Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Trump Filing Libel Lawsuit Over Wall Street Journal Report; DOJ Asks Judge To Release Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts; Rep. Mike Flood (R-NE), Is Interviewed About Congress Passes Bill Taking Back $9B In Federal Spending; Brazilian Police Raid Home Of Ex-President Bolsonaro. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired July 18, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

DANA BASH, CNN ANCHOR: Tapper is Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, Republican Representative Tim Burchett, and the former Democratic congressman from Texas, Beto O'Rourke.

But don't go anywhere because he has a whole other show that is going to happen. He's standing by. He's going to start "The Lead" right now. There he is.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Dana, do you think it's weird that you and I look like we're the same height in that promotional photo?

BASH: We're not? I know. News flash, I am not the same height as Jake Tapper.

TAPPER: Why --

BASH: Or I'm the same height as most humans.

TAPPER: But why -- it's just -- it's -- I find it curious. Anyway, thanks, Dana. I appreciate it so much. Have a great weekend.

BASH: You, too.

[17:00:44]

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This is CNN Breaking News.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. And breaking news just coming in, President Trump is expected at any minute to file a lawsuit suing Rupert Murdoch, News Corp, and the Wall Street Journal after the newspaper's report last night. We'll have more about that in a second.

We're also waiting to see if a judge will allow anything to be released in the Jeffrey Epstein scandal that has rocked the Trump presidency the last couple weeks. Last night, as you may know, Trump directed the U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi, to, quote, "produce any and all pertinent grand jury testimony subject to court approval." We're currently waiting to see exactly what the court might deem pertinent or the attorney general might deem pertinent. Though we should note there is a lot of material related to the Epstein files that is not included in the grand jury testimony bucket that President Trump could order released at any moment.

The entire saga is prompts -- is prompting right now several problems for President Trump. One, the issue is legitimately creating hurdles for him on Capitol Hill legislatively. Take the House Rules committees overnight kerfuffle over the budget cut package. A handful of Republicans held up that vote, did ultimately pass. They demanded that Speaker Johnson attach a measure calling for the release of the Epstein files.

Those Republicans were apparently unwilling to just move on from the Epstein issue as President Trump has called for them to do. Problem number two for President Trump, serious legitimate questions about why only Jeffrey Epstein is and his aide Ghislaine Maxwell ever faced any legal consequences for a sexual trafficking scandal involving coerced women and underage girls and not any of the other powerful men who may have been involved, according to witness testimony. So there is a question of justice going on out there or injustice. Problem number three, President Trump does not want to explain his connection to Epstein anymore apparently. Last night the President threatened that lawsuit that is now pending against the Wall Street Journal over the bombshell report.

The report is about a 50th birthday party book put together for Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 that included letters from all sorts of people. And it reportedly, according to the Wall Street Journal, included a letter bearing Trump's name with a drawing of a naked woman with various writing and typing. President Trump is vehemently denying the report. Today, Trump went on Truth Social and wrote, quote, "I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his pile of garbage newspaper, the Wall Street Journal. That will be an interesting experience," unquote.

Now, there is nothing criminal about a suggestive note or accrued cartoon. And it is important to note, in 2003, when this 50th birthday book was presented to Epstein, Epstein had not been charged with any crimes related to the sex trafficking or underage girls or prostitution or anything like that. So why the threat of a lawsuit?

Here's everything we know, more or less about President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. It was in 2002, again years before Epstein was charged with anything related to pedophilia or sex trafficking or anything else, it was in 2002 that Trump told New York Magazine, quote, "I've known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do.

And many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it, Jeffrey enjoys his social life," unquote, a quote, that has not aged particularly well.

Epstein and Trump had been friendly, they had been spotted at parties together in the 1990s. It's a time when Trump flew a few times on Epstein's private jets, as did others, including Bill Clinton. According to the Washington Post, Trump and Epstein had a falling out over a real estate deal in 2004. They were both bidding for the same property. Trump ultimately won. That next year, 2005, is when Epstein's house in Palm Beach was raided after numerous victims accused him to Palm Beach police of molesting underage girls. But with Epstein from then until today, the fix was in. Local police working the case in Palm Beach felt that Florida prosecutors did not take the matter seriously enough, then the feds got hold of the case. And in 2008, you're looking at the U.S. attorney at the time, Alex Acosta, in 2008, Epstein and his army of high priced attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz, were able to get a sweetheart plea deal from Mr. Acosta, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida for the George W. Bush administration at the time.

