Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
DOJ Releases Trove Of Heavily Redacted Epstein Files; Trump's Name Added To Kennedy Center Building; Elise Stefanik Ends Her Short- Lived Bid For New York Governor. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired December 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]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: I'm just going to leave it with what the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, wrote online. In part, she said, Congratulations to President Donald J. Trump, and likewise, congratulations to President Kennedy, because this will be a truly great team long into the future. The building will no doubt attain new levels of success and grandeur.
Rather odd statement there.
Congressman Kennedy, I really appreciate your time tonight.
JOE KENNEDY III, (D) FORMER MASSACHUSETTS CONGRESSMAN, GRANDNEPHEW OF PRES. JOHN F. KENNEDY: Anderson, thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KING, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: That's it for us. Hope you have a good weekend.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts right now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, the Epstein files are out, sort of. What's in them and what's notably missing this evening, as the lawmakers who wrote this bill are accusing the Justice Department of failing to comply with it.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Tonight, the Trump administration, after being forced by Congress, released a huge batch of documents related to the late sex trafficker, Jeffrey Epstein. So many documents, and so many people were trying to get a look at them, that the Justice Department's website actually had a wait time before granting access to this trove of documents.
The biggest revelation so far, as we've been poring through these, is really just the sheer number of victims. There are some 1,200 names of victims and their relatives. That's according to the Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanche, who has been leading the Justice Department's efforts when it comes to the release of the Epstein documents.
But I should note, this is not all of the documents. And all of the documents is what that law, that was passed 30 days ago, required.
In a letter to Congress, Todd Blanche said that they are still reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents, a process that he said to lawmakers, he expects, to be completed over the next two weeks, and a point that he went on television this morning to make.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TODD BLANCHE, U.S. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL: I expect that we're going to release more documents over the next couple of weeks. So today, several hundred thousand. And then over the next couple weeks, I expect several hundred thousand more.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The White House, this evening, has been framing the Justice Department's release as evidence of their transparency.
But the two lawmakers, who spearheaded this and wrote the law that the President was eventually forced to sign, say tonight that that's not true.
Congressman Ro Khanna posted this, saying, the Justice Department's document dump of hundreds of thousands of pages failed to comply with the law authored by Congressman Thomas Massie and me.
Massie, the Republican here, posted after that, saying, Unfortunately, today's document release by Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, grossly fails to comply with both the spirit and the letter of the law that Trump signed just 30 days ago. Congressman Ro Khanna, he says, is correct.
Now here's why. Because, remember how the Justice Department made a big show, at one point, of going to court to ask the courts to unseal those grand jury records? Well, apparently they got those. But large sections of the documents released are nothing, but, as you can see here, blacked-out pages. That includes all 119 pages of what is labeled as a grand jury document. You can see here how long that release goes on, and the redactions, as you're scrolling through what you saw on the Justice Department's website.
Now, according to Todd Blanche, the Justice Department is holding back what they believe is protected internal information, including documents that show the deliberative process, work product and attorney-client communications that would be privileged.
Now, while we've heard from the Deputy Attorney General, on this release. One person we notably have not heard from is the President. Twice today he declined to take questions from reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I really don't want to soil it up by asking questions, even questions that are very fair questions that I'd love to answer. So, I think we have to just stop right here.
I don't want to be asking questions having to do with anything else.
Thank you very much everybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President left the room. He did not take questions at a subsequent moment later on with reporters.
In that letter though that I mentioned, that the Deputy Attorney General sent up to Congress today, he also made it a point to emphasize that the findings of that July 6 DOJ memo that ignited the entire political demand, on the right for these documents, where Blanche repeated today that the department has no evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties. That means, there's no one else they believe that could be revealed in these files, that could be charged.
But remember this post from just last month, when we heard from the Attorney General, after what she said in response to the President's own Truth Social, where he was calling for investigations into very specific people who have been seen or related to Jeffrey Epstein at various points.
[21:05:00]
At the time, when the Attorney General was asked about this post by the President, this is how Pam Bondi explained the decision.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: What changed since then that you launched this investigation?
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: 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: My lead sources tonight are:
Former federal prosecutor, Elie Honig.
And CNN's Evan Perez.
And Evan, I know you've been digging through these files, alongside our whole team, for hours now.
I just want to show that graphic again, though, of how much is redacted at certain points. Now, there are other moments where there's a lot of information here. But there are also moments like that 119- page document that shows the length of these redactions, when it comes to what we are seeing today. But also, I mean, look how fast that's scrolling. It also shows you what we are not seeing tonight.
EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I think that's the story here. It might be actually a bigger deal, what's not released in this large trove that the Justice Department posted on their website.
