Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
White House Press Secretary Defends Trump's Claims Of "Epstein Hoax"; Trump Diagnosed With Chronic Venous Insufficiency After Leg Swelling; Senate Dems Walk Out As Ex-Trump Lawyer's Nomination Advances. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired July 17, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: -- it raises money for the young survival coalition.
[16:00:02]
And I actually got to play in honor of our lovely colleague and breast cancer survivor, Sara Sidner, which made it even more special.
OMAR JIMENEZ, CNN HOST: Yeah. I mean, and that's why you were playing so hard, because, look, sara, on the mind, you got to ride for Sara, always.
KIELAR: That's right. I was also playing hard because it's not so often that you get to throw a ball right at a lawmaker, which is kind of fun, you know? Playing hardball there.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: It's Donald Trump versus the story that just won't go away.
Is there anything the president can do to change the narrative?
Let's head into THE ARENA.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: The White House playing defense on the Epstein files, blaming Democrats as one of the prosecutors who worked on the case, is fired.
Plus, President Trump is diagnosed with a new medical condition after being examined for swelling in his legs.
And then Senate Democrats walk out just before a key vote to advance the nomination of Trump's former lawyer, Emil Bove. I'll speak with one of those senators live this hour.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Thursday.
Right now, the White House is all in on President Trump's strategy to say anything and do anything to get people to just move on from Jeffrey Epstein.
But now, it seems this story has grown beyond the control of even Donald Trump, a man whose every tweet and every comment has shaped redirected, completely overtaken news cycles for the last decade.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHANE GILLIS, COMEDIAN: Actually, there was supposed to be an Epstein joke here, but it got deleted. Must have probably deleted itself, right? Probably never existed, actually. Let's move on as a country and ignore that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Comedian Shane Gillis at the Espy Awards last night. And that was a joke. But it's a joke that lands because many, many people simply do not believe that Justice Department memo saying that Epstein committed suicide and that there is no client list.
Check this out. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted earlier this week finds that 69 percent of Americans think the government is hiding a list of Epstein's clients. Just 6 percent of Americans say they think the government isn't hiding the list. I mean, do we ever see numbers like that in this country? This -- we're more divided than ever, but apparently not on the Epstein files.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Can you clarify which part of the Epstein hoax is the hoax part?
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The president is referring to the fact that Democrats have now seized on this as if they ever wanted transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, which is an asinine suggestion for any Democrat to make. It was this president who directed the Department of Justice and the attorney general to do an exhaustive review of all files related to Jeffrey Epstein, which they did, and they concluded what they found in that memo, which they drafted and they released. And so, the president has been transparent. He has followed through on his promises to the American people.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Has he?
Another thing that's not helping this story go away, the firing of one of the federal prosecutors who worked on the Epstein case. That's Maurene Comey, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey. In a memo to her colleagues obtained by CNN, Comey wrote, quote, fear is the tool of a tyrant wielded to suppress independent thought, end quote. She also said she was not given a reason for her termination.
Right now at the White House, the president is scheduled to sign executive orders in the Oval Office. We've, of course, seen him do that many, many times. He often talks. He often takes questions. Today, no news cameras and no questions, and seems especially not about Jeffrey Epstein after the White House press secretary said this on President Trump's behalf today.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: The president would not recommend a special prosecutor in the Epstein case. That's how he feels. And as for his discussions with the attorney general, I'm not sure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Okay. Our panel is going to be here to talk about this yet again, but we are going to start yet again with senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
Kristen, you attended that press briefing earlier. Quite the question there. You know, which part of this exactly is a hoax? What more is the White House saying at this hour?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: I really think we should focus in on this, not recommending a special prosecutor, because that request is not something that's coming just from Democrats or from political adversaries. His own base has been suggesting that the Justice Department appoint the special prosecutor to look over the case, to kind of clear the air because of everything that we are seeing and because of the fixation on this.
And one of the things we saw yesterday when our producer was able to ask President Trump if he would appoint the special prosecutor, as he said, I have nothing to do with that.
[16:05:05]
That is true. It would have to be done by the attorney general. But here, he is saying not only does he have nothing do with it, but he recommends against it.
Attorney General Pam Bondi came in to a Justice Department that is incredibly linked to the executive here. It is incredibly, incredibly linked to the White House. There is almost zero percent chance that now that President Trump has said he would not recommend a special prosecutor, a special counsel, that she would go against his wishes on this. So that's why that is so key here.
