Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump's Top Intelligence Officials Testify On Iran War; GOP Sen. Paul Confronts Trump's DHS Pick In Heated Hearing; Bondi Defends DOJ After Dems Storm Out Of Epstein Briefing. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired March 18, 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]
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR: --all the coordinates were there, they knew what they were hitting from day two, all-intentional. It creates the impression here of a robust diplomatic message, no military teeth yet coming in behind it.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: Yes.
ROBERTSON: But you get that sense that this is still escalating, Anderson.
COOPER: Nic Robertson, appreciate it, from Saudi Arabia tonight.
That's it for us from the newsroom this evening. Thanks very much for watching.
The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
I'll see you tomorrow night.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight, it's the key question that President Trump's top intelligence official declined to answer when she was under oath today.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
And we have breaking news as we come on the air tonight, as Reuters is now reporting that the Trump administration is considering deploying thousands more U.S. troops to reinforce its operation currently underway in the Middle East.
Now, we've heard from the President repeatedly to say that he would not take the option of putting troops on the ground off the table. That's something that has been echoed by all the top officials who have asked if that is something that is under active consideration.
More, on what the Trump administration is exploring, in a moment.
As here in Washington, one thing that we are hearing from the Trump administration are conflicting objectives for this war in Iran. Also, ever-changing timelines for how long it could last.
The one thing that the President and his team have been clear on is the need to go to war now, as they say, was based on intelligence.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: But we've got very, very good intelligence into that.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: And we have the kind of exquisite intelligence to get over the top, find that and destroy it.
Our intelligence just gets better and better.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He is looking at this every single day, based on intelligence, based on facts, and based on intelligence that he himself and his negotiators have consumed.
REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): They had exquisite intelligence.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And today, the officials who are responsible for compiling that intelligence for the President appeared on Capitol Hill. There were notable instances in which they either contradicted or declined to back up some of the President's claims about Iran though.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: After Midnight Hammer, they were warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program and in particular nuclear weapons. Yet they continue, they're starting it all over.
They rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions, and we can't take it anymore. Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: OK. So now you've heard what the President has been arguing, just to refresh everyone's memories.
His top intelligence official, who is the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, wrote in her prepared opening statement for Congress today this, I'm going to read it to you. She said, As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer -- which was the strikes last summer -- Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There has been no efforts since then to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.
Now the reason I'm reading you that part of the statement, rather than playing the sound bite for you, is because Director Gabbard actually did not say that part when she was in front of the cameras and in front of Congress today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. MARK WARNER (D-VA): In your printed testimony today on page six and your last paragraph on page six, As a result of Operation Midnight Hammer, Iran's nuclear enrichment program was obliterated. There's been no effort to try to rebuild their enrichment capability.
You omitted that paragraph from your oral opening. Was that because the President said there was an imminent threat two weeks ago?
TULSI GABBARD, UNITED STATES DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: No, sir, I recognized that the time was running long, and I skipped through some of the portions of my--
WARNER: So you chose to--
GABBARD: --of my oral--
WARNER: --you chose to take -- omit--
GABBARD: --my oral delivered remarks, sir.
WARNER: You chose to omit the parts that can contradict the President.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That exchange happened on Capitol Hill today.
Much more on what Tulsi Gabbard and the others testified.
It also came today, as the President attended another dignified transfer at Dover Air Force Base. This time, it was for the six service members who were killed when a refueling jet crashed in the skies over Iraq. A reminder, of course, of the cost when American men and women are sent to fight.
As this has been coming here in Washington, there have still been many questions back home for the leaders who do not seem totally aligned about the mission and the results of that mission so far.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HEGSETH: The regime sure did change, and the world is better off for it.
GABBARD: The IC assesses the regime in Iran appears to be intact.
TRUMP: They're working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America.
[21:05:00]
GABBARD: The IC assesses that Iran has previously demonstrated space launch and other technology it could use to begin to develop a militarily-viable ICBM before 2035, should Tehran attempt to pursue the capability.
TRUMP: They weren't supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East.
Nobody expected that. We were shocked. JOHN RATCLIFFE, DIRECTOR, CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Iran had specific plans to hit U.S. interests in energy sites across the region.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The threat posed by Iran was deemed as imminent, which led the President to order the attacks, though he did not make the case to Congress in advance, as you've heard many Democratic lawmakers complain about publicly and criticize the administration over.
They also came -- they also made this decision without rallying U.S. allies, which has now become a point of contention when it comes to protecting that vital shipping route through the Strait of Hormuz. It's a decision that the world is paying for right now, as energy prices are climbing across the globe, and as the President is still imploring those U.S. allies to get involved, to help the United States reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
And of course, that comes as the nations -- other nations throughout the Middle East, have been also dealing with this, without preparing for Iranian retaliation. We've seen what that has looked like in Riyadh today, where Saudi Arabian air defenses intercepted Iranian ballistic missiles.
