Return to Transcripts main page

CNN's The Arena with Kasie Hunt

House GOP Bracing For Mass Defections On Epstein Files Vote; Judge To Rule By Thanksgiving On Whether Trump's U.S. Attorney Will Be Disqualified From James Comey & Letitia James Cases. Aired 4-5p ET

Aired November 13, 2025 - 16:00   ET

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

[16:00:00]

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN HOST: That guy right there.

JESSICA DEAN, CNN HOST: Maybe that's who they -- yeah, there he goes. Yeah.

KEILAR: Poor guy.

The CEO of the company that developed the robot is quoted by Russian media saying he hoped this mistake will turn into an experience.

Well, we had one.

DEAN: We should.

KEILAR: You're about to have another one.

And 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 Thursday.

Right now, on Capitol Hill, the Epstein files reopening what is basically the biggest divide inside the Republican Party, as their members weigh deep loyalty to President Donald Trump against a base of supporters who expect the transparency that they were promised for years.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. VANCE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list. That is an important thing.

DONALD TRUMP, JR., SON OF PRESIDENT TRUMP: How is it that my father could be convicted of 34 crimes, but no one on Epstein's list has even been brought to light?

KASH PATEL, FBI DIRECTOR: Put on your big boy pants and let us know who the pedophiles are.

DAN BONGINO, FBI DEPUTY DIRECTOR: What the hell are they hiding with Jeffrey Epstein?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Republicans on the Hill are soon going to have to go on the record with where their loyalty lies. Next week, the House will vote on a bill that would require the Justice Department to release all of its files related to Epstein.

Sources tell CNN that House GOP leaders are bracing for many of their members to vote yes.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. THOMAS MASSIE (R-KY): We've already had a couple Republicans tell my office privately that they're going to vote for it, and I think that could snowball.

MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Epstein votes coming to the floor. Are you going to vote for it? This bill?

REP. ELI CRANE (R-AZ): Yeah, I told you I would. Yeah.

REP. WARREN DAVIDSON (R-OH): I'm going to vote for it. If it comes up, you handed out binders to journalists. What was in the binders?

REP. MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR (R-FL): I'm sure that the president has nothing to fear.

RAJU: Yeah.

SALAZAR: We do need to know. We do need to know everything about Epstein.

REP. DON BACON (R-NE): If this comes on the floor, I will vote for. I want transparency. To me, it's the worst P.R. job I've seen anywhere.

I mean, initially, you know, back in February or March, whatever it was, we have all the Epstein lists right here. We're going to release it. And then all of a sudden, there's nothing. It's sort of a self -- they shot themselves in the foot on this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, if this bill passes the House, it, of course, faces a very uncertain future in the Senate. If it were to pass the Senate, President Trump could still veto it when it lands on his desk. Overriding a veto, incredibly rare. Congress has only done it one time to President Trump, but this reality, right, that that this is likely never to become law really raises a question. Why is the White House so concerned about this vote that the attorney general, Pam Bondi, met yesterday with one of the discharge petition's key signers, Representative Lauren Boebert, in the Situation Room? Why does the president -- why does his administration care so much about preventing this vote from happening?

Let's get off the sidelines and head into THE ARENA. We have with us a member of the House Oversight Committee, Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, standing by here for us.

But let's start with our reporters. CNN's senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes, and CNN chief congressional correspondent Manu Raju.

And, Kristen, let me start with you. I mean, what are you hearing? And maybe more importantly, not hearing from the administration yet?

KRISTEN HOLMES, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, Kasie, one thing is clear. The White House doesn't want to talk about this. This is a story that has essentially plagued this White House for much of Donald Trump's second term.

And it has seemed almost impossible at times for this administration to wrap their hands around what exactly, or take control of the story. But even more so to even be able to get ahead of the story. We've asked a number of questions we haven't heard back, or when it comes to those emails in particular, we hear the same line over and over again from the White House that these emails prove literally nothing. That is an exact quote of what we've heard from the White House.

Now, it was also clear that President Trump, he doesn't want to talk about this. This is him. Earlier today, when asked by our producer Kit Maher, about those Epstein files and those emails.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KIT MAHER, CNN PRODUCER: Sir, any respond to the Epstein emails that mention your name?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So very quick there. But absolutely no engagement at all when it comes to President Trump. But there are still a number of questions. And I'll tell you, I talked to a number of Trump allies who have told me that they are perplexed by the White House's response to this, that there is a lot of confusion as to why it is that they are putting this out there in bits and pieces, or allowing this to be essentially something that they are on the defense about instead of the offense.

And I do just want to point out manus interviews there. That is absolutely stunning when it comes to this administration. You almost never see a break like that from what the administration is wanting. And members of the Republican Party on Capitol Hill pushing back in those kind of numbers.

