Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
DOJ: No Basis For Civil Rights Investigation Into ICE Shooting; Trump Threatens "Very Strong Action" If Iran Hangs Protesters; Clintons Refuse To Testify In House Epstein Probe. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired January 13, 2026 - 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: So what is the next move for Comer here?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, AUTHOR, "THE PARDON": The next move is to get a vote in his committee for contempt against the President and Secretary Clinton.
COOPER: And that probably would not be -- that would not be hard to do?
TOOBIN: That would be -- that would be a party-line vote. And then the Clintons would go to court to challenge it, and that starts a clock not moving very quickly.
COOPER: All right. Jeff Toobin, thanks very much. Appreciate it.
That's it for us. 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: Tonight. Why six prosecutors just resigned over the federal investigation into the death of Renee Good.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
It has been six days since the fatal shooting in Minneapolis, a shooting that has divided Americans who have seen the videos of what happened on that street in Minnesota.
But tonight, the Justice Department says it has already reached at least one major conclusion. In a statement that was first obtained by CNN, the Deputy Attorney General writes, quote, "There is currently no basis for a criminal civil rights investigation."
Todd Blanche is referring to the killing of the Minnesota mom Renee Good by an ICE agent during that confrontation in the middle of a suburban street. He didn't elaborate on how the agency made that decision. But it is a break with how past administrations have handled shootings of civilians by law enforcement before, and it is the clearest indication so far that federal investigators are not examining the conduct of the ICE agent. Tonight, we heard from the President saying this about Renee Good.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: I would bet you that she, under normal circumstances, was a very solid, wonderful person. But, you know, her actions were pretty tough. I mean, I've seen it many ways and many different shapes and forms.
When you look at that tape, it-- it can be viewed two ways, I guess. But when you look at the way that was -- that car was pulled away -- there are a couple of versions of that tape that are very, very bad.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Right now, the administration -- the Trump administration is still refusing to let state and local authorities investigate their shooting, on their own, or in conjunction with the federal government. The President told me, last week, that he believed that was because officials in Minnesota are corrupt.
And the nature of that investigation is what caused a private dispute, inside the Justice Department, to become quite public today, when at least six prosecutors resigned over the department's directive to investigate, not the agent but the woman who was killed, her widow, and any involvement they had in the ICE protest.
These resignations tonight include Joseph Thompson, who seven months ago, the President picked to be the acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota. He's just the latest U.S. attorney to quit over alleged political interference. What we're seeing play out tonight is not just in Minnesota.
Also, of course, as we know, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York resigned, rather than agree to drop the case against then-New York Mayor, Eric Adams.
The person the President appointed to head the Eastern District of Virginia walked away, after facing intense pressure to charge the New York Attorney General, Letitia James, with mortgage fraud.
And the President's choice for the Western District of Virginia also resigned, rather than go after the people that the President wanted charged, because of their involvement in the Russia investigation.
All of that as the backdrop, and consider this report that came out and was published in The Wall Street Journal today, reporting that dozens of U.S. attorneys, when they were at the White House, last week, for what was supposed to be a ceremonial photo shoot, the President actually laid into them, calling them weak, and complaining they weren't moving fast enough to prosecute his favored targets.
Now that as the backdrop, of those six prosecutors resigning, the President criticizing U.S. attorneys inside the White House. And tonight, this is what we're seeing on the streets of Minneapolis. The administration still surging federal agents there, as we're seeing new videos come out tonight, including this one that we're still trying to learn more about as we come on the air, this evening, that shows a woman being forcefully pulled from her car a couple of blocks from where Renee Good was shot and killed. With the passenger side window smashed, agents surrounded her, flung open the doors and used a knife to actually remove her seatbelt off of her.
This is what we could hear in the videos.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You are terrifying (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm disabled (ph) and going to doctor's there (ph).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: When you listen, she was talking about being disabled, and trying to get to a doctor's office. Again, we are trying to learn more about that video.
We've also seen ICE agents capture a man in this home, as protesters were honking car horns, banging on drums, rolling whistles, as you can see.
And also this, when a man stood in front of a vehicle that was being driven by ICE agents, an officer pushed him to the ground, causing him to tumble into the street. A bus that was about to pass by the scene came to a quick stop after he fell.
[21:05:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey. Hey.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You don't see the (inaudible).
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey (inaudible).
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It's scenes like these that we are continuing to see in Minneapolis that have some of even the most influential supporters of President Trump's saying things like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOE ROGAN, HOST, "THE JOE ROGAN EXPERIENCE" PODCAST: We have this terrible tragedy -- terrible tragedy in Minnesota where that woman was shot, which was horrible. I mean, I don't know why I feel way worse when a woman gets shot, but I always do.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes. ROGAN: Especially in that situation -- I understand that the officer that shot her, apparently he had been dragged by a car, like, really recently.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
ROGAN: Which I would imagine. Also, tension's very high. But it just seemed all kinds of wrong to me.
