Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
Sources: DOJ May Release Ghislaine Maxwell Interview Transcript; House Oversight Subpoenas DOJ For Epstein Files; Now: Texas Dems Stall GOP Redistricting Bid For Second Day; GOP Rep. Mike Flood Met With Boos & Jeers At Town Hall. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired August 05, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:04]
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: There's so much happening that I don't understand right now.
(LAUGHTER)
SANCHEZ: Saskatchewan. So hot, so hot right now. Tourism, Saskatchewan is already launching a marketing campaign based off of this song that I've never heard. Check out the tourism board's website where it says from vintage dance halls to starlit prairie escapes, here's how five iconic Chappell Roan tracks map perfectly onto unforgettable Saskatchewan destinations. I admit, I truly still don't understand what's happening here.
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: We're going to Saskatchewan --
SANCHEZ: We'll check out Saskatchewan, yeah.
KEILAR: -- after THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT that starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Ghislaine Maxwell wants to keep things secret, but will we soon see some of the grand jury testimony?
Let's head into THE ARENA.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Ghislaine Maxwell is not.
Those words in a new filing from Maxwell as she asks the judge not to unseal grand jury transcripts.
Plus, the Texas attorney general targets Democratic lawmakers who fled the state to halt a gerrymandering scheme. Could they lose their seats in the state legislature?
And then new anger at town halls. Accusations of fascism and calls to tax the rich as voters let lawmakers know just how they feel about the so-called Big, Beautiful Bill.
(MUSIC)
HUNT: Hi, everyone. I'm Kasie Hunt. Welcome to THE ARENA. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Tuesday.
Quote, "Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Ghislaine Maxwell is not," end quote.
That is how Ghislaine Maxwell is opening her argument against the Trump administration's push to unseal some of the grand jury transcripts. In a new filing today, her attorneys write this, quote, whatever interest the public may have in Epstein, that interest cannot justify a broad intrusion into grand jury secrecy. In a case where the defendant is alive, her legal options are viable and her due process rights remain, end quote.
Maxwell is appealing her sex trafficking conviction and has asked the Supreme Court to take her case. She argues that releasing this grand jury information, which she hasn't even seen, could prejudice a potential retrial. As that happens, the Justice Department is weighing releasing a transcript of the interview that they conducted with the former Epstein accomplice last month.
Senior administration sources telling CNN that some within the White House worry that releasing a transcript would cause this story to once again dominate headlines. That seems fair. That seems like a fair worry.
This morning, the House Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to the DOJ for all of its files related to Epstein, and it sent nearly a dozen subpoenas to individuals for closed door depositions beginning this month. On that list, both Democrats and Republicans, including Bill and Hillary Clinton, James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Barr, Jeff sessions and others.
Our panel is going to be here to weigh in, and we're going to get started with CNN chief legal affairs correspondent Paula Reid and CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes.
Kristen, let me start with you. You and Paula have been reporting on the Trump administration's internal debate about whether they're going to release this transcript of Maxwell's interview. Again, this was with the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche. Can you take us inside the White House's thinking here?
KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie, I mean, this is coming at a time where the White House has been under intense scrutiny, not just by Democrats, not just by Republicans, but even some of Trump's most staunch allies have been pushing back, saying that there's been a lack of transparency when it comes to the issue of Epstein, when it comes to the document release in the Epstein case.
So, this would give these White House officials to give the White House some kind of credence. And this is what I'm being told by people in the inside to say that we are being transparent, that we're going to release this transcript. We're going to release potentially snippets of audio from this lengthy interview. We were told there was roughly more than ten hours of audio between several days of this sit- down interview.
And when I'm talking to these various sources, they say this, one thing is clear. It's not going to be the whole thing. They know that they're going to have to, and they already have been going through looking at sensitive information, making redactions. But the other part of this is they're having a conversation with the Department of Justice. And right now, it's unclear if the White House and Department of Justice are on the same page on releasing this.
The White House, they want to be on the offensive when it comes to whatever information they have regarding Jeffrey Epstein, because they spent the better part of the last several months, or at least since that DOJ memo came out on the defensive. And that's not a place that's good for president Trump or for the White House. They do better when they are fighting, not when they are receiving the fight.
So this would give them the opportunity to get ahead of a narrative, whether or not they're going to actually do this, though they have been warned by some experts that there are risks here, it remains to be seen how they're going to handle it.
HUNT: All right. Paula, so in the request that to the judge that's overseeing the possible release of grand jury transcripts, this is what Maxwell's attorney wrote, right?
[16:05:05]
Quote, "Jeffrey Epstein is dead. Ghislaine Maxwell is not." We've read it a couple of times now.
Tell us more about what they're arguing here.
PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well. That is all true, and here, the Justice Department has argued that this grand jury material, which is by default confidential, should be unsealed because of the enormous public interest in this case. Now, Maxwell's lawyer has previously said that they would oppose this move. But a short time ago, in his filing with the court, he's revealing more about why they believe that is the case. He's saying, quote, public curiosity is insufficient when Maxwell's legal and reputational interests are at stake. These factors weigh heavily in favor of preserving the secrecy of the grand jury materials. The reputational harm from releasing incomplete, potentially misleading grand jury testimony, untested by cross examination, would be severe and irrevocable.
