Return to Transcripts main page
CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt
House Docs: Epstein Mentioned Trump Multiple Times In Private Emails; Now: Dem Rep. Adelita Grijalva Sworn Into Congress; New Rep. Adelita Grijalva Signs Epstein Discharge Petition. Aired 4-5p ET
Aired November 12, 2025 - 16:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[16:00:03]
BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: Come on, Allison, breaking our hearts. Breaking our hearts. All right.
BORIS SANCHEZ, CNN HOST: There's a chance. There's always a chance.
KEILAR: Always a chance.
THE ARENA WITH KASIE HUNT starts right now.
(MUSIC)
KASIE HUNT, CNN HOST: Hi, everyone. Welcome to THE ARENA. I'm Kasie Hunt. It's wonderful to have you with us on this Wednesday.
As we come on the air, new questions about what Donald Trump knew about Jeffrey Epstein and when he knew it. This, as the U.S. House moves one step closer to a vote on releasing more files from the Epstein investigation. New documents just released by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee show that Epstein mentioned Trump in multiple emails that he sent in the years after pleading guilty to sex crimes involving children.
In a 2011 email that Epstein sent to his accomplice, the convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell.
He wrote this, quote, "I want you to realize that that dog hasn't barked is Trump. This was -- a piece of this was redacted. Then it says, spent hours at my house with him. He has never once been mentioned, police chief, et cetera, I'm 75 percent there." Maxwell responded, quote, "I have been thinking about that."
In a tweet, Republican members of the Oversight Committee identified the redacted name in that email as Epstein victim. Virginia Giuffre, who died by suicide earlier this year. In her posthumous memoir, Giuffre did not accuse Trump of wrongdoing, saying that he, quote, "couldn't have been friendlier," end quote.
In another email sent to a reporter in 2019, Epstein responded to the claim that Trump kicked him out of Mar-a-Lago. He wrote this, quote, "Trump said he asked me to resign. Never a member ever. Of course, he knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop," end quote.
The White House now responding to this today, accusing Democrats of selectively leaking emails in order to embarrass President Trump.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: These emails prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong. And what President Trump has always said is that he was from Palm Beach, and so was Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein was a member at Mar-a-Lago until President Trump kicked him out, because Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile and he was a creep. This administration has done more with respect to transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein than any administration ever.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HUNT: So, any moment now, the House Speaker Mike Johnson will swear in the newest member of the House. That's Arizona's Adelita Grijalva. She is expected to support a petition that will force the house to vote on releasing additional files from the Justice Department investigations into Epstein.
Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. My panel will be here.
We're also joined by CNN national affairs correspondent Jeff Zeleny. He is at the White House for us.
Jeff, good to see you.
Sources telling CNN that top administration officials met today in the Situation Room about the House vote. What does that tell us? What are we learning?
JEFF ZELENY, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Well, Kasie, look, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that in the briefing today confirming our CNN reporting that Lauren Boebert, of course, a single member of Congress, not a leadership member, not on any key committees, had that meeting in the Situation Room with the attorney general of the United States, with the deputy attorney general, with the FBI director, and, of course, Lauren Boebert is one of the Republicans who has said she would cross over and sign that discharge petition, which would allow the House to go forward and vote on releasing the Department of Justice Epstein files.
Lauren Boebert has just told our colleagues on Capitol Hill that she has no plans of changing her pledge to vote for that, but that extraordinary meeting here at the White House just underscores the stakes of all of this.
The White House sought to explain the meeting in the Situation Room earlier today like this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: It is not a coincidence that the Democrats leaked these emails to the fake news this morning ahead of Republicans reopening the government. REPORTER: Why are White House officials then meeting with
Representative Boebert in an effort to try and get her to not sign this petition, calling for the release of the files?
LEAVITT: Doesn't it show transparency that members of the Trump administration are willing to brief members of Congress whenever they please? Doesn't that show our level of transparency?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ZELENY: So, an extraordinary briefing by any measure, I cannot recall a time where effectively a rank and file member of Congress would have such a high level briefing in the Situation Room of all things. But never mind that. President Trump also pushing back, in a very significant way on truth social throughout the day about the release of the Epstein files.
I'll read you just a flavor of some of what is on his mind, Kasie. The president writes this: "The Democrats," he says, "are trying to bring up the Jeffrey Epstein hoax again, because they'll do anything at all to deflect and how badly they've done on the shutdown and so many other subjects.
[16:05:09]
Only a very bad or stupid Republican would fall into that trap. Any Republicans involved should be focused only on opening up our country."
However, when the new member from Arizona is sworn in, the discharge petition is scheduled to happen sometime after that and then the shutdown vote happens later this evening.
But the bottom line to all of this is the whole reason the House of Representatives has been away for nearly two months. It is to effectively try and end the whole Epstein conversation. Well, that is right back happening this afternoon in ways the White House could not have anticipated it.
So yes, they were scrambling a bit on this. But again, we should point out, even though the president's name has been mentioned several times in these and very interesting ways, still no evidence of any wrongdoing by him. But a question is, was he aware of any wrongdoing by Jeffrey Epstein? And that is less clear -- Kasie.
