Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Accuses Dems Of "Seditious Behavior, Punishable By Death"; DOJ Investigating Handling Of Schiff Mortgage Fraud Probe; Ghislaine Maxwell's Emails Detail Special Privileges In Prison. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired November 20, 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: --well, in just about 15 minutes, at 09:15 p.m. Eastern Time tonight, we're going to be speaking to Andrea Gibson's wife, Megan Falley, in another episode of "All There Is Live," which is my streaming companion show to the podcast.
You can watch it at CNN.com/AllThereIs. It's live at 09:15, 15 minutes from now. You can also communicate with others watching live in our community comments section. I hope you join me. It's going to be a really beautiful and moving conversation.
The news continues. I'll see you, tomorrow. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Did the President of the United States just threaten them with the death penalty? Democratic senator, Mark Kelly of Arizona is here to respond to everything the President had to say today about that video.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
President Trump has said so much and blown past so many norms, over the last decade, that even some of his most inflammatory comments and outbursts no longer grab headlines. But the President's post, this morning, accusing Democrats of seditious behavior, punishable by death, certainly has prompted an uproar, here in Washington tonight.
It was just one of 19 posts or reposts that we saw, from the President tonight, in response to a video that featured half a dozen Democratic members of Congress. All six of them served in the military or the intelligence community, before their political careers. And their video message was aimed directly at current service members.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. CHRIS DELUZIO (D-PA): Right now, the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad.
REP. JASON CROW (D-CO): But from right here at home
SEN. MARK KELLY (D-AZ): Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.
SEN. ELISSA SLOTKIN (D-MI): You can refuse illegal orders.
DELUZIO: You must refuse illegal orders.
SLOTKIN: No one has to carry out orders that violate the law.
REP. CHRISSY HOULAHAN (D-PA): Or our Constitution.
CROW: We know this is hard.
KELLY: And that it's a difficult time to be a public servant.
SLOTKIN: But whether you're serving in the CIA.
CROW: In the Army.
DELUZIO: Or Navy.
HOULAHAN: The Air Force.
KELLY: Your vigilance is critical.
SLOTKIN: And know that we have your back.
CROW: Because now more than ever.
HOULAHAN: The American people need you.
SLOTKIN: We need you to stand up for our laws.
DELUZIO: Our Constitution.
KELLY: And who we are as Americans. Don't give up.
DELUZIO: Don't give up.
CROW: Don't give up.
SLOTKIN: Don't give up the ship.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, the Commander-in-Chief did not take kindly to that message. His reaction was so extreme, that the White House press secretary was asked to clarify something that maybe no White House press secretary has ever been asked to clarify before.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Just to be clear, does the President want to execute members of Congress?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: No. Let's be clear about what the President is responding to, because many in this room want to talk about the President's response, but not what brought the President to responding in this way.
You have sitting members of the United States Congress, who conspired together, to orchestrate a video message to members, of the United States military, to active-duty service members, to members of the national security apparatus, encouraging them to defy the President's lawful orders.
Why aren't you talking about what these members of Congress are doing, to encourage and incite violence?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, as the press secretary was trying to shift the focus off the President's statements today, and on to what the Democrats said in that video. She did not respond, when I pointed out that she had actually misquoted what those Democrats said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: Thank you.
COLLINS: Karoline, you misquoted Democrats in that video. That's actually not what they said.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, when it comes to this video, the Uniform Code of Military Justice is clear on what members of the American military must do, if they are given an order that violates the Constitution, international human rights standards, or the rules of war. Article 92 states that all service members are required to disobey any unlawful orders they receive.
The White House today offered this interpretation.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: Every single order that is given to this United States military, by this Commander-in-Chief, and through this chain of command, through the Secretary of War, is lawful. And the courts have proven that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And my next source tonight, on this, appears in that video you saw there. Democratic senator, Mark Kelly of Arizona, who served for 25 years as a Navy pilot.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
What does it say when the White House press secretary has to deny that the President wants Democratic members of Congress executed?
KELLY: Well, Kait, it says we are in uncharted waters. I mean, I never expected, after serving 25 years in the Navy, flying combat missions over Iraq and Kuwait, flying the space shuttle, that now I've got to worry about my personal safety and that of my wife, Gabby Giffords, who was already nearly assassinated, because of something the President said.
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: Are you worried about your personal safety tonight?
KELLY: Well, in this job, with rising political violence, you have to be concerned. And any President's words carry a lot of weight. He's got supporters out there that they -- they listen to what he says. And when he calls for the execution of myself and five of my colleagues in Congress? That means something to a lot of people.
