Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

WSJ: DOJ Told Trump His Name Is Among Many In Epstein Files; New: DNI Details 2016 Election Intel Findings As White House Tries To Pivot Away From Epstein; Dramatic Moments In Court As Families Address Idaho Killer. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired July 23, 2025 - 16:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

KEVIN LIPTAK, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER: -- that his name would be contained in some of Epstein's documents.

[16:00:03]

But certainly, at this very precarious moment for him politically, not a headline that I think is going to land well with the president.

JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Listen, quite an afternoon of news from the -- from the Kohberger trial to all the news coming out regarding the Epstein files.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: That's right. And now, as "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting, that Trump was told his name is in the Epstein files by his attorney general in May. We will -- and CNN has not independently confirmed it. Important to note.

We'll continue to follow this. Kasie hunt will continue to follow this with much more on THE ARENA starting now.

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Wednesday.

We do come on the air with several breaking and fast-moving developments in the Jeffrey Epstein situation, shall we say. Within the past hour, two federal judges have made key decisions in the Justice Department's effort to unseal some parts of grand jury materials in the investigation.

And on Capitol Hill, the bipartisan push for answers is reaching new heights in the final minutes before the house adjourns for august recess, with the Republican chairman of the house oversight committee moving to subpoena longtime Epstein accomplice and convicted sex trafficker, Ghislaine Maxwell.

And that's not all. This all comes as "The Wall Street Journal" is now reporting that Justice Department officials told President Trump in May that his name was among many names mentioned in the Epstein files. This is something the White House is now labeling as, quote, "fake news," end quote.

Our panel will be here to weigh in, but we do want to start with CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid.

We also have our chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju on Capitol Hill.

Paula, I want to go first to you and especially this "Wall Street Journal" headline, which is that the Justice Department told Trump in May that his name is among many in the Epstein files that he was told at this meeting. The files contained what officials felt was unverified, hearsay about many people, including Trump, who had socialized with Epstein in the past. Some of the officials said.

One of the officials familiar with the documents said that they contain hundreds of other names. We are in the course of reporting this out, obviously, but what else do we know? And it also comes in the context of these court decisions today.

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Let's start with "The Wall Street Journal" reporting. We have not independently confirmed. We have received some statements from the Justice Department saying, quote, the DOJ and the FBI reviewed the Epstein files and reached the conclusion set out in the July 6th memo. Nothing in the files warranted further investigation or prosecution. We have filed a motion in court to unseal the underlying grand jury transcripts. We'll get to that in a second. As part of our routine briefing, we made the president aware of the findings.

So, in that statement from the attorney general, the deputy attorney general, they are not directly addressing the most significant part of this, which is the reporting that Trump was told. He was mentioned multiple times in these files. Now, there's also a statement from the FBI director, Kash Patel. It says, "The memo released on July 6th is consistent with a thorough review conducted by the FBI and DOJ. The criminal leakers and fake news media tries tirelessly to undermine President Trump with smears, lies and this story is no different.

I'm reading that because it suggested to me that the FBI director there is calling the story a lie. But that's not actually specifically what he's saying.

And I think all of this is really important, because if we go back to the first Bondi-related Epstein controversy, you may remember she held an event to great fanfare at the White House, where she handed out binders of what was promised to be new information related to the Epstein investigations. And a lot of MAGA aligned influencers were very disappointed because most of what she handed out was already in the public record.

But sources at that time told me a lot of the frustration from the White House with Bondi in that event was the fact that they didn't redact Trump's name, even though these were records that were already well known. They were flight logs. There was a lot of frustration around Bondi's handling of that incident.

So, it tracks with what "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting here, that they would be very sensitive about any mention of Trump's name in subsequent files. Now, you also asked about the potential release of grand jury

information, because we know --

HUNT: Paula, let me -- let me pause you just one second there, because I do want to make sure that we get this White House statement on the record as we continue to, to talk about this. So here was White House Communications Director Steven Cheung responding to this. He says, quote, "The fact is that the president kicked him, Epstein, out of his club for being a creep. This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and liberal media. Just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about."

Of course, we're going to get to that later on in the show, because that's what they were trying to talk from the podium today.

But, Paula, it's also worth noting, of course, the Trump Justice Department did ask for these grand jury testimony -- the grand jury materials to be released.

[16:05:07]

Continue, you were talking about what's going on there. And I think my sort of big picture question for you is, do they actually want those released, or did they know that this is did they go in expecting this to happen?

REID: Well, they want all of this to die down, but that's unlikely to happen anytime soon. But after the fury following that memo, where the Justice Department said they weren't going to release anything else, they had to at least make it appear that they were trying to do something else. And the idea that you're going to unseal grand jury material, that's a long shot.

