Return to Transcripts main page

The Lead with Jake Tapper

Hillary Clinton Wraps Testimony in Epstein Investigation; Netflix Declines to Raise Its Offer After WBD Deems Paramount's Bid Superior; Study Shows Thousands of Bots Amplifying Nicki Minaj's Social Media. Washington Post: Trump Urged To Declare Emergency To Exert More Executive Power Over Midterm Elections. Aired 6-7p ET

Aired February 26, 2026 - 18:00   ET

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

[18:00:00]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: Welcome to the Lead. I'm Jake Tapper.

Our Lead tonight, Hillary Clinton just moments ago after appearing before the House of Oversight Committee in a six-plus hour closed door deposition she did not want to attend.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY CLINTON, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: I have just finished testifying. I answered. Every one of their questions as fully as I could, based on what I knew and what I knew is what I said in my statement this morning. I never met Jeffrey Epstein, never had any connection or communication with him. I knew Ghislaine Maxwell casually as an acquaintance. But whatever they asked me, I did my very best to respond.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: This is all part of the oversight community's probe into dead pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his child rape trafficking ring. Hillary Clinton, who has said she cannot recall even meeting Jeffrey Epstein, was asked about whether she had contact with Epstein's estate, and apparently she was also asked about Pizzagate.

CNN's Annie Grayer's in Chappaqua, New York, where the hearing took place. Annie?

ANNIE GRAYER, CNN SENIOR REPORTER: Well, Jake, the hearing has wrapped after over six hours of questioning that secretary Hillary Clinton faced by both Democrats and Republicans, and she just addressed the press where she said that that was a very repetitive deposition. She said she didn't know how many times she could repeat the fact that she had never met. Jeffrey Epstein. She categorizes all as sort of a waste of time.

She talked about how she only knew Epstein's co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, casually, said that Maxwell attended her daughter Chelsea's wedding as a plus one, didn't really interact with her. She said that she was confident that her husband had no knowledge of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes. She said, quote, I am, and she said that her husband's relationship with Epstein ended several years before anything about Epstein's criminal activities came to light.

Now, Comer -- House Oversight Chair James Comer, the top Republican on the committee, said that he is trying to get the depositions video and transcript out as quickly as possible. We know that both Democrats and Republicans had a lot of questions here, but it Democrats argued that this was largely a waste of time given that Hillary Clinton never knew Jeffrey Epstein directly.

Take a listen to more of what Hillary Clinton had to say today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: The best exchange that I had came at the very end when contrary to every other deposition they have taken, no Republican member asked any questions about Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell to anyone else they have deposed. And, in fact, the Republican members didn't even show up for the deposition of Les Wexner.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRAYER: Hillary Clinton did not mince words in her deposition to Democrats and Republicans today, and she argued that she was being unfairly singled out, that she did not need to appear for this deposition in the first place. She had -- her and her team had been pushing back and forth with -- along with her husband for months, trying to prevent this deposition from happening. And she argued that if she were to do this, it should have been in public, but she certainly said she doesn't want to go through this process again. Jake?

TAPPER: Annie, tomorrow, her husband, former President Bill Clinton, will have his deposition, which is obviously a much more relevant deposition because he was friends with Jeffrey Epstein. How is the former president preparing for this? What sort of questioning do you think he should expect?

GRAYER: Well, we're told that the former president and his team have been hunkering down for days to prepare for questions and also prepare lines of attack because we know Republicans are ready to go on offense against the Clintons.

And Bill Clinton has a long history with Jeffrey Epstein. He flew on Epstein's planes multiple times. Epstein visited Clinton when he was president in the White House. There are photos in the Epstein files of Bill Clinton all over. So, the former president know he has questions to answer, and Democrats can say that they also have a lot of questions for the former president.

But this is not the format that Bill Clinton and his team wanted this to happen.

[18:05:00]

They've pushed back on this for months trying to prevent a deposition from happening, and it was only when both Democrats and Republicans were willing to hold the Clintons in criminal contempt of Congress for not testifying in a deposition that the Clintons caved and agreed to the depositions.

That's why we are here in Chappaqua because the Clinton team and the Oversight Committee made this concession to have the depositions in their hometown. But we are expecting tomorrow to be a very long day with the former president setting a new precedent, being the first time a former president will sit in a deposition under subpoena. Democrats say that Republicans set this precedent and they look to match it if they reclaim the majority to try and bring President Trump in for questioning about his ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Jake?

TAPPER: They both have them. Annie Grayer, thanks so much.

