Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Arrest Warrants, Threats Of Expulsion From Office Await Texas Democrats; Netanyahu Wants To Fully Occupy The Gaza Strip; Video Released By Hamas Of The Remaining Hostages; Epstein Victims Decry Politicization Around Release Of Files; Source: Attorney General Bondi Orders Grand Jury Probe Into Obama Officials Over Russia Investigation; Search For Army Vet Suspected Of Killing Four People At A Bar. Aired 5-6p ET

Aired August 04, 2025 - 17:00   ET

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

[17:00:00]

KASIE HUNT, CNN POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT & HOST: All tight. Panel, thank you very much for being here. A wide variety of stories today. We really appreciate it. Thanks to all of you at home for joining as well. And of course, if you miss any of today's show or any of our show you can always catch up by listening to "The Arena's" podcast. You can scan that QR code below on your screen. You can follow wherever you get your podcast. You can also follow us on X, on Instagram, @TheAreanCNN. Don't go anywhere. Phil Mattingly is standing by for us for "The Lead." Hi, Phil.

PHIL MATTINGLY, CNN CHIEF DOMESTIC CORRESPONDENT & HOST: Hey, Kasie. We of course, we'll be seeing you back in "The Arena" tomorrow.

HUNT: See you tomorrow.

MATTINGLY: Will Texas Democrats still out of town really be arrested? "The Lead" starts right now. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has just ordered the arrest of state Democrats who skipped town and didn't show up for today's special session. How long can those Democrats stay away and hold up the vote as Republicans try and gerrymander the map and give themselves a little bit of cushion in the control of the U.S. House?

Plus, breaking news from the Middle East. New reports that Israel is considering a full takeover of Gaza. What this could mean for its war with Hamas and hostages still being held.

Also, breaking right now, brand new court filings in the saga of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Some of his victims have just weighed in on efforts to get grand jury transcripts publicly released.

Welcome to "The Lead," I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper. We begin with breaking news in our "Politics Lead." Texas Governor Greg Abbott has now ordered the State Department of Public Safety to conduct civil arrests of Democrats who did not show up for this afternoon's special legislative session in the Texas State House. Now, this is all part of the fight for control of the U.S. House of Representatives in next year's midterms and it's playing out in dramatic fashion. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DUSTIN BURROWS, (R) TEXAS STATE HOUSE SPEAKER: Members, a quorum is not present. The roll has been called and a quorum has not been established.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Dozens of Democratic Texas state representatives skipped that special session that began and then, as you saw, was quickly adjourned just about an hour ago, actually fleeing the state in an attempt to block a Trump-led partisan redrawing of the state's congressional map, a redrawing that could potentially give Republicans five more U.S. seats in the midterms.

And in response to Texas Democrats breaking quorum and stopping official statehouse business, the remaining state lawmakers passed a motion to allow the statehouse speaker to issue civil warrants for representatives who did not attend the special session. Texas Governor Greg Abbott also threatening to remove any lawmaker who did not show up when the statehouse convened last hour.

State law allows a district court to determine whether a public official has, quote, "abandoned their office," though that could become quite a messy drawn out process. Now, breaking quorum itself is not a crime, but if state lawmakers had remained in Texas, Abbott could technically order state troops to haul them to the Capitol. So where exactly have all the Democrats gone?

Well, many of them have fled to states led by Democratic governors, including Illinois and New York, as those states are now exploring options on retaliating by redrawing their congressional maps in favor of Democrats. All of this appears to be building toward a gerrymandering arms race. Let's go straight to CNN's Ed Lavandera. He's outside the Texas Capitol building in Austin. Ed, what are you hearing from Texas statehouse members given the session just adjourned without enough Democrats for a quorum?

ED LAVANDERA, CNN SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, they've been ordered to reconvene tomorrow at 1:00 Central time, but it doesn't appear that the outcome tomorrow will be any different from what we saw today, and that after a few minutes the House will quickly be forced to adjourn because there is not a quorum. From what we could tell, there were about six Democrats that did not break quorum. So of the 62 members, it appears about 56 have left the state, and that sent off a flurry of activity.