The other part of this is I asked her, what exactly does President Trump know about these files? Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: President Trump said that the attorney general only gave him a brief overview of what was in these Epstein files. Does he have knowledge or an understanding of what is in the files related to Epstein that have not been released?
LEAVITT: Not to my knowledge. And that's a question for the attorney general, as I said. And the president has told the attorney general if they have any more credible evidence, they should release it.
HOLMES: Is that evidence? Would she have to run that by the president before she released it?
LEAVITT: I don't think so. He said if she has any more credible evidence, she should release it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: Now, one of the things I was trying to follow up there is what exactly is credible and who gets to determine what credible is. But she moved on to another reporter there.
Clearly, they are trying very hard to turn the page on this story. She also repeated over and over again defending the handling of what happened with these Epstein files, defending the fact that she and the president that the White House has been really under attack by their own base.
But the questions are just going to continue coming in here. And I really do think that this whole not recommending another special prosecutor and then following up with that's just how he feels, that in itself opens the door to a lot more questions. Why does he feel that way?
HUNT: Indeed, it does.
Kristen Holmes, thank you very much for that reporting.
We're going to dig more into this with our panel now in THE ARENA. CNN contributor, "New York Times" journalist and podcast host, Lulu Garcia-Navarro, CNN senior political commentator, former Republican Congressman Adam Kinzinger, Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod, and Republican strategist Doug Heye.
We're also joined by CNN senior law enforcement analyst and former FBI deputy director, Andrew McCabe.
Mr. McCabe, I want to get to you in a second.
Congressman, I actually would like to start with you on the Epstein situation. Since we were sitting here talking about this yesterday, and we had just gotten in those comments he made, I don't have anything to do with the special counsel. Now he comes out today and he says, or at least Karoline Leavitt says on his behalf -- well, he doesn't want to do that. Where -- I mean, where are we today?
ADAM KINZINGER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: No, nothing has changed. This is growing. The thing that people that don't like kind of stew in right wing conspiracy circles may not understand is this has depth, real serious depth in the GOP for about six years. They've used this as a weapon against Democrats.
The assumption is that you'll see it all the time. They'll say, well, so and so. Always a Democrat is on the Epstein list. Biden on the Epstein list. That's what they would use. Well, all of a sudden, they have to admit now one of two things.
Either the files don't exist and they lied to come into office on this, okay? Or the files exist. And this is a cover up.
This is the one thing that is not going to go away. Sure, there are very important issues out there. Ukraine, everything else. But this is what they rode in on. And now to say it simply doesn't exist -- by the way, Dan Bongino, Kash Patel all said on various podcasts that this is their number one goal to release the Epstein files that are in the FBI directors hands, and also the attorney general said, I have everything on my desk. I'm reviewing it right now.
Did she lie or is this a cover up? And that's a question they're going to have to answer.
HUNT: And of course, then, Kash Patel and Dan Bongino, a few months after coming into office, sat down with Maria Bartiromo and said, well, actually, Epstein did commit suicide. Actually, there's nothing there. I mean, it is really remarkable.
And so, to this point, Andy McCabe, can you help us understand, considering your background, the what the truth may actually be here because it's clear that, I mean, so many Americans think the government is covering something up, right?
Trump campaigned on releasing this stuff. He gets into office. He now says nothing to see here. And of course, Democrats who, you know, could have released this when they were in power didn't are seizing on the political opportunity to say, yeah, come on, release it.
What could the real reason be to not release something like this that most people would find to be plausible and credible?
ANDREW MCCABE, CNN SENIOR LAW ENFORCEMENT ANALYST: Okay. So that's a great question.
Let's start with the with the first premise, which is that there isn't actually any public right to be able to see into sensitive FBI files. Right. You can file a FOIA request, but there are something like nine different exceptions to FOIA. And some of them are, you know, sensitive material, investigative material needed in a prosecution, things like that.
So, it's not -- it's -- this is uncommon for people to be screaming for information from an investigative file.
[16:10:05]
This investigative file likely, I have not seen it, but I -- but it likely has a lot of information that should be protected. There's likely grand jury material in there that's protected by grand jury secrecy. There are -- there are, I'm sure, confidential witnesses or witnesses who are promised confidentiality.