Let's bring in CNN Chief White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins. Kaitlan, is the White House feeling the heat at all when it comes to the fallout over the release of the Epstein files? And do they have any sense of vision beyond tomorrow in the sense that, okay, Republicans are going to subpoena Bill Clinton and force him to testify about Epstein, and that might mean that when Democrats reclaim the House, they're going to do that to current President Trump?

COLLINS: Yes. I mean, Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on House Oversight, has said that that already applies. Because by bringing in a former president, he is arguing that they should also be willing to bring in the current president to talk about Jeffrey Epstein given obviously there are pictures of them together, the birthday book, there are ties between Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein despite the denials of wrongdoing by this White House. So, Democrats say, Jake, that precedent has already been broken and that it's already there.

And you've kind of heard that echoed in President Trump himself when he was asked about weeks ago about this fight over getting the Clintons to come and testify. The president said that maybe he shouldn't feel that way, but that he felt badly for former President Bill Clinton for having to go in there and sit down and conduct this deposition. And so he's already kind of expressed that sympathy even as he's also, you know, at times said it was only Democrats who were involved with Jeffrey Epstein, and that's who the focus should be on here.

We've heard from people like Ro Khanna and Thomas Massie who say it's actually equal opportunity in that regardless of if you're a Republican or a Democrat, if you had ties to Jeffrey Epstein, that they have questions about that they should be brought in for questioning.

And so obviously with Hillary Clinton going in, Jake, someone who had never met Jeffrey Epstein but had met Ghislaine Maxwell, we have heard from sources say that they believe that sets the precedent for other family members to be brought in, whether that's in similar settings because of Jeffrey Epstein or other investigations.

And so this could be precedent-setting going forward, Jake, come the midterms and the White House has concerns over that. So, we'll see what exactly that looks like going forward and what the questions are that they have for the former president when he goes in for his deposition tomorrow.

TAPPER: Meanwhile, President Trump, of course, spent some time with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani today at the White House. And Mamdani put out a very interesting social media post that certainly suggests he is conversant in the wooing of Trump, a Trump whisperer, if you will. Was that meeting planned and what did the two discuss? And explain the social media posts while you're at it.

COLLINS: Yes. And, Jake, I don't know if the White House would go as far as to say that Mamdani is a Trump whisperer, but I have talked to several aide who say, yes, he understands how President Trump operates and the way to basically speak his language and appeal to him. And that's what Mamdani was doing there.

If you noticed in that picture where the president is smiling from ear to ear, he's holding up two newspapers. One is a real front page from the New York Daily News from 1975. It's got President Gerald Ford's face on it. It says Ford to City, Drop Dead. And then Mamdani and his team created this mockup that President Trump is also holding where it's the president's face and it says, Trump to City, Let's Build. That is because Mamdani was here today to make this pitch wanting a federal investment in housing, which his team is billing as the largest in 50 years, should the president follow through on it. And they are arguing that here's what happens when someone like Gerald Ford ignores New York City and doesn't pay attention to the biggest city in the United States, and here's what it could look like for you, Trump.

And, obviously, Jake, that appeals to him not just on the level of the front page there and the positive headline, but also Trump's nostalgia over his hometown and as a developer. And that is how they were trying to basically make this argument to him.

And we haven't heard the White House readout or the president comment on this meeting so far, but Mamdani's team walked away from this feeling like the president was pretty enthusiastic about it, Jake. So, obviously, they had a pitch in mind. They brought props. You could see from the president smiling in that photo that he seemed to be pretty receptive to this argument that was here at the White House today.

We are told it was scheduled before the State of the Union, Jake, and obviously transpired here something that has been going on since they met in November, met now. And as you spoke to Mamdani -- about Mayor Mamdani about on Monday, they have been in communication since then.

TAPPER: Yes, I knew he was multilingual, but I didn't know that Mayor Mamdani spoke Trump-ish.

[18:10:03]

But, apparently, he does rather fluently.

Kaitlan Collins at the White House, thanks so much. Don't miss Kaitlan on her show later tonight, The Source with Kaitlan Collins. Her guest tonight include the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, that's Robert Garcia, Congressman of California. That's tonight at 9:00 Eastern only on CNN.

We're going to talk much more about Hillary Clinton deposition today with the House Oversight Committee.

Plus, coming up some breaking news just in about the company that owns me and this network, CNN. Warner Brothers Discovery and its negotiations to sell with Netflix don't look like it's going very well.

