Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Top Trump Intel Official Resigns Over Iran War; Pam Bondi Subpoenaed By Congress Over Epstein Files; Trump Says U.S. Will Do "Something With Cuba" Very Soon. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 17, 2026 - 21:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN HOST: And his base will be fine with it.
Or, is he emotionally now charged in that way that people often do in these imperial traps, where he wants to throw good money after bad, where he has to, in some way, show that he's won.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Fareed Zakaria, thanks so much. Appreciate it. We'll see you on GPS.
That's it for us. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now. Thanks so much for watching.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN HOST: And as we come on the air tonight, there are fast-moving developments in the Middle East, with massive explosions from Tehran to Tel Aviv and Beirut to Baghdad.
This explosion was just seen a few moments ago, before we came on the air, near the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, where drones and rocket attacks have resumed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(VIDEO - U.S. EMBASSY IN BAGHDAD UNDER ATTACK FOR SECOND DAY)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And as we monitor this new video that we're seeing here as we come on the air tonight, we're also getting this update, just in, from U.S. Central Command that the United States has dropped 5,000-pound guided bombs that are designed to penetrate targets deep underground, on Iranian missile sites along the Strait of Hormuz. CENTCOM says that the Iranian anti-ship cruise missiles in these sites posed a risk to international shipping in the Strait.
This comes as at the White House tonight, they're dealing with the fallout from the first big Trump administration official to break ranks over this war with Iran.
Joe Kent, until this morning, was President Trump's point person who was running the National Counterterrorism Center, and he has since resigned. He published his stinging resignation letter publicly, and wrote, I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran. With Joe Kent adding, Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation. Now tonight, we've confirmed with sources that before sharing that letter publicly today, Joe Kent had actually sat down with the Vice President, JD Vance, and the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, to share his concerns about the war that is now being waged in the Middle East. All three of the voices that you're seeing here on your screen have previously been publicly critical of American military intervention overseas.
And Joe Kent is someone who is not only an Army Special Forces veteran and a former CIA officer. He also has a history of promoting conspiracy theories, and documented associations with white nationalists, that have been widely criticized and widely reported on.
President Trump, as you might imagine, did not respond well to the public way that Joe Kent resigned over what he is doing in Iran.
And listen to the way that the President spoke about Joe Kent previously and in the past before he appointed him to this role. And how he responded to his resignation today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: He does fantastically on television. I watched his interviews. I love what he says. But he's a strong guy, he's a handsome guy. Said that guy was good looking at the whole package.
I always thought he was weak on security, very weak on security. I didn't know him well, but I thought he seemed like a pretty nice guy. But when I read his statement, I realized that it's a good thing that he's out, because he said that Iran was not a threat.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, Joe Kent's abrupt resignation has also returned the spotlight to Tulsi Gabbard, who has been publicly silent about the war since it started.
For years, her Twitter feed was filled with messages arguing strongly against military action in Iran, including messages like these: No war with Iran. War with Iran would make Iraq, Afghanistan war seem like a picnic. And Trump's shortsighted foreign policy is bringing us to the brink of war with Iran.
Now, these are all posts from previous years.
Today, though, hours after the news of her deputy's resignation became public, she wrote this. Donald Trump was overwhelmingly elected by the American people to be our President and Commander in Chief. As our Commander in Chief, he is responsible for determining what is and is not an imminent threat, and whether or not to take action he deems necessary to protect the safety and security of our troops, the American people and our country.
Her statement, notably, does not take a stance on the war itself or the intelligence that Joe Kent was referencing. But those are both things that she is likely to be pressed on just hours from now, when she is going to be testifying publicly, along with other top officials, on Capitol Hill.
There's a lot to cover tonight. I want to get straight to our deeply- sourced National Security Reporter for The Washington Post, John Hudson, who got the scoop on Joe Kent's meeting with JD Vance and Tulsi Gabbard yesterday.
And what's the latest you're hearing, John, about the fallout from this resignation, because we haven't seen someone resign over the war yet. Certainly, not someone this high-profile.
[21:05:00]
JOHN HUDSON, NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: No, it's incredible. This is the highest level resignation that we've seen in this war so far. It took a lot of pressure, I remember, during the war in Gaza, for Biden administration -- Biden administration officials to start stepping down. This is a much higher ranking senior official, political appointee, to step down.
It shows how much this war is really ripping apart the President's MAGA coalition, which is a loose formation of anti-interventionist hawks and doves, people of very different foreign policy persuasions. Joe Kent was a representative of the skeptics of foreign wars.
