Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Just In: New Trump Comments On Ghislaine Maxwell; New: Trump Again Shrugs Off "South Park" For Skewering Him; Red Cross: Gazans Struggling To Find Food & Clean Water. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired July 25, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:00]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Be sure to tune in for a new episode of the CNN original series, "Billionaire Boys Club", that airs Sunday at 10:00 p.m. Eastern.
And honestly, my very favorite thing about that show is the lead in. It's just fantastic. It is a fantastic show --
JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: "NEWSROOM".
KEILAR: -- anchored by the Jessica Dean.
DEAN: Tune in.
KEILAR: THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
JIM SCIUTTO, CNN HOST: Hello, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. Kasie Hunt off today. I'm Jim Sciutto in Washington.
Right now. There are new developments in the controversy over the Jeffrey Epstein files. President Trump just landing in Scotland and addressing today's second meeting between his deputy attorney general and Ghislaine Maxwell.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don't know anything about the conversation. I haven't really been following it. A lot of people are asking me about pardons. Obviously, this is no time to be talking about pardons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: The president there just moments ago saying it's no time to be talking about a potential pardon for the Epstein associate.
Here's what he told our Kevin Liptak earlier this morning.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: Would you consider a pardon or commutation for Ghislaine Maxwell? TRUMP: If it's something I haven't thought about. It's really
something. It's something -- I'm allowed to do it, but it's something I have not thought about.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Although he did just bring it up again.
Also, as we come on the air, we're getting new details from Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney about just what happened in the high stakes, face to face with the Deputy AG Todd Blanche.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DAVID OSCAR MARKUS, GHISLAINE MAXWELL'S ATTORNEY: She literally answered every question. She didn't say, you know what, don't ask me that. I'm not going to talk about this person. She was asked, maybe about 100 different people. She answered questions about everybody, and she didn't hold anything back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: David Oscar Markus, the attorney there also confirming no further meetings with DOJ are planned now, adding the focus now shifting to whether Ghislaine Maxwell will talk to lawmakers in two weeks after that congressional subpoena and possible get out of jail free card.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARKUS: We haven't spoken to the president or anybody about pardon just yet. And, you know, listen, the president this morning said he had the power to do so. We hope he exercises that power in the right and just way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: He's talking about pardons as well.
My panel is here with me, along with CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid and our chief national affairs correspondent, Jeff Zeleny, traveling with the president in Scotland.
Jeff, first to you, the president just landed in Scotland, asked about the meeting and again, he at least raised the topic of pardons. Is the White House considering one?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, certainly underscoring the fact that the president is not going to leave the Epstein scandal and political crisis behind him in Washington. Of course, it is following him here to Scotland, where he's going to be opening up a four-night visit. But he said slightly different this afternoon than he said this morning. He said now is not the time to be talking about pardons, but again not ruling it out and again noting that he has the power to do so. Again, the reason that this is important and the reason that this
matters is because Ghislaine Maxwell spent a couple of days talking with the deputy attorney general of the United States, very unusual, very high stakes, high profile. So that is why even the discussion in the atmosphere of pardoning someone is relevant in this case. But the president was also asked when he landed here in Scotland if he was aware of his name being associated with any of the files. He said no, he was not. Of course, that belies our reporting and others reporting this week that he was briefed by the attorney general on Wednesday or in May, excuse me, that he was at least mentioned in these reports. We don't know the context of that, and there is no suggestion of wrongdoing.
So, look, the bottom line to this is will this weekend be the point where the White House moves beyond the Epstein crisis? There are no signs at this hour, at least, that that will happen -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: Paula, a very basic question here is, is why? Why are they meeting? Ghislaine Maxwell already convicted, serving many years behind bars for, among other things, trafficking? What is the interest of the deputy attorney general meeting with her now?
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, asking a convicted sex trafficker to help you out of really a historic political debacle. It does signal some level of desperation. But this is also one who could potentially have some additional evidence. Say they talked to her all day yesterday for three hours today. Her lawyer says that they answered every single question that they were asked.
I think the biggest news we've gotten so far, the most -- the most specificity in terms of what is going on here, is the fact that the lawyer says she was asked about 100 different people. She answered the questions and didn't hold anything back.
Now, the lawyer couldn't really say where all this is going, but the Justice Department certainly has to be careful here.