Stay with us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TAPPER: So, we have some breaking news in our National Lead that affects everybody I'm looking at right now in the studio. Moments ago, Netflix said it is declining to raise its offer for the purchase of Warner Brothers Studios and HBO following the Warner Brothers Discovery Board's determination that Paramount, which is not just going for Warner Brothers Studios and HBO, but also the whole enchilada, including us here at CNN.

[18:15:15]

Paramount has submitted a superior offer according to Warner Brothers Discovery's board. As I've noted, Warner Brothers Discovery is the parent company of CNN.

So, let's get right to CNN Chief Media Analyst Brian Stelter. So, let's start with the question, why did Netflix walk away? Ted Sarandos and others in Netflix made it very clear they really wanted Warner Brothers studios and they really wanted HBO.

BRIAN STELTER, CNN CHIEF MEDIA ANALYST: Right. And this corporate tug of war, it seems Netflix has suddenly let go of the rope. There's a lot, of course, that could still happen here, but the big news this afternoon is that Paramount suddenly is in a much stronger position to take over CNN and the rest of the Warner Brothers Discovery Company, which includes HBO and the Warner Brothers Movie Studio, and all those other assets.

Paramount is the company that essentially put this into play last summer. New CEO David Ellison, shortly after taking over Paramount, CBS, that part of the media world, then set his sights on WBD. And WBD CEO David Zaslav started a bidding more as a result. He sided with Netflix. The WBD board sided with Netflix for a deal that had been struck back in December, but Paramount had then launched a hostile takeover bid. And in recent days, Paramount had negotiations at WBD and raised the offer to $31 per share with a bunch of sweeteners that made the deal more appealing, more palatable to WBD. So, in the last few hours we've heard from WBD that it is siding with Paramount, and now Netflix is walking away from the table. There's two elements about this, Jake. Number one, Netflix says quote, the deal is no longer financially attractive, so we are declining to match the Paramount bid, but number two, Ted Sarandos, the co-CEO of Netflix, was at the White House for meetings today, and I'm told by a source he left the White House in a not very happy mood.

There's a lot more reporting to do about that aspect of the story. We don't know anything from the Netflix side about the White House meetings. But it is clear that M&A runs through the Oval Office right now, and it is possible that Netflix has been given signals from the White House that the regulatory roadblocks were going to be too severe for the Netflix deal to get through.

Bottom line, Paramount now takes the lead in this ongoing race to take over Warner Brothers. There are still other regulatory hurdles for Paramount, but it's a big, big change now and a big success for Paramount to have Netflix say it's walking away.

And there's lots of caveats, Jake. You know, Netflix says it's walking away. There's been new developments every few hours in this story, so we'll see what happens next. But at least for now, Paramount with the clear lead right now to take over CNN.

TAPPER: Explain what you mean. You said M&A walks through the -- M&A moves through the White House. That's mergers and acquisitions. Explain exactly what you mean by that. You're saying that President Trump has to -- he has to sign off on any one of these deals now, if they're big enough.

STELTER: His government does, right? his administration historically at FCC, in this case, it's the DOJ, the Justice Department that would sign off. And the DOJ is currently reviewing the Netflix deal that apparently fell apart in the last few minutes.

We know that President Trump's taken a very personal interest in this particular deal, however. He has said that it's quote, imperative that CNN be sold, given that he doesn't like the current owners of CNN. And he has met with the CEOs involved repeatedly. It's a big change from past presidents who have left the DOJ alone to this subject and let antitrust experts take the lead. Trump has been very involved and so there's a lot more reporting to be done about what he has been doing in recent weeks when it comes to this deal.

And I know people will have understandable concerns about what an ownership change might mean for CNN. Paramount's a complicated place right now. It's a company where Stephen Colbert is being pushed out at CBS but also where South Park skewers President Trump and where John Stewart still speaks truth to power, John Oliver as well. It's led by a CEO, David Ellison, who has worked hard to forge a relationship with Trump, but who also donated a million dollars to Joe Biden's reelection campaign.

So, a lot more to come on the Paramount front.

TAPPER: All right. Brian Stelter, thanks so much. And more breaking news, the A.I. company, Anthropic, which we reported on in the last hour, just responded to Pete Hegseth's ultimatum that they let down their safety guardrails or lose millions in funding and be all but blackballed. That news is coming up.