So they -- they're -- they can't be exposed. There's information in there that might reveal it might be a violation of the Privacy Act. We also know that there are several federal judges who have issued sealing orders, both in the criminal investigation. We know that happened in the Ghislaine Maxwell case. And in some of these civil court filings, lawsuits that victims have filed in order to in order to get compensation for their injuries and what they've suffered. And in all these cases, judges have said, we are not going to reveal the names of all these other people who've been -- who've -- whose names we've come across in the course of this investigation.
Now, what those names are, is it a client list? Likely not. The guy wasn't probably running an official business and keeping business records of prostitution, but what he did have was a phone book, right? That had the names and contact numbers of the many, many people, probably hundreds of people, that he was in direct contact with.
Now simply being in his phone book doesn't necessarily mean you were a part of a child sex trafficking ring. So, revealing someone's name as being a contact of Epstein, you can see how detrimental that would be to someone's reputation that might give rise to a cause of action against the Justice Department. So, there's a lot of layers here of protection for people who are whose names came up in the investigation but who were never prosecuted for anything. And so, DOJ does not typically identify people who they don't charge.
HUNT: And in that kind of a world, I mean, is that the equivalent of an exoneration? If you were -- if you show up on that list and they just decline to prosecute you, does that mean that you did nothing wrong?
MCCABE: Not at all. But what it does mean is that the prosecutors, both in 2007 and in the more recent investigation in 2019, in the southern district, ultimately made the determination they've -- they've seen all these names, they know all the evidence, but they've they determined that there was not enough evidence to proceed against any of those people who we don't know about right now. That's a question that could be reexamined.
You could bring in lawyers, you could bring in a new team to relook at the file, to say, was there we're we too conservative here? Should we have charged more people? Should we have been more aggressive?
That's a totally legit inquiry, but they don't seem to be suggesting that we do that, which again, just raises another circumstance that starts to look like a cover up.
HUNT: Well, and you mentioned the team that was involved in prosecuting him. One of the people on that team was Maurene Comey, who coincidentally the daughter of Jim Comey. Do you think her firing is tied up with this, or is it about her family or something else?
MCCABE: Really hard to say at this point, because they've told us exactly nothing. We know from Maurene Comey comments. That sounds like she didn't really have any notice this was happening. It was pretty sudden, but there's been no official statement from DOJ, which I think is remarkable.
Karoline Leavitt absolutely passed on answering a question about it in her presser today. And think about it. The other people that the administration has fired, both this term and in the first one, the White House was never shy about getting behind that podium. And defaming them on all sorts of levels. Asked Jim Comey. I experienced it myself. Several other people have had that unfortunate experience.
So the fact that Karoline Leavitt went nowhere near this question, I think, raises some interesting questions in and of itself. And again, now the administration is in the position of having fired the only person, the only person in government who is actually able to get justice for some of these victims, that again, starts to point towards cover up.
HUNT: Lulu Garcia-Navarro, what does it say to you?
LULU GARCIA-NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Well, I mean, if you've got Andrew McCabe saying it's pointing towards cover up, I think those are pretty strong words. I mean, you know, I don't think I can do any better.
What it says to me is the following. Donald Trump has gotten himself into this particular mess. And the real question is, and you can see it all over social media, you can see it on the daily show, you can see it everywhere, is all fingers point to him. I mean, he had a relationship with this man.
In interviews, Jeffrey Epstein himself, and I'm not sure how credible he is, but said that he had a very close relationship with Donald Trump.
[16:15:02]
In that infamous black book, there were multiple entries of phone numbers for Donald Trump, and so it does make you wonder, why is the president so reluctant to take this on and is trying to shut it down?
HUNT: Doug Heye, what do you think? Because I mean, look, there are members of the House Republican conference who we are often here talking about. They're holding up something for one, they're not happy with the White House.
DOUG HEYE, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: No. And they're in a real particular box right now. And I think, you know, the congressman will remember on Tuesday mornings when House Republicans meet in the basement, you hear some crazy talk, sometimes from a member or two. This is an issue that's coming up in the conference meetings, and it's because Republicans are now having to take votes, not just because they're disappointed that this hasn't been done, but they're having to take votes on it.
This is happening in the rules committee. Democrats are going to try and bring things to the floor that may be ruled out of order, but they're going to make as much political pain for Republicans on this as possible to see how far that goes up.