So, there he is, specifically referring to the grand jury process. It's different than a trial. In a grand jury, a prosecutor goes before grand jurors, presents a case. The threshold for indictment is much lower than it is in a courtroom, and there's no defense put on.
Now, of course, Maxwell was tried in a court of law. She was convicted of sex trafficking. But this is part of why the bar is so high to release this kind of information.
Now, Kasie, I also want to note the judge has given victims of Maxwell and Epstein the chance to weigh in here. Notably, we've heard from two of them. They didn't oppose the release of this material. They pushed for more transparency as long as victims are protected and they have until the end of the day today to weigh in with their thoughts.
HUNT: All right. Paula Reid, Kristen Holmes, thank you both very much for getting us started.
Our panel is now here in THE ARENA. CNN political analyst, White House correspondent for "The New York Times", Zolan Kanno-Youngs, CNN political analyst, national political reporter for "Axios", Alex Thompson, CNN political commentators Kate Bedingfield and Brad Todd are here. And we're also joined by CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig.
Thank you, guys, all for being here today.
Elie, let me start with you for your kind of perspective on this. I mean, it does seem as though, you know, if Ghislaine Maxwell is looking for fair treatment, that perhaps she does have an argument here but at the same time, from a political perspective, she's not exactly a sympathetic figure. What say you?
ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, not at all sympathetic, Kasie, but whether you or I like it or not, the position legally taken by Ghislaine Maxwell, an attorney, is completely reasonable and appropriate. Remember, the job of Ghislaine Maxwell and her attorney is only one thing to protect the legal interests of Ghislaine Maxwell. They are not concerned about the politics of this. They're not concerned about transparency. They're not concerned about what the public wants to know.
The only job here is to protect Ghislaine Maxwell's interests. And to that end, Ghislaine Maxwell does still have a live pending appeal. As you said earlier, she's trying to get the Supreme Court to take her case. It's a long shot, but it's possible.
And so, the lawyer has to think about, well, if we win, she might get a new trial. And in that case, naturally, he would not want this grand jury material out there for the public.
Now, interestingly, the lawyer for Ghislaine Maxwell was not allowed to review all of this testimony. So, all that he knows is it's bad for his client because it was used to indict her in the first place. And so, he's doing the right thing here as a defense lawyer in objecting to this public production.
HUNT: So, Elie, just a quick follow on that. I mean, some of this is clearly playing out in the public eye, right? A lot of this is about Ghislaine Maxwell, the Trump administration trying to curry favor with the president, or at least figure out some way to get her to be treated better because the administration needs or wants something from her.
Are those two interests in conflict, like what you just laid out? And then the public piece of this?
HONIG: Yeah, that's interesting because if Maxwell's team calculates -- well, we want to please the president, we want to please the administration, why? Because they want a pardon. I mean, they've said that in writing in their -- in their legal briefs, this position might not please the administration. In fact, they're in opposition to DOJ here because DOJ is arguing that this should be released.
So, there's a couple different calculations, complicated legal calculations here going on. But I think Maxwell's goal is to either please the president enough to get a pardon or please DOJ enough to get to have DOJ go to a judge and ask for a lower sentence.
But you're right, Kasie. I mean, by opposing this, they have put themselves on the opposite side of the administration.
HUNT: And probably on the opposite side of some of the president's most fervent supporters. Let's be real about that.
I mean, Brad Todd, the other big question here that were talking about is whether this conversation between Todd Blanche, Donald Trump's former personal attorney, now the number two at the Department of Justice, it's all on tape. They're thinking about putting it out.
You're a Republican strategist. Are you interested in having them put that out there?
BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I'm agnostic.
(LAUGHTER)
TODD: I --I don't -- I am tired of talking about this case every other day on television because there are so many more important things that affect every Americans life out there.
But I do get that we're going to talk about it until something comes out right. I don't know if well stop at that point, but that's what's going to happen. And so, if that what comes out is Todd Blanche transcript, then maybe that will be done.
ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: But is it fair? But is it fair that the only reason we are talking about it is because Donald Trump, Mr. President, promises made, promises kept, promised to make these files public, and he hasn't?
TODD: Well, I think probably were history when this is all over with. We're going to look back and say, you know, what they should have said was we'll release it as soon as we can, right? As soon as we legally can.
THOMPSON: January 19th, 2029.
KATE BEDINGFIELD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Exactly.
TODD: That's -- well, until the grand jury has need for it to be secret has run its course, right? Until we legally can. That might have been the mistake that was made.
BEDINGFIELD: I think the problem they're going to have here, I mean, there's certainly all of the legal calculations that Elie was talking about, but, you know, from purely from a communications perspective releasing the likely somewhat redacted, if its ultimately released grand jury testimony, releasing the perhaps selectively redacted transcript of the conversation with Todd Blanche doesn't meet the bar that Donald Trump himself set out at the beginning of this conversation. Shall we call it? Which is releasing the files, making them public.