And by the way, Kaitlan, I think it's important to say that there is nothing more American than standing up for the Constitution. That's what we were doing. President didn't like it. So now, he calls for us to be hanged.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, so y'all put out this video yesterday. It generated some backlash. Maybe some people didn't like it or didn't think it was necessary. But when you woke up this morning, and saw that the Commander-in-Chief had posted that what y'all had done was punishable by death, what even went through your mind?
KELLY: Well, the first thing that goes through my mind is, again, we have a president that doesn't understand the law. He doesn't understand the Constitution. He's the Commander-in-Chief. He should understand something about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He's the highest member of the military in our country. He should understand a little bit about this. He clearly does not.
I mean, it's very clear in the UCMJ that members of the military have to follow orders. They are also required not to follow illegal or unlawful orders. It's very clear. And he didn't like what we said. And he looks at us as his political opponents, his enemies, and this is what he does. But it is -- it is a dangerous thing to do, for this President to say what he said this morning.
COLLINS: Speaker Mike Johnson was asked about this, on Capitol Hill earlier.
And the President's response, talking about sedition, talking about it being punishable by death, reposting a lot of posts today, including one that said that y'all should be hanged. That was a post -- others the President signed his initials to.
But when the Speaker was asked about this, I want you to listen to what he had to say to reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): What I read was he was defining the crime of sedition, OK? I don't -- that is -- that is a -- that is a factual statement. But obviously, attorneys have to parse the language and determine all that. What I'm saying, what I will say, unequivocally, is that was a wildly
inappropriate thing for so-called leaders in Congress to do, to encourage young troops to disobey orders. I mean, think of what the threat that is to our national security and what it means to our institutions.
I just -- we have got to raise the bar in Congress. This is out of control, and it's wildly inappropriate, and for a Senator like Mark Kelly, or any member of Congress in the House or Senate to be engaged in that kind of talk is, is to me, just so beyond the pale.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Later, after that comment, Mike Johnson distanced himself from what President Trump said. He said, The words that the President chose are not the ones that I would use. And he said, I don't think that these crimes are punishable by death or any of that.
Given he named you there specifically. What's your response to that?
KELLY: Well, Kaitlan, Mike Johnson apparently didn't listen to the video or watch it. Because we were very clear, we were talking about illegal orders. He said -- he misquoted what we were saying. I'm not surprised. He does that stuff all the time. His words also have consequences.
I'm glad he came out later, and spoke out, I didn't see what he had to say, but spoke out against what the President said. John Thune did as well. I would like to see a lot of my Republican colleagues, in the House and the Senate, speak out about this.
Because this is right after Charlie Kirk's assassination. I was at UVU, Utah Valley University, with John Curtis, last week. We were meeting with kids there. We had a nice event. It was broadcast on CNN. Talking about political discourse and political violence, and how do you move forward, how do you work together across the aisle.
We put out a video, trying to make sure that the service members know that we have their backs. And this is the response we get from the President of the United States?
COLLINS: Yes.
KELLY: And then you get a similar thing from Mike Johnson?
COLLINS: Are you worried the President is going to give an illegal order? Why did y'all feel the need to put this video out?
KELLY: Well, here's the thing. He has talked about sending troops into more U.S. cities. He's talked about invoking the Insurrection Act.
[21:10:00]
You don't have to go too far back, to his first administration, where, in 2020, he went to his Secretary of Defense, and he asked the question. He said, Can't we just shoot these protesters in the legs? That is an example of an illegal order, if it was given. He didn't give the order. But it's obviously rattling around in his head. He's got these ideas, and these are dangerous ideas. What he said today, again, was a dangerous idea.
COLLINS: Can I also ask you tonight. The Washington Post is reporting that starting next month, the Coast Guard is no longer going to classify the swastika, nooses, or the Confederate flag as hate symbols. They say that they'll still be banned, but The Post is reporting that they will instead be classified as potentially divisive.
We reached out to the Coast Guard, and they told CNN, The claims that the U.S. Coast Guard will no longer classify swastikas, nooses or other extremist imagery as prohibited symbols are categorically false. They said that they have and remain prohibited in their policy for the Coast Guard. And that, Any display, or symbols, will always be thoroughly investigated.
But given this reporting, and what came out, how significant of a change would that be, in your view?
KELLY: Well, I think it's -- if it's true, it's significant. I mean, can you think of a worse hate symbol than a swastika? I mean, what an insult to American Jews, and to everybody, across our country and across the world, really, that they say that that is no longer a hate symbol?