HUNT: Adrienne quick, last word. ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Look, I mean, the thing that I
find very fascinating about this, and I think the congressman touched on this too, that this has been deeply embedded in sort of MAGA world, you know, dark web, far right world for a long time. So he can't get out of this.
What I find fascinating, just purely as an American observer of all of this, is the fact that a lot of the MAGA supporters, I mean, this could hurt their hero. This could hurt the person that they're propping up, but they don't care. They want to see it go forward. They want to see the files released.
HUNT: It's really one of the first times we have seen that kind of sharp divide between president and --
HEYE: If there are any redactions, if it gets released and there are redactions, here comes conspiracy theory again.
HUNT: Fuel for the fire.
All right. Andy McCabe, thank you so much. Really appreciate your -- your very sober way of looking at this that also I think underscores to us what the stakes actually really are here, especially with the firing of Maurene Comey. Thank you very much.
All right. Coming up next here, the White House announcing that President Trump has chronic venous insufficiency. Ahead, we're going to have more on that diagnosis. And the symptoms that have been observed.
Plus, Democratic Senator Peter Welch is here in THE ARENA. We're going to talk about that new CNN poll that has some good news and some bad news for his party ahead of the midterm election.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:27]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: The president underwent a comprehensive examination, including diagnostic vascular studies, bilateral lower extremity venous doppler ultrasounds were performed and revealed chronic venous insufficiency, a benign and common condition, particularly in individuals over the age of 70.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The White House press secretary revealing this afternoon that President Trump has been diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency. The announcement coming after Trump, who's 79 years old, noticed mild swelling in his lower legs in recent weeks. Karoline Leavitt, reading a letter from the president's physician, Captain Sean Barbarella, also addressed bruising that appeared on the back of Trump's hand, which they explained was due to his frequent handshaking and use of aspirin.
I want to bring in Dr. Jeremy Faust, an emergency physician, assistant professor at Harvard Medical School.
Dr, Faust. I -- we're going to discuss with the panel in just a moment the strangeness around the fact that they put this out at all because they really don't say very much about President Trump's health. At least they haven't historically.
I'm hoping that you can help us understand what exactly is this condition and what does it mean for someone of President Trump's age to have it.
DR. JEREMY FAUST, EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN, BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL: Thanks for inviting me on. I think that this is a very common condition. It's called venous insufficiency, and it has various implications ranging from relatively benign to indicating something more serious. And that's what the readout really gave us.
The condition itself simply is that blood does not return back to the heart as briskly as it ought to. That's the veins are not sufficient. The veins have valves. They push against gravity to get blood that's been pumped from our heart out to our extremities, back to our heart to get more oxygen and to go back and the cycle continues.
And if the veins are not quite as efficient in getting that blood back to the heart, the blood can pool in the extremities and that can cause discomfort. But it can also be an indication of something else.
HUNT: So, when you say it could be an indication of something else, can you give us the range? And we're not trying to be alarmist here, but best case scenario, worst case scenario, if you suffer from this.
FAUST: Sure. Well, just to be very clear, the readout that we did get today from the president's team indicates that they did pursue a bunch of other things to make sure that this did not represent something more serious.
And the big things that we would be thinking about would really come into three categories. One would be heart disease, just the heart itself is the problem, not the veins. The second would be that even though the swelling was in both of his legs, that maybe one or both had blood clots that are that are potentially dangerous. And the third would be that actually there's a problem with the arteries. Thats the blood vessels that carry blood away from the heart.
And so, they did a pretty good workup, it sounds like, to make sure that his heart is functioning well and to rule out the blood clots and the arterial problems. If you have an abnormal blood clot in a vein, that can eventually cause a problem, it can cause pain and swelling, but it could also travel to the lungs and back to the heart, into the lungs. And that can really cause a spectrum of disease, ranging from mild symptoms that need to be treated with oral medications all the way to life threatening illness that needs acute intervention in a vascular suite or specialized medicines.
[16:25:05]
So the average person who has this condition probably needs to be evaluated for it, because some of them will have a serious problem of which Trump does not apparently have.
HUNT: All right. Dr. Jeremy Faust, very helpful. Thank you very much for coming on today. I really appreciate it.
FAUST: Okay.
HUNT: All right. So our panel is back.
Congressman, they never say anything about Donald Trump's health ever. The things that -- like here was a terror from his 2020 5th April physical. President Trump remains in excellent health exhibiting robust cardiac, pulmonary, neurological and general physical function. President Trump's days include participation in multiple meetings, public appearances, press availability and frequent victories in golf events. Right?