So from a communications perspective, I'm not sure you can argue reasonably that this that either of these releases is going to shut this down. It doesn't meet Donald Trump's bar for shutting it down.
ZOLAN KANNO-YOUNGS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And it's not just Donald Trump promising to release them. It's also the people he brought into his administration that set these expectations so high by riling the base by talking about this issue, deputy director of the FBI, Kash Patel as well, coming in. So, they set these expectations high, and now you're seeing them meet that pressure at this time.
It's interesting because a couple of weeks ago, most you talked to most of the people you talked to in the White House were like, we need to move on from this. It seems like in recent days that you've seen now a White House that's like, you know, we both want to move on from this to talk about the domestic policy package they just passed, but also their base is not giving up on this.
HUNT: Well, and to that point, Elie mentioned the pardon that Ghislaine Maxwell has been seeking. Donald Trump was asked about whether or not he was going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell and this was not in some situation where it was reporters from mainstream outlets that he loves to criticize or, you know, unfriendly territory. This was an interview he did on Newsmax.
Let's watch.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We'd like to release everything, but we don't want people to get hurt. That shouldn't be hurt.
INTERVIEWER: Ghislaine Maxwell is serving 20 years in prison for sex trafficking -- for sex trafficking. Is clemency on the table for her in exchange for testimony?
TRUMP: I'm allowed to do it, but nobody's asked me to do it. I know nothing about it. I don't know anything about the case, but I know I have the right to do it. I have the right to give pardons. I've given pardons to people before.
INTERVIEWER: Yeah.
TRUMP: But nobody's even asked me to do it.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: I mean, Elie, nobody has asked me to do it. Ghislaine Maxwell has basically, straightforwardly asked him to do it. He also claims he knows nothing about this case.
HONIG: Yeah, Kasie, I can't see Kate Bedingfield right now, but I bet the comms professionals are tearing their hair out whenever they hear this type of clip, right? I mean, it's got to be agony to see them doing it no matter which party you're part of.
But look, let's -- let's be clear what's going on here. There is a game. There's a negotiation playing out where Ghislaine Maxwell has about 13 years left on her sentence. She's 63 years old, meaning she will be in federal prison until she's 76, unless she gets some type of relief.
And her avenues for relief are pretty narrow. She's got that long shot. Supreme Court appeal that I mentioned earlier, and she can play and hope for a pardon.
Meantime, though, Donald Trump knows he wants to keep Ghislaine Maxwell in his favor too, right? He doesn't want Ghislaine Maxwell out there hurting him. And so, he wants to keep this thing open. He's done it before.
There's nothing new about this. Think back to the first term, almost word for word, the same type of thing that Trump would say regularly about Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, all of whom stayed on board and all of whom he ended up pardoning.
HUNT: Yeah.
TODD: Hold on, though.
HUNT: Go ahead.
TODD: Glenn Maxwell does know some things, right? She knows a thing or two. And the hunger among the base vote to the extent that it exists, is for more knowledge. They want people who were involved in illegal activities, names to be exposed. She can expose them. She can -- she -- it doesn't have to be the grand jury testimony. It can be her testimony in public to expose some of the powerful people who Jeffrey Epstein was involved with.
So that would serve a purpose if she decided to do that. And she might not take clemency. It might just involve moving her to a more comfortable prison. I mean, if you're going to be in prison for 30 years.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: Yes, but she didn't have to stay there.
(CROSSTALK)
THOMPSON: Do you think she's a trustworthy source at this point?
HUNT: Yeah.
TODD: Well, she's been moved from a prison to a prison camp in Texas. More comfortable. She might decide she likes it there. Maybe she wants to then perhaps give up some of this information.
THOMPSON: But is she a trustworthy person?
BEDINGFIELD: Right.
[16:15:00]
TODD: Well, the public will decide that.
BEDINGFIELD: Well, I mean, the courts have decided that. And I would say that the public, that public opinion broadly has decided that too, is part of why Trump is in this situation to --
TODD: She's culpable, culpable.
BEDINGFIELD: Culpable?
TODD: Yeah.
BEDINGFIELD: She was convicted of sex trafficking.
TODD: Right, right.
BEDINGFIELD: Yes, she is culpable. And I think her -- the question of whether she is too incentivized to provide information that would exonerate Trump kind of necessarily discounts her as a valuable source of information in the way that you're -- that you're describing. And I don't think -- I don't think the base, his base that's upset about this will view her as, as that credible a voice, especially if the information provided is selectively redacted or, you know, doesn't feel like the full, you know, binder full of names that, you know, Pam Bondi and others promised.
HUNT: Yeah. I mean, brad, I think the thing I keep tripping on is like, doesn't any situation where this administration appears to be relying on Ghislaine Maxwell, who exploited these young women and is convicted of it, or that seems lenient toward her, like, doesn't that just make it worse for the president in this case?
TODD: Ghislaine Maxwell needs to be punished for what she did to the full extent, as does everyone else who was involved with it. Let's be -- let's be clear about that.
HUNT: Sure.