I'd be -- I'm interested to hear where it came from. Did that come from the -- from the top of DHS? I imagine you would not make that kind of provocative change, and not do it at the top, with the -- with the Secretary.
COLLINS: Yes. We're reporting it out. We'll see what we find out.
Senator Mark Kelly, as always, thank you for your time and for your service.
KELLY: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: My political sources are also here tonight.
David Axelrod is a former senior adviser to President Obama.
Matt Mowers was an adviser in the first Trump administration.
David Axelrod, I just wonder what you've made of how this has played out today, and how the White House press secretary defended it this afternoon.
DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, she defended it dishonestly, as you pointed out, because she suggested that these members of Congress -- all of whom, by the way, have served with distinction, in dangerous places, and worn the uniform of the country, or represented the country in the intelligence services, none of which the President can lay claim to. But when she said that they were urging people to defy lawful orders? That just wasn't true.
And there is context, as the Senator just said, for why they would be making this warning to people in the service, because of what the President has said he is interested in doing. He stood up at Quantico, and you may have been there, Kaitlan, and talked to military leaders, and told them that he wanted to use military -- he was contemplating using military forces in our cities, to quell civic unrest in our cities. So, these are not -- these are not sort of idle -- this isn't an idle speculation.
What disturbed me about what she said was that she said -- she seemed to suggest that anything the President ordered as the Commander-in- Chief was ipso facto legal. And that's clearly not the case. So, I thought that it was a complete distortion, and she really didn't respond to the substance of people's concern, which was his inflammatory language.
COLLINS: Yes, and I imagine, Matt, that's obviously because it's pretty tough to respond to. I mean, there is one thing in saying what Mike Johnson said earlier, that, this video is unnecessary, or they don't know what Democrats were trying to achieve with it.
But the President was pretty clear today, defining seditious conspiracy and saying it's punishable by death. And in multiple of these posts, I mean, he signed it, DJT. He made clear it was coming straight from him.
MATT MOWERS, FORMER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, look, I think that one didn't, and you heard the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, say that that's not what he was saying.
But let's set this up quickly though, about why did these Democratic members of Congress do this?
First of all, it's a non-issue. No one's giving illegal orders. No one has been asking troops to give illegal orders. So it's a non-issue. It's a made-up issue. Number one.
Number two, I can't say it's totally surprising that it all comes out, right around the same time that comes out, that the Democratic National Committee had to take out a $15 million loan to cover their operating expenses in an off-year, not in election year, which would tell you exactly what this is about. I mean, you just had Senator Kelly on. I'm looking right now at an email I received, at 06:58 p.m., from Mark Kelly, asking for money on this topic.
[21:15:00]
And so, that's the real reason they went out and did it. They talked about an issue that's not actually happening, manufactured out of thin air. They then did it to try to stir some attention, which is clearly working, because here we are talking about it, and they used to try to stir an outrage among their base, for a non-existent issue to raise some money.
And I think they did it for one other reason too. Let me just close on this. They're fighting an issue right now, in the Democratic Party, where they're seemed to be a little wimpy. And so, I think this was meant to try to elevate a few of the veterans that are serving in Congress, right now, in order to try and make them the face, not the Mamdanis of the world, who's going to be the face of the Democratic Party, tomorrow, when he's in Washington, D.C.
COLLINS: Yes, but I think some people are going to say, I don't think they put this video out because of something going on with the Democratic National Committee.
I mean, there has been genuine debate, here in Washington, as you know, Matt, over the legal authority to strike these alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. That has been something where lot of lawmakers were demanding justification, legal justification for that.
And so, I mean, you can say it's not necessary. But the President went 25 times further than that by saying, in all-caps, it was seditious conspiracy. I mean, I don't think that you would clarify this or qualify this as seditious conspiracy. Would you?
MOWERS: No. But Kaitlan, look, you just conjured up your interpretation of why they did, talking about taking out drug boats in the Caribbean. You just asked Senator Kelly the same thing. And he said, Well, Donald Trump may try to use the Insurrection Act, to send troops into cities. Which, by the way, would be a legal and constitutional process, which, by definition, would be lawful.
So, in Senator Kelly's own words, one of the individuals in this video, he's not talking about concerns about what's happening with Venezuela, or what we did, using authorized use of military force against Iran, or any other venue.
COLLINS: I'm just saying the--
MOWERS: He's talking about literally a theoretical--
COLLINS: I'm just saying the reason--
MOWERS: --which is meant to really just fearmonger--
COLLINS: But I'm just saying the reason--
MOWERS: --for the purpose of raising money to pay for these expenses (ph).
