Return to Transcripts main page
The Source with Kaitlan Collins
Trump Goes All In On Data Centers: "Let Data Reign"; U.S. & Iran Trade Attacks In First Major Escalation In A Month; Duane "Keffe D" Davis Found Guilty In Tupac Shakur's Murder. Aired 9-10p ET
Aired August 31, 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)
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST, ANDERSON COOPER 360: --and it just covers everything. If you walk out into this area, you can tell by my shoes, you'll just sink in it. It's like concrete quicksand.
This was once a destination spot for Hindus and Buddhists on religious pilgrimages. They would come here. Also, trekkers from all over the world. There's 15 Australian trekkers who have been reported missing in this area, as well as dozens of other foreigners. It's not clear how many people died here in this town.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
COOPER: That's just one town in the community all along that river.
That's it for us. Thanks for watching. The news continues. "THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS" starts now.
KAITLAN COLLINS, CNN CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, CNN HOST, THE SOURCE WITH KAITLAN COLLINS: Tonight. Michigan's Democratic Senate nominee, Abdul El-Sayed, is here live. As the Vice President calls him quote, "Evil," and their feud gets personal.
I'm Kaitlan Collins. And this is THE SOURCE.
Quote: Let Data Reign. With those three words on social media today, President Trump cemented his position, on an issue that could threaten his party's congressional majorities with only nine weeks to go until the midterm elections.
In the words of the President today, quote, "The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor."
That might be news to the 70 percent of Americans who say they do not want a data center in their neighborhood. And for a president who won the White House not once, but twice, by sailing with the political winds, he's now squarely against them.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: If I was a mayor or if I was a governor in a state, I would want to have the data center.
If I were the mayor of a town or the governor of a state, and I had a chance to get a big plant in, an AI plant or a data center, I would absolutely want it.
I mean, data centers could be bigger than oil.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That's what the President says.
The Vice President, who is widely presumed to be a candidate for the White House in 2028, also acknowledged today the political reality while he was out supporting Republicans on the campaign trail.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JD VANCE (R), U.S. VICE PRESIDENT: I think probably 99 percent of the backlash to data centers has come in areas where building a data center means higher utility and higher electricity for the people on the ground.
If you build a data center, you should be putting power back into the grid, not taking it out. And if that is happening, I don't think the data centers are that controversial. It's when the utility bills get so much higher, that's when it's a real problem.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: But that argument is undercut by his boss, who has been arguing that higher energy prices caused by data centers are not a problem anymore.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They need some PR help because people think that if a data center goes in, their electricity prices are going to go up, and that's not happening. It's not going to happen. And for the areas where it did happen, it won't happen anymore.
A big portion of the building is now their own generator. So, we're not taking that from the public. We're not taking it from the grid.
The data centers now are mandated by me that they build their own electricity, so they're not taking it from the grid.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, this debate over AI data centers has exploded across the U.S. Campaign spending on the issue is way up, with $16 million of ads mentioning it just in the last month.
So, the Vice President's nuance on this issue might be in part because of where he was campaigning today, the battleground state of Michigan. It's a state that might very well decide which party controls the Senate after November. And the Vice President was there to boost the Republican Senate nominee, former Congressman, Mike Rogers, who right now finds himself in a neck-and-neck race with the Democratic nominee, Abdul El-Sayed.
And even with issues like data centers front and center, as we've seen very clearly playing out over the last several weeks, the Vice President's visit seemed, at times, more personal than policy-driven. Starting with this not so warm welcome from El-Sayed.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ABDUL EL-SAYED, (D) MICHIGAN SENATE NOMINEE: So, if you're starting a trade war with Canada, it's because you're the asshole.
I think Michigan is going to remind JD Vance why he should send his ass back to Ohio at the end of this day.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Now, when Vice President Vance landed in the state, in his comments, he went even further.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: I am asking you is to remember that the same guy who defends literal terrorism is maybe not going to have your best interest at heart, when he gets to Washington, D.C.
There's something about Abdul El-Sayed that is very, very evil and on the rise in the United States of America.
But whatever you want to talk about, Abdul, keep my wife's name the hell out of your mouth because she's way out of your league.
(CHEERING)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: And my lead source tonight is the Democratic nominee for Senate in Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed.
And thank you, sir, for being here.
[21:05:00]
First off, do you want to respond to what the Vice President said today, saying that there is something that is quote, "Very, very evil" about you?