Also ahead, when a post about Nicki Minaj went viral, was that because of her star power or was it because of online bots? There's a new study that digs into this issue. That's next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:20:00]

TAPPER: And we're back with more breaking news in our Tech Lead. A.I. company Anthropic, which we were covering just a few minutes ago, they just announced that they, quote, cannot in good conscience, unquote, comply with Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon's deadline and demand that they lift all the safeguards for the Pentagon to use their product by tomorrow. This means that they are at risk of losing their $200 million contract and being labeled an unreliable provider.

Anthropic, in a statement, says the use of A.I. in mass domestic surveillance and also fully autonomous weapons are, quote, outside the bounds of what today's technology can safely and reliably do. Anthropic says it remains ready to support the national security of the United States.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NICKI MINAJ, RAPPER: I am probably the president's number one fan.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: That's Nicki Minaj of course, and we're sticking with our Tech Lead for another story. There's a new report that analyzes Rapper Nicki Minaj's social media claims and suggests that her MAGA content may not be actually is popular among her army of fans known as the Barbs, but rather popular among an army of thousands of bots.

[18:25:12]

Now, the report was shared exclusively with Politico. It detected a network of more than 18,000 inauthentic accounts sharing and reacting to Nicki Minaj's post between November 11th and December 28th.

Here to discuss is Dan Brahmy. He's the CEO and founder of Cyabra. It's a company behind this announcement. We're not saying, by the way, before we start getting nasty notes, we're not saying that Nicki Minaj is not popular or that she's not talented, but this is just looking at her social media content before Dan, you and I, get any nasty notes.

So, Dan, you analyzed more than 55,000 profiles that interacted with 51 Nicki Minaj posts, and you found about. 33 percent of the engagement was from fake, inauthentic profiles. How are you able to identify that these profiles were not real? DAN BRAHMY, CEO, CYABRA: So, the way that we analyze that as the company, that is the infrastructure for analytics. We look at a framework called actors, behaviors and content. And we look at specific types of coordination, similar temporal signals, identical messages that are some of out of hundreds, if not thousands of different parameters that are indications that there is an inclination towards inauthentic behavior and high levels of manipulation and high levels of coordination around specific topics.

TAPPER: So, bot activity is obviously rampant on social media, especially when it comes to politics.

BRAHMY: That is correct.

TAPPER: But you found something especially odd about this activity, and Politico wrote it up, saying, quote, rather than a short-lived spike tied to a single event or appearance, the company found sustained and coordinated amplification of Minaj's posts across a range of political and cultural topics over time, unquote.

So, let me see if I can translate this and then explain it to me even further, because I'm sure I'm going to get it wrong. You're finding that like she posts something and there's obviously a response because she's a huge superstar.

BRAHMY: Correct.

TAPPER: But it keeps on going and going and going, and that's really where the inauthentic bot-driven activity is. Is that right?

BRAHMY: That is right. And, you know, I think it's very important for us to kind of explain what it means. People shouldn't really focus or fixate over the percentages of inauthentic activities or inauthentic accounts. I think that it might be a very controversial, very sexy topic per se, because it is everyday's conversation.

But at the end of the day, whether it is 33 percent, 5 percent, or 20, what truly matters between you and me is real people, genuine, authentic people like you and me, are we getting exposed to the narratives that the so-called inauthentic accounts are driving? So, it's never about the 3, the 33 or the 20. It's about is there a spillover. Is there a spillover? Is there an impact over the audience?

And as much as that analysis focused on a sample of what is being said around Nicki Minaj's social media audience, this is completely data- driven. It's data-driven. It's unbiased. It is very objective. And as like you said, you know, as a surprising effect, it might seem less surprising when you talk about geopolitical conversations, but it touches every single industry that we see today.

TAPPER: Yes. And what -- the reason I was really interested in this is because we were covering earlier this week this nonsense attack on Governor Newsom. Governor Newsom on Sunday made a comment at an event where he suggested because he got bad SAT scores, he's like the people in the audience, he's like a regular person, because he has dyslexia. And then this account that is just a MAGA lying, smearing account called End Wokeness, they clipped his remarks, and mischaracterized it as if Newsom was saying to a black audience, I can't read just like you, you know? It was a racially diverse crowd. In fact, maybe even majority white, and that's not what he was saying. It spiked when End Wokeness put it out there and a bunch of right-wing accounts and politicians who should know better backed it up.

But then what was interesting is the next day, according to an analysis I saw, the impressions went down, meaning the number of like big accounts that pushed this, but the mention volume went up, meaning more people were talking about it, even though the number of big accounts talking about it was going down. And that suggests possibly -- I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that suggests possibly that was also being driven by bots, right?