It's also very ugly to watch someone shoot a U.S. citizen, especially a woman, in the face.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
ROGAN: Where it's like, I'm not -- I'm not that guy. I don't know what he thought. And again, this is a guy who had almost been run over. But it just looked horrific to me. Did -- I mean, when people say it's justifiable because the car hit him? It seemed like she was kind of turning the car away.
Now, ICE are villains, and now people are looking at them like murderous military people that are on the streets of our city, and they're masked up, which is also a problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My lead source to start us off tonight is Minnesota Democrat, Senator Tina Smith.
And thank you, Senator, for being here.
Because, you have previously accused the administration of trying to cover up what happened to Renee Good. When you hear about the Justice Department saying that they do not believe there's a basis for that federal criminal rights investigation here into the ICE agent's actions, what's your reaction to that?
SEN. TINA SMITH (D-MN): Well, it just confirms what I've been seeing for days here, which is the Justice Department, and the Department of Homeland Security, have no interest or no intention, in accurately, in an unbiased way, investigating exactly what happened in my hometown on the corner of 34th and Portland.
And there is no credibility to this investigation. If you have any doubt about that, look at the six career prosecutors who resigned from the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota, rather than be a part of this so-called investigation, not into the person who pulled the trigger and who killed Renee Good, but into Renee Good herself and her family. It is -- there is no credibility here.
And I can tell you that the videos, and the worry on the streets of Minneapolis, and in small towns all over Minnesota, is really intense right now, with this, completely unaccountable. It feels like an invasion to a lot of us in Minnesota.
COLLINS: So, you have no confidence in whatever happens with this investigation?
SMITH: How could I have any confidence when career prosecutors, whose job it is to look into the facts, have resigned, when they have refused to allow unbiased investigators at the state to even see any of the evidence?
And Kristi Noem, hours after this killing, announced to everybody, without even knowing the name of the woman who was killed, that she was a domestic terrorist. There is -- their credibility is just gone.
COLLINS: You've just said what you -- you believe it's a federal invasion. Obviously, the -- you've said that -- we've seen officials in Minneapolis say ICE needs to stop, they need to get out. The opposite is happening. Instead, the administration is surging federal resources into Minneapolis.
I think one question is, if they're only sending more agents in, not less, what options do you have here?
SMITH: Well, I would like to point to the action that the State's Attorney General, Keith Ellison, took yesterday, which is to take this to the courts, and essentially say that the lawless and illegal behavior of these ICE agents needs to be stopped by the courts. And I think that was a very, very important step.
In addition, those of us here in Congress need to flex our power here, and use our oversight power and also our budgetary power, to try to rein in this agency which has gone completely rogue, it seems to me. I mean, this is what happens, when you have poorly-trained, undisciplined people, in communities that they don't know, who clearly believe that they are unaccountable. I mean, the Vice President has said that they have 100 percent immunity.
[21:10:00]
So, there is no accountability here, no fear of any -- you know, being held to any standard. And so, you see them dragging women out of cars. Arresting teenagers who say, No, my ID is just upstairs. Holding a gun into the chest of a pastor and asking him, Are you scared now? This is what's happening in the streets of Minnesota tonight, and I don't think anybody likes it. Even Republicans are taken aback by what they see here.
COLLINS: When you mention an option that you could have, here on Washington, on Capitol Hill, would you be willing to shut the government down when it comes to ICE funding, like some of your Democratic colleagues have suggested?
SMITH: Well, listen, what I have said is that I can't see any way that I could provide more funding to an agency that is completely out of control.
I'd like to see Democrats and Republicans come together and say, Let's establish at least some standards here that ICE agents would need to, you know, not wear masks, that they need to have basic training. I think that this is the role and the responsibility of Congress, to exercise some oversight and some discipline over what is happening here. So, I'm looking to people on both sides of the aisle to try to bring some -- bring some sanity to what's happening in my home state.
COLLINS: Do you think that's going to happen?
SMITH: Well, I wasn't born yesterday. I can see -- I can see what's happening.
But, I mean, it's interesting that you showed that clip from Joe Rogan, who is expressing the discomfort that I think so many people feel when they watch the videos, the eyewitness videos in Minneapolis.
And I mean, I have to hope, and I have to push, that people will see these things and say, Yes, maybe there really is something that we have to do. Because, it may be the constituents, the citizens in Minnesota this week. But who is it going to be next week? Is this really how we treat people who are here lawfully, who are legal residents, who are United States citizens?
COLLINS: Senator Tina Smith, thank you for joining us tonight. I really do appreciate your time.
SMITH: Thank you.
COLLINS: I'm also joined by CNN's Senior Legal Analyst, and the former Assistant U.S. Attorney, Elie Honig.
Because Elie, what we are seeing coming out. I mean, this is wreaking havoc, as the CNN Headline put it, which I thought was pretty apt, on this Attorney's Office. Six resignations. Now Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, saying that there is no need for this investigation.
Just for regular people who may not know how this exactly works. What did you make of that statement?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Well, Kaitlan, first of all, I want to be clear, when Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, comes out and says, We will not be investigating for civil rights abuses? That means there's going to be no criminal investigation.
