrew Cuomo, one of the worst people in the city for god's sake.
FINNEY: I-- JENNINGS: I'm not sure how good he really was.
FINNEY: --merely said that I thought -- I merely said that I thought every -- a president should be willing to meet with the new Mayor of New York City, which is the largest city in this country.
COLLINS: Scott, one thing I do think could be interesting is, obviously they are completely different, in terms of how they ran on this. But they -- both Mamdani and Trump did, in general, run on the idea of affordability. I mean, that was the heart of Mamdani's campaign. That was the heart of President Trump's campaign, last year, and that's why that has become such a focus on prices and where affordability stands in this moment right now.
JENNINGS: Yes, look, I hope and believe that they will talk about that. I'm quite certain they have different ideas on how to achieve it.
But I actually do agree with Karen. It's good for the President and the Mayor of New York City, the mayor of all big cities, it's good for them to have a relationship.
What I am worried about is what we have seen out of big-city Democrats and blue-state Democrats, from the time Trump came back into office, is resistance to everything. Resistance to enforcing federal immigration law. Resistance to working with the President on virtually anything.
So, I hope they have a productive meeting. But if he acts like the rest of the Democrats in local office in this country? We're in for a bunch of resistance, out of New York City, when he ought to be looking for cooperation. Because, as you know, Trump is a New Yorker. He cares about New York City, and he wants the best for New York City. There's possibility here for cooperation, if Mamdani will let it happen. But I'm afraid that's not what his base that put him in office wants him to do.
COLLINS: We'll see what it looks like. It is going to be must-see TV. That's for sure.
Scott Jennings. Karen Finney. Great to have both of you here tonight.
And speaking of things that you had to kind of see to believe. Inside the courtroom today, people who witnessed it firsthand described it as excruciatingly awkward. The judge in the James Comey case is getting Trump's handpicked U.S. attorney to acknowledge she did make a shocking mistake before the grand jury. It's not the only reason, though, that Lindsey Halligan's case against Comey could be in serious jeopardy, tonight.
Plus, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett will join me live, on the breaking news that President Trump just signed that bill to release the Epstein files. Now, what's next from the Trump Justice Department?
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Justice Department is defending its handling of those grand jury proceedings, against the former FBI Director, James Comey, after the prosecutor, who brought the case, made a pretty stunning admission, inside court to the judge today, that the full grand jury never actually reviewed the final indictment against Comey, which accuses him of lying to Congress.
There was silence in the federal courtroom, as Lindsey Halligan, who had never prosecuted a case, before she became this district's top federal prosecutor in September, told the judge that she didn't present the new indictment to the grand jury, after it declined to approve one of the three counts. The second and final indictment was simply altered to reflect the remaining charges, and sent straight to the grand jury's foreperson to sign instead.
Now Comey's lawyer seized on that revelation in court today, arguing that it means there is, quote, "No indictment" here.
[21:25:00]
The Justice Department, though, has been defending Lindsey Halligan, and in a new filing tonight, they write that, The U.S. Attorney did not misstate the law, the grand jury was not misled, and the transcript shows a routine, regular presentation of the indictment.
My legal sources tonight are:
Harry Litman, a former U.S. attorney and Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
And Liz Oyer, who was a former Justice Department pardon attorney and federal public defender.
And Harry, I think the big question is, how big of a deal is this? Or what did you make of what happened inside that courtroom today?
HARRY LITMAN, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Yes, as a matter of prosecutorial practice, a huge deal. Just it was a sort of silent gasp in the courtroom. No one had ever heard of this. The magistrate, two days ago, had said this would be uncharted territory.
When you look at what the DOJ has filed tonight, there's a chance, based on the law, that they can wriggle out of it.
But I'll tell you what's a really big deal, and you just cited it, when the DOJ said, she didn't make any misstatements to the jury. Because we -- to the grand jury. Because we know she did, at least the magistrate said so, about some really important matters.
COLLINS: So explain to those of us--
LITMAN: Yes.