[18:30:05]

BRAHMY: You know, while we -- as a company, we haven't done any proper analysis over that very specific conversation. I think that what you're describing seems plausible simply because this is -- it's a well known technique in the information warfare and information operations world, if you want to call it like that. Taking a small piece of information and extracting it out of context to shift the conversation, to shift the narratives from one point to another is an extremely well known, let's call it, format of manipulation online.

Now, here, it was one comment. It was one comment, one sentence, and maybe the author that actually posted that didn't really mean what he or she meant, but eventually it ended up being taken completely out of proportion. And that's the interesting piece.

And just to comment on the last thing that you asked, you know, which is number of big accounts going down, the number of volume and mentions going up, is that what you said?

TAPPER: Yes.

BRAHMY: Yes. Okay. So, that is probably related to the fact that there's always, I don't want to call it a second wave but there's always almost like a backdrop of impact. Because sometimes the -- when there's an intention, when there's a real need and a wheel to try to influence other people's opinions, you don't do it as a spike and leave the table.

TAPPER: Right.

BRAHMY: It never works like that. It's usually very highly coordinated and orchestrated, which is why we're looking at this and then, you know --

TAPPER: Very interesting, fascinating stuff. Thank you so much.

And we should note that Nicki Minaj did not respond to Politico's request for comment on the report.

Dan Brahmy, thank you so much.

She was dragged from her car by ICE agents a month ago and never expected rough treatment, however, as she was an invited guest at Tuesday's State of the Union. We're going to talk to her, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00]

TAPPER: In our Politics Lead, more than a week before a federal immigration agent killed Alex Pretti in the streets of Minneapolis. The scenes involving federal immigration officers in Minneapolis were already chaotic and disturbing. Nearly a week after an ICE officer killed Renee Good came this haunting image of an American born U.S. citizen telling agents that she's disabled after ICE agents forced her car door open and dragged her out. The woman is Aliya Rahman.

Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota invited Rahman as her guest for President Trump's State of the Union on Tuesday. U.S. Capitol Police arrested her there for allegedly disrupting the proceeding, charging her with unlawful conduct. Part of a statement from the U.S. Capitol Police to CNN says, quote, all State of the Union tickets clearly explained that demonstrating is prohibited. The guest was told to sit down but refuse to obey our lawful orders. It's illegal to disrupt the Congress and demonstrate in the Congressional buildings.

I want to bring in studio Aliya Rahman and her attorney, Jessica Gingold, is also joining us remotely. Aliya, thank you so much for joining us.

ALIYA RAHMAN, WOMAN DRAGGED OUT OF CAR BY ICE: Thanks for having me.

TAPPER: I'm sorry for everything you've gone through. The scenes from Minneapolis are just really disturbing.

The congresswoman says you were charged with unlawful conduct because you were silently standing during the president's speech. Can you explain at what moment did you stand and what happened after that?

RAHMAN: Yes. You know, this is obviously my first time at a State of the Union. I think if people have not been there as a guest, you might not have a sense of what's happening up there.

TAPPER: You were up --

RAHMAN: In the gallery.

TAPPER: -- in the gallery, yes.

RAHMAN: Yes. So, guests sit up in the gallery, right? We see our lawmakers on the floor stand up and sit down, stand up and sit down. That's happening up there too. So, I had actually stood up and sat down a couple of times before they removed and arrested me. You know, I stood up because somebody was turning a hundred, you know, stuff like that. So, yes, I --

TAPPER: Were you standing in silent protest or were you just, this is one of the times that you were just standing?

RAHMAN: No, I was just experiencing the event. You know, there's not much you can actually do at State of the Union besides sit down and stand up.

TAPPER: Right.

RAHMAN: You're there for a long time, you know? Yes, I was not protesting, I mean, I was wearing a mask and I wasn't speaking, I didn't have a sign. I didn't have anything written. And the point at which they actually put their hands on me to remove me, I mean, you could see it in pictures the people around me are also standing, you know? So, it was a pretty confusing situation in terms of what the issue was. But, yes, I was removed.

TAPPER: Did they -- so you weren't standing in protest.

RAHMAN: No.

TAPPER: You were just standing along with other people. And do you feel like they were targeting you because they knew who you were? I mean, what do you think?

RAHMAN: I mean, I think you do have to ask that question, right? Because, hey, I'm a very -- like I can be kind of a cold logic autistic person sometimes, right? And what I am seeing is that the people to either side of me are standing up, and not just standing up, but they're like making noise, right? I was actually quiet. So, if the issue is disruption, I mean, I'm not aware that anybody on the floor even knew I was standing up, right? You know, people have kind of been like, what happened, you know, since then, because it wasn't causing an issue.