COLLINS: Sure, you can criticize Democrats, and say, I don't like this video, and I don't know why you did this video.
No one is saying that the President can't say that. But he went way further than that. He said it was seditious conspiracy. And I think people look at that and say, Telling people to follow the law is punishable by death?
AXELROD: Yes.
MOWERS: No, but, I mean, let's like, look at what the video truly said, and not just, word for word. I know you're trying to talk about the one instance where they're talking about unlawful action.
COLLINS: We just quoting them there.
MOWERS: But what they were implying was, Don't listen -- don't listen to combatant command and the chain of command. And that would be moving towards what the President was talking about.
But look, the truth is, and the fact of the matter is, that they chose to politicize military activity. They chose to politicize our troops for the purpose of getting attention and raising money. I think that's pretty shameful.
COLLINS: Matt Mowers. David Axelrod. Thank you both for being here tonight. We'll continue to follow the fallout on this.
And also, on a legal front today. First off, it was the James Comey case that was in jeopardy of falling apart, because of the alleged actions by the Trump DOJ.
Tonight, there is reporting you have to hear, to kind of believe. It's an unexpected turn on that investigation into Senator Adam Schiff. But the Justice Department now seems to be investigating the investigation itself. There was a key witness who was subpoenaed by the feds. She's going to join me live here on set right after this.
And also tonight, you have to read these emails, Ghislaine Maxwell's emails from prison, extra phone privileges, extra toilet paper, even secretarial services, as she says, thanks to the prison warden. We're going to speak to the reporter who got their hands on that trove tonight.
As the backlash, also this evening, for RFK Jr. is breaking a huge promise, on vaccines, that helped him get confirmation in the first place.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: New tonight, as the Justice Department is now investigating potential problems with the handling of the mortgage fraud probe, into Democratic senator Adam Schiff, that is being run by two top Trump administration officials.
These officials, Bill Pulte and Ed Martin, are leading the investigation into Senator Adam Schiff.
Martin, of course, is someone who holds multiple titles, at the Justice Department, including a Special Attorney for Mortgage Fraud.
Bill Pulte is the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency. He's on the left side of your screen. He's led the push to investigate Trump's enemies for mortgage fraud.
But tonight, our sources are telling us that investigators are now looking into the possibility that there was a person who claimed to be working for Pulte or Martin, but was actually not properly deputized by the Justice Department.
Those sources say, the Deputy Attorney General's Office is involved here, as one witness told CNN, she spoke to federal investigators about this matter, says they wanted to know about her communications with Bill Pulte, Ed Martin, and anyone who had claimed to work for them.
I'll note, Senator Schiff has denied that he's done anything wrong. He hasn't actually been charged with a crime at this point. And his attorney has declined to comment, when we asked, what they thought of this story that is making out -- making its way out tonight.
There's no indication that Bill Pulte or Ed Martin are the subject of the DOJ's investigation tonight.
But for more clarity on all of this, I want to bring in the witness who spoke to investigators, this morning. Christine Bish is a Republican, who is currently running for California's 6th congressional district, by the way.
And you are now, here in Washington. I kind of just want you to walk me through how we got here. I know that you had information you believed was relevant to Adam Schiff, and the allegations about his mortgage. You put those in a tip line, right?
CHRISTINE BISH, WITNESS IN DOJ'S ADAM SCHIFF INVESTIGATION: Correct.
COLLINS: And then you got a call. What happened next?
[21:25:00]
BISH: OK. Well, first I want to set the record straight. OK? When we started this whole conversation, with me being here today. I showed up on a federal subpoena, to talk about the Schiff case, about the records that I was able to gather, my analysis of those records, and my allegations, and -- so I was subpoenaed here.
And in the original reporting, it said that I appeared before the grand jury.
Well, I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. But we actually had just a briefing, in a meeting room in the back. There were just four people in the room. And so, I will be returning to testify before the grand jury.
COLLINS: OK.
BISH: So, we want to make sure that we get the facts straight and just tell the truth.
COLLINS: So, that's helpful. But I think some people might say, Well, what led to the grand -- what led to the subpoena that you got? Because you had gotten outreach from some officials at the White -- the administration, initially, right?
BISH: Not at the White House.
COLLINS: Who were those officials?
BISH: Well, I have been in communication. Now, remember, I started this investigation, my investigation, in 2020. I submitted this to the House Ethics Committee, in 2023 and, again, October 16th of 2024. So, this is something that's been going on for five years.