COLLINS: --who didn't go to law school, why that is such a big deal, the way she handled that instead. LITMAN: Because you have a grand jury being misinformed about the Fifth Amendment rights of Jim Comey.
And also, she said, Oh, even if there's not enough here, we've got other stuff. But the grand jury, of course, must indict, based only on what they hear from her. And why that really matters, Kaitlan, is because the law says, that means you can throw out the indictment with prejudice, unless they can show it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
And here, even the two counts they approved were by a razor-thin margin, and that, I think, really has a strong chance, as well as the selective prosecution motion itself, of being what -- you know, is the actual death blow.
COLLINS: Yes.
And Liz, for anyone who's been covering this Justice Department, or this White House, knows, there's huge division among the leadership there, right now, and all these people, all these attorneys in President Trump's orbit, because he has so many people who just go to him directly.
LIZ OYER, FORMER DOJ PARDON ATTORNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: Lindsey Halligan has a really close relationship with him.
Pam Bondi defended her appointment as interim U.S. Attorney, last week. I want everyone to listen to what A.G. Bondi had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BONDI: Lindsey is a great U.S. attorney.
The Comey indictment is going to be just fine. I've also signed on to that, backing up what Lindsey Halligan did, because they're coming after her. I read all the transcripts. She's doing a great job.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The judge today seemed to think otherwise, and according to the court reporters, seemed pretty exasperated with Lindsey Halligan. Was speaking to her directly, at some points today.
OYER: Yes, the President is listening to the people who are telling him what he wants to hear, not the people who know what they're actually talking about. And he's empowering those people, including Lindsey Halligan, who are going to pursue the outcomes that he wants, even if they are not soundly based in fact and law, which this prosecution clearly is not.
And what is really striking to me is how many people in this orbit are willing to put their law licenses on the line, to pursue the political agendas of the President.
Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, apparently instructed the lawyer who was in court today, not to answer certain questions, which is really striking, given the history of this Justice Department, having done this in other cases, told lawyers not to be candid with the courts if that was inconsistent with achieving the political objectives of the President.
COLLINS: Yes, that moment--
LITMAN: Can I make a quick follow-up point to that?
COLLINS: I'd love for you -- yes.
LITMAN: Because you also have to consider Pam Bondi, because she just said she reviewed everything. And these misstatements, they're in redacted form. We just know they're contours. But if she reviewed those statements, and they're as grievous as the judge seems to think they were? Then it's terribly improper of her to say, I've looked at it, and you can go ahead. She's, in effect, authorizing it.
COLLINS: But I mean, so are we going to see -- is this hanging by a thread, at this point? I mean, how would you describe the strength of the vitality of the Comey case, right now? Is it going to -- is it going to make it?
LITMAN: No, it's in a death spiral. And the question is, what will be the coup de grace? They have by next week. And another judge may say, she wasn't qualified to be appointed.
And then the magistrate judge said, a 11 points of misconduct. Now we have 12. Many of them, DOJ is saying, You shouldn't dismiss for that reason. But a few of them, like these misstatements, like the vindictive prosecution, which seemed overwhelming in court today, before this whole gobsmacking moment, those would be -- and yes, this case is not going to see trial.
OYER: We have three different judges, at this point, who have weighed in with very serious concerns about the legitimacy of this case.
LITMAN: Yes.
OYER: And the judge now has a menu of options, a literal menu of options--
LITMAN: Yes.
OYER: --for grounds to potentially dismiss this indictment.
LITMAN: With prejudice.
COLLINS: Wow. We'll see if that happens.
You put it pretty bluntly there, Harry.
[21:30:00]
Harry Litman. Liz Oyer. Great to have you both here. So, thank you for that. We'll be watching what happens. And I want you to stay with us tonight, because on the other side of a quick break that we're going to take here, I'm going to be joined by the Democratic congresswoman, Jasmine Crockett of Texas, about this breaking news on Trump signing the Epstein files bill tonight. She's a lawyer herself, and member of the House Oversight Committee. Her take on what happens now, especially from the Justice Department.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the President's signature on the Epstein bill has now made its way there. It has started a 30-day clock, for the Justice Department to release the Epstein files they have in their possession.