The Speaker of the House immediately issuing the civil arrest warrants for those members and shortly after that the governor ordering DPS troopers to arrest these members and bring them back to the Capitol. But again, as you mentioned, these Democrats are in states like Illinois and New York run by Democrats. That doesn't appear to be likely, but that increasing rhetoric of punishing the Democrats who have left the state seems to be something that we continue to hear from more and more Republican lawmakers here as they wait for Democrats to return. And Phil, we are in the middle of this 30-day special session and

there's about two weeks left of it. So Democrats would have to stay away that long. But in the end, won't matter. Governor Greg Abbott could just simply call another session and they have the votes to pass this redistricting bill.

[17:04:56] But what we've heard over and over from the Democrats who have left the state of Texas is that this is about ratcheting up pressure on Republicans, making them -- making it very difficult and painful as possible to pass this redistricting bill and trying to spread the message across the country that they believe that the redistricting efforts here in Texas is a threat to democracy. We spoke with one of those lawmakers shortly after she touched down in New York last night.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MIHAELA PLESA, (D) TEXAS STATE HOUSE: Well, look, we saw that Republicans were not putting the priority of Texans before the priorities of Donald Trump. We had eight or nine hearings on these gerrymandered redistricting maps. We only had two hearings on flood recovery.

LAVANDERA: There are Republicans out there saying that you guys are cowards for leaving the state, that you're not doing your job. How do you respond to that?

PLESA: I see it the other way around. I see it that my colleagues are the cowards. My colleagues were the cowards when they took Donald Trump's call and then voted all but two Republicans for his voucher scam. And then they were cowards again when they took another call from Donald Trump when he said, oh, we're just going to do a small change of the map, just five more seats.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAVANDERA: You know, so, Phil, the question remains just how long are these Democrats willing to stay away from Texas to make this point on this redistricting bill. The last time they did this in 2021, it was nearly 40 days. It wasn't that long when it was last done in 2003, just under a week. But in both of those cases, ultimately, Republicans got what they were looking for in a change and passed -- in the passing of a redistricting bill. Phil?

MATTINGLY: That's a great point. Ed Lavandera, great reporting as always. Thanks so much. Well, joining me now, Democratic Texas State Representative Linda Garcia. She's one of the Democrats who left the state of Texas. She's currently in Chicago and I'll pose the question that our great colleague down in Texas was just asking in terms of how long is this going to go? When you talk to your colleagues, what are you guys thinking right now in terms of timeline here?

LINDA GARCIA, (D)TEXAS STATE HOUSE: Well, right now we are prepared to stay here for two weeks. Obviously, we have to see what the move is after those two weeks, but we are all prepared to fight. MATTINGLY: What is your reaction to the governor ordering civil

arrests for you and your colleagues who did not attend the session today?

GARCIA: You know, that doesn't bother me. That doesn't bother me at all. My constituents want me to take this quorum break. It is within our legal right. I was hired by the people in my district to do what is in their best interest, not what is in the best interest of Donald Trump and not what is in the best interest of Abbott.

MATTINGLY: Once again, to cite my very smart colleague, Ed Lavandera, who was speaking just before you. The outcome here, at least based on past -- if past is precedent, seems to be pretty baked in. But the process you guys are going through is clearly as much about making -- garnering national attention, making sure people appreciate what's happening down there. I'm interested if you're concerned that this is turning into or could turn into a gerrymandering arms war of sorts, where democratic states pursue the same exact thing that you're fighting right now down in Texas?

GARCIA: I think it's unfortunate that we have gotten to where we are today, but unfortunately what Donald Trump and Greg Abbott are trying to do is unconstitutional in the state of Texas. And while I cannot control what happens in other states, I can only make sure that I am doing everything in my possibility here in my district for my constituents.

MATTINGLY: But would you like other states, particularly those with Democratic governors, to pursue a similar pathway given kind of the scale of the fight that's started down in Texas?

GARCIA: I think those governors know what is best for their constituents and their state and they will take appropriate actions.

MATTINGLY: One of the things that's been raised, particularly for you and some of your colleagues that have gone to Illinois, is Illinois isn't exactly a nonpartisan district by district state. It's quite a gerrymandered state towards the Democratic side. It was just a couple of years ago signed into law by the current governor, J.B. Pritzker. How do you respond to people who point that out?