EL-SAYED: Well, let me tell you what's evil. Evil is the idea of starting wars when there's peace. Evil is the idea of stripping away people's health care when they absolutely have no other option. What's evil is to do that so that you can pass a tax cut for billionaires. What's evil is putting a data center that people don't want in their backyard despite them. What's evil is corrupting yourself because you want a little bit more power. And at the end of the day, this whole conversation, frankly, it's a distraction. The distraction from what Michiganders are really worried about. They're worried that they can't afford their gas because of this trade war with Canada or because of this hot war with Iran that they got us into. They're worried that they can't see a doctor because they're about to lose their Medicaid. They are worried that their kid is being priced out of playing baseball.
So, if the Vice President would like to actually get on to governing, he's welcome to do that. But to come to Michigan from Ohio, where he's from, to tell us that we ought to pay for a vanity trade war that his president is spiking with Canada? Well, that's a little bit beyond the pale, and I think he can go take himself back to Ohio, where apparently they like politics like that.
COLLINS: I mean, as he was saying that, he was talking about different races, different religions. He misquoted you slightly, but he was referencing what you said, after the attack on the synagogue on a -- in a synagogue in Michigan, back in March. At the time, you condemned the attack, but said violence is a cycle and quote, Hurt people hurt people.
You actually apologized for those comments over the weekend. Why now, six months after your initial remarks?
EL-SAYED: Because I have had the opportunity to listen to folks, to learn how it hit them. My goal wasn't to cause anybody pain at all. I grew up in the community in which Temple Israel sits. I got to go to bar and bar mitzvahs at Temple Israel. I'm grateful for the opportunity I got to spend with my Jewish sisters and brothers.
And as I've traveled the state, I've heard that that comment caused a lot of pain, and it was not my intention to cause any pain at all. But I'm big enough to apologize when I make mistakes. I understand that it's not what people wanted to hear at the time.
You've got a president and a vice president right now that just double down every single time they get caught in an error for which all the rest of us have to pay.
You think about this trade war with Canada, and I just want to focus on this for a second. Because, we're already paying, what, $3,200 a year for the President's trade war, and then he just escalated it. It's looking like it's going to cost us $5,600 because he can't seem to figure out how to make peace with Canadians, who, by the way, are some of the most peace-loving people you'll ever meet. And they're not willing to apologize, they just doubled down. And I think that's the difference between leaders and people who pretend to be leaders in the name of their own power.
COLLINS: Your opponent, Mike Rogers, was asked about the trade war that's underway and whether or not he supports the tariffs that the President plans to impose on Canada. And this is what the Republican candidate in this race had to say today about President Trump's plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) MIKE ROGERS, (R) MICHIGAN SENATE CANDIDATE: Is this the right thing for Michigan? Some of this is. What's going on here is the Canadians want 500,000 more Canadian-built cars pushed into Michigan. My argument is that should be absolutely unacceptable. The UAW is not for that, by the way. And my argument is, don't we want the tariffs that at least give our autoworkers an opportunity to build cars right here in Michigan? I argue, the answer is yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Do you disagree that those cars should be built in Michigan?
EL-SAYED: Those cars should definitely be built in Michigan, but this isn't how you do it.
What we understand about these tariffs is that they are like all things Donald Trump does, ham-fisted, chaotic, and self-serving. This isn't about protecting the auto industry in Michigan. This is about winning a vanity trade war with a guy who seems to have personally insulted the President.
Don't talk about what the UAW is for. The UAW is for me in this race. The UAW understands that this is not how you do tariff policy. I'm actually for thoughtful, well-constructed tariffs that actually achieve an outcome. But this is not that. This is a president fighting a trade war with a neighbor, asking us to pay for it, both in our jobs and in our monthly paychecks. This ain't it.
Now here's the thing about this. That answer, it is classic Mike Rogers. Mike Rogers is corporate, he's corrupt and he's cowardly. He's taken more money to run his campaigns than almost anybody who's run for U.S. Senate in the past. $5 million for his congressional campaigns alone. This isn't somebody who's serious about actually addressing public policy.
[21:10:00]
Now, here's the thing: he's caught between knowing full well that these tariffs are bad for Michiganders, and having to appeal to Daddy Trump every single time he opens his mouth. And guess who's going to pick every single time? He's going to be -- pick Trump over you. He is fine with Michiganders having to pay $5,600 because of Trump's vanity trade war, making an argument that he knows has nothing to do with the facts of this case--
COLLINS: But can I ask you--
EL-SAYED: --because Trump would chastise him otherwise.
COLLINS: If you agree that those cars should be made in Michigan. I mean, that's what also the Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, is talking about, the cars being made in the United States. How do you do that? How do you bring those jobs back, other than these tariffs?
EL-SAYED: Well, it's not these tariffs. It is thoughtfully, well- constructed tariffs. Let's just step back for a second. I actually believe that USMCA, that the era of free trade was cancer. By the way, an era of free trade that was advanced while Mike Rogers was in Canada and by -- was in Congress, and at that point he was very pro free trade. So, it's interesting that he's now decided to find religion on this issue.