HUNT: A remarkable set of facts at hand. Jeff Zeleny, thanks very much for that reporting.
All right. Our panel is here, CNN legal analyst Elliot Williams; CNN political commentator, Republican strategist and pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson; CNN political commentator, Xochitl Hinojosa; and CNNs senior political commentator, former Trump campaign adviser David Urban.
We're also joined by Donald Trump's former attorney, Bill Brennan.
Thank you all for being here on what is quite a newsy day.
And, David Urban, you're laughing to yourself. This is obviously part of this release from the House Oversight Democrats here. I thought it was noteworthy that Karoline Leavitt used the word pedophile to describe Jeffrey Epstein in the past. We've not heard White House officials use that word in the context of President Trump.
How do you think the White House should be handling it? What does it tell you that they felt like they needed to meet in the situation room to try to prevent a vote for more of this to come out?
DAVID URBAN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah. Look, the Situation Room is obviously -- they're meeting there because probably you know what, phones away and maybe talking about some very sensitive information regarding victims and other things. I mean, who knows. It's part of it may be classified. I'm not quite sure they're discussing.
But look, I've been pretty steadfast in my in my position on this from the get-go. Release everything, right? I don't understand why during the Biden administration, Democrats weren't so excited about releasing all these Epstein files when Joe Biden was president for four years. We could have had this and we could had a hearing.
But I think, again, we should have, the line attorneys in the Southern District of Miami, as well as Alex Acosta, who was the prosecutor in this case that gave Jeffrey Epstein a lighter -- a lighter sentence. We should have a hearing. We want to know what's going on. Let's bring those people forward and hear from them.
I'm not so concerned about what's in the files. I'm not sure there's anything in the files, but I'd like to know why they gave him a much, much softer deal than he would have gotten otherwise, and a much more concerned about why the Democrats for the past four, six years haven't said a peep about it until today.
Just -- just it's a little too ripe. But I'm for total transparency. Let's get it out there. It's the best -- sunshine's the best disinfectant.
HUNT: Bill Brennan, you served as -- you have served as Donald Trump's attorney in past lives of yours and obviously, are a practicing attorney currently, this seems to stink. What would your advice be?
BILL BRENNAN, FORMER TRUMP ATTORNEY: Well, to a large degree, Kasie, I agree with David Urban, if there was a smoking gun, they would have released it. The thing that was released today was an alleged email exchange between a convicted felon, a man who died in prison for being charged with heinous crimes, and a alleged journalist who instead of just reporting on what he purportedly received, was giving strategy advice on how to use it. Maybe we can use it for political capital. Maybe we can put in our back pocket.
You know, Kasie, I've been on your show many times, and you've never given me any talking points or strategy advice. You asked me questions and I answer them.
So, I think that if there was a smoking gun, we would have heard it. And I agree with David. Release it all. Let's see what's in there.
HUNT: Yeah.
BRENNAN: You know, if there's -- if there's something bad, which I'll be shocked, frankly. But it is or it isn't. So release it all.
HUNT: You're of course referring to Michael Wolff, who -- journalist, author who was involved in these exchanges with Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein that we saw today.
Elliot Williams, I --
BRENNAN: Yes.
HUNT: -- there are some -- there were some redactions in the documents that Democrats put out. Then Republicans, released the redacted names. And they claim that it was because this victim, Virginia Giuffre, has publicly said she never witnessed any wrongdoing by President Trump.
Obviously, the details here are important, but the big picture is also critical. I think -- I just keep coming back to this basic question of, why won't they just put out all the files?
[16:10:02]
ELLIOT WILLIAMS, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Yeah, and we have a stunning degree of unanimity on this conversation today, because we're all in agreement that this stuff should have been out there.
Let's be clear. This is 100 percent a crisis of Pam Bondi and Donald Trump's making. They let this mess happen. Had six months ago, they simply released the documents, said number one, this is what is in our possession, that we are allowed to make public.
Number two, this is the material in our possession that we are not allowed to make public because the law does not allow it.
And number three, this is what Donald Trump knows. Some of it might be a little bit embarrassing, but number one, he thinks Jeffrey Epstein is a creep, but he -- did not engage in any wrongdoing, and here's what he knew.
If they just done that six months ago, they wouldn't be here dealing with this mess. And Pam Bondi standing at the Oval Office and suggesting that she had binders of information that she was passing out and was set to release the whole file, only made this situation worse. They screwed up.
HUNT: Yeah, let's take a quick detour. I want to take us to the House floor.
Adelita Grijalva, Democratic congresswoman now from Arizona, no longer just congresswoman-elect, being sworn in on the House floor.
Now, why is this important, Xochitl Hinojosa, because this makes her the last needed signature, we expect on the discharge petition that would force a vote on -- to release more of these Epstein files.
XOCHITL HINOJOSA, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Yeah.
HUNT: Now, she thinks that this was the reason why her swearing in was held up. And it does tie us back to the meeting with Lauren Boebert in the Situation Room today at the White House.