[16:05:04]

HUNT: Yeah. And the man himself, from all of that great reporting.

Manu is here, too.

Manu, what do we know about the schedule here? And if you could help us understand too? I mean, does Mike Johnson have to send this straight over to the Senate? I mean, what is the landscape coming up? MANU RAJU, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, we expect a

vote probably early next week, potentially as early as Tuesday. And the big question is going to be not if this will pass, but by how much and how many Republicans will ultimately break ranks. And talking to Republican sources, they are bracing for mass defections from the White House and the big number to watch here is whether or not two thirds of the House majority will vote -- for House, will vote for this.

And that, of course, is the important number, because that is a veto proof majority if it does get to that. In talking to Republicans today, it seems like that is possible at this point.

Now, Trump of course, will lay pressure down. Maybe it will change the calculus here, but a lot of Republicans are making the decision that, look, we support full transparency. It's going to be hard for them to stomach voting against a bill simply calling for the release of these files that could shed new light over this sex trafficking ring. So that's going to be the big question in the -- in the next week or so. How many of those members, those members that I've been speaking to, they represent a broad cross-section of the Republican conference.

Many of the more conservative members have long called for a release of the Epstein files, but a lot of the moderate members, too. They are supporting this as well, including ones from swing districts who certainly don't want to vote on a vote that could give their Democratic opponents ammunition in a general election, which is a big reason why the Republican leadership essentially wanted to rip the band-aid off. Have the vote next week, because this was coming to the floor at the latest by early December.

So have the vote next week. Let it be done with, and then it will pass. And if there is a two thirds majority or even close to that, it's going to put enormous pressure on Senate Republican leadership to put this on the floor of their chamber, because they have no interest in putting this on the floor right now. But big Republican support could change that calculus as well -- Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Manu Raju, Kristen Holmes, thank you very much for starting us off with this.

And joining us now, a key member of the House Oversight Committee, Democratic Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett of Texas. She also sits on the House Judiciary Committee.

Congresswoman, thanks very much for being here.

REP. JASMINE CROCKETT (D-TX): Absolutely.

HUNT: At this point, does the House Oversight Committee have, to your knowledge, more documents to put out? Do you know more about what these documents may say about President Trump or other powerful politicians that the public does not know yet?

CROCKETT: Yeah, there's still more that committee staff is going through and determining what needs to be redacted before the release. And then we always consult with leadership on the Republican side as well, before any drops are made public. And I fully anticipate that we will receive more, at least from the estate of Epstein.

It does not seem like the Department of Justice has really been inclined to actually participate, which is one reason that were talking about this discharge petition and talking about this vote. It's because we need something with a little bit more fire behind it to hopefully get the Department of Justice to finally start to cooperate.

HUNT: Why is it that Epstein's estate, I mean, the Todd Blanche, the president's attorney, deputy attorney general, now, he wrote this morning that when he went to interview Ghislaine Maxwell, quite a moment, that law enforcement didn't have the materials that Epstein's estate hid for years and only just provided to Congress.

Why is he saying this now? And why is the estate talking to Congress if not to the --

(CROSSTALK)

CROCKETT: Have you ever heard of swaye (ph)? That's exactly what we've got going on. And it was interesting because you made a Freudian slip. You said the president's attorney. You're right. That's who he is.

HUNT: I should have said, former personal attorney.

CROCKETT: That's who he is, though, like, I'm sticking with it. I get what you got to say, but at the end of the day, that's what he's been trying to do. He's been trying to do Trump's bidding. He has not been acting like anyone's attorney general.

And we know that when it comes down to whether you're the deputy or whether you are, say, Pam Bondi, the actual A.G., you are supposed to be the people's attorney. But she has decided that she wants to neglect the people and do whatever it is that Trump wants her to do, along with Todd Blanche.

So here it is. He's like, well, I didn't have all the information. Well, sir, did you try to get the rest of the information? Do we know for sure that the Department of Justice didn't have this information? And if they didn't have this information, do we know whether or not they actually deleted this information?

Do we know that there was a thorough investigation? Do we know whether or not the investigation had concluded? These are all questions that we need answers to, but we can't get them when you're not cooperating.

So, we don't know what the DOJ has, nor what it is that the DOJ potentially was trying to do. Considering that the president right now is trying to obstruct on some very basics of lets just get a subpoena that says release all the information. I wouldn't be surprised. Just like he obstructed the prosecution of one of his henchmen who took $50,000 in taxpayer dollars from undercover officers.

[16:10:05]

I wouldn't be surprised if he sent a message and said, stop investigating, we're done with this. Epstein's dead. I don't want to hear anything else about it.

HUNT: Do you have any evidence of that claim?

