Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

DOJ Asks Judge To Release Epstein Grand Jury Transcripts; Ten Americans Freed In Prisoner Swap With Venezuela; CBS Cancels Colbert's Top-Rated Late Show; Los Angeles Hikers Chase Down & Confront Suspected Arsonist; Trump Seeks $10B In Defamation Lawsuit Against WSJ. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired July 18, 2025 - 18:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: It is an active Friday evening. Welcome to The Lead. I'm Jake Tapper. We are following breaking news.

Just moments ago, the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, at the direction of President Trump, asked the federal judge to unseal grand jury testimony related to the prosecution of accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. This move comes amid intense pressure from within the president's own party.

And moments after President Trump filed a libel lawsuit in South Florida against the publisher of The Wall Street Journal for a story that they published Thursday night about a birthday letter that President Trump reportedly, allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein in 2003 as part of a larger compendium for Jeffrey Epstein's 50th birthday book. And the allegation is that it included a sexually suggestive drawing and some texts that said, quote, happy birthday and may every day be another wonderful secret. The Journal says it was under Trump's name. President Trump vehemently denies having anything to do with that.

CNN's Evan Perez is with me. Evan?

EVAN PEREZ, CNN SENIOR JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, Jake. So, we have the filing now from the attorney general, signed by the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, Todd Blanche. And it says that the reason for moving to take the unusual move of releasing the grand jury testimony in the Jeffrey Epstein case is because it is in the public interest. Of course, none of this mentions that a lot of the public interest and why the public is talking about it is driven really by the actions of the attorney general and people around President Trump, who have really driven some of the conspiracies around the Jeffrey Epstein case.

But nonetheless, here we are and I'll read you just a part of what it says in this filing. It's a four-page filing filed with the judge in the Southern District of New York that was overseeing this case. It says, given the public interest in the investigative work conducted by the Justice Department and the FBI, the Justice Department moves to court to unseal the underlying grand jury information in the Epstein case subject to appropriate redactions of victim-related and other personal identifying information.

And that's a very important part of this discussion, Jake, because now what will happen is a judge will have to take into consideration whether the material, the evidence, the testimony that was presented to the grand jury, whether it is in the public interest to have that stuff out there and whether there is harm to some of these victims and some of these accusers.

Now, keep in mind, even if their names are taken out, a lot of people can figure out who we're talking about just by the circumstance and the context of some of that testimony. So, the judge is going to weigh on this very, very closely.

The other thing that the filing makes note of is that other judges in the Epstein matter have released testimony. For instance, the Florida state court judge who oversaw that case before the federal case was done in 2019 released a grand jury testimony in that case and said that the Epstein case tells a tale of national disgrace. This is cited in this filing that was made today, Jake.

TAPPER: All right. Evan Perez, thanks so much.

Let's bring in our legal panel to discuss. Bill Brennan, do you think public interest will be a persuasive argument for this judge to release this grand jury testimony in the cases against Jeffrey Epstein and his aide, Ghislaine Maxwell?

BILL BRENNAN, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: Jake, it may well be. I mean, there, there is some quasi precedent for this type of argument and I recall here in Pennsylvania, my home state in the Eastern District, when the comedian, Bill Cosby, had his case opened, a now retired federal judge, Judge Robreno, was persuaded by an argument that said that sealed records and sealed depositions could be released because Mr. Cosby made himself a public moralist in his monologue, and that led to eventually the prosecution.

So, I think when you raise the issue of public interest, it takes the presumptive secrecy of sealed records or grand jury proceedings, and it puts it at play.

TAPPER: Tom Dupree, Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman, a former prosecutor, he posted this reaction to Bondi's request, quote, nice try, Attorney General Pam Bondi. What about videos, photographs, and other recordings? What about FBI 302's witness interviews? What about texts and emails? That's where the evidence about Trump and others will be. Grand jury testimony will only relate to Epstein and Maxwell, unquote.

Now, obviously, we don't know if there's anything in there about Donald Trump, but isn't his larger point true that if we're looking for other people beyond Maxwell and Epstein who did anything wrong, it probably won't be in this grand jury testimony.