HINOJOSA: Yes, I wanted to address that because it is very odd to bring one member of Congress who has been an ally in the Situation Room, to change a potential vote. It is -- everyone keeps on saying, well, there's probably not a lot there. There obviously is something there that Donald Trump and that Pam Bondi and that Todd Blanche and Kash Patel are very worried about, they wouldn't be meeting in the Situation Room about this.
You meet in the Situation Room when there is a national security crisis, not when you're about to brief a member of Congress on something. And also, why are you briefing one member of Congress on something? You should be briefing many members of Congress on something. So there's definitely something here that they are worried about.
I also just want to bring us back because we seem to have forgotten about it, is Todd Blanche's meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell. It is very clear to me that there's a reason why Todd Blanche had that meeting, and that it wasn't anybody else with the FBI or anything like that, and that was to protect Donald Trump. He needed to show that there was progress being made.
But it's very clear from these emails that Donald Trump knew more and that Todd Blanche knew what those guardrails were in order to come out of that sort of meeting, in a way that would not make Donald Trump look bad. So, I think, frankly, these emails raised so many questions. And the pieces of the puzzle are starting to come together exactly why they do not want these. Epstein files out.
URBAN: I don't want to --
HUNT: Yeah, jump in.
URBAN: Just quickly. If there is a smoking guns that were there and they -- the Biden administration, Democrats had access to all this. There was a Democratic Department of Justice.
HINOJOSA: I was working at -- I'll tell you why. I will tell you.
URBAN: Why didn't you just dump it all out and say, listen, look at all the bad things Donald Trump did? Why now? Why, why, why didn't --
HINOJOSA: The reason why the Justice Department doesn't disclose that information is because you don't put out investigative files. That's not what you do. What I will say in this situation, it was Pam Bondi's own making where
she said that she wanted to release those files and any other Justice Department, you would not put out investigative files. That is not a thing that you do. It is her.
URBAN: I'm not talking about investigative files. I'm talking about all this other information that Democrats are now clamoring for. Why did the Biden --
HINOJOSA: Those are the investigative files.
URBAN: Okay, why didn't the Biden administration do more of them?
HINOJOSA: I'm telling you why. Because it is -- you do not -- the president --
URBAN: So, what does the Trump administration doing -- not doing that the Biden administration -- I'm very confused.
HUNT: I think the issue that she's trying to point out that it was the Trump administration that came in and said they were going to.
HINOJOSA: They were going to release them, right?
URBAN: I get the -- I get that, I get that problem.
HUNT: Right.
URBAN: But if there is some underlying smoking gun here, that is really --
HINOJOSA: Yeah, it's because the Justice Department and the Justice Department before that and the Justice Department before that was not a political Justice Department. This Justice Department --
URBAN: So, there is no smoking gun.
HINOJOSA: -- is clearly political. I don't know if there's a smoking gun. I have not looked at the Epstein files. We do not go through and do a control F, where is Trump's name in all of these files?
URBAN: Oh, come on. I don't believe it.
HINJOSA: So, I can put out information about him.
URBAN: Come on. I don't believe that.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: You were talking about a Justice Department that does that about Jack Smith and Merrick Garland. And Lisa Monaco and everybody else.
(CROSSTALK)
HINOJOSA: Yes, that is the case. URBAN: You're not going to get me to believe that.
HINOJOSA: I understand -- I understand that you don't want to believe it, but neither did Bill Barr or anybody else.
URBAN: Not for a second. Sorry.
HUNT: All right. Let's go to the floor. We're about to hear from Adelita Grijalva. As spirited as this conversation is, let's watch this breaking news, and then we'll come back to it.
(APPLAUSE)
REP. ADELITA GRIJALVA (D-AZ): Thank you. Thank you.
[16:15:07]
Gracias. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Muchas gracias. Thank you so much. Thank you to my colleague and friend, Congressman Stanton for that kind introduction and to the entire Democratic delegation from Arizona and the delegation that stood here with me, that has supported me throughout this process.
I rise today, the proud granddaughter of a bracero, a hard-working Mexican immigrant who came to this country for a better life. And I stand as the proud daughter of a U.S. congressman, a man who spent his entire life fighting for justice, equity and dignity for the most vulnerable.
Yeah.
(APPLAUSE)
GRIJALVA: From working as a vaquero to serving in Congress in just a single generation, that is the promise of this country. That is the America I want to raise my three beautiful children in, Adelina, Raul and Joaquin, stand up, stand up, baby, look at them.
(APPLAUSE)
GRIJALVA: They, along with my amazing husband Sol and my wonderful mama, Ramona, are here with me today.
(APPLAUSE)
GRIJALVA: (SPEAKING SPANISH)
And thank you to La Gente of southern Arizona for making history, electing me the first Latina, the first Chicana from Arizona to ever go to Congress.
(APPLAUSE)
GRIJALVA: (SPEAKING SPANISH) And while we celebrate this moment today, our American promise is under serious threat. Basic freedoms are under attack. Health care premiums are skyrocketing, babies are being ripped away from their parents by masked agents. We can and must do better.
What is most concerning is not what this administration has done, but what the majority in this body has failed to do. Hold Trump accountable as a co-equal branch of government that we are.