CROCKETT: I have no idea -- no, that's the whole point. I have no information. And that's why we need these files to be released, because we are looking for transparency, whether you're a Democrat, Republican or independent.

Listen, if people decide that they want to continue to support a person who may be a pedophile himself or a person who obviously is covering for pedophiles, that's on them, but they should know at least the devil that they have decided to pick.

HUNT: We saw at the top of the show a number of at the time, Donald Trump surrogates and supporters, including his son and his vice presidential nominee, say that the Epstein files should be released. Obviously, there was a Democrat who was president at the time, Joe Biden.

Why were Democrats not louder at that time about this release?

CROCKETT: So, a couple of things. Number one, you had pending litigation. So, we're not the ones that went out making some campaign promises. In fact, the vast majority of Democrats had been campaigning on things such as affordability. I know that Kamala Harris had an actual plan so that people wouldn't necessarily be stuck in a mortgage for 50 years, but instead she wanted to make sure that they have $25,000 down payment so that they can move into homes and make life overall more affordable.

So, we were focused on the bread and butter issues. This was a campaign issue of his, but while there was pending litigation, if you look at when Maxwell was finally convicted and honestly, she just finished probably one of her last appeals here recently, you are not usually in the middle of an active case. And then you say, oh, yes, we're going to release everything. That's not how that goes.

So, she was prosecuted under the Biden-Harris administration. So no, this was not something to do at that point in time. At this point in time, it's clear that they are not interested in going forward with any additional prosecutions. In addition to the fact that the survivors have come forward, they are begging congress to do this.

This is not something that the survivors were necessarily doing at that time. They were still believing in the system and hoping that it would work.

HUNT: What's your sense? The survivors obviously have been on Capitol Hill, and of course, many of them endured just horrific, horrific things. They have said it should not be on them to provide a list of the people that they encountered.

CROCKETT: Yes.

HUNT: Do you, in the course of your work on the committee and perhaps discussions with them, have any understanding or thinking that they may change their position on that, that we may see a list from them?

CROCKETT: I don't think so. Let me tell you something. There's been recent reporting where MAGA seems to be upset because I have to pay for security. I'm actually upset that I have to pay for security as well.

The threats that come with being on the other side of this president are significant and serious. And so, when you have a list of women and they are the ones that are making these claims for anybody that doesn't want to believe the truth, then they will start to go after them. They will start to threaten their families.

It would be better if we had the contemporaneous reports from law enforcement where they called in at those moments and gave the reports of what was happening. It's kind of like the birthday letter that he wants to pretend is a hoax. That was a contemporaneous writing at that time. This was not produced in real time, and they don't want it to be seen as partisan or political. They just want people to believe in the facts.

And so, if it is that they reported this, maybe even before he was president, then maybe people will actually believe it versus the hate that they get thrown at them in this moment. So no, I don't think that they'll do it. I think it's the smartest thing that they can do for safety. It is sad that we have survivors that feel like they can't be safe from an American president and his cronies, but that's where we are.

HUNT: While you're here, I also want to ask you about some of the other political stories that have been unfolding on the Hill. Obviously, the longest shutdown, longest government shutdown in history, recently ended. There has been a lot of criticism of the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer from fellow members of yours and the House of Representatives from the progressive base. Chuck Schumer has defended himself in part by saying over the months that he knows how to win elections.

Do you think that Chuck Sschumer still knows how to win elections?

CROCKETT: No, I know nothing about his strategies on winning elections. That is for sure.

HUNT: Because you're thinking about running for Senate yourself.

CROCKETT: I am absolutely thinking about running for Senate, and I'm hoping to have an answer within my inner circle, probably within the next week and a half or so. But I will tell you this -- I will tell you that I completely understand those that are disappointed. I will tell you that on November 4th, we won in places that we weren't supposed to win in. Whether we're looking at Georgia or whether we're looking at Mississippi, or whether we're looking at different parts of Virginia, where now we're going to end up having a supermajority in the House or in the commonwealth in the House.

[16:15:08]

I will tell you this -- I will tell you that ultimately, the decision about who is best to lead the Senate comes from the Senate. It's only the senators that get to make that decision. They are the ones with information that we don't have. I don't know if there's someone that can fundraise stronger than Chuck Schumer. Maybe. Maybe not.

I don't know what all Chuck does when it comes to making sure that we have the best chances with the Senate map that were given in any given election cycle. And I trust our senators in the Senate to decide on who is best to lead them.

HUNT: I'll be honest, this sounds -- makes it sound to me like you are planning on running for Senate.

CROCKETT: I can tell you for sure that I have not made a decision. I will also tell you that we have a poll that is currently in the field that went into the field on yesterday. I am waiting on those results. It's the first and only poll that I've put out to be able to kind of understand where I really am. I don't want to rely just solely on third party polls.