[18:05:04] TOM DUPREE, FORMER PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, GEORGE W. BUSH ADMIN: Look, the congressman is right, that this is a fraction of the total amount of evidence that the United States government has amassed in the course of its Epstein investigation. The grand jury testimony, you're right, it typically will be focused on the named defendants and it will not include many of the things that the congressman mentioned. For example, it will not include statements obtained by FBI investigators. It won't include documentary evidence, video evidence, all sorts of evidence that goes beyond the named defendants and may include third parties who are present with Epstein and that sort of thing.

So, look, I think the congressman has a point and I think the release of this grand jury material is a very important and salutary first step, but there still is a lot of information, a wealth of information that remains out there.

TAPPER: Tom, let's turn to the new libel lawsuit the president is filing against The Wall Street Journal publisher. He just filed it in South Florida. What do you make of where this was filed? It just happens to be the home. And there's a chance that he'll -- we don't know that he will, but there's a chance he'll get Judge Eileen Cannon. And in general, Florida's thought to be a little bit friendlier to Republicans, I think.

DUPREE: Look, I think that was a strategic decision made by the president's lawyers that he's statistically likelier to get a friendlier judge, a more welcomed reception in Florida than he probably would have in other jurisdiction. So, I don't think the Florida decision was an accident.

At the same time, look, the law of libel very difficult for plaintiffs to overcome. I have not seen anything that suggests that The Wall Street Journal acted improperly here that would provide a basis for a libel judgment. Of course, that's not -- hasn't stopped the president in the past from suing. He seems to like these sorts of uphill battles against the media, but there's a long way to go. And I think the selection, but judge will be an important first step. But even if the president draws a judge that he likes, doesn't necessarily mean that this lawsuit ultimately will succeed.

TAPPER: Bill, I have to say I find the whole strategy kind of curious, even if you believe everything alleged in the story that President Trump did it all, and he denies it all, right? He denies it all, but even if you believe it, it's just kind of a weird letter and a crude cartoon. And this is 2003, two years before Jeffrey Epstein was ever even accused of anything untoward involving underage girls. Do you think it's a smart legal strategy to take this to court? Won't the president have to answer a whole bunch of questions and release a bunch of information he might not want to?

BRENNAN: Well, if we take the president at his word that he never drew a drawing or a photograph in his life, and this is not his letter, then this is the move he has to take. And, apparently, he gave fair warning, and as you know, Jake, the standard New York Times versus Sullivan is the lead case. It's a 1964 case where some writings were published about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And the standard was set that there's a distinction between a private figure and a public figure. He would have to show actual malice on the part of publisher (ph) and the reporters. It is a tougher standard, but he's filed it and, you know, he's not afraid to file a lawsuit.

So, I would -- if I was representing the defendants, I would take it seriously.

TAPPER: Oh, absolutely. I'm not saying don't take it seriously. I just think it's a weird legal strategy. And also a little Streisand effect in there, you know? All of a sudden now we're paying a lot more attention to this story than I think we probably would've otherwise.

Bill Brandon and Tom Dupree, thanks to both of you.

Joining us now, Michael Cohen, who served for years as the personal attorney for Donald Trump, obviously not a fan of his now and vice versa. He's the host of the Substack Channel, The Real Michael Cohen, and the host of the Mea Culpa podcast. Michael, good to see you again.

David Schoen, the former --

MICHAEL COHEN, HOST, MEA CULPA PODCAST: Good to see you.

TAPPER: David Schoen, the former attorney for Jeffrey Epstein, as well as Donald Trump in a separate case, told CNN there is no client list. He also said this about -- they also -- he also said about Trump's relationship with Epstein. I specifically asked him -- quote, I specifically asked him about Donald Trump, and he was adamant in making clear he had no bad information about Trump. Remember, Trump had him thrown 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 around then, unquote.

Does that square with your understanding of the relationship or lack thereof between Trump and Epstein?

COHEN: So, I want to be clear that I didn't come into Trump's orbit until 2005 and then full-time employee as executive vice president until 2007. So, I can only speak for that 13-year time period. And during that 13-year time period, I never heard Trump mention Jeffrey Epstein. I never saw Jeffrey Epstein in the office. The thousands of times I showed up into Trump's office, I never once heard Jeffrey Epstein on a phone. So, I don't know about the relationship that preceded me.