We've heard from President Trump and his team. They have said that the intelligence made clear that the threat that was opposed -- that was posed by Iran was imminent. A determination that the Director of National Intelligence declined to say she agreed with today, during this remarkable exchange with Georgia senator, Jon Ossoff.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JON OSSOFF (D-GA): was it the assessment of the Intelligence Community that, as the White House claimed on March 1st, there was a, quote, Imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime.
Yes or no?
GABBARD: Once again, Senator, the Intelligence Community has provided the inputs that make up this annual threat assessment--
OSSOFF: You won't answer the question.
GABBARD: It is the nature of the imminent threat that the President has to make that determination based on a collection and volume--
OSSOFF: You're here to be timely -- you're here--
GABBARD: --of information and intelligence that he is provided with.
OSSOFF: You're here to be timely, objective, and independent of political consideration.
GABBARD: Exactly what I'm doing. OSSOFF: No, you're evading a question, because to provide a candid response to the Committee would contradict a statement from the White House.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: We start tonight with the President's former National Security Advisor, Ambassador John Bolton.
And Ambassador, you know as well as I do that the President pays close attention to the clips that come out of these Worldwide Threat Assessment hearings. I can still remember when an official called me, in his first term, saying that he was screaming his head off over intelligence from Dan Coats, the former Director of National Intelligence then.
When you heard the answers from Tulsi Gabbard today, what did you make of what she said?
JOHN BOLTON, FORMER TRUMP NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR, FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: Well, she may have heard about the stories of Dan Coats and Gina Haspel explaining to Trump in the morning briefing, after their testimony in open session in Congress, the way he behaved when they said something that contradicted what he had previously said. And so, I think she was doing her dead level best not to answer the question.
And the inconsistencies, the things that Trump has said about obliterating Iran's nuclear program last June, and the question of imminence, are things that simply are -- they don't stand up under scrutiny. But she's trying to preserve her job, and that means satisfying one person, even if it means contradicting yourself and looking foolish or incompetent in public.
COLLINS: Do you agree with her when she says the President is the only person who can determine what is and what isn't an imminent threat?
BOLTON: Well, let's parse words here. It surely is the judgment of the Intelligence Community. People want to look at all the technical factors that they have and give some kind of judgment. Ultimately -- and they're entitled to an opinion. She should have an opinion. Was the threat imminent? Was the threat not imminent?
But this is a question of intention, and a lot of that does rely on judgment. To act on it, sure, the President has to make the last decision. He can't be bound by his advisers, whether they're intelligence advisers, military or political advisers.
But really, she's trying to duck the issue because we're arguing about the wrong question.
I don't think the threat was imminent. But I think the President's still fully justified in pursuing regime change, assuming that's what he's still pursuing, because of the past 30 years of history of dealing with Iran. COLLINS: I was pretty shocked that no Democrats on that committee asked Director Gabbard about her deputy, Joe Kent, who resigned yesterday over this, and he himself said that he did not believe the threat from Iran was imminent in that resignation letter that he went public with.
[21:10:00]
He just did an interview with Tucker Carlson, where he argued that he believed Israel pulled the United States into this war. This is what Joe Kent had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TUCKER CARLSON, AMERICAN ACTIVIST AND COMMENTATOR: So, the imminent threat that the Secretary of State is describing is not from Iran. It's from Israel.
JOE KENT, FORMER DIRECTOR, NATIONAL COUNTERTERRORISM CENTER: Exactly. And I think this speaks to the broader issue. Who is in charge of our policy in the Middle East? Who is in charge of when we decide to go to war or not?
In this case, with what the Secretary described, and later on the President, later on the Speaker of the House, and the way the events played out, the Israelis drove the decision to take this action, which we knew would set off a series of events, meaning the Iranians would retaliate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The President has said publicly that that's not true, Israel did not force the United States' hand here.
But what did you hear in that answer there?
BOLTON: Well, I heard antisemitism. I mean, this is a trope that repeats itself throughout history, The Jews are in back of everything, and maneuvered poor, innocent Donald Trump into doing this.
Look, this conversation took place with Bibi Netanyahu in the first term. I certainly recommended it. It didn't persuade Trump then. He wasn't conned into this. He came to it of his own volition, because he thought it would benefit him. It's not turning out so well for him because of many mistakes he's made.
But this idea that somehow you can blame it on Israel, I think, is not -- is -- it really enters into the political debate, something. It's very troubling in American politics, if we're going down this antisemitic road.