Because the only arguable federal crime that could apply here would be called a criminal violation of civil rights. And so, if Todd Blanche has said that's off the table? Then they're not investigating at all. And that is exactly backwards. It was bad enough when the President, Vice--
COLLINS: So then what are they investigating?
HONIG: I have no idea. Apparently nothing. I mean, I think all that's going to maybe come out of this is some sort of written -- report. But when the Deputy A.G. says no civil rights abuses that we'll be investigating? There's not even a criminal statute that's on the table.
And I want to be clear about this. Todd Blanche knows this is wrong, and I know that Todd Blanche knows this is wrong, because we were both raised and trained as prosecutors in the same building, the SDNY, at the same time, by the same people. This is Prosecution 101. You investigate first, and decide later based on that investigation.
To see a prosecutor, the number two prosecutor in the Justice Department, come out six days after, with apparently no investigation being done, other than whatever we can see publicly, and declare definitively that it's over, is absolutely backwards. It's the opposite of how Todd Blanche was taught. It's the opposite of how any prosecutor in the history of DOJ was being taught.
COLLINS: As someone who worked inside a U.S. Attorney's Office. When six people from your office resign, I mean, what is -- not even, what is the impact of that. I mean, what does that say about how bad things are, I guess, is the question.
HONIG: And for perspective, Kaitlan, that office, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota, has a grand total of 70 federal prosecutors. So, six plus the number two person, that's 10 percent of your office right there. That's not just a protest resignation. That's a mutiny. That's a group of established career non-partisan professionals, saying, We can't abide by this.
And look, prosecutors disagree on tactical questions all the time. Should we subpoena this person? Should we go to the grand jury? Should we take this plea? On and on. Nobody resigns over that. You only resign when you get to a point where you can't withstand something ethically or on principle.
[21:15:00]
And I think when you see six people go at once, they're sending us a very clear message. Look, they're operating in a system where the end result has already been preordained by the President and the Deputy Attorney General. They're looking at a federal investigation that has excluded the state, when ordinarily you would want to include the state investigators for reasons that are sort of incomprehensible.
And further, our reporting is that this investigation is not even focused on the actions of the ICE agent at the scene, but rather on the personal affiliations of the deceased, Renee Good, and apparently her spouse as well. That is completely irrelevant to the key issue here, of was there a liability with this shooting.
So, I understand where these people are coming from and resigning. It's an incredibly difficult position. And I applaud them for their courage and integrity in doing it.
COLLINS: Elie Honig, as always, thank you for joining us. Wanted to get your analysis on what is happening inside that U.S. Attorney's Office. We'll continue tracking that.
HONIG: Thank you.
COLLINS: And also, I should note, today, we heard from the President, not only on Renee Good. He also talked about what is underway in Iran, these anti-government protests, and what he believes is going to happen. As the reported death toll from this brutal crackdown is now apparently growing into the thousands.
Also, tonight, the Clintons have just defied Congress. One top Republican is moving to hold the former President in contempt. We'll tell you why.
And also, did a Republican senator just make the Fed Chair Jay Powell's point for him, that the DOJ's investigation is just politics?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. KEVIN CRAMER (R-ND): Maybe the point should be, if you're the attorney for Jay Powell, and you want to avoid an indictment, how about you go to Jeanine Pirro, and say, I'll make a deal.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, Iranian protesters were back on the streets of Tehran, as more than 2,400 people, at least, have been killed, in this brutal crackdown that we are watching play out by the Iranian regime, according to a U.S.-based human rights group who is tracking it the best that they can.
The President today urged these demonstrators, as he said in all-caps, KEEP PROTESTING and to TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS. The President added, quote, "HELP IS ON ITS WAY."
Now, while the White House has not made clear what exactly that help would entail, or when it will arrive, the President did gather tonight with several of his Cabinet-level national security officials at the White House to talk about his options.
Just before that, the President had a warning for Iran's leaders.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We will take very strong action.
TONY DOKOUPIL, CORRESPONDENT, CBS NEWS: And this strong action you're talking about, what's the endgame?
TRUMP: The endgame is to win. I like winning. And we're winning.
DOKOUPIL: How do you define that in Iran?
TRUMP: Well, let's define it in Venezuela. Let's define it with al- Baghdadi. He was wiped out. Let's define it with Soleimani. And let's define it in Iran, where- wiped out the Iran nuclear threat.
We don't want to see what's happening in Iran happen. And, you know, if they want to have protests, that's one thing. When they start killing thousands of people. And now you're telling me about hanging. We'll see how that works out for them. It's not going to work out good.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is the Republican senator, Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, who is a member of the Armed Services Committee.
And thank you for being here.
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Thank you.
COLLINS: You heard the President talking about taking strong action, making Iran pay a price for what's happening. What do you think that price should look like?
MULLIN: Well, what we want to do is see the Iranian people get back their country, you know?