And in this meeting, you had three individuals collectively who are sort of the tip of the spear, when it comes to the skeptics of foreign military intervention. Tulsi Gabbard, as you said, her political identity wrapped up in anti-war fervor. You also had that in JD Vance as well, really key part of his political identity.
So, for them to get together, talk about this and discuss this, before he would unleash this incredibly powerful resignation statement, fully dismissing the war in Iran, saying, There was no purpose for it, saying, There was no imminent threat. Which is something that the administration has based its entire justification of a war on.
COLLINS: Yes, he wasn't just saying, I disagree. He was saying, There is no imminent threat, that is wrong, in his view. Obviously, the White House has argued against it.
I wonder what you thought of Tulsi Gabbard's response and her carefully-worded statement? Because before this, she had not posted. She posted one time, and it was about Susie Wiles, the Chief of Staff. It was not related to the war.
HUDSON: It was incredibly legalistic in its response. It said almost nothing in it. As you said, it didn't vouch in support for the war. Tulsi Gabbard is in an incredibly difficult position right now. People that I've talked to, who are very close to her, say that she actually does have a very close relationship with Joe Kent. She doesn't want to throw him under the bus.
He's actually put her in an incredibly difficult position. She's going to be testifying on the Hill, twice this week, and you can believe that she's going to be asked by both Democrats and Republicans, Do you believe this about Joe Kent's dismissal of the war? Do you believe this about Joe Kent's denial of pre-war intelligence?
I don't know what she's going to do. But I do think that this tweet is an incredible precursor to what we're going to see, likely saying, I collect intelligence, I'm the nation's top intelligence adviser, and the President makes the call. Really backing away from a full endorsement of the conflict.
COLLINS: Yes, and he could have waited to resign until after she testified. I mean, the Worldwide Threat Assessment's hearings were on the books.
John Hudson, excellent reporting. Thank you for joining us tonight.
HUDSON: Great to be with you.
COLLINS: And my source tonight is Republican congressman, Don Bacon of Nebraska, who, I should note, is a veteran, and sits on the Armed Services Committee.
When you look at Joe Kent's resignation letter today, what's your reaction to his reasoning for leaving the administration over the Iran war?
REP. DON BACON (R-NE): Initially, my thought was, I respect differences of opinion. I think good people can disagree about the attacks on Iran. I support it for a variety of reasons, which I can go into.
But what bothered me was towards like two-thirds in, he was blaming the Israeli lobby for persuading President Trump and that he was beholden to Netanyahu. And it just goes back to some of the oldest antisemitic tropes that I see that go way back, way preceding centuries, that there's this hidden Jewish cabal running our country. That's what he was sending to, and I didn't like it. I think we should speak up on that. I don't want that in the Republican Party.
COLLINS: You believe it was antisemitic, his thought?
BACON: I think it was, clearly. If you see some of the staff around him that he's had in the past, he's been surrounded with folks who talk like that. But when you -- when you blame the Israeli lobby for us going to war to Iran, I have a problem with that. And I otherwise would have probably kept my mouth shut. But we, Republicans, have to stand against this.
COLLINS: And part of his letter, he also said that he believed he couldn't serve because he thought that Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation. Which is the exact opposite argument that President Trump and his top aides have been making.
I mean, given his position, if there was intelligence that Iran was planning an imminent threat against the United States, wouldn't he have seen it? BACON: I think he would have. And you could have a different judgment on this. Again, if he wouldn't have talked about the Israeli lobby and tried to blame Israel for Trump's decision to go to war, I would have probably, OK, we just disagree, and I respect it.
Now, I have a different view than he does. We've lost about a 1,000 Americans from this IRGC and the regime, and 241 Marines, I could go -- 19 Airmen at Khobar Towers. I served in Iraq for a year. And on the best days, we'd have three rockets from proxy groups from Iran attack our position. On bad days, it'd be like 30. And so -- and the worst roadside mines or bombs were from Iran. And so, these guys have been killing us for a long time. And I think -- I think -- that's why I support the operation. They've been at war with us. It was time that we paid them back.
[21:10:00]
COLLINS: He reports to Tulsi Gabbard, obviously -- or he did before he left. We know he met with her on Monday, and the Vice President JD Vance. They're all have had similar world views before, anti- interventionist world views.
She's actually testifying before the Senate tomorrow, the House on Thursday. What do you want to hear from the Director of National Intelligence, who's been pretty quiet on this war ever since it started?
BACON: Her statement today was pretty neutral, saying, It's up to the President to make this determination. She is the Director of Intelligence, you would expect her to have a stronger position on this.