TODD: But the administration is barred by law from releasing much of this information because they harm the victims, because, as Ghislaine Maxwell pointed out, it could harm her appeal. So, there are -- it's not like they can just say, here's everything, even if that's what people thought --
HUNT: Well, that didn't stop them from claiming that they could during the campaign. But I mean, I guess that's campaign politics for you, but they're clearly in a mess now. Elie Honig, thank you. I really appreciate having you come back soon.
Our panel is going to stand by.
Coming up next here, more on the top Democrats and Republicans being subpoenaed by the House committee over the Epstein files. Former Trump attorney Bill Brennan is here live. Plus, the FBI now being asked to get involved after Texas Democrats again today prevent Republicans from moving ahead on their controversial redistricting plan.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
STATE REP. DUSTIN BURROWS (R), TEXAS HOUSE SPEAKER: I met with the leadership of the Texas Department of Public Safety to get a full briefing on their efforts to locate and return the members who are actively trying to thwart the legislature from performing its duties.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:21:32]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back.
We are continuing to follow new developments in the Jeffrey Epstein saga. And it is a saga at this point.
The House Oversight Chairman, Republican James Comer subpoenaing nearly a half dozen high profile former officials for closed door depositions on Epstein, including former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Republican led panel also subpoenaing the Justice Department itself for any Epstein files that they have in their possession.
Joining us now is Bill Brennan, one of President Trump's former attorneys.
Bill, it's always wonderful to have you on the show. This is in many ways a table's turn. This is Republican-led House demanding something from a Republican DOJ. It's really unusual. You would have thought under different circumstances that Democrats would have been in charge of this.
Is there any world where the Trump DOJ complies with this subpoena?
WILLIAM J. BRENNAN, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DONALD TRUMP: Well, thanks for having me, Kasie. There may be, because this issue has gotten legs in many different directions. You have the direct appeal that Ms. Maxwell has pending I believe her lawyers filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. You've got the DOJ asking in two different judges, I think, in New York for release of grand jury secret testimony. And now you have this House Oversight Committee issuing subpoenas. You know, in a scenario where it's a Democratic majority in the House
and a Republican DOJ, there might be some stalemate. But in here, in this situation, I think it could happen that -- that the DOJ takes action. If somebody say, is subpoenaed and doesn't show and files, you know, for contempt.
So, it's dangerous for those receiving subpoenas because there could be teeth in the -- in the punishment.
HUNT: Interesting. We were talking in the break here about how the president answered that question from Newsmax about whether he would offer clemency to Ghislaine Maxwell. You're someone who knows the president of the United States.
You've worked with him. You understand a little bit about how he approaches these matters. He would not blanket say, no, I'm not going to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell.
Why? Does he want something from her?
BRENNAN: Well, I don't think that he likes being backed into a corner. I don't think that we should read too much into the lack of an affirmative no as opposed to this isn't the time to discuss it as something like that is what I think the president said. And, you know, words mean very little with respect to future actions or precedents with regard to clemency.
If we look at the immediately prior president, he stated repeatedly, unequivocally that he would not issue a pardon to his son, who had some criminal convictions. And then in the last moments of his presidency, he issued pardons to his son. And a lot of the members of his family.
So those strong words predicted nothing. And I think we should take that same mindset and look at this somewhat equivocal response or general response of the current president has not meaning the negative. In other words, not meaning the fact that, well, this isn't the time to discuss it.
[16:25:00]
There will be a time.
You know, Kasie, I'm of the strong belief as a criminal defense lawyer that this meeting that was held for two days with Mr. Blanche and Ms. Maxwell and her attorneys was not at the behest of the DOJ. They can't demand it. She has a Fifth Amendment right not to talk about anything regarding the case, especially with an amendment pending appeal.
I believe, and I don't know this for sure, but I believe based on decades of doing this kind of work that her lawyers reached out and said something like this to the DOJ, they said, look, we know we went to trial, we know we lost. We got 20 hard years of work off. Why don't we have a sit down under Rule 35 of the federal rules of criminal procedure? Why don't we tell you what we know and maybe get some type of reduction in sentence later? That's not clemency. That's a vehicle to reduce the sentence that's worked into the federal rules of criminal procedure.
So, I mean, that's what I think.
HUNT: Yeah, fair enough. I take your point. I would just add that Todd Blanche himself actually put on the platform X, that it was Pam Bondi who asked him to reach out to Ghislaine Maxwell. Now, that said, I totally take your point. One thing I want to show our audience and ask you about is, you know, I take what you're saying also about the president saying, well, this is not the time to talk about it.
Virginia Giuffre, one of Epstein's victims who died by suicide, her family came out and responded with what they think should happen here. I want to watch that and then we'll talk about it. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SKY ROBERTS, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE'S BROTHER: She deserves to rot in prison where she belongs because of what she's done to my sister and so many other women. And it's absolutely a pure sense of evil.
LANETTE WILSON, VIRGINIA GIUFFRE'S SISTER-IN-LAW: This wasn't someone who was a minor player. This was someone who was an organizer in the sex trafficking ring. She was alongside Jeffrey Epstein. And as Virginia said, she was most of the time worse than him.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: I mean, the idea of any clemency for her, it's a little bit difficult to defend in the court of public opinion anyway. No?