If you go back in history -- I was born in 1977. In 1977, Iran was more Western than maybe United States. They had more women elected to public office. They had more women in the workforce than even the United States. You saw that change with the overthrow of Shah in 1979. And now, women get stoned for teaching their girls arithmetic, it is -- or how to read.
What we want is the Iranian people to literally have their -- have the ability to live their life again. So, what that could possibly look like is, first of all, let's get connectivity again. We've seen all -- Elon is putting up Starlink. We'll be able to see what's actually happening in Iran rather than going dark.
And then two, you could -- you know, you got to remember, during the 12-day war, Kaitlan, the President made it very clear to the Iranian regime, We know where you're at, but we're choosing not to hit you.
If we knew where they were at, at that point, we know where they're at today. We know what their air defense system is. We were able to get past their air defense system, not too long ago. We can do it again. It's the same -- it's the same system, by the way, that Venezuela had too, and we were able to get through that system. So, if we're able to put the Iranian leadership in hiding or remove them--
COLLINS: So, it sounds like you'd support U.S. military strikes?
MULLIN: Well, I would support removing the regime that's killing their own people. Reports are coming out right now that the number could be 12,000 to 20,000. It's 12,000--
COLLINS: Because you are in favor of taking out the Iranian regime?
MULLIN: I am, at this point. They're murdering their citizens.
Now, I want to just use a factual number that is in everybody's mind. If that number is true, that it's 12,000 to 20,000, this issue (ph) that 12,000 people that they're saying that's already been killed that we know of? That's four times the amount of people that was killed on 9/11, and that's happening at this murderous regime. And what we want to do is give the Iranian people an opportunity to get their country back, yes.
COLLINS: Yes, and we don't even know the full -- the full scale of it, obviously.
One question that has been raised, though, is the President said, If they kill protesters, I will get involved.
MULLIN: Right.
COLLINS: He said, the United States will come to their rescue.
We saw video, last night, of people in body bags. It's clear that they have killed protesters.
MULLIN: Right.
COLLINS: Do you worry that he risks, if he doesn't respond, a redline moment like what Obama had with Syria?
MULLIN: No -- well, as we know, the President doesn't bluff. He moves on his own time. Everything that he has said, he's able to do. And I believe these will be very coordinated direct strikes.
[21:25:00]
Remember, our military is always in a position to give the President options. We knew this was a possibility. Even though we're not into regime change, we're not -- we're not -- this isn't the Arab Spring like happened underneath Secretary Clinton. But this is the people of Iran standing up to a murderous regime. And if that leadership is going to kill their own people, the President said, We'll come to your rescue.
COLLINS: But you just said you are for a regime change here.
MULLIN: No, I said I'm for the strikes. I didn't say--
COLLINS: But you said, before that, you are for taking out the regime.
MULLIN: Yes, absolutely, because they're the ones murdering their own people. That's different than regime change. The regime change is up to the Iranian people. We didn't -- we're not going actively to remove the regime. We're going after the people that are killing their own people, and that happens to be the regime.
COLLINS: But just to be clear, you support taking out the Supreme Leader?
MULLIN: If he's the one that's calling these air strikes, you mean?
COLLINS: But that would be--
MULLIN: Or the killings of his own people? Then absolutely. COLLINS: OK, but that would be regime change.
MULLIN: At that point, the Iranian people have spoken. They want a regime change. It's obviously they want a regime change. You see them.
The President has warned them, Do not kill your own people. He's gave them an opportunity. Right now, if the Supreme Leader wants to leave, leave. I'm sure Russia will welcome you. But the Iranian people do not want you there. They are tired of your oppression on the Iranian people, and they want their country back.
COLLINS: What happens to Iran? I mean, we've seen this, we're watching it play out in Venezuela, right now, in terms of who would run it, if the United States did take the step that you support.
MULLIN: Well, I think that's up to the Iranian people. Typically, when you see these uprisings, which isn't -- the United States wasn't part of this uprising. We're just there to support the people that are uprising, that's finally pushing against this regime. You'll see a leader that will emerge. And will that be the Shah's son? Maybe. But that will be up to the Iranian people. What we'll be there is -- is to allow them to make the decision for themselves.
COLLINS: Can I get your take on, on the news that we're getting out of Minnesota tonight as well? Because I know you talked about this with Jake, on Sunday. You believe that the shooting was justified in terms of--
MULLIN: Absolutely.
COLLINS: --of how the officer acted.
MULLIN: Absolutely.
COLLINS: And we heard from Todd Blanche, the Deputy Attorney General, saying tonight, basically, there is no criminal investigation, civil rights investigation, into what happened to Renee Good.
Do you think that they should at least be investigating it?
MULLIN: If they're investigating anything, they need to be investigating the paid protesters, and who's paying them to obstruct federal officers from doing their job.
This was obviously obstructing the federal agents from doing their job. She obviously accelerated towards the agent that was in front of her. She was obviously given orders. This is not debatable. It's all on video out there. She was given direct orders to exit the vehicle, and she decided to punch the gas and hit a federal officer. At that time, that vehicle becomes a weapon of lethal force, and the officer has the right to use lethal force. And so, it's very cut and dry that the officer had that time.