And, as you pointed out, Kaitlan, you go to the Justice Department's Epstein files website, and it was almost like, you know, like you were trying to buy Taylor Swift tickets. You had to wait in the waiting room to be able to get in. That was the level of interest for these documents. And when you got in there, there were, sure, a lot of pictures of Bill Clinton, but there were not a lot of other things that I think people were interested in finding.
And I'll tell you one of the things that we were looking for. There is a Justice Department report, that came out a few years ago, into some of the failures. And one of the things that we learned was that there was a 60-count indictment that was drafted by a prosecutor, in the Southern District of Florida, back in 2007. That was squelched at the time, because the U.S. attorney at the time, Alex Acosta, in Miami, decided that they were going to allow Jeffrey Epstein to take this very lenient deal from the Palm Beach District Attorney, the local prosecutor down there.
And just to -- by comparison, when Epstein was charged in 2019, under the Trump administration, by the Southern District of New York, there were two counts that were -- that were filed against Jeffrey Epstein.
So one of the questions that certainly we went in today was to try to see, to compare what that document might have looked like. And it appears that that might have fallen victim to what Todd Blanche says here, was deliberative process, right? These are documents that show the deliberative process inside the Justice Department, and they say that they read the law -- Todd Blanche says that the way he reads the law, that was passed by Congress last month, is that Congress did not expressly -- did not explicitly say that you have to disregard those privileges.
So, and among the other things that they say they reviewed these documents for, they had 200 lawyers. Some of these lawyers are at the National Security Division that have been reviewing this for weeks, Kaitlan. And what -- among the things that they were redacting for was national security information, diplomatic matters, national security material.
And so, what I think we are expecting to see in the next few weeks is for the department to tell Congress exactly what it redacted, why it did so, and to explain, why we see those blacked-out pages that you were scrolling through just now.
COLLINS: Yes.
I mean, Elie, if there is that 60-count indictment that they have ready. Why is that not in the documents that we're looking at tonight?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Well, it's a great question.
And I think DOJ is playing fast and loose here with what the law actually requires. So, as you just reported--
COLLINS: The law is pretty short also, like, you can read it.
HONIG: It's two pages. Right.
COLLINS: It's not like a very complicated thing to go through and have to suss through. I'm not an attorney. I read it. And it's pretty clear.
HONIG: Yes, it's clear, it's two pages long.
So in his letter today, Todd Blanche said, We are holding back. We are not giving you what we call deliberative process materials.
Now, to me, that's the most important thing, right? That is your internal memos at DOJ, where I used to write, let's say, a PROSS memo saying, We should indict this case, or a memo saying, We should not indict this case, or We should plead it out, or We should give this guy a deal or not a deal. And Blanche says, Well, the law doesn't require that.
But let me read you this from the law. This is Subsection 7. It says that DOJ must produce internal DOJ communications, including emails, memos, et cetera, concerning decisions to charge, not charge, investigate, or decline to investigate.
COLLINS: OK, so that sounds to me--
HONIG: It's exactly it.
COLLINS: --like a 60-count indictment--
HONIG: Right.
COLLINS: --that was prepared, before Jeffrey Epstein got a sweetheart plea deal from the U.S. Attorney in Florida that would have to be included in this.
HONIG: Exactly right.
And so, the fact that they didn't meet the deadline today is bad, right? The law is not optional. But if they're going to get it done in two weeks, it'll get done.
[21:10:00]
This is where Congress needs to be focusing. You are getting short shrifted. You are not getting what this law calls for.
COLLINS: I mean, Evan, on that front. One thing that people are asking is, Are they protecting people?
And there was a DOJ spokesperson that put out a statement tonight saying that no politically-exposed persons were redacted from today's documents. All references were disclosed in full.
They referenced the fact that you just noted, there are those pictures of Bill Clinton, something that the White House is touting tonight, even though Susie Wiles is on the record, to Vanity Fair, saying Bill Clinton didn't do anything wrong. There's no evidence he went to Jeffrey Epstein's Island.
I mean, what is -- what are you hearing from people over at the DOJ tonight about this?
PEREZ: Well, what we're hearing is some concern from inside the department that there are things missing. There are things that people expected to be included, included in the posting that was done today, that are not.
COLLINS: Wow.
PEREZ: And so, there's a lot of questions internally from people about exactly where these documents are.
I was talking to people who were on the website, trying to look through, and they were expecting to see certain things, and they didn't see them.
And so, again, when the department -- when the department -- and I think, Blanche's letter says that they're going to have to explain, because it is required under the law. They have to explain to Congress.