COLLINS: What else stood out to you from the hearing today, from those top officials who were testifying, whether it was from the CIA Director, from Ratcliffe, from the others, as they were talking about, you know, obviously, what has centered on this with Iran and in terms of what the U.S. is doing and where this is going and why the United States is doing it now.
BOLTON: Well, I don't -- I don't think the hearing, as best I could make of it, really advanced the stock of human knowledge very much. Now, maybe when they have the follow-on hearing in a classified setting, they'll be more forthcoming.
But I think both Gabbard and Ratcliffe, the CIA Director, were primarily concerned with not crossing any of the points Trump had made publicly, whether accurate or not. And in that situation, you're not -- you're not going to get candid assessments by leaders of the Intelligence Community. They're just afraid of the consequences.
COLLINS: Ambassador John Bolton, thank you for joining us tonight.
BOLTON: Thank you.
COLLINS: Joining me here tonight is also CNN's Global Affairs Analyst, Brett McGurk, who served as the Middle East and North Africa Coordinator on the National Security Council.
We have a lot of headlines I want to ask you about. But just on what he was talking about there, Ambassador Bolton is saying he thinks they're too scared to just deliver honest answers because they don't want to contradict or upset the President. I mean, that certainly was something that did happen in his first term.
How is a threat assessment conveyed to the President? Do officials go and say, This is imminent? This isn't? How do they talk to him about something like this?
BRETT MCGURK, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, FORMER MIDDLE EAST & NORTH AFRICA COORDINATOR, NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: That's where -- I mean, look, that hearing was a mess. I don't know if there wasn't a murder board or something. But like, we're at war, and they really need to button up exactly what we're trying to do, so the American people understand what we're trying to achieve.
But it's also -- it's very complex. You can get multiple assess -- I've been briefed on Iran for, I don't know, over a decade in terms of various positions on all sorts of threats.
So, you can have tactical-level briefings on, This Iranian-backed militia group is preparing attacks against American troops, and the leader is in this house. That's like a tactical assessment.
Then you get strategic level assessments, and that is where it really does come down to the President or the policy-maker to make the final call.
Nuclear, for example. The nuclear threat Iran is not imminent. They are -- there is not -- they are not about to have a nuclear weapon. They do have a stockpile buried underground, about a 1,000 pounds of highly energized uranium, which still needs to be dealt with. They could, if they were able to redevelop centrifuges, spin that up to weapons grade, but that's like way down the road. Their missile program is a very serious problem. And here's where you would get a strategic level assessment of the missile program. And honestly, Kaitlan, in 2015, when the Obama nuclear deal was done, the missile program was really not -- it was like a Scud era type weapons. You launch a weapon, nowhere (ph) is going to hit a missile.
That missile program, over a decade, advanced to a really strategic, game-changing program, and the accuracy improved from like a kilometer to within meters, the distances, the pay of -- the payloads. And then, together with the drone program, and then we saw them proliferate to Russia and Ukraine, and those missiles were used against U.S. troops. We had ship-sinking missiles to attacking U.S. troops. That missile program is a huge problem. Is it imminent? It depends what Iran's intentions are.
[21:15:00]
COLLINS: But even what -- on the missiles themselves. I mean, the President has said they were close to reaching the United States within weeks, I believe he argued--
MCGURK: It's not accurate.
COLLINS: And Tulsi Gabbard contradicted him on that today. I actually thought that was the biggest contradiction, where she said they assessed that they've demonstrated space launch and other technology that it could use to develop a militarily-viable ICBM before 2035, should they attempt to pursue it.
MCGURK: They have intent--
COLLINS: Which is a key line from her.
MCGURK: They have intent and aspirations. But that is not imminent.
What is imminent is a missile program that is highly advanced, very sophisticated, and if left on the trajectory -- And this is where assessments come in. If you're not able to stop it through sanctions or interdictions, if on the trajectory over a period of 18 months, two years longer? They'll have so many missiles to such advanced degree they can overwhelm any defensive -- anti-missile defensive system. And that's where a president has to make a call, Do we work to degrade it now, or do we wait until that moment?
But if you have that runway, you can also consult with allies. And remember, this missile program is under Chapter VII U.N. sanctions. It's not just a problem for the United States or Israel.
But that hearing was all over the place, and not helping.
COLLINS: You didn't get any good answers, you thought today?
MCGURK: No, I mean, sometimes -- I've briefed Senate Committees plenty of times, and there's politics involved. But we are at war, Kaitlan. This war is not going to end anytime soon. It's kind of my assessment of what I'm seeing, and it's extremely serious. And the President was at Dover today.
And I think we have to be very clear on what our objectives are and what we're trying to achieve, because right now, it's all over the place. I mean, I can articulate, listening to Admiral Cooper of CENTCOM, or General Caine, what our military objectives are. But what the political objectives are and others? That's really unclear.