Now, what needs to be looked at is, why are these individuals thinking it's OK to interfere with a federal officer? That is a federal offense by itself. And yet, they're getting in the way of these individuals executing the job. They are going after illegals. They are -- they are sworn to do their job.
COLLINS: But can I ask you on that?
MULLIN: And by the way, we as lawmakers, we don't get to pick and choose which laws we're going to enforce. If we don't like the law, we can't change it.
COLLINS: On what happened in that moment. Because we've seen the videos and how quickly it happened. Do you have no unanswered questions?
MULLIN: No, absolutely not. It is very clear.
COLLINS: Not which bullet killed her, or--
MULLIN: Well--
COLLINS: --how fast she'd accelerated to--
MULLIN: What does -- what does that matter?
COLLINS: --or his account. You don't -- but you don't have any of those questions as part of this investigation?
MULLIN: What -- what does it matter which bullet killed her? What does it matter--
COLLINS: But as that's typical--
MULLIN: --how fast she accelerated?
COLLINS: That's typical of how an investigation would work--
MULLIN: Well but--
COLLINS: --when a federal officer kills an American citizen, is it not? I mean, they would look into those things.
MULLIN: Well, but I'm saying, does it -- does it mean it -- criminal offense? If we start looking at this, because what you're looking for is, if it was criminal, if you start looking at this, what difference, doesn't matter what bullet killed her, are we doubting the fact that she accelerated and hit an officer? Is that debatable? No, it's not debatable.
COLLINS: Here's why I'm asking.
MULLIN: The vehicle clearly hit the ICE agent. She was clearly not listening to verbal commands to leave the vehicle. She was clearly obstructing ICE agents from doing their job.
COLLINS: Can I tell you why I'm asking this question though.
MULLIN: Right.
COLLINS: You say, that is so clear. There are officials that we've had on this show, from Minnesota, and local officials, who believe that this was murder. They've watched the same videos you have, and they've come to a totally different conclusion.
MULLIN: OK.
COLLINS: So, why not have an investigation into that?
MULLIN: Did -- let me just ask you this. Did we hear the -- could you hear the vehicle accelerate?
COLLINS: But I'm not a prosecutor here.
MULLIN: I'm just -- I'm just asking you -- but I'm asking you a question.
COLLINS: Why not have an investigation?
MULLIN: What -- I'm not a prosecution here -- I'm not a prosecutor either.
COLLINS: So why not have the investigation?
MULLIN: But -- because it's clear what took place.
COLLINS: To you.
MULLIN: It's -- it's--
COLLINS: Other people say it's the opposite of what you say.
MULLIN: What is it -- what is it that's not clear? Is it not clear that she accelerated? Is it not clear the officers were giving her verbal commands that she didn't listen to? Is it not clear that the vehicle hit the ICE agent? Are those not clear?
[21:30:00]
COLLINS: I'm just saying there's people who've watched that and they have a different conclusion than you.
MULLIN: Well, those are people--
COLLINS: So, why not have an investigation?
MULLIN: --that are the same people that was probably calling all types of -- ICE agents, every name underneath a book prior to this incident taking place too. And I'd be willing to say, you can go back and look at their comments.
Which, at the same time, when you -- when you're a public official, and you're criticizing law enforcement from doing their job, you are justifying the actions of the individuals that are out there that are obstructing them from doing their job too, and you are as guilty as they are. COLLINS: The surge of resources there is because of the allegations of fraud, right, that's happening in Minnesota?
MULLIN: Well that, and the enforcement of illegals being inside this country--
COLLINS: But I'm saying that's -- but that's why they surged.
MULLIN: --who shouldn't be here.
COLLINS: I mean, yes, but they're doing--
(CROSSTALK)
MULLIN: I don't know. I don't know that for a fact. I don't know. It may be. I'm not saying it's not or--
COLLINS: Well the administration has said that.
MULLIN: --it is there.
COLLINS: So, OK, to be clear, the administration has said that--
MULLIN: OK.
COLLINS: --because of the allegations.
MULLIN: I'll take your word for it. Right.
COLLINS: They say Somali nationals are defrauding the United States. Those were the allegations.
To the prosecutors who resigned today, are the two underpinnings of that years-long Justice Department investigation into the allegations of fraud there. Do you have concerns that they've now just left the office because of the fact that that investigation is not looking into the ICE agent?
MULLIN: I haven't been briefed on that at all. I have been in and out of classified briefings all day today, either with the issue with Iran or in Venezuela. And so, I really don't know. So, it's hard for me to talk about this. I don't know what the reason was. Whether they're up for retirement, that they had their years put in place? I don't -- I mean, it's hard to say. Underneath the Biden administration--
COLLINS: One of them had just been put in the job seven months ago--
MULLIN: --there was dozen of people who've resigned.
COLLINS: --by President Trump.
MULLIN: OK, I don't -- I don't know. I haven't talked to him. Don't know the reason behind it. So, I don't want to sit here and make assumptions on something that neither one of us actually know what the reason was for resigning. I'm sure, over time, it'll come out.