TAPPER: Did they ask you to sit down and you refuse to or --

RAHMAN: I asked questions like, I'm sorry, what? Because like think about that. What does that even mean? Like, sit down like for the next two hours or sit down just now and only you or are we all supposed to sit down? Like what's going on here? Yes.

So, the question of are they targeting me? I mean, I really thought about that. Like what, I'm not famous. The only thing I'm known for is giving testimony about what I saw inside the Whipple Center Detention Center.

TAPPER: Right. Democrats had a hearing and invited you to talk about --

RAHMAN: Yes, that's the only thing anybody knows me for. And I think I'm not the only person who worries that the State of Minnesota itself is targeted, right, because we did not sit down and we have been demanding justice, you know? [18:40:02]

I just think it's really wild that I'm arrested, right, but Brian Palacios has not been arrested, the man who killed Keith Porter. That's all his family wants, right? Like let's just see if there's a crime here. That hasn't happened. Charles Exum, who shot Marimar Martinez five times and bragged about it, they have not been arrested, right? But me?

TAPPER: How long were you in police custody?

RAHMAN: I was released just before 4:00 A.M.

TAPPER: So, at roughly 9:30, 10:00 until 4:00 A.M. or when --

RAHMAN: Yes, I think it was probably just after -- I actually don't know exactly what time it was because you can't have a watch or a phone in there.

TAPPER: Right. Speech started about 9:18 or something like that.

RAHMAN: I'd probably been there about an hour. I mean, I'd been there. You have to go in really early and sit there. So, I would say, yes, probably a little bit after 10:00. And so --

TAPPER: Were you in the custody of Capitol Police or D.C. Police?

RAHMAN: Capitol Police, yes. The people who actually removed me are that kind of sergeant at arms team, which I got to say they don't give police vibes. They give like bar security vibes, right? Not clear what the issue was, like lots of strong arming.

And the video you played, right, after that part of the video from Minneapolis, I was cuffed behind my back and carried through the streets. I have a torn rotator tendon here and I have multiple cartilage tears on both of my shoulders that we're trying to put together because of ICE agents both there --

TAPPER: And you have a cane. What is that for?

RAHMAN: Yes. I used to walk with a -- I used to walk with a regular cane because of balance issues around my traumatic brain injury. But guess what, if you've got torn shoulders, you got to take some pressure off of it. Normally, you would just switch to the other arm. But I have two torn shoulders for this punitive situation where I committed no crime with ICE. So --

TAPPER: Let me bring in your attorney.

RAHMAN: Yes.

TAPPER: Jessica, are there legal grounds to fight the unlawful conduct, disruption of Congress charge against Aliya?

JESSICA GINGOLD, SENIOR COUNSEL, MACARTHUR JUSTICE CENTER: So, we are obviously still evaluating our options and continuing to investigate what occurred that evening. We are deeply concerned about what occurred, and we are definitely going to fight this. It is our belief that the allegations are baseless, that she likely was targeted, and that it is completely unreasonable for somebody to be arrested for merely standing up. We are committed to representing her and fighting this until the end.

TAPPER: This disturbing story that was disturbing back when you were hauled out of your car now continues to be.

Jessica Gingold remotely and Aliya Rahman, thank you so much for joining us and stay in touch with us.

RAHMAN: Yes.

TAPPER: Keep -- we would like to keep tabs of this.

RAHMAN: I would like no more interesting things to happen to my life, actually. So -- but --

TAPPER: I'm sure.

RAHMAN: But, sure, yes, absolutely. Okay.

GINGOLD: And we would be happy --

TAPPER: Yes.

GINGOLD: -- to hear from any other witnesses to the event. As Aliya explained, she didn't have her phone in there. She didn't have any way to record what was happening. So, to the extent that others were there, you know, we would welcome people to reach out to the MacArthur Justice Center so that we can expose the truth.

TAPPER: Yes.

RAHMAN: And there were other people who got involved, two people who -- someone who was wearing like a medical coat, who said, take your hands off her shoulders. That's not necessary. An attorney who steps up and said, I'm curious about what's happening here. Do you have an attorney? So -- and who tried to go with me to this back stairwell they took me to and we're not allowed. Yes.

TAPPER: Aliya Rahman --

RAHMAN: Yes.

TAPPER: -- I hope nothing more interesting happens to you.

RAHMAN: Right. Hope I never see you again. Okay.

