Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

White House: Plans For Putin-Zelenskyy Meeting "Underway"; Texas GOP Preps Redistricting Vote For Tomorrow In House; New: House Committee To Make Epstein Files Public With Redactions. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired August 19, 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: Maybe make it a karaoke night at the nightclub?

That's all for me this afternoon. Thank you so much for joining us.

"THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT" starts in just a few seconds.

(MUSIC)

DANA BASH, CNN HOST: Breaking news, the White House says that Vladimir Putin has agreed to meet with Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. Kasie Hunt is off. I'm Dana Bash.

It would be the most significant diplomatic moment yet in the push for peace. An in-person meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy. But are the two really ready to sit down three and a half years into Russia's war against Ukraine?

This afternoon, the president's spokeswoman painted it as if it's a question of where and when, not if.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: He's agreeable to the idea of having President Zelenskyy and President Putin get together. And I understand accommodations for that meeting are underway.

I can assure you that the United States government and the Trump administration is working with both Russia and Ukraine to make that bilateral happen, as we speak.

REPORTER: Did Putin promise to do a meeting with Zelenskyy? A direct meeting in the coming weeks?

LEAVITT: He has. And I just answered that question for you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: My panel is here, along with CNN senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes and CNN senior international correspondent Fred Pleitgen. He is in Moscow. Kristen, I want to start with you at the White House. You were at that

press briefing. What more is the White House saying about this potential Putin/Zelenskyy sit down.

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I mean, Dana, there were a lot of questions about whether or not Putin had actually agreed to this. Sit down. We know or we believe that he has agreed to a trilateral involving president Trump. But the Kremlin was pretty cagey on whether or not he would sit down directly with Zelenskyy.

And you heard that first part of that when she said, the United States is working with both governments. That was the first time when I asked her about whether or not Putin had agreed. The second time is when she said, yes, he has. And that, of course, is big news if he actually sits down for this meeting.

Now, one of the questions we asked was whether or not or how long President Trump would actually wait for Putin to arrange this meeting, because obviously, as we've reported, there are European officials, U.S. officials all very concerned that Putin's endgame here is to just draw this out as long as possible, to continue to gain more territory in Ukraine. And that means, of course, that the war would go on and the killing would continue. And there was no direct timeline on how long Trump might wait for this meeting to be arranged before intervening. Instead, it was kind of just talking about the threats that Trump in the past has leveled against Russia, namely those secondary sanctions.

So, in terms of where this meeting would take place, or when we did hear from the German chancellor yesterday, who seemed to indicate that Putin's agreement to this would be within the next two weeks, we still don't have that nailed down from either. The Kremlin or the White House. But of course, that would be an expedited timeline for these two leaders to sit down. And of course, as you noted, this would be a huge meeting, a three and a half years into this war.

BASH: It sure would be.

Kristen, thank you so much for that reporting.

And, Fred, over to you in Moscow. Earlier we heard basically refusal to commit to that Putin meeting with Zelenskyy. So, which is it right now? Is there a promise or is it just being done behind the scenes and publicly? The Kremlin is playing it. Forgive me, but cagey.

FREDERIK PLEITGEN, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, it could -- it could be -- being done behind the scenes, but there certainly isn't any official confirmation that Vladimir Putin has indeed agreed to sit down with Vladimir Zelenskyy of Ukraine for a -- for a face to face meeting the Russians so far saying and this comes in the form of the Russian foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov. Earlier today in an interview, he said that the Russians aren't a -- categorically against any format of meeting, be it bilateral or possibly even trilateral. But then he also said that any such meeting needs to be well prepared.

Now, that's not the Russians saying they're not going to do this or they're going to drag this out. That's the Russians also not saying, though, that they've committed to a meeting between Vladimir Zelenskyy and Vladimir Putin. And that is definitely going to happen.

And of course, that's something that was mirrored yesterday. Also in the remarks immediately after the Trump Putin phone call, when senior kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov came out and said that the two leaders said that it was possible to raise the Ukrainian-Russian talks to different levels of the participants.

That also could mean that it could be the presidents of the two countries, but doesn't necessarily have to mean that. Of course, one of the obstacles in the way is that the Russians have painted Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as they put it, as an illegitimate president, because of course, there haven't been elections in Ukraine due to martial law.

Vladimir Putin himself. Dana, in the past has said he's not against having a face-to-face meeting with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but that certain conditions would have to be met. And the latest, he said this was about two weeks ago, that those conditions are still far from being met.