COLLINS: Well, it's been reported by multiple outlets. It's over the direction of the investigation into Renee Good's death. So, there--
MULLIN: What -- did any of those individuals talk to them?
COLLINS: Well, there's multiple outlets.
MULLIN: It's speculating.
COLLINS: It's not speculation. It's reporting.
MULLIN: Well, it is. If they haven't spoken to them directly, then it's speculation.
COLLINS: No, it's reporting.
MULLIN: What's report -- if you haven't spoken to them?
COLLINS: The reporting is that the six prosecutors are leaving.
MULLIN: Has anybody interviewed them?
COLLINS: It's -- well, it's reporting. It's not obviously always on the record.
MULLIN: But that is -- a reporting. That's speculating, because if you haven't talked to--
COLLINS: Reporting doesn't have to be on the record. It can be attributed to people who know why these officials resigned.
MULLIN: Who do they attribute to? Who came on the record and talked about it? Because they didn't. I'm--
COLLINS: You don't have to go on the record to talk about it.
MULLIN: But they're not saying they -- according to anonymous sources, I guess. I don't know.
COLLINS: And no one has -- has disputed it.
MULLIN: Are they -- I don't--
COLLINS: I think the point is that the people--
MULLIN: I don't know. I haven't been there.
COLLINS: --who were investigating the fraud--
MULLIN: Yes.
COLLINS: --have left the office.
MULLIN: OK.
COLLINS: Does that concern you?
MULLIN: It doesn't concern me, someone leaving their job, if that's what your question is. But as I said, I would prefer to talk about things I've been briefed on, not things I haven't been. And I just don't know the facts behind it. I deal in facts, not assumptions.
COLLINS: Senator Mullin, thank you for joining us tonight.
MULLIN: Thank you. Appreciate it.
COLLINS: And up next here for us. What the President had to say today, and his also top economic adviser. We talked about that unprecedented criminal investigation into the Chair of the Federal Reserve.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It sounds like you don't think it's appropriate that he's under criminal investigation.
KEVIN HASSETT, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ECONOMIC COUNCIL: I'm not going to have further comment on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: If Jay Powell had cut interest rates, would he be the subject of a criminal investigation right now?
HASSETT: President Trump and the White House Press Office has discussed that matter. I think I have nothing to add to what they -- I have nothing to add to what they said.
COLLINS: But what's your view as someone who's a successor, potentially, to replace him?
HASSETT: I respect the independence of the Fed, the independence of the Justice Department, and I also have a high regard for Jay Powell. I've known him for many years.
COLLINS: Well, you said you said you have a high regard for him. So do you believe he's done anything wrong here from your perspective?
HASSETT: I think his policy -- I think his policies have been different from what I would have done for quite a few times. I think he's made some policy errors. But I think that's what I prefer to talk about.
COLLINS: But it sounds like it doesn't--
HASSETT: Not going to discuss the Fed.
COLLINS: It sounds like you don't think it's appropriate that he's under criminal investigation.
HASSETT: I'm not going to have further comment on that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was President Trump's top economic adviser, one of them, Kevin Hassett, weighing in when it comes to the criminal investigation, I guess, I should say, not weighing in, of Jay Powell. It's a job that I should note, Hassett is also currently in the running for. He has been repeatedly mentioned on the list of possible replacements for Jay Powell when his term is up in May.
And this probe, though, here in Washington, has actually prompted some fierce backlash from several Republicans who have warned that the central bank's independence is at risk.
And source says tell CNN tonight that frustration is mounting inside the White House, as some officials are blaming the D.C. U.S. Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, for they say, blindsiding them with this inquiry that has now forced a days-long damage control campaign that's playing out.
One Republican senator says an indictment is possible, but that Powell has a way out of it.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CRAMER: Maybe the point should be, if you're the attorney for Jay Powell, and you want to avoid an indictment, how about you go to Jeanine Pirro, and say, I'll make a deal. I'll step down today, if you'll drop the investigation today.
To me, that would be a win-win for everybody.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My political sources are:
Kate Bedingfield, former Biden White House Communications Director.
And Kevin Madden, the former campaign adviser to Mitt Romney.
First off, thoughts on Kevin Cramer's thinking there?
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, WHITE HOUSE COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR UNDER PRES. BIDEN: Well, that's extortion, right? I mean, that's -- you can't hang a criminal investigation over somebody and say, You know what? You can make this go away by going and striking a deal. So, I thought that was a massive red flag to hear a senator, and a--
COLLINS: He said it in such a lighthearted tone.
[21:40:00]
BEDINGFIELD: Yes. I'm not -- it almost made it seem like he -- he didn't understand what he was saying there. But no, that's you can't -- you can't threaten somebody with criminal wrongdoing, and then say, The way to make this go away is to strike a deal and just admit to it. I mean, that is textbook extortion.