But you're right. She has a background of being more isolationist. I think, before serving in this administration, you would expect her to not want to do this operation with Iran. But they should push her on the intelligence.
And, again, it's all right to have differences of opinion, I respect that. And she can have a difference of opinion, I respect it. But when you start blaming Israel and the Jewish lobby, it's not right.
COLLINS: Yes, well, I mean differences of opinion is one thing. Obviously, there's intelligence that they look at that shows others.
BACON: Right.
COLLINS: In terms of, as we're looking at this, the President has been lashing out at NATO allies for not immediately saying yes to his request to help escort ships and reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
They say they don't want to do so because, one, it's dangerous; two, they weren't coordinated on this war before it started, and that it's not NATO's war.
When you hear that, and the President suggesting that the United States could leave NATO without the consent of Congress. What goes through your mind?
BACON: Well, anger. Because NATO is the best alliance, strongest alliance in history. They've gone to war on our behalf after 9/11. He seems to forget that. But he has talked down to our NATO allies from day one. And when you treat your allies disrespectfully, you can't just expect them to jump, when you say, Jump.
And in this case, I sort of understand that they were not coordinated with or talked to about the attacks on Iran. And then to suddenly want them to help out, it's probably a bridge too far for most.
But he needs to work on strengthening our alliances. If you have strong friendships, they're more willing to do this. But when you denigrate Denmark and all these other countries, they're going to be more reluctant. And there's a loss of trust with our NATO allies, right now. We have a lot of work to do to repair this loss of trust.
COLLINS: Is he wrong when he says that he can leave NATO without Congress?
BACON: He's wrong.
And maybe, since you ask, if he broke up NATO on his own, it would be a civil war in the Republican caucus or the conference. Most of us would find that totally unacceptable, and I'm not alone. There's a large group of us that believe in our alliances, and standing up for freedom, and pushing back on China and Russia. We don't want war with these guys, but you got to be strong.
And for -- if he went in and somehow destroyed or tore up NATO, it would probably destroy the party for many years. There would be many that will never forgive that.
COLLINS: It would destroy the Republican Party?
BACON: I think -- well, I think it would implode.
COLLINS: Congressman Don Bacon, thank you for joining us tonight.
BACON: Thank you.
COLLINS: And there was more reaction, on Capitol Hill today, to Joe Kent's resignation.
Senator Bernie Sanders responded this way, describing him as the top counterterrorism official under Trump and saying he resigned. Bernie Sanders went on to say, Kent and I don't agree on much, but he is right, when he quotes him as saying, "Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."
Joining me tonight is Democratic senator from New Jersey, Andy Kim.
And do you agree with Senator Sanders and what he said about Joe Kent's resignation? SEN. ANDY KIM (D-NJ): Well, what I will say is that I didn't need to hear it from Joe Kent that there was no imminent threat. That's something that we already knew. We knew that from just how this President has unfolded this war upon the American people.
But look, I think the main thing I want to just say here is that having been in the Situation Room for these types of decisions before, at the White House, this is about Trump. This is about the President. The President makes the decision to go to war. Certainly, there's going to be all sorts of other actors that try to influence. But this is on Trump. This is Trump's Iran war, and that is what the American people need to see.
COLLINS: Do you want Joe Kent to come and testify before Congress? Or what would you like to see from him?
KIM: No, look, I mean, I think he needs to leave. He's somebody that has done a lot of damage to the credibility of this country in the past, somebody that has very extreme views. I do not trust him. While he is certainly somebody who is showcasing the fracture amongst the MAGA world, and that is something that, again, Trump is going to have to deal with, and it shows the challenges that Trump has within his own administration. But Joe Kent is done. He is somebody that we don't need to hear from again.
[21:15:00]
But we do need to hear from others, which is why we need to have public hearings immediately. This only heightens the need to have Secretary Rubio, Secretary Hegseth, and senior administration officials come before Congress in public hearings. And this is day 18, and they still have yet to do so.
COLLINS: You mentioned the intelligence, where he was saying there was no imminent threat, which the admin has cited.
House Speaker Mike Johnson was asked about this today, and this is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): I don't know where Joe Kent is getting his information, but he wasn't in those briefings, clearly, because the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and everyone, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Caine, they had exquisite intelligence that we understood that this was a serious moment for us.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I mean, he worked for the Director of National Intelligence. Wouldn't that be where he was getting his information from?
KIM: Yes, just because Speaker Johnson said it, doesn't make it's true. We've seen Speaker Johnson over and over again just shill for this administration. I often say he's acting more like a Cabinet Secretary in the Trump administration, rather than a leader of a separate branch of government.