[21:35:00]
That comes, as the top Democrat in the Senate is making clear he'll keep the pressure on the Justice Department to stick to that timeline.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): This will not and cannot be the end of the work. We'll keep the pressure up, pressure for the President to sign, and then pressure on the DOJ to release the full unredacted files. No hiding, no game-playing, no covering up. Pressure to make sure the documents are released in their entirety and not warped by a corrupt DOJ.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight sits on the House Oversight Committee. Democratic congresswoman, Jasmine Crockett of Texas.
And thank you for being here.
Because now this clock has started, with the President signing this bill, behind closed doors tonight.
Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, was asked, earlier today, about releasing everything. She repeatedly said, We will follow the law.
Do you expect that you'll get all of these documents by December 18th?
REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): I do not. I absolutely don't expect that, especially when you start to say things like, Pam Bondi said she will follow the law.
Because, the only thing that we have seen consistently, out of this administration, whether we're talking about the failed prosecution of Comey? And I'm saying failed, because that is absolutely what I anticipate is going to happen. We know that they are always doing the opposite of following the law.
Every time we look at those court orders that they have ignored? They have literally put us in this constitutional crisis in this country, because for the first time, we have another branch of government that seemingly thinks that what other branches have to say. Well, you know what? That's advisory. It's not anything that they have to follow.
So, it will be interesting to see what happens. But I don't expect transparency.
COLLINS: The President said tonight he thinks it's going to end up being really embarrassing for Democrats. Are you worried that it's going to be embarrassing for the Democrats?
CROCKETT: I'm not worried at all. I can tell you one thing, I ain't never worried about my name being in the Epstein files. So that's one thing that we can talk about.
Number two. For me, it's not partisan. As somebody that worked in the criminal justice system, I understand what it is to sit across from a victim. I understand their stories. I understand their trauma. And I understand the lasting effects.
Wrong is wrong, right is right, and I think that that is what we are missing in this administration. It seems like he consistently wants to give a pass, so long as someone is a follower of his. That's what we saw with the January 6ers that he decided that he was going to pardon. And then, even after they got in trouble again, he decided to pardon them again. He seemingly only wants to go after people that he looks at as if they are opposition.
We, in this country, what justice looks like is going after whoever is wrong, no matter their race, no matter their political affiliation, and no matter how much money they do or don't have in the bank account.
COLLINS: So you're saying, Yes, you don't care even if it--
CROCKETT: I don't care.
COLLINS: --does embarrass Democrats?
CROCKETT: I don't care. That's not what this is about. To me, it's not political. We need to make sure that we understand how it was that this was able to take place, and we need to make sure that we tear down those structures.
We have an obligation, as legislators, to make sure that we do better by the people in this country. We need to make sure that there are no other children that end up in similar circumstances. Whether Jeffrey Epstein is alive or dead, we need to make sure -- because it wasn't just one man. This was a system, a sophisticated system, that was set up. And so, we need to make sure that there are no other victims, going forward.
COLLINS: One Democrat who's been on defense over Jeffrey Epstein is Stacey Plaskett.
CROCKETT: Yes.
COLLINS: She represents the Virgin Islands. She was texting with Jeffrey Epstein the day of Michael Cohen's hearing. Her questions pretty closely followed the text messages between the two of them, to ask about Rhona Graff, Trump's longtime assistant.
You were defending her today -- in recent days.
CROCKETT: Yesterday.
COLLINS: Yesterday.
And you talked about Republicans taking money from a Jeffrey Epstein. Here's what you said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CROCKETT: Who also took money from somebody named Jeffrey Epstein, as I had my team dig in very quickly. Mitt Romney. The NRCC. Lee Zeldin. George Bush. WinRed. McCain-Palin. Rick Lazio.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You mentioned Lee Zeldin there. He's now a Cabinet Secretary. He responded and said it was actually a Dr. Jeffrey Epstein, who's a doctor that doesn't have any relation to the convicted sex trafficker. Unfortunate for that doctor, but that is who donated to a prior campaign of his.