And you really hit one of their first roadblocks today because they're seeking the unsealing of evidence in multiple grand juries connected to Epstein investigations, both in New York and Florida. And a short time ago, a judge in Florida ruled that she would not release information related to grand juries that were convened in West Palm Beach in 2005 and 2007. So, this is the earlier Epstein investigation.

There were also, of course, grand jury records in New York related to the more recent charges against Jeffrey Epstein before he died. And Ghislaine Maxwell.

But here in Florida, the judge said she would deny this request because the Justice Department said this stuff should be released because of extensive public interest and, quote, transparency to the American public. But the judge said, look, those don't qualify as exceptions to what is usually the standard. The grand jury material remains sealed.

Now, that's not surprising. This was always a long shot. There is a slight glimmer of hope for the Justice Department in New York up there. The judge is still looking at this. He's given the Justice Department until next week to provide more legal arguments for why this should be unsealed. Victims and Maxwell have until August 5th to file their positions on the unsealing.

Maxwell is expected to oppose this, and a short time ago that judge said that they would not allow Maxwell and her attorneys to review this grand jury material.

But the headline here is, Kasie, no matter what happens with these grand juries, the Justice Department will continue to face questions about why they are not releasing all of the material within their power to release. And this new "Wall Street Journal" report is just going to continue to amplify those questions.

HUNT: And, of course, Manu Raju people who have questions include many Republicans on Capitol Hill, or at least enough of them to cause the House Speaker quite a few problems. And there's also this subpoena that just came down for Ghislaine Maxwell. Bring us up to speed.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. And this is not the only subpoena that could come down here, Kasie.

Yes, this subpoena came down from the House Oversight Committee that came -- that was pushed by a Republican Congressman Tim Burchett, yesterday. Ultimately, the house oversight committee voted to move ahead with that today, issuing a subpoena asking for a deposition in her prison cell by August 11th.

Now, that is one matter. Theres a significant move afoot, though. In a separate subcommittee that's part of the larger House oversight committee. Republicans appear poised to defy President Trump and join with Democrats to subpoena for all of the Epstein files. That would be a hugely significant move.

Now, this vote has not happened yet, but in a key subcommittee that is now considering this measure, Democrats have tried to force a vote to consider -- to call for a subpoena for all of the Epstein files, as pushed by Congresswoman Summer Lee. They need one Republican to vote for it.

Congresswoman Nancy Mace of South Carolina just told me moments ago she plans to vote for this measure after getting some changes that she expects to get to redact the names of the victims here. But this is what she just told me moments ago that she plans to vote in favor of this Democratic effort to subpoena for these files.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. NANCY MACE (R-SC): So I will amend the motion or do my own motion. And I've requested that the ranking member amend it. So we're negotiating that right now. I think it's very important. I will be supporting it. But it's very important that we protect victims.

RAJU: You'll be supporting the motion.

MACE: For sure. Yeah. And I'm going to -- I'm going to amend the motion to protect the identity of the victims. I think that is -- should be first and foremost, as someone who's fought for the protection to protect women and kids. (END VIDEO CLIP)

RAJU: And she is part of that group of Republicans who have signed on to a separate effort, the effort by congressman Thomas Massie, who, to try to force a vote in the full house of representatives to release all of the Epstein files she supports, Mr. Massie's effort on that issue.

Now, on this subpoena itself, the chairman of that subcommittee, Kasie, Clay Higgins, he's a Republican, told me he does expect enough Republicans would vote with Democrats to move forward on calling for a subpoena here. So, assuming that motion is approved this afternoon, all indications are that it would be approved, then it would be the House Oversight Chairman, James Comer, would have to issue that subpoena within, probably in a matter of days here.

So, a significant movement here just shows you the pressure the president is under, the administration is under from the president's own allies to release more of the Epstein files -- Kasie.

[16:10:05]

HUNT: And, of course, you're standing out in the parking lot behind the Capitol, which is the stakeout location where they are getting out of town, which they are doing a day early because of all the things you just outlined there.

Manu Raju on the Hill for us. Paula Reid, thank you both.

Our panel is now here in THE ARENA. CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams, CNN chief national correspondent John King, CNN political commentator Xochitl Hinojosa, and CNN political commentator, Republican strategist Brad Todd.

Welcome to all of you. Thanks very much for being here.

John King, we're, of course, talking about this headline again in "The Wall Street Journal", not confirmed yet here at CNN, we are doing our reporting. Our teams are reporting this out as we speak.

Again, the headline, the Justice Department told Trump in May that his name is among many in the Epstein files. I want to play what Donald Trump said on July 15th, when he was asked directly if Bondi told him that his name was in the files. Here's what he said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REPORTER: Did she tell you at all that your name appeared in the -- in the files?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: He's given us just a very quick briefing, and in terms of the credibility of the different things that they've seen.