But the way you would do this is that you would invest in the future of auto manufacturing. You would make those investments in a very clear way. You would have clear, transparent tariffs, around meeting certain goals for how you would then start to export, how you would start to produce. And as you met those goals, you would start to bring those tariffs down. They would be targeted for particular goods, and in this case, you'd be targeting the automotive industry. This is 50 percent blinking across the board.
And let's be clear: anybody who understands the automotive supply chain understands that parts go back and forth and back and forth, and they're picking up tariff costs every single time. This is going to be devastating for autoworkers. Autoworkers are going to lose their jobs if this persists. The Trump administration knows it. The UAW knows it. The Big Three know it. And it seems like Mike Rogers is the last to figure it out.
COLLINS: You know, we -- on the data centers argument that has become so much bigger of a political issue than I think people even anticipated a few months ago. And for voters, when the President says that we should let data reign and that communities that oppose data centers being constructed in their communities will be backwards and poor. What is your response to that?
EL-SAYED: He hasn't spent time in real communities. I mean, this is a guy who's never cared about local communities. Think about his time as a quote-unquote, Developer in New York. And then you think about his time in the White House. He's more interested in the ballroom and the drapes than he is in the wellbeing of local communities.
I'd invite him to come and talk to local community members who had a huge data center forced down their throat in Saline. They didn't want this. And it's not because they're quote-unquote, Backwards. It's because they understand what the implications of this might be for their water supply, and for the price of electricity, and for reliability.
Here in Michigan, DTE is one of the biggest contributors to our political system. They've spent on 93 percent of state legislators. In fact, Mike Rogers has taken more single contributions from DTE than any other corporation, and that really is saying something.
DTE is the reason why we lose our power for five days in a row, when you have like a mid-level storm where the wind barely blows. And now they're telling us that they're going to massively increase the amount of outflow that is required because of this data center, and telling us that somehow that's not going to affect either our utility rates or our reliability. Nobody believes it. And when he says, Let Data Reign, what he's saying is--
COLLINS: So, on this issue--
EL-SAYED: --let me just finish this point. What he's saying is he's more interested in doing favors for the corporations that buy his campaigns than he is interested in the wellbeing of Michiganders.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, but on this, you know, you have said that you would like a state and local moratorium on data centers until there can be robust federal guardrails put in place. Some people might hear that and say, OK, but we watch how Congress works. They're not exactly quick on these things, and it's a question of how long that could take.
Another question is if you are elected to the Senate, and Donald Trump is still president, how do you get that passed anywhere if there -- how do you get it past a presidential veto, these robust guardrails, given we very clearly see where President Trump stands on this?
EL-SAYED: Well, I'll tell you that most of Congress is starting to pay attention to the fact that the public hates these things. It's a 70-30 issue. You just showed that. Mike Rogers himself, he's got up to $2.6 million invested in companies that would stand to benefit from data centers.
He was asked a question, in one of the few times he's ever exposed himself to an actual journalist, about data centers, and then the next day he issued his call for a state-level moratorium. Except for he's running for U.S. Senate. But it was his way of trying to capitulate on an issue he knows is unpopular.
I think people are hearing about this, every single time they go into their communities. I know Republicans don't really do that anymore. But if they do, they're hearing about it, and I'm sure they're getting a lot of mail and a lot of calls from their constituents. So, I hope that this moves Congress.
Now, I'm going to have to work with Donald Trump at least for the two years, my first two years in the U.S. Senate. But I also think that if he's hearing pressure from the broader public, it's going to push pressure on actually getting the kind of legislation that protects the public from the worst of these things.
COLLINS: Yes, I mean, we saw when Bernie Sanders put out a bill on this, I don't think he got a single co-sponsor on a national data center moratorium. But we'll see what happens, obviously, there, and if you are elected.
[21:15:00]
You talked about Vance being in Michigan today, focusing on the issues, what's important to Michiganders. This campaign between you and Mike Rogers has also been very personal. I mean, you were calling him, still are calling him, Beta, repeatedly. Today, he was saying that you peaked in high school, and that's how you're acting.
The Vice President himself called you out today for what you said about his wife, Usha Vance, someone that you've now invoked a couple of times.
Do you believe that spouses, political spouses, people who aren't running for office, should be off-limits?
EL-SAYED: Look, I'd rather not talk about spouses at all. The truth of the matter is that Donald Trump, almost as soon as I was nominated, tweeted a picture of me and my wife, relative to him and his wife, trying to highlight the fact that my wife wears a hijab, as if to make an argument that that's somehow less American.