[18:10:00]

You know, I also -- as we start talking about the various different issues that this thing is bringing up, one of the big issues is the fact that there's nothing but conspiracy theories coming out of it from both sides of the aisle. And I don't know who it was or who recommended to Trump not to just release the file. Why allow these conspiracies to explode, which they certainly have, when you claim complete innocence.

And I could understand his desire now to want to start to release some of the --

TAPPER: I just lost audio there of Michael Cohen. Can you hear me, Michael?

COHEN: No, I'm still -- yes, I'm still here.

TAPPER: Okay.

COHEN: Like I said, there's these conspiracy theories are running rampant. A lot of people will make a claim that it's because of MAGA, right? For years, these loyalists have this alternative reality around the Epstein story.

And it wasn't for them. It wasn't just about exposing pedophiles. It was about confirming their worldwide view that the world is run by these Democratic liberal elites and that Trump and Trump alone is the lone warrior who is going to protect it and shut it down. Well, when he stopped deciding to allow the information to come out, that's what ultimately brought MAGA to the table.

TAPPER: Yes. President Trump is vociferously denying this Wall Street Journal story about this birthday letter that he reportedly sent Epstein. He posted, quote, these are not my words, not the way I talk. Also, I don't draw pictures, unquote. When you read the story, when you heard about it, what was your take?

COHEN: I agreed with him. I have never, not once, and, again, over 13 years of being by the (INAUDIBLE) side. I have never once seen him doodle. I never saw him draw a picture. In fact, I would be very shocked if Donald Trump actually can doodle. It's just not his thing. And the language, using words like, enigma, that's not a Donald Trump word. I mean, he certainly knows what the word is, but it's not a word that he uses. I found the whole thing just to be odd.

Now, I wouldn't be shocked if somebody had turned around and reached out to the office and said, hey, look we're putting together a birthday book for Jeffrey. Can Donald doodle something on there? And these are the words that we want you to use in some doodle. He then gave it to an assistant. Many of his assistants were not just good artists, but fabulous artists. And so that's probably what happened at the worst.

Now, chances are, I don't know the answer, and that's the whole problem with this entire story. None of us know the answer. If you despise Donald Trump, you want it to be true. If, in fact, you like him and you support him, you want it to be false. Why should any of us have to guess? There's no reason for us to be guessing.

And, in fact, I agree with kind of what Dan Goldman said. Just release the file. And if you want, I'm more than happy, I'll read the file. As somebody who's been critical of him, let me read the file. I'll come to the American people and tell you exactly what it says in there, because that's what America wants. That's what America needs to move forward.

Look, let me be clear. I've been very clear, I don't like the overturning of Roe versus Wade. I don't like the immigration policy. I don't like, you know, the ICE agents running around states, you know, in America wearing these flak jackets with AR-15s faces covered you know, detaining people and disappearing them, I don't agree with these policies. Let's move on to the important stuff. This is important, but here's the difference. We have the information.

TAPPER: Right.

COHEN: Law enforcement has already put together a file. All it requires now is Donald Trump telling Pam Bondi, release it.

TAPPER: Release it all, and Michael Cohen volunteering there to be the special master of the Epstein files, we'll see how that volunteering is received. Good to see.

COHEN: I'm probably doubtful, but it was a good throw.

TAPPER: Well, I mean, if they're going to -- I mean, I'd love to do it too, I mean, if they're going to let anybody do it. But, Michael Cohen, I appreciate it. Thanks so much.

Much more in our breaking news ahead, as the Justice Department officially asks for grand jury transcripts to be released in the Epstein case, ahead, a former judge explains what kind of information we could see and what we definitely will not see if a judge agrees to move forward.

Plus, a large scale prisoner swap, sending hundreds of detainees back to Venezuela and freeing ten Americans who had been detained in Venezuela. It's a great news story.

[18:15:00]

Congratulations to the Trump administration on this.

Coming up, what we're learning about the deal and when those Americans will return home,

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: In our World Lead, good news, the Trump administration has successfully completed a large-scale prisoner swap with Venezuela, securing the release of ten Americans that the Trump administration says were being wrongfully detained in Venezuela. This involves hundreds of prisoners, including Venezuelans deported from the U.S. who were being held in El Salvador. It's a massive operation.