They have, I think, I believe, it's either 15 or 30 days to explain to Congress what redactions they made, what things are being withheld, what specifically is the reason, what part of the law that they can -- that they can cite for why they're withholding. And so, that's where we're going to perhaps get a little bit more explanation.
Because, as you pointed out, there's plenty of pictures of Bill Clinton, which is, I think, what the spokesman for the Justice Department was pointing out.
COLLINS: So you're hearing from people, at the DOJ, who are saying, There's things I thought were going to be released that have not been released?
PEREZ: Right, I did.
COLLINS: Wow.
PEREZ: And again, it is possible that they're in what Blanche says, There's additional hundreds of thousands of pages of documents that are still coming. It is possible that they're in that additional tranche that might be coming in the coming weeks. We will see.
COLLINS: Yes, we'll be going through all of them.
Evan Perez. Elie Honig. Great to have both of you here. And my next source, I just mentioned, helped lead the charge on this bill, forcing the full release of the Epstein files and creating tonight's deadline. Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna of California.
Congressman, you wrote this law. Do you believe the DOJ is complying with it?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): No.
And Elie and Evan are absolutely right. Look, Thomas Massie and I pored over those two pages, and we explicitly added the section, saying that internal communication about whether to charge or not needs to be released. The reason we added that is we had talked to the survivors' lawyers.
The survivors' lawyers had said that the two most important documents to be released are, one, the draft indictment that Evan just mentioned, that has evidence of wrongdoing and the involvement of other rich and powerful men, and an 82-page memo that was prepared by the Assistant U.S. Attorney supporting that indictment. That is why that explicit paragraph was added.
So, I agree, actually, with Elie. The issue here isn't that they've only done some of the release. By the way, there're 300 gigabytes of files, according to Kash Patel. They've released 2.5 gigabytes. So that's one issue.
But Massie and I were actually in this morning talking, and we said, Look, we're willing to give them some benefit of the doubt, as long as the quality of the release is substantive. But what we found out is the most important documents are missing. They've had excessive redactions. And the central question that Americans want to know, Who are the other rich and powerful men on the island, raping these young girls, or covering up? Has not been answered.
COLLINS: So, those two documents that you are told, by the survivors' attorneys, that are the most important, the indictment that came out before Jeffrey Epstein got a sweetheart deal, and an 82-page memo backing up, why he should be charged. Neither of those are in this release tonight?
KHANNA: Neither of them are in the release.
And to the extent the drafters' intent of a law matters, Thomas Massie and I explicitly drafted it to cover those two documents. And you had three federal judges look at our law and say, Release everything, in terms of the grand jury. You had judges saying, Release it, and then the Department of Justice is redacting it.
Now, I know what they're thinking. They think, OK, it's going to be Christmas. They're going to do this release, and people are going to move on.
I would just remind them that's what they thought, that the Trump administration thought, when they shut down Congress early before the August recess. That's what they thought, when they shut down Congress for seven weeks.
But the survivors are not quitting. I've spoken to them today. Many of them want to come back to the Capitol. They are outraged. They were so looking forward to today, to finally being seen, finally being heard, after decades of being abandoned. They are upset. They are hurt. And they're going to continue to speak out, as are Thomas Massie and me.
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: For that 119-page document, that is labeled as grand jury materials, that's redacted, even though the DOJ made a pretty big show of going to court to get access to that. I mean, I was showing the graphic earlier. I mean, when you're looking at it on the DOJ website, you're just scrolling and scrolling and scrolling, and the entire thing is blacked out. Do you understand why that's redacted?
KHANNA: No, that was the red flag, where I knew something was wrong.
I am all for redacting anything that involves the survivors or their families. And one of the things, unfortunately, we learned is that there are 1,200 survivors, according to the DOJ itself. That means, just think about it, if there are 1,200 survivors, there was more than one person committing this abuse.
And what I thought should not be redacted is information about politicians, or powerful people, who may have been implicated. The whole point, again, if you read the law, is to say embarrassment or reputational harm cannot be a reason for redaction. And yet, it seems, for everything that they've redacted and not produced, that they are trying to protect people. They don't want people to be held accountable. And that's exactly what the survivors want. That's why Massie and I got involved.
COLLINS: Yes. Well, and--
KHANNA: And so, it's really a disappointment.
COLLINS: And they're arguing that they redacted the faces of underage girls or survivors here. I was looking through some of the pictures. There is a guy's face, at one point, who is redacted. It's not really clear why.
Can I ask you, on the Attorney General Pam Bondi. Some Democrats are saying she should resign, including Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez. Are you considering impeachment for the Attorney General if you don't feel that the Justice Department complies with your law?