They don't say, oh, you know, he's got this thing going on. Obviously, he's 79. He's got something going on. Why would they put this out?
KINZINGER: So, it's two things. So first off with the bruise thing, the only thing I think is weird is like that's nobody's fingers or hands go at that part of the hand when you shake hands, by the way, whatever -- in the vein thing may be perfectly exactly what he has. But the president very much cares about physical appearance. It is why he promotes people based on how they look. It's why he compliments people that look good on television.
And when he sees, I'll be honest, kind of a gross picture of himself with swollen legs and, you know, that close up of his hand, it really bothers him. And remember, he always gets upset when people say he has small hands. And so, the physical traits to him matter a lot. And my guess is he was stewing over Twitter and he wanted them to put out a statement because he's like, you know, we have to explain these pictures. I guess.
GARCIA-NAVARRO: Compression socks are really good. I would tell him to use them. They're not very fashionable, but they work.
But seriously, of course, we should always be concerned when the president has an illness. I want to encourage as a journalist transparency as to his health.
To your point, though, Kasie, we really never know if we are being told the whole story when it is to do with his health. And so I think that is the lingering question here.
ELROD: I don't have much more to add. I mean, I agree with the congressman again on this because he normally is not forthcoming. I mean, you know, there was certainly when he was going through COVID back in 2020 when he was president, when he was president, then they were not forthcoming about some of the symptoms and some of the illnesses. And the theory --
HUNT: Yeah, we learned later that he basically almost died.
ELROD: Exactly, exactly. So, the fact that they are putting it out there, I agree, I think it has to be. He probably was embarrassed by having swollen ankles and puffy hands, and people kept asking him about it, and he saw a lot of speculation online, and he wanted the truth to come out, you know.
But we don't know, also, to Lulu's point, how much of this is actually the truth or how much of this is part of the truth?
HUNT: Is it an attempt to basically say, well, the Internet, I mean, because this is, you know, were talking about internet conspiracy theories all day today. Apparently, this has become an Internet conspiracy theory, an attempt to just say it's not as bad as it looks?
HEYE: I think, ultimately, that's it. And it goes to the Congressman's point about how important appearances are for everything that Donald Trump does, personally or professionally. It's why we have cabinet secretaries who are more like avatars than they are normal cabinet secretaries.
And Trump also wants to use this in some way to try and distract us from the other news of the day. You know, what are we talking about right now? Donald Trump is a sympathetic figure. We're not talking about Jeffrey Epstein for six minutes.
HUNT: Fair enough.
All right. Still, to come here on -- a new CNN poll finds the Democratic Party with its lowest popularity in more than 30 years. What will it mean in the midterm elections?
Plus, protests and a walkout from Democrats as a key Trump ally moves one step closer to a lifetime appointment to be a federal judge. Senator Peter Welch here to discuss.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CORY BOOKER (D-NJ): This is outrageous that you're not allowing senators to have their fair say before a controversial nominee is being done.
(CROSSTALK)
BOOKER: This is unbelievable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:13]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOOKER: Why are you doing this? This is outrageous.
SEN. MAZIE HIRONO (D-HI): This is a kangaroo court. That's all we have here, Mr. Chairman. BOOKER: This is wrong. This is us simply trying to rush through one of the most controversial nominees we've had under this presidential administration. What is Donald Trump saying to you that are making you do something which is violating the decorum of this committee?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Democrats walking out of a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting and boycotting the vote on Emil Bove. That's President Trump's former personal attorney and now nominee for a lifetime appeals court appointment. He had recently been vexed by a whistleblower complaint that alleges, he said in a March meeting, the Justice Department would, quote, need to consider telling the courts, "F you," unquote, if they stood in the way of Trump's deportation efforts.
And joining us now is a member of the Judiciary Committee, Democratic Senator Peter Welch of Vermont.
Senator, thank you so much for being here.
You, of course, part of this today. How do you think that walking out in this instance helps the overall cause here?
SEN. PETER WELCH (D-VT): You know, I'm not sure it did because Bove got -- he got appointed, he got the vote of the Republicans. But the reason we had to walk out is that we were shut down. We -- the rules explicitly allow for a vote on a point of order. And as Chairman Grassley, who I have a great deal of respect for, let us. Down today. And it was because they wanted to shove through this nomination of a person who is extraordinarily unqualified and his only qualification is his personal and deep loyalty to whatever it is Donald Trump wants.