CNN's Kylie Atwood and Priscilla Alvarez have been working this story. And, Kylie, what do we know about the Americans being freed from Venezuela?

KYLIE ATWOOD, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: Yes. It's a big group of people. It's ten U.S. nationals. We don't know the full list yet. But what we do know is that one of them is Lucas Hunter. He's a 37-year-old American. He had been in the region, actually in Columbia kite surfing. That's what his sister told CNN earlier this year. And he was arrested by Venezuela border agents along that border. He was in Columbia, according to sources familiar with the matter.

There's also another American Wilbert Joseph Castaneda. He was just there visiting a friend.

[18:20:01]

He was arrested while he was in his hotel room. When both of these arrests happened --

TAPPER: Just take a moment there. This is a photo from the State Department, the people who do this prisoner swaps, and what a great photo of these people. I'm sorry to interrupt, but just like, I mean, I just want to take a moment to look at the joy on their faces. Congratulations to everybody involved there. Adam Boehler and anybody else was involved.

ATWOOD: Yes. And this plane actually is going from Venezuela to El Salvador. And a senior administration official told me that Adam Boehlerr, who is the special hostage envoy, is going to be meeting with those Americans when they arrive in El Salvador before coming back to the United States. And while they're there, they're going to be meeting with the leader there at the (INAUDIBLE).

TAPPER: And, Priscilla, President Trump has a very close relationship with the presidents of El Salvador, for better or for worse, in this case, for better, I suppose. Explain more about El Salvador's involvement in all this.

PRISCILLA ALVAREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes. Just moments ago actually, there was a filing in one of the many immigration lawsuits from a senior immigration to customs enforcement official who said that while the U.S. handled the diplomatic arrangements, here it was El Salvador who had ultimately decided to release and repatriate the Venezuelans who came into their custody because of the U.S.

So, the reason El Salvador is involved in this at all is because in March, the U.S. had used that sweeping wartime authority to send these over 200 Venezuelan migrants to the notorious mega prison in El Salvador. So, they have been there all this time, really without any contact with their friends or family.

So, there is a scramble happening right now among so many families of these detainees trying to get information about their loved ones who are now being sent back to Venezuela.

But, Jake. This may be the beginning, but certainly not the end when it comes to these migrants because immigrant attorneys and advocates have been saying they should never been there, should have been in that notorious mega prison in El Salvador to begin with. Already, we're hearing from Lee Gelernt, the ACLU attorney who has been in this litigation, and he said, quote, the administration sent these individuals to languish for months in incommunicado in one of the most notorious prisons in the world without any due process and now appears with this latest maneuver to be trying to avoid all judicial accountability, going on to say that this will not be remedied by just transferring these individuals to Venezuela. So, certainly, there is going to continue to be litigation on all of this. But for now, as is good news for the American families, it's also been welcome used for the Venezuela families who, for weeks, have not heard from those detainees sent to El Salvador.

TAPPER: And they will no longer be in that notorious prison. They'll be, theoretically, I guess, free in Venezuela. So, it's nice to have you guys here for a good news story for once.

Kylie and Priscilla, thanks so much.

Now that the Justice Department has officially asked the judge to release transcripts from the Epstein case, what happens next? I'm going to ask a former judge in moments.

Plus, the tech company finally responds after that viral video showed its CEO caught on the jumbotron at a Coldplay concert embracing a woman who is decidedly not his wife, and, in fact, the head of H.R. at his company, a brand new verified statement from the CEO, next

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:25:00]

TAPPER: Back to the breaking news, the Justice Department this afternoon officially asking a judge to release pertinent grand jury transcripts in the case of accused sex trafficker and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein as well as his aide, Ghislaine Maxwell.

Retired California Superior Court Judge LaDoris Hazzard Cordell joins us now. She's written a book about her career on the bench in the book, Her Honor, My Life on the Bench, What Works, What's Broken, How to Change It. Judge, thanks so much for joining us.

What do you think the public can expect ince and I guess if the grand jury testimony is released?