[17:05:36]

Now, flash forward 12 years later, in 2018 the story re erupted on the political scene when the Miami Herald did an incredible report by a reporter named Julie Brown. We're going to talk to her in a minute. And then in 2019, prompted no doubt by the Miami Herald report, Epstein was arrested by the U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, Geoffrey Berman. Now, Trump, at that point was asked about history with his old neighbor slash friend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I had a falling out with him a long time ago. I don't think I've spoken to him for 15 years. I wasn't a fan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Three days later, Trump was asked if he had any suspicions Epstein was molesting young women, under aged women.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: No, I had no idea. I had no idea. I haven't spoken to him in many, many years, but I did have no idea.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: What did President Trump know about Jeffrey Epstein's proclivities? When did he know it? There is no evidence he knew anything untoward or illegal. Though we did find out much later that in 2000, one of Epstein's accusers, Virginia Giuffre, a victim of Epstein, was a 15-year-old spa employee at Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in 2000 -- in 2000 -- the year 2000, and at that time an associate of Epstein recruited her at Mar-a-Lago for massage work at Epstein's house, which was two miles down the street. Now, Giuffre would later accuse Epstein and other powerful men of horrific crimes.

We should note she never accused Donald Trump of anything criminal, period.

According to a Mar-a-Lago member quoted in the book called "The Grifter's Club," Epstein's club membership was closed in 2007. This seems to have been around the same time that another member of the Mar-a-Lago club complained that Epstein came on to a teenage girl there, the daughter of a different club member. Now that's another topic we would all love to know much more about.

In 2019, much of the heat for this scandal fell on Alex Acosta, the one who negotiated the sweetheart deal, because he was now Trump's Secretary of Labor. And two weeks after Epstein's arrest, after this big kerfuffle, Acosta resigned under pressure.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ALEX ACOSTA, FORMER LABOR SECRETARY: I do not think it is right and fair for this administration's Labor Department to have Epstein as the focus rather than the incredible economy that we have today. And so I called the president this morning, I told him that I thought the right thing was to step aside.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Three weeks after that, Epstein was found dead in his Manhattan jail cell. The medical examiner ruled it a suicide. After that, President Trump seemed pretty content to push rumors that Bill and Hillary Clinton, who had their own Epstein ties, played some role in Epstein's death in prison. Fast forward to last summer, it's the height of the 2024 presidential race, Trump was asked by conservatives at Fox if he would release the Epstein files.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you declassify the Epstein files?

TRUMP: Yes. Yes, I would.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: All right.

TRUMP: Yes, 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 it's a lot of phony stuff --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes.

TRUMP: -- with that whole world. But I think I would. Or at least --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do you think that would restore trust? Help restore trust?

TRUMP: Yes, I don't know about Epstein so much as I do the others, certainly about the way he died. It would be interesting to find out --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Sure.

TRUMP: -- what happened there because that was a weird situation and the cameras didn't happen to be working, et cetera, et cetera. But you'd go a long way toward that one.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: OK.

(END VIDEO CLIP) TAPPER: Now, to be fair, you see President Trump hesitating there when it comes to whether or not he would release all the files. But you might not have known of his hesitance, his ambivalence, because when Fox ran the interview, this is the only part they ran.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Would you declassify the Epstein files?

TRUMP: Yes. Yes, I would.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Interesting editing. That brings us to 2025, President Trump in office again. Trump administration folks paraded binders across the White House lawn months ago, bragging about how more Epstein files were going to be made public. Even Attorney General Pam Bondi teased much more would be released soon.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

PAM BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL: What you're going to see, hopefully tomorrow, is a lot of flight logs, a lot of names, a lot -- a lot of information.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:10:07]

TAPPER: Nothing new was released in that dump with the pro MAGA influencers. The issue was pretty much dead until Trump had his falling out with Elon Musk. And Elon Musk brought it up again in a post which is now deleted when the world's richest man wrote Trump was in the Epstein files, a claim I have no evidence is true. It is the Justice Department memo just last Monday that brought back all these questions. The Justice Department stated, quote, "This systematic review revealed no incriminating client list and that FBI investigators concluded that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide."