Do you want to correct the record on the people that you mentioned there?
CROCKETT: Listen, I never said that it was that Jeffrey Epstein. Just so that people understand, when you make a donation, your picture is not there. And because they decided to spring this on us, in real- time, I wanted the Republicans to think about what could potentially happen, because I knew that they didn't even try to go through the FEC.
So my team, what they did is they Googled, and that is specifically why I said a Jeffrey Epstein. Unlike Republicans, I at least don't go out and just tell lies.
Because it was not the same one? That's fine. But when Lee Zeldin had something to say, all he had to say was, it was a different Jeffrey Epstein. He admitted that he did receive donations from a Jeffrey Epstein. So, at least I wasn't trying to mislead people.
[21:40:00]
Now, have I dug in to find out who this doctor is? I have not. So, I will trust and take what he says, is that it wasn't that Jeffrey Epstein. But I was not attempting to mislead anybody. I literally had maybe 20 minutes, before I had to do that debate.
COLLINS: Yes, but people might see that and say, Well, you're trying to make it sound like he took money from--
CROCKETT: I did not know.
COLLINS: --a registered sex offender. CROCKETT: No, but I literally did not know. When you search FEC files, and that's what I had my team to do. I texted them and I said, Listen, we're going up. They are saying that she took donations--
COLLINS: Right, but someone might say, Well, your team should have done the homework to make sure it wasn't the convicted sex trafficker.
CROCKETT: Not -- within 20 minutes, you could not find that out, not from just doing a quick search on FEC. So, number one, I made sure that I was clear that it was a Jeffrey Epstein. But I never said that it was specifically that Jeffrey Epstein, because I knew that we would -- we would need more time to really dig in.
COLLINS: Well, Stacey Plaskett was texting the Jeffrey Epstein that we're talking about.
CROCKETT: Correct.
COLLINS: You voted against the censure for her, to remove her from her committees.
We pressed the Minority Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, on this last night.
Maybe you don't think she should be removed from her committees.
CROCKETT: Correct.
COLLINS: But why do so many Democrats seem unwilling to say, It's inappropriate to be texting with a registered sex offender about what you're going to ask a witness at a congressional hearing?
CROCKETT: So, I'm not going to necessarily say that that's the case. Now, this is somebody that was a former prosecutor.
Now, I haven't sat down and talked about all the specifics of why Stacey was doing what she was doing. I know that when she got up and she spoke, she talked about the fact that this was one of her constituents.
At the end of the day, what I know of prosecutors is that they are typically talking to co-defendants. They are typically talking to the people that have the best information.
And what you had was you had the former attorney for the President, that was sitting there, and honestly, we knew, or she knew, or at least Jeffrey Epstein presented, that he was very cozy with the President. He had more information, registered sex offender or not.
The bigger question is, why is it that the President was so cozy with a registered sex offender, even after he ultimately ended up with some of his convictions, and seemingly he had absolutely been on the plane with him. We know about the birthday card.
The bigger question is, why is the President of the United States, not the one that is in the hot seat, for his relationship, instead of us saying, Oh, you know what? We're going to take her off of her committee, because he decided to text her.
Stacey didn't initiate that chain. Jeffrey initiated that chain. And she took the information, just like if somebody texted me information--
COLLINS: Yes, but she was responding and saying, What are you talking about? Quick, I'm up next.
CROCKETT: Correct.
COLLINS: And then her questions were about Rhona.
But do you think that was inappropriate? I mean, would you text with someone--
CROCKETT: I--
COLLINS: --who's a registered sex offender--
CROCKETT: I mean, listen, I--
COLLINS: --about what you should ask?
CROCKETT: I honestly know that he had never been convicted of any federal crimes at that time.
COLLINS: But he had been in jail already. And he got--
CROCKETT: He had -- he had been--
COLLINS: --he got a plea deal, an easy deal.