LADORIS HAZZARD CORDELL, RETIRED CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE: Yes. These transcripts are very important because they contain the evidence on which the grand jury base his decision to indict Jeffrey Epstein. So, these transcripts are very important and they're frequently accompanied by exhibits, documents that the witnesses are asked to identify, and these documents are considered by grand jurors. So, everything in these are important.

So, what happens next? There is a request now from the Trump administration to disclose the transcripts because grand jury proceedings are held in secret. And the only people who can talk about a grand jury hearing are the witnesses. Witnesses can go out and say what they want, but the judge, the prosecutor, court staff, the court reporter can never talk about it.

All right, so the release of the transcript is entirely in the discretion of the judge. And so what will happen is the judge is going to have to read the transcripts. That's the first step. Because there is an exception to releasing transcripts from the grand jury, and that is if there is an -- you know, if there is a public interest in them. And what that means basically is this, is that where the public interest in disclosure outweighs the need for secrecy.

So, the judge has to then look at a number of factors. What is the public interest? Will it promote transparency? What will be the impact on individual's privacy and their reputations if these are released? So, also the judge will look at, well, you know, how long ago were these proceedings? Well, these proceedings weren't that long ago in that they were in 2019. So, the judge is going to have to read them. That's going to be a delay. That's some time. After that the judge has got to consider, these are probably victims who testified, and they're not likely to want their testimony made public as it could lead to their being identified.

And then, of course, you have Ms. Maxwell, who will likely object to the release because it'll probably hurt her case, which is on appeal. This is going to take a lot of time, delay, it could take weeks, it could take months, it even could take years before this actually happens, if it happens at all.

TAPPER: So, there is a competing interest going on here separate from this, because my understanding is that -- let's say that the names and identifying characteristics of the victims are redacted, they're blacked out, which is certainly understandable. It's still grand jury information for prosecutions against Ghislaine Maxwell, who's in prison, and Jeffrey Epstein, who's dead, and very likely to not name any of the other people who may have been part of this horrific, disgusting sexual trafficking pedophile empire or whatever happened, this conspiracy.

What people seem to really want to know is who are these people who got away with it. And those names are probably in other pages and other files and other documents, but they also are people who haven't been prosecuted, right? And like the prosecutors make a decision to prosecute or to not prosecute based on any number of factor, but I think what the public really wants to know is these names of people who haven't been prosecuted. Do you think that ever will be released?

CORDELL: Well, you make a very good point initially too about these transcripts, if any are released. They're going to be heavily redacted. That's the first thing. And the other good point you've made is that what if names are in there of people who engaged in this conduct, which is criminal conduct, having, you know, sex with minors, for example, some as young as 14 years old, who have not been prosecuted or named in a prosecution yet? And so what about that?

Well, the whole purpose of the grand jury is secrecy, so that if people's names -- if names of people come up and they are disclosed in the grand jury proceedings, they're not, and no prosecution of them is made, then their reputations are not smeared. That's the protection offered by the grand jury. So, if these transcripts are out it's likely that a judge would also redact the names of any individuals that may be -- that came up that might be prosecuted later on. So, you're really not going to get what people, I think, really want, which is what you mentioned, is the names, who else was in there doing these kinds of things. So, I will tell you that the grand jury testimony is important, but at the same time, I think this is a delaying tactic. I think this is what -- when the heat gets too hot for Donald Trump, then he resorts to delay. And what's the best place to find delay? In the courts.

TAPPER: Yes.

CORDELL: So, if the judge has to read them, redact and then end up not really getting where they want to go, what's happened? It's just more time has gone by and people maybe start to lose interest. This is a delay tactic and it's a ploy often used by President Trump.

TAPPER: Retired Judge LaDoris Hazzard Cordell, thanks so much.

There is no denying it is a fraught time for the economics of late night comedy T.V., but CBS's announcement in July that it is canceling Stephen Colbert's show next May comes at a very curious moment. We'll dive into that next,

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

STEPHEN COLBERT, HOST, LATE NIGHT WITH STEPHEN COLBERT: As many of you know, of course, Governor Bush was the governor of Florida for eight years, and you would think that that much exposure to oranges and crazy people would've prepared him for Donald Trump. Evidently not.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That was Stephen Colbert's very first late show on CBS in September 2015, and his very first late night Donald Trump joke.