But obviously this Justice Department, nothing to see her folks push didn't work. Nor has Trump attacking any supporters who want for more information released, saying he doesn't want their support, calling them weakling, saying they're falling for a hoax. For what it's worth, Elon Musk might have deleted that tweet, but he's not backtracked on his claim. And he did post yesterday, quote, "Wow, I can't believe Epstein killed himself before realizing it was all a hoax."

We should again underline here, after going through all of this information, there's no known credible evidence that Donald Trump did anything untoward or illegal in any way related to Jeffrey Epstein. So the question why is he standing in the way of his own campaign promise being fulfilled? As mentioned at President Trump's discretion, U.S. Attorney General Bondi and the Justice Department are expected to ask a judge today to release some Epstein grand jury testimony. But what about all the other information, the exhibits, the testimonies from law enforcement interviews, the FBI interviews, photographs, exhibits? We'll have more on that in a moment.

Let's get to the breaking news, though, of the court action we do know about -- just learning about Donald Trump filing a libel lawsuit against the publisher of the Wall Street Journal and its reporters, who wrote this story about a collection of letters gifted to Epstein on his 50th birthday in 2003, including apparently a note with Trump's name and some sort of crude sketch of a naked woman. Trump is suing for libel, assault and slander, according to the docket, which was filed in federal court in South Florida. Let's bring in CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid, former State and Federal Prosecutor Elie Honig, and CNN's Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter.

Paula, as we wait for signs of the DOJ, let's talk about the lawsuit that we do know about. What do we know about this?

PAULA REID, CNN SENIOR LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: So we don't have the lawsuit itself yet. What we have is some information that's been entered by the court down in Florida. I've confirmed it with sources familiar with this action, and they have confirmed that the president is filing this lawsuit. He is filing it against Dow Jones Company, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch and the two reporters who are on the story. He is suing for libel and slander.

Now, it's interesting, it says here he's representing himself, but I'm told that is a mistake. He does have a lawyer, someone who's represented him in other cases similar to this. Now, we're going to have to wait to see this I'm told it's coming any minute and then we can assess whether this is a lawsuit that would have any merit. It would be difficult for someone like President Trump to win on a case like this. We have to see what they put into this lawsuit.

This is pretty quick to bring this kind of -- this kind of action. I'm told that the speed with which they have filed this is indicative of how upset the president is about this story. But I think we have to look at this critically and wonder, is this something that has merit, that could succeed in a court of law? Is it meant to just intimidate or even to try to pressure a settlement? Because we've seen him be successful in suing other companies.

My former employer, CBS News, he sued them, something that was widely considered to be a superfluous lawsuit that would never win in court. But he still extracted a settlement because CBS had other reasons for wanting to settle that case. So once we actually get the complaint, we can assess what it is that he is arguing here. But again, this moved extremely quickly, and I'm told that's because he's that angry.

TAPPER: So, Elie, what would discovery look like? I mean, I imagine if the Wall Street Journal and News Corps and Rupert Murdoch are going to mount any sort of defense, they're going to want to know everything they can find out about President Trump's relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. They're going to seek possession or introduction as evidence, whatever this birthday book is. I mean, might this not end up just drudging up a lot of stuff Trump doesn't want to talk about anyway?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I'm not so sure Donald Trump has fully thought this one through, Jake, because you showed at the beginning of the show his very recent social media post where he said, oh, I look forward to deposing Rupert Murdoch under oath. That should be fascinating. Well, guess who else is going to have to testify under oath at a deposition, the plaintiff in this case, the person who's suing, Donald John Trump. And the subject of that testimony, which again will be under oath, will be his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, no holds barred. And by filing this lawsuit, he is walking himself right into that scenario.

Discovery goes both ways, plaintiff has to turn stuff over to the defendant and vice versa. So, I have some questions about the legal strategy here.