BRENNAN: Well, I would be surprised if the family of that that tragic -- just such a tragic ending to that young woman's life as a victim. She was victimized by so many people. And according to the conviction, including Ms. Maxwell, at least as far as the conviction is concerned, I'd be surprised if they didn't say that.
But having said that, taking the emotions out of it from a legal standpoint, it happens all the time. If you look back, you know, 25 years ago, 20 years ago, Sammy "The Bull" Gravano made a deal with the government. And I think he had -- and I'm sure there were many more, but I think he had 19 murders that they could tie him to. And because his information was so valuable, he got a benefit from the government.
Ms. Maxwell, grotesque as her existence may be to the family of the victim, Ms. Maxwell has information --
HUNT: It looks like we are -- we are losing --
(CROSSTALK
HUNT: Yeah. Fair enough. She does know quite a bit.
The question is, why might it be that the president wants her to -- wants some of that out there?
Bill Brennan, I really appreciate your time, sir. Thank you very much for being here.
All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, new developments right now from Republican leaders in Texas moving to put the Democrats who are out of the state out of a job.
Plus, the very tense, very loud welcome home for one Republican in the heartland.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My question is this, when are you going to stand up --
REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): To your first point there, the bill is actually called, the one Big, Beautiful Bill, and I'm not going to tiptoe around what the answers are, because that's the bill to pass.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:33:20]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BURROWS: Have all members registered?
There being 94 members present, a quorum is not present.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: The Texas House of Representatives, adjourning just moments after they reconvened for a second straight day. Democrats who have left the state to block a vote on redistricting, say they are prepared to stay out of Texas, quote, as long as it takes. The state's attorney general, Ken Paxton, today announced he would seek a court ruling to declare Democrats' seats vacant if they're not back by Friday.
In a statement, Paxton wrote this. Quote, if you don't show up to work, you get fired.
CNN's senior national correspondent Ed Lavandera is inside the Texas state capitol building.
Ed, lawmakers are going to try to establish a quorum again on Friday. I think my question to you is, does the governor have a leg to stand on here?
ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they're going to try the legal process here, which they hadn't done in the last time that this was happened. So, Democrats do not feel that the Republicans on this legal fight to remove them from office have a leg to stand on. Many of them have told us that they believe these are simply hollow threats.
But come Friday, it sounds like the attorney general is going to begin to attempt that process through the courts. But we haven't heard even since that statement, any kind of indication that that's going to change the dynamic here in what Democrats are going to do, what we've kept hearing is that they're willing to stay as long as it takes.
And you know, what exactly that means is still very much up in the air.
[16:35:01]
There's two weeks left in this special legislative session so they could stay through the end of that. I think I heard one Democratic lawmaker saying they could plan on staying two weeks, get to the end of the session, kill this redistricting bill for this one particular session, the governor would very likely call another one. So, all of this would just continue going. But it does seem to kind of indicate an escalation of the Republicans talking about punishing the Democrats for all of this.
And you also saw and we've heard from Senator John Cornyn, who released a letter that he sent to the FBI director urging federal authorities to get involved in the search for the Democrats, where we all know they're in -- or most of them are in Chicago. So, again, you know, some more escalation in terms of the rhetoric that we continue to see around -- around this issue.
HUNT: All right. Ed Lavandera, for us in Texas -- Ed, thank you very much for being there for us. I really appreciate it.
All right. Our panel is back and we are joined by CNN chief political analyst David Axelrod.
Always an honor, Axe. Thank you so much for being here.
DAVID AXELROD, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: Good to be here.
HUNT: So, let's just start with the big -- the big picture here in your view. The bottom line is Democrats don't have a lot of power to actually stop this. This seems to be all that they can do.
Is it the right thing to do?
AXELROD: Look, I think that what has happened here is, is an extraordinary event, right? We redistrict every ten years. That's been the custom and the norm in this country. President Trump called the governor and said, no, let's do it now because I want those extra five seats. We may need to control the house.
So, it really is a break from rules and customs. And the question for Democrats is if the other team is playing tackle, do you play touch? I mean, can you afford to do that with the stakes? And that's the decision that they made. You know, they did leave the state once before in 2021 over election procedural matter that also went to sort of the kind of rules and laws and customs -- well, particularly norms that were being threatened.
So, you know, I understand why they're doing what they're doing, and they do -- look, its it's not a slam dunk that they can't continue to kick this can down the field beyond when it would be relevant. Which is why I think you see some of the really extreme measures being proposed today to wrangle them back.
HUNT: Axe, I'm glad you mentioned the tackle versus touch because this has been this ongoing debate really among Democrats. Defend the institutions, defend the norms, or break the glass --
AXELROD: Yeah.
HUNT: -- to fight Republicans. I want to show you what J.B. Pritzker, governor of your home state, possible presidential candidate had to say about this because, of course, the state of Illinois is a place where if Democrats use the same tactics as Republicans, they could potentially draw seats that would help them in the House.