TAPPER: All right. Thanks so much, Aliya and Jessica, I appreciate it.

RAHMAN: Thanks.

GINGOLD: Thank you. TAPPER: Could President Trump claim an emergency of some sort before the midterms and use that declaration to justify a ban of mail-in ballots? Some disturbing details and exclusive reporting from The Washington Post coming up next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:47:47]

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST: Our politics lead now, an alarming new report from "The Washington Post" reveals a 17-page draft executive order circulating in which the White House claims China interfered in the 2020 election.

Now, we all know the president has his theories and grievances, but this is significant to today because President Trump could then use that claim as a basis to declare a national emergency, which then theoretically could open the door for him to exert extraordinary presidential power over the voting process in this year's midterm elections.

"Washington Post" senior white house reporter Isaac Arnsdorf joins the panel. He broke the story.

So, Isaac, tell us what your sources have told you.

ISAAC ARNSDORF, SENIOR WHITE HOUSE REPORTER, THE WASHINGTON POST: So, I want to be really clear. This is not an official White House draft. This is not a document that comes from the White House. This is a proposal that's being shared with the White House. When we know that Trump has said on social media, he wants to do an executive order to mandate no mail ballots and voter ID. even without an act of Congress, how is he going to do that? Well, he says he's about to present a new legal theory that's never been tested before. And there's a lawyer who has worked with him in the past knows him since high school, representing Tina Peters, who viewers remember the Colorado election clerk. And this lawyer has this proposal, as you described, that if the administration can present evidence of foreign interference, that could be the basis for the national emergency that would unlock the president to exercise these powers that they acknowledge, ordinarily, he doesn't have -- those powers over election that belong to Congress or the states.

TAPPER: Would he have to present this evidence? Because we know that the president's definition of evidence is quite different than that, at least in 2020 as defined by courts and election boards and governors, even Republicans. Would he have to present this evidence to some sort of reputable arbiter?

ARNSDORF: Well, presumably, I've heard from a number of organizations today since I published this article, that they would challenge this in court, and then you would see, like with previous executive orders, you know, looking at some of the rationale that they've used for expedited deportation.

[18:50:03] The judge would be in the position of reviewing is the argument they're making about an invasion force from Venezuela describing Tren de Aragua, do we buy that or not? Is that a valid -- but it would go -- it would go to litigation.

TAPPER: What kind of powers would this unlock, theoretically, if he does this declaration?

ARNSDORF: Well, I mean this isn't like spelled out in a, in a statute or anything, but according to an early version of the draft that I saw, it would just order that everyone's got to reregister.

TAPPER: Reregister?

ARNSDORF: Everyone's got to reregister. You got to start from -- start over with voter registration.

TAPPER: Two hundred million people or whatever.

ARNSDORF: You've got to show proof of proof of citizenship. And you can only vote with hand-marked paper ballots, and you can only use an absentee ballot in very limited circumstances.

TAPPER: Shermichael, your response?

SHERMICHAEL SINGLETON, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: I mean, look, there are a lot of people who are going to make claims of having good, strong, robust relationships with the White House and with the president himself, we've seen these types of reportings in the past.

And good job, by Isaac, by the way, when I first read this story, I couldn't quite believe it. So I reached out to people to just ask like, hey, is this legitimate? And one response I got was well, if you find a person who this guy is allegedly talking to, let us know, too.

The White House is principally focused on maintaining the House this November. They're principally focused on the economy, bringing jobs back to the American people, not these kooky, crazy stories by some random attorney who is trying to assert something. And it should be known -- again, this is not officially from the White House.

TAPPER: Right.

SINGLETON: Many people propose a lot of crazy ideas. It does not mean the White House is going to enact on it. And by the way the constitution authority isn't there. And Republicans, I believe, wouldn't support this because they want to talk about the kitchen table issues that most Americans care about.

TAPPER: Karen?

KAREN FINNEY, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Oh, Shermichael, your Republicans may not want to, but Donald Trump will take anything he can remember in 2020 when people were putting out all kinds of crazy legal theories, many of which made their way to the courts, all of which failed. I'm thinking of a press conference where you had a Rudy Giuliani with,

you know --

TAPPER: Four Seasons Landscaping.

FINNEY: Right.

TAPPER: In that great city of Philadelphia.

FINNEY: Exactly. That wonderful city, in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

TAPPER: Yeah.