HUNT: So, basically, you're polling yourself to try to make a decision about what you should do.

CROCKETT: I am. I'm polling to determine whether or not I can expand the electorate, and I believe that I can, but if I can't, I can tell you for sure 100 percent that I will not run.

HUNT: Fair enough. And it sounds to me like perhaps you've answered this question already, but have you thought about would you support Chuck Schumer if you were a senator to be the leader?

CROCKETT: I haven't, but I but I will tell you that if there are other people that are interested because I don't know who wants these jobs, sometimes if there are other people that are interested in running for that post, I absolutely would plan to hear everyone out as I've not worked as closely with the Senate.

You know, most people don't realize that House Democrats and Senate Democrats, we don't even get together as caucuses. We literally -- whatever senators you have a relationship with or you interact with, it's because you work with them kind of one on one. And I can tell you that I've never had any piece of legislation that I've had to work one on one with Schumer on.

I can tell you that I've worked with Senator Cornyn, who is up for reelection a number of times on a number of pieces of legislation. He's actually not been the worst Republican that you can find in the Senate, to be perfectly honest.

HUNT: Have you talked to Schumer about the possibility of your running for Senate?

CROCKETT: I have not.

HUNT: You have not?

CROCKETT: I have not.

HUNT: And what do you think about your colleague Alexandria Ocasio- Cortez potentially running against him? Good idea, bad idea?

CROCKETT: I think that that's up to the people of New York. I think, you know, there is this feeling within our base that we need to have younger people. I will tell you that I don't necessarily just subscribe to ageism. I'm going to be perfectly honest, because even when you look at the votes and you look at the six Democrats that actually broke ranks yesterday out of the House, I can tell you that they weren't all elderly. There were a number of very young people, definitely one of the members is younger than me.

So, I think that it is about who is willing to fight in this moment. And what does that fight look like? So, I think New York will have to decide if Alex does decide to run, who is built for this moment. And I really want to urge all Americans that were disappointed with the eight Senate Democrats to not get disappointed or disenchanted with the party as a whole.

But when you go out, don't just vote for a Democrat, vote for a Democrat that is ready for the fight that were in at this moment, one that is looking for accountability with this rogue administration.

HUNT: All right. Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett, thanks very much for spending some time with us today.

CROCKETT: Absolutely.

HUNT: Great having you.

All right. Coming up next in THE ARENA, Senator John Kennedy will be here live as we get a stunning new look at just how the shutdown impacted the job market.

Also this hour, the dramatic hearing today in the cases against James Comey and Letitia James. What the judge is now thinking about potentially tossing the top prosecutor. And when she says she'll decide.

But first, our panel will be here with all of the analysis of the latest in the Epstein saga as the House barrels toward that vote on the DOJ files.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JIMMY FALLON, COMEDIAN: Congress released new emails that show President Trump's ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Trump heard and was like, bring back the shutdown. Bring it back. Let's bring it. Shut it down.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:23:43]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN COLBERT, COMEDIAN: Democrat Adelita Grijalva was finally sworn in as a member of Congress. That's a really big first day. All right, here's the key to the ladies room. Over there is the xerox machine. Down there is the room where you're going to topple the pervert cabal.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: Now that the Epstein files discharge petition has its final needed signature, all eyes are on the House Speaker Mike Johnson, who said he will put a bill requiring the release of the Jeffrey Epstein case files on the floor sometime next week.

As we wait to hear when exactly that might be, Republican sources tell CNN that GOP House leadership is bracing for a significant number of Republicans to break from President Trump and support this bipartisan bill to release the files.

Our panel is here in THE ARENA. CNN political commentator Jonah Goldberg; CNN political analyst, national political reporter for "Axios", Alex Thompson; Democratic strategist Adrienne Elrod; and CNN political commentator, Republican strategist Brad Todd.

Welcome to all of you. Thanks for being here.

Brad, I know this is your absolute favorite discussion topic as a panelist on this show, but I mean, honestly, the sort of basic fundamentals of this -- I mean, Manu was on here at the top of the show basically saying like, there might be a veto-proof majority here to put these files out. I mean, why is the president doing this?

[16:25:01]

BRAD TODD, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, the discharge petition will throw the bill on the floor unamended, unimproved. And by the way, no bill written by any member of Congress is suitable for the floor immediately. It all needs to go to the committee and be amended.

But that's not what happens with the discharge petition. So, it's going to go to the floor. I think it's going to get at least 50 Republican votes. Wouldn't shock me if it's 100.

And so, I think if I were Attorney General Pam Bondi, I would begin to feed the sharks. I would -- I would decide to release a lot more than I'm comfortable with, because I think she has a sincere desire to protect witnesses and to protect people who were just mentioned in hearsay in the files.