[16:05:10]

Nevertheless, the Russians do indicate that there was significant progress on U.S. Russia relations at that summit in Alaska. They feel that the Trump administration has a much better understanding now of Russia's position of what they call the root causes of the conflict of Ukraine, and that certainly does make diplomatic developments very possible.

One of the things that we are seeing here, though, from the Russians, is them sort of taunting some of Americas European allies that were at that table yesterday. The former president of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, he came out and said that those leaders did not manage to persuade what he calls Daddy Trump to side with them instead of the Russian position, Dana.

BASH: Definitely, a lot of taunting going on. Thank you so much, both of you, Fred and Kristen.

And my panel is now joining me in THE ARENA. Former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, Evelyn Farkas, host of "The Chuck Toddcast", the one and only Chuck Todd, CNN political commentator and former Biden White House communications director Kate Bedingfield, and CNN senior political commentator Scott Jennings.

Hello, everybody.

Evelyn, I want to start with you. This was your -- you were on this desk, so to speak, on this on this beat from the inside and knowing what you know about these players, about this region, where do you think things really stand right now?

EVELYN FARKAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, THE MCCAIN INSTITUTE: At a standstill, Dana. I mean, they're not going to meet one on one. President Putin won't meet with President Zelenskyy, not because there's martial law, because there's a war going on in Ukraine. It's because President Putin does not recognize the sovereign state of Ukraine and the democratically elected president of Ukraine. He believes that he is an irritant and not worthy of him meeting.

I think that when the Russians talk about meeting at a higher level, they're probably willing to do that. But what would that mean? Thats not at the presidential level. So, I'm unfortunately not very optimistic at this moment in time. And Vladimir Putin wants time for the battlefield.

BASH: Which he is not stopping. I mean, he continues to bomb and people continue to die. Really every -- every night since this these talks have started.

So, Chuck, you have said in that briefing room through several presidents, that moment when Karoline Leavitt especially given what Evelyn is saying and given the fact that we don't have any specifics or concrete evidence that this meeting is going to happen, I think they're just trying to will it to happen and make it so. And is that even really feasible with this kind of player?

CHUCK TODD, HOST, THE CHUCK TODDCAST: Well, I sort of want to look at this through the prism of Putin here a little bit. I think sometimes, we sometimes look at everything through our own prisms of left right politics or domestic politics.

If you're Putin, you're probably not going to have an American president that you can deal with that you're comfortable dealing with like this one. Be careful alienating him too much.

I feel like -- I will say this, I feel like President Trump has been convinced that, hey, you have more leverage over him than maybe people give you credit for. Because, number one, he doesn't like dealing with any other American president. And if he doesn't give you a few wins here, then you're going to lose him. And then when you lose him, he, you know, you already have a united Europe anyway.

So, I really think it's going to be -- I'm curious to see will the -- will President Trump use this leverage that he has where he can go to Putin? Look, you're never going to have a friendlier American president. I think the Russians get that. I do think Putin's kind of disrespected Trump here. Why not hand him a two-week ceasefire?

The fact that he couldn't even give him that two-week ceasefire, to me, I think Putin sort of mishandling this a little bit, you know, because Trump's got plenty of leverage. Trump could say tomorrow, you know what Ukraine and NATO, I'm going to support that. If you don't come to the table in three weeks.

BASH: There's any way -- TODD: I'm not saying -- I'm not. But the fact that he's talking about

security guarantees is at least a step. The point, I would say is, is I actually think Trump has a lot more leverage here. I think there's many of us that want him to use more of it. But Putin's the one miscalculating here because if he alienates this moment, if he misses this moment to essentially enhance Trump, which in the long term could help Putin's relationship.

So, I find his miscalculation here a head scratcher. I don't understand why Putin doesn't understand. He's never going to be in a better position that, as far as diplomacy is concerned with the West than he is right now. Better be careful alienating.

BASH: I think -- you've been in the White House as well, and obviously you were there when this invasion happened. The -- I think the answer to that is that Putin's playing a totally different game than everybody else is, and his game is as Fred and as Evelyn were talking about. He doesn't even see Ukraine as anything other than part of Russia/the former USSR.