(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: And, of course, the White House is denying this report in "The Journal". The president says there he had no idea. But this, of course, is the report clearly, the White House doesn't want anything to do with any of this.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: I think in court, you would call that nonresponsive, right? He was asked specifically -- he was asked specifically, did she tell you your name was in there? And he said something else, right?

Look, there's a lot of bouncing balls here. You just went through all the legal questions with Paula. You went through the political questions with Manu. The lawyer can jump in here if I get anything wrong here.

Grand jury testimony is traditionally sacrosanct, right? You don't release that unless there's an extraordinary legal reason to do it. Not the presidents in a political mess. Can you help us out, judge?

You know, the president's having a horrible week. Congressional Republicans are worried about this. Can you help us out? That's not how grand jury testimony gets released.

However, there are files at the Justice Department that, you know, they have to summarize the grand jury. A prosecutor has to send recommendations to his or her boss saying, what do I want to do here? Or here's what I think my judgment is. Proceed. My deputy says, don't. There's a debate about this.

There are files they have that they can release. They may have to redact sensitive information. They are not doing that.

Donald Trump, the candidate, promised he would. Donald Trump, the president is not. He ran up his base about this, Pam Bondi said on another network after they were in office. They were on her desk and they haven't released them.

So there's a lot of other things to distract you and make you dizzy. Theres a fundamental question. They have materials they could release and they might well want to say, this is crazy hearsay, or come out and say, we will not release it. We made a mistake. They could say that.

We made a mistake talking about releasing this, because now that we've actually in power and we've looked at it, it's not fair. It's not fair to Donald Trump. It's not fair to all these Democrats. It's not fair to anybody. They could do that, too.

But what they're doing now is a whole bunch of distractions. Let's subpoena people. Let's go to court. Let's do this.

But they're not doing what they promised to do, which was release the information. And their own voters are furious about it.

HUNT: Yeah. Well, and to that point, Brad Todd, I mean, it's -- this would be less of an issue for the president if, you know, this is actually split MAGA in many ways for in some ways, it's the first real example we've seen of that.

BRADD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think you've seen the sort of influencer, self-described influencer salon here basically in Washington that's completely spun up about it. The surveys I see of regular voters say they're a whole lot more worried about can they afford a house? Are mortgage rates too high? What's going to happen with the economy? What's going to happen with trade?

I think that the president's right to try to refocus attention on that, because I think voters do care about it more. But you're correct that the talk radio influencers, the clickbait influencers, those people, they think this is right for profit.

KING: I just reached out to a whole bunch of our Trump voters from our "All Over the Map" project. And you're right, actually. You're right. That none of them said they're turning on the president. And they all say costs, the economy are way more important to them.

But they also say this smells. They also say this smells. And they want to know why. And they think they're hiding something.

You may be exactly right. We'll see. And what matters a year from now matters a whole lot more than now about the political impact. But a lot of these people are Trump voters, not necessarily Republican voters. And so, do they show up in the midterms, you know, and it could be the tiniest little thing on the margins, as we learn in every one of our elections.

They do. I agree with you that it might not be the most important thing to your everyday Trump voter out there, but it's still important. And they think they're being lied to.

TODD: I think something else smells going back to Manu's reporting, is the fact that House Democrats now, who are expending tremendous amounts of capital, insisting that the Justice Department release information. Their party had the Justice Department for four years and they didn't release any of it, and none of those --

(CROSSTALK)

XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: -- talk to you about --

TODD: -- said anything. I knew I was giving you a cue, but I was trying to get it in there before she got out.

HUNT: And for our viewers who don't know, she was the head of public affairs at the DOJ and the Democratic administration.

HINOJOSA: And what I'll say about the Epstein files in the last administration is the last administration wasn't going around looking at files, trying to figure out whether or not there is something on Donald Trump that they wanted to release, because the last Justice Department did not weaponize the Justice Department to go after their political opponents.

[16:15:04] TODD: That's a matter of debate. That's a matter of debate.

HINOJOSA: I was there. That's the way -- they made decisions based on the facts and the law. And I think that some would say that the current -- the last Justice Department was actually very cautious in that sense. And you have both Democrats and Republicans who are frustrated with the Justice Department.

HUNT: So do you remember when there were many Democrats on the Hill who were very upset with Merrick Garland, I think is what she's getting at.

(CROSSTALK)

HINOJOSA: I will say, and he is a former judge, middle of the road, someone who's going to do the right thing on the Epstein files, though, and going back to what this administration has been doing, I wouldn't be surprised if they're happy with this decision by the judge. I don't think that they ever wanted anything to come out. These are not stupid people.