I think she has some good reasons, but I think she's going to have to start feeding the sharks or else the whole file is going to come out and a lot of innocent people will get hurt. HUNT: Jonah Goldberg, what do you think happened for Pam Bondi,

though? Because she did at one point go in front of the cameras and say, it's on my desk. I'm going to go look at it, and I'm going to put it out. And then all of a sudden, something changed because it's not out.

And here we are. It's November, nearing the end of the first year of his term.

JONAH GOLDBERG, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I don't think it's intense criminology to suspect she got yelled at. Donald Trump said, what are you doing?

I mean, this all clearly comes from Trump. I've long thought there was nothing criminal in there or would have leaked a long time ago. But just from what we've seen, there is stuff that's embarrassing. And he had to know that there was going to be -- he had to have a strong suspicion that there was embarrassing stuff.

And, you know, when he was doing that huge transparency swing about UFOs and Kennedy assassination stuff, I think he thought that would feed the beast and he could get away with not releasing all the Epstein stuff, but there's just so much of the MAGA industrial media complex that lives for this story, and it just didn't work.

ALEX THOMPSON, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: And it's not just Pam Bondi, it's J.D. Vance, too, who repeatedly going back to 2021 and even during the campaign.

GOLDBERG: And Kash Patel.

THOMPSON: And Kash Patel, that were talking about how they were finally going to release this all and now they basically don't want to talk about it. And the reason is because we've all seen the videos. It's been out there forever. They were cavorting. Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein were cavorting in the '90s and early 2000.

There's certainly embarrassing material about that. And the most interesting thing to me about this is that the Republican House and Senate, but the Republican House in particular, which is rubber stamped every part of Trump's agenda, have said, I haven't read that tweet yet for nine months.

They are really, seriously defecting against this president for the first time that we've seen in this second term.

HUNT: Adrienne, why do you think Democrats didn't fight to put this out earlier? They're fighting hard now.

ADRIENNE ELROD, DEMOCRATIC STRATEGIST: Look, I think first of all, I think that Republicans would have discredited a lot of whatever President Biden put out. I think they would have said, oh, you didn't put out all the files or the redactions would have been criticized. I think that they would have thought that it was not done in a credible, honest manner because it was President Biden, and they would have said that he was protecting Democrats, or he was protecting whomever. But look, it's happening now. And you see the president, the walls

feel like they're caving in at the White House. He's calling Lauren Boebert, he's calling Nancy Mace. He's spending time not fighting for the American people, but calling who he thought were his allies in Congress and trying to get them to take their names off the discharge petition.

You know, I actually agree with my friend Brad here for once that, that I think there's going to be a lot of Republicans who support this. And, and I think this is inevitable. And if I was Pam Bondi, I'd put a lot of information out there, too.

HUNT: I want to flash back to June of 2024, because we did show at the top some of the people that Alex just mentioned, J.D. Vance, Kash Patel, Dan Bongino out there very forcefully demanding that these files come out. Trump himself, while obviously this was allowed to go on, was more circumspect when he was asked directly whether or not these files should come out. Let's watch that answer.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

INTERVIEWER: Would you declassify the 9/11 files?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: Would you declassify JFK files?

TRUMP: Yeah.

INTERVIEWER: Would you --

TRUMP: I did -- I did a lot of it.

INTERVIEWER: Would you declassify the Epstein files?

TRUMP: Yeah. Yeah, I would.

INTERVIEWER: All right.

TRUMP: I guess I would. I think that less so because, you know, you don't know -- you don't want to affect people's lives if it's phony stuff in there because there's a lot of phony stuff with that whole world.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: So, Alex, he says there's a lot of phony stuff with this whole -- with this whole world. And one of the things we learned from these emails is that Epstein and his inner circle were essentially discussing how to use the connection that did exist to threaten Donald Trump.

THOMPSON: Well, and this also speaks to what both sides have said is that there was a rift in their relationship after they were very, very close. And you can tell that all during the 2015, 2016 campaign, that Jeffrey Epstein, according to these new emails that were that were leaked, there were discussions among reporters like Michael Wolff, also reporters from "New York Times" about how can we use some of our internal information in order to try to hurt his candidacy.

Now, it's interesting that a lot of that information -- while there was rumors and talks of photographs and stuff, none of it ever emerged during that campaign or since.

[16:30:05]

HUNT: Jonah, how much more do you think there is to this?

GOLDBERG: I mean, I honestly have no idea. I think that some of the stuff that came out was worse than I kind of thought it was going to be already. And I kind of gave -- I really did kind of assume that this was going to be more nothingburger than anything else. And I think it's -- I don't think it's a huge deal, but I think it's -- there's more substance to it.

And I agree with my colleagues over here, like, this is the absolute worst way to have this information come out in drips and drabs, just keeping everybody. They should just flood the zone, pull the band-aid off and get it out, because it's going to get out eventually.