Let's watch what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. JB PRITZKER (D), ILLINOIS: Here in the state of Illinois, it is possible to redistrict. It's not something that I want to do. It's not something that any of us want to have to do. There are no rules anymore, apparently. And so we're going to have to play by the set of rules that, well, that are being set out in front of us, which, frankly, none of us believes is the right way to operate.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: What do you make of that, David?
AXELROD: Well, a few things. One is it's not -- it's not easy in Illinois, there are already 14 Democrats out of 17 seats. So, the legislature, the legislature took care of that back in the last redistricting. And I don't know how.
But the other thing is, you've got J.B. Pritzker, who is potentially running for president here. You've got Gavin Newsom running for president in California. This is, I think there are a lot of Democrats cheering them on in this. So, you have to factor that in here.
And then in Texas, you've got Paxton, the attorney general, running for the U.S. Senate against John Cornyn and you -- and so Cornyn's proposing FBI guys to go after the legislators. Under what grounds? I don't know. And Paxton saying they should be relieved from office. On what grounds? I don't know.
But I'll tell you this, if that happens, if either of those things happen, they're going to have a much less good chance of winning those congressional seats, because they're going to be a lot of outraged voters who saw people they voted for getting kicked out of office for trying to protect the integrity of the process.
[16:40:01]
So, you know, I think there are a lot of twists and turns in this story.
HUNT: Yeah, it's worth noting, Governor Abbott, who is appearing on another network or did appear on another network, says that they're, quote, working with officials in other states to find ways in which we can try to arrest the Texas Democratic members in other states and bring them back to the state of Texas.
Brad Todd, is that a good idea?
TODD: Well, they're legally obligated to be there, and not all of them may be in other states. Some of them may be just lurking in Texas. There are six Democrats who are staying and staying in Austin at the capitol. They need six more to come back to have a quorum.
I find it really ironic that they went to Illinois, which is the partisan gerrymandering capital of America. And David, as David pointed out, Democrats have 14 of the 17 seats, even though Republicans got 47 percent of the House vote in the last election.
And anybody can go Google this and look at the map. It's crazy. The Illinois map is bad on its face, so I find it funny that they're there.
The other thing I find interesting is this Texas map that's being proposed creates five new seats. Four of them are majority Hispanic. So, what Democrats are saying is, please don't make us run in majority Hispanic districts because Hispanics are moving rapidly to the Republican side.
BEDINGFIELD: No, what Democrats are saying is don't move the goalposts in the middle of the game. Come on. That's absurd.
That's like suggesting -- suggesting that having the Republicans at Donald Trump's direction essentially come in and say, we are going to put forth a bill in the middle of this, this session to rewrite, rewrite the map to take seats away from Democrats and give them to Republicans so that we have a better advantage in the House of Representatives. That's the conversation.
(CROSSTALK)
TODD: But that's what's happening. Kathy Hochul did it until the court stopped her. She tried to do it mid-decade.
THOMPSON: I think -- I think what you're seeing right now is that we are in the middle of a partisan race to the bottom here, where every single the political incentives that both of you have lined out and that David lined out for every single potential 2020 candidate, not just the Democratic side, but the Republican side. Go to every single red and blue state and try to redraw the map.
You saw J.D. Vance is going to -- go to Indiana, try to redraw that map. You're going to see probably similar pushes in Maryland to redraw that map, J.B. Pritzker, Gavin Newsom. You are seeing a race to the bottom where every single state with an ambitious governor is going to try to redraw their map in order to give their party just one little leg up.
KANNO-YOUNGS: Which it's worth reminding, like is legal, right? The Supreme Court did say that this process, even if it's for -- to gain a political edge at this point, still is permitted.
But I agree. I mean, when you zoom out and look at both parties trying to get an edge on each other here, it's just important to remind folks that, like, this process is supposed to happen every ten years when the census comes out traditionally and we've moved so far from that, it's very emblematic of just how divided our politics have become here, that this process were blatantly saying is really an effort to get a partisan edge here, in this case for the midterms.
And by the way, this does speak to anxiety in the White House over the midterms as well. Like any incumbency, usually when the midterms come around.
HUNT: Yeah, I was going to give this last word to Axe, but I think we've lost his shot.
So, Kate, for you, I was going to say that, you know, we saw Michelle Obama campaign against Donald Trump with the slogan, when they go low, we go high. Is that over?
BEDINGFIELD: I think it's darn close. I think the Trump's reelection, this last election cycle, I think was a wake up call for a lot of Democrats. I think, you know, ten years ago, people felt like there was a lot of bluster behind Donald Trump and maybe not so much action, not so much. There was a lot of shock value, but not so much willingness to actually go through with some of this stuff. And I think that's simply not the case anymore.
And so, I think you have Democrats looking at where they can take extreme measures to try to stop him in the short term, which I think is what is happening in Texas. And you certainly have Democrats who feel who felt demoralized by the outcome in 2024, who feel like they want to see their leaders fighting. I think they're -- they're feeling that energy from this experience in Texas.
But the larger race to the bottom, I think is an incredibly dangerous thing.