And they have this interesting dynamic. Donald Trump says one thing, i.e. data centers, or tweets a picture of my wife, and then JD Vance pretends like it would be impossible for anybody ever to do something like that. So, I'd like them to actually face down their own hypocrisy.
The point that I've been making about his wife is that he believes in a political philosophy that says that some people are somehow more American than others. He, in a speech about a week ago, said that he wanted to have a conversation about me with his papaw, a person that I understand has long since passed. May he rest in peace.
But why would you invoke your long-since-passed grandfather to make an argument about me, if you're not trying to take us back to a time when people like me were less than normal? But then that raises the question about who else might not be normal in that kind of an America. Who else might not be included in the broad spectrum of who can be an American?
I believe in an America where any of us, me, his wife, any of us with different color skin, or who pray different ways, can be just as American as JD and his papaw. But he's not making that argument. He likes to dog-whistle about these things. But when you actually call him out on it, he acts like he would never bring anything like that into our political conversation, despite he and his boss doing that every single day.
COLLINS: Abdul El-Sayed, thank you for joining us on THE SOURCE tonight.
EL-SAYED: Thanks for having me.
COLLINS: Up next here for us. The United States is striking Iran for the first time in more than a month. President Trump was asked about that today, and whether more fighting is going to continue.
And also, the Supreme Court has just made it official when it comes to the President's ballroom. But Chief Justice John Roberts says the construction is quote, "Likely unlawful." Maggie Haberman is here with her reporting, next.
[21:20:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Is the resumption of strikes in Iran part of a limited campaign or a return to full-scale war? And how will you respond to the Iranian strikes in Jordan--
TRUMP: It's very limited. Look, they're a failed nation.
Their leaders are largely dead. Their navy is gone. Their air force is gone. Their surveillance equipment is almost entirely gone. That doesn't mean we won't smack them. We'll see what happens.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: That was President Trump inside the Oval Office, earlier today, telling reporters that more strikes on Iran will be limited after the two exchanged fire for the first time in over a month. Iran says it has launched missiles, overnight, toward U.S. military bases and U.S. military targets, I should say, in Jordan and the United Arab Emirates.
That is after the U.S. had first struck Iranian rocket launchers on Larak Island, which is a small but strategic Iranian military site that is located in the Strait of Hormuz. The U.S. says Iran was preparing to launch rockets from the island that would drop mines into that Strait.
Now, the United States did not strike Kharg Island. You might be forgiven for thinking as much because the President implied as much last night, when he posted this video and said that it was, quote, "Blown to smithereens." That is an AI-generated video that the President posted there, depicting those massive explosions on the island.
And given the President implied that it had been struck, but it had not, the Vice President, JD Vance, was asked about the President's post today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
VANCE: I think that he's sending a message to the Iranians. Look, we know that they continue to shoot at commercial shipping. We continue to have a lot of tools at our disposal to prevent them from doing so, or at least cut down on them from doing so, and that's what the President is saying, is, Look, you guys are shooting at commercial shipping. You guys are behaving like a terrorist country. You've got to stop, or there are going to be some consequences.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: Joining me tonight is the deeply-sourced White House correspondent for The New York Times, Maggie Haberman, who is also the author, the best-selling author of the new book on Trump's second term, "Regime Change."
Maggie, I mean, what did you make of the President's post implying that the United States had hit Kharg Island when the United States did not hit Kharg Island? MAGGIE HABERMAN, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT, THE NEW YORK TIMES, CO- AUTHOR, "REGIME CHANGE": I was traveling when that post popped up on my phone, and I was deeply confused at first.
What I make of it is that people who are not exactly paying close attention, who don't understand the degree to which a lot of what the White House has been putting out in terms of its social media content looks like a video game, might not understand. As you said, you could be forgiven for thinking that was real.
There could be risks to such a thing. There obviously wasn't here, and I think that Iran has gotten used to, and its leaders have gotten used to seeing him do things like this. But I don't think that's a deterrent to Iran. I think that what the Vice President said is correct. That is what the President's trying to do, but I don't think that that's what that social media post was doing.
[21:25:00]
COLLINS: What's your sense, just from your reporting overall, of how the administration is viewing the state of the war right now? I mean, we're getting closer and closer to the midterms. The war is obviously not over. Even if it is at a less escalatory state than it used to be, it's still very much underway. There's still service members in the region.
HABERMAN: The President snapped very aggressively at a question, at the very end of his spray today in the Oval Office, which was, Have you ruled out a nuclear weapon against Iran? And his answer was, Yes, and then he got angry at the person who asked the question and started saying it was a stupid question.