They understand that a judge was never going to release this information. And you're right, they have access to the information. They needed it now, and they needed to be able to tell their base -- listen, we tried we tried to get more information out and it was the judge's fault.

And so, this was a political play on their part. And they honestly, I think, got what they wanted.

HUNT: Elliot, is that your assessment, too?

ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: I think it is. And the one thing I've learned today is that John King's actually a better legal analyst than I am, because you beautifully explained everything about grand juries. The one thing you left out is that it's one of the rare areas of law that is abundantly clear.

It's written into law that information ought not be disclosed unless to another prosecutor, or unless in the context of a national security investigation. It's not this wiggle room area in which, well, maybe because something might be politically expedient, it ought to come out.

So, the Justice Department knew very well, including the fact that in Florida, the state in which this all played out, the law is even more clear than it is in New York that you can't release grand jury information. So, it had to be a political decision where they could push it off and say, were doing our best. We did our part. We tried to get it out there, but this is another one of these radical liberal courts that is standing in our way.

So, it was actually kind of savvy on their part, and we were going to end up here. Inevitably.

HUNT: John King, I mean, the thing that when you're talking to these voters and the thing that sort of I keep coming back to when I think about, you know, how we got here with Donald Trump, what it was about him that got him elected and then, you reelected is this idea that he had set up the world as us versus them, right? The sort of the deep state, you know, use whatever words I'm using, the words they use to describe it, right? Is hiding things from you.

They are against you. We are. You know, I am with you. This seems to separate him, right? To make him part of the U.S., part of the establishment. And that seems politically dangerous for him.

KING: That may be part of it. I mean, it's interesting that, you know, Trump made himself a national figure as a Republican. He was a Democrat once, and then he was an independent once. When I first started talking to him a long time ago, and then as a Republican, he made his big impression by criticizing, saying Barack Obama was illegitimate, that Barack Obama was Kenyan, that he was Muslim. None of those --

HUNT: Yeah, we're going to get to that later in the show.

KING: So yeah, none of those -- but he made his name on a conspiracy theory, right? Most Trump voters don't believe that. And they've moved. If they did, they've just moved on the 2020 election.

A lot of Trump voters are still suspicious. They don't necessarily agree that it was stolen from Donald Trump. They think maybe something happened, but they've moved on.

The Epstein thing is something, for whatever reason, in part, maybe because it was not just Donald Trump. It was all out there. And the MAGA media ecosphere got so much bigger between the beginning of Donald Trump in 2015 and the last campaign. It's something that they kind of -- they view as a debt owed to them. And so, to have these people saying, you know, and again, I don't disagree with you that the economy comes first. And we'll talk about this a year from now about the impact on the midterms. What we say today doesn't really matter, but they're mad. And they keep saying it smells of a cover up.

I could reach all the quotes. It's suspicious. What are they doing? Why did he change his mind? What's going on here?

It is rare for Donald Trump voters to question Donald Trump like that, and to criticize Donald Trump.

WILLIAMS: Every politician screws something up at some point. But when something speaks to that person's strength as a candidate or as a politician, and his was, I am here for you and I'm here for MAGA, it's to some extent Joe Biden in Afghanistan.

He came in with competence and foreign policy, and it was a screw up on both of those things.

TODD: I think it's populism.

HUNT: Last word. TODD: It's the sense that there might be people who are getting away

with something because they're rich and powerful. That's the essence of populism, right?

HUNT: Yeah. For sure.

All right. We're going to have much more breaking news coverage on all these stories with our panel, with our CNN team. We're going to take a quick break. Don't go anywhere.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:23:44]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

We're continuing to follow this "Wall Street Journal" reporting about the latest on the Epstein files. But we also today were watching. And it is related. The Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, because she went to the White House press briefing today. And in her time at the podium, she outlined claims of an alleged conspiracy by President Obama and his top officials to manufacture the idea that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election.

CNN chief national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny is here from the White House to explain why this all, of course, an attempt to redirect everybody's attention from what the White House doesn't want to talk about, which is Jeffrey Epstein.

JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Kasie, that's right. You mentioned that they are connected, and they are in the sense that we are seeing a retribution campaign that President Trump has long talked about it. And fact waged during part of his first administration, and also at the same time, the distraction campaign, trying to move the questions beyond Jeffrey Epstein.

Well, here they are converging. But it was at the White House press briefing today where the White House, of course, has the opportunity to shine a light on anything they would like to talk about.

[16:25:00]

If it could be the economy, if it could be what the president is doing in the next hour. A speech on artificial intelligence. They could do anything.