So, we got shut down.
[16:35:00]
We were there just as tokens, not as deliberative senators who had a chance to raise the concerns that are just very powerful and legitimate concerns about Bove. So, very disappointing. Bad day for the Judiciary Committee. My view, bad day for the Senate. The night before was a bad day for the senate as well. And the whole appropriations process.
HUNT: Sir, it also does underscore the degree to which Democrats don't have tools at their disposal to fight back against President Trump's agenda, which, of course, voters are telling us in our polls. They're unhappy with the party. I mean, some of the lowest approval ratings for the party in over 30 years.
What else can you do?
WELCH: You know, there's a reality here. Okay. We have 47 votes in the Senate. They have 53. We can demand, as we did today, that at least the rules be followed, and then do something that's very unusual. Show our protest when the rules are violated. We're not even allowed to speak by walking out. And at least showing folks that were serious about having the power of our voice be heard in a committee.
There's a -- there's a disappointment here. We don't have the votes to be able to overcome the power grab that Trump is imposing. And my Republican colleagues are acceding to.
You know, there's a second issue here. Bove, I think, is totally unqualified. He's the guy who was totally fired. The prosecutors who went after the cop beaters on January 6th. He's the total Trump loyalist. He has no intellectual background in as a -- as a justice.
But what is happening here in its disappointing to me is my Republican colleagues are ceding to Trump the final decision when it's their decision. You know, those of us in the senate have a responsibility to the institution, not just to the president. And I hope I would act this way if there were a Democratic president. And that is to make certain that we were an independent branch and didn't buckle just because the president threatened to primary us.
That's what happened to Susan Collins the night before in the so- called rescission package.
HUNT: Sir, on a different subject matter, obviously, the president today came out and said that or I should say the White House spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, said that the president does not support a special counsel to look into the Epstein files and the Epstein investigation.
Do you think it was appropriate or is appropriate for the president to weigh in on this matter in this way?
WELCH: I think it would be appropriate for the president to turn over and release the documents. I mean, he's the one who started this whole thing up, right? Epstein. And he is the one who made an enormous amount of political capital by bonding with the QAnon supporters. And he is now breaching the trust he established with them because he made them think he was serious about Epstein. He was serious about disclosing that information.
Now, he's betrayed him. We have no idea why. Suddenly, Bondi, who had the client list, doesn't want to release it or it doesn't exist.
So there's an incredible trust issue, a breach of trust by the president with folks who he incited to believe that there was relevant information there about the elites. And now he's sitting on it. So, we don't need a special prosecutor. We need full disclosure.
HUNT: So, I mean, that, I guess, is my question to you. Do you think there should be a special counsel appointed?
WELCH: I think the president should just release the documents. We don't have to make a big deal out of this. We just have to see what he knows and what he has and what Bondi is sitting on.
Keep in mind, she is the one who was bragging about having the client list. All right? So you got it. Share it. HUNT: Sir, do you think that the Biden administration should have been more transparent with the Epstein file? Should we have learned more about this when he was president of the United States?
WELCH: I would have been totally fine with the President Biden totally disclosing what he had. All right? What you didn't have was Biden making claims like Bondi has, that she's got the client list and suggesting that there are all these elites whose names are on it. But the transparency on this public issue should apply to both administrations.
But it's really a different situation because of how it's been escalated by Trump.
HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough.
The other story, of course, in the news today, the president's health. He was diagnosed with chronic venous -- venal dysfunction, which the White House actually came out and talked about, not something that they typically have done in the case of the president's health. Obviously, this comes after there were many questions about President Biden's health.
Did they do the right thing here? And do you have any concerns about it?
[16:40:01]
WELCH: I don't know enough about whether to be concerned about it for the president's health. I wish him well. And I'm glad they disclosed what they did.
I mean, my concern, and it's a deep concern is about the president's policies. And what I also am concerned about is that on the budget, which is coming up, we just heard Russell Vought say they don't want a bipartisan budget. They want just their own budget. And I saw last night that the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee was essentially not allowed to offer her amendment. That would have allowed us to vote on saving funding for public broadcasting and for public health programs around the world.
So, you've got the president weighing in in bullying, intimidating, threatening members who don't toe the line. And it's sad to me to see my colleagues capitulate to that. That's what I'm concerned about. And I wish the president the best on his health.