And you can often tell how he is feeling about how things are going by how he reacts to a -- you know, fine yes, nukes off the table whatever. But obviously, it was a question about escalation. That reflects generally the sentiment of frustration that exists in this White House certainly that we all hear exists with the President, that this has not gone as he was hoping it was going to, and whatever economic pressure they're putting on Iran doesn't seem like it's been enough to stop negative and adverse activity toward the U.S.
COLLINS: Yes, and we saw Secretary Hegseth at the White House today. This comes as The Wall Street Journal first reported, and CNN confirmed tonight, that the Army Secretary, Dan Driscoll, has submitted his resignation. He's going to be leaving. He's someone who has really close ties to the Vice President, JD Vance. I believe they went to Yale together. But it's this frustration, The Journal says, over Hegseth ousting people that the Army Secretary thought were capable, competent leaders in the military.
HABERMAN: Yes, I mean, by all accounts, yes, you know, we've heard the same thing about Driscoll, and this has, as you said, this has been anticipated for a while. This has been -- being telegraphed that he was going to leave for some time. I know there were reports that the White House hadn't accepted the resignation. I don't know if that's true or not. But regardless, you are now having no confirmed Army Secretary in the middle of a war, in the middle of a much more dangerous world than the one that the President came into when he came into office.
And what exactly Hegseth is doing and why he is blocking some of these folks and firing others, there has been no clear explanation as to what's going on, other than the fact that, we keep hearing, he doesn't like certain people for whatever reason. But adversaries see that too.
COLLINS: Yes. In other news today, when it comes to the President's ballroom, the Supreme Court seems to have had the final word on this. I mean, this seems to be the end of the road. I guess we'll see. It was a five-four decision that came down, saying that he could continue constructing the ballroom on the White House grounds. It is very much still under way, if you've seen the pictures of what it looks like.
But what Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his dissent stood out to me. He said, quote, "That construction is likely unlawful." He said: The White House is not just any building... In failing to appreciate as much, the Court misconceives the plaintiff's injury, allowing the Executive's likely infringement of the Legislature's power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue.
I mean, I do -- even if this is a victory for the President, which he's already touting, I do wonder what he will say when the Chief Justice John Roberts says it's probably not illegal or -- probably not legal what he's doing.
HABERMAN: Yes, I mean, knowing the President, as we have seen repeatedly, that any kind of suggestion that his powers should be curtailed, even if he's succeeding, as he did in this suit on the case -- on the issue of standing, often merits a response.
I was surprised that John Roberts dissented here, and I know that I'm not alone from people I've spoken to. Our colleague, Elie Honig, however, I think predicted that this was going to be the outcome.
This court has ruled on matters of standing over and over. Sometimes, the administration has benefited. Sometimes, they haven't. On this one, there is another recourse. If somebody didn't want to, you know, have this ballroom, and it would be that Congress could act, not that Congress could sue, but Congress could take a vote against this, they could try to stop it.
It gets back to this question of how Congress is not exactly being ignored all the time. They're actually just giving the President their powers.
COLLINS: Yes, they're back in Washington today for the first time.
HABERMAN: Right.
COLLINS: They've been on their August recess. But I do think it is a question of what that even looks like with them over the next few weeks. I mean, you are reporting how at the President's midterm convention that he's doing in Dallas next week. Actually, some Republicans aren't behind it because they think it's taking them off the campaign trail.
HABERMAN: Not just off the campaign trail, but also forming fresh ad copy for Democrats to run against them. I mean, look, in midterm -- it's not unusual--
COLLINS: Yes, Trump's underwater more than Republicans are right now.
HABERMAN: Yes, and look, some of the public polling, I don't know how much it correlates. It doesn't entirely correlate with some private polling. But there is no polling where this President is popular. Let's put it that way.
And there is no polling where he is not in trouble on the issue of affordability. I will note that repeatedly, the word, affordability, was used at his Oval Office event today on health care, despite him repeatedly saying it's a hoax. This is the kind of thing that Republicans who are in these districts that are embattled do not want to be dealing with.
[21:30:00]
The other piece too, Kaitlan, that I don't think has gotten that much attention on this front, and I would say this quickly: they did net this -- this gamble with creating new House seats, through this redistricting arms race that the White House started. There -- yes, they have a net number of increase in Republican seats. They've also created a bunch of mashup seats that, if it is a bad night, if it is a wave night against Republicans, some seats that should be safe might not be.
COLLINS: Yes.
HABERMAN: So, these are all complicating factors.
COLLINS: Including in Texas--
HABERMAN: Correct.
COLLINS: --where it all started.
HABERMAN: Correct.
COLLINS: Maggie Haberman, it's always great to have your excellent reporting.
HABERMAN: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Thank you for joining us tonight.