COLLINS: Well, and to your point on U.S. forces. I mean, what we just got from Reuters, before we came on air, they have an exclusive report that the United States is weighing military reinforcements, as this war is entering what they describe as potentially a new phase.
I mean, if you saw this, it's not just with the Strait of Hormuz, in helping secure safe passage. They also talk about using them to deploy U.S. troops to Iran's shoreline, according to two U.S. officials that they spoke with.
MCGURK: Reading between the lines, I assume what's happening is Admiral Cooper wants options, and so we're deploying more fort -- deployment -- Marine Expeditionary Unit is coming from Okinawa.
There might now be more forces going in to provide those options. They might be used for the uranium in Isfahan. That's an incredibly -- that's about 300 miles inside the heart of Iran -- that's an incredibly difficult mission, it's hard to even imagine. Or this Strait of Hormuz issue, which is really coming down to the crux of it. I don't see how this ends with Iran having the Strait of Hormuz shut down, and that probably will require more force, but that's also extremely difficult. So, this is going to play out.
The fact that the President delayed his Xi Jinping meeting, he said, for five to six weeks, I think is telling, and even in the mind of the White House, how long this might continue.
COLLINS: Yes, they're at least pushing it, the trip to May.
MCGURK: Right.
COLLINS: Brett McGurk, great to have you.
MCGURK: Thank you.
COLLINS: Ambassador John Bolton as well.
Two experts tonight.
Also today on Capitol Hill, things got incredibly personal, as Tulsi Gabbard wasn't the only official up there testifying with John Ratcliffe. Also, the next person who could be in the Cabinet, Markwayne Mullin, was confronted by a Republican senator today, and who even briefly threatened to cancel their vote on his Department of Homeland Security secretary nominee.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY): Tell the world why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken and a damaged lung. Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it. And while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and Border Patrol agents.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: President Trump's pick to run the Department of Homeland Security, Senator Markwayne Mullin currently, faced a very heated confirmation hearing among some of his current colleagues today. Whether or not he gets the job rests with those Senate colleagues.
But the Homeland Security Committee Chair, that's Republican Senator Rand Paul, has already said he is going to vote no, on Markwayne Mullin, because the Senator won't apologize for what he said, after Paul was assaulted by his neighbor in 2017.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: You told the media that I was a freaking snake and that you completely understood why I had been assaulted.
You went on to brag that you had already told me to my face that you completely understood and approved of the assault. Well, that's a lie. You got a chance today. You can either continue to lie or you can correct the record.
Why you believe I deserve to be assaulted from behind, have six ribs broken and a damaged lung. Tell me to my face why you think I deserved it. And while you're at it, explain to the American public why they should trust a man with anger issues to set the proper example for ICE and Border Patrol agents.
SEN. MARKWAYNE MULLIN (R-OK): Mr. Chairman, first of all, I didn't know the extent of your damage.
PAUL: Haven't heard, I misspoke and it was heated and I made a mistake.
MULLIN: Actually it--
PAUL: I haven't heard any of those words.
MULLIN: Sir, actually it wasn't heated, and I'm not apologizing for pointing out your character.
PAUL: Good. Good. So, you're jolly well fine. And you want the American public, and the people up here to vote -- that may or may not vote for you to know that you supported the felonious, violent attack on me from behind.
MULLIN: I did not say I supported it. I said I understood it. There's a difference. (END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Senator Paul is voting no.
But that's not the only hurdle that Mullin is facing when it comes to his confirmation. He was also asked today about previous comments that he made about the smell of war and serving overseas with lawmakers pointing out his lack of military service. As he also addressed a clandestine trip abroad that he says he made, as a Congressman, around 2016.
[21:25:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. GARY PETERS (D-MI): Were you ever -- excuse me -- ever an employee, volunteer or otherwise involved with the Department of Defense, State Department, or other U.S. agency or contractor for any of those departments?
MULLIN: No.
And Senator, I think there's a misunderstanding here that I could clear up, if you want me to clear up for you.
PETERS: Please.
MULLIN: OK. So, which this is a -- it's -- this was official trip, and it is classified. But in 2015, I was asked to train with a very small contingency and go to a certain area, which was scheduled for 2016.
PETERS: So, where did you smell war?
MULLIN: Sir, I just said that this was classified.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Mullin has later agreed to go to a secure facility after that public hearing to speak with the committee about the trip that he was referencing. We are told that Senator Rand Paul did not go to that closed-door meeting, but his staff did instead.
Tonight, Democratic senator, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, who was in the room, is joining me.
Senator, do you -- I just want to -- there's a lot of questions about this -- there are a lot of questions about this trip. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy says that he asked Paul Ryan about this, that it is true that he was there as a House member on a trip. James Lankford said that it's not classified, that it was under a non- disclosure agreement. Do you still have questions about this trip?
SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL (D-CT): I have more questions than I did earlier today, or even at the end of the non-classified hearing. Because, we then conducted a conversation in a classified setting, a secure facility in the Capitol. And I would say, we got almost no information. In fact, we left with more questions than answers. Whether there was any sort of classified mission, who classified it, how and when. And so, I think there's some explaining to do here.
COLLINS: When it comes to the heart of why he's being confirmed, obviously, what he's going to do as the Secretary of Homeland Security, if he is confirmed.
He broke with Kristi Noem on several fronts. And on one of those, you were questioning him about a judicial warrant to access people's homes versus a very less restrictive administrative warrant. And this is what he said to you about that.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BLUMENTHAL: If confirmed, will you commit to me, and the Chair, and member -- Ranking Member of this committee, and the American people, that ICE will no longer instruct agents to break into people's homes without a judicial warrant?
MULLIN: Sir, I -- you're using the word, break into people's houses, very loosely.
However, I have made it very clear to the staff, and I think when you and I spoke, that a judicial warrant will be used to go into houses, into place of businesses, unless we're pursuing someone that enters in that place. I have not mixed words with that, and I haven't changed my opinion about that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: He also testified that he wants to bring back ICE from the front lines, as he believes they've been, and he also doesn't want to micromanage FEMA, as Kristi Noem required any contract over a $100,000 to be personally signed off by her.
From what you heard from him that is different from what she would do, would you consider voting yes on him?
BLUMENTHAL: I'm a no on this nomination. The reason that I am a no is very simply, he has refused to break with the past policies and practices of ICE and CBP that were violent and brutal, violative of people's rights, for example, dragging people out of cars, detaining American citizens illegally, refusing medical treatment for them, and break-ins.
Now, he has said, and I welcome his concession, that the Department of Homeland Security is going to follow the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. That may seem like a major step for this administration. But the fact is, on other reforms, like wearing badges and identification, masks off, body cameras on, he has refused a break with the past.
COLLINS: Do you think he'd be better if confirmed, even without your support, than Kristi Noem?
BLUMENTHAL: He would be better than Kristi Noem, for sure. COLLINS: Can I also ask you, Senator, tonight, because we just got some breaking reporting in, when it comes to the war with Iran, which officials were also testing about today. The Washington Post is reporting tonight that the Pentagon is asking for more than $200 billion, billion, in their budget request from the White House, asking them to approve that, to go to Congress and ask you for that, for the Iran war.
Will you vote yes on $200 billion for the Iran war?
BLUMENTHAL: At this point, I would oppose that supplemental of $200 billion, and I think its chances of passing Congress are slim, maybe slim to none. The reason is, very simply, it could be misinterpreted as approval of the war. The administration has yet to come to the Congress for approval, as required by the Constitution.
[21:30:00]
And $200 billion would apparently come, in addition to the $1.5 trillion, 50 percent increase, that Trump has asked Congress to approve for the Defense budget. Now, keep in mind, they are claiming that they've only spent a $11 billion, as compared to that $200 billion. I think they're lowballing it.
But still, they need to have members of the administration come to the Congress, in open hearings, under oath, talk about the objectives, the strategy, which right now is confused and chaotic.
COLLINS: Senator Richard Blumenthal, thank you for joining us tonight.
BLUMENTHAL: Thank you.
COLLINS: Really appreciate your time.
Up next. We also have new reporting here on what happened behind closed doors with Attorney General Pam Bondi, when she was on Capitol Hill, when it comes to the Epstein investigation. Why Democrats ended up walking out.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:35:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: We have provided 3 million documents. 3 million documents, the height of the Eiffel Tower. Used 500 attorneys, working around the clock, have identified, either they self-identified or through their attorneys, 1,200 victims who we did our very, very best to protect their identities. And so, we're proud of the work that we've done on this.
Go ahead. Next question.
REPORTER: Will you commit to complying with that subpoena and appearing for a closed-door deposition? BONDI: I made it crystal clear, I will follow the law.
Next question.
We were there to answer questions. It's the evening. We came at their convenience. We gave them as, really, as much time as they wanted, and one Congresswoman screamed C-SPAN wasn't in there.
We sat there saying, Anything you want to ask us, ask us anything you want to ask us. And they screamed, C-SPAN wasn't there, one of them, and then they stormed out of the meeting.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was Attorney General Pam Bondi, defending the Justice Department's handling of the Epstein investigation, after her closed- door briefing with lawmakers quickly became heated when they arrived on Capitol Hill.
Democrats walked out of the meeting, with Bondi and her deputy, Todd Blanche, citing their frustrations with how the Justice Department leaders answered their questions, including whether or not Bondi still planned to appear for a deposition next month.