[16:10:05]

KATE BEDINGFIELD: Right. And I think -- it's kind of the flip side of your point there, Chuck, though, is, you know, I think Trump has kind of tied both of his hands behind his back. I mean, his political base has said we will not tolerate you sending additional weapons to Ukraine. Trump himself has said, I will apply tougher sanctions. I will apply tougher economic measures and then has repeatedly not done it.

So, what are the tools that he intends to use here to try to pressure? Now, it may be he has more leverage because of the positive relationship, but the fact that essentially what he's done, Trump is use this moment to bring Putin to the United States, welcome him here, quite literally, roll out a red carpet. And demand, no, really, no extractions that we can see.

I'm willing to -- I'm willing to acknowledge that a lot of these conversations necessarily happen privately. But all the all the world has seen is Donald Trump essentially giving Putin an unchecked platform. And Trump has also tied his own two hands behind his back.

So I don't see how he's doing anything here. But giving Putin the time that he wants.

BASH: Scott, I want you to listen to just to Kate's point about the fact that the base doesn't want U.S. troops on the ground, the president ruled that out definitively this morning on Fox. But even beyond troops, what Chuck was talking about security guarantees that has left some people who are pretty influential in Trump's world a little bit perplexed. Listen to Steve Bannon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEVE BANNON, PODCAST HOST: I'm just lost how a game -- how us -- how the United States offering an Article 5 commitment for a security guarantee to Ukraine is a win for the United States. I mean, this war started because of the globalists at the E.U., the European Union and NATO.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: The stated goal of this administration is for Ukraine to exit this sovereign and free, and to be an ally of the United States. We're going to be in business with them on certain issues. And so, if that's your stated policy, you have to put in place guarantees to keep them that way. So that's number one.

Number two, President Trump hasn't always listened to Mr. Bannon. He didn't listen to him on Iran and ended up making a righteous decision to take out their nuclear facilities.

And number three, just to counter your point, he's already using his tools, getting NATO to go to 5 percent on spending those countries, using NATO as the vehicle to get more lethal weapons into Ukraine, putting tariffs on India for, you know, buying Russian energy. He's already showing the world what he intends to do here, and that is use American leverage in a number of venues to negotiate this out from a position of strength.

They've also said and I think its true, you have to accept the world as it is. This is not going to end any other way than a negotiated peace. The only people to negotiate with here are the people involved, Putin and Zelenskyy. He met with Putin. He then brings Zelenskyy and the European allies to the White House.

It was a show of strength last night. And now the fact that there's news leaking out that they are discussing security guarantees for Ukraine ought to tell you how serious he is about ending this in a way that meets the administrations stated goal, a free and sovereign Ukraine that is an ally of the United States.

BASH: And another way -- go ahead.

BEDINGFIELD: Well, I just quickly but by continuing to set public deadlines for himself and then blow through them, isn't he indicating to Putin that he's not serious about applying this pressure? I take your point about the about some of the economic pieces that are in place. But he stated directly that he would put additional sanctions if Putin did not come to a ceasefire within two weeks. And he didn't, and instead what he did was invite Putin to come to the United States, do a photo op and go home.

JENNINGS: Well, they didn't have a photo op. They had a meeting. And the meeting then led to the meeting on Monday. And this is hopefully going to lead to the next one.

And it's not going to be a quick process and everybody wants it to end and everybody wants it to end, as of yesterday. But I think they are pulling out all the stops here to end this as quickly as they can. But you're dealing with two people that you don't really control. You don't really control Zelenskyy and you don't -- certainly don't control Putin. And they have to -- they have to participate --

BEDINGFIELD: No question is challenging. The only person who has said it isn't challenging is Donald Trump, who said he could end it on day one.

BASH: Well, and I want to go to back to something that Fred mentioned that he's hearing in Moscow, which is that Russian officials are saying that they feel like after these two meetings that President Trump had, that he has a better understanding of the root causes of this.

Now, let's just be clear. The root cause is Vladimir Putin invaded a sovereign democracy, full stop.

Listen to the way the president described what happened this morning.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (via telephone): The Russia is a powerful military nation. You know, whether people like it or not, it's a powerful nation. It's a much bigger nation. It's not a war that should have been started. You don't do that. You don't take -- you don't take on a nation that's ten times your size.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[16:15:00]

BASH: Again, they didn't take on the nation that's ten times their size. The opposite happened. But the reason I wanted to play that is because it speaks to the message that President Trump is trying to send to Putin, that he is still saying the kinds of things that Putin wants to hear.