Speaking of lawmakers being back in Washington, I have two of them joining me next. They're the ones who actually initially pushed for the release of the Epstein files. Thomas Massie and Ro Khanna are here tonight, as there is actually breaking news this hour, on their latest push, when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:35:00]
COLLINS: As Congress returns to Washington this evening, following a weeks-long recess, the two Congressmen who eventually forced the Justice Department to release the Epstein files could soon potentially force lawmakers to vote on the issue once again.
Tonight, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie has just filed another discharge petition. It's that same maneuver that got the Epstein Files Transparency Act through Congress into President Trump's desk last year. Now to push for a second Act. Massie and his Democratic co- sponsor, Congressman Ro Khanna, are now arguing that the Justice Department is violating that law that did pass, by withholding millions of files related to the late sex offender.
This new bill tries to remedy that by giving state attorneys general, survivors, and members of Congress standing, to sue the Attorney General and demand the disclosure of the documents.
And Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and Ro Khanna of California, are my sources tonight.
And thank you both for being here.
I think one question is, you know, we've seen what the DOJ has said about why they haven't released what else has not been released. Why do you think that this bill will be helpful in that?
REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): Well, we give, as you said in your introduction, three groups of people standing. Most importantly, state attorneys generals because they -- the one in New Mexico hasn't got any cooperation from the U.S. Attorney General, which is almost unprecedented, and he believes he can prosecute some of these crimes under state law if he could get the cooperation of the federal government.
And so, we didn't really anticipate that problem with the first Epstein Files Transparency Act. So now we're trying to create a conduit for the attorneys in the various states to prosecute these crimes.
COLLINS: Had you known that this would be an issue, would you have written that differently the first time, or what would that have looked like?
REP. RO KHANNA (D-CA): It may have been tough if we had a private cause of action to build the coalition we did to get the votes. What we ended up assembling in that coalition led to millions of files being released. It's led to worldwide prosecutions, and it's led to dozens of people losing their jobs in the United States.
But it isn't far enough, when you talk to the survivors. They still don't have access to millions of documents that have been covered, and there have not been prosecutions here in the United States. And a lot of these states attorney generals want to prosecute, and this bill would allow them to do so.
COLLINS: Well, I mean, it seemed so rare that you got the first one passed. I mean, initially when you guys put this forward, a lot of people thought it was a long-shot bid, and then eventually, obviously, it did garner enough support, and it did create this law.
Do you have the coalition in terms of getting the support here? Do you have enough Republicans to support it this time around so far?
MASSIE: Well, incidentally, the math is the same this time as it was a year ago. We need every Democrat. We need the two empty Democrat seats to be filled, which should happen this week, unless Speaker Johnson does something like he did last time and drags out swearing people in for two months. And then we need myself and three more Republicans.
We do not have Marjorie Taylor Greene anymore, but there could be other Republicans that are compelled to join it this time. Because, if you remember, ultimately, when we got it to the floor for a vote, nearly everybody voted for it, and in the Senate, everybody did vote for it. It shouldn't be as toxic this time.
COLLINS: Yes, well, I mean, and obviously, the President eventually relented on that because it was clear, the writing was on the wall on how much support it had.
When you talk about the DOJ and what they've done so far on this. This is something that Todd Blanche has been asked about multiple times in terms of what has not been released. He said it's -- they're duplicates, that it's files that can't be released, that it's -- you know, there's exceptions in the law.
What do you say to Todd Blanche in terms of what you're now trying to do?
KHANNA: Well, you can either believe Todd Blanche, or you can believe the survivors. And if people read actually Maggie Haberman's book, who was your previous guest, she details how JD Vance was in the Situation Room, right when Thomas and I introduced the bill, directing a cover- up, directing people not to release these files.
[21:40:00]
The reality is, the survivors have given statements to FBI agents about what happened to them. Those are the 302 forms. And those were scrubbed by the FBI and were never transmitted in unredacted form to the Justice Department. And that is what we are demanding be released. That is where the names are. That is where the information are about who raped, abused, or trafficked these women.
MASSIE: By the way, if I could, there's another entire category of things that Todd Blanche knows he's withholding because he's told us this in informal memos. They're claiming this deliberative process privilege that they use when they don't want to give you something, a FOIA document, Freedom of Information Act document--
COLLINS: Which are the conversations between DOJ officials about the materials.
MASSIE: What to do. Yes. They say, We owe you our final production, but we don't have to give you our decisions and our homework.
But the Epstein Files Transparency Act that we wrote says that you have to give us those internal memos about decisions on whether to prosecute, whether to investigate because, that's central to this whole thing. Why didn't you investigate some of these people? Why didn't you prosecute them?
And what we do in the new bill is we say, You know, when we said you have to tell us about your decisions, that covered deliberative process privilege. But we're saying it explicitly in this bill, You can't assert that deliberative process privilege.