KHANNA: Thomas Massie and I talked about it. He's working, as am I, on drafting articles of impeachment and inherent contempt.
COLLINS: Wow.
KHANNA: We haven't decided whether to move it forward yet, but we're in the process of doing it.
And look, the problem that the Attorney General has, if you just look at the comments to our social media feed, is the amount of MAGA, MAGA influencers who are upset with her. And the issue for her is not, are there going to be 212 Democrats who would support it? The issue for her is, how many Republicans and MAGA supporters would support it?
So, my hope, because my hope has never been about Pam Bondi getting justice, or Todd Blanche getting justice. My hope is she looks at this, she looks at the outrage that MAGA has, she looks at the disappointment that the survivors have, and she makes a decision, over the next two weeks, to actually start releasing these documents, because she may lose more Republicans in the House than she anticipates.
COLLINS: So y'all are drafting articles of impeachment. I mean, how will you decide if you're going to file that?
KHANNA: Well, one is a pragmatic decision in terms of impeachment is a political decision, and is there the support in the House of Representatives? I mean, Massie and I aren't going to just do something for the show of it.
But my sense is just looking at the initial reactions, from people in MAGA, from survivors, is that this release is going to cause as much grief for Pam Bondi as the earlier release -- releases. Susan Wiles said she whiffed. This isn't building more trust.
And I was, early in the morning, I was giving positive quotes, when Blanche was on television, because he said, I'm going to release a few hundred thousand documents. Someone said, Well, Ro, they had to release all the documents. I said, As long as they comply with the spirit of the law, I'm fine.
But this was in no way complying with the spirit of the law. Massie and I wanted to cheer for actually having released things that helped the survivors.
COLLINS: Yes.
KHANNA: And we were just devastated.
COLLINS: Well, and as Massie said tonight, he believes a future Justice Department could convict the Attorney General. Because, the Transparency Act is not a congressional subpoena. It doesn't expire at the end of each Congress.
We will see what happens, and if those articles of impeachment are filed.
Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you for joining us tonight.
KHANNA: Thank you, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next here. One of the new files that was released tonight does confirm something that Epstein was reported to the FBI about almost 30 years ago by an Epstein survivor, Maria Farmer. You've heard her story here. But that case went nowhere because of the FBI, she says. Now she is finally being vindicated tonight. We'll tell you what happened, right after this.
Also, the President's prime time speech, his new plaques, and more, behind the scenes this week at the White House.
And also, they just voted, yesterday, to add the President's name to the Kennedy Center. And today, they had the letters ready to go, apparently.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, as CNN is continuing to pore through the hundreds of thousands of Epstein documents that were released by the Justice Department today. There's one FBI document that is offering two of Epstein's survivors, Annie and Maria Farmer, vindication.
Now, this FBI document, from 1996, includes a description of a criminal complaint against Jeffrey Epstein, related to child pornography, underscoring the fact that Epstein would have been on the radar of law enforcement, years before the federal and state charges were brought against him.
Now, back in August, you might be familiar with this story, because I talked to Annie Farmer, about her sister's complaint to the FBI, in 1996, which she said went ignored.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Annie, where do you -- where do you personally come down on the calls to release everything? Do you -- do you agree with that?
[21:25:00]
ANNIE FARMER, EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Yes, I am definitely supportive of more transparency in this case. You know, my sister has filed this lawsuit in order to have more information released as to why her 1996 FBI report, why nothing was done. Right? That's something that has been so upsetting for us to know how many people were harmed that didn't need to be, if there had been more follow-up at that time.
And a piece of this case that hasn't gotten a lot of attention is the fact that, you know, when she was assaulted, there were also photos that were stolen from her.
She was an artist. She was a figurative artist, and she took photos of myself and my sister -- partially nude photos to work from, as a lot of artists do.
But those photos were stolen by Maxwell and Epstein, and we've never been told -- even though we know that photos have been found, we've never been told were our photos a part of that. We would like to know, of course, if that is the case. And I think that's the kind of thing, you know, transparency might bring, is more information for people involved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: So that's what she told us in August.
And today, as you're going through the release of these documents, there's a document that stands out. The name of the complainant is redacted. But Maria Farmer's attorney confirmed to CNN tonight that this is from her.
And the document corroborates their story. Because, it reads in part that, Epstein stole the photos and negatives and is believed to have sold the pictures to potential buyers. Epstein at one time requested that (redacted) to take pictures of young girls at swimming pools. Epstein is now threatening (redacted) that if she tells anyone about the photos he will burn her house down.
