Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Says He Has "All The Time In The World" To End War; Fox Poll: Dems Take Lead On Economy For First Time Since 2010; DOJ Watchdog To Review Handling Of Epstein Files. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired April 23, 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]
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CHRISTIANE (ph): --I have to talk about grief, I have to talk about him. I have learned so much in the last two years of how we can hold multiple truths at once, joy and pain can coexist. I'm proud of how far I've come, but it doesn't erase the pain of him not being here.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: You can join me and Christiane (ph) in 15 minutes on "All There Is Live," 09:15 p.m. Eastern, at CNN.com/AllThereIs.
That's it for me. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Nearly eight weeks into a war that the President said would last six weeks at most. He told reporters today, Don't rush me.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
There is a lot of uncertainty about what comes next, between the United States and Iran. But at the White House today, one thing was made very clear. The President wants to stop being asked about the timeline for this war, including the timeline that he put in place at the beginning of it.
The President alluded to this question of how long this war could go on, when he posted, today, I am possibly the least pressured person ever to be in this position. And, I have all the time in the World.
Then, just a few hours later, inside the Oval Office, when questions started popping up about Iran, about the ceasefire that he's now extended in this Iran war, this is how the President responded when he was asked how much longer Americans should expect this war to last.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JEFF MASON, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, BLOOMBERG: On the war with Iran, how long are you willing to wait until you get a unified response?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Well, don't rush me. Don't rush me, Jeff.
We were in the Korean War for seven years. I've been doing this for six weeks.
I could make a deal right now.
I don't want to rush myself, you know, because every story says, Oh, Trump is under time pressure.
I'm not. No. No. You know who's under time pressure? They are.
I don't want to rush it. I want to take my time. We have plenty of time. And I want to get a great deal.
I can only tell you this, it'll end. I don't think it'll be very long, by the way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: The reporter who started that line of questioning there, the Jeff, in Don't rush me, Jeff, was Jeff Mason of Bloomberg, who's going to join me here on set in just a moment.
This comes, though, as this war is now going in, is now in its eighth week, going into its ninth week, in just a couple of days from now. And what Americans were initially told, is why it's such an important question.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that.
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Operation Epic Fury, we expect to last about four to six weeks.
REPORTER: Are you thinking this week it will be over, or are you talking about days?
TRUMP: No, but soon. I think soon.
REPORTER: OK. And with respect to--
TRUMP: Very soon. Look.
We won. We won the bet. In the first hour it was over.
I don't think it's going to be long.
PETER DOOCY, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, FOX NEWS CHANNEL: Can we wrap this war up this week?
TRUMP: Yes, sure, yes. DOOCY: Will we?
TRUMP: I don't think so. But it'll be soon. Won't be long.
LEAVITT: It would take approximately four to six weeks to achieve this critical mission.
TRUMP: So, we estimate it would take approximately four to six weeks to achieve our mission. 26 days in, we're extremely, really, a lot ahead of schedule.
LEAVITT: Four to six weeks estimated timeline for Operation Epic Fury.
PETE HEGSETH, DEFENSE SECRETARY: You know, he said, four to six weeks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: It has now been seven weeks and five days.
And of course, in this moment, and amid the questions of how long this can last, the effects of the war are certainly being felt here at home and certainly being felt at the gas pump.
At the center of that, of course, is the Strait of Hormuz, which, tonight, as we come on the air, is still controlled by Iran.
The President now is ordering the United States Navy to shoot and kill any Iranian boats that are seen placing mines in the Strait, he described them as wise-guys today.
And one of my lead sources tonight is reporting, that's exactly what Iran's Revolutionary Guard is doing. They're laying new mines, which could, of course, be laying the groundwork for more chaos and a potential confrontation with U.S. Military forces.
The United States also announced it boarded another ship that is carrying oil from Iran. They're enforcing the President's blockade on these Iranian ports, trying to force Iran back to the negotiating table, by trying to hit them where it hurts.
The United States Navy currently has 19 warships in the Middle East. And multiple sources tell CNN tonight, the military is developing plans to target Iran's defenses in the Strait of Hormuz, in case the ceasefire, that was just extended, fails.
But as you heard the President today, in the Oval, it would seem like those plans and what could be happening there is unnecessary.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: We have total control of the Strait. And the fact that it's closed. You know, they would have opened it up three days ago. They came to us and they said, We will agree to open the Strait. And all my people were happy, everybody was happy, except me. I said, Wait a minute, if we open the Strait, that means they're going to make $500 million a day. I don't want them to make $500 million a day until they settle this thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[21:05:00]
COLLINS: My sources tonight are:
CNN's Political and Global Affairs Analyst, and Axios Global Affairs Correspondent, Barak Ravid.
Also, our Global Affairs Analyst, and the senior fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Karim Sadjadpour.
As well as Bloomberg's White House correspondent, Jeff Mason.