[16:05:05]
You have to worry about more blowback from victims for any deal that you try to broker with Maxwell, and anything she says needs to be treated with some skepticism. This is someone who has had credibility problems in the past. We also kind of hear her lawyer trying to reframe her as the victim in all of this. Let's take a listen to what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARKUS: Ms. Maxwell would welcome any relief. She's been in very difficult conditions for five years, and so she would welcome any relief. It's the right thing to do. And we have faith that the right thing will happen sooner rather than later.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
REID: Since we assume that most of the interest in what else the government has related to Jeffrey Epstein is partially driven by a concern that sexual predators are being protected, the idea that they're going to try to recast Maxwell as a victim when real victims testified at her trial, where she was convicted that she recruited them, she groomed them and in some cases, sexually assaulted them. It's unclear how this is going to play with the very people the administration is trying to appease here.
SCIUTTO: Jeff Zeleny, thanks so much. Paula, please stand by.
My panel joining me now in THE ARENA, senior political correspondent for "The Wall Street Journal", Molly Ball; CNN political commentator, former Trump White House communications director Alyssa Farah Griffin; former communications director for the DNC, Mo Elleithee; and former senior adviser to the Trump 2024 campaign, Bryan Lanza.
Good to have you all on.
If I can, Alyssa, I want to play another question and answer to Ghislaine Maxwell's attorney, because this gets to a point here about -- well, at least the appearance of a potential quid pro quo. Have a listen to what he said when he was asked about this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MARKUS: I think Glenn did a wonderful job. She literally answered every question.
REPORTER: With the president even invoking the word pardon today. Does she have an incentive to just tell the deputy attorney general what he wants to hear?
MARKUS: No, because she wants to tell the truth. Because the truth can be corroborated or disproven. We haven't spoken to the president or anybody about a pardon just yet. And, you know, listen, the president this morning said he had the power to do so. We hope he exercises that power in the right and just way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: First of all, a lot of people saying, oh, we're not talking about a pardon. But by the way, there could be a pardon and there should be a pardon. By the way, I have a power to pardon. But it's that question there. Does she have an incentive to tell or provide something to the Trump administration to get something in return? I mean, should we be concerned about that?
ALYSSA FARAH GRIFFIN, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: This is why I think Ghislaine Maxwell is such a flawed character to introduce into the Epstein saga. Listen, Donald Trump's not been able to shake the saga around this. His base is very upset about it.
To bring this character who is a co-collaborator, someone who herself is convicted of being a sex trafficker in in trying to almost, almost framing it like she's going to be some kind of a hero, who's going to reveal new things. The facts don't pan that out. So, the Southern District of New York prosecutors said she shouldn't
be trusted. She's not somebody who showed remorse in the past. So, the idea now that she's going to give us new, useful information and wont simply be motivated by shortening her sentence, is very hard for me to believe.
Mike Johnson said, similarly when asked about it. And I think there's a recognition that there may be a play here that works with people who are angry about Epstein. To get more information from her, but if they go overboard in any way, try to whitewash who she is. That's going to backfire.
SCIUTTO: But, Bryan Lanza, you have, as have many Republicans, pushed for transparency here on the Epstein files here. Are you concerned at all about the appearance of this and this meeting, and what may be?
BRYAN LANZA, SENIOR ADVISER, TRUMP 2024 CAMPAIGN: There's no whitewashing this woman. She's a predator. She victimized young women. Girls. I'm the father of a daughter. I can't imagine having to go through that experience.
So there's no whitewashing here. But the fact is, is she probably does have some information to share that's relevant. It's new information. Maybe it is.
But I think the Trump administration, what you're looking by the very fact that he said Todd Blanche there, that he's giving it a serious component to it, that he's sending the number two person there outside of protocol, to make sure that if there is anything there that Todd's able to get it and it's able to be expedited and it's not able to stay where, you know, stay hidden as, as they as they suspect it has been.
I think it's a good thing. But let's be clear, this person is a predator. She's victimized young women. I think 20 years is not enough. I find it hard to believe that President Trump would give this type of person a pardon.
SCIUTTO: Mo, let's put up the timeline if we can here. Again, the Trump administrations statements and positions on the Epstein files, they were quite public for some time, saying, I've got the list sitting right here on my desk. It's coming out.
I mean, this, by the way, goes back to the campaign, right, but that we were going to release these and be fully transparent until all of a sudden, we have Bondi telling Trump his name appears in the files. And then a decision later not to release them.
Does that timeline reveal something to you about what the interest is in here from the administration?
[16:10:01]
MO ELLEITHEE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, GEORGETOWN INSTITUTE OF POLITICS & PUBLIC SERVICE: I mean, the highlighted block alone tells you something, right? Look, whether or not Maxwell has any new information, put aside how flawed she is as a -- as a character in this saga, all of this problem began not because people were looking for new information. They wanted to see the information that's already there, right? They wanted to see the information that Pam Bondi said is sitting on her desk.