Maria Farmer provided this statement to CNN, following the document's release tonight, and here's why this matters, because they said the FBI ignored it at the time, that it basically just went unanswered, and their quote and their argument was that it would have actually helped prevent the abuse of future young women.
So, Maria responded tonight to this vindication, and said, This is amazing... I feel redeemed... Of course, it's mixed with the fact that I'm devastated about all the other little girls like Virginia who were harmed because the FBI didn't do their job.
Tonight, we heard from Republican congresswoman, Marjorie Taylor Greene. Remember, she broke with her party to push and is part of the reason why the President had to sign that law that compelled this release tonight. She responded to this disclosure about the Farmers, and said, Trump called me a traitor for refusing to take my name off the discharge petition. I couldn't be more proud that I stayed on.
The former FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, is here with me now.
And it's pretty hard to hear this, I think, and to think about the perspective of Maria and Annie Farmer, who had the guts to go to the FBI, file this document against someone who was incredibly rich and powerful, and then they say, Never heard from the FBI, that they just never even acknowledged it.
And now we know it's real, it was filed, and nothing happened.
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: Yes, I mean, it's absolutely heartbreaking on so many levels. Not the least of which is the fact that they never got any follow-up as to what the FBI thought of their complaint, what decisions they made as a result of it.
But then you extrapolate that out into the future, that if they had taken some action, what would have been the result? What sort of harm could have been prevented over time? It's just, it's really hard to get your -- get your mind around it. And I'm sure, it's an unbelievably emotional day for those women.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, I just, I think the question a lot of people have is how and why the FBI wouldn't have followed up on this. And I mean, I understand you have to make decisions based on tips and complaints and whatnot. But I mean, they got a complaint about this guy, in 1996, and you just have to think about what happened in the two decades that followed after that.
MCCABE: Yes, absolutely.
So, let me walk you through a little bit of the mechanics. This -- the document that you're seeing, if you look up in the top lefthand corner of the document, you see the letters FD-71. That stands for Federal Document 71. In those days, that was the FBI complaint form.
So, if you called into the FBI, and made a complaint about what you thought was a violation of the law, somebody who answered the phone would take information from you in that conversation, they would memorialize it on this document, and then they would decide, based on what you told them, which squad to send it to.
This was -- we are -- I understand, was called into the New York City field office. So, that person would route this document, this is the old days, physical documents, to the squad supervisor who was responsible for the violations that might be referenced in the complaint. That supervisor would have the authority to decide whether or not to assign that complaint to an agent on their squad for follow- up investigation.
So, it's possible that it never went beyond that supervisor's desk. It's possible it was assigned to someone who looked into it and maybe couldn't confirm the details. It's possible that it slipped through the cracks entirely, which is unforgivable, but within the realm of the possible here. What they would look--
COLLINS: Yes.
[21:30:00]
MCCABE: As I read this complaint today, it references, in the least case, a theft and a possible extortion, where he's threatening to burn down her house if she tells anybody about these photographs. But in the worst case, it talks about a person who might be engaged in trafficking, in child pornography, or information that could qualify as--
COLLINS: Yes.
MCCABE: --images that could qualify as child pornography.
So, it's incredibly serious. It's hard for me to understand how action was not taken. But again, it's 1996. The FBI would have to go back now and look at the documentation around this complaint to figure out what happened or why it didn't.
COLLINS: Yes. And her sisters were 12 and 16 at the time of those photographs.
Andy McCabe, thank you for joining us tonight. MCCABE: Sure thing.
COLLINS: I'm also joined tonight by a survivor of Jeffrey Epstein's. Lisa Phillips was in her early 20s when she first met him, and says she endured years of abuse from him and from other people in his network.
And thank you for being here.
I just -- we've heard a lot from lawyers. We've heard a lot from lawmakers. How are you feeling tonight?
LISA PHILLIPS, JEFFREY EPSTEIN SURVIVOR: Well, I'm feeling very upset. I, you know, I've always stood up, and I stand for so many survivors out there. I was in my early 20s. There was hundreds of girls in their early 20s. But we're always thinking about, the children, the teenagers, that were harmed in this way.
And as you guys are reporting on, Maria Farmer coming forward in the late 90s -- 1996, almost 30 years ago, and saying that, These people were taking pictures of us and selling them to others, and then they were threatened not to say anything? That's a pretty big statement to say. That's pretty much the same thing that most of the survivors coming forward today are saying, the same type of fear that they had and the same type of silencing and threatening.
And I don't believe -- I know, the former person you just had on just said that, maybe it slipped through the -- through the cracks, or they didn't follow up on it.