CROCKETT: And my deal was this. The Republicans are constantly texting with a 34-count convicted felon. So if it's OK for them to text him at any point in time, then I'm not going to say that that's right or wrong, especially to the extent that you're talking about kicking someone off their committee. Were they talking about -- were they sexting? Was it a matter of her being involved in the pedophilia? No. It was nothing like that.
She was trying to understand -- let's say Jeffrey Epstein said, You know what? I have these pictures, these salacious pictures, because I know that the President got down and did these things.
Do you think that it would be inappropriate for her to ask about those things if he said he had personal knowledge--
COLLINS: I think -- I think--
CROCKETT: --and it's important?
COLLINS: --that context matters. But obviously, it seemed like he was -- he was helping her.
But I do want to ask you before you before you go tonight. Because, in your home state, we've talked about redistricting there. CROCKETT: Yes.
COLLINS: The federal judge saying that they have to use that 2021 map, yesterday. I mean, this is what truly launched a redistricting arms race--
CROCKETT: Yes.
COLLINS: --basically, in this nation. I wonder when you -- when you look at that ruling stance, do you think the blue states that have launched their own redistricting should stand down on it?
CROCKETT: No, I don't. Because guess what? The President hasn't stood down, and the President started this. So if he wanted to start it, and Democrats decide that they're going to finish it? Then so be it.
At the end of the day. Number one, this is not a final ruling. We know that Texas has decided that they are going to appeal this up to the Supreme Court, Trump's Supreme Court. So, it's not final. That's number one.
Number two. We know that he now is applying pressure on Florida. We know that they were twisting the arms of those in Indiana, to the extent that one of the Indiana Republicans ended up being doxed here recently. We know that they took a seat away in Missouri. We know that they went to North Carolina, after North Carolina, in my opinion, illegally took three seats last time. They took another seat out of North Carolina. We know that he tried to go to South Carolina. We know that, as it relates, right now, they're taking one or two seats out of Ohio.
So no, I don't think that we should stop. I encourage Virginia to move forward. They have a mandate. We know that on November 4th, they overwhelmingly decided that Democrats should run their legislature.
COLLINS: Yes.
CROCKETT: And I encourage Maryland and anybody else that can get into the game to get into the game.
COLLINS: And we'll be waiting to see if you get into the Senate game. You haven't decided, right?
CROCKETT: I haven't decided.
COLLINS: OK. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, thank you for your time tonight.
CROCKETT: Absolutely.
[21:45:00]
COLLINS: And up next here. You saw that video probably going around today. It was a group of Democratic lawmakers urging current military troops to disobey any illegal orders they get from the President. It's caused huge backlash inside the White House. We're going to speak to one of them, next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, several Democratic lawmakers, who once served in the military, or the intelligence community, are calling on active-duty service members to disobey any illegal orders they might receive, from President Trump and his administration.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): This administration is pitting our uniformed military.
SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): And intelligence community professionals.
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): Against American citizens.
REP. CHRIS DELUZIO (D-PA): Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad.
CROW: But from right here at home
KELLY: Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.
SLOTKIN: You can refuse illegal orders.
DELUZIO: You must refuse illegal orders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: Now, that video prompted some furious reaction, not just from inside the White House, but also from the second-in-command at the Department of Justice, this evening.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I'm not convicting anybody tonight on this show.
But I will tell you something, and that is, this is a disgusting and inappropriate display of supposed leadership from the Democrat Party. These men and women should not have described themselves as former members of the military, or former members of the intelligence community. They should have described themselves as Democrats who lost, and Democrats who don't like the result of last November.
Because there is no laws being violated. There are no orders that are being given that are unconstitutional or illegal.
And the fact that these folks came out and encouraged our young men and women, who are all -- many of them armed, to defy court orders, is something that we have to take a very close look at. And I promise you, Sean, that we will.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is one of the Democratic lawmakers in that video. And of course, that is Congressman Jason Crow of Colorado, a veteran himself.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
What do you make of the Deputy Attorney General saying that they are going to take a very close look at you and your colleagues?