I also have new reporting from inside the room, detailing just how hot it got inside and behind closed doors. At one point, the Republican Oversight Chairman, James Comer, was clashing with a Democratic member of Congress, Summer Lee.
And according to sources, we are told that Lee was arguing, it was essentially a hearing without the public there, telling Comer, quote, I would like C-SPAN. I would like you to bring the transcribers. I would like you to go through with the decorum and with the rules.
Comer responded, Are you trying to find information, or are you trying to embarrass the Attorney General?
Lee responded, Absolutely not. I think the Attorney General is a woman who is completely able to defend herself, and I'm not attacking her. I'm questioning you. You run this place.
Now, they continue to go back and forth, when at one point, Comer responds, and I'm quoting the Chairman now when I say this, You've wasted three minutes of everyone's time just kind of, bitching.
Lee responded, Really? Wow. Bitching?
I'm told, there were audible gasps inside the room when that happened.
And I'm joined now by the Ranking Member on the House Oversight Committee, that is Democratic Congressman Robert Garcia.
And also, Congresswoman Summer Lee.
And it's great to have you both here. I'll start with you, because you were in the room for that. That's what we heard from sources before you had agreed to come on an interview with us tonight. Can you just kind of give us your version of what happened inside the room?
REP. SUMMER LEE (D-PA): Yes. I mean, the transcript was a part of it. But the opener, the actual crux of what I was asking is A, yes, it was important to know what is this. What was this arrangement? How should we engage it? Right?
The point about C-SPAN, about there not being cameras, is the fact that this was -- she was not under oath. There was no one there. This was not on the record. But what I was actually asking him was, will he hold her to the subpoena.
She asked -- she was asked repeatedly by our Ranking Member, she was asked by other -- others of our member, will she comply with the second subpoena. She's already not complying with the first. Will she comply with this one that calls her in for a deposition? And she could not commit to it.
So, I simply directed my questions to the Chairman. Would he, with that information, compel her to come in? And if she did not come in, if she refuses, will he move forward with contempt proceedings, as he did for the Clintons.
COLLINS: And we heard from Chairman Comer afterward, and this is what he told reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. JAMES COMER (R-KY): Well, she was just complaining about the format. And that was the fourth Democrat to ask questions, and they didn't ask any questions.
Does it look like a cover-up? The Attorney General, and Blanche, and all the top brass at the DOJ in here to answer questions. And yet, they don't ask a single question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: They -- now he and Pam Bondi, both said Democrats did not ask substantive questions. Is that true?
REP. ROBERT GARCIA (D-CA): I mean, it's a lie. The first question that was asked was to confirm the Attorney General would come in under oath, on the subpoena, be deposed by the committee, so we can make it public to the American people. And she refused to answer that question.
She was asked additional other questions by other members of the committee. But we kept coming back to this question of, is she actually going to appear? Because it became very clear quickly that they had set up this kind of fake hearing or briefing. There was no briefing, by the way. She didn't brief us on anything. She just began saying, OK, I'm ready to answer your questions. [21:40:00]
They told us about this hearing yesterday. There was no format provided to us. So, we show up for a briefing that it's set up like a -- like a hearing, and it's clearly the impression being left on us that she doesn't want to come in for her actual, real hearing that will be transcribed and under oath.
And so, we're not going to participate in games or this cover-up, and we're certainly not going to allow the Chairman to disparage and insult members of our committee. We're not doing that.
We will be back, when she is deposed in front of the Oversight Committee, under oath, as she is legally obligated to do so under the subpoena.
COLLINS: She was asked afterward about this, and she said repeatedly that she would follow the law, when she was asked if she will comply with that subpoena. Do you expect her to show up for that?
LEE: Well, I think that she's trying to get out of it, right? Because there was a -- there was a simpler answer than, I will follow the law. The simple answer is, Yes. The law says yes. So, there is no reason for her to demure, there's no reason for her to tiptoe around it. The answer is, I was legally subpoenaed by this committee and that I will be there. But the answer would have also been that, Because I was legally subpoenaed, I would have also released all of the files. And she hasn't done that yet either.
COLLINS: There were Republicans on the committee who voted to -- who agreed with you about subpoenaing her. Do you have concerns that what devolved tonight, what happened behind closed doors, will change their minds on forcing her to come in? I mean, we had heard that Republican congresswoman Lauren Boebert had been saying something about her vote to subpoena her. Have you heard anything on that?
GARCIA: Well, look, the vote has been taken. The subpoena has been sent out by Chairman Comer, two days ago. And so, she is now under subpoena to appear April 14th, in front of the committee. So, they can't just renege on that subpoena. They would have to actually have to take a vote in another meeting and then -- and then, basically remove the subpoena process that's been put in place. That would be unprecedented, that doesn't happen.