COLLINS: We did hear from Jeanine Pirro, CNN is reporting on tonight, she was just on, and talked about this investigation and the outreach that happened, basically how we got to this point.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEANINE PIRRO, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: We started the investigation in November. On December 19th, we sent a letter, an email, and we said, we'd like to talk to people at the Federal Reserve, give us a call.
No response for 10 days.
December 29th, Please give us a call. We'd like to talk to you. We'd like to speak to you.
No response for 10 days.
We want to meet them the first week of January. No response.
So then we did what any normal prosecutor would do, and we issued legal process.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Legal process, which means a subpoena.
I should note, we're told by sources that those messages sent to the Federal Reserve did not make explicit mention of a criminal investigation or the possibility of using a subpoena.
What do you make of all of this?
KEVIN MADDEN, ADVISER, MITT ROMNEY'S 2008 & 2012 CAMPAIGNS, SENIOR PARTNER, PENTA GROUP: Well, I make -- I take that, those remarks, and I take the remarks that Kevin Hassett had today, and I put them all together, and it just seems to be a pivot away from the remarks of the previous day, which was a little bit more forward-leaning, about why they were taking action against the Fed.
So, I think it's pretty clear, you see on Capitol Hill, the blowback has been pretty voluminous. It's been quick. And I expect it will be sustained from a lot of people who just do not believe that in an election year, particularly for Republicans, do you want to get into the politics of questioning central banks. It's not good for the economy. It's not good for their priority and focus. And so, what you're seeing is a little bit more of a backtrack, and I think that will continue.
I don't know who's going to take the blame for this. It's not going to be the President. But they are clearly, I think -- I think it's clear every day, or the further we get into this, that the politics of this are not really working for the White House.
COLLINS: Well, and the President is on the verge of announcing his next pick. He said he could do it as soon as when he goes to Davos next week. I mean, that person is going to face a lot of questions about -- they were already going to face a lot of questions. But they're definitely going to face questions on Capitol Hill about this now.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes, absolutely. And they still have to be confirmed by the Senate. So, they have got to move through that process. And I think what we've seen, certainly, from Senator Tillis, who said he will not consider a replacement until the legal process here has played out. But, to Kevin's point, I think there will be many others who will -- who will ask serious questions about this.
And so, it's interesting to me that we are seeing kind of a steady drumbeat of senior officials sort of backing away, walking away. But the person we're not seeing walk away from this is Donald Trump, who kind of doubled down, again tonight, in his CBS interview, and made the argument about the renovation overspending--
COLLINS: Yes.
BEDINGFIELD: --being an issue.
COLLINS: He called Jay Powell a jerk today.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes.
COLLINS: Also today, he was in Detroit. He was speaking at the Detroit Economic Club.
But he also went and toured a Ford plant while he was in Michigan. And he was walking around. There's video, we can't show it. It was obtained by TMZ. It's their video. But the President seems to mouth the word F-you to someone who allegedly called him, in the audience, as TMZ says, a pedophile protector, is what TMZ says this person says.
The President seemed to say, F-you. He definitely flipped the bird, because we saw that.
The White House said, quote, "A lunatic was wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage, and the President gave an appropriate and unambiguous response."
It's definitely unambiguous.
MADDEN: I'm not used to this. I used to work for a Mormon who would never use any of these type of languages, or any of those type of gestures. Though, having used these gestures and that type of language myself.
Yes, like, I don't think it's really great for the politics of the White House to have this. But it's very consistent with the combativeness of the President, how he takes on his critics. Everybody who is a very big MAGA supporter or a supporter of the President, is going to love this. His critics will criticize him. And we'll probably be talking about a similar gesture, similar coarse remarks, two weeks a month, six months from now. BEDINGFIELD: Yes. Well, it also plays into the fact that he continues to be incredibly sensitive about Epstein and about the Epstein files. And this, obviously this person yelling this at him generated a strong response, and that's consistent with what we've seen, in terms of his reaction to all of that, over the course of the last few months.
COLLINS: Yes, especially as they still have not released all the Epstein files. Obviously, something that is a big point of contention.
Kate Bedingfield. Kevin Madden. Great to have you both.
MADDEN: Good to be with you.
COLLINS: Up next. As I mentioned, the Clintons, when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, they are declining to testify, they're refusing to testify, on Capitol Hill, in that probe. There is something that's going to happen next. It's a threat from the Republican chair of that committee. My legal source is going to break it down, next.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the House Oversight Chair, James Comer, says his committee is going to move to hold former President, Bill Clinton, in contempt of Congress, after the former President and Hillary Clinton refused to testify in the Capitol Hill investigation into Jeffrey Epstein -- to Jeffrey Epstein himself.
In a series of letters that were obtained by CNN, you can see what the Clintons are arguing, over this entire lengthy letter, that these subpoenas, they believe, are invalid and legally unenforceable. They said, quote, "Bringing the Republicans' cruel agenda to a standstill while you work harder to pass a contempt charge against us than you have done on your investigation this past year would be our contribution to fighting the madness."
[21:50:00]
Elie Honig is back with me.