And Jeff, you were the one inside the Oval today. The President was saying, Don't rush me.
MASON: Yes.
COLLINS: I don't think you were rushing him.
MASON: I mean--
COLLINS: But you were asking a pretty pertinent question there, in terms of that. What stood out to you about his answers?
MASON: Well, I think it was -- I mean, the question right now, which is, how much patience will he have? Because when he announced the extension of the ceasefire, he said he was waiting for the Iranian leadership to come back with a unified response, and he said then, and he said again today, that Iran's leaders, it's not really clear who Iran's leaders are.
So, I think a legitimate question for the leader of this country, who started the war, along with Israel, is, how long are you going to wait? And he -- it got under his skin, and that may be because of the fact that he's ready for this war to end. It may also be because he doesn't like to have any suggestion that anyone else has leverage other than himself.
I had a phone interview with him, earlier this week, and I asked him, Do you think that Iran has leverage with the Strait of Hormuz? And that also really got under his skin. He doesn't like to suggest -- he doesn't like any suggestions that that's the case. And he's not ready, uncharacteristically, to set a timeline.
COLLINS: And on the timeline, though. I mean, they were the ones who set the timeline, Karim, obviously, four to six weeks, as you just heard. The President said it. His top aides echoed it.
How do the Iranians hear, do you think, what the President was saying today, inside the Oval Office about, Don't rush me, and that he has all the time in the world?
KARIM SADJADPOUR, CNN GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, SENIOR FELLOW, CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL PEACE, IRAN EXPERT: I think it's impossible for the Iranians to get inside the head of President Trump. Because, on a daily basis, there are mixed messages. He's sending the signal to the markets that the war is about over, it's winding down. He wants to bring oil prices down. While at the same time trying to signal resolve to the Iranians, to say, War could soon return, I've got all the time in the world.
And the level of mistrust in Tehran toward President Trump is enormous. Because on two occasions, while the U.S. and Iran were negotiating, President Trump attacked Iran. And so, I think it's impossible for the Iranians to decipher what President Trump's endgame is.
COLLINS: Yes.
And Barak, your reporting about the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, laying more mines in the Strait of Hormuz, this week.
You just heard the President saying, No, we have total control of the Strait of Hormuz.
I mean, those two things seem impossible to square.
BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST, GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT, AXIOS: Well, especially that one of the reasons that the Iranians were able to use their -- the IRGC fast boats, to lay those mines, was because the U.S. did not identify it in time. And by the time the U.S. saw what the Iranians were doing, it was too late, and the mines were already laid, they were already positioned in the Strait.
And I think this is why you saw President Trump earlier today putting out this Truth Social post as saying that he ordered the military to take out any such IRGC fast boat that they see, because those boats are laying those mines.
And I think that while, I think we're talking about sort of like two dozen mines. It's not about the number of mines. It's about the fact that I think very few shipowners would want to take the risk now and send their ships to pass through the Strait, when they know that there are IRGC mines there.
And this is the second time the Iranians are doing it. They did it several weeks ago, and now they're doing it again. And I think it just shows us how this standoff over the Strait. On the one hand, the Iranians attacking ships, laying mines. On the other hand, the U.S. imposing this blockade, widening the blockade, not only to the Arabian Sea, but to the Indian Ocean. I think this is going to be the story of this war, going forward, in the next few weeks.
COLLINS: Well, and about these boats. I mentioned what the President said about them today, because he addressed these speed boats that they use.
For everyone else who missed what he said in the Oval Office, this was that moment. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: And we're -- their military is totally defeated. They're -- they're -- outside of the little wise-guy ships, I call them the wise- guy ships, the little boats that they have running around with guns in them, we'll take them out too when we see them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: I think Karim, Barak makes a good point there, in terms of, if you looked at the scale of what the United States can do and what Iran can do, obviously they're completely different. And the White House has made that point.
[21:10:00]
It doesn't make that point not true to also say, But all it takes is one mine to make a shipping company say, Well, I'm not going through there.
SADJADPOUR: 100 percent. I mean, this has been an asymmetric war. Iran using very cheap tools, whether that's cheap mines, or $20,000 drones, has disrupted the global economy. Some drones harassing $100 million tankers filled with hundreds of millions of dollars of oil. The world is paying close notice.
And the other advantage that a country like Iran, or a regime like Iran, has, in fighting against the United States, is it's a dictatorship. Doesn't really care about its public opinion, has shown itself willing to kill a lot of its own people to stay in power, and they're banking on the fact that Americans want to wrap this up.
COLLINS: Yes.
Barak, what's your sense of the President's mindset on this? Because he does keep saying repeatedly, I don't feel rushed.
He was -- Maggie Haberman was here last night, and said the President was anxious to get out of this war. He today specifically referenced The New York Times and CNN, and said, he wasn't anxious to get out of this war, seemingly responding to her reporting.