GARCIA: Well, I think that, you know, the actions he took are within their constitution, within their right. That is very different from what is taking place in the state of Texas. So I think we all need to process that and understand the difference. This is illegal.

MATTINGLY: How so -- and again, it's important, this point you're making. Can you elaborate on what the differences are? Because I think people don't know, understandably, the state by state kind of constitutions, how the statutes actually stand. What makes this different?

[17:09:58]

GARCIA: Sure. In the state of Texas, our Texas constitution calls for redistricting every 10 years based on the census. We are not at the 10-year mark. We are halfway through the 10-year mark. And so not only are we redistricting from data that is incorrect, but we are also watering down the voices. When President Donald Trump calls for five congressional Republican districts, he is calling for the watered down voices of marginalized community members in those existing districts. And that is the difference.

MATTINGLY: A really important distinction there. I do want to ask, Governor Abbott said he will work to remove any state House member who did not show up for the special session today. That includes you. If this ends up being successful, Abbott could technically, I think, set up new elections to fill these empty seats. Are you concerned about what that may mean going forward?

GARCIA: As I mentioned earlier, I was not hired to take on this position for what Abbott wants me to do. I have to make sure that I do everything in my power today to represent my constituents. I'm not interested in being a lifelong politician. I am a mother. I am a family member. I'm an entrepreneur. I am interested in representing the members of House District 107. That is what I am here for. So if I get removed, then I get removed. But at least I am clear in my conscience that I did everything I could in my power to stop this steal.

MATTINGLY: Texas State Representative Linda Garcia, very important times. Really appreciate your time with us today. Thank you.

GARCIA: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: And we're following more breaking news. Victims of Jeffrey Epstein just weighed in on the Justice Department's request to have grand jury transcripts released. But first, major headlines coming out of Israel. Reports that the prime minister is considering a full conquest of the Gaza Strip. What sources are telling CNN about that. Coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:15:00]

MATTINGLY: The breaking news on our "World Lead." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is planning to push his security cabinet for a full military takeover of the Gaza Strip, that according to reports in Israeli media. Now a source tell CNN that decision is not yet final, but let's get straight to CNN political and global affairs analyst Barak Ravid. Barak, walk us through what's actually happening here. What's your sense of what's real and kind of what's still to be determined if you will?

BARAK RAVID, CNN POLITICAL & GLOBAL AFFAIRS ANALYST: I think a lot it is to be determined. I think Netanyahu is kind of stuck in a situation where the negotiation over the partial hostage deal went into a stalemate. It failed. And now the only way forward is to go back to some expanded military action in Gaza because at the moment he's not interested in really cutting a deal that will end the war. But on the other hand, the IDF tells him that any expanded military operation in Gaza now will be in areas where the IDF hasn't operated yet. And the reason it hasn't operated there is because there are hostages

in those areas. And the IDF stressed several times to the cabinet that such an operation in those areas would likely lead to those hostages getting hurt. This is why it is such a hard decision. Netanyahu is at least trying to put out trial balloons that his direction is to go to this expanded military operation.

But as you said, as far as I know, a decision hasn't been made. The security cabinet will only convene on Thursday. And this is the body that has the legal authority to take such a decision.

MATTINGLY: Barak, you've been doing a ton of a great reporting on kind of where the hostage negotiations stand, where they've broken down, what the current goals are or are not, depending on who you've talked to in this moment. Break that down for people. What's your sense of where they stand and kind of between the U.S., Israel, and Hamas at this point?

RAVID: So I think the negotiations are stuck and they're stuck because at the end of the day, it's all about the question of what's more important to Netanyahu. Is it more important to defeat Hamas, something that -- defeat the military, something that he hasn't been able to do for 22 months, or is it more important to bring the hostages back? Those two goals cannot live together. As much as Netanyahu says they can, they cannot.

And the question is, think when you have to ask yourself which direction this thing is going to go, the answer is not necessarily right now in Jerusalem. The answer is also in Washington because President Trump is discussing this matter with his team for a few days now. And his envoy, Steve Witkoff, came back from the region and briefed him about the situation. And until now, in the last six months since Trump assumed office, he basically went along with anything Netanyahu wanted to do.