She has to come in front of us, under oath, and answer real questions, answer questions about why survivors have been doxed in the documents, why their names have been exposed, why half the files have still not been released to the public, why documents about the President have been removed and then put back and still missing in some cases.
And so, what we want is the truth. We don't want games. There's a subpoena in place that was bipartisan, and now she's got to come in front of us and answer questions.
COLLINS: Yes. And Chairman Comer did tell my colleague, Annie Grayer, on Capitol Hill, that he does still plan to follow through with that subpoena. So, we'll see, obviously, what that looks like on April 14th.
I think as everyone's saying the Democrat -- or the DOJ is complaining that they didn't get substantive questions. What are the key questions you would have for Attorney General Bondi, if she does come and appear on April 14th?
LEE: I think those are -- those are -- and it's along the line of that, right? We're talking about not just the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but also our subpoena.
They're continuing to act like the subpoena from back in July, that we were able to get that motion back then, it was signed by Comer back in August, they're trying to pretend that that one doesn't exist. And because of that, they're saying to the public that they've already done, they fulfilled everything that they needed to under the law. But that's just not true.
So, what we want to hear from them, What are you withholding that should be released to our committee, even if it is not under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but still should come to us as a committee, which are the full, un-redacted files, but for the names and the identifying information of survivors.
They have not done that.
We still want to hear, has she had any -- has she taken any advice from President Trump? Is she conducting a cover-up for him? Is she doing this at his direction? Did he tell her that he doesn't want her to release anything more?
There's a lot that I think that members of our committee and our lawyers would like to know.
COLLINS: So, do you think she's going to show up?
GARCIA: Well, she better.
And one question that was not added there is, why was Ghislaine Maxwell moved to a less-secure prison by her Department of Justice? We still have no answer to that question. She needs to come in front of us and answer questions for the American public.
COLLINS: Congressman Robert Garcia. And Summer Lee. Thank you both for joining us tonight. Really appreciate that.
LEE: Thank you.
Also here tonight, we're hearing from a top TSA official who is warning that the agency might have to shut down entire airports, if this stalemate over Department of Homeland Security funding isn't solved soon. More ahead.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK) COLLINS: Tonight, TSA is warning that several airports across the country might have to shut down if this partisan battle here in Washington over funding for the Department of Homeland Security drags on. Security lines in Atlanta stretched for hours, where more than a third of the TSA agents there called out of work. It's what is known as the world's busiest airport.
It only adds to a growing list of frustrated passengers from airports across the country, from California to Florida, Denver to New York City this week, as there is still no end in sight, right now, when it comes to this funding problem and stalemate here in Washington, with Democrats and Republicans basically at an impasse over reforms for ICE.
My political sources are here joining me.
And Van Jones, you are someone who I was listening the other night talk about your own issues with this at an airport that you went to. You said you nearly missed your flight.
VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER OBAMA ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes.
COLLINS: I think when you look at this, and more people become aware of why this is happening in certain airports. Do you think that Democrats are winning this fight politically?
JONES: I don't know, but I'd tell you, the Republicans could get this done immediately.
Look, just make sure that ICE officers are identifiable if they want to wear a mask and put big numbers on them, make sure they have body cameras and make sure they have to have warrants. Why would Republicans be opposed to any of those things? It's commonsense stuff. It's popular with everybody.
[21:50:00]
The fact that Republicans are willing to let us go through all of this -- and by the way, it is not fun standing in those lines, I'm going to tell you, I almost put a fork in my eye. But why not give these simple concessions and get on with it? The fact -- it's terrifying for us that they're not willing to do these simple things. What are they planning to do with these unidentified officers with no warrants and no body cameras? That's the scary part, in addition to what's happening at these airports.
COLLINS: Yes, well, and I mean, Peter Meijer is the former Congressman here. When you hear Van saying, those are pretty simple concessions. Do you think that they should try to come to an agreement on that?
PETER MEIJER, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE (R-MI), CO-FOUNDER & HEAD OF STRATEGY, THE NEW INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION: And I'm pretty sure the White House, in the rebuttal they just sent back to congressional Democrats, around the same issue, they made those concessions. They said, Sure, yes. Our officers are concerned about identification, that's why they're masking. But we can find other ways in making sure that they're identifiable for accountability purposes.
And also, this was something that Markwayne Mullin brought up in his testimony, having a more narrow definition, sticking to those judicial warrants, recognizing some places will be separate and distinct unless there was kind of active pursuit of a criminal suspect or something along those lines.
So, those concessions are already not just on the table, but have been conceded. I think the challenge on the Democratic side is they don't necessarily have a good idea of what victory looks like, in these negotiations, and they are essentially between abolish ICE, and what? I mean, this is the fundamental challenge.