The announcement from CBS last night that the popular show will end next May comes at a fraught time. Now, CBS is claiming that this was purely a, quote, financial decision, and it is true and indisputable that the economics of late night T.V. are difficult these days, as evidenced by NBC trimming The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon to four days a week instead of five, NBC getting rid of the late night with Seth Myers Band, and CBS no longer having a late show anymore after Colbert.

But what are we to make of the timing of this announcement? Obviously, President Trump has made no secret of his hatred of being mocked, specifically the jokes that people like Stephen Colbert and Jimmy Kimmel make at his expense in this era where corporations, such as Paramount, don't just ignore a president complaining, don't just dismiss any thin-skinned leader because we live in a country with a First Amendment right to mock the president. That would be one thing, but, no, Paramount is in a bend-the-knee phase, Paramount, which owns CBS.

Paramount, is attempting to please President Trump as Paramount's Sherry Redstone waits for the Trump administration's blessing for a lucrative merger with a company called Skydance, a merger previously hung up by a substantively very weak lawsuit from Trump against CBS per legal experts alleging there was something untoward about a rather rote edit that 60 Minutes did of a Kamala Harris interview last fall.

This resulted in the exits of CBS News President Wendy McMahon and 60 Minutes Executive Producer Bill Owens because Paramount was determined to settle with the president. And it's that timing that CBS communications was no doubt attempting to head off in their announcement of the termination of the Colbert Show, which is doing very well in ratings, by the way. CBS communications insisted rather defensively that this news, quote, is not related in any way to the show's performance, content, or other matters happening at Paramount, unquote, other matters such as Paramount, agreeing to pay Donald Trump $16 million to settle that trifling lawsuit and move on with this merger.

[18:40:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLBERT: Now, I believe that this kind of complicated financial settlement with a sitting government official has a technical name in legal circles. It's big, fat bribe. Because this all comes as Paramount's owners are trying to get the Trump administration to approve the sale of our network to a new owner, Skydance.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That was Stephen Colbert just four days ago.

Now, the roadmap of what to do to please President Trump, it's not complicated. It's not like finding the lost city of Atlantis. Trump in September went on Truth Social and called Colbert, who often mocks President Trump. He called him a, quote, complete and total loser, and then suggested, quote, CBS should terminate his contract, unquote.

Trump, after -- before that Truth Social post, was reacting to comments Colbert had made on PBS, on PBS's NewsHour, when asked if he would have Trump as a guest,

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLBERT: I've had him before and he's kind of boring, so, no.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No?

COLBERT: Yes, no. I don't like to have people on the show who I don't think are going to be honest agents of their own ideas.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: And here we are ten months later, Colbert has been canceled and PBS is losing its federal funding, interesting.

And in case you wondered how the president took the news about Colbert, he posted on Truth Social, quote, I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. He's still not satisfied though. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next. That's what President Trump said.

One former CBS executive told me of this news, quote, the timing seems so obvious and keeping with Paramount's quid pro quo theme. If it were just financial, why announce this now? Why not let Redbird announce it post-transaction and FCC blessing? Seems like a further tribute to me. Shameful.

It is stunning what is being done by men and women who should know better, who do know better in boardrooms and on Capitol Hill, because the most powerful man in the world, a man who has achieved way beyond his wildest life streams, seems shockingly pervious to criticism.

Now, we may never know if CBS ending the Colbert Show was part of some secret deal cut between Paramount and Trump, or if it was just a freebie Paramount threw in, or if it was entirely unrelated and actually because of financial reasons, but Paramount is happy to let Trump think it is in the name of pleasing him.

The fact that so much of corporate America is dedicated to fearing these presidential whims that could result in actual retribution should concern all of us because trends like this don't stop with one president. They start with them. And the First Amendment protecting the free speech rights of comedians and journalists when they joke or cover powerful people, an amendment that our corporate masters will not fight for, that's ultimately just words on parchment.

Joining us now to discuss Bill Carter, he is a writer at Latenighter and the former media reporter for The New York Times. Bill, so good to have you.

Presidents have hated late night comedians for decades. Presidents have hated the jokes. Told about them for decades. Why is this different?