What's your sense of where his head is at on this right now?
RAVID: What I hear from my sources, I think, is in line with what Maggie Haberman reported. Trump feels that all the military achievements that could have been achieved were achieved. And by the way, I think it's a -- it's a big thing, because those -- the military objectives have been achieved. And right now, what he still needs to do is to take care about the nuclear element of this war and get the uranium out.
And I think when President Trump makes this calculation, So should I try and get this through a deal or through a massive ground operation that would take a lot of time, would be very risky? I think he chooses diplomacy and to try and get a deal. And the only problem is that while he wants to get a deal and use diplomacy to end this war? The Iranians are not playing ball, and they understand that he doesn't want to resume the war, and therefore they feel that they have leverage.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, on that front, Jeff, being in the Oval today, the President was asked a lot of questions on Iran repeatedly. He was asked about whether or not he would use nuclear weapons. He said very quickly, No. He said he doesn't need to. He called it a dumb question.
In terms of that, though, there was a moment -- this was an event on drug pricing. Just to give everyone a sense of what these events are like. They're not about Iran. But he often takes questions and speaks about it.
But there was also a moment in the middle of the event on drug pricing where he kind of went on this detour of sorts.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: If you look outside, so we had flooring outside. We had slate, and it was coming to pieces. It's been there since the early 1940s. And it's a path to the Oval Office. It's a path to the West Wing, and it was terrible. It was broken.
We're putting magnificent new granite. It's called charcoal. It's black granite against the white -- beautiful white walls.
Granite is rated as, this particular granite, over a million-year life. As an example, concrete gets rated for about 200 years if you get very high grade.
The other thing that we're doing that's taking place right now is the Lincoln Memorial has a beautiful reflecting pond or lake. They call it a pool, lake, and pond. All -- every day, it's different. But the word reflecting is a good term.
That's where Martin Luther King gave his great speech. And he had a million people. And I had the same exact crowd.
And over the years as a developer, I've probably built more than 100 swimming pools in different buildings I built, and I have some really good pool builders.
It'll be like brand-new.
So we're going to have, in another couple of weeks, we're going to have the most beautiful reflecting pool between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial that you've ever seen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: You know, we have the clock on the top righthand corner of that, because the President talked about it for 12 minutes. I mean, that was a minute of it. But, I mean, you were in the room, and it was just a -- I mean, what did you make of that detour moment? MASON: Well, I think it reflects where his thinking is. I mean, I think the reporting that suggests he's ready to get out of this war is underscored by the fact that it's not really even what he wants to talk about. He wants to focus on his ballroom. He wants to focus on the reflecting pool. He wants to focus on the arch. He wants to focus maybe a little bit on the economy, which was reflected in the trip that he did last week to Las Vegas.
But he's got this war that he started, that has led gasoline prices to go up over $4 a gallon, and left him in this sort of quagmire and question about how to finish it.
[21:15:00]
This is also the man who defined his legacy as a businessman and partially as a politician, as a dealmaker. And right now, he's saying that he's not in a rush to get a deal, I think, in large part because he doesn't have anyone to negotiate with, to create that deal, and to get the deal that he wants to get. That's what they're not answering.
He's saying, We want a unified response. But he's not saying -- I mean, he is saying that the leadership is destroyed, mostly because the United States and Israel destroyed it. How do you get to that next part? And he doesn't have an answer to that question.
COLLINS: Yes.
Jeff Mason. Karim Sadjadpour. Barak Ravid. Great to have all three of you here tonight to start the show off.
Up next. Speaking of the economy, there's some pretty big warning signs for Republicans. There's a new poll that talks about the economy, something we've not seen in 16 years.
Also tonight, we're following this crazy story, a U.S. Special Forces soldier who was involved in the capture of Venezuela president, Nicolas Maduro, just got arrested for a bet that he allegedly placed on the capture of Nicolas Maduro.
Also tonight, the Epstein files now being reviewed by the Justice Department's internal watchdog. Why?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:20:00]
COLLINS: The year was 2010.
Justin Bieber had released his hit new single, "Baby." Time Magazine had named Lady Gaga's meat dress, remember this one, as the top fashion statement of the year. And Instagram had launched on iPhones everywhere. What a precious time.
It also marked the last time that a Fox News poll found that voters were giving the Democrats an edge over Republicans on the economy. That is, until now. That's because, the first time in 16 years, today, the Fox News survey has Democrats holding a four-point advantage over Republicans on the economy. Now, this is just the latest poll number that we've seen, as a warning for Republicans here in Washington, ahead of the November midterm elections.
My Chief Data Analyst, Harry Enten, is here with more on these numbers.
Harry, I don't know what you were doing in 2010. But what is the striking difference here, and how long it's been since we've seen numbers like these?