President is trying to make it look like he's digging even deeper. He wasn't digging any deeper until, you know, all this blew up. And after it came out that the attorney general told him his name was in the file. So, it does say a lot.
And I don't think regardless of what Maxwell says, what they release from that conversation, it's going to -- the furor is going to die down because they still haven't released the information that they have, that they are allowed to release, that people are asking for them to release.
SCIUTTO: While releasing other information, for instance, on the MLK assassination.
ELLEITHEE: Right, exactly. We do, I understand, have new sound in from Trump responding to a question regarding whether he was informed that his name appears in these files as they're known. Have a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REPORTER: -- your name appearing in the Epstein files ever?
TRUMP: No, I was never, never briefed. No.
REPORTER: Did you ask how --
REPORTER: What are you hoping Todd Blanche interviewing Ghislaine Maxwell. What are you hoping that they get out of that?
TRUMP: I really have no, really nothing to say about it. She is being talked to by a very smart man. By a very good man, Todd Blanche, and I don't know anything about the conversation. I haven't really been following it. A lot of people are asking me about pardons. Obviously, this is no time to be talking about pardons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Molly Ball, of course, "The Wall Street Journal" reported about a number of things, including the briefing, but also Trump, for instance, the drawing, the famous drawing or infamous drawing, et cetera. President denying it there.
MOLLY BALL, SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: It's interesting because, you know, in our reporting on this, the -- and in other reporting on this, the administration seemed to confirm that this briefing occurred. There was a statement quoted from the Department of Justice acknowledging that this briefing had occurred. So, it's rather curious to hear the president denying it.
But, you know, I think -- I think Mo hit it on the head that what people have been asking for is the files that already exist. And I don't think they're going to settle for anything else. Many of the elected officials that I've spoken to about this story are surprised that it has seemed to have as much life as it has. I think many of them might prefer to be talking about on either side, about policy, about the bill that Congress just passed, but they are hearing so much about it from their constituents.
And it's not just Republicans, it's Republicans and Democrats. This is a story that has caught hold with the public in a way that has, I think, surprised everyone. And that means it's going to keep having life in it until something puts it to rest. And what the administration has done so far clearly has not put it to rest.
SCIUTTO: Alyssa, one thing that's striking about this is that you do have sitting Republicans defy maybe too strong a word, but at least contradict the president's position on this. Even a Mike Johnson. Others, you have these votes in committees about releasing documents.
Do they hold to that? Right, because we have seen Republicans stake out positions and then break, for instance, on, well, the budget, the Big, Beautiful Bill is this one. You see them eventually breaking on, or is there enough push from the base to get this stuff out there?
GRIFFIN: I think there's enough push from the base. Now, keep in mind that all members of the House of Representatives are up in less than a year and a half, many members of the Senate are as well. Donald Trump doesn't have to run for reelection.
This story will continue to dog him, but he's going to be able to pivot. There's going to be other things he talks about, but House Republicans are very concerned about this. And if it seems like Speaker Johnson has given them sort of tacit approval to be willing to break on this.
Yes. They went to August recess. But you've got Thomas Massie leading some efforts. You've got others who have called for motions and committees to move forward. And I think this is actually, in many ways, a bigger problem for Mike Johnson, how he navigates it in the coming months than it is for Donald Trump, because he has to protect his members and keep his majority, and they're going to owe something to angry constituents. They're going to hear from all of August.
SCIUTTO: Bryan, I certainly don't want to prematurely announce the end or the waning of Trump's influence on the party, but people have been doing that for years, wrongly. But to Alyssa's point, the difference is the midterms, right? Because Trump is -- I mean, of course, he would like to keep his majorities in the House and the Senate. But it's the members, right, who's seats are at risk here.
Is this -- are we seeing some lasting daylight, perhaps?
LANZA: Yeah, listen, I think, you know, November 6th, you know, members already got concerned about losing the majority because that's what always happens. You know, when the president is in power and their political is in power, usually by the midterm elections, the House of Representatives lost.
That's the way it's been historically since, you know, the only exception in modern times has been George W. Bush, and that's been 9/11.
[16:15:06]
SCIUTTO: Right.
LANZA: So, I think members are already cognizant of that. They're nervous about that. They see these things take place and they're like, this is going to be a distraction. This is my thing. But as for the base, you know, speaking about the base, I think the base was very animated last week. They're a lot calmer this week. And I think you have to look at what the President Trump has done. He's found "The Wall Street Journal" is a very effective target. So, he's rallied the base and said, hey, "The Wall Street Journal" went too far.