COLLINS: So, you've been looking into it for five years, you say. But obviously, this is a new thing for the Trump administration.
BISH: Right.
COLLINS: They made clear that they were looking into Senator Adam Schiff.
And my understanding is that you got outreach, from an official, in the administration. Period. Who was that official, and what did they say that they wanted to know from you?
BISH: Yes, I've talked to the Office of Inspector General, and they wanted to review the evidence in the case. And I have been just outspoken about it. The information has been the same. These are all public records.
And that's one of the things that I hope to do, when I'm elected to Congress, is cut through some of the games and the minutia, because the records are the records, the facts are the facts.
And I appreciate everything you do in bringing the facts.
And the facts are, we have public records that show Senator Schiff's mortgage records, and his voter registration forms. So, we're going back and forth on that, and I want to make sure that internal politics do not deviate or distract us from this story. And Senator Schiff has the same rights as all of us, and I want to see him explain the contradictions.
COLLINS: But to your point there, that you say you don't want internal politics to deviate from the investigation, that you're talking about.
BISH: Right.
COLLINS: That you say that -- that you're alleging against Senator Schiff. But that seems to actually be what's at risk here, is that -- and this subpoena, I know, names officials that had -- in your subpoena that has -- is public account.
BISH: That I was given, yes.
COLLINS: That you were given. Names officials who basically reached out to you, wanted to know what you had learned from your own looking into Adam Schiff.
But then you got a call from someone else who said that they were actually an agent who was investigating this matter. And there seemed to be confusion about whether there were two separate investigations going on.
Can you tell me what happened there?
BISH: Well, it's the -- when I spoke with officials today, DOJ officials today, they were asking what other communication I had had. Now I've spoken with the people at -- what do you call -- OIG for FHFA, and have reviewed the documents. And we're just making sure that everybody's on the same page, that everything is reported properly.
And again, it's like reporting that I was with the grand jury today. When the subpoena said I was supposed to be with the grand jury. But the truth is, they opted to do an interview with me and will have me return.
COLLINS: And what did they want to interview you about today? Is it because you got calls from some officials who were saying that they were working for Ed Martin and Bill Pulte, initially, and then you got other calls?
BISH: Well, I understood from the beginning that -- well, not back to 2020, of course, but since around the Charlie Kirk assassination, that Ed Martin was the special prosecutor, and I had put this tip into the FHFA tip line, and that was on April 30th. So, it's just making sure what we did today--
COLLINS: And then what happened after that?
BISH: What happened after that is, I put it in on April 30th, and it was radio silence until around the 15th of July, and that's when it started picking up. It turned out--
COLLINS: And who called you -- who called you around then?
[21:30:00]
BISH: Then I got a call. It was -- I missed the call, to be honest with you. Missed a call, and it was from Pulte's office, and they were looking for a copy of the file that I had submitted through the tip line. And I believe they were looking to see if I had submitted all of the documents, relevant to the investigation that I've been conducting since 2020.
So, we made -- I made sure -- there wasn't even a, we. It was me. I made sure that I communicated, that I sent the file, made sure that I had all of my attachments.
COLLINS: And did that person who called you from Pulte's office, did they say that they worked for the Justice Department, or did they say they worked for--
BISH: I actually missed the call. It was Director Pulte who had called.
COLLINS: Pulte called you himself?
BISH: But I missed the call. And I'll be honest with you, I was recovering from cancer surgery.
COLLINS: Well, god bless you.
BISH: Just little skin cancer on my face. So my phone was off. I had missed this.
COLLINS: So when you called them back, then what happened?
BISH: Called them back and said, We need to make sure that we have everything that was in the file that it was transmitted. Because remember, originally, I sent it over through a tip line. So, I don't know who it filtered through on the tip line that Director Pulte has had on the internet.
COLLINS: And today, was your understanding from the questions you were being asked, that it seems like they're kind of investigating each other? Or what was your takeaway?
BISH: Well, I think what they're doing, my opinion, is they may be looking at each other, especially when we hear what happened with Comey, is making sure that everything is done by the book, that they're covering all of the bases, and making sure that there are no outside, everything was done properly. And that's what I want to see. That's what we all want to see, is making sure you're doing it by the book.
COLLINS: Yes.
BISH: And that we appreciate what they're doing, and that there's no games.
COLLINS: Christine Bish, thank you for joining us here tonight. I think probably the first time we've had a witness on, the day after they went and spoke with federal investigators. So, thank you very much for your time.
BISH: Thank you.