HUNT: I mean, even Megyn Kelly, who, of course, is the former Fox News anchor who once clashed with Donald Trump but is now kind of part of the MAGA media empire, has been directly saying this about the Epstein files. Watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MEGYN KELLY, FORMER FOX NEWS ANCHOR: Why didn't Trump just release these? Just release them, just release them, right? Like now he's in the position of being like singled out as the only one, allegedly, as opposed to one of a slew of names. The Democrats, of course, are going to make a ton of hay over it.

And I don't know that there's any "there" there whatsoever, but I can -- I concede that they sound bad. They don't sound good.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: I mean, Brad, you are talking to Republican voters all the time and you're polling and the other mechanisms you use. I mean, clearly, Republican voters want this stuff out there.

TODD: Well, they think the government protects the powerful wrongdoers. And by the way, it's not a bad hunch on a lot of occasions.

I think that it's a little bit rich that a lot of the Democrats in Congress were not itching for Merrick Garland to put this information out. I need to get that in. And now suddenly, they think its the most important thing confronting the republic. There's a little bit of hypocrisy going in there. And I --

HUNT: Hypocrisy in politics -- TODD; There's also a new thing in Washington. Yeah. I was looking for

the word.

But I think the question here is Pam Bondi, just like Merrick Garland had some hesitation for putting it out for legal reasons. They the whole file involves a lot of information gathering and investigations and things that would never pass muster in a court.

GOLDBERG: I mean, grand jury testimony is supposed to be sacredly confidential.

TODD: That's right, that's right.

But the discharge petition in congress knows no boundaries. The rule is what's in the bill goes on the floor. And if you vote for it, that's what happens. And so, this bill -- this bill is not crafted to be safe.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here in THE ARENA, Republican Senator John Kennedy will be here with us live.

Plus, President Trump's White House makeover not over. What part of the complex he's now eyeing for a glow up.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: People considered it a really ugly building, and I looked at it -- and some other people -- it's one of the most beautiful buildings ever built.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:37:17]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back.

We're continuing to follow this story that the White House really seems to wish would just go away as House Republicans weigh whether to back a bill that would force the DOJ to release all of its Jeffrey Epstein case files.

Republican Thomas Massie, who is, of course, the man that has led this push to release them, has this warning for his Republican colleagues.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MASSIE: The deal for Republicans on this vote is that Trump will protect you if you vote the wrong way. In other words, if you vote to cover up for pedophiles, you've got cover in Republican primary. But I would remind my colleagues that this vote is going to be on your record for longer than Trump is going to be president. And what are you going to do in 2028 and 2030 when you're in a debate either with a Republican or a Democrat and they say, how can we trust you? You covered up for a pedophile back in, you know, 2025. (END VIDEO CLIP)

HUNT: All right. Joining us now, Republican senator of Louisiana, John Kennedy, sits on the Senate Judiciary and Appropriations Committees, among others.

Senator, thank you so much for being here. How do you respond to those comments from Thomas Massie that essentially, if you vote to cover up for pedophiles, you've got cover in a Republican primary. He's essentially saying the president is going to help people who votes -- who vote with him and vote not to release these files.

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY (R-LA): Well, here is the way that my people here in Louisiana see it, Kasie, my people think, and I agree with them, that Epstein was a pig. A P-I-G, pig.

My people think that this is no country for creepy old men. My people believe, and I think they're right, that Epstein trafficked young women, some of whom were minors to himself.

But here's the issue. My people want to know who else, if anyone did Epstein trafficked young women to. And, if they were punished, how were they punished? And if they weren't punished, why?

Now, President Trump has turned that issue over to Attorney General Bondi and the -- I don't know how she is going to answer that question for the American people without releasing all the records. Maybe she can, but, that's -- I just don't think this issue is going to go away until that issue is addressed and answered to the American people's satisfaction.

HUNT: Yeah.

KENNEDY: And I may end up with a sombrero on my head for saying that.

[16:40:01]

But that's -- that's the way I see it.

HUNT: Sir, if this passes the House and based on Manu's numerous interviews with Republicans, it sounds like this is going to pass potentially, overwhelmingly, should the majority leader, John Thune, put this on the Senate floor?

KENNEDY: I don't know what Senator Thune will do. I don't know what he'll put on the Senate floor. The Senate has this rich history for better or worse, of doing its own resolution. So, I don't know what, if any, Thune --

HUNT: What do you want to do?

KENNEDY: I think he'll -- he ought to put it on the floor. I think this is -- this issue is got to be resolved one way or the other. Unless --

HUNT: How would you vote on it? KENNEDY: -- before -- and -- well, it depends on what the resolution says. I'm labor, not management, Kasie. Thune's going to draft it however he wants to draft it, and he's going to make his own decision.