[17:15:08]

TAPPER: And Brian, President Trump, as a civilian and as a president and as a former president and now as a president again, has filed a lot of lawsuits against media organizations. But the recent success he's had with CBS, Paramount and ABC Disney might be wind at his back.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Yes, I think he believes that it is. And there's a big difference between all of those recent lawsuits and this one against the Wall Street Journal. When Trump sued the Pulitzer board, when he sued CBS, when he sued Disney's ABC, when he sued, you know, the Detroit -- Meta and Twitter and Google, all of those suits were before Trump returned to the White House. Those suits were filed when he was a candidate or when he was a civilian. But it is incredibly unusual, perhaps even unprecedented, to see a sitting American president suing a news outlet over a story that he doesn't like.

Yes, it was one thing when he sued 60 Minutes last fall, for example, he was able to use that leverage against Paramount to win a settlement just in the past couple of weeks. So the negotiations happened when Trump was president again, but he filed back when he was a candidate, or in some cases when he was president-elect. It is very striking to see a sitting president now filing something against a news outlet. And of course, the Wall Street Journal has to believe that its reporting is rock solid here. Truth is always the best defense.

That's the first thing you're taught in media law. So far, no immediate comment from the Wall Street Journal or Dow Jones about this. But Rupert Murdoch, I think, was well aware this might happen.

TAPPER: Paula, you have -- do you have the lawsuit there? It looked like you might have it there in your hands.

REID: So I have the other thing that were waiting for.

TAPPER: Oh, the other thing. OK.

REID: And that is the motion to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case. So I'm going to read that because one of the biggest questions we have is how exactly the Justice Department is going to convince this judge to release confidential grand jury transcripts at this point. So I'm going to take a second to read the arguments. We just got it now to figure out exactly how they're making this case here. We've been waiting for this all day when we got news of the additional lawsuit that was filed by the president.

TAPPER: Yes. And Ellie, I know that there is a lot of information relating to the Epstein, quote unquote, "files" that is not in grand jury testimony. Tell us -- I mean, President Trump, he was very specific, I think he said, like pertinent grand jury testimony. So that's a judgment call about grand jury testimony. But outside of the world of grand jury testimony, what also could shed light on other people who got away with crimes that weren't charged?

HONIG: Yes, Jake, Donald Trump's instruction is highly qualified. Like you said, pertinent, that leaves a lot of wiggle room. But even just within the actual files, grand jury testimony, the actual transcript of live witnesses who went into a grand jury and testified is going to be a minuscule fraction of the entire file. It would not include phone records, flight records, video surveillance, anything that you seized by a search warrant, anything you got by a wiretap, bank records, financial records. In fact, Jake, most witness testimony is not even grand jury testimony.

It is far more common for witnesses to testify to prosecutors and FBI agents outside of the grand jury.

And if I can, just to set the stage for what Paula is looking at here, the other big qualifier is the judge has to sign off. And if you look at the rule, ordinarily, grand jury information is secret. And the rule, it's called Rule 6E, lists out certain areas where the judge can make exceptions. I don't know that any of those exceptions will apply. And I imagine the document Paula is looking at is DOJ trying to argue that some of those exceptions apply. I guess we'll see if it's a stretch or if they have a decent argument.

TAPPER: And Paula, I don't -- I hate to do this live on the air, do you have anything you can share with us?

REID: It is my job, Jake.

TAPPER: OK.

REID: And I'm all over it. All right. So we were wondering what would they argue. How are they going to convince this judge to release this confidential -- this confidential information? Especially because, let's be honest here, their real motivation here is that they are facing a political firestorm and need to make it look like they are making an effort towards transparency.

So what they're arguing here is that this is be in the public interest to release some of this. Now, the framing is interesting because they're saying since they released that memo on July 6, you know, discussing the fact that they had done a review, that they were not going to release additional information, that there has been, quote, "extensive public interest in the basis for this." And they're saying that they will continue to not release the information that they have and have the power to release. But they're saying that transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this administration. And given that they're asking the court to unseal underlying grand jury transcripts subject to appropriate redactions to protect victims.