COLLINS: And also here tonight is my Senior Legal Analyst, Elie Honig.
And Elie, I just wonder, when you listen to all this reporting, about what's been going on and how this is unfolding, what's your legal takeaway?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: So Kaitlan, the bottom line here appears to be that the Justice Department's investigation of Adam Schiff may have a serious structural flaw. Let me flesh that out.
If there are people out there, who are not prosecutors, not federal law enforcement agents, interviewing crucial witnesses, like Ms. Bish? That could be a problem for the investigation.
If there are people out there who are wrongly saying or suggesting they're law enforcement agents, when they're not? We don't know if that's happening. But if that's happening? That too is a major problem.
And most importantly, if there is grand jury information, if there are documents or testimony that prosecutors have gotten from other sources, and it's being given out to people, who are not in that inner circle of prosecutors, and cops handling the case? That could be a violation of grand jury rules.
And so, the points that Ms. Bish raises, I think, raises those questions about the way that DOJ is handling its Adam Schiff investigation.
COLLINS: So, to be clear, because this is a lot, but if basically, someone from Bill Pulte's team, as she was saying, it was Bill Pulte himself who reached out. But our understanding from this subpoena, is it's someone who may not work for the Justice Department outright, might work for the administration, but not the Justice Department. Would they be able to interview potential witnesses? Or is that a no- no?
HONIG: Exactly. So, the subpoena identifies two people, the subpoena that was given to Ms. Bish, and wants to know about her dealings, and the questions that those two people asked her.
Yes, if you have people, who are not part of the Justice Department, who are not prosecutors, who are not law enforcement, who are not otherwise read into the investigation, out there, conducting interviews of key witnesses? That's a problem. That could cause questions about that witness' statement, the conditions under which they were given.
And again, you have the grand jury sensitivity. Think of it like this, when you have a criminal investigation, grand jury investigation must remain confidential. It actually can be a crime to intentionally disperse grand jury information. That's a tight circle. That's going to be only the prosecutors and the FBI agents or whatever law enforcement agent is on the case.
COLLINS: Yes.
HONIG: If that information starts making its way out to others? Not in the Justice Department? Are outsiders? That could be a problem.
COLLINS: Elie Honig, we'll see what happens next here.
HONIG: Thank you.
COLLINS: Coming up for us. As I mentioned, we have new emails from Jeffrey Epstein's famed accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, inside her new minimum security prison where, according to Ghislaine Maxwell, it's cleaner, the food is better, and it's safer. More. A reporter just got their hands on her emails. We'll read them, next.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Tonight, we're getting new insight into the special privileges that Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, and convicted child sex trafficker, Ghislaine Maxwell is seemingly enjoying in prison, from Maxwell herself.
The Atlantic has obtained dozens of personal emails that Maxwell has sent, over the last several months, after being switched to a minimum security prison in Texas. The tone of which appears to be cheerful, free of regret or remorse.
She wrote about the move, and said, quote, "The food is legions better, the place is clean, the staff responsive and polite." It was safer, too, because, quote, "You are not allowed to steal, beat people up and attack them with home made weapons."
[21:40:00]
Ghislaine Maxwell says that, She felt she was finally on the right side of, quote, "Alice in Wonderlands looking glass," noting, I am much happier.
My source is The Atlantic staff writer who obtained these emails. Isaac Stanley-Becker.
And thank you for being here.
What have you learned in these emails? I mean, you literally have the emails themselves, I should note.
ISAAC STANLEY-BECKER, STAFF WRITER, THE ATLANTIC: I have them here, right in front of me.
Kaitlan, I was so curious to get my hands on these emails, because there's been so much attention on Epstein, and Epstein files, and the existence or non-existence of this client list.
But Jeffrey Epstein is dead. And Ghislaine Maxwell, the person who's been convicted of crimes associated with his conduct, is alive. And as you said, she's being held at this minimum security prison, in Texas, and she's been emailing members of her family, members of her legal team. And so, we're able to listen to her own words about what her situation is like, what's on her mind, and what her expectations and hopes are for the future.
And as you said, I was somewhat surprised that the tone of these emails. I was expecting some type of sadness, if not for the victims, you know, maybe for her own situation. This is someone who's had quite a fall from grace. But she's really quite cheerful in these messages. She's optimistic, she's really grateful and reveling in her much improved conditions in this prison. And so, I found that rather remarkable.
COLLINS: So, when you go through the emails. I mean, there is -- she talks about the perks that she gets, basically. What did you -- what stood out to you, from what she was telling people about how different it is, than the one she was in, most crucially, before she sat down and spoke to the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche.