HUNT: All right. David Axelrod, thank you so much. And I think we're going to have a lot more chances to talk about whether if this they go low, we go high thing is over for Democrats. I hope you'll come back and we can continue this conversation. I really appreciate it.
All right. Coming up next here, the not-so-friendly reception for one Republican congressman in his deep red district.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:48:44]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: How much does it cost for fascism? How much do the taxpayers have to pay for a fascist country?
(CHEERING)
REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): Americans went to the polls in November, and they had a choice between a Democratic candidate that had an open border. No enforcement. Fentanyl drugs, human trafficking. And they had a choice between that and a candidate that said, close the border.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: One Republican congressman getting an earful at his town hall on Monday, immediately confronted with jeers when he tried to answer an onslaught of questions. This is one of the first chances that voters had to confront Nebraska Congressman Mike Flood since the passage of the president's so-called Big, Beautiful Bill. Suffice to say, that bill, not a hit with everyone.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why did you cut SNAP and health care research?
(APPLAUSE)
FLOOD: We do not have unlimited money in the United States.
(BOOS)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
[16:50:05]
HUNT: All right. Our panel is back.
Brad Todd, you work on electing Republicans like Mike Flood, also, of course, more on the Senate side. But obviously, sometimes there are activist groups that bus people to these town halls, but they do still reflect a certain level of energy and effort.
What should we take away from what happened to this congressman about the state of the country writ large?
TODD: I think this is one more thing that the smartphone has ruined in America in the --
HUNT: The town hall?
TODD: Yes, the town hall in the days before. The idea that you could be your own cameraman and you could -- you could get famous online. People didn't go perform at town halls. They went to ask legitimate questions that they wanted answers for. They wanted honest answers for.
Now you have a lot of people trying to --
HUNT: I don't know, I feel like I covered town halls in 2012 and people were -- (CROSSTALK)
TODD: We had smartphones in those days.
HUNT: Yeah, barely, though.
TODD: I'm talking about back in the '90s, back in the good old days.
(LAUGHTER)
BEDINGFIELD: When we're watching PBS.
HUNT: When you walk to school uphill both ways.
TODD: Town halls were actually --
HUNT: With no shoes on.
TODD: I was a congressional press secretary. We had real town halls that people listened, my gosh.
(LAUGHTER)
TODD: So, you know, I think it's unfortunate because the public does need to be able to interact with their member of Congress, but they shouldn't get up there and shout, and they shouldn't get up there and ask questions they already know the answers to. They should actually honestly want them.
That voter did not want -- honestly want an answer from Mike Flood. She was trying to make a show for herself.
HUNT: Can I just say I give kudos to any member of Congress that gets up on a stage in front of an audience in their district? Not enough of them do it. Too many of them don't.
But, Kate, what did you make of it?
BEDINGFIELD: Well, I take Brad's point, and it is certainly true that sometimes in these town halls, they are -- they are organized. They're activists who are paid for. That's certainly true.
But I think any constituent has the right to get up and express their frustration and anger at their member of Congress. And I think the fact that he was unable to get through a basic town hall defending, by the way, the big signature piece of legislation that they just passed that they want to be out talking up without getting a bunch of blowback is -- should be a big warning sign for the Republicans.
THOMPSON: None of the voters that you showed up seemed to me like they were Republicans before the last election. So this -- well, I don't necessarily know if it's a sign that the electorate is moving one way or another, but what it does show is that Democrats, the Democratic base is energized and is upset and angry and does want to fight.
And also, you can see them, they're responding to politicians that are showing that they want to fight Trump, too.
HUNT: Zolan, let's look at some of our big picture numbers. We did a poll in July here at CNN on the one big beautiful bill. And feelings right now, oppose, 61 percent, support, 39 percent; That obviously -- that oppose number is higher than 51, right? So, it's definitely reflecting something that's more than the typical partisan split that we see in our head-to-head polling.
I think the question is, is that going to stay that way? Is it going to start to move? What do you think this says about all of it?
KANNO-YOUNGS: Well, Republicans certainly hope it doesn't stay the same. That's -- you look at this town hall in isolation. Maybe it's one thing, but you pair it with the with these poll numbers on this bill that the president and Republicans are hoping they can ride and message to the midterms. Yeah, it signifies a huge challenge.
I also think it's very interesting that Vice President Vance has been tasked with essentially traveling around the country to sell this package with right now, according to polls, is he faces an uphill climb in in building support around this. And for him, he's not just thinking about the midterms. He's also thinking about his political future and potentially the future of the Republican Party and Republican leadership, too. So those numbers here, I mean, signify huge challenge here on messaging this package. And thus far show that talking about cutting taxes or excuse me, talking about extending Trump's tax cuts hasn't outweighed the concerns over the cuts to the Social Safety net that are also in this package.
HUNT: Alex, you said that none of these voters that you saw, you thought that they were -- you did not think that they were Republicans before. There was one question to Congressman Flood about the Epstein files, just to return to that for a second. I want to watch it and let's evaluate on Alex's criteria.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Why are you covering up the Epstein files?