COLLINS: Yes, the only one that I was confused by, though, was in the -- in the white -- in a version of an offer that I saw from Republicans or from the White House that said, no -- that they wouldn't deport any U.S. citizens as one of their conditions, which, I mean, seemed--
MEIJER: There's a lot of restating of things that were already the law.
COLLINS: --seemed like that should be pretty obvious.
MEIJER: But you know, good to clarify, yes.
COLLINS: I mean, speaking of travel, Van, though, when we're looking at all of this that's playing out with whether or not they're going to solve something. I mean, obviously there are definitely people who fly, a lot of people who drive though, and we've seen on gas prices amid this Iran war, that have been skyrocketing.
We heard from the Vice President JD Vance, today, talking about this. He described it as saying, yes, that they are up. He was saying it was worse in Europe and calling it a temporary blip.
But when you look at the map here, in terms of where they are up so high, Texas, Kentucky, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, you can see who is getting hit the hardest by this.
I wonder what you make of the administration's handling of this so far.
JONES: Well, I mean, the red state voters are the ones who are getting it in the seat of the pants, because they are doubly hurt. They're hurt economically, but also hurt ideologically and personally.
These are -- a lot of these people have voted for no more wars and for $1.99 gas. They voted against inflation. That's what they went and voted for. And they're getting the opposite. They're getting this war which, right now doesn't seem to have a great strategy for it, a worthy cause, trying to free the Iranian people, but the strategy just seems to be all over the place.
And this is not going to just be inflation at the gas pump. You got to remember, farmers have to have fertilizer. That's also being interrupted here. When gas prices go up, the people who drive the food to the grocery store, they got to charge you more for the transportation. So you're now baking in inflation, not just with fuel, but also with food and other things. And this is not what red state voters voted for.
And so, I think that the midterms are going to give people an opportunity to weigh in. And I don't think that the Republican Party and Donald Trump are going to be happy with the verdict.
COLLINS: I do think Van makes a good point in terms of, I mean, this is something that Trump was very good at being in touch with Americans on, when the Biden administration was saying, No, the economy is way better than you guys think. And Americans were saying, Actually, it's not. This is how we feel about it.
To see this happening to them now, I wonder what you make of how they're handling it, even if they're arguing that it is only going to be short-term.
MEIJER: Yes, I mean, I think no one in this administration is under any illusions that having gas prices $1 or more higher than they would like to see them is a positive question.
I think the ultimate is, what are you trading that off against? And if that -- if $1 more per gallon for a month means you have removed the threat of an Iranian nuclear program, with their ballistic missiles being able to attack our allies and forces throughout the region, of Iran spreading its pernicious influence throughout that region through proxy groups? That is a fantastic trade-off. That is what has to be kept--
COLLINS: Do you think Americans agree with that?
MEIJER: Let me put it this way. I am incredibly grateful that we have a president that does not dictate his foreign policy based on poll results, because we've had 20 years of polling dictating how we have projected ourselves abroad, and we see the mess that that has gotten us into.
COLLINS: But do you think they've conveyed that enough to people who are paying $1 more--
JONES: Can I get--
COLLINS: --and might say, Why are we at war with Iran right now?
MEIJER: I think on the messaging side of the house, this administration is leaving themselves maximum optionality on the battlefield and how they interact and engage Iran. I think that is very difficult to translate to a domestic audience. It doesn't lend itself well to sound bites.
The Bush administration's approach towards Iraq and Afghanistan? Easy sound bites. This war? Much more difficult.
[21:55:00] COLLINS: Yes, sound bites that came back to haunt them, of course.
Peter Meijer. Van Jones. Great to have you both here, and hoping you both have good travels going forward, as far as -- and especially for everyone else who's watching.
Also up here next. An important story we want to bring your attention to. Because the family of a 20-year-old college student from the University of Alabama is pleading for information, after their son went missing on spring break. More, right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, the family of the American College student, James Jimmy Gracey (ph), is pleading with people for help finding him, after he went missing in Spain during spring break.
He's a 20-year-old junior at the University of Alabama, and he was last seen by a friend around 03:00 a.m. Tuesday morning, outside of a club in Barcelona. He was reported missing after he didn't return to his rental and his relatives haven't heard from him. His mom says the police have now recovered his phone after it was stolen.
[22:00:00]
He was last seen wearing a white shirt, dark pants, a chain that has a gold rhinestone cross on it. He's 6'1" and about 175 pounds. If you or anyone you know has any information about his whereabouts, his family is asking for you to please call this number, 224-505-3886.
We are all praying for a fast and safe return for him and for his family. And please call that number if you have any information.
Thank you for joining us.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