BILL CARTER, FORMER MEDIA REPORTER, NEW YORK TIMES: Well, it's different because presidents before haven't said, I want this guy fired. Presidents have never said that in our history. President Abraham Lincoln didn't say, let's fire the editorial cartoonists, because they understood that was part of the job. You were held up to ridicule. You were held up to mock because that's your position. And he doesn't take those things. He doesn't accept that that's part of the job. And he resents anybody who points to his foibles.

And, you know, he has every right to criticize. Any of these late night guys call them dumb or unfunny, whatever his usual insult is, but he doesn't have the right to go and say, terminate the guy, get rid of him. Let's get rid of him, and let's make threats. Let's maybe take their broadcast license away. That's what's different here, and that's what's dangerous here.

TAPPER: Yes. The best case scenario here is that CBS did this purely for financial reasons, but they dropped it now hoping that Donald Trump thought that they did it to please him. That's the best case scenario, and it's probably, I think, more likely after talking to a lot of people, and I want to know what you think, that obviously the financial reasons are they're built into the late night T.V., but it probably is part of this merger.

CARTER: Of course. I mean, you look at the timing of it, Jake. They're continuing the show through next year. There's no reason to do it right away, except it's before the merger is going to be finalized. I mean, there's no rational explanation for that. You can wait until this is all over and then say it's too expensive and we're going to fold it up.

By the way, they had a 12:30 show that they were going to renew.

[18:45:00]

They were going to renew the Taylor Tomlinson show. She decided not to do it, but their plan last few months ago was to have a 12:30 show. So, all of a sudden they're now wiping out the 11:30 show and the 12:30 show. That it's just very suspicious timing, extremely suspicious.

TAPPER: All right. Bill carter, thanks so much. Always good to have your wise insights. Appreciate it, sir.

CARTER: Thanks, Jake.

TAPPER: A video shows hikers stopping a man suspected of starting a fire in Los Angeles. And in moments, those hikers are going to join me live to explain exactly what happened when they confronted the suspect.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAVANH DIMARCO, WITNESSED AND FILMED BOYFRIEND STOPPING ALLEGED ARSONIST: What the (EXPLETIVE DELETED)! Some -- this dude just started the fire. You just start. You started that fire.

SCOTT MITCHELL, WITNESSED AND STOPPED ALLEGED ARSONIST: Because they don't think it's that. Hey, this guy just set that fire.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It's a --

DIMARCO: You started that fire? You just came from over there. We just saw you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I did, you're right.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: A couple's peaceful hike in Runyon Canyon, California, earlier this week turned into our national lead when the couple stopped a suspected arsonist from escaping a possible wildfire.

And Scott Mitchell and Davanh DiMarco are joining us now.

Davanh, you first spotted this man coming out of the bushes. You broke out your phone, caught the encounter on video. [18:50:01]

How did you realize so quickly that he had allegedly set fire to that tree?

DIMARCO: I mean, he was the only one that was coming out of those bushes. And it doesn't take a fire marshal to realize that, hey, this dude is the one that set the fire.

TAPPER: And, Scott, you actually chased him down, and you stopped him from leaving until officials arrived to the scene to take him into custody. We should note one of the reasons this story has gotten so much attention is because you were previously a wide receiver at the University of Kentucky. What was it like for you when you caught him, and was it as thrilling as catching a football on the gridiron?

MITCHELL: I think this one might have taken the cake as far as that goes. Catching the ball and sometimes dropping the ball in front of 100,000 people can be a wave of emotions. Kind of like this one, though. As soon as I heard Davanh say, that's the guy that set the fire. She had already ID'd him. So, by the time I heard her, I just reacted and was looking to hold him accountable to what he had just done.

TAPPER: Nice. And, Davanh, what was the response like from other hikers and from law enforcement when they arrived and they saw -- they saw what happened and what you and Scott had done.

DIMARCO: The response that day, at that moment?

TAPPER: Yeah.

DIMARCO: Some people were trying to rush off the hill like there was children, women, groups of women. But there's a lot of people that were kind of in shock and angry at the same time, because we had just gone through this in January.

TAPPER: Yeah. No, a lot of -- lot of wildfires.

And, Scott, I wonder how it feels to know that you and Davanh were able to stop the fire from spreading, especially after everything that the poor citizens of the Los Angeles area have gone through with the devastating wildfires in recent months.