But what the American people see is, right before our eyes, that we have this war, day 18, billions of dollars spent, and this is not going how Trump wanted to go, because they had no strategy. They have no objectives.
Still to this day, I cannot tell you exactly what they are trying to achieve, and when they can say that this war is over, and that's because it is just a total debacle, and it's getting worse and worse and worse. At a time when the American people want us to focus in on lowering their costs, we're now seeing those costs increasing dramatically, gas prices, grocery prices, because of Trump's war.
COLLINS: One thing we do know is, I mean, they've taken out a lot of the senior Iranian leadership, besides the Supreme Leader, who was obviously killed in the initial strike. Today, Israel has confirmed they've taken out other top Iranian officials. I mean, you can see just how many of these officials have now been killed as a result of this war. I mean, this is just a handful of them that we're looking at here, with Larijani being the latest figurehead, which is very significant.
Do you agree that the world, though, is safer without those people in charge and running Iran?
KIM: Well, I will say that those are people who have done such terror and dangerous things to the world.
But what I will also say is, from what I've been gathering and seeing and hearing on the ground, it looks like this is just further concentrating power within the IRGC, Quds Force element of Iran leadership. And that is dangerous, and that could very well prove to be more dangerous, going forward, as we see so many of the other actors that have in the past given some bulwark against the IRGC now killed. This is an opportunity now for them, especially with this new Supreme Leader, to assert greater influence.
So, I think, again, this is a total debacle. We see Trump certainly trying to commit regime change, which he has, while then backpedaling and saying that's not what they were trying to do. But what they have put forward could very well be something even more dangerous to us, going forward.
COLLINS: So, you can't say that with those people gone that, that it does make the world a safer place?
KIM: Well, I will say that they certainly have committed horrible crimes, and they deserve to have this end to them. But when it comes to what comes next, we have seen this over and over again, you know? And I've talked to you about this before. I worked in counterterrorism before.
COLLINS: Yes.
KIM: I've seen so many instances where we took out a leader, we took out a leader, and we thought al Qaeda in Iraq was decimated, only to find that the replacement leader, Baghdadi, rebrands this as ISIS and created something even more dangerous than al Qaeda in Iraq.
We saw Saddam Hussein captured. And, of course, certainly someone who caused tremendous damage and terror to so many, countless people. But did we see Iraq immediately emerge into something better and safer? No. In fact, we saw even more lives lost of Americans after his capture.
So, this is not something that necessarily leads to something safer and better. We've seen this tactic for decades. And to base a war off of this, will be the wrong approach.
COLLINS: If this war in the Middle East with Iran, and what we've seen, has raised the threat level here at home for Americans. Wouldn't it be better to have a fully-funded Department of Homeland Security in this moment?
KIM: Well, look, what we do need is to make sure that we are funding all these different elements, like CISA that engages in our cybersecurity lead, TSA, as we hear from so many Americans. We have pushed that forward.
The Democrats in the Senate, we have pushed forward an effort to fully fund TSA. No other restrictions upon that. We have put forward legislation that would fully fund CISA, fully fund our cybersecurity operations. That's what the Republicans right now are opposing.
[21:20:00]
And instead, what are they spending this week doing? Not focused on the war, not focused on lowering costs, but continue the push, this lie, about voter fraud, that is all about trying to basically rig the election, going forward, for Donald Trump, as he said, that this is their way of winning the midterm elections and elections for years and years to come. They're not focused on what it is that the American people want.
So, if they want to open up Homeland Security, they want to open up CISA, FEMA, TSA? We have put forward that legislation. Let us vote on it.
COLLINS: Senator Andy Kim, thank you for joining us here tonight on set.
KIM: Thank you.
COLLINS: After that, who is leading Iran tonight, given, obviously, what we just showed you there, how many of them have been taken out, and the new Supreme Leader still in hiding, and what our sources are telling us tonight about why the United States is waiting to negotiate.
Also, still, that pressure campaign from the White House on Cuba's president to step aside. We have a source on the ground in Havana, amid blackouts and food shortages there.
And also, Attorney General Pam Bondi has now formally been subpoenaed to testify on Jeffrey Epstein. And what is she going to tell lawmakers when she's there tomorrow?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: Tonight, the Israel Defense Forces is vowing to pursue, find and, quote, "Neutralize" the nation's new Supreme Leader, who remains in hiding tonight. As that warning comes after there was an Israeli strike overnight that killed Iran's top national security official that you can see here, who had once been viewed as a potential transitional candidate by the United States and Israel.