(APPLAUSE)
GRIJALVA: It has been 50 days since the people of Arizona's seventh congressional district elected me to represent them, 50 days that over 800,000 Arizonans have been left without access to the basic services that every constituent deserves.
This is an abuse of power. One individual should not be able to unilaterally obstruct the swearing in of a duly elected member of Congress for political reasons.
(APPLAUSE)
GRIJALVA: Our democracy only works when everyone has a voice. This includes the millions of people across the country who have experienced violence and exploitation, including Liz Stein and Jessica Michaels, both survivors of Jeffrey Epstein's abuse. They are here in the gallery with us this evening. Thank you for being here.
(APPLAUSE)
GRIJALVA: Just this morning, House Democrats released more emails showing that Trump knew more about Epstein's abuses than he previously acknowledged.
[16:20:01]
It's past time for Congress to restore its role as a check and balance on this administration, and fight for we, the American people.
(APPLAUSE)
GRIJALVA: We need to fight for our immigrant communities and veterans. We need to stand up for our public schools, children and educators. We need to respect tribal sovereignty and our environment. We need to stand up for LGBTQ+ rights, because that's what the American people expect us to do, fight for them.
(APPLAUSE)
GRIJALVA: That is why I will sign the discharge petition right now to release the Epstein files.
(APPLAUSE)
GRIJALVA: Justice cannot wait another day.
(SPEAKING SPANISH)
Thank you very much. I yield back.
(APPLAUSE)
HUNT: All right. We have been listening to a Democratic Congresswoman Adelita Grijalva being sworn in to Congress. It's pretty unusual that we would listen to the entire speech in this kind of a circumstance with a freshman member of Congress.
Why are we doing it? She briefly addressed in her speech the survivors, the Epstein survivors that are apparently in the gallery. Remember surrounding above, up above the house of representatives.
And, Kristen Soltis Anderson, her profile has been elevated because Mike Johnson delayed this.
Now, obviously, Republicans don't say it's because of the Epstein files. Adelita Grijalva says, yes, it is. I'm going to sign this discharge petition. It's going to cause a vote on this.
I want to make sure that I'm putting this to you in a way that kind of makes sense for how you think about the world. But I think my question for you is how and why do -- does the administration's refusal and real attempts that we can see to prevent these files from becoming public, how is that playing with the public? I mean, why are they so worried about it? There's got to be something in there that they're concerned about in terms of their voters?
KRISTEN SOLTIS ANDERSON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: So one reason why I think this issue is unique against all of the other things that Donald Trump has done that make. People kind of tear their hair out and go, oh, he's so -- this or that or the other thing is that a big piece of his whole message is that there is an elite, and they play by a different set of rules, and I'm not part of that. I'm one of you. I'm fighting for you. I'm fighting to take it to those people. And this story does seem to scramble or confuse that narrative.
Now what I don't know is why there is a belief that -- the emails we saw today, for instance, I don't think that normally that would cause a blip in the polls. Now, the American public is not -- this is not like some science experiment where you check and then you add a news story and then you check again because there's a lot going on, right? Donald Trump's job approval numbers have been going down little by little over the course of the year.
You had the Epstein blowup a few weeks ago -- a few months ago.
HUNT: Yeah.
ANDERSON: But you've also had tariffs. You've had ICE raids. You've had protests, you've had we bombed Iran. You've had peace deals in the Middle East. You've had a lot of things happening.
And so, what I don't know is to what extent this is causing particular consternation because it's an issue that really matters a lot to Trump's base. He can put forward tariffs and his voters like it. He can bomb Iran and his voters like it.
He can do lots of things that create big headlines and create big stories. And his voters like it. This is one thing -- there's no way for his voters to like that he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein. I think that's why they're so sensitive.
HUNT: Yeah.
Bill Brennan, one thing that in the in the course of that, that time when this became a huge story over the summer, the president actually said that he -- that Epstein, quote/unquote, stole girls that worked for him. He said he took people that worked for me. I told him, don't do it anymore. And he did it. And I said, stay the hell out of here.
Why was that admission remarkable? I mean, because there is this big overarching question of what did Donald Trump know about all of this?
BRENNAN: Well, Kasie, I think to a large degree, the president mentioned something over the summer months about some employees at Mar-a-Lago being poached, allegedly poached by Mr. Epstein, and that's why they had a falling out. And who knows why they had a falling out. But it appears apparently, they did have a falling out.
But I think what's going to happen here, for those of us old enough to remember it, it's Al Capone's vault.
[16:25:05]
When Geraldo Rivera gained access to the secret vault of legendary gangster Al Capone, and it was on every news network, it was before the cable news was so popular. And when they finally opened the vault, there was nothing there.
And I predict there'll be nothing there here because as one of the previous commentators said, we had an intermission between Trump, 45, and Trump, 47, called the Biden administration.
HUNT: Let me just stop you though for a second --
BRENNAN: If there was something there, we would have heard it then.