CROW: Well, it's wild to me that Trump world gets really bent out of shape whenever anybody, whether it's me or anyone else for that matter, reminds people that they have to follow the law. Whether that's military, law enforcement, ICE officers, people in the administration. If we say you have an obligation to follow the law and the Constitution, they take really great exception to that. And frankly, that's telling.
COLLINS: Why did you feel obligated to make a video, reminding military troops that they should refuse illegal orders?
CROW: Before I was going to deploy with my platoon to Iraq, in 2003, I went through an extensive process to train these paratroopers on marksmanship, on room clearing, on small unit tactics, but also on law.
We put these young men and women in very, very difficult positions, all the time, where they have to make split-second decisions and interpret situations in what's lawful, what's moral and what's not. That's why we train. That's why we talk about it. That's why we demystify those conversations.
So, what we're doing is we're starting the process of that discussion, and we're reminding those young men and women that they have obligations not to any individual, not to any political party, but to the Constitution and to the rule of law. That is their obligation.
This President has made a series of very, very disturbing comments that would indicate that he is threatening to use the military in an unlawful way. So, it's really important that we have a conversation about what people need to do, if that happens.
COLLINS: Well, and of course, you got a Bronze Star for your time there, in 2003, obviously, I think is a good thing to remind people of. But have you heard from members of the military currently that are worried that they might get an illegal order? I mean, I just think that's a question of -- to what prompted this.
CROW: Yes, no, I absolutely have. I have a lot of friends, a lot of connections. Folks are very worried.
I mean, this President has put our military in very, very difficult situations, already, sending troops into cities, threatening to go to war with the City of Chicago. Threatening to -- the shoot protesters in Lafayette Square in the first Trump administration. Alluding to maybe using the military at polling stations, which actually is against U.S. law. That would be a criminal violation. And if he did that, that would put our soldiers in a position of potentially violating law.
So, there is a lot of track record here that is very concerning, which is why it's important for us to have this discussion, and remind those men and women, who we stand by, that they have obligations, and they have people who will support them.
COLLINS: Here's what Stephen Miller had to say, obviously, one of President Trump's top advisers, about the video that you and your colleagues made.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHEN MILLER, WHITE HOUSE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF: It is insurrection, plainly, directly, without question.
These lawmakers should honestly resign in disgrace and never return to public office again, for even daring to think, let alone to say these words, and to say them proudly.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: What's your response to Stephen Miller?
CROW: Well, it's what I just said. Stephen Miller thinks that reminding people that they should follow the Constitution, and the rule of law, is insurrection.
Listen, I was in the House gallery on January 6. I was surrounded by the mob that Donald Trump and his minions summoned, to beat police officers, and try to derail our Constitution, a couple of years ago. I know an insurrection when I see one, and reminding people to follow the Constitution is actually the opposite of that.
COLLINS: Whose idea was the video?
CROW: We worked together as a group. Congress -- Senator Slotkin, Senator Kelly, all of us have gotten together. We've talked about the best way to support our troops, those men and women that we have great love and affection for. How can we send a message that America is with them, thinking about them, and that there are people on Capitol Hill who will have their back if they're put into a very difficult situation.
[21:55:00]
COLLINS: Congressman Jason Crow, thank you for your time tonight.
CROW: Thank you.
COLLINS: And still ahead for us here. The President is fed up with the Fed for not lowering interest rates. That's not a surprise to anyone. But listen to what he said about one of his Cabinet secretaries, in that regard today.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, President Trump teased his Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, about what will happen if interest rates don't come down.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: The only thing Scott's blowing it on is the Fed, because the Fed -- the rates are too high, Scott. And if you don't get it fixed fast, I'm going to fire your ass, OK?
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: Now, Secretary Bessent does not control the interest rates. That is the Federal Reserve. But the President has been openly frustrated with the Federal Reserve and, the Chair, Jerome Powell, for not cutting rates faster.
It all comes ahead of tomorrow's highly-anticipated jobs report for September. It was initially set to be released, last month. It's been on hold, because of the government shutdown. But we will see what the data shows, tomorrow.
Thanks so much for joining us here tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