This was before Larijani oversaw the brutal crackdown on those anti- regime protesters that happened earlier this year, and was something that President Trump himself noted today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: Everything is gone. Their leaders are gone.
A lot of people say their actual top was killed yesterday, along with somebody else that -- who was responsible for the killing, the man that was responsible for the killing of 32,000 people over the last two weeks, he was in charge of the killing of protesters.
They put out a notice, two days ago, anybody that protests will be immediately shot and killed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Joining me tonight is Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert and a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
And in terms of the significance of Larijani's death, I mean, how are you reading into that tonight?
KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, IRAN EXPERT: It's very significant for the regime, because Ali Larijani was really the only one left in that system who had decades of both domestic policy experience and foreign policy experience, and decades of institutional memory. So, one of the last really competent people in that regime, and not someone who is easily replaceable.
COLLINS: We were just speaking with the Republican congressman, and Senator Andy Kim, about this. And Andy Kim was making the point that just because you take a hardliner out doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be replaced by some more moderating force.
Is this something where that is a potential for whoever replaces Larijani?
SADJADPOUR: So, as the President alluded to, Ali Larijani was a ruthless guy himself. He was implicated in the massacre of 30,000 people, potentially last January. But there aren't that many, I would say, competent officials left in this system. So, it is indeed true that they will replace him with someone who could potentially be even more dogmatic than him. But I do think this was a demoralizing blow to the regime.
That said, we still haven't seen any cracks in the system, and we still haven't seen any signs that it's a regime prepared to change its longtime revolutionary identity.
COLLINS: What stands out to you, right now, about what we are seeing and hearing from inside Iran?
SADJADPOUR: Well, we still obviously haven't seen Mojtaba Khamenei, who is ostensibly the Supreme Leader, the most powerful guy in the country. We think he's in hiding. He's been injured in the attack that killed his father, and his mother, and his wife. And some of the senior advisers to him, these really thuggish characters behind the scenes, they're probably also in hiding because they have Israeli bullseyes on them.
And so, you ask yourself, how on earth can this system last like this, when it's hiding underground, they can't communicate with one another because their communications have been so thoroughly penetrated. And it's a system which was almost bankrupt before this war started, and now they're even in much more dire economic straits.
COLLINS: Well, and the administration is obviously trying to capitalize on that. And one thing that the White House was sharing today, amid criticism or questions of the war, was an op-ed from a scholar at the Doha Institute, and this is in Al Jazeera.
And they were arguing that the United States-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. They wrote, The objective is the permanent degradation of Iran's ability to project power beyond its borders... The military conditions for a durable settlement -- Iranian missile capacity too degraded to rebuild quickly, nuclear infrastructure inaccessible, proxy networks fragmented -- that is being created right now.
I mean, the administration was saying, This what we've been telling you guys, this is proof that what we're doing is working.
What did you make of that argument?
SADJADPOUR: Well, I think it's, this is the Tale of Three Wars. There's the military, or the economic war, and then the political war.
And militarily, obviously the United States and Israel are absolutely dominating Iran. Iran has been significantly degraded internally, and its regional proxies have been degraded.
But for Iran, they're also fighting this economic war, in which they want to spike the price of oil to impact American public opinion.
[21:30:00] And that is the third part of this war, the political war. All dictatorships, the advantage they have when they're fighting democracies is they have contempt for their own public opinion. And what Iran -- I have been saying this for a long time -- what they're hoping is that American public opinion is going to force Trump to end this war abruptly.
COLLINS: You made that point recently, and I think it's such a good thing to think of when we're looking at this. Because the President is asked every day about public opinion, here in the United States, and gas prices.
That's not what's happening inside Iran right now. I mean, they've -- obviously, it's difficult for anti-regime protesters to go out and protest without being killed. We're seeing these pro-regime protesters be out in the streets. But that's pretty much the extent of the public opinion, from what we've been able to actually get to.
SADJADPOUR: Inside Iran, this is obviously a deeply aggrieved population. At the moment, they're under bombardment. So, they're waiting to see how the dust is going to settle.
But yes, the leadership in Iran are going to be inheriting a wreckage. Their only goal really is to survive. And if they think -- if they survive, that's victory.
COLLINS: And they're getting help from Russia at the moment. So, they do have some places that are helping them.
SADJADPOUR: For Russia, Iran is a tactical partner, because it's a thorn in the side of the United States. And there's been intelligence reports that Russia has been sharing key intelligence with Iran, targets to hit. But ultimately, Kaitlan, this is one of the loneliest regimes in the world. After North Korea, it's probably the loneliest government in the world.