HUNT: Because if Trump -- if there -- if it is Al Capone's vault, if there is nothing there, then why is the -- why? I mean, he allowed his people, he didn't really do it himself, but he really allowed his people and his supporters to campaign on releasing the Epstein files. And then now today, were reporting he's in the Situation Room trying to convince one member of congress to take her name off of a vote on a petition that would force a vote that still might not even guarantee that we see the files.
But if there's nothing there, why is he working so hard to keep this stuff quiet?
BRENNAN: Well, you raise a great point. I think there are probably reasons we don't know as to why he doesn't -- if you're correct, he doesn't want everything released. They may be security reasons. They may be legal reasons.
But as David Urban and I said earlier, in the broadcast, I think that everything should be released and what it is, I think that it will be a nonstarter. I don't think anything is there. I really don't.
HUNT: All right. Fair enough. I mean, Elliot Williams, there is a long tradition of the cover up being worse than the crime.
WILLIAMS: Yeah, and I agree with Bill. It might be a nonstarter. It quite frankly, probably is. But we all on this panel know the term the Streisand effect. When you try to hide something, you make it worse.
If I say to everybody, quick, don't look at my necktie right now, everybody immediately looks at my necktie. And that is what the president and the administration.
HUNT: You have excellent style.
WILLIAMS: Thank you very much.
HUNT: You're fishing for compliments.
WILLIAMS: You shouldn't have looked, but I told you not to. Look, I don't understand why you did.
But that's exactly what's happened here. They have suggested that there's nothing to see. There's nothing to see, there's nothing to see. And in so doing particularly given all the points that Kristen made earlier, given the unease that many people have about this story to begin with, people just want to see something else that's.
URBAN: Yeah, Kristen's point is, is the biggest point here, right? The MAGA base believes and elected this president to not protect the rich and the powerful, to go after those folks, right? They're working-class people. They're regular people. They think that there's this global elite that plays by a different set of rules and by failing to release all these documents, they believe that they're complicit in that same -- in that same type of cover up.
And so, release it, let the chips fall where they may. And be on with it. Theres's -- there are victims here also that that, you know, have --
HUNT: The victims rights are critical --
URBAN: -- something.
HUNT: -- a critical piece of this.
I don't mean to interrupt you. I do just want to say that we can now report here that Adelita Grijalva has signed the discharge petition to force the house to have a vote on the Epstein files. Now, there is a bit of a delay here. It's not like we're going to see a vote immediately now that that signature has been put down. But it does continue a process. Joining us now to continue this conversation, one of the Democrats
from the House Oversight Committee, Congressman Suhas Subramanyam of Virginia.
Sir, thank you so much.
Thank you so much for being here.
I'd like to kind of start with, what we've learned today from the committee that you, of course, serve on, and whether we can expect there to be more of the same?
REP. SUHAS SUBRAMANYAM (D-VA): Yeah. You know, taking a step back. I mean, we got these documents from the Epstein estate, right? And they were releasing these in batches. So, it just so happens that they released this this past week, and we were able to find emails involving President Trump where Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein were talking about him. And it seemed to indicate that they had information about President Trump's involvement. They seemed to imply that President Trump had some sort of engagement or involvement with them.
And so, you know, certainly that raises questions in a time where President Trump is the one preventing the release of the files that the FBI and DOJ have about the Epstein case. And so, it all is starting to come together a little bit. And these are -- the more evidence we get. I think the better picture will get about what's all going on with this cover up.
HUNT: So, one of the things that we learned from these emails, Epstein writes that Trump is, quote, "the dog that hasn't barked," end quote. What do you make of that?
SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah. You know, it's an interesting kind of comment there. Again, I think Epstein is implying throughout these emails that he has information about Trump -- that he has compromising information, potentially about Trump, and that he knows Trump very well.
[16:30:03]
And, you know, they have said that they were very good friends, right? And so, again, this -- you know, you're talking about a president that has withheld the files, right? And the files involve a former very good friend of his. And so, I --
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: Sir, can I interrupt you for just one second?
SUBRAMANYAM: Sure.
HUNT: We're watching live. The speaker swearing in Adelita Grijalva. I just want to listen for a moment to see if he makes any comments, and we'll continue our conversation. Let's watch. REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: -- very well. I
served under him in the Natural Resources Committee for a while, and admired the way he did the work. He was tenacious.
So, she has a proud family legacy and were delighted to have her here. She may not agree with me, but we follow the custom of the House on the timetable, and we've had a little, as we say in the Deep South, some intense fellowship about that. Okay.
GRIJALVA: Yes.
JOHNSON: But she's here now, and I promise that we would have her -- the oath administered before we began legislative business. So, she hasn't missed a vote. And we're delighted you're here.
So, anything I can do to help you is I do all members happy to get you acclimated and do everything. But you know more than most because your dad was here for a long time.
GRIJALVA: I visited.
JOHNSON: Yes.
GRIJALVA: I never did this job. So, this is brand spanking new. So, I will take the offer of help.
JOHNSON: Congratulations. Thanks a lot.
GRIJALVA: Thank you.
(CROSSTALK)
HUNT: We have been watching the House speaker and Adelita Grijalva there at the ceremonial swearing in.