COLLINS: OK. So, we'll see, obviously, if you get the support here.
Another thing that you're working to address -- we talked about data centers at the top of the show -- are Flock cameras, something else that has become a bigger political issue by the day and has garnered a ton of backlash even. We've got Ron DeSantis, other governors, Josh Shapiro, addressing this now. They're these license plate readers that law enforcement says are helpful in solving crimes, finding missing people.
You are working to actually create restrictions on funding when it comes to this. What are you proposing exactly?
MASSIE: Well, we're not proposing to ban them because we actually don't even have that authority if you follow the Constitution. But we do have the authority to withhold funding for these Flock cameras.
The Flock cameras and the data centers may be the only things that have a lower approval rating than Congress these days, and--
COLLINS: And can have far-left approval and far-right approval.
MASSIE: Correct. And so, what we're saying is we're not going to fund these Flock cameras in the communities. If you want to -- if you want to have them, you can pay for them yourselves, but don't ask the federal government to be part of this.
COLLINS: Is that something you support?
KHANNA: I do. I'm -- as first co-sponsor. I'm just a little jealous that the MIT guy gets ahold, comes up with the creative ideas, and then I co-sponsor it.
MASSIE: Oh.
KHANNA: But look, what Thomas and my partnership shows is that there are areas in this country where you can build unconventional coalitions, going after elite impunity, a group in the Epstein class that abused young girls and faced no consequences, stopping foreign wars, where Thomas and I have partnered in stopping the war in Iran, and stopping the abuse of Flock cameras. I mean, you have reports of women who are being stalked and harassed by former officers, or current officers, who are looking at these Flock cameras, to go after their exes or to go after girlfriends. I mean, it's horrific.
COLLINS: Yes, there's definitely abuse of it. I mean, we've seen that in these instances. But in terms of where they can be helpful to law enforcement in solving crimes. I mean, you don't think that there should be Flock cameras in California?
KHANNA: Well, this is not a ban. This is saying that--
COLLINS: But personally, what do you think?
KHANNA: Well, personally, I think that there should be restrictions. There should be a process, if you're a police officer, that you shouldn't just be able to look at this information without getting layers of approval and without getting some authorization. We should have a system where there's oversight over the data. Right now, it's just unrestricted and it's being abused in many ways.
MASSIE: We got into this, when I was drafting the bill, what is a Flock camera? Because we don't ban them by name. Obviously, other manufacture--
COLLINS: Right, the brand.
MASSIE: --other manufacturers make them.
So, what is it that we're saying that we're not going to fund? It's the real-time tracking of people for which there is no warrant, for which they're -- they're basically sucking in all of this data and using it, and they can abuse it. If you went back to having a warrant in order to search this stuff. But they're collecting it and displaying it in real-time. It's not like they're collecting this stuff, and then they want to go back and see and solve a crime with a warrant.
KHANNA: And--
COLLINS: Where does the House Speaker, Mike Johnson, stand on this? Have you spoken to him about it?
MASSIE: Don't know yet. We're actually going to drop the bill in a day or two this week. We've been on recess, so we haven't had the opportunity to introduce the bill.
KHANNA: And you know, look, I represent Silicon Valley, but we need to have some guardrails on this technology.
They have these Meta Glasses where you could actually go down the street and, with facial recognition, identify someone and then look up information on them, and the person doesn't know. And some of these young guys are using them to hit on women, getting their information. I mean, we can't live in a society of surveillance. I'm not against technology, but I am against technology being used to abuse people, and that's what's going on in certain cases with Flock cameras. It's what's going on with these Meta Glasses.
[21:45:00]
COLLINS: Congressmen Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie, it's always great to have the two of you on together. Thank you for joining us tonight. Much appreciated.
KHANNA: Thank you.
MASSIE: Thank you.
COLLINS: We'll continue to follow that legislation.
Also, we just got a guilty verdict in the death of Tupac Shakur, which had remained unsolved for nearly three decades. What just happened in court tonight? That's ahead.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[21:50:00]
COLLINS: We are following breaking news tonight as a jury has just found Duane Davis guilty of first-degree murder, following the 1996 drive-by shooting of Tupac Shakur.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The verdict reads as follows: We, the jury in the above-entitled case, find the defendant Duane Keffe Davis as follows: Count one, murder with the use of a deadly weapon, guilty of first- degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon, dated this 31st date of August 2026.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is this your verdict as read, so say you one, so say you all?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
COLLINS: This is an explosive conviction that comes 30 years after one of hip hop's brightest stars was gunned down near the Las Vegas Strip.