And then these conversations that we're having on cable television right now, you know, it's very -- you know, I've heard from people in the base who were last week who are, you know, losing it. And this week it's like, why is the media still talking about this? Theres other things to talk about.
He, Trump, has effectively turned the media, you know, into another issue with the base and saying, hey, why is the media talking about this when we have all these other good things that are taking place, we have the six month anniversary, we have the intelligence assessment that the destruction of the of the nuclear capability of Iran was severely damaged and degraded.
All those bits and pieces are happening, and the base is now saying, why is the media only focused on this.
ELLEITHEE: Except that --
SCIUTTO: You could have released the documents and then we wouldn't be talking about the controversy over the release.
ELLEITHEE: Except that members of Congress, Republican members of Congress, are hearing directly from the base. And if there's one thing we have seen time and time again, it's that Republican voters and voters in general are willing to punish Republican members of Congress for the things that they would not punish Donald Trump for.
LANZA: We've seen it.
SCIUTTO: Yeah, that's a -- that's a fair point. Before we go, Paula, just next steps in terms of meetings, do we expect any further meetings between Maxwell's attorneys, Maxwell and the assistant A.G. or the attorney general?
REID: At this point, there's no indication they're going to be additional meetings. The big question is what is the Justice Department going to do with whatever Todd has heard over the past few days? They have a few options. They could release some of it to the public.
But I think what we really need to watch for is any possibility that they will hand this off to an independent prosecutor. Now, I use that term and not special counsel, because right now, it's not expected that this Justice Department is going to use traditional special counsels.
They could hand it to Ed Martin. He has that sort of weaponization working group to just kick the can down the road, look at whatever they've gathered, and then potentially tap a U.S. attorney to do a bigger investigation that could work to buy them some time. But again, all of this will be dredged up again.
This is something that some lawmakers have called for, a special counsel. We've also heard some right-wing influencers also call for this. They haven't done that yet because they know eventually this is all going to come up again, and people are still going to want to see material. But now that they have this fresh material, it's a new opportunity to try to maybe stash this issue somewhere for a while, at least until after midterms. So that's what I'm watching really closely now.
SCIUTTO: Well, everyone loves their own special counsel, just not the other side special counsel.
Paula Reid, thank you so much.
Panel, please do stand by. We're going to continue this conversation ahead and speak more about the efforts on Capitol Hill to now subpoena Ghislaine themselves. Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi is on the House Oversight Committee, and he joins me next. That's coming up.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:22:22]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: They should focus on the fact that Larry Summers from Harvard, that Bill Clinton, who you know very well, and lots of other friends, really close friends of Jeffrey Summers, should be spoken about because, you know, Jeffrey Epstein should be spoken about. You ought to be speaking about Bill Clinton, who went to the island 28 times. I never went to the island.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: President Trump once again suggesting to the media what it should be focusing its attention on that is anywhere else except on his own past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein as his deputy attorney general and former personal attorney Todd Blanche met with Epstein's convicted accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, in Florida for a second day.
Joining me now to discuss, Democratic Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois. He is a member of the House Intelligence Committee, also serves on the Oversight Committee.
Congressman, thanks so much for taking the time.
REP. RAJA KRISHNAMOORTHI (D-IL): Hey. Thank you, Jim. SCIUTTO: So first, let me begin. In fairness, if the Epstein issue is
so important to members of the Democratic Party, why didn't you all push for complete transparency, the release of all documents when you were in power?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Well, I personally think that we should have full transparency of these files, regardless of who's in power. And certainly, once we learn what's in those files, if any further crimes needed to have been punished and weren't, then we need to bring accountability there.
But let's be very clear. Right now, we're dealing with a president who's repeated statements and claims about those files proved to be false. He says his name wasn't in there. That turned out to be false. He says he never flew on Jeffrey Epstein's airplane. That turned out to be false.
He made the weird claim that he's never made a drawing that turned out to be a false -- that turned out to be false as well.
And now, not only should we, you know, have transparency on these files, but the fact that we don't is bringing all legislative business to a standstill, including items that the American people want.
SCIUTTO: The -- I want to ask you, because now more than once, the president's deputy attorney general, former personal attorney is meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell, already convicted, serving 20 years for, among other things, sex trafficking and her own lawyer is quite publicly discussing the possibility of a pardon or commutation of her sentence. The president denies a pardon is on the table.
But yet these meetings are taking place, not clear what exactly they're discussing. Are you concerned that there might be a quid pro quo offered?
[16:25:05]
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Oh, absolutely. I think that she wants a pardon. She wants to get out of jail free card right now. And the question is from Donald Trump's standpoint, potentially, what's the price?