(APPLAUSE)
FLOOD: At the next pro forma session of the Congress, you'll find my name as a sponsor on a resolution from the House Rules Committee to release the Epstein files to protect the victims and not revictimize them again. I am for the release of those records.
(CHEERS)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: Cheers there. Also, I think we should note that that woman is actually the moderator, so she is reading questions from different voters. So, but --
THOMPSON: But this is why the Epstein case is so fascinating, because it's one of the only times that I can ever remember where Trump is actually going against what his base wants and what he promised his base that he was going to do. And that's why you're seeing a lot of Republican lawmakers get a little queasy and actually, in very rare circumstances, he's basically defying the President Trump in a way that Republican lawmakers usually don't.
HUNT: Yeah, Brad?
TODD: Well, you know, Democrats --
HUNT: You don't want --
TODD: Democrats have suddenly gotten really interested in releasing the Epstein files when they were not interested at all when they controlled the Department of Justice in the White House. So, I think perhaps if these Republican lawmakers should come back to Congress, if they're going to put it on the floor to release it, they should pair it up with something Democrats don't want to do and put it on the same bill and see how Democrats vote.
BEDINGFIELD: Can I ask a question? Do you think that if the Biden Justice Department had released Epstein-related files, that the MAGA base would have accepted that as --
HUNT: Hold on, unfortunately --
BEDINGFIELD: I mean --
HUNT: I have to cut you off, Kate, because we have to listen to the president of the United States who's taking questions. My apologies.
REPORTER: -- from any fire danger that the state clears away brush and state parks very -- the reason why this last fire happened in Pacific Palisades. What can you ensure for that?
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Well, as you know, Brian, we have -- I've been fighting with them for a long time about allowing the water to come down from the Pacific Northwest, essentially. And we actually opened up that water pretty strongly. We got a lot of opposition from the governor, and we opened it up anyway. And the water is coming down that we want. It opened further.
They have a lot of water. They send it out into the Pacific Ocean in order to protect the smelt. It's a little tiny fish that's not doing very well, especially when they don't have water. They really do badly. Okay?
But it's a fish, environmentally protected, even though it's in many other areas. I think they just use that as an excuse to smelt. You'll check that out, but I think it's just an excuse.
They've got to allow full water and they're working with the Lee Zeldin is really helping us a lot, but they've got to allow the full complement of water to come down from the pacific northwest. There is so much water. If Gavin Newsom let the water come down, see the way I pronounce his name properly for a change, if this guy allowed the water to come down from the Pacific Northwest, they have so much water, they don't know what to do with it.
All of those sprinklers would have gone on. All of those people with those beautiful houses with sprinklers in the ceilings and with the water. The fire pumps outside, all that water. They didn't have any water because they wouldn't let the water come down.
There's so much water there. I -- at first, when I got involved with this issue in my first term, I said to the congressman, they took me up because they wanted to show me the fields where they could farm ten times more product. You'd see -- you'd see 100 acres, and you'd see one acre or two acres, beautiful green. It's very vibrant. So -- but they don't give it the water that its entitled to.
And I said, oh, they have a drought. I said, no, they told me they don't have a drought. They don't. The Democrats don't allow the water to come down into the farms and into anywhere. By the time it gets down, even into certain parts of California, it's fed out into stupidly into the Pacific Ocean.
If that water were allowed. So, we broke into it and we allowed it to come down and it come, come down in a higher level. And we want that. And we're demanding that of the governor.
The other thing is we'll do anything necessary to keep the Olympics safe, including using our national guard or military. Okay?
No, I'll use -- I'll use -- I will use the national guard or military. This is going to be so safe -- and if we have to, because, obviously you have a mayor that is not very competent. She can't get the permits for the people. You know, the people are still waiting for their permits.
Lee Zeldin got them the federal permit, which is ten times harder to get, and everybody can build on the federal basis. And that's the hard one. But the mayor, Bass, she cannot -- she refuses to or cannot get them permits. They're waiting.
And I was there right after the fires, and I saw all these beautiful people standing by their homes, ready to get in and get to work, and they're waiting for their permits, and they're still waiting for their state permits and city permits.
It's a disgrace. It's a disgrace.
Red dress, red dress. Yes, ma'am.
REPORTER: Thank you, Mr. President.
TRUMP: Thank you.
REPORTER: India says that the U.S. imports Russian uranium, chemicals, fertilizers, while criticizing their energy imports. Your response to that, sir?
TRUMP: I don't know anything about it. I'd have to check, but well get back to you on that. Yeah. Please?
REPORTER: Mr. President?
TRUMP: Yeah. Go ahead.
REPORTER: Have you seen the Hamas released video of Israeli hostage Evyatar David starving and being forced to dig his own grave in a Hamas tunnel?
TRUMP: I have, yeah.
REPORTER: Your reaction?
TRUMP: I think it's horrible. I think it's horrible. And I hope a lot of people do get to see it as bad as it is, because I think it's a horrible thing.
Yeah. Behind you, please?
REPORTER: Mr. President?
TRUMP: Yes?
REPORTER: Can you speak to just how you know this drop off in foreign born workers is going to benefit Americans? And will it force American companies to pay fairer wages to American workers?