However, they chose to turn the clock backward and have the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard release a new finding. She says, that said that Russia did not favor Donald Trump back in 2016. Of course, that was a subject of much conversation. Many investigations. Let's listen to what she said and we'll fact check it afterward.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TULSI GABBARD, DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE: When you look at the intent behind creating a fake manufactured intelligence document that directly contradicts multiple assessments that were created by the intelligence community, the expressed intent and what followed afterward can only be described as a years-long coup and a treasonous conspiracy against the American people, our republic, and an attempt to undermine President Trump's administration.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZELENY: So, some strong language there, a coup, treasonous activity. What Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, was doing, at least in part, was the releasing a House investigation back from 2017. A Republican investigation that said Russia did not favor Donald Trump.

However, she said it flew in the face of all of the other assessments at the time. That is incorrect. The fact of the matter is, the Senate analysis of all of this, which Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, now the secretary of state, a top adviser to this president, signed on to that. So certainly, it was an attempt to sort of rewrite history to a part, but also try and revive this part by shining a light on the Obama administration.

We've seen President Trump do that over and over, blaming things on Joe Biden. Now, this is, again, rekindling an old fight with Barack Obama. The Obama advisers have dismissed all of this as ridiculous and bizarre. But one thing is absolutely clear. As the White House works to grapple on this current imbroglio, if you will, about Jeffrey Epstein, they are turning to the past because they know that whips up supporters and it unifies the base, if you will.

So, all in all, one thing the White House is not talking about, again, something the president will be talking about shortly. Thats a speech on artificial intelligence. So, the White House choosing to turn the page back, hoping to deflect over all of this. Make sense?

HUNT: In this world? I suppose this is what it means to make sense.

Jeff Zeleny, thank you very much for that.

ZELENY: You bet.

HUNT: And John King, I have to say, with all of this kind of unfolding the way that it did today, and suddenly Donald Trump again talking about Barack Obama, I couldn't help but flash back to April of 2011, when I think you were in -- were you in New Hampshire interviewing Donald Trump?

KING: Greatest, greatest coincidence of my life.

HUNT: So, this happens on the same day, right? Obama goes and releases his birth certificate.

Let's watch a little bit of the coverage from that day of what the president, then President Obama was doing and what at this point, not in candidate. You know, businessman, U.S. citizen Donald Trump is doing at the same time. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: If you haven't heard by now, the White House released this morning, the president's birth certificate -- in fact, here it is -- the original. This is the long form birth certificate. Here is the president from this morning saying, folks, this is silliness. Let's move on.

BARACK OBAMA, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT: We do not have time for this kind of silliness. We got better stuff to do.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Donald Trump was just about to land in New Hampshire, talk about the timing here, when word of the news reached his monogrammed chopper.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So that was actually what was playing out on that day, right? Donald Trump using Barack Obama, fomenting that conspiracy theory about his birth certificate, right? This is what really starts to make Donald Trump's eventual political career.

This is 2011. He's testing the waters, right? He doesn't run in 2012. He waits. He runs in 2016.

So, John King is in New Hampshire talking to Trump about this on that very day.

John, let's watch a little bit of it. You look a little younger.

KING: I do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KING: What was that based on?

TRUMP: Excuse me. Very simple. I have people looking into it. Now, I don't have to have the people. I can call them back, I hope. I mean, I haven't seen this and I'm sure that a lot of experts will analyze --

KING: But if they couldn't, would you ever pay them? If they -- if serious people told you it was missing or not there, here it is, here it is.

TRUMP: Would I pay them? I don't know, maybe I'll let you negotiate for me.

KING: Some people think you're just making that up though.

TRUMP: I can say this --

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, John, why are we playing this today? Because it seems like Donald Trump is trying to do the same thing. That that he was doing then to take attention off of himself, off of things like, you know, the fact that, you know, Epstein attended Trump's wedding, which we have a picture of.

KING: Well, look, he -- when he wants to change the subject, I was going to say, when he's in trouble, he's not usually in trouble with his base. This time, I think he is in some trouble with his base. How to quantify it?

[16:30:00]

We'll see how that plays out.

He tries to change the subject, and he normally goes back to something. It's usually Hillary Clinton. And in this case, it's Barack Obama.

On that day, I handed him the copy and he handed it back to me and he said, I don't want that. And he said he didn't believe it to be true. But so now again, what I would say about today is, number one, you notice the secretary of state was not there. The secretary of state was the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time. They had their own investigation. They did a very different conclusion than the current director of national intelligence.

You know, there are people who can debate these things. You can debate Russia's intent. There is some debate over how some of that happened. But Russia interfered in the election without a doubt. And there are people who can debate the intent. But you notice Marco Rubio was not there.

The thing I always say when the when Trump says these things, and he did this in his first term, sometimes is the Republicans control both chambers of Congress. If they believe there's credible evidence that a former president of the United States committed treason, which is what they said in the White House today, that he committed treason. Well, they have the power to have hearings and to call people in. Let's see if they do that.