HUNT: All right. Senator Peter Welch, thanks very much, sir, for spending some time with us. I do really appreciate it. Hope you'll come back soon.
WELCH: Thank you. Yeah, thanks.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next, Rahm Emanuel enters THE ARENA. We'll talk about what he makes of Zohran Mamdani and Democratic chances in the midterm elections. That's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:38]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PRAMILA JAYAPAL (D-WA): Anybody that's staying out at this point, instead of endorsing this incredible, dynamic leader, is missing an opportunity.
REP. LUZ RIVAS (D-CA): We were just learning skills from him, communication skills. It was not about whether we're supporting him or not.
REP. DEBBIE DINGELL (D-MI): I think he's a very personable, smart, young man, and I hope we're not going to have a lot of circular firing squads.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: House Democrats there, after meeting with the newly minted Democratic nominee for mayor of New York, Zohran Mamdani, the self- declared Democratic socialist who topped Andrew Cuomo last month for a Democratic Party that's struggling to find its footing after losing power completely in November.
Mamdani, one of the most-high profile and polarizing figures to appear on the national stage.
Our next guest knows a thing or two about electing Democrats, and he writes this about Mamdani recently, quote, "America doesn't necessarily go the way of the Big Apple. The New Jersey gubernatorial primary, and the lack of one in Virginia will prove more informative for Democrats fortunes in 2026 and 2028."
And Rahm Emanuel joins us now. He's the former mayor of Chicago. He served as President Obama's chief of staff. He was recently ambassador to Japan in the Biden administration. He also is a CNN senior political and global affairs analyst, and like I said, worked on electing Democrats at the House way back in the day.
Sir, I'm very happy to have you on the show. Thank you for being here.
RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Thank you.
HUNT: I want to start with where Democrats are big picture, because some of these new poll numbers are really tough for Democrats. The approval ratings are really low, and its someone like Zohran Mamdani that is front and center.
Do you think the party embracing someone like him in, you know, in this national way is a recipe for success?
EMANUEL: Well, let me, first of all, you cited a poll that CNN put out today. It shows a very energized Democratic Party, way over energized than the Republican Party. And it also shows that independents are breaking almost 2 to 1 for the Democrats. So, I think that's a very telling sign.
I do think the New Jersey and Virginia governors races are more indicative, both about the candidate we recruited their message and what it will mean to 2026 and 2028. Both women are moderates who come out of the national security kind of pool of candidates that we have in the past. And I think that's where you're going to see, I think, something that gives you a floodlight into the future.
And the second, as it relates to the Democratic nominee for mayor of New York city, as I think I said, as it relates to national elections, I'm more interested in the upper peninsula of Michigan than I am the Upper West Side of Manhattan. But you'd be foolish not to see or pay attention to his focus on the cost of living issues.
As somebody who said the American dream is unaffordable and that is unacceptable to us, that is where our focus should be. It used to be when you and I were growing up, if you worked hard, you could get ahead. Today. If you work hard, you run in place and you go nowhere fast and just break a sweat. He focused on something.
Now, I don't agree with his free grocery stores, city run grocery stores. You know, city government has a tough time running a train -- trains on time, let alone a grocery store or free busses. But his critique of the problem is not wrong. His solution to that analysis is where I have a disagreement.
But my -- but as it relates to politics, New Jersey and Virginia are far more significant and far more revealing about what the future beholds. If we run the right type of candidate with the right type of message.
HUNT: So let's dig into those poll numbers, because as you mentioned, Democratic enthusiasm, enthusiasm among Democratic voters to get to the polls is, in fact, off the charts in our poll. I think we can put up that screen with those numbers. However, the party itself. Right. And so there it is, 72 percent of Democrats strongly motivated to vote in the midterms, 50 percent want of the Republicans are strongly motivated to vote.
But even Democrats are saying they're really unhappy with the Democratic Party. And that is different than what we saw in 2018, right? The same period after Trump was elected, the first time where Democrats were extremely motivated. But they were also fine with the party. What does that tell you?
[16:50:01]
EMANUEL: Well, look, let me say one thing. When you have one party control both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue, which you have here, you have a lessons of history from 1994 where the Democrats lost the house and the senate. You have lessons from 2006. You have lessons from 2010 for President Obama. You have 2018 for President Trump.