There's no way that it was slipping through the cracks or they weren't following up on it. What happened was, is they realized that, We're probably up against very powerful people. And I believe that's what's mirroring what's happening today. 30 years later, they're still seeing, Oh my goodness, we're up against these very powerful people, what do we do? And that's why we're seeing with these files, just little things here and there, and so much being redacted, and not getting the full pictures and the full answers.
COLLINS: Yes. The Justice Department says they're protecting victims by not releasing everything and by redacting things. That's not how you see it though tonight?
PHILLIPS: No, because the victims want answers. We want -- we want to know. We want to connect the dots. We want our stories to make sense. We want to know a lot of different things. So, I mean, of course, they're just going to say that, that just buys time, but they're protecting themselves, not the victims.
COLLINS: You had said before that you had talked to some other survivors as well, and talked about creating your own list of the people who were around Epstein that, in addition to him, abused women. Do you think that that is still something that is a step y'all might have to take?
PHILLIPS: Well, we've been taking that step. We've been talking to survivors. And when I spoke to survivors, many more have come forward. And by speaking to others -- remember, there's hundreds of us. So not myself in particular, but many others who were younger, underage, or were forced to sleep with certain people, they know that -- they know those names, and we have put those lists together and given them to the proper authorities.
And so, I do feel like the DOJ and everybody has everything they need. And with going through the files, you can also pick them out and say, OK, this person was here. And do a little bit more research and a little more digging on those particular people that we've given them those names.
I don't understand why it's not happening. I feel like they have so much information to start connecting the dots and for survivors to get justice. But, as you're seeing, we're just -- we just keep stalling.
COLLINS: Lisa, what would you say to the Attorney General, or the Deputy Attorney General, if you could talk to them tonight about this, what would you say?
PHILLIPS: Start caring. Really start caring.
These were -- I have a 14-year-old child. It's a child. There's no reason why Epstein and the people were involved were even surrounded by children. Even girls, like myself, that were in our early 20s, why were we brought to these parties or to the island with these much older men?
[21:35:00]
There's a power dynamic here. Anybody can see that something is off and something is wrong. And there's plenty of evidence that there is a human trafficking ring going on. So, I don't even know why we're still debating that.
So, please have a heart, and understand that I represent hundreds of survivors, if not thousands. I believe the DOJ said there was 1,200. Like, think about that. 1,200 people, 1,200 young people that were harmed by this man, and he wasn't doing it all by himself.
COLLINS: Yes.
PHILLIPS: So, that's what I would say. Start caring. And we need answers.
COLLINS: 1,200 victims and their relatives.
Lisa Phillips, thank you for joining me tonight. I really do appreciate hearing from you. I think it's good for everyone to be able to hear your perspective on this.
PHILLIPS: Thank you, Kaitlan.
And up next. We'll continue following the release. We are expecting more documents to potentially be released by the Justice Department. We'll follow that. Also, another update out of Washington. The President has installed and just put his name on another building. This time, though, there are real questions about the legality of what you're seeing.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:40:00]
COLLINS: With the drop of a blue tarp today, the Kennedy Center joined the list of buildings that the President has put his name on during his decades in public life.
Less than 24 hours after the Center's board had voted to rename it, The Donald J. Trump and The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts, workers were already hoisting up the President's name outside the famed Washington landmark. Somehow, they had the letters ready to go, just a day later.
The President has put his name, yes, on a lot of things over the years, from his own skyscrapers in New York City, to wines, to Bibles, sneakers.
But this name is facing legal scrutiny because it was Congress that actually designated the center as memorial to President Kennedy, in 1964, one year after he was assassinated. There's an entire Subchapter, actually, in the U.S. Legal Code that deals with the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, and it says nothing about the Board having the ability to change the name.
I'm joined by my political sources tonight.
The former Deputy Assistant to President Biden, Jamal Simmons.
And former Trump campaign adviser, David Urban.
Jamal Simmons, what do you make of this?
JAMAL SIMMONS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT BIDEN, CO-HOST, "TRAILBLAZE" PODCAST: Kaitlan, I've been in the Midwest this week for the last few days. And people there, more than one person, maybe three or four people, mentioned to me, over the last couple days, they were concerned, they mentioned the White House, the President blowing a hole in the East Wing and taking it down.
You got a Q-Poll saying that people are concerned that he uses presidential power, he goes too far with his presidential power.
Now, to take over the Kennedy Center, half the Kennedy Center, with his name, without really doing that with any proper adjudication, I think that this wears on people. It's not just owning the libs. There are regular, real-life people who are just concerned, Maybe the President is going too far, whether it's Venezuelan boats, or immigration, or taking over the White House, and the Kennedy Center.