FINNEY: So, look, it -- but we know there's too much of a pattern where some of these things that the rest of us think -- well, this is absolutely crazy, kind of somehow circulates. And given the way that people know that the way to curry favor with Trump is to give him what he wants, he's made it very clear over the last several weeks that he wants to nationalize or somehow control the 2020 elections, because he wants to hold on to power.

So I'm not surprised that you're hearing from organizations, because from what I'm hearing from Democrats, particularly our civil rights organizations and voting rights organizations, people are taking this all very seriously and being prepared because we don't know what this guy is going to try to do.

TAPPER: What did the White House say when you reached out to them for your story?

ARNSDORF: They said that the president is committed to signing to passing the SAVE Act, you know --

TAPPER: Which, by the way there aren't necessarily the votes for the SAVE Act, right?

ARNSDORF: Well, they would have to change the rules in the Senate, which the Senate Republicans have said they're not going to do. So, the official line from the White House we keep hearing is the president wants the SAVE Act, which he says, but he also says very clearly, if they don't pass the SAVE Act, I'm going to do it anyway. And this is a -- this is a proposal that has reached the White House about how he could do it anyway.

TAPPER: And what other kind of feedback did you get from your story?

ARNSDORF: Well, I mean, Shermichael is absolutely right. There are definitely people in the White House who do not want to see this happen. Do not think it will work. But we've seen a situation before where Donald Trump has door number one, a lawyer who says that's not going to work, you can't do this. And door number two, a different lawyer who says here's how you can make it work. And which door does he choose?

TAPPER: Yeah, we have seen that movie before. Thank you so much. Great reporting.

Shermichael, Karen, thank you so much.

Forty years after the horrors of the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown, a new CNN series is digging into the full story from a KGB cover up to the war in Ukraine. That story is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:56:57]

TAPPER: In our world lead, the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in what is now Ukraine 40 years ago continues to impact the country today. A new CNN original series disaster, the Chernobyl meltdown, uncovers the full story from the explosion and KGB cover up to today's war in Ukraine.

Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The reactor was not receiving any cooling water that would cause a reactor meltdown. So, they became fixated at that point on getting water into the reactor. The gate valves on the cooling system had to be turned manually.

Aleksandr Akimov and Leonid Toptunov went to the valve compartment, and they spent a long time there in enormous fields of gamma radiation, struggling to open first one gate valve, then the other one. What they didn't realize was that opening the valves was a complete waste of time, because there was no longer any reactor core to cool.

Akimov and Tottenham both received lethal doses of radiation they died a few weeks later.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

TAPPER: Let's bring in CNN chief global affairs correspondent Matthew Chance.

Matthew, good to see you.

One of the remarkable things about the Chernobyl disaster is how all these decades later, it is still problematic, especially in the context of Putin's war in Ukraine.

MATTHEW CHANCE, CNN CHIEF GLOBAL AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENT: Yeah, it's a disaster that's still with us. I mean, it's not just that 31 people were killed back in 1986, and the initial explosion and the thousands of people that are estimated to have been killed in sort of radioactive poisoning afterwards. It's the fact that, you know, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency says it's going to be 20,000 years before that area around Chernobyl is fit for human habitation again. So, it's going to be with us for a long time to come. But you're right. In the context of the Ukraine war additional dangers

of presented themselves. First of all, back in 2022, when the Russian military began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, they partially did that through the Chernobyl exclusion zone area. Tank tracks kicking up all sorts of radioactive dust they dug trenches which must have exposed the Russian troops to all sorts of sort of radioactive hazards as well.

They withdrew, but you know, since then the, the concrete infrastructure, the sarcophagus that's been put on top of the radioactive core to protect it from radioactive leakage that's been hit at least once by a drone blamed on Russia, which damaged it also, with the incessant attacks by Russian forces on the energy infrastructure in Ukraine. It -- electricity supply is periodically, periodically cut off to Chernobyl as well, and that's needed to keep the remaining radioactive material there cool. So, it is -- it's a historical catastrophe, but it is one that is still very much with us, Jake.

TAPPER: All right. Matthew Chance, thanks so much.

And look for this new CNN original series "DISASTER: THE CHERNOBYL MELTDOWN". Back-to-back episodes will premiere this Sunday night at 9:00 Eastern on CNN. And then the next day on the CNN app.

You can follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Threads, Bluesky, X, and on TikTok @jaketapper. You can follow the show on X and on Instagram @TheLeadCNN.

If you ever miss an episode of THE LEAD, you can watch the show on the CNN app.

"ERIN BURNETT OUTFRONT" starts now. Take it away, Erin.