STANLEY-BECKER: That's right, and that's an important part of the timeline.
She really sings the praises of this facility. And you mentioned part of it. But she talks about how the food is much better. She said, I haven't seen or heard the usual foul language or screaming accompanied by threats leveled at inmates by anyone. I haven't seen a single fight, drug deal, passed-out person or naked inmate.
And importantly, she also describes the rather unusual services that the warden of this prison is providing to her, ensuring special access for her visitors in a unique part of the prison, and also playing this very odd kind of go-between role for her, between her and members of her legal team, emailing and scanning documents.
And I talked to defense attorneys in the area, seasoned defense attorneys, including some who've represented clients who've been held in this facility. And they said that this is just so outside of the norm. That, there's about 650 women being held at this -- at this facility. The warden is just not involved in individual cases like this.
So, what one defense attorney said to me is there's two possible explanations.
One is that this warden has some sort of special feelings or loyalty toward Ghislaine Maxwell, which seems rather unlikely. I mean, this random warden, at this random facility, in Texas.
Or that she's received some sort of instructions from higher-ups, members of the Justice Department, members of the Trump administration, to provide for Maxwell, in a unique way. And that would be rather concerning.
COLLINS: And when I was reading through this, Ghislaine Maxwell seems to be talking about people who are defending her, or on television talking about her. There's one person I believe she referenced as being some kind of superstar on television, publicly?
What was she -- does she seem to understand what's happening outside of prison, and how much coverage this has been generating?
STANLEY-BECKER: I think she does, and one of her attorneys and her siblings are keeping her abreast of that.
She was referring to one of her brothers who's done some interviews, defending her, and attacking some of the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. So, she was -- she was grateful for that.
And she is aware of the attention on her. There was one email, in which one of her attorneys was talking about the paparazzi swarm outside of this facility, and saying that, one of the photographers out there was like one of the best paparazzi photographers out there, which seemed to be some sort of odd kind of special almost--
COLLINS: Brag, yes.
STANLEY-BECKER: --almost like a brag or a boast. Exactly.
COLLINS: Isaac Stanley-Becker. I mean, they're fascinating emails to look at.
STANLEY-BECKER: They are indeed.
COLLINS: So, thank you for sharing them with us tonight.
STANLEY-BECKER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Thank you.
And still ahead for us here. Science has been replaced by anti-vaccine talking points. The new changes at the CDC's website link include false claims that link autism and vaccines. We're going to dig into it with one of our best doctors, right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, there are health care experts who are sounding the alarm, over changes to the CDC website that now features false claims, linking autism and vaccines.
Bullet points on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's page, as you can see here, now read, quote, "Vaccines do not cause autism" is "not an evidence-based claim," and, quote, "Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities."
Now, this is not true. Studies that show a connection between vaccines and autism have proven to be poorly done, or they were fraudulent. And there's an abundance of well-done, credible studies that found no such link between the two. The CDC's site, though, once clearly stated that, until not that long ago.
The headline, Vaccines do not cause Autism, now includes an asterisk that directs readers to a footnote that explains the header wasn't removed due to an agreement with the Chair of the U.S. Senate Health Committee. That appears to be a reference to Senator Bill Cassidy. He's the final key vote that allowed Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination, as the nation's Health Secretary to go forward.
And Dr. Cassidy -- Senator Cassidy, who's a physician, responded tonight, and said, What parents need to hear right now is vaccines for measles, polio, hepatitis B and other childhood diseases are safe and effective and will not cause autism. Any statement to the contrary is wrong, irresponsible, and actively makes Americans sicker.
[21:50:00]
In a statement to CNN tonight, the Department of Health and Human Services said, quote, "We are updating the CDC's website to reflect gold standard, evidence-based science." Joining me tonight is Dr. Jonathan Reiner, Professor of Medicine and Surgery at George Washington University.
Is that what you think that is? Gold standard, evidence-based science?
DR. JONATHAN REINER, CNN MEDICAL ANALYST, PROFESSOR OF MEDICINE & SURGERY, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, DICK CHENEY'S LONGTIME CARDIOLOGIST: No, I think it's misinformation promoted by the master of vaccine misinformation, who now is the Secretary of HHS. That statement was apparently posted on the site, without the input of any of the CDC scientists who are responsible for promoting vaccine information.
Not only is this notion that vaccines are unsafe or cause autism untrue, it's been -- it's been disproven in studies, with millions of kids, millions of kids, studies that have been performed over two decades, evaluating not just the safety of the MMR vaccine, but vaccines containing aluminum. There is -- there is no credible signal that vaccines are at all related to autism.