FARKAS: Yeah, I mean, this harkens back, Dana, to the beginning of the Trump, this Trump administration, where President Trump said, you know, that it was Ukraine's fault that the war started and that the war itself is Ukraine's fault.

We know, because I was in the Pentagon in 2014 when Russia invaded Ukraine, and then in 2022, we all saw that Putin took it to another level. He violated human rights to the nth degree, you know, torturing people, men, women and children, kidnapping children, raping, you know, killing at a at a level that we didn't see prior to that.

So clearly, Russia is the aggressor here, and the root cause is their neo imperialism. And that's what President Trump doesn't always seem to understand. He doesn't understand that the ethnic historical context, he thinks that everything can be solved transactionally.

And some of the things like Scott's point, some of the things that he's done are correct. But then he turns around and does some of the things that Kate pointed to that are actually fly in the face of exerting the kind of influence that we have the potential to actually solve this problem, if you will. TODD: Look, this is a worldview issue, right? Donald Trump believes in

the rules of the jungle. The bigger are in charge, the smaller have to. Even if you're -- even if you have the moral ground, doesn't matter. You don't have -- you don't have the strength here.

So, this is a case where I think this is why some people, while we all may people may have mistaken his support of Russia in some sort of nefarious way when it's he just views it as well. Russia and China are the big people and we have to deal with them differently than you do the others, which doesn't sit well with people that believe in constitutional republics.

BASH: Things like that. That's a good point.

Evelyn, thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it.

Everybody else, stand by.

Up next, former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is here with his take on the fast moving headlines around Russia's war on Ukraine, including the chances of that meeting between Putin and Zelenskyy. Will it ever happen?

Plus, Democrats fled the state for two weeks to avoid voting on a GOP plan to create five Republican seats. Now, one Texas Democratic lawmaker is refusing to leave the state house chamber. Why? We'll speak live with her this hour.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:21:53]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: Putin told me, years -- it was years that he -- that he didn't speak to anybody from the White House. You saw that when he got off his plane. I got off my plane. Theres a warmth there that you can't -- you know, there's a -- there's a decent feeling.

It's a good thing. Not a bad thing. People say, oh, that's such a terrible thing.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: That was this morning. President Trump describing his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin. The dynamic between the two leaders is at the very core of President Trump's push for a peace deal, even as Russia continues its daily deadly attacks on Ukraine.

I'm joined now by Leon Panetta, former defense secretary and CIA director under President Obama.

Secretary Panetta, it's so good to see you. I want you to start by picking up on President Trump's comments, talking about the warm relationship he has with Vladimir Putin. What is your take on that and how it does play into what President

Trump is trying to achieve?

LEON PANETTA, FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY: Well, look, I think it's not a bad thing to have relationships with key leaders around the world. It's probably not a bad idea to even have a good relationship with an adversary. But the real issue, as always, is whether or not that results in real progress.

And results in really trying to achieve the goals that you're after because when you're dealing with Putin, it isn't just about pretty please. It's not about having a good relationship. It's about having to bargain with somebody who is not trustworthy and who has a set of goals that he wants to achieve. And your ability to basically make clear to that kind of individual that he cannot have his way is very important as to whether or not any progress is achieved, I'm afraid that's what -- what's missing from this relationship.

BASH: Presumably, there are still assessments from the intelligence community about what Vladimir Putin really wants here, what his intent is. Have you seen any indication that President Trump is heeding those assessments as he tries to find a peace deal?

PANETTA: Well, you know, I wish he would, frankly. One of my concerns about all of these meetings is just how much preparation is actually going in to these meetings in order to try to achieve some conclusion. And if all you're doing is meeting, to be meeting and not really knowing where you're headed -- you know, the chances are Putin's going to succeed here, and just playing for time.

I think it's very important, if you're going to deal with somebody like Putin, that you have to be credible. And I think the president has heard himself on his credibility here. He said he wanted a ceasefire, he didn't get it.

[16:25:01]

He says he was going to implement sanctions, that didn't happen. He said if he didn't get what he wanted, there was going to be severe consequences -- that has not happened. And when the president keeps backing off from the threats that are made, then it clearly undermines your credibility.

Look, the only thing a president has really, when it comes to power is the power of his word. And whether or not he's going to stand by it. And if that's under question, then it really does undermine your ability to try to get anybody to do anything.