[17:20:08]

They say that the department will work with the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District to make appropriate redactions. So they are basing this -- arguing that this is all in the public interest and a need for transparency. This is a long shot. The judge is going to have to take some time here, will likely have other stakeholders, victims, accusers, weigh in on the potential impact of this. And again, a grand jury, that's where you go to seek an indictment, it's a much lower bar than it would be for a conviction, so you present some evidence, but not all of your evidence.

And so what will remain here, the question that will remain, even if the judge agrees to release some of this, is the fact that the bulk of the evidence is with the Justice Department, with the FBI, and they are not releasing that. So even if the judge releases this, there are still going to be questions from people who really care about this case and know that there is still a lot more beyond these grand jury files. So this is a pretty short filing. It is signed by the attorney general and her deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche. As we know, this issue -- these questions have become radioactive.

But the attorney general, deputy attorney general with a show of force here, both coming out and making this request. And look, nothing's going to happen anytime soon. It's going to take a while for the judge to allow others to weigh in and make a decision. But no matter what happens here, this is very unlikely to quell the controversy that they are facing.

TAPPER: No, indeed, this is grand jury testimony is just about what they needed to go after Ghislaine Maxwell, not about anyone else and has been pointed out by lots of other people. I'm just going to read from Congressman Dan Goldman, what about videos, photographs, other recordings? What about FBI 302, which are witness interviews? What about text and e-mails?

So, Paula, Ellie, Brian, I'm going to give you a moment to go through these filings as we squeeze in a commercial break.

A reporter who's uncovered revelations about Epstein for years, Julie K. Brown, is going to join me next. We're going to get her take on what she makes of this latest chapter and whatever reporting she's been working on. Also, Michael Cohen, President Trump's former personal attorney, he'll be back here. We're going to talk to him about what he thinks of this Wall Street Journal story, whether he finds it credible, whether he knows anything about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein that we don't. We'll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:26:21]

TAPPER: Now we're back with the breaking news in our law and justice lead. Just moments ago, the Justice Department asked a judge to release grand jury transcripts, ones that are pertinent in the case of accused sex trafficker and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. That's on top of President Trump filing a libel lawsuit in southern Florida over the Wall Street Journal report about a letter and sketch he may or may not have contributed to Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday party book.

Meanwhile, there remain unresolved mysteries surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. Joining us now is award winning Miami Herald investigative reporter Julie K. Brown. She exposed many horrific details of the Epstein sex trafficking story previously not brought to light. In fact, it was her 2018 story that brought this all back into the fore. She's the author of a great book on the subject that I highly recommend, it's called "Perversion of Justice, The Jeffrey Epstein Story" came out in 2021.

Julie, thanks for joining us again. There's still so many documents about Epstein that can be released outside of what Trump has asked Bondi to ask the judge to release in the grand jury report in the investigation into Ghislaine Maxwell. There's Epstein's autopsy report, financial transactions, FBI investigation, interview transcripts, how the FBI and the Justice Department handled the case back in 2008, how they handled the case in 2019. Why do you think none of this has been made public? And do you think there's going to be more pressure on the president to release such information?

Let me just ask you even a more narrow question, what do you as an investigative reporter, if you could get one tranche of this information that has been held back, delivered right to you for your next scoop, what would you want?

JULIE K. BROWN, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, THE MIAMI HERALD: I'd want his financial records to be honest with you, because I think that's the smoking gun here. Epstein's finances and where he -- how he made his money, who he got money from. I honestly think that the way to go with this would be to follow the money and look at his finances. But to go back a little bit just to this grand jury effort that he is mounting right now, the -- I was able to speak to a couple of victims and lawyers that represent the victims, and they're very skeptical about what's happening here because they believe that there are certain words that are being used by the Justice Department and by the president, words like pertinent and credible. And those to them are words that mean that they might not be getting everything, even with asking for the grand jury records, because they believe that those kinds of things are being used to siphon off records that maybe they don't consider are pertinent or credible, so they're very skeptical about all this.

The other point I want to make about the grand jury records is the -- as far as we know, and my sources in the case have said is the Justice Department only focused on prosecuting first Epstein and then when he, you know, died, then Maxwell. It was a very narrow investigation. They didn't go into anything beyond that. They didn't go into any other aspect of Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking ring. So most of the information that I know about is probably information that's already out there that we know that has been revealed during trial.