The problem is that the only voice that's important now is the non- physician Secretary of HHS, who has a history of promoting this kind of outrageous misinformation.
The net effect now, sadly, is that CDC and HHS at large are now no longer authoritative sources for medical information. It's -- I'm sorry to say that. But what I would tell patients and people in the country and parents, Talk to your doctors. Look at these societies, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Gynecology. Look to them for credible science. Do not look, sadly, to federal agencies.
COLLINS: Yes, and obviously, I can't wait to see what Senator Cassidy also has to say about this, given this.
Can I ask? Because today, people might have been watching Dick Cheney's funeral--
REINER: Yes.
COLLINS: --as it was playing here on CNN. You were one of the people who eulogized--
REINER: Yes.
COLLINS: --the former Vice President today, at the National Cathedral. That's also because you were his cardiologist, for decades.
REINER: Yes. For a long time.
COLLINS: And you had a very funny comment about one time when he refused to follow your medical advice. That was on 9/11. This is part of what you said, this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REINER: I'm happy to report that I haven't given many eulogies.
No one wants a doctor who's great at funerals.
(LAUGHTER)
REINER: But I stand here, this morning, deeply honored to tell you about my remarkable patient, Dick Cheney.
In the early evening, while the Vice President was on the move to an undisclosed location, Lew (ph) called to tell me that our patient's potassium level was dangerously, maybe even lethally, high.
I thought that the result was probably erroneous, an artifact of the prolonged delay in processing the blood. But we needed to be sure. I was worried about him. I asked Lew (ph) if we could repeat the test right away. But the Vice President firmly said, No, not today. I didn't think that was the day to argue with him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I think that's probably safe to say that you weren't going to get to draw his blood on 9/11.
REINER: No. Well, that was a day that everyone alive then will remember. On that awful day, I worried that the Vice President might have a cardiac arrest, because of this very alarming potassium level.
COLLINS: Which is such a crazy layer to add to that day that was already insane, where President Bush was traveling, Vice President Dick Cheney was here, was being taken to a bunker. And here is his doctor worried about his potassium levels.
REINER: Yes, and my colleague, Dr. Lew Hoffman (ph), who was the full- time White House doc, was sort of calling me as they were on the move.
There was a piece of the eulogy, which I actually cut for time, which referred to this photo on the back of the Vice President's memoir. It's this really evocative picture of the Vice President and Mrs. Cheney on Marine Two, as the helicopter took off from the South Lawn, on 9/11, in the evening, towards what would turn out to be Camp David, and they're leaning towards each other.
And the Vice President is holding a piece of paper in his hand. And for years, it was just this beautiful photograph on the most -- one of the most meaningful days in my life. And I always wondered what piece of Intel was on that piece of paper, what was -- what kind of threat was he being advised?
And I found out later from my friend, the White House doc, that that was a message from me, and Dr. Hoffman (ph) saying, We need your blood.
COLLINS: No. Really?
REINER: Yes.
COLLINS: You thought maybe it was some crucial development from that day, but it was actually--
REINER: It was actually, I was asking for his blood.
COLLINS: And do you think he probably just tossed that?
[21:55:00]
REINER: He -- that was the only time in my relationship, my entire 27 years, taking care of the Vice President, that he said, No.
COLLINS: Dr. Reiner. The eulogy is beautiful.
REINER: Thank you.
COLLINS: And thank you for joining us here tonight.
REINER: Thank you.
COLLINS: Really appreciate it.
Up next. There was a frank response from the White House today, to this question at the press briefing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What did the President mean when he called a reporter "piggy"?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Today, the White House press secretary defended what the President said to a reporter, on Air Force One.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Go ahead. Go ahead.
REPORTER: If there's nothing incriminating in the files sir, why not...
TRUMP: Quiet. Quiet, piggy.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Asked what the President meant when he called a reporter, piggy, a reporter who is a woman, by the way, this is what Karoline Leavitt said today.
[22:00:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What did the President mean when he called a reporter "piggy"? LEAVITT: Look, the President is very frank and honest with everyone in this room. You've all seen it yourself. You've all experienced it yourselves. And I think it's one of the many reasons that the American people reelected this president, because of his frankness.
And so, I think the President being frank and open and honest to your faces, rather than hiding behind your backs, if frankly a lot more respectful than what you saw in the last administration.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: They touted the openness and honesty. Of course. The President did not actually answer that reporter from Bloomberg News' question.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