HARRY ENTEN, CNN CHIEF DATA ANALYST: And I can tell you, I was dressed in sweatpants, sitting on a couch, in college. But of course, I was looking at political numbers back then. And I'm looking at them now. But now I'm actually in a nice suit, a nice blue suit, my goodness gracious.
But look, Kaitlan, you said it right, right? This is a siren sign for Republicans, and it's just the latest siren sign. I mean, we have seen the sirens all over the place.
And you look, why is it that Republicans are actually trailing? Well, just take a look at Donald Trump's numbers on the economy. My goodness gracious, these are atrocious. This trendline is atrocious.
Trump's net approval rating on the economy. You know, in term one, at this point, look at this. Trump was above water at plus two points. It was a plus sign for him, right? This was one of his best issues. It was the reason he got elected to a second term, back in 2025, look at this -- or 2024.
Look at this. In January 2025, at the beginning of his second term, he was at plus six points. But down he goes. Look at this. He's now at negative 32 points, his net approval rating, on the economy. That is down, get this, nearly 40 points from where he was at the beginning of his second term. This is the worst rating in the average of polls that Donald Trump has ever had on such a key issue for him.
And Kaitlan, you know, when I was back on that couch, back in college, you know, I was so interested in history, looking at the spreadsheets. And when I saw this negative 32 number, I went to myself, Hmm, this seems really low from a historical perspective.
So, I decided to go back into the history books and decided to say, OK, what are the worst net approval ratings? Net approval ratings on at any point in any term, or at this point in any term on the economy. And guess who ranks at the bottom of the list for the worst net approval rating at this point in any term?
It's this guy on the screen. Donald John Trump, at negative 32 points. That's worse than Joe Biden was at minus 25 points, worse than George W. Bush at minus 25 points, and worse than James Earl Carter back in 1978, at minus 22 points. Donald Trump taking the cake in a historic way, and in a way you simply put, don't want to do so, Kaitlan Collins.
COLLINS: I mean, this is kind of uncharted territory for Trump to--
ENTEN: Yes.
COLLINS: So, his approval rating on the economy right now, negative 32?
ENTEN: Yes. Yes. It's bad.
COLLINS: I mean, that's kind of unheard of in terms of, for this President, that has always kind of been his strength. I mean, he often talks about Jimmy Carter. I mean, his numbers are worse than his. The President always talks about how bad it was under Jimmy Carter. He talks about inflation under Biden. Obviously, we all were aware of that. Negative 25 is what people were giving him then. And Trump's is now negative 32.
ENTEN: Oh, oh, oh, it's absolutely terrible. I don't know if you're seeing my eyes literally pop off the screen here, because these numbers are just downright atrocious. They're the worst ever, as I pointed out.
And what's so important to know, Kaitlan, is what is driving this? Like, what the heck is going on? Why are his numbers this low, to a historic degree, the worst ever at this point in any term? And the reason is, simply put this, it is Independents as we look towards the midterm elections.
I mean, just take a look. You think that negative 32 is bad? How about this? How about Trump's economic net approved rating among Independents? Look at this trend line. Look at this trend line. Back in term number one, at this point, he was breaking even, zero points. Not too great, but not too bad either. In January of 2025, he was at plus one points.
Look at this Independent number. I mean, I'm just -- I don't even know what the words are for it. Negative 55 points? That's a nearly 60 point drop. If these numbers hold the midterm elections, wave adios amigos, kiss a goodbye, to that Republican majority in the House, and maybe the Senate as well.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: Well, and on the House, Harry, I mean, obviously what it was in term one, April 2018, that was before the midterm elections that year that Republicans lost, and obviously Democrats regained the majority.
ENTEN: I know--
COLLINS: Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker. I mean, now to see that going from zero to now negative 55 with Independents is quite worrying for Republicans, I would imagine.
ENTEN: I would definitely be trying to run, if I was a Republican, away from Donald Trump's economic record, at least in terms of the minds the American voters. But you know what? It's like quicksand. There's truly nothing that they'll be able to run away from, because they're just going to be dragged, dragged down.
COLLINS: Harry Enten, thank you for joining us tonight in a suit, not sweatpants, I'll note.
ENTEN: Thank you.
COLLINS: Also here tonight are my top political sources.
Former senior adviser to President Obama, David Axelrod.
And former special assistant to President George W. Bush, Scott Jennings.
I mean, Scott, negative 55? Good lord. Negative 32? This is not where the White House or anyone around Trump is used to being. That's what they can always say, Look at the economy, when there's everything else going on with Trump normally.
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO MITCH MCCONNELL, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, HOST, "THE SCOTT JENNINGS RADIO SHOW" ON SRN: Yes, I think a few things are true.
Number one, I mean, absolutely most -- every election is about the economy. You can't -- I mean, you can try to focus on other things, and I assume that they will look at other issues as arguments about how he's meeting his goals. But at the end of the day, the economy is almost always a dominant issue, and you just have to know that and deal with it. That's number one.