It led us to this moment where we're at a deadlock. And if Netanyahu now expands the war, in my personal opinion, this would lead to another year of war in Gaza. And President Trump needs to think carefully whether he wants the first half of his presidency to be completely hijacked by the war in Gaza that he himself said he is going to end.

MATTINGLY: It's a really, really critical point in extraordinarily complex situation. Barak Ravid, great reporting as always, my friend. Thanks so much.

[17:20:02]

RAVID: Thank you.

MATTINGLY: With a possible change in strategy in Gaza comes amid outrage in Israel over recent propaganda videos from Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad showing some of the Israeli hostages in frail and emaciated condition. CNN's Matthew Chance spoke with the brother of one of the hostages shown in the Hamas video. I need to warn you, some of the pictures in his report are very disturbing. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The fragile figure of Evyatar David, one of the surviving Israeli hostages still being held in Gaza, now 24 years old and just skin and bone. I haven't eaten for days he says in this latest Hamas propaganda video, crouched in a tunnel. It's not enough food and barely enough water. Look how thin I've become he says.

(On camera): And this here is your -- your brother, right here.

ILAY DAVID, BROTEHR OF EVYATAR DAVID: This is --

CHANCE: There's two photos of him.

DAVID: Yes.

CHANCE (voice-over): Family members have approved use of the images released at the weekend. But his brother Ilay told me he could only bear to watch a few solitary frames.

DAVID: Evyatar was a young healthy man before he was abducted, even a bit chubby. And now he looks like a skeleton, a human skeleton, buried alive. That's how he looks, and I don't exaggerate.

CAHNCE: Do you think he's being starved because there is a shortage of food in Gaza, or do you think he's being starved intentionally by his captors?

DAVID: I'm sure he's -- intentionally?

CHANCE: It's such an issue right now.

DAVID: I'm sure he's intentionally, cynically being starved by his captors. We know that his captors have plenty of food, they haven't lost a pound. And they are doing the same to their own people, to the people of Gaza. They are starving them, although they have food.

CHANCE (voice-over): Israeli television, the newly released videos of emaciated hostages held captive since October the 7th, 2023, provoking outrage amid calls for negotiations with Hamas to quickly restart, very quickly.

This is 22-year-old Rom Braslavski, another Israeli hostage shown writhing in pain in his Gaza prison. There's barely anything to eat. I can't sleep. I can't live, he sobs. His own mother, who approved the release of these latest horrifying images, say her son's weak voice sounds like he's accepted. He may never come out alive. And now hostage families are calling for renewed international pressure on Hamas, not just Israel, for the agony in Gaza to end.

DAVID: If they want the people of Gaza to starve, they'll do it. And they are the ones to blame, and we cannot -- we cannot blame only Israel for that. Hamas is holding all of us hostages right now. All of us, the people of Gaza as well. And they need to be out of the picture. CHANCE (voice-over): What I'm doing now is digging my own grave, says

Evyatar David as he scrapes the dirt in his cramped tunnel. Every day my body becomes weaker and weaker he says and time is running out. Matthew Chance, CNN, Jerusalem.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

MATTINGLY: Thanks to Matthew Chance. More breaking news. Just in, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi has just ordered a brand new grand jury investigation, this one into the 2016 election and the beginnings of the Russia investigation.

But first, brand new court filings into Jeffrey Epstein's saga. Our stellar CNN Justice team going through them right now. We're going to be back with those breaking developments in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:25:00]

MATTINGLY: Breaking news in our "Law and Justice Lead." Two victims in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation have filed letters to the court in response to the Justice Department's request to unseal grand jury testimony. Let's bring in CNN Chief Legal Affairs Correspondent Paula Reid. Paula, these statements I imagine quite emotional, quite powerful. What have you seen?

PAULA REID, CNN CHIEF LEGAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, we've been reading through these two statements that we've received from anonymous victims and here they both express a disappointment and frustration with what they say is a lack of accountability in this case and a failure to protect victims. In their letter to the judge, they write, quote, "I wish you would have handled and would handle the whole Epstein files with more respect towards and for the victims."