And that's what concerns us, right? I mean, she could fabricate information. She could alter information about what happened. He could issue threats or inducements. And, you know, that's obviously getting in the way of full transparency and disclosure, which is what all Democrats and I think most Republicans want at this point.
SCIUTTO: The House has issued its own subpoena to Maxwell to testify. Not clear if they honor that subpoena. But if you were able to question her, what would be your most pressing question?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: What's in those files? And, you know, obviously, we don't want information of a nature that could further stigmatize victims or that would be, you know, child pornography or pornography types of items. But on the other hand, we want to know, why does Donald Trump. Why do people want these files to go away or not be disclosed at all? And she would have a lot of information to shed on that particular issue.
SCIUTTO: As you know, President Trump is now accusing his predecessor, his first predecessor, Barack Obama, of treason -- treasonous behavior during the 2016 election. And he's again repeated that, saying that he's committed criminal acts, a potential criminal referral at this point. Are you concerned that Trump's justice department might attempt to charge the former president?
KRISHNAMOORTHI: I am a little concerned. On the other hand, it's completely baseless, and I think that it's an attempt to distract from what is happening with regard to the subject that we just spoke about a second ago, which is the Epstein files.
Now, let's just be clear. The intelligence community assessment called the ICA that came out during the Obama administration very clearly said that the Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to denigrate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, was hoping Donald Trump would get -- could get elected, and that they conducted hacking and dumping of various emails from the DNC.
A second committee, this time led by Marco Rubio in the Senate, concurred in all of these assessments on a bipartisan basis. And so, any types of allegations now by Ms. Gabbard are completely baseless, have no -- have no basis in fact. And I think that they are -- they've been rebutted repeatedly on a bipartisan basis.
SCIUTTO: Yeah. There was a time when Russian interference in the 2016 election was quite a bipartisan position in this country.
Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi, thanks so much for joining.
KRISHNAMOORTHI: Thank you.
SCIUTTO: Coming up next, brand-new reaction from President Trump on the story that has been dominating the news, social media, and now cartoons.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARACTER: Are you on the list or not? It's weird that whenever it comes up, you just tell everyone to relax.
CHARACTER: I'm not telling everyone to relax. Relax, gang.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHARACTER: The small town of South Park, Colorado, is protesting against the president. The townspeople claim that the president who is a great man.
CHARACTER: A great man. CHARACTER: Great guy. We know he's probably watching and were just reporting on this town in Colorado that's being sued by the president. And they are fighting back.
CHARACTER: And just to be clear, we don't agree with them.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Bit of a shot there at "60 Minutes".
"South Park" season premiere was one for the history books. That episode aired one day before the FCC finally approved the Paramount- Skydance merger that has seen lawsuits settled and shows canceled. As for President Trump's opinion on that particular "South Park" episode.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: I've never watched "South Park". I don't know anything about "South Park". I never watched "South Park".
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: A White House statement says the show's popularity has hit record lows. In fact, "South Park" is proving to be a very valuable asset as Paramount inked a $1.5 billion deal billion to exclusively air "South Park" on its streaming channel.
The creators had this to say about that first episode.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
QUESTION: Did you anticipate the reaction today? Have you been following it? What do you make of this?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're terribly sorry.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: Sincerity meter trending towards the low side.
My panel back with me now.
Bryan, I wonder if this is a battle the president actually wants. I mean, "South Park". Listen, it's irreverent. Sometimes it's too dirty. I don't particularly love my kids watching it, given the language used, but they're taking shots and they're landing.
LANZA: Yeah, but the president just dismissed it. He doesn't know who "South Park" is. He doesn't watch it. I think --
SCIUTTO: He knows enough to be talking about it, right?
LANZA: Well, he was asked about it, but yeah, he can be dismissive of all these things. I think what we've learned over the years and Steve Colbert's the best example that, you know, when you hate half the country, like Steve Colbert did in these comedians, they literally hate half the country.
Their comedy is not that funny. And so, you might get some people that are going to laugh at it, you know, a small percentage, but the end result is you will get canceled if you're not that funny.
SCIUTTO: But is that really the issue there? I mean, listen, the president, I think we could say has thin skin, right? And jokes that used to be leveled at presidents, sometimes irreverent.
[16:35:01]
They just say, forget about it. He doesn't, right, and almost makes them bigger than what they would be otherwise.
GRIFFIN: Yeah. And the president also used to be a staple of the late show when it was David Letterman. He was, frankly, he was frequently on he was somebody who really esteemed it. The franchise has grown less favorable to him since he was in office the first time and the second.