Number two, it's one poll in April. So, they do have some time this year to run a campaign, and they also have some time to argue to the American people about how their policies, although they weren't quick fixes, are going to take root and produce and bear fruit over time.
You talk to Bessent, you talk to Hassett, you talk to the economic team, and they'll tell you, they firmly believe what they've put in place last year is going to lead to growth and better opportunity this year.
But again, it's not a quick fix, and people, I think, admittedly, are still feeling the pinch of high cost of living in the United States. They didn't create high cost of living, but they were hired to fix it. And so, that is something they're going to have to answer in the election.
So, I think you have to be clear-eyed about what you're facing. The numbers are, what they are. But you're also not without arguments to make. And some of those arguments will also revolve around, you know, are you going to put the people back in charge that created this inflation crisis in the first place? No, thanks. And I assume, that will be part of the campaign.
COLLINS: Yes, Axe, what do you make about that? I mean, Scott's point, they were hired to fix this. Because it's not like Trump came into the White House on other promises. I mean, his number one promise he made was, It's expensive to live and to buy things--
DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST, FORMER SENIOR ADVISER TO PRES. OBAMA: 100 percent.
COLLINS: --I'm going to bring that down.
So, when those numbers only go up, I mean, it's not a surprise when you see the numbers that Harry just laid out there, I guess.
AXELROD: No. Look, this has been his calling card from the beginning of his political career. 10 years ago, people assigned great economic mastery to him. When he ran, he ran with an explicit promise, Kaitlan, which you heard many times when you were out on the road, that he was going to bring down costs.
The thing that Scott didn't mention, when he talked about what Bessent and the others were saying, about the things they put in place last year, they probably didn't account for a war, and that has exacerbated the situation. Obviously, gas, which he was bragging about on this -- in the State of the Union speech, is now close to $1 more than it was. Other costs have gone up, and you can see that reflected in numbers as well.
But just yesterday, I heard James Blair, who is leaving the White House to run the midterm campaign for the President, say, Well, yes, his numbers are bad, but we have great numbers relative to the Democrats on the issues, the party's numbers are better.
And then this poll comes out, and on the issues that are most important to the voters by leaps and bounds, in the economy, inflation, health care, Democrats are trusted more than Republicans. So, there's no way to interpret these numbers other than a big warning sign for Republicans.
And take it from -- I speak from experience, because I know what a bad midterm election feels like.
COLLINS: Yes, exactly.
AXELROD: I know what it feels like when the ground is shifting under your feet. And this is -- this is very bad news.
COLLINS: Axe, if you--
AXELROD: And yes, they can -- they could come out? It would be -- it would be -- you know, the President is sort of the Harry Houdini of politicians. He's escaped lots of things. But remember, Harry Houdini drowned in a water tank when he ran out of tricks. So, this one's really tough.
COLLINS: I didn't know that.
Axe, but if you -- to Scott's point, that it's April, they can turn this around. If you were in the White House, and it's April 23rd, you got midterms coming up, would you feel that you could turn this around? Could you tell the President that on a -- on a serious -- in a serious way, you think?
[21:30:00]
AXELROD: Kaitlan, I told the President-elect in 2008, after we got an economic briefing on where we were, what we were walking into, I told him, We're going to get our butts kicked in the midterms because we're holding a lot of real estate that we probably shouldn't be holding in Republican territory. But with this kind of economy and the slow rate of recovery they're predicting, there's no way that we're not going to have massive losses in 2010.
And he listened and he absorbed that.
Whether people can tell Trump that? I don't know. But that is the reality.
They're saying what they should say. They're doing -- you know, they're certainly saying what they should say. You can't say, And April, yes, we give up, you know? That's not going to--
COLLINS: Yes.
AXELROD: That's not a smart strategy. But I think they have smart political people around them. Blair is one of them. I think they know the distress that they're in.
COLLINS: Yes.
But Scott, the President was asked today about gas prices, and he said, Yes, they might stay high for a little bit, because he didn't like questions about the timeline. He said, But you know what? Those people should remember that Iran can't have a nuclear weapon.
I think the question is, if you're filling up your gas tank, and it's costing $1 more a gallon. Is that reassuring to you when you're struggling to make other things, to pay for other things, when you're paying more for gas?
JENNINGS: Well, of course, nobody likes to have higher gas prices.
But what the President said is equally true. I mean, the President isn't just the president of the economy. He's the president of national security. And in his view, keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is of paramount importance to our national security. Now, it's incumbent upon him to make that case to the American people, and I think he's been quite clear about that. It doesn't make you immune from the consequences of those decisions.