Congressman, I'd like to kind of pick up where we left off here. One thing that we heard from the briefing room podium today was Karoline Leavitt. She addressed questions about why, when these emails were released by Democrats on the committee, Virginia Giuffre's name was redacted.
And I want to play for you what she said and have you respond. Take a look.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LEAVITT: These emails prove absolutely nothing other than the fact that President Trump did nothing wrong. And what President Trump has always said is that he was from palm beach, and so was Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein was a member at Mar-a-Lago until President Trump kicked him out, because Jeffrey Epstein was a pedophile and he was a creep. This administration has done more with respect to transparency when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein than any administration ever.
(END VIDEO CLIP) HUNT: Sir, what's your response to that?
SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah, certainly those emails don't prove that the president engaged in no wrongdoing. Quite the opposite. They also seem to indicate that the president has a lot of knowledge about what Epstein was doing, that Epstein has a lot of knowledge about the president as well. And so, it really does -- you know, I would like to see more evidence and more information. And the president seems to have that information. And I'd like to see those files released. And that's why we just had the 218 signature.
But this story is not going away. If Karoline Leavitt thinks that she can explain away the president's actions, the president breaking his promise to the American people to release the files, you know, they're being naive about this. We're going to continue to push, no matter how rich or how powerful the people involved are. And if it includes the president, includes the president.
HUNT: Sir, what do you say to Republicans? I mean, some people on our panel today have been arguing this. I've certainly heard from your colleagues in the House that have said, okay, Democrats are very interested in this. Now, why were they not interested in this before?
There are obviously some Democratic politicians, very high-profile figures who have been linked in one way or another to Jeffrey Epstein in some way.
So, what do you say to those critics who question, why weren't you more interested in it before?
SUBRAMANYAM: We'd actually introduced -- I mean, I wasn't here, I'm a freshman.
HUNT: Yes, fair enough.
SUBRAMANYAM: But other Democratic members were introducing legislation as early as 2019 about Jeffrey Epstein, and they were asking for the files back then. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, my great colleague from Florida, was one of them. And so that's not true, that we weren't interested in this, and we weren't trying to investigate this.
But, look, you know, the president campaigned on this for, for a couple of years, actually. And so, if he wants to follow through with that campaign promise, if he wants to clear his name, if he wants to do right by the victims, he will release the files.
And now, Congress has 218 signatures. He can stop whipping votes against those signatures. And just let us have that vote and release the files.
HUNT: Can I just ask? We've been reporting here this afternoon that the president met in the situation room with Congressman Lauren Boebert, one of the signatories of the discharge petition, as well as with top Justice Department officials.
What does it tell you that they would hold such a meeting in the situation room?
SUBRAMANYAM: That tells me they have something to hide, that tells me that there's more of a cover up. The reason why people are so interested in this whole Epstein saga is because you had rich and powerful people covering up for each other, influencing the highest levels of government and law enforcement. And it's continuing.
The victims said that they've been -- they've been disappointed so many times and that they almost don't trust us, but they're willing to help us because they're hoping that this oversight committee investigation will be different. Will Donald Trump does not want this oversight investigation, but we're going to continue regardless.
HUNT: One thing that we've heard consistently from the victims, who I know are -- have appeared at press conferences with members on the Hill.
[16:35:02]
We may see more of them. They have said it shouldn't be up to them to generate a list of people who were involved with them, who were involved with Jeffrey Epstein, that list of would-be perpetrators. But there does seem to be some increasing conversation around the possibility of them doing that.
What is your understanding of where that community of victims stands on this at this point?
SUBRAMANYAM: Yeah, I'll say the community of victims has been so brave and so courageous, and they've been willing to put their necks out there and, you know, put their life on the line in some cases and go through hell and back. And so, they've been very helpful to us in this investigation. One of the things they said was for us to follow the money and try to find out, you know, all the transactions, financial transactions that happened that that would tell a story about the criminal enterprise that Jeffrey Epstein ran.
And in the end, you know, the victims deserve better than what we've given them. But, you know, it's hard to say, you know, victim coming out there and just listing a bunch of names they haven't been believed in the past. People have undermined them in the past, discredited them in the past. So, we want to work backwards, get their intel, and then go out and try to find the documentation and the proof. But the president has some of that documentation. We want to see it.
HUNT: All right. Congressman Suhas Subramanyam, thank you very much for joining us today. I really appreciate it.
SUBRAMANYAM: Thank you.
HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, we're going to have much more. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:40:53] HUNT: All right. We are continuing to follow the fallout from the release of these emails that show Jeffrey Epstein, Virginia, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and the journalist Michael Wolff in conversation about President Trump and whether or not he had a connection to Epstein, the nature of that connection.
And, Elliot Williams, I -- can we just kind of back up for a second and talk about, obviously, we had a very heated conversation between these two partisans over here.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Spirited conversation about, you know, why the Democratic -- the Biden Justice Department wasn't releasing these, why the pressure is on the Trump administration to do so. Can you just help us understand, like what the actual rules are supposed to be?
WILLIAMS: Well, they can release whatever they wish as long as they redact information about victims or private citizens or people who have not been charged with crimes.