If it were serious and if there were credible evidence, they owe the American people to air that out. Right. Because that's a huge public deal. Thats a travesty. It's not going to happen because this is a distraction. It's not a serious thing.

TODD: Well, first off, John, I don't think you look any older. And I think everyone else does.

(LAUGHTER)

WILLIAMS: More handsome over time.

KING: So older.

TODD: -- person is really not holding up well with you.

You know, first off, he didn't commit treason. He's not going to be prosecuted. Let's get that out there. The president had a bit of a fit, and I think he's entitled to have a fit because for the first four years he was in office, Democrats did everything in their power to try to delegitimize his victory, to try to say it was because of Russia or Russia's Facebook ads or something, anything, something else like that. Fox brainwashed people, something like that.

So he's entitled to have a fit and to sort of be a little chapped.

HUNT: I mean, he spent the whole campaign doing that, right? I mean --

TODD: It's been pretty unprecedented what they've tried to do to delegitimize his entire political career. He's entitled to that. I think that's what you're seeing here, as this old information is resurfaced. It's a bit of a fit.

HINOJOSA: Well, but what I find interesting is that it was Barack Obama who called Hillary Clinton and told her to concede to Donald Trump in 2016. Then it was Barack Obama who welcomed Donald Trump to the White House.

He was not trying to delegitimize him in any way. He is a president who has understands the, you know, the transfer, the peaceful transfer of power compared to Donald Trump, who did not. And we have January 6th because of that.

And what I find interesting about all of this, and especially this entire -- everything that Tulsi Gabbard said, which honestly is an embarrassment for this administration, is that she continued to she continues to say that the Biden, the sorry, the Obama administration's assessment was that Russia hacked the election.

No one ever said that. No one -- that was not the assessment.

TODD: Said Russia manipulated the electorate. And now Obama was saying --

HINOJOSA: That there was interference. No one was talking about hacking.

And so, I think that for a DNI director to kind of say something like that, to falsely mislead the public should be concerning for all of us.

WILLIAMS: I think, you know, get this out of talking about the Obama administration. We're talking about the intelligence community here, which was uniform, nearly uniform in its assessment that Russia interfered in the election.

Now, it can also be true that Donald Trump won the election and won a free and fair election in the United States, but that a foreign actor sought to intervene. And as John had said, the then chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Marco Rubio, was on board with that.

HUNT: Totally. Yes. Marco Rubio -- again, like I think, Brad, I get you're like, he's entitled to have a fit, but why is he having a fit, your words, today?

WILLIAMS: Yes.

HUNT: Right. It is happening today because there are things like this headline in "The Wall Street Journal" that says that Trump was told that his name is in the Epstein files. Right?

And I mean, the difference, John -- I mean, the last pictures we have of Donald Trump and Barack Obama together was when they sat next to each other and they attended the Carter funeral. And they look extremely cozy. We can -- we can show that. And it was reported in this book just out at 2024, Josh Dawsey and company, also at "The Wall Street Journal," Josh, that Trump said next to Barack Obama and invited him to play golf, enticing him with descriptions of Trump's courses around the world, treating him like an American president.

And now they're trying to talk about whether or not he should be tried for treason. That like straight up just about the politics.

KING: Intellectual inconsistency. Maybe in some of that.

Look, I may be nuts about this, but I have this old school approach to the idea that Donald Trump is president. He won the election fair and square. Whether you agree or disagree with that out there, he is our president, and that means his national security team someday is going to have to stand up in a time of crisis. It's just -- it inevitably happens over four years. I hope it doesn't, but we need to be able to believe our director of national intelligence.

You have to have credibility in the secretary of state. You have to have credibility in the secretary of defense. So, when they come in -- just when they creep into politics, when they show up at the White House to do something that is a blatant political event for the president of United States. I just -- that to me, there are no norms.

[16:35:02]

You know, Trump has blown up a lot of norms, and he's right to blow up a lot of norms. The American people are frustrated with a lot of ways this town works, and it's not necessarily a bad thing to blow up the norms because the norms haven't worked. The people don't think their government is plugged in, but maybe it's an old school approach, but there are certain people who have certain jobs who should stay away from politics and let the president litigate his politics, let his political team litigate his politics, let his press secretary litigate his politics.

If, God forbid, something happens someday in the world, a matter of war and peace, we need to be able to believe that woman.

HINOJOSA : Yeah.

HUNT: Last word.

WILLIAMS: No, I was just going to say. And it's not just congress that can investigate this. If the Justice Department really believes that Barack Obama has levied war against the United States and committed a capital offense, then by all means they ought to go ahead and charge him with it. That is nonsense. It's preposterous, and it's not going to happen.