BASH: So, basically, what you're saying is that by -- these are my words, not yours. Crying wolf on all of these threats that President Trump put out there leading up to the Alaska summit. I say crying wolf, because he didn't get what he said he wanted, and then he didn't follow through on his threats, that Vladimir Putin isn't taking him seriously.

I mean, how would you add to what you just said? PANETTA: Yeah, I think -- I think the problem is that he essentially

is capitulating to Putin. And Putin understands that. And as a result of that, Putin has no incentive to really come forward.

Look, I think the only way that you get Putin to get serious about negotiations is if you clearly say to Putin, you are not going to win this war. I mean, the fact that Putin said he wants to eliminate the root causes of the of the war -- well, the root cause of the war was his invasion of Ukraine because he thought it was part of Russia. If you're going to eliminate the root cause of the war, Putin wins.

What President Trump has to do is to look Putin in the eye and say, my friend, you are not going to win this war. And the way you basically force that issue is to, in fact, put sanctions on, it's to give the weapons that Ukraine needs in order to fight this war, because that's the kind of action that Putin understands. And when he realizes that he's not going to be able to win this war, that he's not going to be able to get Trump to somehow cut a deal for him. Thats when we begin to move toward some kind of long-term peace.

BASH: Yeah. And so far, the way that President Trump is clearly dealing with Putin is by playing his game, suggesting that the root causes have something to do with Ukraine or even the U.S.

On that note, I do want to talk about something. Weve been hearing a lot more from the president and his spokespeople repeatedly blaming the predecessors here in the United States, his presidential predecessors.

Listen to what the Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said, just this afternoon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

LEAVITT: Under George W. Bush, Russia invaded Georgia. Under Barack Obama. Russia took Crimea. Under Joe Biden, Russia invaded Ukraine, but under President Trump, Russia did not invade nor take anything.

President Trump is the only president this century, Republican or Democrat, who has held Russia in check and ensured peace in Europe.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: I want to make clear you left the Obama administration before Russia invaded Ukraine, Crimea, to be specific, in 2014. But broadly, what do you make of those claims?

PANETTA: You know, I think it's time for President Trump to recognize that he's president of the United States and has to accept responsibility for what's happening. And stop blaming others. I think -- I think that's really a sign of weakness when you start blaming others for the reality of the issues that you're confronting in your administration.

These are Trump's issues. Now, he said he would end the war in Ukraine the day after he was inaugurated. That did not happen. He said he would end the war in Gaza. That did not happen.

The reality is that the conflicts that are taking place now in a very dangerous world that we live in, are now the responsibility of Donald Trump, not past presidents, not history, but Donald Trump.

BASH: Leon Panetta, former defense secretary, CIA director, thank you so much for your time. Appreciate it, sir.

PANETTA: Good to be with you, Dana.

BASH: And coming up, what the Republican-led House Oversight Committee is saying today about releasing the Epstein files.

[16:30:06]

Plus, one Texas Democrat is refusing to leave the House floor as Republicans move ahead with their controversial redistricting plan. She's here live, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STATE REP. GENE WU (D), TEXAS: The quorum break was successful I think beyond our wildest dreams. We never expected the American public to come in with such amazing support.

STATE REP. MIHAELA PLESA (D), TEXAS: We have woken the nation up. They realize that the power is in their hands.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: After spending the past two weeks out of the state of Texas to prevent Republicans from voting on their redistricting plan, a majority of Texas House Democrats are now back in the Lone Star State.

[16:35:06]

That GOP plan to redraw maps and give Republicans five more seats is now likely to pass this week. Now, in an attempt to keep Democrats from fleeing the state again, the House speaker announced they could only leave the House floor if they signed what Democrats are calling a permission slip and agreed to be under law enforcement escort until the House reconvenes.

One Democrat, Representative Nicole Collier, refused. Instead, she is opting to stay on the floor where she has been for about 28 hours now. And she joins me now from inside the chamber there in Austin.

Thank you so much for being here.

First question is, what are you hoping to achieve by staying on the House floor there?

STATE REP. NICOLE COLLIER (D-TX): Well, thank you for having me. You know what? Sometimes you just got to take a stand. Even when you

face adversity. I am exercising my constitutional right to oppose. I just don't feel comfortable. I feel like this is wrong. That they are exercising this type of control over another person just to get what they want.

It's un-American. It's not. It's not right. Just because you have the ability to do it doesn't mean that you should do it. And so I'm taking a stand.