TAPPER: Jeffrey Epstein's former attorney, David Schoen, who also represented President Trump during his second impeachment trial, said this earlier today on CNN. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVID SCHOEN, FORMER ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN: There is no Epstein client list that I can tell you that lists names of people who he purportedly took to an island with young girl or anyplace else with young women. I can be -- assure you he would have used that disadvantage if there were, and I can assure you the accusers who were involved in those situations, if they were involved with fill in the blank some famous person, they would have sued by now. Their lawyers are very aggressive and have made millions off of those lawsuits.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[17:30:25]

TAPPER: What's your response?

BROWN: Oh, gosh, they did sue. They sued a lot of powerful men. We just don't know about it. Because when you sue somebody that powerful, they settle. And so there were plenty of lawsuits that the victims filed against these powerful men. That's part of what their lawyers did.

And it's been all settled all quietly. And we just don't know about it. So that's just simply not true.

TAPPER: Schoen says he met with Epstein nine days before Epstein was found dead in his cell in 2019. And they discussed several topics, including Trump. Take a listen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SCHOEN: I specifically asked him about Donald Trump, and he was adamant in making clear that he had no bad information about Trump. Remember, Trump had thrown him out of his club years earlier. He wasn't happy about the idea of Trump being falsely accused because Trump was one of the names being thrown out there, thrown around then.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Now, there's still a lot unknown about Trump and Epstein's relationship, although nothing illegal has credibly been put forward. But according to "The Wall Street Journal's" news story, there's this letter bearing Trump's name with a drawing, a crude sketch of a naked woman that was part of this birthday book for Epstein in 2003. Again, that's two years before Epstein was ever accused of anything untoward with underage girls.

"The Wall Street Journal" says the letter concludes with the line, quote, happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret. Again, President Trump vehemently denies this. He's writing -- writing on Truth Social, quote, these are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures. He's also filing this libel suit against "The Wall Street Journal" and News Corp and Rupert Murdoch. On the drawings, this is a side note. Here's a sketch Trump drew in 2005 of the New York City skyline. It was sold at an auction for nearly $30,000 in 2017. But regardless, what questions do you have when it comes to the President and Epstein and their relationship?

BROWN: Well, let me just set the record straight. I -- I know what he said that Epstein told him when he was in prison. But Epstein told his own brother, his brother has been public about this, that he told him that if -- if the public knew everything that he knew about Trump, they would have to cancel the election. And that's his brother's words, not mine.

So there is something there. I'm not saying it means that the President did anything, you know, illegal or he was involved with Epstein's operation at all. But, you know, the story that he told his brother is different from the story that he -- he told that lawyer, number one. The other point I wanted to make is he also said there's no list. I agree that there probably isn't a list.

But my understanding is that Epstein kept files, and he did keep files on people. I don't know whether the Justice Department got their hands on those files, but he had -- Epstein had some kind of records. It might not have been, and I don't believe it was, in a formal list that everybody wants to refer to.

So I just think that Epstein told different people different things, and it's hard to know really, you know, what's true and what's not true.

TAPPER: Once again, Julie Brown's book is called "Perversion of Justice: The Jeffrey Epstein Story." I highly recommend it for anybody interesting -- interested in the story, and she's done so much excellent journalism related to this case and standing up for the victims of these atrocities. Julie Brown, thank you so much. Always good to have you here.

The -- the breaking news this hour, President Trump filing a lawsuit suing "The Wall Street Journal" for their report on Jeffrey Epstein's birthday letters that "The Journal" says included a note bearing Trump's name.

[17:34:05]

Also this hour, the Justice Department has formally asked a federal judge to release pertinent grand jury transcript excerpts in the Epstein case. CNN's Paula Reid is going through the filings. We're going to check back in with her next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: And we're back with our continuing coverage of the breaking news. The Justice Department asking a Manhattan court to make years old grand jury testimony related to the Jeffrey Epstein case public.

Paula Reid joins us again. And Paula, you've had a couple of minutes now to go through this grand jury ask, again, for everybody watching, this is just one small part of the Epstein documents writ large. There's a lot that the Trump folks are not asking to release. But on this small part, what can you tell us?