HUNT: If it says what the House bill says, release all the files. Would you vote for that?

KENNEDY: I'm not going to answer that because I don't think it will be identical to the House if Thune indeed puts it on the -- on the floor.

But I just don't see how this issue is going to go away. Maybe, maybe justice can answer the question, but I ask Kash Patel in front of God and country in committee. I asked him, I said, look, who else, if anyone did Epstein traffic these young women to. And he said, we have no evidence of anyone. It's not there.

Well, I don't know how you prove that without -- without releasing all the files.

HUNT: I understand that the language is going to be different, and, you know, I'm sorry to keep circling back to this, but just to put a finer point on it, if a bill to release the Epstein files to force the Department of Justice to release the Epstein files came to the senate floor as a general matter, would you vote yes?

KENNEDY: As a general matter, I think I've said repeatedly I think they ought to, I don't think this is going to go away. And as a moral principle, I think they ought to release the records.

HUNT: Fair enough. Do you think that there's enough Republicans in the Senate who feel similarly to you to have this bill passed in the Senate, or a version of this bill? I should say.

KENNEDY: I don't know, I -- I suspect every Democrat will vote for it. I don't know. I haven't -- we haven't talked about it much in the Senate. We've kind of been dealing with this with this shutdown. I think some Republicans will, some Republicans won't. But I just don't think the issue is going to go away until it's addressed by Ms. Bondi, to whom the president has assigned -- assigned the problem.

And I don't have a solution for it.

HUNT: Yeah.

KENNEDY: I don't know what the answer is for her to do other than release the documents. I don't have a solution. I certainly admire the problem, but I don't have a solution.

HUNT: We heard Thomas Massie there speaking to his colleagues and say, listen, this vote that you're going to take is going to last longer than President Trump's term, right? This is something that's going to be on your record if you go into the future after Trump has left office, do you think that seems to imply that President Trump is a lame duck? Do you think President Trump's a lame duck at this point?

KENNEDY: Well, he can't run again. Yes.

HUNT: And do you think the Republican Party is treating him as such? Because for the first -- much of the first year, he's not been treated the way a lame duck president often is.

KENNEDY: Well, I don't know how to answer that, Kasie. I mean, to some extent, every president is a lame duck because you know, there's no guarantee they'll be reelected. But in this instance, I think the Constitution is pretty clear that a president, whomever it might be, can only serve two terms.

Now, the president's only in the first year of his second term. So, he's not a lame duck in the sense that he's got three more years. I don't know if that answers your question, but yeah, I don't consider him a lame duck. Now, if he if he had 30 days left to serve, yeah, he'd be lame duck.

HUNT: I suppose I'm asking in in the political sense, right? At what point do people start acting more in their own interests than that of the president? Because they can see more clearly the future beyond him than the one that they're sitting with, with him, that moment. But unfortunately, we're out of time. So I'm going to have to leave it there.

Senator John Kennedy, thank you very much for your time, sir. Appreciate it.

KENNEDY: Thank you, Kasie.

HUNT: All right. Coming up next here, the dramatic details from today's hearing that could lead to the dismissal of the cases against James Comey and Letitia James, including the question asked by the judge that prompted audible gasps in the courtroom.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:49:21]

HUNT: All right. Welcome back to THE ARENA.

The criminal cases against James Comey and Letitia James could be on a bit of thin ice. In a critical hearing today, a judge expressed some pretty vocal skepticism about whether the federal prosecutor leading the case has the right to be there. That now, interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan was handpicked by President Trump, James Comey and Letitia James are arguing she was illegally appointed.

Lawyers for the New York A.G. even telling the court she was, quote, pretending when the charges were originally brought. The DOJ today said this issue is a, quote, "at best, paperwork error".

I want to bring in CNN crime and justice correspondent Katelyn Polantz. She was inside the courtroom for this hearing.

[16:50:01]

And, Katelyn, we have been reporting that at one point there were gasps in the courtroom. Take us inside the room.

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CRIME AND JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yeah. I was sitting right in the middle of the court. It wasn't like a huge ahhh!

But there was a moment where the judge, she sort of had to wind up, the arguments had been going on for about an hour, and she said one final question to the Justice Department attorney. How is this different from the dismissal that Judge Cannon made, the decision she made in dismissing U.S. v. Trump? And everyone kind of went -- she went there.

That was something that I'm sure the Justice Department attorney was expecting and that the legal issues, there are similarities. The case against Donald Trump was dismissed by Judge Cannon in Florida, this classified documents case, saying that Jack Smith, special counsel, didn't have the authority.