COLLINS: David, I wonder what you make of this, just because, I mean -- do you think this is necessary that, that his name should be on the building of the Kennedy Center?
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER TRUMP CAMPAIGN ADVISER: Yes, listen -- listen, I love Jamal. But no regular real life people probably even know the Kennedy Center exists outside of the beltway.
So look, I think the President should be applauded for putting some energy and life back into the Kennedy Center. Ric Grenell on the Board. They brought new programming. They've made it accessible to lots of people that it was never accessible to before.
It's, for those of us who live and work and operating around the Washington, D.C. area, most of the program is kind of stodgy stuff that real people like Jamal is saying that he was visiting with, in Midwest, wouldn't go, touch with a 10-foot stick. So, I applaud the President and the Board for doing what they do.
Do I think they have the authority to put the President's name up on the building like they're doing? No, I think they're -- the statute says, at least in what I saw, says that nothing -- no memorials can be erected, no other kind of names are put -- placed around, in and around the building after a period. I think it's 1983 in the statute. So, I don't know that it's going to remain up there for long after this President's gone. But I do -- I do applaud the Board and this President for breathing life into an institution that I think needs a revitalization.
COLLINS: But, I mean, you could say that programming should be different.
SIMMONS: Well, Kaitlan -- yes.
COLLINS: But I do think there are real questions in terms of time spent on this.
I mean, the Board that changed the name, Jamal, as you know, they got rid of the entire Board. They basically purged who was on the Board at the Kennedy Center, and put in a lot of people who were loyal to the President, and they are the ones who voted to make this change, I think, unsurprisingly.
SIMMONS: Yes, shocker, the President fired a bunch of people, hired a bunch of new people who were his friends, and they all decided to make him feel better with this lollipop.
I'm not sure what it is the President is up to, though. I got to tell you, whether it's paving over the Rose Garden, or tearing down the East Wing, or taking over the Kennedy Center? It seems like the people voted for him for him for something else.
People voted for him because in the Midwest, people were concerned about tariffs. I heard a lot of people talking about what that was going to do to manufacturing, when I was there, people in the ag sector who were worried about what's going to happen.
I think there's some real questions that he has to answer about how he's going to make the economy better for people, and not just look for ways to put more feathers in his own cap.
COLLINS: David, I have to ask you--
URBAN: Yes, listen--
COLLINS: --about the political news.
URBAN: Yes.
COLLINS: Well, but David, I want to ask you about this political news tonight that I'm obsessed with, which is that Elise Stefanik, someone who came in as a huge ally of the President's, and was picked by him to be the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. They pulled her because they were worried about her 21-plus-R seat was going to go, that could be vulnerable.
[21:45:00]
Then, of course, she was back in Congress, and was doing that, and was running for Governor of New York.
Today, she said she's not only dropping out of the race for the -- to be New York Governor, she's also not running for reelection for her seat. I mean, that is a huge change for someone who has been a really loyal supporters of the President's.
He said tonight he'll support her in everything she does. I mean, he hadn't endorsed her in the New York race yet.
URBAN: Yes, listen, quick note, Jamal and Kaitlan, just a footnote about presidents firing people. I was fired by President Biden from the Board of Visitors at West Point because, as a graduate and decorated war veteran, I didn't represent the Biden administration's ideals of what somebody in--
COLLINS: That's fair.
URBAN: --the Board of Visitors at West Point should be. So, not quite fair.
Elise Stefanik is a great member of Congress. I am super-sad to see her go. I do not know why she's leaving. She'll sorely be missed and I -- you know, she probably got home with her family, looking at the holidays and keeps asking herself, Why do I keep doing this job that's thankless, that people keep throwing stones at?
Being a member of Congress is super-tough. And my hats off to her for doing it for so long. I wish her well moving forward. But I have no idea why she's doing it. Going to be tough to hold the seat.
COLLINS: Yes. And Marjorie Taylor Greene said a bunch of retirements are coming.
SIMMONS: Kaitlan, I will say, I think -- Kaitlan -- Kaitlan--
COLLINS: Go ahead, Jamal, quickly. SIMMONS: I will say, while President Biden may have asked David to leave, he did not then appoint a whole bunch of Board of Visitors and changing the name--
URBAN: No, no, he fired me, and he--
SIMMONS: --to the Biden West Point Center.
URBAN: No, he fired me and he appointed -- he fired me and he appointed a bunch of loyalists. So Jamal, it happens in every presidency.
SIMMONS: But they didn't change the name to the Biden Center--
URBAN: Look it up. It's in the paper. You can look it up.
SIMMONS: --The Biden West Point Center for the Military.