REID: It's really interesting. I wanted to see what argument they were going to make here to this judge. They're arguing that all of this is in the public interest. And I will say the Justice Department has not gotten a lot right on the messaging about this effort. But here it appears that the Attorney General, Pam Bondi and Todd Blanche, they're at least striking the right tone.

Look, I don't know if this is going to work. But what they're writing here, they're saying, quote, public officials, lawmakers, pundits and ordinary citizens remain deeply interested and concerned about the Epstein matter. They are noting the fact that in other places, they have released portions of grand jury transcripts after concluding that the Epstein case qualifies as a matter of public concern.

After all, Jeffrey Epstein, they say, is, quote, the most infamous pedophile in American history. The facts surrounding the Epstein case tell a tale of national disgrace. They argue the grand jury records are thus critical pieces of an important moment in our nation's history.

They also argue that they understand there are privacy interests for victims and accusers. And they believe that a lot of the privacy concerns are diminished by the fact that Epstein is, of course, deceased. But they're willing to work with prosecutors to try to redact anything that could potentially impact victims.

[17:40:05]

So the arguments here, they -- they are well articulated. As you have said, this is just a tiny portion of the evidence that exists. And now the judge will likely want to allow those accusers, victims, their lawyers to weigh in on this possibility because grand jury material is by default confidential.

And look, even if the judge decides that he will release some of this, there are still going to be questions about all the rest of the material that the Justice Department itself has the power to release and has not done so.

TAPPER: Right. And just to underline it again for folks, this is the grand jury testimony related to the prosecutions of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Their -- the questions and the reason why people want more accountability, Jeffrey Epstein's dead, Ghislaine Maxwell's in prison, is because they're questions of all the other people --

REID: Yes.

TAPPER: -- who may have been involved. They will not necessarily be mentioned in this because the prosecutors were not going after them.

REID: That's exactly right. Highly unlikely that any of those other individuals are mentioned here. But the attorney general, I really think it's important to note that she said last week that they reviewed this case and they don't believe that they have evidence to go after any third parties. But clearly, the public is not satisfied by that.

TAPPER: All right, Paula Reid, thanks so much.

At one point, the Epstein scandal threatened a key House vote that eventually did happen overnight. A House Republican will join me with the impact of that vote and much more that they were voting on. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:45:52]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, the Republicans' bill to take back more than $9 billion, billion dollars, in already appropriated and approved federal spending is just sitting there waiting for President Trump's signature. The House passed it earlier this morning. Only two House Republicans voted against it. One of the bill's supporters, Nebraska Republican Congressman Mike Flood, joins us now.

Congressman, thanks for joining us. So the bill brings back or claws back or rescinds, whatever you want to call it, roughly $8 billion in foreign aid and another billion in money for public broadcasting. You're a co-chair of the Congressional Broadcasters Caucus. You also have a media company that owns radio stations in Nebraska.

We heard Democrats and some Republicans argue that the public broadcasting cuts could endanger people in parts of rural America who get weather alerts via public radio stations where there aren't other commercial stations. Are you not concerned about that?

REP. MIKE FLOOD (R-NE): Well, of course I am. I -- I've been talking to the folks at Nebraska Public Media. We have talked about a lot of different scenarios and how this will play out. I think it's important to really note that what we did was end the automatic appropriation of these funds into the future. This still goes through the same process that we're going to go through when we put our budget together in advance of October 1st.

This is going to go through the same subcommittee on appropriations that will eventually be voted on the floor. And I can tell you there are a whole bunch of different ways to get rural alerts today. Obviously, the emergency alert system is very important through broadcasters.

And the system that we have in my home state, I mean, our state government appropriates $12 million to public television and radio in Nebraska. We are one of the best public media companies in the nation. In fact, we're the backbone of the system.

If something were to happen to Boston or Washington, D.C., the Nebraska system is well prepared to run the entire network. We have all of that capability. So I'm confident in the state that I represent that those warnings and those -- that transparency, everything that's been happening at public media in my state will be fine.