One victim writes, that she believes the Justice Department's priority is protecting the, quote, "third party, wealthy men." Taking a direct shot at President Trump, writing, "to learn that our own president has utilized thousands of agents to protect his identity and these high profile individuals is monumentally mind blowing. That is their focus? Wow."

Now the victims say their frustration and, quote, "anxiety" is not aimed at the judge, but at the government, quote, "the ones asking to release these transcripts, exhibits, et cetera, of which the victims are not privy to while they have concluded that there is nothing more to see on the files they hold."

Now, they also say that they don't believe the government even wants their input here, quote, "they would rather ask a convicted, imprisoned sex trafficker abuser for information." That of course a reference to the Deputy Attorney General's meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell.

Now it's notable, Phil, neither victim is opposed to the release of these transcripts, but what they ask for are plenty of precautions to protect their identities. They actually both appear to be in favor of more transparency, writing, quote, why not be completely transparent? Show us all the files with only the necessary redactions. Be done with it and allow me slash us to heal.

[17:30:20]

Now the judge has given victims until tomorrow to weigh in, so I think we can expect additional letters similar to these over the next 24 hours.

MATTINGLY: For people who don't understand necessarily how the system or process works, what's the weight of something like this?

REID: I think it should carry a considerable weight. I mean, the judge has given them an opportunity to weigh in. It's -- look, it's a long shot that the court would release these transcripts. Even if they do, the Justice Department has acknowledged, they only heard from a couple witnesses, law enforcement officials who read in evidence, so this is just a tiny portion of everything the government has.

Even if they were to succeed here, if they were to meet this very high bar, which this was the same request was denied down in Florida, it's unlikely to really call the outcry for more transparency here. But in a case of this kind of sensitivity, the statements of victims are given significant weight.

MATTINGLY: But Paula, can I ask you, we were talking about this on Friday, you had some great reporting, kind of contextualizing where the White House, where the administration has been in this very complicated story they can't seem to get past at this point. There was a -- there was a prison transfer for Ghislaine Maxwell last Friday, moved from a facility in Florida to a lower security prison camp in Texas. It's now Monday. I don't get the sense we have any idea who ordered the move or why. Is that fair?

REID: That is fair. That is still an open question. It does on its face look like a favor done for someone who, as these victims point out, is a convicted sex trafficker. That's part of why they're frustrated here. She's obviously helped the Justice Department in their effort to quell this political firestorm through a series of moves that really don't get to the bigger issue, which is the fact that they hold an enormous amount of information that has never been released to the public, that the Attorney General has the power to release with redactions.

They've, again, they've gone down to Florida, had this meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell, they're asking for the grand jury transcripts. She cooperated in that. And at this point, Phil, we just don't know. Was that a reward for her cooperation? Is that a symbol of something more to come, potentially a pardon, a commutation? The question there is, if you really do business with someone like this, this is not only going to result in more blowback from victims, but outrage from the people who are asking for transparency to make sure that the perpetrators at the center of this are all held accountable.

MATTINGLY: Yes, it's a remarkable position. Great reporting as always. Paula Reid, thanks so much.

Well, more news coming from the CNN justice team because they never stop. Attorney General Pam Bondi is launching an investigation into members of the Obama administration and allegations of manufactured intelligence about Russia's 2016 election interference. That story, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:37:08]

MATTINGLY: We're back with more breaking news. In our Law and Justice Lead, a source telling CNN that Attorney General Pam Bondi has directed federal prosecutors to launch a grand jury investigation into accusations that Obama officials manufactured intelligence about Russia's 2016 election interference. A grand jury could issue subpoenas or even pursue a potential indictment as part of a criminal investigation into allegations that Democratic officials tried to smear Donald Trump during his 2016 campaign by falsely alleging his campaign was colluding with the Russian government.

Now, this follows a recent move from Trump's director of national intelligence Tulsa Gabbard. She declassified documents that she alleged undermine the Obama administration's conclusion that Russia tried to help Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. Let's bring in CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig. Elie, what are prosecutors need to start or set up here? What's the process?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Yes Phil. So look, this is a big step forward because now we've moved from beyond the stage of reports and referrals and political statements into what appears to be an actual criminal investigation by the Justice Department.