But the reality is this the economics are why Colbert is not on the air anymore. And I say that as a huge fan of his for many years, it was a show that was losing reportedly $40 million. They were in the Ed Sullivan Theater, iconic, incredibly expensive.
Whereas "South Park", "The L.A. Times" says, is one of the most lucrative television series in the world. This $1.5 billion deal that paramount inked. You can get away with a lot if you're making money for your shareholders. And that's what "South Park's" doing.
SCIUTTO: And particularly in streaming, right? Because that's where all the attention is. And the stock market. And "South Park" certainly has a as a following there.
I suppose the bigger concern, right, is what other consequences there are for media coverage in general. And that's a concern. That's actually what "South Park" was taking a shot at "60 Minutes" there, right, Molly Ball, said, you know, talking about the various compromises perhaps CBS has had to make as the Skydance deal was there.
I mean, that's -- it's not just really about a satirical cartoon that we're talking about.
BALL: Sure. I mean, to me, this is not about whether or not "South Park" is getting under Donald Trump's skin because, as Bryan said, he brushes it off and plenty of people have made fun of Donald Trump over the years. To me, it's again about the way that this scandal has penetrated the broader culture and the way it has become a real pop cultural phenomenon, and the way it's being talked about by people who don't care about politics. Right?
"South Park" is not primarily a political show, and it's certainly not primarily a left wing show. It's a show that skewers people across the spectrum, and particularly the idea of political correctness.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
BALL: And so, for them to be sort of bringing these issues on stage, whether it's the media issue or the or the Epstein scandal, I think shows the degree to which all of this has a resonance that is outside of the traditional audience for this show, frankly.
SCIUTTO: Well, listen, I mean, there are the -- first of all, "South Park" seems to be important enough to paramount that its willing to pay a billion and a half dollars and perhaps keep it on the air. I suppose that could change tomorrow.
But let's look at what else Skydance agreed to in getting this merger approved. Comprehensive review of CBS, install an ombudsman for complaints of bias. Make changes to ensure viewpoint diversity and eliminate all DEI policies at Paramount.
I mean, the DEI piece is something we've seen across the board, right? Pressure on universities, for instance, law firms and now a major media group here.
What's your reaction to see that kind of price paid in effect for a merger?
ELLEITHEE: Yeah, I mean, I'm old enough to remember the days when Republicans used to attack Barack Obama for being the imperial presidency, right? That he doesn't hold a candle to what we're seeing from the Trump administration now, and their willingness, willingness to pull the levers of power to influence every single aspect of our society, to make corporate boardroom decisions when used to be conservatives, good conservatives said we should stay out of the boardroom, to make academic freedom decisions, to -- and doing it in a way that so many companies, so many institutions feel like they have no choice but to bend the knee.
And that puts us in a very dangerous problem. But I think Molly's point is right. This is the first time we have seen that be successfully challenged with this story around Epstein. Donald Trump is a master at changing the subject whenever he wants, and he cannot change the subject on this no matter how hard he tries.
It is penetrating every aspect of our society, whether or not, you know, he and his team finally find a way to turn the corner. I don't know, but it's the first time I've seen them look shaky in ten years.
SCIUTTO: Bryan, let me ask you this, though. The politics behind this kind of pressure, I understand it's there. And the president's, you know, arguably fulfilling his campaign promises. But for the business- friendly Republican Party, is this the kind of interference? I mean, this is a business deal. It's a merger for business reasons, because they believe they can grow shareholder value, right, et cetera.
But DEI, viewpoint diversity, comprehensive review of CBS News, which is a -- you know, it's a storied -- certainly, "60 Minutes" a storied brand. Is that the kind of interference you want to see as a Republican in business deals, transactions?
LANZA: No, of course not. But I think what you're seeing is this administration exercised muscle in a way that no administration ever done before.
SCIUTTO: Is it good, though?
LANZA: You know, I think in the long run, we'll find out. I mean, let's look what they're trying to do. They're trying to end affirmative action in universities.
I'm from California. We ended affirmative action nearly 30 years ago in the university seemed to thrive. So, yes, ending affirmative action is a corporate policy is probably a good thing.
[16:40:01]
The other thing is, look what they're doing to CBS, trying to add diversity of thought. Right now, if you want -- I mean, I don't watch broadcast television because as a, you know, as a conservative, I'm turned off by that.
I only watch cable, right. That is streaming.
SCIUTTO: Yeah.
LANZA: But, you know, there's clearly a gap there in mainstream television that excludes conservatives when you're watching the, you know, the primetime channels that this administration thought, it's important that there's diversity of things. Those things aren't bad.