But you know, the President doesn't, and Axe knows this too, the President just doesn't make political decisions on a day-to-day basis, with only an eye toward the midterm. We also elect and entrust our presidents to do things that are good for the long-term. And sometimes, the political consequences of that don't feel great in the moment, but they benefit the nation, long-term. And so, I would say keeping around--
COLLINS: I mean, that was the Jimmy Carter mentality, and it didn't work out so well for him.
JENNINGS: Well, Trump's not running again. But I would just argue--
COLLINS: Yes.
AXELROD: Well--
JENNINGS: --keeping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon is a national security priority, that if we achieve it, will be good for a very long time.
COLLINS: Axe, final thought--
AXELROD: Yes--
COLLINS: --before we come back with you guys?
AXELROD: Yes, Trump's not running again, but a lot of Republicans are, and I bet you, they're pretty darn nervous right now.
COLLINS: Yes. One, there are also two 2028 potentials in the Cabinet.
Stick around, both of you. I want to bring you both back.
Because also, we're following this crazy story. Obviously, you know, the United States captured Maduro, the Venezuelan leader, earlier this year. But it was actually a U.S. Special Forces soldier who was involved in a capture, who just got arrested for allegedly betting on the Maduro capture.
[21:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight, a U.S. Special Forces soldier, involved in the capture of the Venezuela leader, Nicolas Maduro, has been arrested after allegedly betting on the operation and winning $400,000 off of it.
According to a federal indictment that was unsealed today, Master Sergeant Gannon Ken Van Dyke, who was stationed at Fort Bragg, opened a Polymarket account in late December. He wagered about $34,000 that Maduro would be out by January, one of 13 bets that he allegedly made leading up to January 2nd.
Now, at the time, the bets were seen as long shots. But then, as we all know now, in the early morning hours of January 3rd, Van Dyke helped execute that high-stakes U.S. military operation to capture Maduro, unaware that his bet had actually already caught the attention of law enforcement. Van Dyke is now facing five criminal charges. He'll make his first court appearance in North Carolina.
And today in the Oval Office, when the President was asked about the suspicious use of these prediction markets, here's what he told reporters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Are you concerned that federal employees are betting on these prediction markets and potentially getting rich?
TRUMP: Well, I don't know about it. But was he betting that they would get him or they wouldn't get him?
REPORTER: It sounds like he was betting on his removal from office, that Maduro would be removed--
TRUMP: Oh, it's interesting.
REPORTER: --he was involved in the operation--
TRUMP: That's like Pete Rose betting on his own team.
(LAUGHTER)
TRUMP: I'll look into it. Yes.
REPORTER: There are also bets that are being placed as well on the Iran conflict too, and there have been some trackings where people suspect that there's insider trading happening on these prediction markets around the war. Are you concerned?
TRUMP: Well, you know, the whole world, unfortunately, has become somewhat of a casino.
I think that I'm not happy with any of that stuff. But they have all these different sites. They have predictive markets. It's a crazy world. It's a much different world than it was.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My political sources are back here with me. David Axelrod. And Scott Jennings.
Scott, obviously what prosecutors are saying here is that Van Dyke sent more than $400,000 in profits to a foreign cryptocurrency account, then transferred it to an online brokerage account. They're arguing, he was trying to hide it, obviously.
I mean, you see the President there say the whole world's a casino.
The whole world doesn't have access to classified information, though, that Maduro is about to be captured, or they're actually the ones doing it.
JENNINGS: Crazy story. It seems to me that a good rule of thumb here is that it should be illegal, for anyone that has foreknowledge of the outcome of anything that lots of people would be betting on, to participate themselves.
[21:40:00]
So, if you're betting on sports, for instance, we wouldn't have foreknowledge of the outcome of a game, so that's OK.
But if you're involved in the operation of something, and you have operational details, where you know what time something is going to occur, if and when something is going to occur? It seems pretty clear that it would be commonsense to make that illegal, because obviously that person would have the ability to essentially defraud all the other gamblers.
And so, I don't know exactly what they charged him with. I'm guessing U.S. Co. (ph) doesn't exactly foreshadow knowledge of these prediction markets in the way they've developed. But it seems to me there's a commonsense fix here that everybody ought to agree on.
COLLINS: Yes. I mean, Axe, I wonder what it's like for you to look at this, as someone who obviously worked for President Obama, the bin Laden raid anniversary is coming up. I mean, to look at that, to think back of that -- people could have done that theoretically in that moment, had these prediction sites existed then.
AXELROD: Yes. I mean, it's dangerous. And I agree with Scott, and I think that we -- this is a new world, and we have to confront it.
I remember, Kaitlan, when Obama was running for president, he went by to Steve Jobs, and Steve Jobs showed him the prototype for the cellphone that they were -- the iPhone that they were going to roll out in six months. And he came back and he told us about this, a few of us at the campaign, he said, And now not one of you can buy any stock, because we'll all go to jail if you do.