Elie, the committee says they're going to be meeting next week when it comes to contempt proceedings. First off, do you believe the Clintons are in good standing in saying they're not going to comply with these subpoenas? Or no?
HONIG: I don't. I think the Clintons have taken an unnecessarily reckless approach to this whole situation.
So, here's the timeline. Congress served these subpoenas on Bill and Hillary Clinton five months ago, in August of 2025.
Now, it's been clear from the start, we see it again in the letter you just showed, that the Clintons believe those subpoenas are invalid. You know what they could have done in the last five months? Go to court and move to, what we call, quash the subpoenas. Move to have a court throw out the subpoenas because they're invalid.
The Clintons did no such thing. Instead, they chose to send some letters and then no-show today. And by doing that, they've given Congress all the ingredients that Congress needs for contempt. They have a valid subpoena. There's no court order saying, this subpoena is invalid. And now they've no-showed.
And so, they could have challenged this in court. Maybe they will in the future. But by waiting, they've given all the power over to Representative Comer to decide if he wants to seek contempt.
COLLINS: So, what does that look like?
HONIG: So, the way this works is, first, the committee, the House Oversight Committee, has to vote on contempt. It takes a majority vote.
Remember, by the way, this subpoena was issued not just on a bipartisan basis. This was a unanimous subpoena. All the Republicans, all the Democrats, issued the subpoena. So first, it goes to the committee. Then it goes to the full House. If the full House votes for contempt, then a referral goes over to the Justice Department for potential criminal prosecution under the contempt laws. Now, that will be a decision for Pam Bondi, whether she wants to bring a criminal contempt prosecution or not.
And I'll give you a little bit of recent precedent, Kaitlan. You will remember. Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were both charged with contempt of Congress, prosecuted, convicted, and both of them went to prison. I'm not saying the Clintons are going to go to prison. There's a lot of space between here and there. But yes, this can result in real criminal charges and, in some cases, in imprisonment.
COLLINS: So Elie, some people might look at this and say, Well, I think what the Clintons did was wrong, that they should have complied with the subpoena.
But how can they be faulted for not showing up when there's a law that the President signed, and that was passed by Congress, on releasing all the Epstein files, and that has not been complied with by the administration?
HONIG: Yes, look, there's absolutely plenty of blame to go around here to DOJ. I mean, we've sort of lost sight of this with all the news that's happening. But here we are, a month just about after the deadline, for DOJ to turn over all the Epstein documents under the Epstein Transparency law, and they're telling us on a rolling basis they've only turned over some small percent, 5 percent, 10 percent. So, there's absolutely legitimate criticism there.
Whether the Clintons have complied with the subpoena is a separate question. And look, I think the Clintons, I read that letter, I think they have a decent claim that this subpoena is overbroad, that the subpoena is not necessary for any actual legislative purpose. But the problem is they haven't yet gone to a court to get that ruling. And so, by failing to do that, they've sort of left themselves at the mercy of the House Oversight Committee. I'm not sure they won't regret that.
COLLINS: Well, we also saw a bunch of pictures released by the Justice Department, when the part of what was being released was released. Obviously, getting a subpoena doesn't mean they've done anything wrong.
Do you think that there is any actual information that Congress would be able to gain from an interview like this one with Bill Clinton?
HONIG: So, the stated purpose for the subpoena that Congress has given is, Well, we have a legislative purpose here. We're trying to work on new legislation about human trafficking.
I certainly do not buy that there's any information that they could get from Bill Clinton, about what Jeffrey Epstein was doing in the 1990s, that could inform reasonable human trafficking -- anti-human trafficking legislation now.
That said, the courts do tend to defer very broadly to what Congress says is its own legislative purpose.
So yes, there would certainly be some very ugly and difficult questions posed to Bill Clinton, based on those photographs, and I suspect that's why they're fighting so hard here, and I suspect that's why they've refused to show up so far.
COLLINS: Elie Honig, great to have you, not once, but twice in the show tonight. Thank you for joining us again.
HONIG: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. If you've been to the Smithsonian here in Washington, at least one of the museums, they have quietly removed some text that was next the President's official portrait when they changed that portrait. A closer look at the changes, and also how Bill Clinton ties into this. That's next.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: If you go to the National Portrait Gallery, in Washington, you might notice that something is missing from the exhibition on American presidents. That's because the text that used to be alongside Donald Trump's portrait, noting that he was impeached and acquitted twice during his first term, is no longer there.
This portrait was actually changed. It's now this one of the President standing in the Oval Office with two of his fists on the Resolute Desk. And the description here just notes that he is the 45th and 47th president, and makes no mention of his impeachment.
[22:00:00] Now, when we asked a spokesperson for the Smithsonian, why that change happened, they said that they are pursuing a more minimalist approach, and noted that that history is on display in other Smithsonian museums in Washington.
However, if you look at other presidents' portraits and the descriptions that are under them, for example, Bill Clinton's, which is just a few feet away from Donald Trump's, it still notes inside his that yes, he was impeached because he lied about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Thanks so much for joining us tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