BASH: And when you say it, what you're talking about is leaving. And having a Texas law enforcement follow you around. Is that what you're taking a stand against?

COLLIER: Well, I'm talking about the call of the House. You know, it's not just the call of the house. It's the fact that we have to agree to be released into the custody of DPS. Not that they just monitor us, but we are in the custody of DPS. That's the agreement.

As if we are common criminals and we have not done anything wrong. We have exercised our constitutional right to deny a quorum. And there's nothing illegal about it.

BASH: Before this interview, during the break, you were saying that you slept in one of those chairs. We can see behind you. I guess when you did sleep, you have some water. We have a picture. You have a pillow there.

What are you eating? Can people bring you food? Can you leave to use the restroom?

COLLIER: Yes, I can leave to use the restroom, but I'm not -- again, the doors are locked. We are in lockdown. They have closed the gallery. They've even cut off the cameras that typically run 24 hours a day in this chamber. They've cut those off because they don't want to see what's going on.

And so we're live streaming ourselves at all times so that the people can see. We want to bring transparency and accountability to government. And so, we have to do it on our own. Weve got to take matters in our own hand. I don't know if you can hear, but there's people out there chanting, they're fed up as well.

And so, I appreciate everyone who has become involved and engaged. You know, just moments ago, I got a call from Vice President Kamala Harris. People are watching. This is an important time in our life and in our democracy. Weve got to be willing to take that stand. And I'm so grateful for the activism that we're seeing in everyday people.

BASH: What did Vice President Harris say?

COLLIER: She said, keep going. She said, don't give up. Stand strong. Stand tall, and don't back down.

BASH: So I just want to what you're doing there is protesting the way you're being treated until this vote happens. But kind of going back in time and looking at this more broadly. To recap, you -- Democrats got slapped with about $380,000 of fines by Republicans.

COLLIER: Did we? I have no idea. I haven't seen the bill. I have not seen anything.

BASH: That's what -- that's what they say for leaving the state. You spent 15 days away from your homes, from your families, from your jobs, and still, despite the protests, even though you're there. So you're obviously in a position to vote, what is going to happen is that because Republicans do have the votes and always did when it comes to the numbers, they're going to approve this map. That changes the math and changes the lines, the congressional districts.

So given all of that, I know that you and others are saying that this was a victory. But at the end of the day, Republicans are going to get what they want. Do you still feel good about the whole point that you were trying to make?

COLLIER: I do feel good. I feel good that we've taken a stand. You know what we've been missing in America is that Democratic fight. Weve got it back. Weve got our voice.

We're reclaiming our voice and our fight in this. So, we're not going to back down. Yes. The odds are against us, but that doesn't mean that you just roll over and take it.

We're not going to take it. We're going to push back. We're going to create some good trouble, in the meantime.

[16:40:01]

And we're going to -- even if we have to go down, we're going to go down swinging.

You know, this whole process of these congressional maps was flawed, overwhelmingly, Texans voted voiced their opinion against them. Very little. Very few people wanted them. But they have been ignored by the Republican Party.

And they are still pushing through to do what Donald Trump has directed them, not what the people who elected them to do.

BASH: Representative Collier, we're out of time. But do you think any of your colleagues are going to join you tonight, or are you going to be there all alone?

COLLIER: Yes. I've been joined by my colleagues. Just hang tight. They're on their way.

BASH: Okay. All right. Thank you so much for being here. Appreciate it.

And my panel is back, along with CNN political director and Washington bureau chief, David Chalian.

David, your thoughts on what we're seeing right now in Texas and more broadly with this? DAVID CHALIAN, CNN POLITICAL DIRECTOR: I mean, I think about these

things on two parallel tracks. Let's put the partisan politics aside for just a moment. One of the greatest challenges that Washington has faced over decades has been increased partisan gerrymandering on both sides of the aisle. And it has created less opportunity as primaries have been the primary political motivation, instead of general elections, for consensus building and the like.

That is -- that is just a detriment to progress and governing and the like. And so, I think it would be, you know, if you had a magic wand and like, could do truly independent, district drawing, it would probably create a better government, more responsive to the people.

That being said, this is -- this partisan arms race. This is just the beginning. This is going to continue. And if you look at its logical conclusion across the map, Republicans hold more legislatures and governorships. They have more opportunity to squeeze juice out of what they have and what they're in control of than Democrats do.