URBAN: Yes, it still -- it still bums me out that he fired me for no reason.
COLLINS: Yes. Jamal, pass that along.
SIMMONS: It bums me out too, David.
COLLINS: Tell him, we like David Urban.
SIMMONS: Yes. Absolutely.
COLLINS: Jamal Simmons. David Urban. Great to have you both here. Thank you so much for joining us.
Up next. In addition to renaming the Kennedy Center, there were a few more surprises in Washington this week. Don't miss our behind the scenes, right after this.
[21:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: A shocking interview with the Chief of Staff, new plaques along the so-called Presidential Walk of Fame, and a year-end address from the White House that raised a lot of eyebrows.
Here's a look behind the scenes this week in Washington.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
TRUMP: I wasn't a fan of his at all. He was a deranged person.
COLLINS: Mr. President.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Monday, December 15.
TRUMP: The Russia hoax, he was one of the people behind it. I think he hurt himself in career wise. He became like a deranged person, Trump derangement syndrome. So I was not a fan of Rob Reiner.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Tuesday, December 16.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: What I'll say about our Chief of Staff, in a groundswell of support from people on Capitol Hill who don't even work in this building, about how incredible Susie Wiles has been to President Trump.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR & CHIEF WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: We've seen a lot of reaction to this interview. White House officials are one after the other after the other, talking about how great Susie Wiles is.
COLLINS: People were just shocked, because Susie Wiles is someone who is very disciplined, very effective Chief of Staff. That's why so many people are praising her today. Despite what they say, saying it's the media going after them or the left going after them. It is her own words.
The President called him, bad for our country, and said, he was a deranged person as far as Trump is concerned.
It's clearly also really tragic, just for the Reiner family.
You have no problem calling out what the President said. But why do you think other Republicans have struggled to do so?
REP. MARJORIE TAYLOR GREENE (R-GA): I thought that statement was completely below the Office of the President of the United States, classless, and it was just wrong.
I think the dam is breaking. Many Republicans may not have called him out. But last week, 13 Republicans voted with Democrats to overturn one of President Trump's executive orders.
Lame-duck season has begun. Republicans will go in, all-in for themselves, in order to save their own reelections.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Wednesday, December 17.
COLLINS: These new plaques have just been added to the so-called Presidential Walk of Fame. They almost read, some of them, like Truth Social posts, including the ones under President Obama's that says, he was one of the most divisive political figures in American history. Under President Biden's, it describes him as Sleepy Joe Biden, and also says that he was the worst U.S. president in history.
What are you going to say to the country tonight, Mr. President?
We know the President is going to be speaking to the nation tonight, one of his final prime time evening addresses as the year comes to a close. And right now, the White House has been touting this as a moment for the President to look back and reflect on what they say are his victories, his accomplishments.
TRUMP: I inherited a mess, and I'm fixing it.
This is what the Biden administration allowed to happen to our country.
After 11 months, our border is secure, inflation is stopped, wages are up, prices are down, our nation is strong, America is respected, and our country is back, stronger than ever before.
COLLINS: He directly spoke to Americans and their wallets as he has pledged that he is bringing down high prices, as he said, fast, as affordability has now become a winning message for Democrats, something that the White House has struggled to navigate.
So, is the message from the President tonight one that Republicans can run on, in your view? It sounds like no.
[21:55:00]
REP. KEVIN KILEY (R-CA): I think that the fundamental message that the President was trying to get at tonight, is that the American people are concerned about the cost of living.
COLLINS: What did you make of the speech that you heard out of the White House tonight?
REP. JAMIE RASKIN (D-MD): Well, first of all, it seemed as much a manic episode as a speech.
On the substance, it was like the exact inverse of the truth about everything.
There were no plans. There were no programs. There were no policy proposals. There's nothing out there. It was just a bunch of meaningless rhetoric.
ON SCREEN TEXT: Thursday, December 18.
COLLINS: The last 24 hours, Jake, at the White House, after the President's speech last night, he asked people if they thought he did a good job.
His Chief of staff, Susie Wiles, is the person who instructed him to deliver that message.
It's notable, given he's also going to be speaking in North Carolina, tomorrow, on this issue that has been first and foremost for voters, which is the economy.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: A festive programming before we leave you tonight. Because tomorrow, here on CNN, you can see Roy Wood Jr. hosting a holiday special, that's going to feature Craig Robinson, music from Jessie James Decker, and a whole lot more. Roy Wood Jr.'s Very Very Very Merry Holiday Special is going to air Saturday night, 08:00 p.m. Eastern, here on CNN, and also on the CNN app.
Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" starts now.