Now traditionally and I can't necessarily vouch or speak for this particular Justice Department because they've defied a lot of norms. But traditionally the burden to open a grand jury investigation is fairly low. It's not nothing as a prosecutor. You have to have some basis to believe that a federal crime may have been committed.

But Phil now that there is a grand jury convened that gives DOJ prosecutors enormous investigative powers. You already mentioned the two major things that grand juries can do. Number one is investigate. They can issue subpoenas. These are criminal subpoenas. They're essentially mandatory. You can challenge them but they're typically upheld by courts.

You can subpoena witnesses who will have to come in and give testimony in the grand jury. And then the second thing grand jurors can do and we're down the line here is ultimately vote to indict. That's how federal prosecutors obtain indictments. The burden is simply that you have to show probable cause that a crime was committed.

It's a much lower burden than in order to show someone's guilt. So this is a major step forward in this investigation and potentially quite a precipitous one as well. MATTINGLY: What do you think the likelihood of an indictment of somebody that maybe is well known to the American public would be in a situation like this?

HONIG: Gosh, I have read Tulsi Gabbard's summaries and reports really carefully. I've tried to make sense of this and I am not comprehending where the criminal theory comes in at all. Frankly, Tulsi Gabbard's theory which this started with a referral from Tulsi Gabbard over to DOJ is essentially that Barack Obama or some of his officials were involved in falsifying intelligence around the 2016 election. But when you look at what the actual facts are, that simply does not appear to be true.

The intelligence estimate at the time was that Russia was attempting to interfere in the 2016 election in Trump's benefit and that they did that through persuasion through taking out Facebook ads and that kind of thing. But the intelligence also showed there was no criminal conspiracy between Donald Trump and the Russians and that there was no actual hacking to switch over votes in the systems.

[17:40:16]

That intelligence has since been confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican led by DOJ itself through their inspector general. So I'm not quite sure where I see, A, discrepancy there. Never mind B, Phil, a federal crime. I mean, we've heard terms like seditious conspiracy and treason. I'm not seeing anything close to that.

And finally, Phil, I do have to note all of this conduct would date back to 2016. Here we are nine years later. The statute of limitations on most federal crimes is going to be five years. So I'm skeptical. But look, this is going to happen largely behind closed doors and we'll see where it goes.

MATTINGLY: Elie Honig, always appreciate it, my friend. Thanks so much. With us now, our CNN senior political commentators, Van Jones and Scott Jennings. Van, I want to start with you. Your reaction to the move here by the attorney general to -- to move forward with a grand jury investigation.

VAN JONES, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Stunning, terrifying, and a waste of time. Look, I was in the Obama administration. The administration ahead of us was George W. Bush's administration. There's a lot of stuff that they did that we didn't like or we would have done differently or we thought was awful. But we never tried to criminally prosecute anybody. And so this doesn't make a lot of sense.

What is the crime here? Apparently, they, you know, they don't like that Russia was trying to mess with our elections. But the Obama administration didn't say that they successfully did it, didn't say that Trump participated in it. They just said the truth, which a bipartisan Senate panel also said, which is the Russians tried to mess with our election.

Now, Donald Trump has just not been able to let this go. He feels badly about it. But just because you feel badly about something, or you don't like something the last administration did, doesn't mean somebody should go to prison. And if that happens, that's a completely different world that we're living in. But we can't even figure out what is the criminal charge supposed to be here?

MATTINGLY: Yes, I would note, and it was a long time ago, and we're -- we're all getting older, except for Scott, of course. The -- I believe the Obama administration and Attorney General Eric Holder took a lot of heat for not pursuing criminal cases against people involved in allegations of torture when they came in from the Bush administration. Scott, what's -- what's your take on what we've seen transpire in the last couple hours?