That's a very sharp question to be asked by this judge. And the Justice Department said that's a different case, a different jurisdiction. But there is a big matter here that the judge is grappling with. Can Lindsey Halligan be tossed from this case? And does that mean the cases or one of the cases against James Comey and Letitia James ends?

We don't know what the judge will do. She is going to rule quickly.

And, Kasie, the other thing is there were a lot of pointed moments where people were responding to what she said in that room when she asked them, have you seen a declination memo? When she mentioned the Trump case, when she got in a back and forth with justice department attorney at one point about how Bondi couldn't have reviewed grand jury records. So, there was a lot there to think of. But I'm not exactly sure which way the judge will go.

HUNT: So, is this all or nothing like, is Lindsey Halligan going to get thrown off both of these cases, or could it be one but not the other?

POLANTZ: Well, there's a bunch of different ways that this could spell out, and that was something that the judge was asking both James Comey's attorney and Letitia James attorney, how do you break this down? Theres a possibility that she could say, okay, Lindsey Halligan is tossed off the case. Does that mean the cases could never be brought again?

James Comey says yes. If Lindsey Halligan is tossed off the case, it's null and void and it can't come back because we're well past five years where that case could be charged.

Letitia James may be in a bit of a different situation, although her attorney also argued can't come back either. If Lindsey Halligan did this, Lindsey Halligan was the only person in the grand jury room, but there is the possibility that the judge even steps in further and says Lindsey Halligan needs to exit forever. These cases don't come back.

It's a lot of possibilities. And that's, I think, where the gray area is determining where the judge might land. She expressed clear skepticism of these prosecutions so far.

HUNT: Jonah Goldberg, big picture. What does this question about Lindsey Halligan's fitness to do this? How do you see it in terms of how it fits in the way that the president is continuing to break norms and sort of constitutional boundaries?

GOLDBERG: Yeah, I mean, I see it. Look, there's a reason why the case is the kind of hot mess that it is, is because they did it in the last minute, because the statute of limitations, at least on the Comey stuff, was running out. They couldn't get actual career attorneys or even the original appointed U.S. attorney to do it because it wasn't a sufficiently strong case.

And to me, what it does is it bolsters the claim that Trump is weaponizing the Department of Justice to go after his political opponents.

HUNT: Yeah, Adrienne, how do you look at -- look at this. And is there a difference in your mind between the James case and the Comey case or not?

ELROD: I think there's a little bit of difference in the nuance that you were talking about in terms of the mortgage and, you know, the different issues. And, look, I'll be the first to tell you again, I'm not the biggest James Comey fan. I know that's going to surprise you.

HUNT: Many Democrats are not.

ELROD: Many Democrats are not.

HUNT: Actually, if you worked for Hillary Clinton I think.

ELROD: But it doesn't change the fact that Trump did say on the campaign trail in 2024, I'm going to go after my political enemies, and he's doing it, and he's doing it in a very aggressive way. We'll see what the judge comes up with. But, you know, he's fulfilling his promise in the sense that he is not focusing on the issues that the American people are facing, like affordability. But he is going after his political enemies.

HUNT: Do you think the Trump administration did this the right way, Brad?

TODD: Well, I think they did it quickly. And a lot of things you do quickly maybe could have been done better if you were measured twice and cut once, as the old expression. I'm not sure that.

HUNT: I always kick myself and I don't measure twice before I cut anything. I agree with that.

TODD: I think it's possible, but. But Letitia James case is legitimate case, and it's probably coming back, as Katelyn mentioned. Like, I don't think anybody thinks this one's going away no matter what happens with this motion today.

The Comey case may be a little bit different. And, you know, it's possible also that James Comey, through the process here is punishment of James Comey enough. He may have achieved his objective of punishing his enemy by doing that.

HUNT: All right.

Fair enough. Katelyn, thank you. Really appreciate your reporting. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[16:59:31]

HUNT: All right. As we wrap up today here in THE ARENA, Brad Todd, the reality for the White House, you heard John Kennedy talk about it here. Is this Epstein story going away.

TODD: No, that which must be done inevitably should be done immediately. And I think Pam Bondi probably has to get in front of this and to release the parts of the files that she feels she legally can and legally should if she must.

HUNT: Why do you think the president is so focused on preventing this vote in the House?

TODD: I don't know, I don't know as much as the president knows about this. And so therefore, I can't -- I can't tell you that. So I can tell you, though, that the House of Representatives has got to get the government open and move on to other things.

HUNT: All right. Fair enough.

Thank you all very much for being here.

Thanks to all of you for being us as well -- with us as well.

Don't forget, you can now stream THE ARENA live or catch up whenever you want in the CNN app. Just scan the QR code below. You can also catch up with THE ARENA's podcast. Follow the show on X and Instagram @TheArenaCNN.

Don't go anywhere. Pamela Brown is standing by for "THE LEAD".

Hi, Pam.