Now, that's a little bit different with grand jury materials. Anything that comes out of the grand jury by law cannot be made public. And people should get that in their heads. If it;s said in the --
HUNT: So, are these emails like part of the grand jury material or like can you help us understand the distinction?
WILLIAMS: Probably not. Now, if -- if they were presented as evidence in the grand jury, they cannot obviously be made public.
Now, look, if the person who had the email chose to make it public independently of the grand jury, of course, they're free to do that. But once it's evidence, once it's in that room, the Justice Department is obligated to keep it private.
Now, that's only a small portion. I think, of the materials here. The rest are investigative materials, but it just gets touchy when you're talking about looking into allegations of wrongdoing where someone hasn't been charged with a crime. Like so -- take Donald Trump, for instance. Perhaps there's nothing to see, and perhaps he's perfectly fine. The mere fact that his name appears in investigative materials is hugely embarrassing to him as a private citizen.
Forget that he's the president of the United States. You just don't want to do that. Whether it's a president or whether it's Kristen Soltis Anderson -- we don't disclose --
HUNT: It's not.
WILLIAMS: -- a potential wrongdoing.
(LAUGHTER)
HUNT: Just to be clear --
WILLIAMS: But just putting it out there.
URBAN: But to Elliot's point there, if we do care about victims and justice and fairness here, right? Again, I go back, why are we talking to the line prosecutors who decided to cut a sweetheart deal for this guy? If this isn't about just political theater, why aren't we going back to this? To this, to the source material, to these people and say, why didn't you recommend him for a stiffer sentence? Why did you let him go? Why did you?
That's the actual point we should care about in America.
WILLIAMS: Absolutely, and even if not the line prosecutors, the buck stopped with Alex Acosta, the --
URBAN: Bring them all in.
WILLIAMS: The office.
HINOJOSA: Well --
WILLIAMS: But bring him in. And there's been -- there's been bipartisan clamoring to hear more from the prosecutor and this absolute sweetheart deal that Jeffrey Epstein that was struck with him. So, let's find out about that.
URBAN: To me, that's far more -- to me, that's far more important --
HINOJOSA: What's interesting about that, and I'm glad that you brought that up, because the original subpoena list by from Republicans. And, you know, Republicans control everything, so they control exactly who subpoenaed did not include Alex Acosta. It included people who actually had no idea, had not even looked at the Epstein files, had not been briefed about the Epstein case whatsoever.
And, those people went to the Hill or their attorneys wrote back to the committee and said, we don't know anything about it.
And so, if they really wanted to get to the bottom of it, to your point, they would bring the people forward who actually know that. But House Republicans did not do that because I'm not sure that they want the answers. They just want an appearance, it seem, like they're trying to get to the bottom of it.
HUNT: Okay, so let's ask Manu Raju about this, this very question. He's up on Capitol Hill for us.
And, Manu, we now have Adelita Grijalva signature on this discharge petition, which should force this vote. Let's start with just the logistics of it.
I mean, how does -- how are we going to follow this bouncing ball? I mean, what happens next?
MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: So, a few things here. One, the ordinary process of getting this bill on the floor. It takes some time. In fact, it takes seven legislative days before it can actually be considered. And at that point the speaker has up to two days to schedule a vote.
And given the House's schedule, which has been scarce to this point, they've been out of session since September 19th. They just got back into session today. They're leaving town tonight to get back into session on Monday. Then they're only in town next week and then they are gone again for Thanksgiving week, which puts this all the way up until early December, which we expect that vote to be considered on the floor. The question is whether there's going to be any effort ahead of time to try to either scuttle this effort one way or the other.
The speaker doesn't have a ton of options here to try to derail it. There are some procedural moves he could try to do to stop it. We've seen them use the House rules committee in previous efforts to try to circumvent Republican leadership and force votes on various issues. We'll see if he tries to do the same thing here.
But at some point, assuming those efforts don't succeed, this will ultimately come to the floor, likely the latest by early December. And then it seems very clearly, Kasie, that there are the votes for this to pass, not just the four Republicans who have signed on to this effort to circumvent the Republican leadership and force this vote.
But also, I talked to several Republicans today who plan to vote for the bill, even though they did not sign on to that petition to force a vote, including Congressman Warren Davidson. He's from Ohio. He's a conservative. Congressman Eli Crane of Arizona, both told me there would be a yes. A more moderate Republican, Don Bacon, also told me that he would vote yes if this bill came to the floor.
Ro Khanna himself, the Democrat who's co-sponsoring this bill, predicted about 40 to 50 Republicans could ultimately vote for it. We'll see if he's right, but at least more than four and certainly more than the majority in the House. So that's a clear sign that this will pass, which is why Donald Trump wants to figure out a way to stop this from even getting to the floor. They don't want members to take a position against him, but it seems like a significant amount or a fair amount in the Republican conference ultimately will.
HUNT: Yeah. Manu, can you just briefly talk about the politics of this? Because, I mean, it doesn't seem likely that this would have to pass the House, then go to the Senate and correct me if I'm wrong, but the president would have the opportunity to veto it. Why go to all this trouble now?