In the closing arguments that were just happening today, prosecutors argued that Davis was the shot caller who went hunting for Tupac, and that his 2019 memoir, detailing the shooting, should be considered an admission. As the defense argued at length that Davis was lying and that the memoir was only fiction.
My source tonight is civil rights attorney, Areva Martin.
And Areva, obviously, Tupac's family was in court as this verdict came down. The jury did not deliberate for very long. What did you make of what they found today?
AREVA MARTIN, CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY: Not at all surprised.
This was an interesting case, Kaitlan. Because even though it was a circumstantial evidence case, meaning that there was no eye witness, there was no murder weapon ever found by the prosecution, this was a case that was built on the words of Duane Keffe Davis.
He wrote that memoir in 2019. He went on podcasts. He did a documentary. And then there was that proffer of 2008, where he was doing an interview with law enforcement in Los Angeles, where he admitted to killing Tupac, or at least being a part of it, by orchestrating the drive-by shooting that happened that night in Las Vegas. So, this was a conviction based on his own words.
The family, as you said, in the courtroom, of course, elated about this turn of events. They've waited almost 30 years for justice. Many people believing that there would never be anyone held accountable for Tupac's murder. But today, Duane Davis has been convicted and is facing very serious jailtime, probably life in prison, given that there was a gang enhancement found as well by this jury.
COLLINS: So this does potentially have life in prison as a sentence here for him?
MARTIN: Absolutely. The prosecution alleged that this whole attack on Tupac was a part of a larger gang fight that was happening between warring factions of the Bloods and Crips street gangs, and that this was retaliation for a fight that really had started even before both sides ended up in Las Vegas, in that MGM hotel, where there was an altercation earlier the day before Tupac was actually shot.
So, that gang enhancement will give the judge the opportunity to enhance whatever sentencing otherwise would have been handed down. Given that this is a murder conviction.
COLLINS: As some people are listening to this tonight, if they weren't following this case very closely, they might be shocked to hear this, just given what you mentioned there, how long ago this happened.
What do you -- how do you assess how long it took to get to this moment tonight?
MARTIN: Well, a lot of folks were incredibly shocked when the prosecution even determined that they were going to charge Duane Keffe Davis with this murder. This was a cold case, Kaitlan, for the most part. It was Davis who started talking about this case, as he was promoting that 2019 memoir.
For years, law enforcement had pretty much given up on finding anyone that would be held accountable. And then he writes this book and starts touring, giving interviews, media interviews, talking about his involvement. So again, his own words. And many people are saying, If he had just shut up, if he had not written that book, if he had not done those interviews, he may not have found himself facing prosecution and now facing this murder conviction.
COLLINS: Well, and to what you were arguing earlier, and what could come next here. He says he's going to appeal this. He was raising his fist as he was leaving court.
Prosecutors have since said, you know, we're just learning this tonight, as these breaking developments are coming in, that they're going to drop that pursuit of the gang enhancement, they argue, due to witness logistics.
What do -- if that's the case here, what do we expect to happen next?
MARTIN: Well, one of the big issues, Kaitlan, for P.O., has always been the admission of this 2008 proffer. Again, this statement that Duane Davis made to law enforcement in 2008 when they were investigating another murder.
There's an audio that was played during the prosecution's case where you could hear law enforcement, in L.A., saying to Davis, This is a confidential conversation. Whatever you say will not be used against you.
And we know that Duane Davis' lawyer fought really hard trying to keep that proffer out of this trial. But that's going to be an issue for appeal.
[21:55:00]
COLLINS: Areva Martin, thank you for joining us, as always, but especially on this breaking news tonight.
MARTIN: Thanks, Kaitlan.
COLLINS: Up next. It is time for Source Code. We give you a number at the center of a story in the news. Can you figure out what the story is based on that number? Tonight's Source Code is just 1. I'll be right back with the answer.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COLLINS: Tonight's Source Code is 1. That's because that's how many people have ever received a lifetime ban from the prediction market site, Kalshi. A first-time punishment, though, that was just given to George Santos. The former Republican lawmaker, who was booted out of Congress in 2023, was given a lifetime ban for alleged insider bets that he placed on his own potential appearance at President Trump's State of the Union address earlier this year.
[22:00:00]
George Santos responded to the ban tonight, by writing this. Quote, "Hey @Kalshi thanks for the lifetime ban from your gambling platform. Let's see how much longer you guys are around for." Now, federal regulators have also investigated Santos for those bets earlier this year.
And I should note tonight, CNN has a paid partner -- has a partnership with Kalshi, and uses its data to cover major events. Our editorial employees are not allowed to trade on prediction markets.
Thanks so much for joining us here tonight.
"CNN NEWSNIGHT WITH ABBY PHILLIP" starts now.