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Well, I think we're downplaying what's been found. And, you know, with respect to my sparring partner here, Van, half the country and one entire political party has an article of faith that Russia stole the 2016 election. Now, how did they come to that conclusion? They came to that conclusion because high-ranking Democrats, many of whom had intelligence titles that were bestowed upon them in the Obama administration, spent a lot of time and effort making an entire political party believe that.\

If you went to a Democratic fundraising dinner or political dinner tonight and got asked the question, did Russia steal the election, and you said no, you'd be booed off the stage. And so I think you're downplaying what has actually happened here. One party and half the country believes an election was stolen and that did not happen by accident.

There's evidence here, a grand jury looking at it, and if -- and if it's -- and if it's a -- as clean and mundane as you say, then these people ought to have nothing to worry about. But why shouldn't we look into it? The people who complain about misinformation and disinformation all the time, why does half the country believe something that didn't happen happen?

JONES: Well, half the country believes a lot of dumb stuff, including a lot of dumb stuff that comes from Republicans, but nobody's trying to put anybody in prison over it. Listen, we live in a -- in a --

JENNINGS: They tried to put Donald Trump in jail, Van.

JONES: Hold on a second. They tried to put Donald Trump in jail over stuff that he actually got indicted for, but the country went ahead and re-elected him anyway. Look, my point is this. It is in fact the case that people believe a lot of wacky stuff and nutty stuff in my party and in your party. That is very different from the Department of Justice saying they're going to put somebody in prison over it. That's a different world. We've not been in a world before.

Listen, you served in the White House. I served in the White House. The idea you're going to somehow now go to jail because people misinterpreted what you did in there, I think this is very, very scary stuff, man.

MATTINGLY: Scott?

JENNINGS: Look, I mean, we're obviously going to see this differently. And you -- you and I have agreed about many things regarding the last few years, but on this, my view is that it has become obvious that what happened as Donald Trump was coming in and Barack Obama was going out bears some amount of investigation. And again, if you're right, all these people, you know, they should have nothing to worry about, but there's a lot of people out there that have looked at this and decided that, you know, intelligence was changed and ignored and there were career people in the intelligence services saying we can't use the Steele dossier and so on and so forth.

So we're, you know, at some point people are just asking how do you get accountability? Why does half the country believe Russia stole an election? Where is the accountability for that? Did people abuse their positions? You know, did they perjure themselves? Did they willfully mislead the American people? How do you get accountability for it? That's the question here.

[17:45:08]

MATTINGLY: Scott, can I ask you, is this in your eyes is this -- this would be the final judgment on that? It wasn't the Durham report. It wasn't the Senate Intelligence Committee run by Marco Rubio report. It wasn't the House and Senate efforts in the last six, seven years to look into this. This would -- this is the final one after this, you'll believe whatever it is?

JENNINGS: Well, I mean I would -- I would think so. I mean typically an investigation like this from the -- the justice system would be the end of the line. I mean, you'll find out whether anybody did commit criminal acts or not. And again, I don't know whether they did or they didn't and so if Van is right and everything was above board and this was all just mundane policy differences, then I don't know why anybody would be worried about having their actions scrutinized. It seems to me that a hit dog hollers and right now the hit dogs are hollering and I just -- I'm just telling you enough has come forward for Republicans to believe that this were people investigate.

JONES: We -- we just see it differently. And listen a grand jury is -- that's not -- that's not -- that's not a little rock. That is somebody dropping a refrigerator on you if it -- fi it comes through. And then you can spend two or three years.

JENNINGS: I know. I don't trust those.

JONES: Well, and you can spend two or three years just proving that you're innocent and you spend a whole bunch of money and why are we doing this where it's -- it's damn near, I don't know how many hundreds of years later. I mean -- I mean in the last like six months about like 700 years. So I don't understand Tulsi Gabbard has not put forward any allegation that is criminal and here -- and here we are.

And by the way, you know, this is all a part of a whole series of things that Donald Trump has done even this past, you know, a couple weeks that just seems like he is just going to abuse every little bit of power that he has to go after people he doesn't like. He's snatching stuff out of the Smithsonian. He's doing all kind of stuff. None of which is making America any better. None of which is making anybody's grocery bills go down.

A lot of this stuff just seems like he's just petty white and or -- or petty wap or whatever. He just is the most petty president we've ever had. Can we just get on with getting the price of groceries down with what it's supposed to be running on?