HINOJOSA: And there was also a special counsel that also looked at this that was handpicked by Donald Trump and had full reign at the Justice Department.

WILLIAMS: Let him do it if that's what they want.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next, we're going to continue this conversation. We're going to be joined by Trump's former national security advisor, John Bolton. He'll be here live in THE ARENA.

And then this, we're going to hear the scathing victim impact statements that were read to the Idaho college murderer right before he was sentenced to life in prison.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You want the truth? Here's the one you'll hate the most. If you hadn't attacked them in their sleep in the middle of the night like a pedophile, Kaylee would have kicked your fucking ass.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:40:49]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

We've been covering this breaking news, "The Wall Street Journal" reporting that in May, the attorney general, Pam Bondi, and her deputy informed President Donald Trump at a meeting at the White House that his name was in the Epstein files. The files contained what officials felt was unverified, hearsay about many people, including Trump, who of course had socialized with Epstein in the past. That's according to "The Journal".

Joining us now, former national security advisor in Trump's first term, John Bolton. He, of course, also previously served as United Nations ambassador.

Mr. Ambassador, thanks very much for being here.

I just want to ask your reaction to this reporting from "The Journal". Of course, we're still trying to report this out here at CNN. Are you surprised?

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER (via telephone): Well, I'm not surprised. I'm surprised by Trump's various mistakes over the past several months or so. And none of it goes to the fundamental question, if he were really compromised by Epstein at some point and by material in the files, why did he nominate Alex Acosta as his secretary of labor back in 2017, when the relationship with Epstein was already present? He went ahead and did that, and Acosta ultimately had to resign. When Epstein was arrested a second time. So, I don't really follow what Trump's logic is here. I think it's unquestionably doing him political damage, for what that's worth.

HUNT: So, one of the things we saw play out at the White House today, sir, was, of course, Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, go to the podium and all but accuse Barack Obama, former President Barack Obama, of treason over what happened with Russia.

Can you give us a sense of how you're thinking about this? Do you think there's any credibility to what Gabbard was saying today?

BOLTON: Well, just for full disclosure, I have never thought Tulsi Gabbard was competent to hold that job. To use a technical term, she's a fruit loop, and I think what is clearly motivating her here is not just to help distract from the Epstein matter, but to help save her job. And that was my very first reaction. And I say that not to indicate any particular insight, but to say it's a no-brainer. Thats why she's doing it.

HUNT: So, in your view, is there any "there" there to what she did, in fact have to say, or is it simply all a political screen to try to, as you say, save her job?

BOLTON: Well, I think -- I think it's totally political, but of course, now she's also the attorney general, since she's making up charges against Obama and many others, I -- it's been a long time since I thought about the house report that she released today. My vague memory is there was more than one version of it, so we don't know which one it is. But there were -- there were quarrels in that report with how the intelligence community had assessed a particularly sensitive source. There was nothing in that report about a treasonous conspiracy to conduct a coup d'etat in the United States.

And so even the house report, which was most critical of the intelligence community handling of the whole Russia question, didn't come anywhere close to the assertions that she and the president have been making. It's just -- it's purely imaginary.

HUNT: All right. John Bolton, very grateful for your perspective. Mr. Ambassador, thanks so much for being here. Hope to see you soon.

All right. Our panel is back now.

Brad Todd, you have a little bit of background, too, in understanding of why it is that Tulsi Gabbard was -- is -- has been in trouble with the Trump administration. Explain.

TODD: Well, in March, she went to the Senate Intelligence Committee and said that Iran was not really close to a nuclear weapon, which flew in the face of the president's foreign policy teams objectives in Iran. And what we've since learned about the success of the operation there.

This is an administration that's pretty serious about taking out the Iranian threat. And I think there's some thought that maybe she was less serious. Now, she says she's fully on board with the president.

[16:45:01]

So we have to take her at her word for that.

But there definitely was some tension. The president at one point said, well, she's wrong. So, I think that that's notable in this situation.

HUNT: Yeah.

John King, what do you make of what the ambassador said?

KING: I -- what I made of what the ambassador said back to the point I made earlier, is there is a serious national security professional. You can disagree with his views if you want. That's fair debate in the United States of America. But there's someone who's a fierce partisan, a fierce Republican, not a Trump Republican, but a fierce Republican who himself has thought about running for president and gone out there, has a political action committee.

But when it comes to certain issues, that's the -- they're the lines. So, he talked about the investigations, and he talked about there was no treasonous conduct. There was a debate about, you know, how you process a certain source.

So, you have a serious national security professional with whom you can have policy disagreements if you wish, versus what we saw in the White House today. Those are two very different things.