The news. Listen, this network, a lot of networks, they've been guilty of exaggerating the truth on President Trump over the years. They've been wrong many times. Some people have never been reprimanded for being wrong.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with holding the media accountable when they're wrong. And that's what you're going to see in these types of things. And it's not attacking freedom of speech or freedom of press when you tell them they're wrong.
SCIUTTO: There are some who have been canceled. My question. But I hear you.
Do stay with us. Thanks so much.
Coming up, the bold move that has President Trump saying this about one of America's biggest allies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TRUMP: It's good news. What he says doesn't matter. The statement doesn't carry any weight.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:45:28]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE (through translator): We haven't eaten in five days. We are living under huge injustice. We are living in famine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCIUTTO: A mass starvation crisis is now gripping Gaza. Gaza's health ministry now reports 900,000 children are going hungry, 70,000 are already showing signs of malnutrition. The U.N. says more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces while seeking aid just since late May. Humanitarian organizations, doctors and journalists are now sounding the alarm as they watch their colleagues inside Gaza simply waste away.
CNN's Jeremy Diamond joins us now from Tel Aviv.
Jeremy, tell us what we're learning and our CNN teams in and around Israel are learning about the situation on the ground there.
JEREMY DIAMOND, CNN JERUSALEM CORRESPONDENT: Well, Jim, the sights and sounds of starvation are everywhere in Gaza at the moment, whether it is people clamoring in line at the very few soup kitchens that are actually operational inside of Gaza right now, just trying to fill a pot of lentil soup to feed their families. For many of them, the only meal that they will eat that day.
Whether it is people who are searching for scraps of food who aren't eating for days at a time, or the cries of babies in hospitals who are malnourished, who have lost pounds that they cannot lose at this point, we are seeing evidence of the rampant starvation that is currently gripping Gaza.
And, you know, every single involved party at this point, besides Israel, makes very clear that. Israel is responsible for this humanitarian crisis that is now unfolding. We saw this week as 28 Western nations, many of them traditional allies of Israel, said that the blame lies at Israels feet. Hundreds of humanitarian aid organizations have also said that Israeli restrictions on the entry of aid, a lack of coordination for safe distribution routes to pick up those truckloads of aid inside of Gaza and distribute them, also saying that that is Israel's fault.
And what we are seeing, of course, is that it is the most vulnerable in Gaza who are the first to suffer from all of this? There's one boy who our team filmed in Gaza today. He is three years old. His name is Mohammed, but he weighs just 13 pounds, Jim. He was already suffering from a degenerative muscle issue, but with proper physical therapy and proper nutrition, he was able to be relatively healthy and active. And now he is really just a skeleton is the only way to put it.
Fifty-four people have died from starvation just this week. There are only really small flickers of hope at this point. There's a clear effort by the Israeli government. It seems to increase the coordination with the United Nations and other groups to pick up that aid that's been sitting in Gaza due to a lack of proper, safe routes.
They also are now saying that they're going to resume those airdrops over Gaza, which really represent a drop in the ocean. But it's something at least. But the reality is that there's no end in sight right now, especially as we are seeing that the ceasefire talks are very much faltering. That really would have been the lifeline that so many in Gaza have been waiting for -- Jim.
SCIUTTO: Listen, we saw we saw U.S. aid drops from the air months ago and they did not -- I mean, there were deaths from those involved. And that certainly did not solve the shortage problem.
Jeremy Diamond, thanks so much.
So where is the U.S. in all this? CNN has learned that the Trump administration does not have a high level, official focused on Gaza humanitarian aid.
Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch, joins our panel.
Omar, when I speak to Israeli officials and I'm not alone in this, when I bring up the food shortages there, they place the blame on Hamas. They say that this is Hamas that is stealing and weaponizing the aid. USAID has done its own analysis and found no evidence of massive Hamas theft of Gaza aid.
What is the truth based on Human Rights Watch's experience there? Who's responsible for the shortage?
OMAR SHAKIR, ISRAEL AND PALESTINE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH: The truth is very simple. It's the Israeli government and the greatest proof of that is when there was a ceasefire in place in early 2025. So, when there was a political decision by the Israeli government to allow aid in 600 trucks a day were entering Gaza, they were reaching 400 locations throughout the Gaza Strip.
[16:50:00]
All the indications of malnutrition, of starvation were improving, the situation got much better.
But then the Israeli government in early March took the decision to impose a total blockade on Gaza. No food, no aid, no nothing. Now, in late May, resumed allowing limited quantities of aid, largely through this new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation mechanism. But that mechanism has turned out to be lethal with over, as you just noted, as Jeremy noted, over 1,000 Palestinians gunned down.