MITCHELL: I can tell you that's a very humbling feeling because online and via text, and I've reconnected with old teammates, just the outpouring positivity is something that we really needed. It's kind of, to be honest with you, it's beyond us. We don't necessarily fully understand the scope of it. But I mean, we're here with you and we weren't here last Friday, so --

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: Well, let me tell you -- let me tell you, I think one of the things that's so remarkable about it, in addition to the fact that it was caught on video. So, Davanh, thanks for that, is we seem to live in an era where a lot of people see bad things happening, and they just don't want to have anything to do with it.

And you guys stepped up and I wonder, Davanh, where does that come from? Like, why would you get involved?

DIMARCO: You know, there's a saying called "mind your business". That was not that moment. It's just like we see a lot of things going on right now, and people aren't being held accountable. So luckily, I had my phone in my hand and usually it's in the bottom of my purse. But luckily, I had it that day in my hand and I'm like, this guy is not going to get away with this because there's people living up the hill, animals around, people around.

So just wanted to make him accountable.

TAPPER: And, Scott, what about you? What caused you to run and chase and stop this bad guy as opposed to just, you know, I think most people would probably just, like, not want to get involved, even if it means another horrible fire.

MITCHELL: The first thing I felt was anger, because like we've talked about, January was not that long ago and just the sight of an entire tree, 50-foot tree on fire is just somebody had to be held accountable for it. And in this case, we found the guy.

So it makes me feel good to know that I went to Kentucky because they were a Nike school. And the Nikes I wore that day still work. So --

TAPPER: Little free ad there for Nike.

(LAUGHTER)

TAPPER: All right, well, you know what, American heroes, Davanh DiMarco, Scott Mitchell, thank you guys for being you. And thanks for joining us today. It's an honor and a lovely -- a lovely way to end a week in which we covered a lot of stuff that isn't so great. So thank you so much.

DIMARCO: Thanks, Jake.

MITCHELL: Thank you, Jake.

TAPPER: An investigation is now underway after a tech CEO was seen embracing an employee decidedly not his wife at a Coldplay concert. The company's reaction to the viral video, that's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:58:07]

TAPPER: Breaking news just in. President Trump has officially just filed the lawsuit against Dow Jones, "The Wall Street Journal", News Corp., Rupert Murdoch and others over "That Wall Street Journal" article that dropped last night about the Jeffrey Epstein birthday book. Trump is seeking -- and I'm going to say this twice, so you understand that I'm quoting the actual number here, $10 billion in this case, 10 billion with a B. Trump accuses the defendants of defamation, saying they acted with

malicious intent and have caused him overwhelming financial and reputational harm. "The Wall Street Journal" reported, as I said that a 50th birthday book for Epstein in 2003, before Epstein became notorious, included a letter bearing Trump's name and a drawing a cartoon of sorts of a naked woman. President Trump says he had nothing to do with the writing or the drawing.

Our last leads now, starting our national lead. An explosion today killed three members of the Los Angeles County sheriff's department. The blast happened in a training facility near downtown Los Angeles. Sources called the explosion an accident, but do not know, they say, if it happened in a training session or while handling explosive evidence.

And our world lead, the United Kingdom, is looking at lowering its voting age to 16. If the U.K. parliament passes the proposal, it would bring national votes in line with elections in Scotland, Wales and the Channel Islands, where younger voters already cast ballots. The U.K. government calls this a landmark effort to future, future proof its democracy.

And our pop culture lead, the tech company Astronomer is trying to set the record straight on their two employees spotted, shall we say, canoodling on a Coldplay concert jumbotron. One of whom was the CEO, and the woman was not his wife. Decidedly so.

The company says they're launching a formal investigation after CEO Andy Byron was caught embracing and then hiring with the company's HR chief, Kristin Cabot. I guess they can't report it to HR.

Coming up Sunday on "STATE OF THE UNION", I'm going to talk with Democratic Senator Amy Klobuchar, Republican Congressman Tim Burchett, and former Democratic Congressman Beto O'Rourke.

That's Sunday morning at 9:00 Eastern and again at noon here on CNN. I will see you Sunday morning.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts right now.