And at the end of the day, while yes, they may have a moral victory right now in Texas, and they think it's set up, California and Gavin Newsom may get a victory in California if he successfully convinces the voters there. Go on to Indiana, Missouri, Ohio. The Republicans are going to be able to outrun the Democrats in this partisan game.

TODD: Well, and you go down -- it's only -- we've already had self- sorting, which has made, you know, I in fact, be careful throwing away gerrymandering if you ever want to create competitive districts, were going to have to gerrymander now because the Democrats and Republicans don't live in the same neighborhood.

So, if you're trying to create actually, you actually have to gerrymander to create. If you want to create competitive districts here, I'm just -- here's what's amazing to me. There is not a single prominent elected leader who has stood up and said, hey, you know what? What they're doing in Texas is wrong. And what they're doing in California is wrong.

And the fact that there's nobody -- and we all know how this works, right? If, if, if you thought there was a constituency for it, you'd -- there'd be somebody wanting to be president someday who would stand up for it. And the fact that there's no constituency for this, that is what's been depressing me about this entire debate.

There is no constituency for the idea that, hey, maybe we ought to have a little more fairness in this process, regardless of the state you're in, this idea that, hey, we don't like being marginalized in this state, so were going to marginalize voters in another state in order to fight back and marginalize. That's so beyond illogical. It's frustrating.

BASH: Well, what Gavin Newsom is, who really has the only the only one with any cards at this point, who runs a Democratic state is saying I think is not so much what they're doing is okay, so we're going to do it, too. It's what they're doing is horrible, but we're not going to let them. The problem is they fight without -- without us. TODD: Dana, working in another path and going, oh, never mind our

principles are --

BASH: They did -- right. They did this independent commission. Guess we're talking about.

TODD: You know what, Republicans have done already in California. They're finding $100 million to fight this.

You know what Democrats have done in Texas? Go run a freaking campaign. Go run for governor, build a state party. I don't understand how the Democratic Party, who is now angry that they've become -- they've been exposed as a -- not a national party because of their weakness in pushing back in the state of Florida, in the state of Texas, in the state of Ohio.

BEDINGFIELD: Well, and so Democrats have to win in order to take power.

TODD: Right, you got to go build it, go build a party.

BEDINGFIELD: So, post-2024, in a moment when Democrats across the country are extremely demoralized, you have people like Representative Collier who are saying, we're going to stand up. We're going to fight. That in and of itself is an energizing message that is going to motivate people who look at last November and say, you know, what's the point?

And so, I think I wholeheartedly agree with both of your points about the fact that this arms race is dangerous. This is a race to the bottom in every way, shape and form. However, in order for the Democrats to reassert themselves nationally, they have to find ways to take power, win more elections, win more votes. And that's what they're -- that's what she's trying to do. That's what the Democrats in Texas are trying to do. That's what Gavin Newsom is trying to do.

TODD: There's many conservatives who view it the exact same way, just from a different perspective.

[16:45:01]

BASH: Roll back, roll back the calendar.

What do you think about Donald Trump asking the Texas Republicans to do this?

JENNINGS: I mean, it's a political process. And Democrats states have done this for years.

BASH: Not in the middle decade.

JENNINGS: He sees it as Republicans have not kept up, and he feels like the Republican Party needs to get more muscular. That's -- that's his hardcore political view of it.

BASH: What do you think? JENNINGS: I mean, when I look at the states like Illinois and New York

and even California with the supposed independent commission where Republicans get 40 percent of the vote and only have 17 percent of the seats. I think he has a point, and I don't know --

TODD: Scott, spend some time in the state of Florida, which is the worst gerrymandered state in all of --

JENNINGS: Worse than Illinois?

TODD: Worse than Illinois.

JENNINGS: Come on.

TODD: Worse than Illinois. Go what --

JENNINGS: Agree to disagree.

TODD: To tell you who the speaker of the house is two years in advance. It is --

BEDINGFIELD: So it's also just -- it's such a uniquely dangerous argument to pair his constant refrain about how our elections are rigged and you can't trust the system with this completely bald-faced effort to adjust the rules so that he can win mid-election --

JENNINGS: Well, look, I understand --

BEDINGFIELD: -- cycle. That is incredibly -- that is incredibly dangerous.

JENNINGS: I understand you're upset. Don't hate the player. Hate the game.