RAJU: Yeah, that's -- it's such a good question because, you know, this is a symbolic vote at the end of the day, because this bill is not going to become law. This is probably not even get a vote in the United States Senate. If it does get a vote in the Senate, getting 60 votes in the Senate is very unlikely. It's a 53-47 Republican majority over there, and I can't see more than a few voting for this. And even John Thune, the majority leader, doesn't want to put this on the floor.
So there's no mechanism to really force this vote. And if the Democrats do force a vote in the United States Senate, there are ways to do that. Republicans will vote against just doing that because they don't want the Democrats to set the agenda on the floor.
So that basically means that the bill is not going to pass the Senate. Trump clearly does not want Republicans breaking from him on this position. It would put more pressure on him at this very uncomfortable moment in which his name is referenced in these files. So, he wants to stop this vote from happening altogether. But it's clear, he's not his pressure campaign for some of these members just isn't working.
HUNT: Yeah, for sure.
All right. Manu, fascinating day on the Hill, as always. Thanks very much.
We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[16:52:34]
HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA.
We are joined now by Rahm Emanuel. He is the former mayor of Chicago, served as President Obama's chief of staff. He's now also CNN's senior political and global affairs commentator.
I always joke, sir, that I could keep going with all of your titles that you've had here in Washington, campaign chief for the Democrats in the House is another one of them.
I want to start there, actually, with how Democrats are handling what's been going on with the Epstein files here, because a number of them have been pushing really hard to keep this front and center. Now, the Republican criticism is, of course, hey, why didn't you do that when Biden was president of the United States? What do you think?
RAHM EMANUEL, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL AND GLOBAL AFFAIRS COMMENTATOR: Well, one is, look, they're pushing it very hard, but they're facing a lot of resistance, which tells you where there's smoke, there's usually fire. That's what I think.
And I -- and I also think, you know, interesting way you have a more the more interesting story is what's happening on the Republican side because these are the furthest early stages of people realizing I think were in the early days of a post-Trump world, and you can see that fissures within the Republican Party from Marjorie Taylor Greene, Senator Cruz, how the Heritage Foundation/Fuentes was handled.
These are the early cracks that a post-Trump era. And what happens to the Republican Party. Are they going to remain a house of Trump or a house of Reagan? And they've never had an ideology. So therefore, it's going to be very interesting to watch.
And that's what's happening here.
HUNT: It isn't very interesting unfolding story line for sure.
EMANUEL: I would say. One other thing is --
HUNT: Yeah.
EMANUEL: -- Donald Trump came the first term to drain the swamp. He's acting like a creature from the swamp, in this case. And that's coming across very clearly. And the problem between him and his base.
HUNT: That does seem to be kind of the central thing that makes this story more problematic than many others for him. Briefly, do you have concerns for Democratic politicians? High level. If these files come out?
EMANUEL: I don't know -- not I know of. And if they come, that's going to be the consequences. Let the chips fall where they may.
HUNT: Let's talk about Democratic politics as well, because obviously there was this huge, sweeping election. Then Democrats in the Senate decided they'd had enough. They were going to reopen the government. The base is not happy. Did Chuck Schumer let that group of eight Democrats do the right thing? How much trouble is he in?
EMANUEL: Well, first of all, let's go back to the election a week ago. That was a repudiation of Donald Trump and the Republicans. It was not an affirmation of the Democrats. Don't overinterpret what happened there.
Now, it was broad. It was deep. It was sweep. It was all over the country. Mississippi, Georgia, Pennsylvania. Erie County, Bucks County, New York. New Jersey and Virginia.
[16:55:02]
But it was a repudiation.
Now, number two, I think as it relates to this, I think the focus is not Chuck Schumer, the focus stay on Donald Trump because 2026, which is, what, 2025 was an early curtain on 2026 is a referendum election. It's about the Republicans and Donald Trump and keep the focus there.
The second part of this is what I think that's an important and is kind of when you look at this whole effort and this issue is the real thing, is you Republicans and the Democrats showed their stripes. Democrats, health care is now at the top of the heap rather than the bottom of the rubble. 2018, there was an election about ACA and health care, and the Republicans got their butts handed to them.
And what Donald Trump showed over 40 days when the smoke was cleared, he was willing to go to the Supreme Court to deny hungry kids food, to deny their parents health care. And he showed a cruelty and a crassness that came across, which is why the "AP" has a poll out today showing him at 36 percent approval, lowest he's had in his tenure.
The other thing, his own pollster told the Republicans that if you don't deal with health care and premiums, you're going to lose your majority. So, I think in this age, rather than win loss, the way Washington scores it, watch it from how the American people watch it. And this did not help Donald Trump with the Republican Party.
HUNT: I am unfortunately out of time here. I know you're here in D.C. to talk about Democrats, an initiative here that you're working on. I really want to ask you if you're going to run for president, but we're going to have to talk about it next time.
Rahm Emanuel, thank you.
EMANUEL: Thanks.
HUNT: I really appreciate it.
All right. We'll be right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HUNT: All right. Thanks very much to my panel. Thanks very much to you all at home for watching, for joining us here in THE ARENA today.
Jake Tapper is standing by for "THE LEAD". Hi, Jake.