TAPPER: Were you not concerned at all during the kerfuffle in the House Rules Committee about some of your fellow Republicans refusing to vote for the rule for this bill because they wanted there to be included an amendment that pushes the Justice Department to open more Epstein files? Where are you on that issue? Do you want more transparency?

FLOOD: Oh, sure. I supported that -- that resolution to make grand jury testimony more available, the Epstein files more available. But hey, we got to look at the big picture here. What Americans want are solutions to problems. They want to see us working together unified to pass the Genius Act, the Clarity Act, the one big beautiful bill, the rescissions package. That's what I'm focused on.

I understand why my colleagues on the Rules Committee felt so strongly. This is an issue that it seems every American has an opinion on, and they -- they want that information out there. There's no part of them that doesn't want that out there. And, you know, you've got people calling them these horrible names, and they're like, hey, we want people to know this info. So I get why they're frustrated. I didn't blame them at all. I think they did what they had to do. And we got the job done. And here I am back home.

TAPPER: All right, Nebraska Republican Congressman Mike -- Mike Flood, have fun back home, sir. Good to see you. Police --

FLOOD: Good to see you.

[17:49:12]

TAPPER: Police raiding the home of the man once dubbed the Trump of the tropics. That's former Brazilian President Jair Bol -- Bolsonaro, that and more. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: Our World Lead, Brazilian authorities raided former President Jair Bolsonaro's home today and ordered him to wear an electronic ankle tag. Bolsonaro calls it a supreme humiliation. Here is CNN's Stefano Pozzebon.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

STEFANO POZZEBON, CNN JOURNALIST (voice-over): Early Friday, Brazil's federal police came knocking, raiding the home of former right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro, fitting him with an ankle tag and barring him from speaking to foreign officials and using social media.

These measures ordered by Brazil's Supreme Court to prevent him from leaving the country as he faces trial for allegedly plotting a coup against his left-leaning successor. Bolsonaro lashed out against the ankle tag.

JAIR BOLSONARO, FORMER BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Dammit, I'm a former president. I'm 70 years old. This is a supreme humiliation.

POZZEBON (voice-over): And immediately brought up his close ally, U.S. President Donald Trump.

BOLSONARO (through translator): If I had a passport, I would request an audience to visit Donald Trump.

POZZEBON (voice-over): Trump cast a long shadow over this case as he threatens tariffs of up to 50 percent on Brazilian products in retaliation for Bolsonaro's prosecution.

BRIAN WINTER, VP OF POLICY, AMERICAS SOCIETY AND COUNCIL OF THE AMERICAS: I think this is very personal for President Trump. I think that he believes that what is happening in Brazil right now is political persecution of former President Bolsonaro in a way that reminds Trump of what happened to him and the parallels between the 2020 election in the United States and the 2022 election in Brazil.

POZZEBON (voice-over): Bolsonaro's supporters stormed Brazil's capital on January 8th, 2023. In striking similarity to what happened on January 6th, two years before. This week, Trump wrote a letter to support Bolsonaro. But in the current Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Trump has found a formidable opponent. Lula claiming the country is prepared to retaliate with similar tariffs and calling out on Trump directly in an interview with CNN.

LUIZ INACIO LULA DA SILVA, BRAZILIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): We cannot have as a President Trump forgetting that he was elected to govern the U.S. He was elected not to be the emperor of the world.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

POZZEBON (on camera): And Jake, what is playing out in front of our eyes could really escalate, especially because neither Lula nor Trump have any incentive to back down. Brazil does not depend on U.S. trade in the same way that many countries in the Americas do. And at the same time, Lula has said time and again that in Brazil, the judiciary is independent and that he cannot interfere with the investigation. I think that what we are seeing here is just the beginning of this confrontation, especially if Bolsonaro is found guilty in the coming days or weeks. Jake?

[17:55:25]

TAPPER: All right, our thanks to CNNs' Stefano Pozzebon.

Two major filings this hour, the Trump -- President Trump formally asking a judge to -- to release the grand jury transcripts on Jeffrey Epstein. President Trump also suing Rupert Murdoch and "The Wall Street Journal" over its reporting about Jeffrey Epstein's birthday book and what Trump, they say, contributed to that book. Trump's former fixer, Michael Cohen, is going to join me with his insight into all of this, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:04