WILLIAMS: No, I would just say and its indicative of how President Trump has scrambled the Republican Party. I mean, and I'm not saying that as a good or bad thing. It is just a simple fact that John Boltons Republican credentials are really unparalleled. And I think you'd agree with me, Brad, or I hope you would.

TODD: A lifelong Republican. He voted against President Trump a lot of times on a lot of different things since then.

(CROSSTALK)

WILLIAMS: Not President Trump. But the simple fact is it is not --

HUNT: He's a very conservative --

WILLIAMS: Very conservative Republican. It's not your father's Republican Party. And I think that that's what that shows.

TODD: But he does disagree with him on Iran, which we should note. He thinks Iran was necessary and he did what he had to do there.

HINOJOSA: But I think Tulsi Gabbard has made a lot of Republicans nervous for quite some time because leading up the DNI, you have access to a lot of information. And I think that you saw that on the Hill. People were nervous about that. And, you know, there was a lot going on. Like they -- the attorney general nominee was, you know, Matt Gaetz

was they nominated him around the same time. He was the person who ended up not getting the position for many reasons. They needed a scapegoat. And she got through.

But I do think that she does make Republicans nervous because of her background and lack of seriousness. And if there is something that happens in this country, I'm not sure that they trust her.

HUNT: Well, and the big question, too, John king, I mean, and this kind of goes to your point about where the line should be and are, I mean, the reason why many in the Republican Party had issues with Tulsi Gabbard in a position like this is because she seemed to in, in ways, have sympathies with Russians. I mean, she went to Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad.

KING; But if Brad is correct and this is part of an effort of her to get back in the good graces of the president, maybe because were sitting here talking about it, maybe we should say she won the day, even if she wanted, in a reckless way inside the White House, in the sense that the big question and the reason she was there was to change the subject from why won't the House take a vote on releasing the Epstein file? Why won't the Justice Department release what they can release, the policy memos, the things that are in the file?

Now that we're talking about other things in some way, is proof that what they do succeeds. It's the old game of whack-a-mole gets you to talk about something else.

TODD: But one thing we also know, she campaigned with the president all over the country. She was a big hit at his rallies. He has a lot of personal affection for her. She's a former Democrat who converted a lot of people like that. And in the end, it doesn't matter if the national security hawks in Congress trust her. What matters is, does President Trump trust her?

HUNT: Yeah, for sure.

All right. Coming up next here, we're going to take you live to Boise, Idaho, where Bryan Kohberger was handed four life sentences today for killing four college students.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:52:48]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

Bryan Kohberger, the man who killed four University of Idaho students, has just been handed four life sentences. Before learning his fate, Kohberger faced scathing and emotional statements from those who were impacted by this.

CNN's Jean Casarez joins us live from outside the courthouse in Boise, Idaho. Jean, you have covered this case from the very beginning. This was an

incredibly emotional day. An emotional end to this. Walk us through it.

JEAN CASAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, Kasie, the minute it started this morning, the raw emotion from these families that were directly affected by this, it just drew you in and you became a part of what they were going through. The family members of those four victims that were just starting their adult life, all of them took to the podium and gave their victim impact statements.

But it all started with the two surviving roommates in that House. Two of them, only two were not stabbed to death by Bryan Kohberger by the grace of God, they said, they're still walking on this earth and they don't understand why they were spared. I'm talking about Bethany and Dylan now.

Bethany was so emotional. She had her best friend give the impact statement. But basically, what they said was that they are so, so still in fear of what could happen to them in their life has been so affected. Once the family started speaking, it was the Goncalves that actually turned this this sentencing hearing into something different because the podium was turned, he started to be addressed personally.

Here is Kaylee Goncalves' sister. Listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALIVEA GONCALVES, KAYLEE GONCALVES' SISTER: You're a textbook case of insecurity disguised as control. Let me be very clear. Don't ever try to convince yourself you mattered, just because someone finally said your name out loud.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CASAREZ: And Xana Kernodle stepfather, when he took the stand -- when he spoke, he said, I'd love to meet you out in the woods. Not to kill you, because that's what God will do. But I'd love to meet you out in the woods. And he was really focusing straight on him.

[16:55:02]

The judge was emotional himself. He had a Kleenex up to his eyes quite a bit during this hearing, and he also told the families, you may never get the answers of why he did what he did.

HUNT: All right. Jean Casarez with that for us. Jean, thanks very much for that report.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HUNT: All right. Thanks to all of us for joining -- all of you for joining us today.

Thanks to my panel as well. Thank you, guys, very much for being here.

And of course, if you missed any of today's show, you can always catch up listening to THE ARENA's podcast. You can scan the QR code that you see there on your screen, follow wherever you get your podcasts. You can also follow us on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.

Jake Tapper is standing by for THE LEAD.