So, there's a physics to this -- energized opposition, independents break 2 to 1 for the opposition. And dejected incumbent party voters. That -- your poll shows exactly that paradigm is playing out at this moment.
Now the brand of the party, not good energized voters. That's more important. Every election, special and primary since 2024 has shown an incredible energy by the Democratic base voters, independents dissatisfied with Republicans and Republican voters actually also dissatisfied with their Republicans.
Two other points I would make that I think are relevant in this case. One of the things that your poll also showed is that nobody wants an untethered unhinged Donald Trump, which is why the message should be about a rubber stamp Republican Congress, because they want a checkmate to what they're not comfortable with.
If you look at the numbers in your poll about independents zeroing in in swing districts with those voters on that message about Donald Trump with a Congress that has given him the keys to the car, as they did just yesterday. Again, that's where the -- there's going to be a lot of gold in that mine.
The second thing, and this is why just -- you didn't ask me about it. But a side note, the president attacking his own voters around the Epstein files just on a political basis. Forget the legal, et cetera, I find that a strange strategy, since your entire goal right now is to energize your voters by the president of the United States calling them stupid, that they're being fooled and played with and they're weak.
That's a very unique way to energize your base in a midterm election, where the other side is already more energized, you decided to call your own voters weak and stupid. So whatever -- the president never listens to me. Keep going. You got the exact right ticket for the future.
HUNT: It's funny. We were talking -- we were having this exact conversation on the set yesterday when he said that because, yes, as a political reporter, I was told by people like you and others that the last thing you want to do is anger your own voters. You don't want to dismiss your own voters. I mean, what does it say to you that he's willing to do that? I mean, he is, you know, term limited, I guess, right? Is it that he's more focused on himself than the party?
EMANUEL: Well, think about it this way. They've been more transparent, which they're not really a behavioral pattern that would define the Trump administration. They've been more transparent with his medical records than they are with the Epstein files.
They've been more transparent with the JFK files than they are the Epstein files. They're not transparent with the budget. They're not transparent to Epstein files. And yet they told you what I complimented on us about the president's health and his illness here. So it tells me something is amiss here.
The other thing it tells me is they got the tiger by the tail here. They've been playing on this game of conspiracy politics. The president started his career on conspiracy politics. Now it's coming back to bite him. The other thing is, I really think its nutty and the presidents going
to do what he wants to be attacking your own voters, their own judgment, because you spoon fed them for years on Epstein and on conspiracy theories. Now you're telling them to move along, move along here. And I just think this is going to be another example that's going to depress their voters.
And Democrats are going to stay energized and focused on a rubber stamp Congress. And that's -- and that's -- what's also playing with independent voters.
HUNT: All right. I guess we're about to find out. Rahm Emanuel, very grateful to have you, sir. I hope you'll come back soon.
EMANUEL: Thanks. Thanks, Kasie.
HUNT: All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:58:37]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SHANE GILLIS, COMEDIAN: This is where the play gets good at the snap. You dive right into his butt.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What?
GILLIS: Think about it. Ten guys barging right into your back door.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't -- that's -- is that even a legal play?
GILLIS: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Doesn't make sense, man. That's not how I play football.
GILLIS: You guys play losing football. Do you want to win? We're going to ride your butt right to the championship.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Apparently, the Philadelphia Eagles' totally legal tush push play drawn up by none other than comedian Shane Gillis. I'm sorry. What?
The Philly area native and Eagles superfan parodying the creation of the famous play in a skit at the 2025 Espy's last night, where my Philadelphia Eagles absolutely dominated. They took home three awards. Running back Saquon Barkley winning best NFL player and the best play award for this poster perfect backwards hurdle.
The Birds also claiming the best team title on the heels of their Super Bowl win, all despite our many haters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GILLIS: The weaker, softer teams are going to have to get together and vote against it like cowards. Can you imagine being a football team and going and complaining about a play working too well? That's what's going to happen. Pathetic, right?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Jake Tapper, my fellow Eagles fan is standing by for "THE LEAD".
Jake, I have nothing to add to that.
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, "THE LEAD": No, no, no. No, no.
It's beautiful and winning the best team of course. And Shane Gillis did an outstanding job. I mean, just, you know, kudos all around. Great.
HUNT: All we can say is "Go Birds".
TAPPER: All we can say is "Go Birds". Thanks, Kasie. See you back in THE ARENA tomorrow.