COLLINS: Karim Sadjadpour, it is always great to have your expertise. Thank you for joining us tonight.
SADJADPOUR: Thank you.
COLLINS: And we'll see you soon, obviously, on this.
Also tonight, here in Washington, the Republican who -- the Republicans who run the House Oversight Committee, they have subpoenaed the Attorney General here in Washington. They're demanding answers from Pam Bondi on the possible mismanagement, as they put it, of the Epstein investigation. Why she'll be on Capitol Hill tomorrow.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, has been hit with a congressional subpoena to testify before Congress as part of the House Oversight Committee's Jeffrey Epstein probe. The subpoena was signed by a Republican Committee Chairman, James Comer. It formally informs the Attorney General they are reviewing the possible mismanagement of the federal government's investigation of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell.
Now, Pam Bondi has been ordered to appear for her deposition on April 14th. She will be on Capitol Hill tomorrow, though, for a closed-door briefing with the House Oversight Committee on Jeffrey Epstein.
And my legal and political sources are all here with us.
And Elie Honig. Can I just ask you quickly? Because I think people might say Bondi is going to Capitol Hill tomorrow. This was scheduled before this subpoena was formally issued. But do you think maybe she is trying to say, You don't need to subpoena me, because here I am to answer your questions.
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST, FORMER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NY: Well, it seems clear, Kaitlan, because the official response of the Justice Department today was that this subpoena is completely unnecessary.
However, I think there's a big difference, which is that a subpoena would involve testimony that would certainly eventually become public, whether it's televised live or whether it's revealed later. And so, I think the committee understands that there's a need for transparency, there's a need for the American public to see the Attorney General answer those questions.
COLLINS: What would you ask her if you were a lawmaker, regardless of party, on the House Oversight Committee?
HONIG: So many questions that Pam Bondi has to answer. I've narrowed it down to these five quick ones.
First of all, is there any active criminal investigation of anybody around Jeffrey Epstein right now? Yes or no?
Second of all, several of Jeffrey Epstein's victims and survivors have requested to meet with you, Madam Attorney General, or other responsible decision-makers at DOJ. Have you given them those meetings, and will you meet with them?
Third of all, have you followed the flow of money? We learned today, there was a settlement by Bank of America with several of Jeffrey Epstein survivors. Have you tracked down all of his money? If so, what has been done with it?
Fourth of all, who at DOJ is responsible for the revelation of victim- identifying information that came out temporarily in the Epstein files? Is that on you? And has anyone been held accountable?
And fifth, and finally, there are several redactions in the Epstein files of the names of men who were clearly engaged in wrongdoing. People are emailing with Jeffrey Epstein about women, people who are named as potential co-conspirators. But the law says you cannot redact those. Will you un-redact those names?
As we sit here now, Kaitlan, all of those questions remain unresolved.
COLLINS: Shermichael, when you hear those questions that Elie has, do you find them all to be reasonable?
SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: Oh, yes. I mean, look, some of these questions are things that I raised several months ago, specifically doing some forensics accounting, which Elie would have some familiarity with in his previous job as a prosecutor, to figure out, one, what the banks know in terms of capital being transferred, wired into Epstein's accounts. And two, in terms of the settlements, where were those dollars going? Did some banks let go individuals who worked on those accounts? Why is that? We don't necessarily know.
And politically, I would be a bit worried if I'm the White House, or at least, I would advise the President. You think about Joe Rogan for an example. He sat with the President for about an hour. That was a pretty consequential interview to reach young men who aren't typically traditional voters. You think about someone like a Shawn Ryan, another guy with a massive platform targeting young men.
[21:40:00]
These are voters that you absolutely want to vote, this November. A lot of these guys are really pissed off about this Epstein stuff, because we haven't released any files, no one's been prosecuted yet. You've seen a ton of videos circulating across social media, obviously indicating that there were more men targeting and harming these young women outside of Epstein himself.
KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, SENIOR ADVISER, HILLARY CLINTON'S 2016 CAMPAIGN, FORMER DNC COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: All of this presupposes that she would actually answer a question with a serious answer, and we've already seen that she is incapable of doing that for her last performance on Capitol Hill.
These are great questions, and they're questions, frankly, that are not going to go away because they're not going to be able to provide answers. And I think these women are going to -- have said this all along, the women are not going away. They're going to keep pressing the questions. I just don't think we're going to get any answers out of Pam Bondi that are going to be satisfying to anyone.