The reality that Jeremy describes is one that we should all take a moment to reflect on. Imagine your children, you know, cramping because their stomachs are empty and there's nothing you can do. The Israeli government could make a decision today to solve that crisis, but instead they sit and watch and children die as a result. SCIUTTO: One change from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has
explained to me is that a great reduction in the number of aid distribution sites, down to four from many dozens that are operated previously, and that means you have, well, bottlenecks, right? You have many hundreds, thousands of people focused on just four sites there.
The fact is, Alyssa Farah, the U.S. is part of this Gaza Humanitarian Foundation operation. And of course, the U.S. has an enormous influence over the Israeli government, the Israeli military.
Does the U.S. partially own this problem there in Gaza?
GRIFFIN: Well, listen, I can't speak to the Israeli position here, but America's stated position is that we want a ceasefire. And special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, has been working around the clock to try to reach one.
As your guest noted, when there was a ceasefire in place, aid and food were flowing into Gaza in just a couple of days ago, they announced that the latest ceasefire negotiations fell apart because Hamas declined to agree to them.
So that is something the U.S. is working around the clock to try to enforce. You do need a good -- you need a cooperator that's willing to come to the table with the Israelis, but it continues to be, to the best of my knowledge, this administrations priority to get a ceasefire.
SCIUTTO: It seems that President Trump's patience is running out because, he said of Hamas just before leaving for his trip to Scotland, he said, it's got to the point where you're going to have to finish the job. That's him. Speaking to the Israelis, saying it seems opening the door to further military operations there.
Is it your sense, Molly Ball, that the president has run out of patience with Hamas on this?
BALL: It certainly sounds that way. I mean, to Alyssa's point, you know, Steve Witkoff decided not to attend the talks this week because he said that Hamas wanted to keep fighting and was not a willing participant. So, it is the administration's position that that its Hamas that has walked away from the table here and is not willing to do what it takes to protect their own people who are suffering so terribly.
SCIUTTO: That's on the negotiations. But the fact is that Israel, Mo, has the power to allow more aid in. And we know that because they have, prior to Jeremy's point, they have allowed and there were days when you had dozens, many dozens of trucks coming in.
And the fact is, for an enclave with more than 2 million people, a dozen or so trucks a day just isn't doing the job. So, I just wonder. I mean, we used to talk about how President Biden doesn't apply enough pressure on Israel. You know, some would criticize him. Can President Trump face the same criticism here? ELLEITHEE: And he should receive the same criticism here. Look, you
can be pro-Palestine and anti-Hamas. I'm one of those people. I'm pro- Palestine and anti-Hamas.
You can be pro-Israel but against this, and we all should be that way, pro-Israel and against this. The fact of the matter is -- look, Israel runs one of the most sophisticated missile defense systems in the world. They can shoot down 90 percent of incoming or greater -- missiles that are coming at them, but they can't figure out how to get trucks of food to starving children that have nothing to do with the hostages?
They deserve to get -- we all deserve for the hostages to be released. But those children deserve to eat and Israel can do it.
SCIUTTO: Bryan, there have been times when President Trump made quite clear he wants the war to end there. He does. And I wonder, is he also running out of patience with Israel?
LANZA: Yeah. Listen, I think he has shown he's been able to push against Bibi Netanyahu in the past, at least in the second term. But I think Alyssa's right. I mean, you have to have a willing participant in this peace process, and Hamas is not a willing participant. So, he can have as many conversations he wants with Benjamin Netanyahu.
But unless the third party, the one who's launching missiles, who's causing the missile defense system to be triggered unless they have a desire to stop it, this is going to continue.
SCIUTTO: There's still an obligation to feed, one could argue.
Omar Shakir, thanks so much to you.
We will be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:59:24]
SCIUTTO: Thanks so much to my panel. If you missed any of today's show, you can always catch -- us by listening to THE ARENA's podcast. Just scan the QR code below and follow wherever you get your podcasts. You can also follow the show on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.
I'm going to be back at 8:00 p.m. Eastern for "AC360". Tonight, I'm going to be speaking to Steve Goncalves. He's the father of one of the four Idaho murder victims, Kaylee Goncalves.
Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD".
JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Thanks so much, Jim. Really appreciate it. We will be watching you tonight on "360".
ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.
TAPPER: And welcome to "THE LEAD". I'm Jake Tapper. We begin with breaking news.
Moments ago, President Trump denied that anyone in his administration ever told him that his name was in the Epstein files.