There ought to be that -- there ought to be prohibitions against this. And our colleague at CNN, Rahm Emanuel, he proposed banning any government employees from participating in these markets.
I will say, the President professes no knowledge about this. His son, Don Jr., I think is a partner in these, at least one of these Polymarkets, or Kalshi. So, I think there is some familiarity, at least within the family, on this.
We need to do something about it. It's only -- this is -- this is a parable about something that's going to get a lot worse, unless we get serious about them.
COLLINS: Yes, and obviously, I mean, you see how they were tracking it with this, the whole time. We all were talking about it when it happened. Obviously, we didn't realize that federal investigators were also tracking it.
Scott, one thing that the President has faced some criticism over, he confirmed today, on Spirit Airlines. Republicans, like Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton, don't like this idea that the federal government is going to bail them out.
The President said today, I think we should just buy it. We'd be getting it virtually debt-free. It's in bankruptcy. We could get it for the right price.
We're told that could be about half a billion dollars.
As a Republican, do you support that?
JENNINGS: Well that's a tricky one, because, you know, I do think we need more competition in the airline markets, frankly. And when one goes out of business, it creates less.
I mean, obviously, they tried to merge back during the Biden administration with another airline, and the Biden administration wouldn't permit that, which people argue has led to this bankruptcy now.
It's a little tricky. I do think we need -- we need more competition in this space. And if you--
COLLINS: So you don't like it? Or you do like it?
JENNINGS: It makes me a little queasy, honestly, when the government is taking ownership in companies. At the same time. For consumer purposes. More competition leading to more flights and lower prices.
COLLINS: Yes.
JENNINGS: So, I get the argument for it.
COLLINS: Axe, I want to get your thoughts on Spirit Airlines. But instead, I'm going to ask you about something you about something you just said. I'm already getting tweets about this right now.
AXELROD: Yes, I know. I got to -- I have to -- I have to Daniel Dale myself before--
COLLINS: Yes.
AXELROD: --mind asking them.
COLLINS: Yes.
AXELROD: But I told a story about Harry Houdini that was -- that must have been from the movie. And he did -- he did -- he had a ruptured appendix as a result of someone punching him in the -- a student punching him in the stomach up at McGill University. But he insisted on performing anyway, and that exacerbated his problem, and then he died. So, it was really good for purposes of my story, but apocryphal, unfortunately.
JENNINGS: Well, you know, Kaitlan, Axe has never let a good story get in the way of his arguments.
COLLINS: Exactly. Some things are -- some things are too good to fact- check. Rest in peace to Harry Houdini.
AXELROD: Yes.
COLLINS: And David Axelrod. Scott Jennings. Thank you both for joining us here and being completely factually accurate. AXELROD: Thank you.
COLLINS: Up next here. There is a new investigation that's underway here in Washington. We'll update you this. The Justice Department handling of the Epstein files is now being investigated by the Justice Department watchdog. My legal sources will weigh in right after this.
[21:45:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: As the Justice Department continues to face criticism over its handling of the Epstein files. Now the department's own internal watchdog is going to review whether or not the department complied with the law, mandating the release of those files.
The Inspector General says it's going to focus on how the Justice Department collected, reviewed and redacted those materials.
Obviously, that's critical, considering what you've heard from survivors on this show, saying the department failed to black out identifying information about them, but also at the same time over- redacting information about Jeffrey Epstein and the powerful people around him.
This comes, as Democrats have repeatedly pressed the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, about this, including today, about his previous claim that he had cut off all contact with the convicted sex offender in 2005.
Now Lutnick, I should note, he has not been accused of wrongdoing. He is going to have a deposition scheduled in just a few weeks from now. But the files reveal that his claim about cutting off all contact was not true.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. GRACE MENG (D-NY): Why did you publicly claim, following your nomination, that you were never in a room with him after 2005?
[21:50:00]
HOWARD LUTNICK, COMMERCE SECRETARY: So, I have voluntarily agreed, in less than two weeks, to sit with your colleagues in the House and answer any and all questions on this topic. I have nothing to hide.
REP. MADELEINE DEAN (D-PA): Why did you lie about your relationship with Epstein?
LUTNICK: The House Oversight Committee and I have agreed--
DEAN: We are the appropriate--
LUTNICK: --that we will spend the time together--
DEAN: Reclaiming my time. I do not accept that answer. Let the record reflect you're dodging the question.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: My legal and investigative sources are here tonight, including Tom Dupree, who is the former Deputy Assistant Attorney General; and Andrew McCabe, the former Deputy Director of the FBI.
Tom, what do you think this review is going to look like? How will this work?
TOM DUPREE, FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL: Well, the first thing is that it can take a while. Inspector General reviews don't necessarily follow a prescribed schedule. And this could be something where they're going to announce the review to much fanfare, but we're not actually going to see the fruits of the review for a long, long time. So that's point number one.