COLLINS: Well, Republicans also voted for this subpoena. I mean, that's how it was successful here. So we'll see.
SINGLETON: Yes.
COLLINS: Shermichael, obviously, Joe Rogan, speaking of, another thing that he has been critical of the administration on, is this war with Iran. Because he is someone who talked to the President, has pushed the anti-interventionist, anti-war message. On gas prices themselves, I mean, we've seen how much they have been skyrocketing since this war started. Doesn't seem like it's ending anytime soon, at least not for a few weeks.
Trade Representative Jamieson Greer was doing an interview at the White House today. We tried to ask him questions about what's going on with the Strait of Hormuz.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Hey, Jamieson. Will you take a few questions from us?
REPORTER: Has there been a new date set--
COLLINS: Just a couple questions?
REPORTER: --for meeting with President Xi?
COLLINS: Any update on the Strait of Hormuz?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Did not answer our questions.
But it is -- the point is, have any allies committed to this? What does this look like? I mean, as a Republican, do you have concerns about where this is?
SINGLETON: Yes, I think it is important, probably, to focus a lot on the South Koreans and the Japanese. They get a lot of their oil being trafficked through the Strait of Hormuz in terms of exports.
That said, I think the immediate question for the President and his advisers will be, How do you provide some immediate relief to the American people?
One, you can tap into the strategic petroleum oil reserves. That's going to take a couple weeks for that to get into the systems, and probably weeks after that to see the prices actually decrease, at least around $0.20, give or take, according to some estimates.
Two, I think another thing the Executive could attempt -- I'm not sure if he has the legal authority to do this, but I would explore it. Maybe you can relieve some of the gas companies from having to follow some of the ethanol requirements. We have a lot of very clean energy requirements in our country. I would say, for at least six months, exit out all of those things to try to bring prices down. Some estimates of that, that could save $0.50 for the oil companies, that could be passed on to the consumers as well.
To your point. This isn't ending anytime soon. So, the immediate question for me, if I were an adviser, how can we figure out ways to provide relief to middle-class people?
COLLINS: I mean, Karen, just to illustrate this and show people.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: I mean, you don't really have to tell people, because they all feel this. Everyone's who's watching.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: What we've been seeing.
Texas, it's up $0.88 a gallon, California, $0.90. And Florida, it's up $0.96 a gallon. Arizona, $1.04 up. Just since February 28th. It is now March 17th.
FINNEY: I spent 30 extra dollars filling my glass tank.
COLLINS: Really?
FINNEY: Yes, so. I mean, thankfully, I can afford it, but there are a lot of people who can't.
Here's what's interesting about this, though. Couple pieces. Number one, obviously the gas prices, that's huge, and it compounds the fact that people feel like he has already not done enough to bring down costs. And every day he's out there, railing against NATO allies or what have you, is another day he's not talking about cost and affordability.
But something interesting, I spent several days this weekend with community organizers, who were gathered for something called the Black Women's Roundtable, and these are women who are dealing with cost issues, health care issues.
But they are saying that what is starting to bubble up from the grassroots are concerns about the war, not just because of gas prices, but because of young, black and Latino men who are worried about having to go fight, who do not believe the President when he says, It's not a war, it's just an excursion. Who are seeing what's happening and who are also already angry that he broke his promise to them. And that goes to the Joe Rogan piece, where he said he's not going to be the guy that gets us into more wars. So, I think they have a bigger problem going into November.
COLLINS: Yes. We'll see what they do to work on that.
FINNEY: Yes.
COLLINS: Karen Finney. Shermichael Singleton. Elie Honig. Great to have all of you here.
Up next. We're going to go live to the ground in Cuba, because the island there is still recovering from a nationwide blackout. All of this is because of a U.S. oil blockade from the White House that they are hoping will spark regime change. We have a live report from Havana, right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TRUMP: Cuba right now is in very bad shape. They're talking to Marco. And we'll be doing something with Cuba very soon.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: President Trump today previewing future U.S. intervention in Cuba, one day after he said he could do anything he wanted with the island, that as nation -- the island that is home to about 11 million people.
And tonight, Cubans are just now able to start turning their lights back on, after their electrical grid suffered a total collapse yesterday. It's a blackout that coincides with a U.S. trade blockade on the island, which includes fuel needed to generate electricity.
[21:50:00]
The Trump administration has been increasing its pressure campaign on Cuban leaders, with the Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, indicating that they have to step aside.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Do you support easing the Cuban, the trade embargo if you get more cooperation from Havana?