(CROSSTALK)

BASH: All right, everybody, stand by. Up next. House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Comer is giving new details and a timeline on plans to publicize files related to Jeffrey Epstein.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:50:47]

BASH: Now, an eyebrow raising change at the FBI, a new deputy director. That's not what is so odd. The existing deputy director, Dan Bongino, he's still there.

It turns out he will now have a co-deputy director, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey.

Now, to the reason for the raised eyebrows. Bongino had been feuding with Attorney General Pam Bondi over those Jeffrey Epstein files. Speaking of Epstein on Capitol Hill, the Justice Department will now turn over Jeffrey Epstein related documents to a House panel. Thats according to its chairman, James Comer.

My panel, different panel, is back now.

Scott Jennings, we've seen a lot of a lot of other issues coming from the White House as they've tried to move away from this Epstein issue, but another -- Comer is from Kentucky. Another one of your friends from Kentucky, Thomas Massie, it's all Kentucky, today, said the following, "After months of stonewalling, calling Epstein files a hoax and telling people nothing but porn exists in their possession, the administration now admits the files exist and agrees to release some of them. Americans want transparency, though not smoke and mirrors."

JENNINGS: It's a little jagged edge from Thomas Massie, who is currently under assault in Kentucky 4 -- I actually live in that district. The Trump apparatus has spent millions of dollars already in negative ads against Thomas Massie. They're very focused on trying to take him out in a primary in 2026. So, I sense a little jagged edge --

BASH: But it does speak to the fact he's not alone when it comes to the people who are listening to conspiracy theories from conservative media for years, saying, okay, let's -- let's do it. We're not forgetting about this.

JENNINGS: Yeah, but as a as a larger political matter in our own polling, I mean, all the polling shows, this is not a larger concern for the American public. I agree with you. There are a handful of people who've been laser focused on it. But, you know, the president, I have to say, is doing other things that you mentioned, solving world peace, et cetera, et cetera.

So, this to me falls down his list of priorities.

CHALIAN: But do you think what comer is doing here and potentially releasing these files at the end of this week or next week, does that leave a pressure valve for Mike Johnson a little bit when the House comes back? Is that the goal here?

JENNINGS: Because they can either deal with Congressman Comer now or they can deal with whatever the House does in September? I would much rather deal with congressman comer now and go ahead and start to clear the decks on this.

CHALIAN: That's what it seems to me, too.

BEDINGFIELD: But it's Trump's Justice Department. Why is this coming through the house oversight committee? I mean, Trump and his team are the ones who said throughout the campaign that they would release the files. So I'm not sure that selected documents that have been demanded by House oversight are really going to satisfy the bar that Trump himself has said, which is we're going to make the files -- we're going to make them public, we're going to make it known.

But I -- here's what I would say to Dan Bongino -- they're layering you, they're embarrassing you. You should come out and tell us everything you know, get back on your podcast. BASH: I see IT differently. I see it as they want. They want to fire him, but they can't because then it would be much worse politically if they let him go.

But I totally agree with you that the majority of Americans, they don't care about the Epstein files. But when you're in a midterm election and you have at least even just this part of the Republican base, if they demoralized because of this issue or I don't know, prices or anything else.

JENNINGS: I just answer that. Yeah. No part of the Republican base is presently demoralized. Every single part of the Republican base that voted for Donald Trump. I'm just telling you --

BASH: If -- I didn't say when.

JENNINGS: -- are as happy as they could possibly be with him, and they will be that way come next year. This idea that there's division over this in the party, they're happy with Trump, trust me.

TODD: No, I think what's at risk here is that Donald Trump has portrayed himself as a warrior against the elites. What Jeffrey Epstein files present is an alternative story that no, no, no, no, he's part of this elite group, too. He's been with the elites. He's been part of this, you know, there's -- you know, and I think that is what could be. So that weirdly, that's the damage. It's not a specific allegation. Were you an insider or an outsider?

JENNINGS: Are you do you think its news to American voters or Republicans that he is an elite person?

TODD: No, no, of course he was a no, but no, he was the guy actually know that the New York elite didn't like that.

[16:55:04]

The political elite didn't like that. The Republican elite. He built an entire brand on being the on grievance. So, no, I think this is what's at risk for him.

BASH: We sadly have to leave it there. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Great conversation.

We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

BASH: Thank you so much to my panel. If only people could hear what we were saying in the breaks.

Pamela, I know you know what I'm talking about. Maybe. Maybe its actually better that they don't.