Point number two is, I do think it makes sense for them to conduct this review. One of the few things that has united everyone, regardless of partisan stripe, in America, is that the Epstein document rollout was mishandled, profoundly mishandled. And I think it is highly appropriate for the Inspector General -- I mean, this is what inspectors general do, they look to make sure the Department of Justice is following the law, complying with the law.
Things went awry with the Epstein document rollout. I think it's appropriate for the IG to look into it, and get to the bottom of kind of how did this happen? How is this allowed to happen? Just given the overarching importance of getting these documents out to the American public.
COLLINS: Yes, and this is coming at a time, where we have heard from a lot of the survivors on this, on our air. But there is also a CNN investigation that found Epstein survivors told investigators they were trafficked to men who abused them, and some of them say files don't include any information about how federal agents at the time followed up.
Is that something that would be part of this review, in terms of how they're looking at this, or is that a separate thing?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST, FORMER FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: It absolutely should be. So, in terms -- agree with all the things Tom just said. There are questions about whether or not the department complied with the law.
But there are much more, a broader array of significant, substantive questions about how the law enforcement agencies involved, the FBI, the Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, and others responded during the entirety of this event. But what you're talking about there is a very broad, very deep, detailed investigation.
The thing that concerns me, and I've heard this concern from others as well, is that so far, according to the Acting I.G., this has been assigned to the Audit division of the I.G.'s office. That is not typically the place where wide, substantive, politically fraught investigations take place within the I.G.'s office. That's typically done in the investigative side of the house, where there are lawyers and investigators who have done these kind of investigations.
COLLINS: So, what do you think that means?
MCCABE: I don't know. I think it's a concern -- I think it's a real concern, it could be, that they are taking a very narrow view of what they're going to look at. If they're simply counting pages released and trying to parse out exactly what the statute says and to see -- looking for compliance? I think it's going to be wholly unsatisfying.
COLLINS: I mean, are they going to like interview Todd Blanche on this? I mean, it was his office that really handled this. He's obviously Acting A.G. now. He was Deputy then. Does he get interviewed by the watchdog?
DUPREE: I think ordinarily he probably would. In other words, the Inspector General has pretty carte blanche to go within the department, talk to people who know things.
MCCABE: Yes.
DUPREE: So, it would not surprise me if he did talk to the Deputy or now the Acting Attorney General.
MCCABE: Yes, absolutely he should be interviewed.
COLLINS: It seems hard that you couldn't, right?
MCCABE: He should be interviewed. Pam Bondi should be interviewed. Kash Patel should be interviewed. Dan Bongino should be interviewed. And those are the sorts of very sensitive interviews that are typically done by the more experienced investigative division in the I.G.'s office.
COLLINS: And so, if they are not interviewed, will we know?
DUPREE: No.
MCCABE: I mean, me--
COLLINS: We'll never know?
MCCABE: My opinion? No. Those are the people who need to be very clear about what they know about how this rollout was handled. We've heard a lot of contradictions so far. Let's get to the bottom of it.
COLLINS: You agree?
DUPREE: I agree. Amen. We all want to know what happened to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.
COLLINS: Yes, it's obviously important, because it spans decades. It's not just about this administration.
Tom Dupree. Andy McCabe. Great to have both of you here tonight. Thanks for joining us.
Up next. It is Take Your Kids To Work Day. That includes on Capitol Hill, our Chief Congressional Correspondent had two of his best deputies with him to track down members of Congress.
[21:55:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: It was Take Your Kids To Work Day here in Washington. I'm not sure if the House Democratic Leader, Hakeem Jeffries, though, was prepared for the kind of grilling that he got.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SONYA RAJU (ph), MANU RAJU'S DAUGHTER: Why do voters view Democrats so poorly?
(LAUGHTER)
REP. HAKEEM JEFFRIES (D-NY): Oh. Did your dad give you that question?
(LAUGHTER)
JEFFRIES: It's a great question in that--
(LAUGHTER)
JEFFRIES: I'm going to have words with you after this, Manu.
(LAUGHTER)
JEFFRIES: Of course, battling them to make sure we take back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Sonya Raju (ph), who is the daughter of our friend and CNN Anchor, Manu Raju, proving yes, asking hard questions, does run in their family.
Her twin brother, Sanjay (ph), was also there, as you can see here, and he also pressed Hakeem Jeffries on a Democratic member who resigned this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SANJAY RAJU (ph), MANU RAJU'S SON: Would you have voted to expel Sheila--
(LAUGHTER)
SANJAY RAJU (ph): --Cherfilus-McCormick?
JEFFRIES: First of all, you did a great job pronouncing her name.
(LAUGHTER) JEFFRIES: She did the right thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[22:00:00]
COLLINS: You got to love that.
Thanks so much for joining us here on THE SOURCE tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT" with our friend, Abby Phillip, starts right now.