MARCO RUBIO, SECRETARY OF STATE: Well, I'm not going to discuss what we would talk about or not. Suffice it to say that the embargo is tied to political change on the island.
The bottom line is their economy doesn't work. It's a non-functional economy. It's an economy that has survived it's in -- for 40 -- that revolution -- it's not even a revolution -- that thing they have has survived on subsidies from the Soviet Union and now from Venezuela. They don't get subsidies anymore. So they're in a lot of trouble. And the people in charge, they don't know how to fix it, and so they have to get new people in charge.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My source tonight is CNN's Patrick Oppmann, who is live on the ground in Havana, Cuba.
And Patrick, first off, everyone there has been dealing with the nationwide blackout. How is that going tonight?
PATRICK OPPMANN, CNN HAVANA BUREAU CHIEF: It's neighborhood by neighborhood. We got power after 24 hours here in our office. You go a neighborhood or two away and they don't have power more than 30 hours after this blackout began. And so, we all know that this is not going to last. You'll get power back for a little while.
The root causes that caused this nationwide blackout that put 10 million people in the dark still exist. There's still an oil blockade. There's still an aging infrastructure here that collapses more every day. And so, we all know that there are more blackouts in store. It's just a matter of time before once again, this island is in the dark.
COLLINS: I mean, it's so hard for most people watching to even fathom what that is like, finally being able to cook or to clean or to charge your phones and whatnot.
You heard Marco Rubio saying there that they need new leadership, they need new people in charge.
If the President left, if he stepped down, like the administration wants. Do you think that would lead to significant change, given the Castro family's power that it still exists?
OPPMANN: It would certainly drive a wedge. I think what the Trump administration is thinking is that if Raul Castro handpicked Miguel Diaz-Canel to be the Cuban President, he could, on the hand pick him, and that by him essentially allowing the U.S. to pick a president of Cuba, that would kind of be the end of the Cuban revolution.
But just as I was coming on to speak with you, Miguel Diaz-Canel posted on X, a response to Marco Rubio and Donald Trump, where he claims the U.S. is threatening the, quote, constitutional order of Cuba, and that any external aggressor, talking about the U.S. coming to Cuba will, quote, clash with an impregnable resistance. Striking a very defiant tone. He doesn't seem like he's going anywhere.
But the tactic of the Trump administration has been to go around Cuba's leadership, go to Raul Castro, who doesn't have any official role, but is still very much the most powerful man on this island. He's 94-years-old, but he still has all the say in the world about what happens here. They are hoping that they can go to him, strike a deal with him, that would allow this island to open up. That would be a change, I think very few of us could imagine.
But already, so many things have happened in the last few weeks and months that really no one saw coming. So, lots of change at the point -- at this point, sort of just over the horizon. And certainly, the feeling is that Cubans simply cannot continue to put up with the daily struggles that they have had to.
COLLINS: Yes, it's just -- I mean, that's what you have to keep in mind, the people who have to deal with this on a daily basis.
Patrick Oppmann, we're grateful to have you there reporting for us for CNN. So, thank you for joining us tonight.
OPPMANN: Thank you.
COLLINS: And we'll continue to check in with Patrick on the ground with those developments in Cuba.
Also here in Washington, the Chief Justice, John Roberts, made rare public comments, and he had a warning about attacks on judges. You could guess who that could be in reference to.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts, is warning against personal attacks on judges. He made rare public comments. We don't often hear from him. But the Chief Justice did say -- he did not say who he believes is responsible. But you might not have really needed that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN ROBERTS, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES: Judges around the country work very hard to get it right. And if they don't, their opinions are subject to criticism. But personally directed hostility is dangerous and it's got to stop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The Chief Justice stressed there that the attacks he was talking about are not coming from any one political perspective.
Of course, it was just on Sunday that the President went off on Truth Social, raging at justices who ruled to shut down his emergency tariffs. He said, the justices openly disrespect the presidents who nominate them, and said, They are hurting our Country, and will continue to do so.
Of course, he hasn't just posted about the Supreme Court justices on Truth Social. You'll remember how he reacted right after they ruled against his tariffs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They're just being fools and lapdogs for the RINOs and the radical-left Democrats.
They're very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.
They also are a, frankly, disgrace, to our nation, those justices.
I think it's an embarrassment to their families, you want to know the truth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: He doesn't limit his attacks to just the Supreme Court justices. Of course, we've also seen the President go after other judges who have ruled against him or not in favor of his policies, including here in Washington, he just went off on the chief judge, Judge Boasberg.
We'll continue to follow that story.
Thank you so much for joining us tonight with all the breaking news.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts right now.