MATTINGLY: All I'm going to say beyond my appreciation for both of you and I think you know that quite well Jennings you are lucky we didn't get into the Bureau of Labor Statistics because I was going to welcome you into my Thunderdome my friend and it was not going to be pretty.

JENNINGS: Fine.

MATTINGLY: So mark that down. We're going to get there eventually.

JENNINGS: I mean that -- that whatever job numbers wrong every month. Why are the job numbers wrong?

MATTINGLY: No, no, no. You'll get to do it at the end but I don't have any more time. You don't get to do that. You don't -- that was my fault. OK, I will take -- I will take -- I will take that.

JENNINGS: If you were that wrong, you'd be out of a job. You're usually right. So it's OK.

MATTINGLY: Look at that. Van Jones, Scott Jennings, I -- I appreciate you both very much as always. Thanks guys.

Well in Tennessee today a third arrest in a quadruple murder, a mom, dad, grandmother and uncle all killed, a baby found alive where the manhunt could be closing in. Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[17:52:23]

MATTINGLY: In the National Lead today, authorities in Tennessee arrested a third person in connection with the murder of four people, a mom, dad, grandmother, and uncle. Their bodies were all found at a property in Dyer County, Tennessee, not far from the Arkansas state line.

Just hours earlier, the parents seven-month-old baby was found nearby in a random front yard. Authorities say Austin Drummond is the man responsible and that he somehow knew the victims. Now, the manhunt will reach a full week tomorrow. A source tells CNN, the search is now focused in the woods near Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, about 50 miles from the murder scene. Drummond was released from prison last September after serving 10 years for robbing a gas station.

In Montana, another manhunt after a quadruple murder. There, authorities are looking for an army veteran wanted for killing four people at a bar in Western Montana. We first told you about this one on Friday. CNN's Julie Vargas-Jones has been following the case. Julia, what do we know about the search at this point?

JULIA VARGAS JONES, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, authorities are searching for Brown in really difficult terrain, Phil. This is part of the Beaverhead Deer Lodge National Forest and that search perimeter, a resident familiar with the area told CNN there's just a thousand of different places to hide. Authorities are looking through every cabin, every hunting site that is known up there. They're looking by land and by air.

The last time that he was seen was just west of Anaconda, not far from that area. In that security camera footage, that image you see there, authorities say that he was fleeing the Owl Bar just after the shooting, his barefoot. He's only wearing these dark shorts, but authorities believe that he changed quickly in the car that he stole. There were clothes and shoes and that he's believed to be clothed now, but also armed and extremely dangerous, Phil.

Brown is a U.S. Army veteran and was part of an armored vehicle crew from 2001 to 2005 and then he spent most of his last year in the Army deployed to Iraq from 2004 to 2005 and he later joined the Montana National Guard in 2006 and left the service as a sergeant in 2009.

MATTINGLY: Do investigators see any connection to the bar or to these victims in any way?

VARGAS JONES: Yes, they -- they do. He lived right next door, Phil. And -- and I will say that we did speak to his niece, Claire Boyle, who said that her uncle suffered with mental health illnesses for a really long time and she said that he got worse after his parents passed away and the family had been trying to get him help, but Boyle said that the family tried to get help from the V.A. and from the Montana State Hospital and they were not able to get help from either of them.

[17:55:07]

We've reached out to both of those institutions for a comment. And we also know that a family member of his worked at this institution, but it is unknown why he targeted these victims specifically, Phil.

MATTINGLY: Julia Vargas Jones of the latest, thanks so much.

Well, up ahead, President Trump's allegation that last week's job report was rigged against him. He fired the woman who oversaw that data. So what actually goes in to the reports? Not one, but two people who oversaw the entire process will join me, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

MATTINGLY: Welcome to The Lead. I'm Phil Mattingly in for Jake Tapper. This hour, President Trump defending his decision to fire the woman behind the federal jobs numbers just hours after a jobs report that he didn't like. Today, Trump claiming those numbers were, quote, rigged to make him look bad. In moments, I'll be joined by two people who held that job under both Republican and Democratic presidents for a reality check.

[18:00:08]